OT Electricity Generation
 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:39:25 +0100 someone who may be Tim Streater
wrote this:-

You don't need to get rid of it (unless you want to reprocess it for
some reason). Just leave it alone.

The existing waste... exists and something needs to be done with it.

Above ground dry storage is the best thing to do with the existing
waste, with the nitirc acid turned into glass blocks and stored
above ground.

However, the nuclear lobby doesn't want this reminder of our
foolishness, it wants the waste out of sight and out of mind in a
hole somewhere.

That does not mean we should create even more waste by building more
nuclear power stations. Waste which is not created in the first
place does not have to have anything done to it.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

OT Electricity Generation
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:09:38 +0100 someone who may be "tim...."

And when we know that the only way is up with the price of doing
that.


Talking about wind energy costs and carbon emmissions again?

I know your job is at risk should the world ever tuimble to the huge
scam that windpower actually is, but give it a rest..

OT Electricity Generation
 

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
David Hansen wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:39:25 +0100 someone who may be Tim Streater
wrote this:-

You don't need to get rid of it (unless you want to reprocess it for
some reason). Just leave it alone.

The existing waste... exists and something needs to be done with it.

Above ground dry storage is the best thing to do with the existing
waste, with the nitirc acid turned into glass blocks and stored
above ground.

So we do know what to do with it then, contrary to what you implied
initially. Stored as glass blocks it would actually make a useful heat
source.

However, the nuclear lobby doesn't want this reminder of our
foolishness, it wants the waste out of sight and out of mind in a
hole somewhere.

That does not mean we should create even more waste by building more
nuclear power stations. Waste which is not created in the first
place does not have to have anything done to it.

Nuclear waste needn't actually be a problem. You're just quite happy to
have a bogeyman to beat up the nuclear solution with.

Still, I suppose we could just go on creating CO2 waste instead, eh?

Indeed. Dynamo Hansen is a man whose job depends on windpower.

OT Electricity Generation
 

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:07:09 +0100 someone who may be Tim Streater
wrote this:-

So we do know what to do with it then, contrary to what you implied
initially.

The comment which started this sub-thread was not made by me, but I
agree with it. It was:

"How can you (or anybody) possibly make this claim when we STILL
don't know how much it will cost to get rid of the waste material
we have already stored, let alone that which we have yet to
generate."

We have some idea what to do with it, at least in the shorter term.
That doesn't mean it is ideal, there are formidable problems
including how to pass information across thousands of years. We were
foolish enough to create the stuff and it cannot be wished away, but
that is not an argument for producing more of the stuff.

The nuclear lobby want to do something else though, which is to put
it out of sight and out of mind.

We still have no idea how much it will cost to deal with this
legacy, but we know the estimated cost goes up regularly. At one
time some decommissioning was to be paid for by a levy on everyone's
bills, but that was diverted to pay for Sizewell B. Then the vast
profits made by Windscale were going to pay for decommissioning
(yes, they seem to have been serious about that, it wasn't a bad
joke) together with profits from the remaining Magnox stations. In
another place I found an excellent report for FoE on that idea
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/voodoo_economics.pdf.

As Mr Huhne is reported as saying
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/huhne-warns-of-1634bn-hole-in-nuclear-power-budget-1989103.html

"The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority oversees the process and runs
a handful of operational plants which provide some of the money it
needs to pay for the clean-up. However, the burden falls
increasingly to the taxpayer as the operational power stations are
closed down and become subject to the costly decommissioning
process.

"The Secretary of State added in an interview with The Guardian:
"The costs are such that my department is not so much the Department
of Energy and Climate Change, as the department of Nuclear legacy
and Bits of Other Things.""

Nuclear waste needn't actually be a problem.

The fact that, 66 odd years after it started being produced in
quantity, we have yet to come up with something which is other than
a least worst option tells me that it is a problem.

You're just quite happy to
have a bogeyman to beat up the nuclear solution with.

Don't give up your day job and take up mind reading.

Still, I suppose we could just go on creating CO2 waste instead, eh?

If they had listened to me we would have reduced carbon dioxide
emissions decades ago.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

OT Electricity Generation
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:07:09 +0100 someone who may be Tim Streater
wrote this:-

So we do know what to do with it then, contrary to what you implied
initially.

The comment which started this sub-thread was not made by me, but I
agree with it. It was:

"How can you (or anybody) possibly make this claim when we STILL
don't know how much it will cost to get rid of the waste material
we have already stored, let alone that which we have yet to
generate."

We have some idea what to do with it, at least in the shorter term.
That doesn't mean it is ideal, there are formidable problems
including how to pass information across thousands of years. We were
foolish enough to create the stuff and it cannot be wished away, but
that is not an argument for producing more of the stuff.


Excuse me, we didn't create it. We dug it out of the radioactive earth,
and reduced the Earth's net radioactivity by making it get a a lot less
radioactive a lot quicker in a reactor.

Lord knows what you think radioactivity is.

It's natural, its part of the way the world works, and always has been.

Why on earth you think that putting it back in the earth after we have
finished with it, is a bad idea, lord only knows.

However, for high level waste, its certainly better to store it because
we can use it again by recycling it. But that applies only to short
half life materials. That are sufficiently active to make power from.

Long half life stuff is so faint an emitter, that there is no point in
doing anything at all with it...stuff it down an hole and forget it. You
MIGHT get cancer if you ate it. For years. But really, its a lot less
dangerous than say asbestos (another naturally occurring material that
strikes fear into the heart of PC man).

If people 10,000 years from now haven't got radiation counters to know
where low level waste is buried, because green energy has destroyed
civilization, I don't actually care.

The only 'problem' of nuclear waste disposal is in the minds of people
like you.

In reality, it splits into three simple categories.

1/. Mildly contaminated dross. Stuff like clothing and tools that's been
exposed to a bit of radiation, sufficient to knock a few neutrons in or
out. Most of the worst of what's produced is extremely short lived. So
radiation decays rapidly over days or weeks. The few long half life
emitters that are left, because they are long life, are also
exceptionally weak. Ergo the stuff left is less radioactive than coal
ash. You certainly get far more radiation from everywhere else, natural
radon, medical x-rays etc etc. And even those are held to less than 1
thousandth of what the worst case estimates say will be perceptible
increase cancer risks. Now there is some pretty strong evidence tha the
worst case LNT models of cancer incidence versus radiation level are in
fact completely wrong by a factor of at least 100, so its true to say
that modern practice and restrictions on radioactivity are between 1000
and one million times more stringent than they need to be. But we will
let that pass for now. Note that the longer life the emitters, the
weaker they are, but this doesn't stop people on anti-nuclear side
muttering about 'huge radioactive risk...for thousands of years'

2/. High level waste from e.g. fuel rods.
This is nasty. This will kill. Its also relatively small in quantity,
and contains enough re-usable fuel to be very much worth reprocessing,
more so if uranium ore ever gets more expensive. It does need to be
stored until its processed and re-used. The most appropriate place is in
an active nuclear power station itself, where all the safety checks are
in place, and the monitoring. However its not THAT lethal. While you
wouldn't want to eat it, or have it in the same room for a lifetime,
stick in a concrete box, its no big deal.What is in your smoke alarm is
just as radioactive.


3/. 'hot' dead reactor housings.
These are not that lethal, but are rather long life emitters. However
the storage already exists for hem: They are their own storage. Opinon
is divided as to whether filling them full of concrete and simply
leaving them a few hundred years, or simply leaving and monitoring them,
is the best idea. I would personally fill hem full of concrete and
shovel waste and rubble on top, so they are not accessible. Even if the
outer layer eventually crumbled, they would still be less of a hazard
than the natural radioactivity on e.g. Dartmoor.

Ther is no shortage of ways to deal with radioactive mater8sl. The wgole
issue is a catch 22 situation engineered by te anti-buclear lobby.

"Tell me how much nuclear decommissioning will cost"
"Right, once you have decided what an acceptable standard is, we will
tell you"
"We cant tell you that, because we haven't a clue: We are bearded
Greenies, and we are clueless"
"Right, then we cant tell you what it will cost"
"TOLD YOU SO, OPEN ENDED COSTS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS NAH NASH-NEE NAH"

And so it goes on.

Meanwhile Dynamo Dave and his cohorts are leaching cash out of the
public for useless technologies that simply don't work, but like anyone
else sucking on the public tit, they don't give a **** about the nation,
or the world.

Just about their continued salaries.

Basically a traitor to the nation.

Hangings too good really.

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21/10/2010 11:32, David Hansen wrote:
....
We have some idea what to do with it, at least in the shorter term.
That doesn't mean it is ideal, there are formidable problems
including how to pass information across thousands of years....

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,
not only is the volume of waste signifcantly reduced, but the storage
period drops to under 500 years.

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/up...ciAm-Dec05.pdf

Colin Bignell

OT Electricity Generation
 

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 21/10/2010 11:32, David Hansen wrote:
...
We have some idea what to do with it, at least in the shorter term.
That doesn't mean it is ideal, there are formidable problems
including how to pass information across thousands of years....

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,
not only is the volume of waste signifcantly reduced, but the storage
period drops to under 500 years.

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/up...ciAm-Dec05.pdf

Colin Bignell

Don't confuse (his) prejudice with facts...

There are so many ways of dealing with it, that have not been worth
exploiting due to political uncertainty about nuclear power and dirt
cheap uranium.

OT Electricity Generation
 

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,

These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.

I would also need to study a lot more about the "electrorefiner" to
judge the claims. The main difficulty with the current system is
what to do with the nitric acid and what remains dissolved in it,
something which if it is mentioned in descriptions is glossed over.
I see what appears to be some similar glossing over in bits of the
article.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21/10/2010 14:18, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,

These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.


I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem
of the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were
feelings that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there is in
the civilian area the better. Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?

Peter Scott

OT Electricity Generation
 

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:29:24 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem
of the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were
feelings that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there is in
the civilian area the better.

The nuclear lobby have an answer to that, put it into MOX. There is
a plant at Windscale, a huge white elephant
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-admits-total-failure-of-sellafield-mox-plant-793489.html.

Read all about it in the report for FoE
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/voodoo_economics.pdf.

The decision to build the thing was debatable. Having built the
thing it should never have been used [1]. Tony B Liar slipped out
the announcement just after the Labour party conference had ended to
prevent questions being asked about it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/oct/10/environment. The
courts failed to do their job and halt it despite the excellent case
put to them
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/nov/08/energy.nuclearindustry

Supposedly things will get better
http://www.nda.gov.uk/news/sellafield-mox-plant-future-2010.cfm,
but we have heard that one many times before from the nuclear lobby.

Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?

One part of it was. The main part at one time.


[1] by then it was clear that the thing was a failure. It was simply
willy waving to turn it on, but the willy waving made it far more
expensive to dismantle than it would have been.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

OT Electricity Generation
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,

These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.

Which is all still 1/3rd the price of windpower..


I would also need to study a lot more about the "electrorefiner" to
judge the claims. The main difficulty with the current system is
what to do with the nitric acid and what remains dissolved in it,
something which if it is mentioned in descriptions is glossed over.
I see what appears to be some similar glossing over in bits of the
article.



No relation to the wind power lobby glossing over almost every aspect of
windpower, one assumes.

Before criticising things, it usually pays to understand the technology.

Oh, I forgot. You can't.

OT Electricity Generation
 

Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 14:18, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,

These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.


I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem of
the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were feelings
that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there is in the
civilian area the better. Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?


Pretty sure one of the reactors was, yes. bomb making plant, never
designed for decommissioning at all. Or power generation, but they had
to do something with all the waste heat.. ;-)

Sadly there has been little or no R & D in reactor technology in the
last 30+ years as it all became a political hot potato, and with cheap
abundant north sea oil, no incentive economically. A tragic waste of
opportunity.

More research in India than the UK...



Peter Scott

OT Electricity Generation
 

Huge wrote:
On 21/10/2010 14:18, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,
These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.

But not as outrageously expensive as useless windmills.

Correct. Nor as dangerous.

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21/10/2010 15:22, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:29:24 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem
of the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were
feelings that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there is in
the civilian area the better.

The nuclear lobby have an answer to that, put it into MOX. There is
a plant at Windscale, a huge white elephant
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-admits-total-failure-of-sellafield-mox-plant-793489.html.

Read all about it in the report for FoE
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/voodoo_economics.pdf.

The decision to build the thing was debatable. Having built the
thing it should never have been used [1]. Tony B Liar slipped out
the announcement just after the Labour party conference had ended to
prevent questions being asked about it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/oct/10/environment. The
courts failed to do their job and halt it despite the excellent case
put to them
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/nov/08/energy.nuclearindustry

Supposedly things will get better
http://www.nda.gov.uk/news/sellafield-mox-plant-future-2010.cfm,
but we have heard that one many times before from the nuclear lobby.

Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?

One part of it was. The main part at one time.


[1] by then it was clear that the thing was a failure. It was simply
willy waving to turn it on, but the willy waving made it far more
expensive to dismantle than it would have been.


Pity though. The theory seemed very promising - being able to reuse
waste. I am impressed by your collection of sources, but there seems to
be a lack of detail (not by you) of costs and reasons and no further
references to the studies done. Could this be because of sensitivity and
'national security'? If it turned out that the reprocessing was not
actually that difficult it could significantly increase the number of
countries able to produce their own plutonium for weapons, including
oil-rich nutters. I am not being paranoid at all. This could be a case
of justified caution. I do remember that security was at the forefront
some years back.

Peter Scott

OT Electricity Generation
 

Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 15:22, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:29:24 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem
of the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were
feelings that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there is in
the civilian area the better.

The nuclear lobby have an answer to that, put it into MOX. There is
a plant at Windscale, a huge white elephant
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-admits-total-failure-of-sellafield-mox-plant-793489.html.


Read all about it in the report for FoE
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/voodoo_economics.pdf.

The decision to build the thing was debatable. Having built the
thing it should never have been used [1]. Tony B Liar slipped out
the announcement just after the Labour party conference had ended to
prevent questions being asked about it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/oct/10/environment. The
courts failed to do their job and halt it despite the excellent case
put to them
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/nov/08/energy.nuclearindustry


Supposedly things will get better
http://www.nda.gov.uk/news/sellafield-mox-plant-future-2010.cfm,
but we have heard that one many times before from the nuclear lobby.

Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?

One part of it was. The main part at one time.


[1] by then it was clear that the thing was a failure. It was simply
willy waving to turn it on, but the willy waving made it far more
expensive to dismantle than it would have been.


Pity though. The theory seemed very promising - being able to reuse
waste. I am impressed by your collection of sources, but there seems to
be a lack of detail (not by you) of costs and reasons and no further
references to the studies done. Could this be because of sensitivity and
'national security'? If it turned out that the reprocessing was not
actually that difficult it could significantly increase the number of
countries able to produce their own plutonium for weapons, including
oil-rich nutters. I am not being paranoid at all. This could be a case
of justified caution. I do remember that security was at the forefront
some years back.


Fast breeder reactors are inherently a tad more dangerous than ordinary
ones, and more expensive, BUT they are a simple way to make weapons
grade material. Which is why they are frowned upon. However there are
other ways to achieve the same result (more reactor fuel and 'burning'
otherwise not very useful radioactive materials into useful ones) by
different methods.


We really haven't even begun to explore the possibilities.

Iran is probably ahead of Europe, by now.


Peter Scott

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21/10/2010 14:29, Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 14:18, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,

These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.


I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem of
the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were feelings
that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there is in the
civilian area the better. Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?

Weapons grade plutonium has to be a fairly pure grade of one particular
isotope and early fast breeder reactors were optimised to produce that.
Modern ones produce a mix of isotopes that are not particularly useful
for making weapons.

Colin Bignell

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21/10/2010 15:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 15:22, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:29:24 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem
of the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were
feelings that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there
is in
the civilian area the better.

The nuclear lobby have an answer to that, put it into MOX. There is
a plant at Windscale, a huge white elephant
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-admits-total-failure-of-sellafield-mox-plant-793489.html.


Read all about it in the report for FoE
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/voodoo_economics.pdf.

The decision to build the thing was debatable. Having built the
thing it should never have been used [1]. Tony B Liar slipped out
the announcement just after the Labour party conference had ended to
prevent questions being asked about it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/oct/10/environment. The
courts failed to do their job and halt it despite the excellent case
put to them
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/nov/08/energy.nuclearindustry


Supposedly things will get better
http://www.nda.gov.uk/news/sellafield-mox-plant-future-2010.cfm,
but we have heard that one many times before from the nuclear lobby.

Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?

One part of it was. The main part at one time.


[1] by then it was clear that the thing was a failure. It was simply
willy waving to turn it on, but the willy waving made it far more
expensive to dismantle than it would have been.


Pity though. The theory seemed very promising - being able to reuse
waste. I am impressed by your collection of sources, but there seems
to be a lack of detail (not by you) of costs and reasons and no
further references to the studies done. Could this be because of
sensitivity and 'national security'? If it turned out that the
reprocessing was not actually that difficult it could significantly
increase the number of countries able to produce their own plutonium
for weapons, including oil-rich nutters. I am not being paranoid at
all. This could be a case of justified caution. I do remember that
security was at the forefront some years back.


Fast breeder reactors are inherently a tad more dangerous than ordinary
ones, and more expensive, BUT they are a simple way to make weapons
grade material. Which is why they are frowned upon. However there are
other ways to achieve the same result (more reactor fuel and 'burning'
otherwise not very useful radioactive materials into useful ones) by
different methods.


We really haven't even begun to explore the possibilities.

Iran is probably ahead of Europe, by now.


Peter Scott

And on that note.....!

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21/10/2010 16:22, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 21/10/2010 14:29, Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 14:18, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,

These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.


I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem of
the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were feelings
that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there is in the
civilian area the better. Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?

Weapons grade plutonium has to be a fairly pure grade of one particular
isotope and early fast breeder reactors were optimised to produce that.
Modern ones produce a mix of isotopes that are not particularly useful
for making weapons.

Colin Bignell

I didn't know that. Let's hope that the costs and risks are re-assessed.
As uranium becomes scarcer, we will need to use it as efficiently as
possible. That was one of the selling points of breeders I seem to remember

Peter Scott

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21 Oct, 17:17, Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 16:22, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:





On 21/10/2010 14:29, Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 14:18, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,

These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.

I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem of
the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were feelings
that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there is in the
civilian area the better. Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?

Weapons grade plutonium has to be a fairly pure grade of one particular
isotope and early fast breeder reactors were optimised to produce that.
Modern ones produce a mix of isotopes that are not particularly useful
for making weapons.

Colin Bignell

I didn't know that. Let's hope that the costs and risks are re-assessed.
As uranium becomes scarcer, we will need to use it as efficiently as
possible. That was one of the selling points of breeders I seem to remember

Peter Scott- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bit here on that topic. Doesn't look like we're going to run out
anytime soon.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

OT Electricity Generation
 

Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 16:22, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 21/10/2010 14:29, Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 14:18, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast
reactor,

These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.


I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem of
the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were feelings
that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there is in the
civilian area the better. Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?

Weapons grade plutonium has to be a fairly pure grade of one particular
isotope and early fast breeder reactors were optimised to produce that.
Modern ones produce a mix of isotopes that are not particularly useful
for making weapons.

Colin Bignell

I didn't know that. Let's hope that the costs and risks are re-assessed.
As uranium becomes scarcer, we will need to use it as efficiently as
possible. That was one of the selling points of breeders I seem to remember


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

fairly good overview of the uranium issues. Also good articles on waste
and management and radiation types and hazards etc on that site.

Far more balanced than the UKWEA for example...

Peter Scott

OT Electricity Generation
 

harry wrote:
On 21 Oct, 17:17, Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 16:22, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:





On 21/10/2010 14:29, Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 14:18, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-
If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,
These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.
I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem of
the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were feelings
that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there is in the
civilian area the better. Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?
Weapons grade plutonium has to be a fairly pure grade of one particular
isotope and early fast breeder reactors were optimised to produce that.
Modern ones produce a mix of isotopes that are not particularly useful
for making weapons.
Colin Bignell
I didn't know that. Let's hope that the costs and risks are re-assessed.
As uranium becomes scarcer, we will need to use it as efficiently as
possible. That was one of the selling points of breeders I seem to remember

Peter Scott- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bit here on that topic. Doesn't look like we're going to run out
anytime soon.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
No. We probably need 100 years more of fisson before we can control
fusion adequately.

And really at that point we should have the ability to cook up pretty
much any sort of unusable or stable isotopes from anything.

OT Electricity Generation
 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

fairly good overview of the uranium issues. Also good articles on waste
and management and radiation types and hazards etc on that site.

Far more balanced than the UKWEA for example...


Interesting and re-assuring. Maybe New Scientist got it wrong when it
talked about the impending shortages of various metals, mostly the rare
earth ones, but I though U was in there too. It was a while back so
maybe my memory is at fault, or perhaps they were projecting for
potential increaed usage?

Peter Scott

OT Electricity Generation
 

Peter Scott wrote:



http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

fairly good overview of the uranium issues. Also good articles on waste
and management and radiation types and hazards etc on that site.

Far more balanced than the UKWEA for example...


Interesting and re-assuring. Maybe New Scientist got it wrong when it
talked about the impending shortages of various metals, mostly the rare
earth ones, but I though U was in there too. It was a while back so
maybe my memory is at fault, or perhaps they were projecting for
potential increaed usage?

Again there is potential shortage or rare earth's BUT as with uranium,
its an economic, not a geophysical issue.

Take neodymium: most used to come from California. Then China started
dumping it on the market. Prices fell, mine was shut down. It's now
being reopened BUT there is two years of water to pump out of it before
the diggers can get scooping.

Of course wind turbines like lots of neodymium.

Uranium is dirt cheap and in plentiful supply right now, because world
usage is low. Currently basic ore cost is about 1% of the generated
electricity (enriched is about ten times that). So it could rise by 10
times price wise before it makes any serious impact on electricity prices.

That's a huge driver to prospect for more.

AND at that price, reprocessing gets more profitable, which means less
spent fuel in store, and more being recycled.


Peter Scott

OT Electricity Generation
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,

These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.

Which is all still 1/3rd the price of windpower..

I think that you have overestimated the cost of wind power somewhat.

Most reports show commercial wind power as 50% more expensive that coal/gas
which isn't any more expensive than nuclear.


tim

OT Electricity Generation
 

Again there is potential shortage or rare earth's BUT as with uranium,
its an economic, not a geophysical issue.

Interesting. That wasn't the sense of the NS article. Wonder if I can
find it?


Take neodymium: most used to come from California. Then China started
dumping it on the market. Prices fell, mine was shut down. It's now
being reopened BUT there is two years of water to pump out of it before
the diggers can get scooping.

Of course wind turbines like lots of neodymium.

For the magnets of course.


Uranium is dirt cheap and in plentiful supply right now, because world
usage is low. Currently basic ore cost is about 1% of the generated
electricity (enriched is about ten times that). So it could rise by 10
times price wise before it makes any serious impact on electricity prices.

That's a huge driver to prospect for more.

Very encouraging. I am a firm believer in photovoltaics being the
primary source of energy at some point, once the cost of the cells and
storage is overcome. During the day there is always light. If we covered
all roofs with cheap plastic PVs we'd have all the energy we need. But
that is perhaps 20 or 30 years away? In the meantime nuclear is our
cleanest option for large-scale generation. Living in Norfolk I am aware
of the visual and aural impact of the few windmills we've got now. And
how often they are not turning. Shame we haven't any uranium ore in this
country. Have you noticed how even the educated are starting to
pronounce it nucular? I blame Homer Simpson.

Incidentally over the last week or so I've noticed several PV
installations on people's house or in gardens near me. They all look
very new and bright. Am I missing some new funding?

Peter Scott

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21/10/2010 20:20, Peter Scott wrote:

Of course wind turbines like lots of neodymium.

For the magnets of course.

Are the big ones based on permanent magnets?

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21 Oct, 16:22, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Weapons grade plutonium has to be a fairly pure grade of one particular
isotope and early fast breeder reactors were optimised to produce that.
Modern ones produce a mix of isotopes that are not particularly useful
for making weapons.

Yes, no and yes. No-one has ever made weapons-grade Pu from a fast
breeder reactor. It has nearly all been produced from graphite
moderated reactors, some from heavy water moderated reactors. Although
the very few fast reactors did breed some plutonium, this wasn't then
processed for commercial-scale reprocessing - just not enough demand
for the results. The little reprocessing that did ever take place
(really just the UK, no-one else bothered) was from the more common
thermal reactors, Magnox and AGR.

UK weapons Pu was made at Windscale, tritium at Chapelcross (broadly
the same design). These were "dual use" reactors, Windscale also being
the world's first commercial (sic) power generating reactor. The
operating fuel cycle of these reactors was shortened, so that only the
appropriate Pu isotope was produced, even though this made them even
less economic for power generation. This is the reason why
commercially operating power reactors haven't been used for weapons-
grade Pu production, and why there is so much international interest
in just what cycle time is being used by reactors in North Korea.

In the 1960s though, the US did manage to demonstrate a device design
that did use reactor grade Pu, with the mixed isotopes.

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21 Oct, 20:32, Clive George wrote:
On 21/10/2010 20:20, Peter Scott wrote:

Of course wind turbines like lots of neodymium.

For the magnets of course.

Are the big ones based on permanent magnets?

No, but the Natural Pillock wouldn't let that get in the way of an
anti wind-power rant.

kW wind turbines use permanent magnets, MW turbines don't.

OT Electricity Generation
 

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:50:41 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

I am impressed by your collection of sources, but there seems to
be a lack of detail (not by you) of costs and reasons and no further
references to the studies done.

All but one in my post are newspaper reports/web announcements which
tend to avoid "details".

Dounreay is the place where they lobbed materials which included
sodium down a shaft near the sea. They had no proper records of what
had been lobbed into the thing. The subsequent explosion was played
down for 18 years [1].

I do remember that security was at the forefront some years back.

So-called security. They were not really interested in security,
otherwise they would not have assembled a collection of tanks in
Windscale which must be constantly cooled otherwise the contents
will boil and the probable subsequent explosion will scatter the
contents over the countryside [2]. They are also a great target for
"terrorists". These dangers are why the HSE has spent at least a
decade trying to get the amount of highly radioactive nitric acid
stored in these tanks vastly reduced by turning it into glass
blocks, so far with little to show for it as the equipment
constantly breaks down.

Intense radiation isn't good for machinery, as was demonstrated at
Chernobyl. All the expensive western machinery sent there soon broke
down in the intense radiation, with the result that the military
were forced to use "bio-robots" [3] to do the work machines could
not do. This work consisted of things like picking up irradiated
fuel rods, which had been blown out of the reactor, with a pair of
tongs and throwing the rods back into the hole, or shovelling other
debris back into the hole. These bio-robots ran out onto the roof,
did their task and ran back. They were then treated for the effects
of radiation with vodka and a medal. I salute them for their amazing
courage, if any are still alive. Given the explosion the deliberate
sacrifice of people was the only way to make the aftermath as least
bad as possible, they are true Heroes of the Soviet Union. Their
immediate superior officers were even braver, repeatedly going back
to extremely hazardous places, as did the scientists and engineers
who explored what had happened to the bits of reactor which had
melted through the bottom. Similar courage was demonstrated by those
fighting the Windscale fire, though that was over a lot more
quickly.



[1] "the papers show the shaft's concrete plug, weighing seven
tonnes, was blown three to four metres into the air and thrown
against a security fence, while a steel plate, nearly 1.5 metres in
diameter, was blasted 12 metres."


http://news.scotsman.com/dounreay/Dounreay-chiefs-played-down-major.2642956.jp


[2] a chemical explosion in waste tanks at Tomsk-7 contaminated an
area of countryside after the concrete roof was blown off. This
"incident" is not known about by many people, but can be researched.
It could have been a whole lot worse, but the winds were favourable.

[3] humans.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

OT Electricity Generation
 

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:32:43 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

Interesting and re-assuring. Maybe New Scientist got it wrong when it
talked about the impending shortages of various metals, mostly the rare
earth ones, but I though U was in there too.

There are a number of different opinions on how much uranium can be
realistically extracted. Enthusiasts often speak of extracting it
from seawater, as if that was an easy task.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

OT Electricity Generation
 

tim.... wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,
These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.

Which is all still 1/3rd the price of windpower..

I think that you have overestimated the cost of wind power somewhat.

Most reports show commercial wind power as 50% more expensive that coal/gas
which isn't any more expensive than nuclear.


That's just the turbines and installation..based on hopelessly
optimistic MTBF.

in the real world the turbine farms get three times as much per KWh
generated as anyone else, and all the costs of extra transmission lines
and carbon burning backup are borne elsewhere.

That's needed to make them profitable.



tim

OT Electricity Generation
 

Peter Scott wrote:


Again there is potential shortage or rare earth's BUT as with uranium,
its an economic, not a geophysical issue.

Interesting. That wasn't the sense of the NS article. Wonder if I can
find it?


Take neodymium: most used to come from California. Then China started
dumping it on the market. Prices fell, mine was shut down. It's now
being reopened BUT there is two years of water to pump out of it before
the diggers can get scooping.

Of course wind turbines like lots of neodymium.

For the magnets of course.


Uranium is dirt cheap and in plentiful supply right now, because world
usage is low. Currently basic ore cost is about 1% of the generated
electricity (enriched is about ten times that). So it could rise by 10
times price wise before it makes any serious impact on electricity
prices.

That's a huge driver to prospect for more.

Very encouraging. I am a firm believer in photovoltaics being the
primary source of energy at some point,

believe away: It wont alter the fact that they can't and wont ever be.


once the cost of the cells and
storage is overcome.

There is no better energy density than uranium etc.

Theee is not enough lithium lead and so on to do it wioth batteries.
There is not enough usable cheap pumped stiarge to do it with water.

Some people also believe in flywheels. Frankly Id rather have a few
megatons of reasonably safe uranium, than a few megatons of ultra high
speed flywheel.

There isn't enough land area in the UK to have photovoltaics AND any
meaningful agriculture.

So I would suggest dong some basic sums, rather then just 'believing'

During the day there is always light. If we covered
all roofs with cheap plastic PVs we'd have all the energy we need.

No, we wouldn't.
You would need about 30-50 square meters per household.

But
that is perhaps 20 or 30 years away?

No, its lala land.

In the meantime nuclear is our
cleanest option for large-scale generation. Living in Norfolk I am aware
of the visual and aural impact of the few windmills we've got now. And
how often they are not turning. Shame we haven't any uranium ore in this
country. Have you noticed how even the educated are starting to
pronounce it nucular? I blame Homer Simpson.

Incidentally over the last week or so I've noticed several PV
installations on people's house or in gardens near me. They all look
very new and bright. Am I missing some new funding?


yes, they are ripping you off as much as the windmill guys. They get
about 45p a unit for any PV. You pay.

In spain, the PV is so successful, that people are managing to get 15%
of the PVS to generate after dark. Or so the figures say. More cynical
people have decided that enterprising Spaniards are buying electricity
by day and off peak, storing it in car batteries, and feeding it back to
the grid and pretending to be PV generators.


Peter Scott

OT Electricity Generation
 

Clive George wrote:
On 21/10/2010 20:20, Peter Scott wrote:

Of course wind turbines like lots of neodymium.

For the magnets of course.

Are the big ones based on permanent magnets?

Apparently so.

I would have thought field coils would have been simpler meself.

OT Electricity Generation
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:32:43 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

Interesting and re-assuring. Maybe New Scientist got it wrong when it
talked about the impending shortages of various metals, mostly the rare
earth ones, but I though U was in there too.

There are a number of different opinions on how much uranium can be
realistically extracted. Enthusiasts often speak of extracting it
from seawater, as if that was an easy task.


Its been done in Japan. Its not currently cost effective.

It may be one day.

There's rather a lot more in coal fly-ash.

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21/10/2010 19:58, tim.... wrote:
"The Natural wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast reactor,

These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.

Which is all still 1/3rd the price of windpower..

I think that you have overestimated the cost of wind power somewhat.

Most reports show commercial wind power as 50% more expensive that coal/gas
which isn't any more expensive than nuclear.

The very best onshore wind farms might achieve that, but onshore can be
up to twice as expensive as conventional and offshore wind farms can be
up to three times as expensive, based upon whole life figures.

Colin Bignell

OT Electricity Generation
 

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:32:43 +0100, Peter Scott wrote:

Maybe New Scientist got it wrong when it talked about the impending
shortages of various metals, mostly the rare earth ones,

Maybe some one got the wrong end of the stick about China reducing
it's export quotas of rare earths. Most rare earths orginate in
china...

--
Cheers
Dave.

OT Electricity Generation
 

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:41:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

During the day there is always light. If we covered all roofs with

cheap plastic PVs we'd have all the energy we need.

No, we wouldn't.
You would need about 30-50 square meters per household.

The average roof isn't far from those figures. One south facing pitch
here is roughly 10m x 6m...

But what do you do in the winter when it's dark for 18hrs...

--
Cheers
Dave.

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21/10/2010 20:32, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 21 Oct, 16:22, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Weapons grade plutonium has to be a fairly pure grade of one particular
isotope and early fast breeder reactors were optimised to produce that.
Modern ones produce a mix of isotopes that are not particularly useful
for making weapons.

Yes, no and yes. No-one has ever made weapons-grade Pu from a fast
breeder reactor. It has nearly all been produced from graphite
moderated reactors, some from heavy water moderated reactors. Although
the very few fast reactors did breed some plutonium, this wasn't then
processed for commercial-scale reprocessing - just not enough demand
for the results. The little reprocessing that did ever take place
(really just the UK, no-one else bothered) was from the more common
thermal reactors, Magnox and AGR.

UK weapons Pu was made at Windscale, tritium at Chapelcross (broadly
the same design). These were "dual use" reactors, Windscale also being
the world's first commercial (sic) power generating reactor. The
operating fuel cycle of these reactors was shortened, so that only the
appropriate Pu isotope was produced, even though this made them even
less economic for power generation. This is the reason why
commercially operating power reactors haven't been used for weapons-
grade Pu production, and why there is so much international interest
in just what cycle time is being used by reactors in North Korea.

In the 1960s though, the US did manage to demonstrate a device design
that did use reactor grade Pu, with the mixed isotopes.

Interesting. When they built Dounreay it was widely reported that it was
to make materials for H Bombs.

Colin Bignell

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 21 Oct, 20:20, Peter Scott wrote:
Again there is potential shortage or rare earth's BUT as with uranium,
its an economic, not a geophysical issue.

Interesting. That wasn't the sense of the NS article. Wonder if I can
find it?



Take neodymium: most used to come from California. Then China started
dumping it on the market. Prices fell, mine was shut down. It's now
being reopened BUT there is two years of water to pump out of it before
the diggers can get scooping.

Of course wind turbines like lots of neodymium.

For the magnets of course.



Uranium is dirt cheap and in plentiful supply right now, because world
usage is low. Currently basic ore cost is about 1% of the generated
electricity (enriched is about ten times that). So it could rise by 10
times price wise before it makes any serious impact on electricity prices.

That's a huge driver to prospect for more.

Very encouraging. I am a firm believer in photovoltaics being the
primary source of energy at some point, once the cost of the cells and
storage is overcome. During the day there is always light. If we covered
all roofs with cheap plastic PVs we'd have all the energy we need. But
that is perhaps 20 or 30 years away? In the meantime nuclear is our
cleanest option for large-scale generation. Living in Norfolk I am aware
of the visual and aural impact of the few windmills we've got now. And
how often they are not turning. Shame we haven't any uranium ore in this
country. Have you noticed how even the educated are starting to
pronounce it nucular? I blame Homer Simpson.

Incidentally over the last week or so I've noticed several PV
installations on people's house or in gardens near me. They all look
very new and bright. Am I missing some new funding?

Peter Scott

I've been considering it myself. By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save. It works out to about 8% return on
capital. Which is good compared with getting bugger all interest for
any money the bank stores for you.
However PV panel efficiency is going up all the time, is it better to
wait?
People are trying to beat the 20% VAT deadline too.

OT Electricity Generation
 

On 22 Oct, 08:26, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:41:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
During the day there is always light. If we covered all roofs with
cheap plastic PVs we'd have all the energy we need.

No, we wouldn't.
You would need about 30-50 square meters per household.

The average roof isn't far from those figures. One south facing pitch
here is roughly 10m x 6m...

But what do you do in the winter when it's dark for 18hrs...

--
Cheers
Dave.

PV could be used for "peak lopping" of the electricity demand, ie to
meet the electricity demanded by commerce through the day. That
leaves conventional to meet the base load. Could in fact be very
suitable compared with wind.