New report on how UK should deal with future energy needs

Mar 16, 2012
New report on how UK should deal with future energy needs
The report says nuclear power needs to be a key part of the UK's energy infrastructure.

A new report by the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford says an urgent remodelling of the UK’s energy infrastructure is needed.

This will be vital, the report says, if the country wants to reduce carbon emissions without 'the lights going out' and and Britain becoming reliant on imported supplies.

The report, 'Towards a low carbon pathway for the UK', emphasises the need to remodel the UK’s infrastructure by 2025 to redress the balance between energy security and reducing carbon emissions. The Smith School’s latest research highlights how with the right strategy a £100bn world-leading nuclear industry can be achieved. It says this target can be met while providing over 75,000 jobs and guaranteeing a consistent, safe energy supply – while still meeting long term carbon emission targets.

The report explores two key aspects of the UK’s energy landscape:  the future delivery of low carbon energy and the initial moves towards a new-build program of plants. It also lays out the more immediate initial steps of safely and cost-efficiently dealing with the UK’s plutonium inventory.

Professor Sir David King, Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford, said: "If we are to ensure we have a safe, secure and affordable supply of energy as we move through the century we need a coherent strategy that allows the UK to develop a full suite of low carbon energy sources. It is clear from our study that nuclear must play an important part in the energy mix but to do so requires a long term pathway and critical insights.

"The recent announcements on the Franco-British Accord and the desire to create a long-term strategy for nuclear up to and beyond 2050 are welcome, but we need to address the fundamental issue that energy provision is generally a 100-year programme and requires not just a long-term view, but skills and the science base to support it."

Nuclear new build will be essential, the report notes, with a quarter of the UK’s current generating capacity coming to the end of its life over the next ten years. It also highlights the need to deal with the legacy issues of nuclear energy that have existed for many years. It says failure to do so could have a detrimental effect on the whole nuclear industry in the UK.

Furthermore, if the public is to support nuclear power as a key part of the UK's future energy mix,  the report argues there will need to be evidence of lessons learnt and a coherent policy framework for the future.

An enormous challenge in meeting future electricity demand is anticipated with the predicted electrification of transport and heating increasing demand by 100% by 2050. To ensure can meet its low carbon energy targets, the report says it will be essential to use greater levels of nuclear power. This will require either much higher uranium reserves than currently identified, or a change of fuel cycle to minimise uranium use, it suggests. 

The report notes that the government’s current nuclear policy is to use the UK plutonium inventory to manufacture mixed oxide fuel. Coupled with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's stance on reprocessing spent fuel from advanced gas-cooled reactors, it suggests the de facto UK policy on nuclear would therefore involve the recycling of plutonium and uranium as fuel.

However, the also notes that the structure of the UK is currently designed to accommodate the government’s 'no nuclear' policy stance of 2003 than its current 'new build' policy. It concludes there is a need for some form of independent body to advise on long-term nuclear strategy and options. 

Explore further: Imaginative ideas for a 'greenlight district' in Amsterdam

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Report: Nuclear power investment should not be delayed

Mar 30, 2011

The UK can realise a £10 billion economic opportunity through adopting a new, holistic approach to nuclear energy that would tackle concerns over security of energy supply, rising oil prices and safety ...

Nuclear puts renewable energy at risk

Apr 14, 2006

A new report from Dr Catherine Mitchell and Dr Bridget Woodman of Warwick Business School at the University of Warwick in the UK, examining the contribution nuclear power could make to the UK's energy 'mix', says that if ...

How sustainable is nuclear power for the UK?

Dec 08, 2011

The research into the sustainability of nuclear and other electricity options in the UK shows that nuclear power could make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. However, that would require ...

Nuclear power vital to cutting CO2 emissions: report

Jun 16, 2010

Roughly a quarter of global electricity could be generated by nuclear power by 2050, requiring a tripling in nuclear generating capacity but making a major contribution to reduced CO2 emissions, a report said ...

Recommended for you

Image: Testing electric propulsion

17 hours ago

On Aug. 19, National Aviation Day, a lot of people are reflecting on how far aviation has come in the last century. Could this be the future – a plane with many electric motors that can hover like a helicopter ...

Where's the real value in Tesla's patent pledge?

18 hours ago

With the much-anticipated arrival next month of electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla's Model S to Australian shores, it's a good time to revisit Tesla's pledge to freely share patents. ...

New type of solar concentrator doesn't block the view

Aug 19, 2014

(Phys.org) —A team of researchers at Michigan State University has developed a new type of solar concentrator that when placed over a window creates solar energy while allowing people to actually see through ...

Asian inventions dominate energy storage systems

Aug 19, 2014

In recent years, the number of patent applications for electrochemical energy storage technologies has soared. According to a study by the Technical University Munich, the largest volume of applications is ...

User comments : 113

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
Why in the nether hells would the UK (of all places) want to go nuclear? With the amount of wind and wave energy (and pasture land for biofuels) available they should have plenty of alternatives.
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
Why in the nether hells would the UK (of all places) want to go nuclear? With the amount of wind and wave energy (and pasture land for biofuels) available they should have plenty of alternatives.


It's a matter of quantity and quality.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
The British seem to think that wasting vast quantities of energy is essential.

In fact, the exact opposite is true.

ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
Why in the nether hells would the UK (of all places) want to go nuclear? With the amount of wind and wave energy (and pasture land for biofuels) available they should have plenty of alternatives.


Maybe because wind, wave and biofuels will not be sufficient to cover their rising electricity needs?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2012
The "needs" are excessive as a result of immense waste in the consumption of energy.

Only fools would perpetuate that.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2012
They should build an underground nuclear facility. Then they can let the waste also stay there.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
Nuclear renewables and liquids/gasses.

The Only goal for anyone with a mind towards conservation is to get off solid fuels for electricity production fuel is irrelevant now. . No wood no coal And no combustion of solid biomass except for waste disposal.

Solid fuel is dirty heavy and energy i.tensive to retrieve transport and dispose the ash.
Coal is plentifful Enough for hu.dreds of years. There is no energy crisis. You want progress? Start with realistic acceptance of the world you live in

antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
It's a matter of quantity and quality.

Are electrons from nuclear 'better'?
Power from nuclear seems to be one long series of botched enterprises in the UK (as anywhere else)
http://en.wikiped...#Nuclear

As for quantity. In April 2010 they had 5GW of installed wind power. Plans are to add 2GW per year (with 5.3GW approved and a further 9.2GW awaiting approval). Nuclear currently delivers 10-11GW. So it's hardly a matter of quantity, either.

Nuclear is supplying 16% of UK electricity. Wind ALONE supplied 9.6% in 2011. The current aim is to get to 15% of energy (that's energy - not electricity) from renewables by 2020 - which means 35-40% of electricity from renewables (or about 35GW of installed windpower)
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
The "needs" are excessive as a result of immense waste in the consumption of energy.

Only fools would perpetuate that.


Negawatts are a nice cherry on top, but they are not the solution to actual energy production problem. You can only do so much with increasing energy efficiency, its a classic example of the law of diminishing returns.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2012
You can only do so much with increasing energy efficiency

You can only do so much with increasing energy efficiency,


Like, for example halting (and even reversing) energy trends. Germany has had an aggressive energy conservation and home insulation policy for the past years. Result: Energy demand per capita has dropped 10% from its high in the late 1980's. Total energy consumption has flatlined for the past few years. And certainly not because we're making any less goods.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2012
"Negawatts are a nice cherry on top, but they are not the solution to actual energy production problem." - Shotman

Actually they are the first choice since they are the most easily and cheaply attained.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
You can only do so much without increasing consumptive efficiency.
Eikka
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2012
As for quantity. In April 2010 they had 5GW of installed wind power. Plans are to add 2GW per year (with 5.3GW approved and a further 9.2GW awaiting approval). Nuclear currently delivers 10-11GW. So it's hardly a matter of quantity, either.


You are forgetting that every 5 GW of wind only actually produces 1 GW on average, so those 10-11 GW of nuclear power are actually worth almost 50 GW of wind power in terms of total energy produced.

Are electrons from nuclear 'better'?


Yes. They tend to follow orders.
Eikka
2.5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2012
You can only do so much without increasing consumptive efficiency.


And you can only go about with so little until you have to start pinching on your living standards.

Home electricity use is actually only around 1/5 of all energy used. Most energy is spent in heating and transportation in roughly equal amounts. Transitioning from fossil fuels like natural gas for heat to electricity will have a large impact on the total demand of electricity.

A lot of the time, saving in one place, like installing better insulation, is just shifting a part of the cost somewhere else, like manufacturing said insulation out of synthetic materials.
Eikka
2 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
That said, there are many ways to reduce the cost of heating, such as installing heat pumps which will reduce the energy required for heating by 3-4 fold, or using electric vehicles, which will reduce the total energy consumption by a great deal.

But all of that will see the electricity consumption go up, despite efforts such as using more efficient lighting or buying a smaller TV etc. That in turn puts a heavy load on the renewables that are struggling to scale up to produce any meaningful amounts of energy.

It's a question of how little is enough. How much power, and therefore how high a living standard is one allowed to have, and who decides that?

You, Vendicar?
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2012
Yes. I am currently at 9 kilowatt hours per day for 2 people. Or about 4.5 kilowatt hours per person per day.

No change in lifestyle.

And your electric consumption is?

The average U.K. consumer uses 15KwH/day

"And you can only go about with so little until you have to start pinching on your living standards." - Eikka

Eikka
3 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2012
And lest we forget, there are indirect energy costs to a home as well.

Out of all energy used in the society, only 1/5 again is used by the people living in their homes. The rest is used up by the industries and the infrastructure, which too need to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy by replacing coal and gas and oil with electricity.

Where applicable. Things like making iron actually requires coal, because it contains carbon which is used to reduce the iron from the ore by removing oxygen. Without that chemical reaction, you can heat a lump of rust till it glows white, and still no iron comes out. You need truly staggering temperatures and more energy before it happens just by brute force in an electric arc oven, which is why the process is used mostly for reclaiming scrap metal.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
I burn 47 gallons of fuel per year Eikka.

How much gasoline do you consume?

The average British consumer is going to burn 5 times that amount of fuel.

"Home electricity use is actually only around 1/5 of all energy used. Most energy is spent in heating and transportation in roughly equal amounts." - Eikka
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2012
"The rest is used up by the industries and the infrastructure," - Eilla'\

80 percent of all labor in the British economy is unproductive labor.

So 80 percent of the fuel used in that labor is waste.

Remember... A product that is designed to last half as long in order to produce a market for replacement is a market that consumes twice as many resources to produce the same product.

Eikka
4 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
Yes. I am currently at 9 kilowatt hours per day for 2 people. Or about 4.5 kilowatt hours per person per day.

No change in lifestyle.


And are you on electric heating, driving an electric car, using products that are recycled or made from virgin materials using wind power?

I don't know the exact amount of energy I use, but counting all the appliances I use, I would estimate that I use roughly 4-5 kWh per day as well.

But my heat comes from a district heating plant that burns coal, and my car runs on petrol, and the clothes I wear are made from oil, and the food that I eat is grown on fertilizers made from natural gas, and the concrete that my house is made from is produced by burning lime in an industrial furnace that probably works on natural gas as well... etc. etc.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
"Things like making iron actually requires coal, because it contains carbon which is used to reduce the iron from the ore by removing oxygen." - Eikka

You don't need coal. You need Carbon or some other reducing agent. Coal is cheap so it is used. But any source of carbon will do.

And of course, you don't need much in the way of new iron if the old iron is effectively recycled.

Finally, if you double the lifetime of a product, you effectively half the rate of resource consumption needed to create it.

Eikka
4 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
80 percent of all labor in the British economy is unproductive labor.

So 80 percent of the fuel used in that labor is waste.


And what exactly do you count as productive labor? Is writing a book productive? Is providing social services productive? What exactly would you do without?

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
How sad for you that peak oil occurred somewhere in the mid to late 1990's

No wonder you see prices on everything increasing.

Becoming addicted to oil was a big mistake.

"But my heat comes from a district heating plant that burns coal, and my car runs on petrol, and the clothes I wear are made from oil, and the food that I eat is grown on fertilizers made from natural gas? - Eikka
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
"And what exactly do you count as productive labor?" - Eikka

Primarily anything that produces a good, corrected for planned obsolescence. Excluding services like gambling, monetary speculation, political advertising, lobbying, and the like, with a very large bias against mindless paper pushingm, etc. And then correcting for the size of the transportation sector and retail sector needed to service the lower working population.

Efficiencies scale nonlinearly.

Eikka
3.5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
Finally, if you double the lifetime of a product, you effectively half the rate of resource consumption needed to create it.


True.

But that still has little to do with the fact that even if you save on all of that, you'll still see a rise in demand for electricity as more and more industry has to transition to renewable power.

Save half the energy required to run all industry and commerce, and you'll still have to increase the amount of electricity it consumes by about 250% if you were to use only electricity as the medium for renewable power, because so much of the energy comes directly from fossil fuels.

And that's not even counting the increase in energy demand when you have to start synthesizing things like plastics out of something else than oil.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2012
If you haven't measured, then you are just talking bunk.

Your hydro company measures for you. Go consult your last bill and get back to us with the numbers.

"I don't know the exact amount of energy I use, but counting all the appliances I use, I would estimate that I use roughly 4-5 kWh per day as well." - Eikka
TheSpiceIsLife
4 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
Recommended reading and critical analysis of renewables I suggest bravenewclimate dot com

I believe it's generally accepted renewables need to be part of the mix, however as pointed out by others current newables aren't able to provide the quality of base load goal & gas fired generation.

Efficiency improvements cause a drop in price and are typically concomitant with an increase in uptake by peoples previously unable to afford once expensive items.

Nuclear is the only base load quality generation method that has a completely closed fuel cycle (ie, no waste to environment). Fourth Generation nuclear has the ability to 'burn' the waste from Gen II and III reactors and produce a 'waste' that is only radioactive for 400 years. There are buildings in Europe that have been occupied on a continual basis for longer than that. Vitrified nuclear waste is chemically inert an insoluble in water.

All of these things individually is 'necessary but not sufficient'. Together a solution.
Eikka
4 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
Becoming addicted to oil was a big mistake.


As if you aren't.

What do you wear, hemp sack for clothing? Where is it grown, on what energy, and how does it get to you? What do you use to type your messages? A wooden keyboard?
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2012
In the case of insulation, the energy cost of production is very low - some insulation is made from slag waste from steel production for example - while the utilization is continuous - providing insulation from the heat in summer and from the cold in winter.

If we take the economists view that money is the great equilizer, then the pennies I spend on insulation today and which saves me tens of thousands of dollars in fuel costs over it's lifetime shows that inulation is vastly more resource efficient.

"A lot of the time, saving in one place, like installing better insulation, is just shifting a part of the cost somewhere else, like manufacturing said insulation out of synthetic materials." - Eikka
Eikka
3 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2012
If you haven't measured, then you are just talking bunk.

Your hydro company measures for you. Go consult your last bill and get back to us with the numbers.


I don't get a bill for energy. My apartment isn't individually metered, since it's a part of a community housing.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
There is a difference between an addict and a prisoner.

"As if you aren't. " - Eikka

As an addict you believe that you can stop any time you want to. You just don't want to. Ahahahahahahahhhah

Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2012
Then get yourself a recording energy meter and perform an audit.

"My apartment isn't individually metered, since it's a part of a community housing." - Eikka

How is your hot water provided?

Eikka
4 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
you believe that you can stop any time you want to


On the contrary.

I know that the modern society is entirely dependent on fossil fuels, and so are you.

What you don't seem to aknowledge is, that if we started to employ your proposed methods of cutting back on energy use by putting people out of work and then getting rid of the people who aren't productive (because, where else would you put them?), then you have to make decisions who goes and who stays, and why.

What says it isn't you and your family that has to go. Are you a productive member of your society, or just a waste of air?
Eikka
3 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2012

How is your hot water provided?


The same way. Comes from a big boiler underground that is connected to the central heating system, which is connected to a hot water pipe from the district heating plant that runs off the waste heat of a power station.

It's all lumped together, and the bill is divided among residents. I've tried to find online statistics about the total energy use of the complex, but the company hasn't made one available.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
"What do you use to type your messages? A wooden keyboard?" - Eikka

Right now I am using a netbook. which has a power consumption of under 30 watts.

The light above my head is consuming 13 watts.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2012
Then you can reduce my electric power consumption for the purpose of comparison by 1.5 KwH per day since my water heating is electric and consumes 0.5 KwH per day on standby and 1 KwH per day for my daily shower.

So I reduce my electric consumption estimate from 4.5 KwH per day to 3.0 KwH per day.

When can we expect you to measure your consumption?


"Comes from a big boiler underground that is connected to the central heating system, which is connected to a hot water pipe from the district heating plant that runs off the waste heat of a power station." - Eikka
Eikka
4 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
Right now I am using a netbook. which has a power consumption of under 30 watts.

The light above my head is consuming 13 watts.


That wasn't what I asked.

Without fossil fuels, you wouldn't have a netbook, because it's made from fossil fuels itself. All the plastic in it was oil at some point. All the minerals used were mined using fossil fuels, refined using fossil fuels, and made into a product using fossil fuels.

You are indirectly using massive amounts of it, and you can't stop. Show me a single windmill, solar panel, wave station, dam or even a combine harvester that is used to harvest biomass for burning that doesn't depend on fossil fuels in some way.

I believe that the renewable revolution is viable when you can actually make windmills with wind power.
Eikka
4 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
So I reduce my electric consumption estimate from 4.5 KwH per day to 3.0 KwH per day.


What for? I never claimed that I use very little energy.

All I'm saying is that you're a hypocrite. It hardly matters how little electricity you use, when everything else you do is still dependent on energy from fossil fuels, and replacing all that with electricity from renewables would mean that your personal electricity consumption would shoot up like a rocket.

Because that was the point.

It's meaningless to look at today's electricity consumption figures and go "we can do that, it's easy", because it isn't nearly enough.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
Decisions? Horrors of horrors. We can't have decisions to make. That would be just impossible.

80 percent of labor in the U.K. Capitalist system is worthless labor. It follows that the tasks performed by 8 out of 10 workers can be lost tomorrow without altering the way of life of anyone.

So you spread the work around, and expand leisure - the only real freedom - to everyone.

You can start with a 4 day work week.

"What you don't seem to aknowledge is, that if we started to employ your proposed methods of cutting back on energy use by putting people out of work and then getting rid of the people who aren't productive (because, where else would you put them?), then you have to make decisions who goes and who stays, and why." - Eikka
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2012
No. I claimed that there is vast waste in the amount of energy consumed by the average person in England.

And illustrated the fact with the fact that I consume on average around 4.5 KwH per day in this house, and have had no substantial change in my lifestyle.

"What for? I never claimed that I use very little energy." - Eikka

The less energy you consume, the easier it is to replace that energy with alternative sources - in this case solar.

I look forward to the day when low voltage LED lighting will be supported by all home wiring so that direct from battery lighting can be had - energy supplied by solar.

I've switched rooms by the way. The lamp above my head now consumes 8 watts. It is LED.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2012
"All I'm saying is that you're a hypocrite. It hardly matters how little electricity you use, when everything else you do is still dependent on energy from fossil fuels..." - Eikka

Yes. You are right. The system in which I am a prisoner, is in desperate need of restructuring.

Consider that there is a housing subdivision now being built behind me. The homes are of standard efficiency, without low voltage wiring, will probably have brown roofs, and their orientation is not such that they can easily be retrofitted to make use of solar panels.

More government regulation is needed to crate and enforce environmentally friendly and future proof building standards.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
"It's meaningless to look at today's electricity consumption figures and go "we can do that, it's easy", because it isn't nearly enough." - Eikka

Consumptive energy reductions aren't enough. You are right. Renewable energy production like wind and solar are needed as well.

Perhaps you can explain to Israel why Iran is in need of it's nuclear program.

Perhaps you can explain to the Japanese and Ukrainians that Nuclear power is safe.

I don't think you will succeed.

Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
It follows that the tasks performed by 8 out of 10 workers can be lost tomorrow without altering the way of life of anyone.


Don't mind me saying: gobshite.

Feel free to try though. Try running a factory where you have ten people working the job of one, and making a total mess of it. Worked really fine for the Soviet Union.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2012
"I believe that the renewable revolution is viable when you can actually make windmills with wind power." - Eikka

Not easy with wind power. Producing the cement for the base alone will be a problem. Solar powered, and magma powered smelters are of course required for that kind of thing.
Eikka
3.5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
Consumptive energy reductions aren't enough. You are right. Renewable energy production like wind and solar are needed as well.


And there's the problem right there.

Meeting even current demand with renewable power is a tall order. We don't have the infrastructure, and won't be able to build it in the near future because we lack the technology to do it.

Sure, you can build 50 GW of wind power to replace all nuclear power in the UK, and dot every mile of shoreline with windmills, but how do you actually use the power as it comes and goes?

Or you can build 100 GW worth of solar panels and install them everywhere for the same effect, but how do you heat your home in the middle of the winter when they're not actually producing much anything?

And then you have to do that five times over just for the current electricity consumption. And many more times to meet other energy demand.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
Any factory that has one person doing one job is a factory on the verge of bankruptcy.

"Try running a factory where you have ten people working the job of one." - Eikka

How sad that you have not only the plan wrong, but the proportions as well.

The proportion is 4/5 not 9/10, and the solution is not to continue to work 10 people simultaneously to do the job of 2, as is now the case, but work 10 people sequentially in groups of 2 to do the work of 2.

So the current system that uses 320 man hours to produce a product and employs 5 people now uses 40 man hours and employs 5 people continuously with 4 out of the 5 being free and not a corporate slave.

It isn't rocket science.

Try again Eikka.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2012
Solar powered, and magma powered smelters are of course required for that kind of thing.


Yet another technology that we don't have.

It gets a bit busy to obtain all the unobtainium we need before the existing nuclear powerplants have to be taken offline in the next 10-15 years.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
It is. And when you reduce consumptive efficiency you make it that much easier. Reduce your consumption in half and you make it twice as easy.

This seems to be rocket science to you.

"Meeting even current demand with renewable power is a tall order." - Eilla
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
"Yet another technology that we don't have." - Eikka

Mirrors aren't rocket science either.

"It gets a bit busy to obtain all the unobtainium we need before the existing nuclear powerplants have to be taken offline in the next 10-15 years." - Eikka

Then you had better start thinking of ways to improve your consumptive efficiency.

Time is running out for you.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
Only a fool would heat their house with PV solar.

Passive solar is the way to go if you have a home that is built for it.

If you don't, then you probably don't because as a society you didn't think far enough ahead to require such construction from your home builders.

Realizing your failure, have you corrected the problem?

Realizing that your buildings need better insulation, have you corrected the problem?

What steps have you taken exactly to correct your past failures?

As a society, have you taken any? Or are you just building windmills?

"Or you can build 100 GW worth of solar panels and install them everywhere for the same effect, but how do you heat your home in the middle of the winter when they're not actually producing much anything?" - Eikka
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012

Try again Eikka.


Alright. How about figuring in the time required to train the workers?

Training one person to do the same job for 30 years, versus training five people to do the same job for 6 years cumulative each.

If it takes three years to train a worker into a specific field of work, training five will take 15 man-years, so you end up using 45 man-years of work to do what would take one man 33 man-years if he was employed full time.

That's roughly a 25% loss in productivity, and it gets worse the more complex a job you're talking about. I used 3 years because it's a typical time one spends in a vocational school for simple stuff.

And since each person only spends 6 years working in the field, you can't really say they have much experience in it. It takes about a thousand hours to become good in something, and by the time they've spent that much time on the job, they'll have just one year left before giving up the position to someone else.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
The problem of course, is that your unobtanium is actually attainable. You just don't think so because as a society you are still a kilometer away and haven't taken the steps needed to bring it to arm's length.

"It gets a bit busy to obtain all the unobtainium" - Eikka

You had better get your ass in gear.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
"How about figuring in the time required to train the workers?" - Eikka

Aren't they trained now? Why... Yes they are.

So?

"Training one person to do the same job for 30 years, versus training five people to do the same job for 6 years cumulative each." - Eikka

Ya, they perform the equivalent of 6 years of todays work over an equivalent period of 30 years.

I fail to see the cause of your lack of comprehension.

"If it takes three years to train a worker into a specific field of work" - Eikka

In IT - one of the most complex jobs on earth - contracts seldom last 3 years.

Capitalists demand a just in time workforce Eikka where people are swapped out like used parts.

Eikka
3.5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
Then you had better start thinking of ways to improve your consumptive efficiency.

Time is running out for you.


And you as well. Unless you plan to move into a cave.

Passive solar is the way to go if you have a home that is built for it.


Passive solar won't work when there's little or no sunlight for it, either. Like in the middle of the winter when the sun is down and your solar collectors are covered with snow.

Reduce your consumption in half and you make it twice as easy.

This seems to be rocket science to you.


And it still isn't enough. It isn't rocket science, you're just willfully ignorant on how large the problem actually is.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2012
And that my dear children is why windmills can't work.

Snicker....

"And since each person only spends 6 years working in the field, you can't really say they have much experience in it." - Eikka

I appreciate your concerns Eikka, but you really do need to stop whining.
Eikka
4 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
So?


So. You are wasting time and effort training four extra people that aren't really needed. That binds up other resources for no good reason.


Ya, they perform the equivalent of 6 years of todays work over an equivalent period of 30 years.

I fail to see the cause of your lack of comprehension.


I fail to see how you can't understand the problem. The end result is the same: 30 man-years of work gets done. You can choose whether you pay 33 or 45 man-years to actually get the work done. (plus all the other external costs, like hiring more teachers)


In IT - one of the most complex jobs on earth - contracts seldom last 3 years.


And those people then carry their expertise onto other contracts and other projects. The effort spent in training isn't lost, like on the person who does 6 years worth of actual work in his entire life and then retires.

Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
And that my dear children is why windmills can't work.


The reason why windmills don't work is that they produce only small amounts of energy per unit per time, and are entirely dependent on fossil fuels to exist on the grid at the large scale, because without conventional power production to act as a buffer, nobody would be able to use any of it.

No conventional powerplant in the UK has been replaced by wind power to date, and none will until there exists massive grid level storage capability that well exceeds anything we have now, or could build in the short to medium term.


Snicker....


And no amount of petty rhetoric is going to change that fact.
fireofenergy1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
Did I miss something here? Why is no one advancing a better nuclear?
The light water reactor (LWR) and it's kind uses solid fuel and water for core cooling which is why they are prone to meltdown (and need giant multi billion dollar containment domes).

Molten salt reactors or liquid fluoride thorium reactors require constant onsite chemical processing but operate at safe pressures without worry of water trying to turn into hydrogen. They also fission almost all of the uranium or thorium whereas the LWR only fissions a very small percent of it (hence all the LWR's nasty long lived wastes). Thus there is much less wastes (that lasts only about 1/500th the amount of time, too), no possibility of meltdown and unlimited fuel (thorium does not need to be enriched AND is four times as abundant than uranium).

Please, everybody, search LFTR, see that it was already built and proven for thousands of hours back at ORNL in the 60's, and SHOUT IT OUT!
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2012
"And you as well. Unless you plan to move into a cave." - Eikka

I'll be energy self sufficient soon enough Eikka.

And you?

How would you possibly know since you don't even know how much energy you consume?

Sad.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2012
"Why is no one advancing a better nuclear?" - Fire

Probably because everyone realizes that it isn't practical to base an economy on the construction of 200,000 of them.

Are you an exception to that realization?

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
Since I only consume small amounts of electricity at a given time, they are quite suitable for supplying my electric power needs.

In fact they, and solar are perfect for baseline power.

But not for a nation of Energy hogs.

The future belongs to the efficient. Not wasteful throwbacks to who refuse change and resist progress.

"The reason why windmills don't work is that they produce only small amounts of energy per unit per time, and are entirely dependent on fossil fuels to exist on the grid at the large scale, because without conventional power production to act as a buffer, nobody would be able to use any of it." - Eikka

But what if the wind isn't blowing asks Eikka.

Well then. I suppose God has scheduled a holiday.

The horror.... The horror...

fireofenergy1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
Dude,
I see it as WAY cheaper than basing an economy on depleting fossils!
Also, the U.S has some 450 LWR's (or similar) which account for some 20% of our power, that we use about a fifth of the global power = 20 x 450 = "just" 9,000 LFTR's globally.
Now, we want everyone to live at a decent standard... we use about a fifth but are only about a twentieth of the population, thus the world needs like FIVE x more power (just to be fair).
So that's 45,000 LFTR's.
However, consider that fully 2/3rds of the energy is wasted on the conversion to electricity and motion. With electric infrastructures (you know, electric cars, led lighting and also more insulation) we could easily cut that number back down to 20,000.
Got ya!
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
"No conventional powerplant in the UK has been replaced by wind power to date," - Eikka

Has coal consumption declined as a result?

Poor Eikka. It is so sad that you fear change in a constantly changing universe.

You need to get over that, and stop your, - I don't like it, - whining.

We all know the end game. Your vision of stasis just won't be there.


fireofenergy1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
Ya, your'e right, the future does belong to the efficient. I'm trying to figure out how to pay all the bills and buy the 12v solar system I want which will power my lights, music, (future) laptop and even a small fridge. For someone with a good job, that would be very easy to do.
(Yes I like solar too)!
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
It is. But then 100% this or 100% that is a false choice.

"I see it as WAY cheaper than basing an economy on depleting fossils!" - fire

Nuclear has it's place. But it is minute.

"Also, the U.S has some 450 LWR's (or similar) which account for some 20% of our power" - Fire

Electric power. Meanwhile oil reserves will be depleted by 2050.

So you need many more than 450 even if you wish to maintain the same energy consumption levels.

Now if you wish to quarter energy consumption levels, you can get away with 500,000 nuclear reactors world wide.

Iran will need 90 of them.

What will Israel think about that?
fireofenergy1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
Possibly, it's too late to build all those highly automated solar collection factories (and or LFTR's) due to the fact that we are already peaking in liquid fuels. They will become ever more expensive to build. Same with wind turbines and their storage... (But I like them too)!
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2012
You are absolutely right Eikka. A 2 day work week will be impossible because it will cost way too much to train the workforce.

Oh wait. My mistake. That is just mindless nonsense.

Change in the social order will only continue to accelerate Eikka. Your fear of change makes you ill prepared for the future.

"And those people then carry their expertise onto other contracts and other projects. The effort spent in training isn't lost, like on the person who does 6 years worth of actual work in his entire life and then retires." - Eikka
fireofenergy1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
I don't think it's as easy to make weapons from thorium based closed cycle nuclear. I also must disagree with you about that number. The whole world can be powered by "just" 20,000 nuclear power plants. That is way too much for our current electrical needs, but enough to power (and produce) a global fleet of electric cars. Afterall, liquid fuels ARE running out.
hundreds of thousands of sq km of machine made solar would be nice (for the installs) but would still cost more than the liquid fuels base nuclear...
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
"Possibly, it's too late to build all those highly automated solar collection factories (and or LFTR's) due to the fact that we are already peaking in liquid fuels. " - fire

Then we had better start reducing our consumption of those fuels as rapidly as possible to provide time for transition away from them, and look at some expansion of nuclear to replace coal while other forms of renewable energy are implemented.

Wind and solar alone do not a serious commitment make.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
"The whole world can be powered by "just" 20,000 nuclear power plants." - fire

Old numbers that presume nuclear electric and oil and coal for everything else.

Consider a population of 15 billion consuming at U.S. levels of consumptive waste that is strictly electric powered.

Then get back to me with the numbers.

The above assumptions are perfectly reasonable. Global Warming requires a reduction of 80 to 90 percent in CO2 emissions even at current levels of energy consumption, and that consumption will rise as second and third world nations begin to consume at U.S. per-capita rates.

fireofenergy1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
Let's not base the future of energy on the past.

I will have hope that we hurry up to make robotic solar panel factories (because humans charge too much to make thousands of square miles of it!), LFTR's and whatever the best energy storage is (such as pumped hydro for wind and the LiFePO4 battery for cars (not li-ion).
In the meantime, we need to have everybody conserve... I'm trying!
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 17, 2012
"In the meantime, we need to have everybody conserve... I'm trying'" - fire

Excellent. How are you making out with that? Have you done an energy audit? I would be interested in hearing your results.

fireofenergy1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
Consider that 10 billion could live at a western standard and still use less energy, way less (because of efficiency). After all, Americans (and their coal powered physics) are very inefficient!
fireofenergy1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
I'm not doing so good financially, therefore, I use less... BUT as for the proportion, I use more, because I'm stuck with an old gas guzzler and rent an open beam cabin in the mountains. We wear jackets, though (and my wife right now say's she's freezing) because we don't have the heater on yet.
If I had money, I would "do more" but it would be done ever more so efficiently, so I don't know, unless I was so rich to create a demand for millions of solar panels... Then I would be happy with my footprint.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 17, 2012
That sounds like a bad position you are in since you can't change the building and the rent is probably draining you dry.

Plan well for next winter. It is going to be colder than this one.

Consider a high efficiency wood stove. You probably have forest litter available and it will cost you $1,000 or so with proper, safe installation.
fireofenergy1
not rated yet Mar 17, 2012
Already done that... I used that concrete board stuff and high temp caulking to close off the space around the pipe. The airtight works great... But I found that I still have to "conserve wood". Silly as it is, San bernardino county doesn't allow wood cutting during the winter months
fireofenergy1
not rated yet Mar 17, 2012
I plan to tear it apart and inspect for excess incomplete burned debris above it... Another reason I am not using it right now. I also will install a flue dampener (or whatever that metal flap thing is called) just incase the glass was to break, to limit air intake during an emergency.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 17, 2012
Don't forget that you can create a dead air space - insulation - by simply draping some plastic or cloth down an exterior wall. Separation should be 2.5 cm or larger.

The kind of material isn't really material.

Even paper will work fine.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 17, 2012
The dampener is used to control the air intake into the fire box and thereby reduce the rate at which the fuel is consumed - and the heat produced.

Flue exhaust temps should be somewhere around 400'F at the exit of the firebox to ensure that nothing condenses in the flue and rots out the pipes.

Check with someone who knows more about this than I do.
fireofenergy1
not rated yet Mar 17, 2012
Ya, I thought about "plastic-ing" the whole area under the ceiling. The windows aren't so cool with plastic on 'em either. In the summer, plan to move to a smaller place with a ceiling BUT unfortunately, CPS don't allow small houses with children... They're real butholes!
fireofenergy1
not rated yet Mar 17, 2012
Thanks for alerting me about the possibility of flue pipe and condensation. The chimney is a real one, that is all brick and block with no metal, and the flue for the airtight only goes up a few inches past the concrete board barrier. The heated air exits to a (very much) wider area, slows down and probably cools which leads me to be concerned about increasing the chance of a chimney fire, from increased accumulation of soot due to "eddy currents"...(I didn't think to care about this during installation).
fireofenergy1
Mar 17, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 17, 2012
String some picture frame wire from wall to wall and suspend one or more tarps horizontally to form a partition between the upper ceiling and the lower room.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
"The whole world can be powered by "just" 20,000 nuclear power plants." - fire

Old numbers that presume nuclear electric and oil and coal for everything else.


Actually, no. Around 20 000 nuclear reactors (not plants) could be enough to cover all our global current energy needs (some 140 000 TWh/year). Not just electricity or non-fossil sources.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
"The whole world can be powered by "just" 20,000 nuclear power plants." - fire

Old numbers that presume nuclear electric and oil and coal for everything else.


Around 20 000 nuclear reactors (not plants) could be enough to cover all our global current energy needs (some 140 000 TWh/year).


And based on some simple calculations, it may even be less. 439 nuclear reactors produce 6 % of our energy total. Thus 7317 reactors could produce 100 %.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
And having 20000 nuclear reactors (some of which in central america or africa or other pretty unregulated places) - even with the most super-advanced and new tech - is going to make this a 'safe' world to live in?

We have 450 reactors worldwide. A major desaster more often than once every decade. You want to up that number by a factor of 40? are you crazy?

Aside from the potential for catastrophe: Who is going to build them? There are only a handful of companies that can build a reactor. Buidling ONE takes 5-6 years (at best) and usually more than a decade (5 of the 22 reactors currently being built have been in the construction phase for over 2 decades, BTW). Even if we startup a gazillion companies that somehow miraculously can produce perfect quality reactors from scratch - by the time nuclear makes any dent in the world's energy needs (or CO2 balance) it won't matter anymore.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
Of course, such naive comparisons between current fossil-based economy and future electricity-based one may be misleading. It is probable that energy required per economic output will decrease and absolute global energy consumption may increase.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012

We have 450 reactors worldwide. A major desaster more often than once every decade. You want to up that number by a factor of 40? are you crazy?


New reactors are much safer and there was no really "major" nuclear disaster except Chernobyl in terms of human life anyway, so your estimation is based on insufficient data. Moreover 40 is too much, Id say a factor of 10 is more realistic.

This boils down to a considerably safer world overall than today.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2012
New reactors are much safer and there was no really "major" nuclear disaster except Chernobyl in terms of human life anyway

Fukushima alone is estimated to cost 250bn Euros to clean up.. we don't know much about Mayak. We got VERY lucky with Lucens. Russia doesn't seem to care about the area about Chernobyl.

New reactors are much safer

Guess what: Old reactors were safe, already. Every time human error (Chernobyl, Three mile island, Mayak) or a desaster beyond what was reckoned possible (Fukushima) happened. Building them 'safe' or 'unsafe' seems not to impact the frequency with which they go boom.

This boils down to a considerably safer world overall than today

Having no nuclear reactor is safer than having one nuclear reactor. Having 20000 nuclear reactors (even of the newest build) is NOT safer than having 450. The old ones aren't going to go away, magically, either.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2012
And where would you put them? Nuclear reactors need massive amounts of water.

Near oceans? See Fukushima.
Near Rivers? Many rivers are at fault lines due to eartquakes. Not an ideal place for a reactor.
On rafts on the oceans (like Russia is doing)? Good luck with that.

And upping the waste problem (which is unsolved for the waste we already have!) by even 1 percent is even more of an issue. And you want to up it by a factor of 40? (No - breeders do not produce no waste)
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2012
Just to demonstrate how stupid the 'new reactors can be built much safer' argument is:

We up the numbers by 40 (or let's be generous: by 10). So now we have, on average, one major accident per year.
To get to the current (unacceptable) level of one major accident every decade we'd need to increase the safety by a factor of 10. That's completely unrealistic.

It'd be like saying "we can build big passenger planes today that are 10 times less likely to have a crash INCLUDING incidents from terrorism, human failure and inclement weather".

See how ludicrous that is? And we'd need to get better by that 10-times safety improvement by a long shot to make nuclear acceptable.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
Guess what: Old reactors were safe, already. Every time human error (Chernobyl, Three mile island, Mayak) or a desaster beyond what was reckoned possible (Fukushima) happened. Building them 'safe' or 'unsafe' seems not to impact the frequency with which they go boom.


Safer applies also to human errors and rare disasters, there is no reason why we cannot design against these, too. As for the frequency, as In said, insufficient data to draw any meaningful conclusions. Because you have only one data point (Chernobyl) and possibly two, if we are generous (Fukushima). Both quite old designs.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
Having no nuclear reactor is safer than having one nuclear reactor. Having 20000 nuclear reactors (even of the newest build) is NOT safer than having 450. The old ones aren't going to go away, magically, either.


Having no nuclear reactors is less safe if they are replaced by fossil plants, which they will be. The old ones will go away sooner if new ones replace them.

And where would you put them? Nuclear reactors need massive amounts of water.
Near oceans? See Fukushima.
Near Rivers? Many rivers are at fault lines due to eartquakes. Not an ideal place for a reactor.


Higher tsunami barriers and earthquake-resistant designs could easily solve these problems.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
And upping the waste problem (which is unsolved for the waste we already have!) by even 1 percent is even more of an issue. And you want to up it by a factor of 40? (No - breeders do not produce no waste)


Some breeders produce much less waste (1/100) harmful for much lower period (300 years), effectively solving the waste issue, and turning todays waste into a valuable resource.

Or just bury it deep underground.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
It'd be like saying "we can build big passenger planes today that are 10 times less likely to have a crash INCLUDING incidents from terrorism, human failure and inclement weather".


I can easily imagine this holds true for new airplanes build today as compared to those from the 70s.

http://www.aopa.o...aph2.jpg
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
To get to the current (unacceptable) level of one major accident every decade we'd need to increase the safety by a factor of 10. That's completely unrealistic.


It is entirely realistic, and has happened before. You need to understand how risk assesment works before commenting.

First reactors were not very safe, but during their operations we learned how to prevent the most frequents accidents A, B, C. Subsequent reactors were order of magntitude safer, and during their operation we learned how to prevent order of magnitude less frequent accidents D and E. Next generation of reactors was again order of magnitude safer, so that more serious accident F(ukushima) only happens for example once a few decades for an entire fleet of them. Now that we learned how to prevent accident F the next generation of reactors will have more serious accident only once per century, etc.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
See how ludicrous that is?


Car fatality per mile travelled:

http://images.the...eled.jpg
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
"Around 20 000 nuclear reactors (not plants) could be enough to cover all our global current energy needs (some 140 000 TWh/year)." - Shotman

Energy consumption in the U.S. is 87,000 KwH per person year.

Multiply that by 15 billion and the total is 10 times current global energy consumption.

20,000 then becomes 200,000

Global energy consumption grew last year at a rate of 5 percent. If that were to continue then in 30 years global consumption rates will be twice what they are today and over that period as much energy will be consumed than was consumed in all of history before.

In any case, if you can build 20,000 reactors in that time period, energy consumption will be such that you will still need to build 20,000 more, and so on, and so on, until you reach the 200,000 total.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2012
"more serious accident F(ukushima) only happens for example once a few decades for an entire fleet of them' - Shotman

Once in a few decades for the worlds 500 or so reactors = once every few years for 5,000 reactors = one every few months for 50,000 reactors = one every few days for 200,000 reactors.

Good luck with that.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2012
"Having no nuclear reactors is less safe if they are replaced by fossil plants - Shotnab

When it comes to Iran, Israel and the U.S. don't agree with you.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2012
there is no reason why we cannot design against these, too

We ALREADY design against these. You can't design against them and then design against them ten times better - we already design against them as best as we can and know how to. What do you think people are doing when they think up these reactors? Intentionally making them ten times less safe than they know how to?

Do you even live in the real world? This "we'll just build them safer" is just wishful thinking.

Having no nuclear reactors is less safe if they are replaced by fossil plants,

Strawman. No one is replacing nuclear reactors with fossil fuels long term. No one.

Car fatality per mile travelled:

Notice how it has changed over the past 30 years? Nowhere near factor of 10 (or 40).
You need to get a grip on what 'orders of magnitude' means.
ShotmanMaslo
not rated yet Mar 17, 2012
"Around 20 000 nuclear reactors (not plants) could be enough to cover all our global current energy needs (some 140 000 TWh/year)." - Shotman

Energy consumption in the U.S. is 87,000 KwH per person year.

Multiply that by 15 billion and the total is 10 times current global energy consumption.


Why should we multiply it? Strawman.

"Global energy consumption grew last year at a rate of 5 percent. If that were to continue then in 30 years global consumption rates will be twice what they are today and over that period as much energy will be consumed than was consumed in all of history before."

Its you who claims negawatts can reverse this. Suddenly you dont believe it?

I dont think we can actually *reduce* our consumption, but we can surely prevent further drastic increases.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
"more serious accident F(ukushima) only happens for example once a few decades for an entire fleet of them' - Shotman

Once in a few decades for the worlds 500 or so reactors = once every few years for 5,000 reactors = one every few months for 50,000 reactors = one every few days for 200,000 reactors.

Good luck with that.


I have already shown we dont need 200 000 reactors. More like 1/10 of that to satisfy all our energy needs. In reality, when you take hydro and some portion of renewables into account, 10 000 would be enough.

Yes, based on the available data (two data points), once a few years accident rate for such amount of reactors, if we used 40 year old reactors. But not with newer designs.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
"Why should we multiply it?" - ShotmanTard

Because the act of multiplication applies the property of numerical magnification equivalent to the magnification of energy consumption by developing nations and the magnification in the number of people consuming that energy.

Prehaps your problem in not being able to accept the 200,000 reactor figure is a basic innumeracy on your part.

"Its you who claims negawatts can reverse this. Suddenly you dont believe it?" - ShotManTard

And now you confuse rate of change with direction of change.

It is pretty simple. If you reduce U.S. consumption by 80% you reduce world consumption by 80% based on the assumption that you have 14 billion people consuming at U.S. levels of consumptive waste.

Why not flag down a grade 3 student after school and have them explain it to you?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
"I have already shown we dont need 200 000 reactors. More like 1/10 of that to satisfy all our energy needs." - ShotManTard

Today.

Global energy consumption grew by 5% last year. If maintained that is a doubling period of 14 years. Over those 14 years the amount of energy consumed will equal all energy that has been extracted by man since the beginning of time.

So, if you could build 20,000 reactors in the next 15 years, by the end of those 15 years you would still need to build 20,000 reactors.

The numbers confuse you don't they?

ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2012
What you are saying does not make logical sense.

Either we are able to reduce our consumption (or at least stop the increase), then my 20 000 figure applies. Or we will grow by 5% a year (doesnt matter if its developing countries or Americans who do it, energy sources and resources know no human boundaries), and nature will reduce it for us anyway, since there is no energy source (maybe except for some cranky cold fusion breakthrough) that would be able to keep up with such energy increase for long. Not even renewables and nuclear combined, maybe fossil fuels for a time, but they will run out far sooner then.

Now, I dont believe your fantasies that we will reduce our energy use by 80%, but preventing such huge increases as you say will happen is pretty realistic (since, as you correctly noted earlier, energy use in many developed countries almost flatlined in the past decade - the rate of increase is slowing - negawatts).

The logic confuses you, doesnt it?
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2012
Clearly you know nothing about logic.

"What you are saying does not make logical sense." - Shotman

"Either we are able to reduce our consumption (or at least stop the increase), then my 20 000 figure applies." - Shotman

In other words your 20,000 figure doesn't apply since you can't stop the rate of energy consumption increase any time soon.

"The logic confuses you, doesnt it?" - Shotman

If you are trying to say that now where near 200,000 reactors is an impossible number to reach, then you have just admitted that nuclear will not be the primary method of power generation.

Next.

ShotmanMaslo
not rated yet Mar 18, 2012

In other words your 20,000 figure doesn't apply since you can't stop the rate of energy consumption increase any time soon.



Fail. We already ARE reducing the rate of increase. Its not possible to actually reduce the consumption, but its surely possible to prevent further drastic increases. Its already happening. GDP growth in developed countries decoupled from energy consumption increase some time ago, and energy consumption flatlined.

I ask again, you were saying we have to reduce our consumption by 80%, that such negawatts are an important part of the solution. Now you say not only reducing our consumption, but even stopping the increase is impossible. So do you agree your "solution" was pure fantasy? You cant have it both ways. Either what you claimed before is not true, or what you claim now is not true.
ShotmanMaslo
not rated yet Mar 18, 2012
I will quote you here:
"Like, for example halting (and even reversing) energy trends. Germany has had an aggressive energy conservation and home insulation policy for the past years. Result: Energy demand per capita has dropped 10% from its high in the late 1980's. Total energy consumption has flatlined for the past few years. And certainly not because we're making any less goods."

So, what unavoidable huge energy consumption increase are you talking about?
baudrunner
not rated yet Mar 19, 2012
81% of France's energy needs are met by nuclear power. Germany is a model for safe alternative energy production. Western Europe's power generation is supplemented by clean natural gas. They seem to be doing all right.

Then there's the U.K., unwilling to join the European union and unwilling to adopt the Euro. Why? Because of a strange fixation on an obsolete institution that exploits the concept of Empire for the sake of empire. I predict that eventually England will become troublesome for the rest of the world when they decide that they cannot keep up with it and decide that they want to slow it down. They just launched a state of the art 6$billion nuclear submarine they didn't need and are sorely lacking in the development of infrastructure compatible with real human needs. Empire for the sake of empire. tch..
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 19, 2012
I agree with Baudrunner. England is the mini-me of American stupidity.
fireofenergy1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2012
Total global energy expenditure is about 500 quads Btu (from memory). If that was electricity, that would be about 150 trillion kWh (divided by 3,414). If a nuclear plant generates 1GW, 92% of the time, then 8,000 GWh or 8,000,000,000 kWh per year.
Multiply that by 18,750 to get an electrical figure necessary to power all the world's needs.
But wait, (there's more). Fullt 2/3rds of the fossil fueled energy is wasted as heat in the conversion processs to electricity and even more for mobility. I assume a good percentage of that also goes to dig'n and refining... Of course, batteries and such will also need some good percentage too, for dig,n raw materials and for manufacture.
Thus I will cancel those out and say we only need about a third of that or 6,000 nuclear power plants in order to electrify the world as we know it.
That's not good enough, though. In order to be fair, the world needs like five times that in order to power everyone at a wasteful American standard... 30,000 nukes
fireofenergy1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2012
Continued...
But with better insulation, a massive deployment of solar (if we could ever get robotic solar manufacturing cheap enough) and other efficiency measures, we should be able to do with less.

Also, I believe the planet will DO JUST FINE if humanity still uses only about 10% of the fossil fuels we use now (for steel production, mining equipment, etc).

Now, since we have that figured, we need to upgrade to advanced closed cycle nuclear where NO water is needed (because the lack of water is what causes meltdowns).
Ditch the LWR for a closed cycle that requires no high pressures and that burns the fuel (be it uranium or thorium)~100 x more efficiently, thus reducing wastes by not only that same amount, but reducing the TIME to decay back down to acceptable levels in ONLY 1/500th the time!
Please search LFTR for a better explanation of the molten salt reactor (MSR).