I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Thanks

--
AnthonyL

On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 20:15:20 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:


I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Try htps://www.withouthotair.com/about.html

The definitive book on the subject and not a drop of greenwash.

On 03/02/17 22:25, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 20:15:20 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:


I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Try htps://www.withouthotair.com/about.html

The definitive book on the subject and not a drop of greenwash.

Good on energy density but doesn't account for the capital costs

These are roughly - or should be - around £3m /MW with a 15%
decommissioning surcharge.

O&M is probably around 7% per annum on that, and lifetime is 50 years.

Fuel costs are around a ha'penny a unit. Fabricated. Uranium costs are
way less than that.

Final electricity costs are dominated by capital costs and the cost of
that capital.

The rise in interest rates during Thatchers govt was what put paid to
any more nukes. Gas is capital cheap and the gas was free...under the
sea. Just cost of extraction to add on top..


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On Friday, 3 February 2017 20:15:22 UTC, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Thanks

--
AnthonyL

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.
With no viable permanent solution even in sight.
Quite a few failed projects.

https://www.iaea.org/inis/collection...1/41021977.pdf

Costs at Hinkley point escalating.
Similar projects over budget and long overrun on completion.

On 04/02/17 09:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Friday, 3 February 2017 20:15:22 UTC, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Thanks

--
AnthonyL

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with
the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.

Yes they are.

It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

So?

All the uranium in the world is just in temporary storage. God designed
it that way.


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 2/4/2017 8:12 AM, harry wrote:
On Friday, 3 February 2017 20:15:22 UTC, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Thanks

--
AnthonyL

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.
With no viable permanent solution even in sight.
Quite a few failed projects.

https://www.iaea.org/inis/collection...1/41021977.pdf

Costs at Hinkley point escalating.
Similar projects over budget and long overrun on completion.


*Everything* is unknown about the future, apart from the third law of
thermodynamics.

Greenies are normally happy to quote the figures from the NDA.

A key point about radioactivity is that it decays with time so in the
long term any "problem" gets better, unlike chemical toxicity such as
mercury or arsenic.

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is one of
the reasons you should have more confidence in this industry than almost
any other: you can't hide a leak.

On 03-Feb-17 8:15 PM, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere

I don't know how the southern hemisphere features in this, the world's
largest uranium processing plant is in Canada, but the basic argument is
that processing uranium into nuclear fuel requires a lot of energy, most
of which currently comes from fossil fuel plants. However, a life cycle
analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions for various forms of
electricity generation shows that for nuclear power is only slightly
above that for hydroelectric and wind power and less than that for
biomass an solar PV:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploade..._lifecycle.pdf

and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

It is not so much the energy required to build a nuclear power station
as the energy consumed in other aspects of generation; mining and
producing the fuel, running the plant, storing the waste and
decommissioning. These can be 6-8 times as much as the energy needed to
build the plant.

The appropriate measure to compare this aspect of different power
generation methods is energy return on investment. The major study on
this is a 2013 paper by D Weissbach et al entitled 'Energy intensities,
EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of
electricity generating power plants'. It is not available online without
payment, but it gives the following figures for EROIs (the higher the
better):

Nuclear with centrifuge enrichment of fuel 75
Hydroelectric 50
Brown coal opencast 31
Coal deep mine 29
Natural gas 28
Wind 16
Solar thermal parabolic 9.6
Solar PV polycrystalline Si 3.8
Solar PV amorphous Si 2.1

These take into account all relevant aspects of each form of generation
from cradle to grave, including capacity factors.

However, while this is considered to be the major study and is broadly
in agreement with many others, you can find different values if you
search for them. Proponents of renewable energy generally quote the
figures from a 2002 study by Gagnon et al, which is widely divergent
from most other studies. This gives the following EROIs:

Hydroelectric 205
Wind 80

Gagnon does not give figures for nuclear, but you can find studies that
put its EROI as low as 1.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 04-Feb-17 8:12 AM, harry wrote:
....
The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

As you have been told many times before, this is a lie. The ways to
dispose of nuclear waste are well know, as are the costs. Storing the
waste is not only a solution, it is also the cheapest solution.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 04/02/2017 09:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Friday, 3 February 2017 20:15:22 UTC, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Thanks

--
AnthonyL

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with
the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.

Yes they are.

It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

So?


Its not a lie to harry as he is so scared that there is no way to treat
nuclear waste. Shame really as he has been living with radioactivity for
all his life and it hasn't killed him. However there is always hope.

On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:21:44 +0000, newshound wrote:

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is
one of the reasons you should have more confidence in this
industry than almost any other: you can't hide a leak.

Unfortunately that doesn't help you to fix it, eg Fukushima

On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!

On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 11:01:41 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 04-Feb-17 8:12 AM, harry wrote:
...
The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste. This is unquantified (though
huge) because they don't know how to do it. If they did, they'd
be doing it but they aren't. It is just in temporary storage at
the moment.

As you have been told many times before, this is a lie.

What, it's not in temporary storage? Where's this long-term waste
repository that is being used 'at the moment' then?

On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:54:04 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 03-Feb-17 8:15 PM, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere

I don't know how the southern hemisphere features in this, the world's
largest uranium processing plant is in Canada, but the basic argument is
that processing uranium into nuclear fuel requires a lot of energy, most
of which currently comes from fossil fuel plants. However, a life cycle
analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions for various forms of
electricity generation shows that for nuclear power is only slightly
above that for hydroelectric and wind power and less than that for
biomass an solar PV:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploade..._lifecycle.pdf

and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

It is not so much the energy required to build a nuclear power station
as the energy consumed in other aspects of generation; mining and
producing the fuel, running the plant, storing the waste and
decommissioning. These can be 6-8 times as much as the energy needed to
build the plant.

The appropriate measure to compare this aspect of different power
generation methods is energy return on investment. The major study on
this is a 2013 paper by D Weissbach et al entitled 'Energy intensities,
EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of
electricity generating power plants'. It is not available online without
payment, but it gives the following figures for EROIs (the higher the
better):

Nuclear with centrifuge enrichment of fuel 75
Hydroelectric 50
Brown coal opencast 31
Coal deep mine 29
Natural gas 28
Wind 16
Solar thermal parabolic 9.6
Solar PV polycrystalline Si 3.8
Solar PV amorphous Si 2.1

These take into account all relevant aspects of each form of generation
from cradle to grave, including capacity factors.

However, while this is considered to be the major study and is broadly
in agreement with many others, you can find different values if you
search for them. Proponents of renewable energy generally quote the
figures from a 2002 study by Gagnon et al, which is widely divergent
from most other studies. This gives the following EROIs:

Hydroelectric 205
Wind 80

Gagnon does not give figures for nuclear, but you can find studies that
put its EROI as low as 1.


Some good pointers here and others (Harry excepted of course). I'll
follow some of the references up. My adversary misled me by saying
that uranium was obtained from 3rd world southern hemisphere countries
(implying on the cheap), omitting Canada, Kazakhstan.

Idle question ~ how would today's radioactive waste radiation levels
in 2000 years compare to today's radiation levels in Cornwall?
Approx.

--
AnthonyL

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 03/02/17 22:25, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 20:15:20 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:


I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Try htps://www.withouthotair.com/about.html

The definitive book on the subject and not a drop of greenwash.

Good on energy density but doesn't account for the capital costs

These are roughly - or should be - around £3m /MW with a 15%
decommissioning surcharge.

O&M is probably around 7% per annum on that, and lifetime is 50 years.

You can find info about our Nucs here (yes TNP I know you know, it's for
everybody else)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...United_Kingdom

I didn't click on them all but of all the ones I did click on, none were in
operation for more than 40 years

that 20% difference has to be critical when amortizing such mega capital
costs

tim

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 3 February 2017 20:15:22 UTC, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Thanks

--
AnthonyL

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing
with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.

we do know the costs of doing it

what we don't know is the cost of the necessary bribe to people to let us do
it in their back yard

tim

On 04-Feb-17 12:38 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:21:44 +0000, newshound wrote:

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is
one of the reasons you should have more confidence in this
industry than almost any other: you can't hide a leak.

Unfortunately that doesn't help you to fix it, eg Fukushima

The leak caused no deaths and no major exposures to radiation.
761 people died as a direct result of the evacuation.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 04-Feb-17 12:46 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 11:01:41 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 04-Feb-17 8:12 AM, harry wrote:
...
The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste. This is unquantified (though
huge) because they don't know how to do it. If they did, they'd
be doing it but they aren't. It is just in temporary storage at
the moment.

As you have been told many times before, this is a lie.

What, it's not in temporary storage? Where's this long-term waste
repository that is being used 'at the moment' then?


I explained what is a lie in the part you snipped.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 04-Feb-17 12:55 PM, AnthonyL wrote:
....
Some good pointers here and others (Harry excepted of course). I'll
follow some of the references up. My adversary misled me by saying
that uranium was obtained from 3rd world southern hemisphere countries
(implying on the cheap), omitting Canada, Kazakhstan.

Greenies often rely upon obsolete information to make their points. The
main concern about the older third world mines these days is preventing
them from polluting their local environments as a result of a cavalier
attitude to waste management when they were active.

Idle question ~ how would today's radioactive waste radiation levels
in 2000 years compare to today's radiation levels in Cornwall?
Approx.

97% of all radioactive waste is low level and intermediate level waste.
That decays back to background levels in periods that can be measured in
tens of years. The time for high level waste, such as fuel rods, to
decay varies. It can reach the same levels as naturally occurring
uranium deposits in anything from 1,000 to 10,000 years.

As an aside, we know, from nature, how high level radioactive waste
behaves when put into deep geological storage. About 2 billion years
ago, there was a natural nuclear fission reaction deep under what is now
Gabon. The radioactive by-products of this reaction, which, unlike man
produced high level waste, were not encapsulated in any way, have, in
all that time, managed to migrate about 10 metres into the surrounding
rocks.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 04-Feb-17 12:42 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!


A major problem with storing high level waste is the amount of heat it
generates. Sitting it in water for a few decades is the best way to cool
it down to safe heat levels before it can be encapsulated. Water is also
an excellent and very cheap radiation shield. However, that doesn't mean
that it isn't a little unnerving to look into a pool and see a radiation
source glowing down there.

--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 04-Feb-17 12:38 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:21:44 +0000, newshound wrote:

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is
one of the reasons you should have more confidence in this
industry than almost any other: you can't hide a leak.

Unfortunately that doesn't help you to fix it, eg Fukushima

The leak caused no deaths and no major exposures to radiation.
761 people died as a direct result of the evacuation.

I think you mean indirect result

tim

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 18:03:38 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 04-Feb-17 12:38 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:21:44 +0000, newshound wrote:

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is
one of the reasons you should have more confidence in this
industry than almost any other: you can't hide a leak.

Unfortunately that doesn't help you to fix it, eg Fukushima

The leak caused no deaths and no major exposures to radiation.
761 people died as a direct result of the evacuation.

I think you mean indirect result

tim


No, he said it correctly. The deaths were an indirect result of the
Fukushima accident, but a direct result of the evacuation.

the examples I found were people who died due to " The psychological trauma
of evacuation"

that sounds to my like an indirect result of the evacuation

a direct result of the evacuation would be being crushed in the rush

tim



--

Chris

On 04-Feb-17 6:03 PM, tim... wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 04-Feb-17 12:38 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:21:44 +0000, newshound wrote:

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is
one of the reasons you should have more confidence in this
industry than almost any other: you can't hide a leak.

Unfortunately that doesn't help you to fix it, eg Fukushima

The leak caused no deaths and no major exposures to radiation.
761 people died as a direct result of the evacuation.

I think you mean indirect result

These are deaths that can be directly related to the evacuation itself
and that occurred within three months of the disaster. Later evacuation
related deaths bring the total to 1,656, as compared to the 1,607 people
killed in the Fukushima prefecture by the earthquake and tsunami.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 04/02/17 12:55, AnthonyL wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:54:04 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 03-Feb-17 8:15 PM, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere

I don't know how the southern hemisphere features in this, the world's
largest uranium processing plant is in Canada, but the basic argument is
that processing uranium into nuclear fuel requires a lot of energy, most
of which currently comes from fossil fuel plants. However, a life cycle
analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions for various forms of
electricity generation shows that for nuclear power is only slightly
above that for hydroelectric and wind power and less than that for
biomass an solar PV:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploade..._lifecycle.pdf

and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

It is not so much the energy required to build a nuclear power station
as the energy consumed in other aspects of generation; mining and
producing the fuel, running the plant, storing the waste and
decommissioning. These can be 6-8 times as much as the energy needed to
build the plant.

The appropriate measure to compare this aspect of different power
generation methods is energy return on investment. The major study on
this is a 2013 paper by D Weissbach et al entitled 'Energy intensities,
EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of
electricity generating power plants'. It is not available online without
payment, but it gives the following figures for EROIs (the higher the
better):

Nuclear with centrifuge enrichment of fuel 75
Hydroelectric 50
Brown coal opencast 31
Coal deep mine 29
Natural gas 28
Wind 16
Solar thermal parabolic 9.6
Solar PV polycrystalline Si 3.8
Solar PV amorphous Si 2.1

These take into account all relevant aspects of each form of generation
from cradle to grave, including capacity factors.

However, while this is considered to be the major study and is broadly
in agreement with many others, you can find different values if you
search for them. Proponents of renewable energy generally quote the
figures from a 2002 study by Gagnon et al, which is widely divergent
from most other studies. This gives the following EROIs:

Hydroelectric 205
Wind 80

Gagnon does not give figures for nuclear, but you can find studies that
put its EROI as low as 1.


Some good pointers here and others (Harry excepted of course). I'll
follow some of the references up. My adversary misled me by saying
that uranium was obtained from 3rd world southern hemisphere countries
(implying on the cheap), omitting Canada, Kazakhstan.

Idle question ~ how would today's radioactive waste radiation levels
in 2000 years compare to today's radiation levels in Cornwall?
Approx.

depends in how thin you spread it.

Dumbed in the ocean no one would notice


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 04/02/17 12:38, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:21:44 +0000, newshound wrote:

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is
one of the reasons you should have more confidence in this
industry than almost any other: you can't hide a leak.

Unfortunately that doesn't help you to fix it, eg Fukushima

Fukushima doesnt need fixing.


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 04/02/17 12:42, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

But accurate.


This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!


Doesnt have to be in te UK.

The problems are ALL political.

Nuclear power is cheap and abundant and knocks the spots of renewables.
But politics says otherwise.



--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 04/02/17 12:46, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 11:01:41 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 04-Feb-17 8:12 AM, harry wrote:
...
The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste. This is unquantified (though
huge) because they don't know how to do it. If they did, they'd
be doing it but they aren't. It is just in temporary storage at
the moment.

As you have been told many times before, this is a lie.

What, it's not in temporary storage? Where's this long-term waste
repository that is being used 'at the moment' then?

Its called 'planet earth'


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 04/02/17 15:23, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 03/02/17 22:25, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 20:15:20 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:


I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Try htps://www.withouthotair.com/about.html

The definitive book on the subject and not a drop of greenwash.

Good on energy density but doesn't account for the capital costs

These are roughly - or should be - around £3m /MW with a 15%
decommissioning surcharge.

O&M is probably around 7% per annum on that, and lifetime is 50 years.

You can find info about our Nucs here (yes TNP I know you know, it's for
everybody else)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...United_Kingdom

I didn't click on them all but of all the ones I did click on, none were
in operation for more than 40 years

that 20% difference has to be critical when amortizing such mega capital
costs


Fairly sure some AGRs are over 40 yrs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster...rating_Station

is set to do 50 years

New nuclear shouldl do even more, now teh ageing proicesses are well
understood

tim





--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 04/02/2017 19:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/02/17 12:42, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

But accurate.


This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!


Doesnt have to be in te UK.

The problems are ALL political.

I agree, where the cost of decommissioning will be paid for by our
children and our children's children does tend to attract politicians'
concerns.

On 04/02/17 21:00, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 17:41:53 +0000, Nightjar wrote:


As an aside, we know, from nature, how high level radioactive waste
behaves when put into deep geological storage. About 2 billion years
ago, there was a natural nuclear fission reaction deep under what is now
Gabon. The radioactive by-products of this reaction, which, unlike man
produced high level waste, were not encapsulated in any way, have, in
all that time, managed to migrate about 10 metres into the surrounding
rocks.

I've quoted that fact myself on occasion, but in truth it would be
unwise to apply the circumstances of Oklo to every deep nuclear waste
depository. How far the elements in the radioactive waste would
migrate if they leached out of their immediate encapsulation, would
depend very much on the geology and hydrology local to that
depository.

Indeed. You should read professor Cohen late of IITC columbia
university, who spent a lot of time calculating such issues.

Short answer. a fraction of a person dead in the next ten thousand
years, if you believe the LNT model.

But then those that believed the LMT model predicted upwards of 200,000
fatal cancer cases from chernobyl.

That were never detected. My 'green' sister claims that 'the government
covered them up'

I asked her if that was the same government that was responsible for the
massive use of the LNT theory to develop nuclear regulations.

And the one she so rabidly supports to keep the EU propped up (she lives
in Germany)

Doublethink is strong in this one.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

En el artículo , tim...
escribió:

the examples I found were people who died due to " The psychological trauma
of evacuation"

that sounds to my like an indirect result of the evacuation

a direct result of the evacuation would be being crushed in the rush

I seem to have accidentally wandered into uk.d-i-y.splitting-hairs.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On Saturday, 4 February 2017 17:16:14 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 12:38 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:21:44 +0000, newshound wrote:

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is
one of the reasons you should have more confidence in this
industry than almost any other: you can't hide a leak.

Unfortunately that doesn't help you to fix it, eg Fukushima

The leak caused no deaths and no major exposures to radiation.
761 people died as a direct result of the evacuation.

If they hadn't been evacuated, they'd be dead.

On Saturday, 4 February 2017 11:01:48 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 8:12 AM, harry wrote:
...
The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it..
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

As you have been told many times before, this is a lie. The ways to
dispose of nuclear waste are well know, as are the costs. Storing the
waste is not only a solution, it is also the cheapest solution.


It's only in temporary storage.
They have no clue what to do with it now.
It's called kicking the problem into the long grass.
Take your pick.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?...+nuclear+waste


£70 billion? £100 billion?
Nobody knows.
But the estimates only get bigger.
Only the brain dead fail to see this.

On Saturday, 4 February 2017 12:42:28 UTC, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!

Exactly so.
But the brain dead here can't see this.

On 05-Feb-17 8:49 AM, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 17:16:14 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 12:38 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:21:44 +0000, newshound wrote:

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is
one of the reasons you should have more confidence in this
industry than almost any other: you can't hide a leak.

Unfortunately that doesn't help you to fix it, eg Fukushima

The leak caused no deaths and no major exposures to radiation.
761 people died as a direct result of the evacuation.

If they hadn't been evacuated, they'd be dead.


Only of old age. Nobody got a life-threatening dose of radiation. Only
10 members of the public got a dose that exceeded 10mSv - about what you
get in four years just from living in the UK. There is no evidence of
any harm from any dose under 100mSv.

--
--

Colin Bignell

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message ...

En el artículo , tim...
escribió:

the examples I found were people who died due to " The psychological
trauma
of evacuation"

that sounds to my like an indirect result of the evacuation

a direct result of the evacuation would be being crushed in the rush

I seem to have accidentally wandered into uk.d-i-y.splitting-hairs.

Yep. It's where the *real* action takes place. The splitting of hairs done
here is the envy of microtome operators everywhere.

On 05/02/17 09:00, Nightjar wrote:
On 05-Feb-17 8:49 AM, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 17:16:14 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 12:38 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:21:44 +0000, newshound wrote:

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is
one of the reasons you should have more confidence in this
industry than almost any other: you can't hide a leak.

Unfortunately that doesn't help you to fix it, eg Fukushima

The leak caused no deaths and no major exposures to radiation.
761 people died as a direct result of the evacuation.

If they hadn't been evacuated, they'd be dead.


Only of old age. Nobody got a life-threatening dose of radiation. Only
10 members of the public got a dose that exceeded 10mSv - about what you
get in four years just from living in the UK. There is no evidence of
any harm from any dose under 100mSv.


its more complicated than that: what causes cancers are single high
exposure doses. Like digital signals low level radiation doesn't corrupt
DNA because DNA has its own 'parity check'

I get around a 7mSv dose - FAR more dangerous than 10mSv spread over a
year - with a chest CT scan, which I have ha several of, post cancer
treatment.


You don't want to know how much of a dose is in the average prostate
cancer treatment. Suffice to say it doesn't *cause* cancer, it kills
everything.

If applied to the whole body it would kill the patient completely.

In short the public is totally schizophrenic about radiation. It
tolerates huge medical doses and significant natural radiation but
throws a wobbly over minor releases from a nuclear power station.

The most dangerous nuclear reactor radiation you will ever be exposed to
is sunlight.

A severe case of sunburn is a huge risk increase for malignant skin
cancers a decade or two down the line. Skin cancer kills 3000 a year in
the UK. About the same as road accidents.



--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 17:16:14 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 12:38 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:21:44 +0000, newshound wrote:

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is
one of the reasons you should have more confidence in this
industry than almost any other: you can't hide a leak.

Unfortunately that doesn't help you to fix it, eg Fukushima

The leak caused no deaths and no major exposures to radiation.
761 people died as a direct result of the evacuation.

If they hadn't been evacuated, they'd be dead.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

No one in the reactor complex itself ended up dead.

On 04-Feb-17 9:00 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 17:41:53 +0000, Nightjar wrote:


As an aside, we know, from nature, how high level radioactive waste
behaves when put into deep geological storage. About 2 billion years
ago, there was a natural nuclear fission reaction deep under what is now
Gabon. The radioactive by-products of this reaction, which, unlike man
produced high level waste, were not encapsulated in any way, have, in
all that time, managed to migrate about 10 metres into the surrounding
rocks.

I've quoted that fact myself on occasion, but in truth it would be
unwise to apply the circumstances of Oklo to every deep nuclear waste
depository. How far the elements in the radioactive waste would
migrate if they leached out of their immediate encapsulation, would
depend very much on the geology and hydrology local to that
depository.

I was under the impression that it was an area that we would consider to
be unsuitable for deep geological storage.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 05/02/17 09:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 9:00 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 17:41:53 +0000, Nightjar wrote:


As an aside, we know, from nature, how high level radioactive waste
behaves when put into deep geological storage. About 2 billion years
ago, there was a natural nuclear fission reaction deep under what is now
Gabon. The radioactive by-products of this reaction, which, unlike man
produced high level waste, were not encapsulated in any way, have, in
all that time, managed to migrate about 10 metres into the surrounding
rocks.

I've quoted that fact myself on occasion, but in truth it would be
unwise to apply the circumstances of Oklo to every deep nuclear waste
depository. How far the elements in the radioactive waste would
migrate if they leached out of their immediate encapsulation, would
depend very much on the geology and hydrology local to that
depository.

I was under the impression that it was an area that we would consider to
be unsuitable for deep geological storage.

If you read the guardian, you will be given the impression that
everywhere is unsuitable for deep geological storage.


--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 05/02/2017 08:55, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 11:01:48 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 8:12 AM, harry wrote:
...
The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

As you have been told many times before, this is a lie. The ways to
dispose of nuclear waste are well know, as are the costs. Storing the
waste is not only a solution, it is also the cheapest solution.


It's only in temporary storage.
They have no clue what to do with it now.
It's called kicking the problem into the long grass.
Take your pick.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?...+nuclear+waste


£70 billion? £100 billion?
Nobody knows.
But the estimates only get bigger.
Only the brain dead fail to see this.


Yet again harry ignores that he has been told that most of the waste he
is talking about is from bomb making where they didn't really worry
about costs or doing anything for a few halflives.

Nuclear power doesn't cost anything like as much as decommissioning was
considered.