On 13/02/2021 23:00, newshound wrote:
On 13/02/2021 22:28, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/02/2021 21:36, newshound wrote:
On 13/02/2021 12:24, Fredxx wrote:

Before saying any more I suggest you look at many District Heating
sytems that combine electricity generating and providing useful
residual energy for local heating.

One example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau...rict _heating



In central Europe. There's only one I can think of in the UK. Why do you
think that might be?

It was always said to be because power stations tend to be located away
from populations, where the power is exported south.

On 13/02/2021 21:36, newshound wrote:
On 13/02/2021 12:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/02/2021 10:43, newshound wrote:

Sorry, just can't see it. Not sure I can even see a large scale solar
still with photovoltaic pumps working for coastal deserts. Otherwise
someone would be doing it.

You need a source of salt water, not normal in a desert.

Which is why I said coastal. Although of course brackish water is
available in many deserts, you just have to dig deep enough and then
pump it up.



Your low grade heat from a power station operated in the usual way
isn't going to evaporate water quickly. Then you need massive
condensers to collect it, pumping seawater through them to keep them
cool with the associated pumping and pipe friction losses.

Low grade heat could be 100+C, enough to boil water.

The waste heat from a power station is at about 20 deg C. Because all
the practicable energy has been removed from it.

well the exit from the final steam turbine is at 60C give or take.

after that its all lost heat even if the condenser outflow is at 20.



And you don't need to boil the water, merely to evaporate it. This is
easier if you create some vacuum (although that requires energy). But
you still need to provide some latent heat to get it into the vapour
phase (to separate the salt) and then remove it again.


Given you can heat incoming water by the condensate much of the energy
can be reclaimed. That would make condensers more manageable and a
power station would normally need a condenser of some size.

FFS reclaiming this energy is just not useful. The point is that to keep
the process going you have to remove the latent heat from the vapour
continuously, and them MOVE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. This requires capital
hardware and some energy.


In a combined electricity/desalination plant it *might* make sense to
take bled steam from the HP turbine outlet to do the evaporating,
this still has a decent energy density so your plant volume (and
hence capital cost) is lower for a given throughput.

You only need a little higher than 100C to boil water. HP steam can be
up to 600C, and there are many stages to a generating turbine to bleed
steam off, I might suggest nearer the low pressure exhaust side.

Trust me, engineers who design such systems do the sums properly. In
most cases where process steam is taken out of a power station a smaller
"volume" at higher temperature is usually removed, because this provides
more flexibility and lower cost.

Greenhouses are a bit different because all they usually need is
condenser outlet temperature.


Of course if you want a higher temperature exhaust it means the
turbine could be a few stages shorter and correspondingly cheaper.

I suspect that reverse osmosis would still make better commercial sense.

Of course it does. That is exactly my point, this is the way that
everyone does it. Not by faffing around with thermal cycles.


Really it all depends on the cost. It may be that if you have pretty
much 'free' heat that distillation trumps osmosis

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 13/02/2021 23:00, newshound wrote:
On 13/02/2021 22:28, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/02/2021 21:36, newshound wrote:
On 13/02/2021 12:24, Fredxx wrote:

Before saying any more I suggest you look at many District Heating
sytems that combine electricity generating and providing useful
residual energy for local heating.

One example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau...rict _heating



In central Europe. There's only one I can think of in the UK. Why do you
think that might be?
greens don't like power stations in towns.

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 03:22:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/02/2021 21:36, newshound wrote:
On 13/02/2021 12:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/02/2021 10:43, newshound wrote:

Sorry, just can't see it. Not sure I can even see a large scale solar
still with photovoltaic pumps working for coastal deserts. Otherwise
someone would be doing it.

You need a source of salt water, not normal in a desert.

Which is why I said coastal. Although of course brackish water is
available in many deserts, you just have to dig deep enough and then
pump it up.



Your low grade heat from a power station operated in the usual way
isn't going to evaporate water quickly. Then you need massive
condensers to collect it, pumping seawater through them to keep them
cool with the associated pumping and pipe friction losses.

Low grade heat could be 100+C, enough to boil water.

The waste heat from a power station is at about 20 deg C. Because all
the practicable energy has been removed from it.

well the exit from the final steam turbine is at 60C give or take.

after that its all lost heat even if the condenser outflow is at 20.



And you don't need to boil the water, merely to evaporate it. This is
easier if you create some vacuum (although that requires energy). But
you still need to provide some latent heat to get it into the vapour
phase (to separate the salt) and then remove it again.


Given you can heat incoming water by the condensate much of the energy
can be reclaimed. That would make condensers more manageable and a
power station would normally need a condenser of some size.

FFS reclaiming this energy is just not useful. The point is that to
keep the process going you have to remove the latent heat from the
vapour continuously, and them MOVE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. This requires
capital hardware and some energy.


In a combined electricity/desalination plant it *might* make sense to
take bled steam from the HP turbine outlet to do the evaporating,
this still has a decent energy density so your plant volume (and
hence capital cost) is lower for a given throughput.

You only need a little higher than 100C to boil water. HP steam can be
up to 600C, and there are many stages to a generating turbine to bleed
steam off, I might suggest nearer the low pressure exhaust side.

Trust me, engineers who design such systems do the sums properly. In
most cases where process steam is taken out of a power station a
smaller "volume" at higher temperature is usually removed, because this
provides more flexibility and lower cost.

Greenhouses are a bit different because all they usually need is
condenser outlet temperature.


Of course if you want a higher temperature exhaust it means the
turbine could be a few stages shorter and correspondingly cheaper.

I suspect that reverse osmosis would still make better commercial
sense.

Of course it does. That is exactly my point, this is the way that
everyone does it. Not by faffing around with thermal cycles.


Really it all depends on the cost. It may be that if you have pretty
much 'free' heat that distillation trumps osmosis

Is that with an entry temperature of 600C ?

On 14/02/2021 05:36, jon wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 03:22:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/02/2021 21:36, newshound wrote:
On 13/02/2021 12:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/02/2021 10:43, newshound wrote:

Sorry, just can't see it. Not sure I can even see a large scale solar
still with photovoltaic pumps working for coastal deserts. Otherwise
someone would be doing it.

You need a source of salt water, not normal in a desert.

Which is why I said coastal. Although of course brackish water is
available in many deserts, you just have to dig deep enough and then
pump it up.



Your low grade heat from a power station operated in the usual way
isn't going to evaporate water quickly. Then you need massive
condensers to collect it, pumping seawater through them to keep them
cool with the associated pumping and pipe friction losses.

Low grade heat could be 100+C, enough to boil water.

The waste heat from a power station is at about 20 deg C. Because all
the practicable energy has been removed from it.

well the exit from the final steam turbine is at 60C give or take.

after that its all lost heat even if the condenser outflow is at 20.



And you don't need to boil the water, merely to evaporate it. This is
easier if you create some vacuum (although that requires energy). But
you still need to provide some latent heat to get it into the vapour
phase (to separate the salt) and then remove it again.


Given you can heat incoming water by the condensate much of the energy
can be reclaimed. That would make condensers more manageable and a
power station would normally need a condenser of some size.

FFS reclaiming this energy is just not useful. The point is that to
keep the process going you have to remove the latent heat from the
vapour continuously, and them MOVE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. This requires
capital hardware and some energy.


In a combined electricity/desalination plant it *might* make sense to
take bled steam from the HP turbine outlet to do the evaporating,
this still has a decent energy density so your plant volume (and
hence capital cost) is lower for a given throughput.

You only need a little higher than 100C to boil water. HP steam can be
up to 600C, and there are many stages to a generating turbine to bleed
steam off, I might suggest nearer the low pressure exhaust side.

Trust me, engineers who design such systems do the sums properly. In
most cases where process steam is taken out of a power station a
smaller "volume" at higher temperature is usually removed, because this
provides more flexibility and lower cost.

Greenhouses are a bit different because all they usually need is
condenser outlet temperature.


Of course if you want a higher temperature exhaust it means the
turbine could be a few stages shorter and correspondingly cheaper.

I suspect that reverse osmosis would still make better commercial
sense.

Of course it does. That is exactly my point, this is the way that
everyone does it. Not by faffing around with thermal cycles.


Really it all depends on the cost. It may be that if you have pretty
much 'free' heat that distillation trumps osmosis

Is that with an entry temperature of 600C ?

no. That's where you get your power from. Most multistage turbines exit
IIRC about 50°C.

They could as easily exit at 100°C with a significant loss in efficiency
of you wanted more heat for desalination.

But I am too rusty to do the sums. Its all about capital cost versus
loss of income from electrical power.



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

Adolf Hitler

On 13/02/2021 23:26, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/02/2021 23:00, newshound wrote:
On 13/02/2021 22:28, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/02/2021 21:36, newshound wrote:
On 13/02/2021 12:24, Fredxx wrote:

Before saying any more I suggest you look at many District Heating
sytems that combine electricity generating and providing useful
residual energy for local heating.

One example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau...rict _heating



In central Europe. There's only one I can think of in the UK. Why do
you think that might be?

It was always said to be because power stations tend to be located away
from populations, where the power is exported south.

It's because winters are harder in continental areas. Heating is needed
for half the year, which shifts the economics. A lot of people keep a
separate set of winter tyres for the same reason.

On 14/02/2021 12:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/02/2021 05:36, jon wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 03:22:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/02/2021 21:36, newshound wrote:
On 13/02/2021 12:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/02/2021 10:43, newshound wrote:

Sorry, just can't see it. Not sure I can even see a large scale solar
still with photovoltaic pumps working for coastal deserts. Otherwise
someone would be doing it.

You need a source of salt water, not normal in a desert.

Which is why I said coastal. Although of course brackish water is
available in many deserts, you just have to dig deep enough and then
pump it up.



Your low grade heat from a power station operated in the usual way
isn't going to evaporate water quickly. Then you need massive
condensers to collect it, pumping seawater through them to keep them
cool with the associated pumping and pipe friction losses.

Low grade heat could be 100+C, enough to boil water.

The waste heat from a power station is at about 20 deg C. Because all
the practicable energy has been removed from it.

well the exit from the final steam turbine is at 60C give or take.

after that its all lost heat even if the condenser outflow is at 20.



And you don't need to boil the water, merely to evaporate it. This is
easier if you create some vacuum (although that requires energy). But
you still need to provide some latent heat to get it into the vapour
phase (to separate the salt) and then remove it again.


Given you can heat incoming water by the condensate much of the energy
can be reclaimed. That would make condensers more manageable and a
power station would normally need a condenser of some size.

FFS reclaiming this energy is just not useful. The point is that to
keep the process going you have to remove the latent heat from the
vapour continuously, and them MOVE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. This requires
capital hardware and some energy.


In a combined electricity/desalination plant it *might* make sense to
take bled steam from the HP turbine outlet to do the evaporating,
this still has a decent energy density so your plant volume (and
hence capital cost) is lower for a given throughput.

You only need a little higher than 100C to boil water. HP steam can be
up to 600C, and there are many stages to a generating turbine to bleed
steam off, I might suggest nearer the low pressure exhaust side.

Trust me, engineers who design such systems do the sums properly. In
most cases where process steam is taken out of a power station a
smaller "volume" at higher temperature is usually removed, because this
provides more flexibility and lower cost.

Greenhouses are a bit different because all they usually need is
condenser outlet temperature.


Of course if you want a higher temperature exhaust it means the
turbine could be a few stages shorter and correspondingly cheaper.

I suspect that reverse osmosis would still make better commercial
sense.

Of course it does. That is exactly my point, this is the way that
everyone does it. Not by faffing around with thermal cycles.


Really it all depends on the cost. It may be that if you have pretty
much 'free' heat that distillation trumps osmosis

Is that with an entry temperature of 600C ?

no. That's where you get your power from. Most multistage turbines exit
IIRC about 50°C.

They could as easily exit at 100°C with a significant loss in efficiency
of you wanted more heat for desalination.

But I am too rusty to do the sums. Its all about capital cost versus
loss of income from electrical power.



Also, condensing the vapour is just as necessary as evaporating it. That
has a capital cost too.

In article , Spike
writes
On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/2021 14:16, Tim Streater wrote:
On 12 Feb 2021 at 10:56:20 GMT, T r o l l wrote:
GB wrote:

snip

I was taken with his choice of words: "we believe that nuclear power can
really mushroom".

And I wonder how many would want one ITBY, even compared with a solar
farm, wind turbine(s) or a biofuel / gas powered station?

Absolutely. We've got ugly as **** windmills and solar farms and a
nuclear power station all within 50 miles and the only one I'd live near
is Sizewell B.

Of course you would.

As would many others.

Quiet, invisible except from the beach, and safer than
living near a wind turbine

Safer than living as near a nuke?

Given the number killed or injured it's very likely.

Solar farm - doesn't work much in winter, or at night all year round.

But could with additional storage and doesn't melt down and pollute
the surrounding environment for thousands of years:

What additional storage? More batteries consuming the rare element
Lithium? Or did you have some other storagein mind?

Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't produce
much and often
none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the surrounding
environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes near
oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Others - no gas to this village.

Ah, an ideal place to put a nuke then, especially for everyone else.

Clean energy, why not. Certainly less CO2 than all your 'green' energy
and far more reliable. No need to wait for the sun to rise and the wind
to blow.

T i m is so good at assessing risks, he rode a motorcycle and went
fanatical-vegan.

According to Tim, Tim is good at everything he touches, which is just
about everything.
--
bert

On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:50:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't produce much
and often
none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the surrounding
environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes near
oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Even then if you check the stats the death toll from radiation from
Fukushima was...

One.

Yes, a single person. And he's only a probable.

Quite a lot of people died running away from it though.

Andy

On 15/02/2021 21:47, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:50:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't produce
much and often
none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the surrounding
environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes near
oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Even then if you check the stats the death toll from radiation from
Fukushima was...

One.

Yes, a single person. And he's only a probable.

he isn't even a probable. It was cheaper to pay up than fight the case.


Quite a lot of people died running away from it though.

Andy


--
€œThe fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

On 15/02/2021 12:19, bert wrote:
In article , Spike
writes
On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
Â*The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/2021 14:16, Tim Streater wrote:
On 12 Feb 2021 at 10:56:20 GMT, T r o l lÂ* wrote:
GB wrote:

snip

I was taken with his choice of words: "we believe that nuclear
power can
really mushroom".

And I wonder how many would want one ITBY, even compared with a
solar
farm, wind turbine(s)Â* or a biofuel / gas powered station?

Absolutely. We've got ugly as **** windmills and solar farms and a
nuclear power station all within 50 miles and the only one I'd live
near
is Sizewell B.

Of course you would.

As would many others.

Quiet, invisible except from the beach, and safer than
living near a wind turbine

Safer than living as near a nuke?

Given the number killed or injured it's very likely.

Solar farm - doesn't work much in winter, or at night all year round.

But could with additional storage and doesn't melt down and pollute
the surrounding environment for thousands of years:

What additional storage? More batteries consuming the rare element
Lithium? Or did you have some other storagein mind?

Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't produce
much and often
none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the surrounding
environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes near
oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Others - no gas to this village.

Ah, an ideal place to put a nuke then, especially for everyone else.

Clean energy, why not. Certainly less CO2 than all your 'green' energy
and far more reliable. No need to wait for the sun to rise and the wind
to blow.

T i m is so good at assessing risks, he rode a motorcycle and went
fanatical-vegan.

According to Tim, Tim is good at everything he touches, which is just
about everything.

If animal secretions aren't allowed in T i m's household, I guess the
Mrs swallowing is out of the question?

On 15/02/2021 21:47, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:50:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't produce
much and often
none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the surrounding
environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes near
oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Even then if you check the stats the death toll from radiation from
Fukushima was...

One.

Yes, a single person. And he's only a probable.

Quite a lot of people died running away from it though.

Andy

Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

On 16 Feb 2021 19:31:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 at 12:25:38 GMT, Andrew
wrote:

On 15/02/2021 21:47, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:50:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't produce
much and often
none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the surrounding
environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes near
oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Even then if you check the stats the death toll from radiation from
Fukushima was...

One.

Yes, a single person. And he's only a probable.

Quite a lot of people died running away from it though.

Andy

Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

What has this to do with anything?

Oh dear ... these left brainers ... ;-(

Considering the bigger picture, it's not just the deaths / directly
related to an incident that need to be considered, it's all the
negative (and often unrecorded) events that come out of it.

So a plant blows up and a local shop that used to supply food to the
workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his
accommodation and eventually dies whilst homeless.

Cheers, T i m

On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the tests,
compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)

I can't find any. My guess is that it's far higher.

There's also a suspicion that there are other causes for childhood
leukaemia. Dioxins, for example...

Andy

On 16/02/2021 21:27, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the tests,
compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)

I can't find any. My guess is that it's far higher.

There's also a suspicion that there are other causes for childhood
leukaemia. Dioxins, for example...

Andy

There's quite a lot of data out there if you look for it, e.g.

https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testin...clear-testing/

I have seen comparisons with Chernobyl but can't for the moment remember
the numbers. I think you are right, though.

In my research days in the 1970's our library had a lot of books
containing what I believe to be reasonably authoritative data, including
the contours of fallout dose rates from ground and air burst weapons of
various sizes, under different weather conditions.

I don't recall the exact fallout figures for weapons testing, but my
recollection is that they were heading towards having a readily
detectable effect on cancer rates. It has always been my suspicion that
scientists on both sides of the iron curtain were lobbying their leaders
and maybe even threatening to blow whistles. The 1963 atmospheric test
ban treaty was signed off remarkably quickly after years of abortive
discussions.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/abo...est-ban-treaty

On 16/02/2021 19:31, Tim Streater wrote:
On 16 Feb 2021 at 12:25:38 GMT, Andrew
wrote:

Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.


This of course is another urban myth. Like the spike in cancer post
windscale that was widely publicised as a prediction but *never actually
happened*

I wont accept this statement without evidence not of models and
predictions but of actual cases.


What has this to do with anything?


Well nothing to do with nuclear power of course. All that high activity
stuff is contained in the reactor or in water tanks until its fizzled out


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 16/02/2021 21:27, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the tests,
compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)

He wont have data, but it is available.

world levels of IIRC strontium and caesium radioisotopes definitely rose
detectably

The LNT models then predicted dire stuff. But in fact nothing happened

I think it was in fact quite a lot less globally than Chernobyl was
locally. Again, nothing much happened post Chernobyl immediate effects
from Iodine 131 - the raised caesium and strontium levels don't seem to
have been enough to cause anything much

If 3000 people in Nevada had contracted thyroid cancer, as they did in
Pripyat, I think people would have noticed


I can't find any. My guess is that it's far higher.

I think it was in fact far lower

A typical reactor is reacting 50 tonnes of uranium

In the UK we can get some estimates - a refuel of a 600MW reactor is
about once a year - let's say for the purposes of an order-of-magnitude
calculation.

600MW for 8000 hours at a thermal efficiency of around 40% means that
around 600 × 8000 x 2.5 = 12 TWh per reactor load of raw energy is
produced.

Or about 10 megatons of TNT worth.

That is a ****ing big bomb! An a bomb that size would be an H bomb
usually.


Many of the tests were of very small devices - smaller than Hiroshima.
Tactical nukes to take out an Russian tank regiment at 5 kilotons were
tested.

City busters at the megaton range were generally the upper limit. And
those were H bombs ~500kt is the largest pure fission bomb produced

So in fact whilst the effects of nuclear weapons were detectable, they
were never very great. Nuclear winter was just another project fear as
was global radiation death

Nuclear war would have been eminently survivable, but it would have
smashed so much infrastructure it would not have been to any fat cats
advantage. So the myths of nuclear Armageddon were the cold wars
convenient lie, as climate change is today.

The fact of a fission reactor is that while it contains a LOT of energy,
it cant actually be released all at once. So the fission products at any
given time are quite low. Probably comparable to a small to medium A
bomb. Most deaths at Hiroshima/Nagasaki were from blast and immediate
gamma ray exposure with acute radiation sickness causing death within
days. There has been very little long term cancer effect

Atomic weapons require a conventional detonations to get a really rapid
release of energy.

A core meltdown whilst nasty and very hot radioactivity wise, is
unstable and containable. As soon as it pools it loses a lot of its
criticality. And if the secondary containment spreads it out it cant
maintain criticality


There's also a suspicion that there are other causes for childhood
leukaemia. Dioxins, for example...

If you really want a cancer and birth deformity hotspot look no further
than Bhopal

Killed far more people than Chernobyl over a far longer period

Andy

Look I think after mulling over the facts and discarding the myths, what
you are left with is that nuclear power is by no means the nastiest bit
of tech around by several orders of magnitude. You don't want to play
games with it as they did at Chernobyl, but sensible design that can
cater for total core meltdown in the limit and make it impossible anyway
reduces the risks of exposure to all but the slightest amount of
radioactivity, to practically zero. And radioactivity is about a
thousand times less dangerous than we were led to believe anyway.


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 16/02/2021 22:12, newshound wrote:
There's quite a lot of data out there if you look for it, e.g.

https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testin...clear-testing/


I have seen comparisons with Chernobyl but can't for the moment remember
the numbers. I think you are right, though.

In my research days in the 1970's our library had a lot of books
containing what I believe to be reasonably authoritative data, including
the contours of fallout dose rates from ground and air burst weapons of
various sizes, under different weather conditions.

Yes. that could be measured.


I don't recall the exact fallout figures for weapons testing, but my
recollection is that they were heading towards having a readily
detectable effect on cancer rates.

That however is where facts left the building and modelling based on LNT
entered it.
Everyone has a *recollection*, but when you actually go looking for
data, there isn't any. There were no cancer spikes I can find. There
were however *predictions* every day in the papers and the new scientist
etc etc

It has always been my suspicion that
scientists on both sides of the iron curtain were lobbying their leaders
and maybe even threatening to blow whistles. The 1963 atmospheric test
ban treaty was signed off remarkably quickly after years of abortive
discussions.

I think the reverse was true.

Both sides in the cold war realised that the military advantages of
nuclear weapons were being eroded by smarter and more accurate delivery
systems and the collateral damage to civilians and valuable
infrastructure was too high.

They were wonderful things to frighten populations with, but not that
useful in a war.

Once a smart bomb could take out a dictator, who needed a nuke?

We have far better tactical weapons now than a cold war 5 kiloton
nuclear shell

If you want to destroy populations its far better to spread diseases
(COVID19) and lies (Climate Change) than radiation

Everyone knew how to make big bombs, and it was an expensive and
pointless exercise. So why not get brownie points for virtue signalling
a test ban?


https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/abo...est-ban-treaty


Written presumably by someone with an axe to grind


--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the tests,
compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)

I think there was a plume of radiation from Chernobyl which led to
concerns about grazing animals in parts of Scotland and Wales but I
don't remember any actual restrictions on later meat sales.

I can't find any. My guess is that it's far higher.

There's also a suspicion that there are other causes for childhood
leukaemia. Dioxins, for example...

Andy


--
Tim Lamb

On 17/02/2021 09:08, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the tests,
compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)

I think there was a plume of radiation from Chernobyl which led to
concerns about grazing animals in parts of Scotland and Wales but I
don't remember any actual restrictions on later meat sales.


At first there was a complete ban on some Welsh sheep. After that they
had to be checked for radioactivity and some couldn't be sold into the
food chain - which lasted for 20+ years.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 17/02/2021 08:51, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Feb 2021 at 06:59:25 GMT, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I think it was in fact quite a lot less globally than Chernobyl was
locally. Again, nothing much happened post Chernobyl immediate effects
from Iodine 131 - the raised caesium and strontium levels don't seem to
have been enough to cause anything much.

By a couple of years after Chernobyl, any I-131 it released would all have
decayed. Every single atom.

Oh yes. I know that. That's why apart from a week after a reactor pops
its significant, the stuff people are more worried about is strontium 90
and caesium 137 (half lives 29 and 30 years) because they are active
enough to be of possible concern and yet long lived enough to be around
for a decade or more and both are biologically active.

both are beta decay
I think both end up in bones and teeth. Hence there were scare stories
about leukemia...


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 17/02/2021 09:08, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the tests,
compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)

I think there was a plume of radiation from Chernobyl which led to
concerns about grazing animals in parts of Scotland and Wales but I
don't remember any actual restrictions on later meat sales.

Oh there were. lamb was banned from some areas.


--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

In message , Robin
writes
On 17/02/2021 09:08, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the
tests, compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)
I think there was a plume of radiation from Chernobyl which led to
concerns about grazing animals in parts of Scotland and Wales but I
don't remember any actual restrictions on later meat sales.


At first there was a complete ban on some Welsh sheep. After that they
had to be checked for radioactivity and some couldn't be sold into the
food chain - which lasted for 20+ years.

Ah!

Aging memory!

--
Tim Lamb

On 17/02/2021 10:03, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Robin
writes
On 17/02/2021 09:08, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the
tests,Â* compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)
Â*I think there was a plume of radiation from Chernobyl which led to
concerns about grazing animals in parts of Scotland and Wales but I
don't remember any actual restrictions on later meat sales.


At first there was a complete ban on some Welsh sheep.Â* After that
they had to be checked for radioactivity and some couldn't be sold
into the food chain - which lasted for 20+ years.

Ah!

Aging memory!

Its a bugger.

--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 17/02/2021 10:12, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Feb 2021 at 10:00:14 GMT, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 17/02/2021 08:51, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Feb 2021 at 06:59:25 GMT, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I think it was in fact quite a lot less globally than Chernobyl was
locally. Again, nothing much happened post Chernobyl immediate effects
from Iodine 131 - the raised caesium and strontium levels don't seem to
have been enough to cause anything much.

By a couple of years after Chernobyl, any I-131 it released would all have
decayed. Every single atom.

Oh yes. I know that. That's why apart from a week after a reactor pops
its significant, the stuff people are more worried about is strontium 90
and caesium 137 (half lives 29 and 30 years) because they are active
enough to be of possible concern and yet long lived enough to be around
for a decade or more and both are biologically active.

both are beta decay
I think both end up in bones and teeth. Hence there were scare stories
about leukemia...

Calcium analogues.

Exactly so



--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:30:01 +0000, T i m wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 19:31:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 at 12:25:38 GMT, Andrew
wrote:

On 15/02/2021 21:47, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:50:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't produce
much and often
none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the surrounding
environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes near
oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Even then if you check the stats the death toll from radiation from
Fukushima was...

One.

Yes, a single person. And he's only a probable.

Quite a lot of people died running away from it though.

Andy

Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

What has this to do with anything?

Oh dear ... these left brainers ... ;-(

Considering the bigger picture, it's not just the deaths / directly
related to an incident that need to be considered, it's all the
negative (and often unrecorded) events that come out of it.

So a plant blows up and a local shop that used to supply food to the
workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his
accommodation and eventually dies whilst homeless.


I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.

That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.

That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.


This is a straw man argument. We all know fossil fuels have killed a
huge number of people and there is great doubt about any more than a
handful of deaths from nuclear power.

Despite this there are real concerns about potential damage that could
be caused by Nuclear Power.

FOAD I'm 100% in favour of nuclear power, I just think that safety
concerns should be considered and addressed sensibly.

The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by unforgivable
design flaws.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:19:59 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 at 20:30:01 GMT, T r o l l wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 19:31:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 at 12:25:38 GMT, Andrew

wrote:

On 15/02/2021 21:47, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:50:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't
produce much and often none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the
surrounding environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes
near oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Even then if you check the stats the death toll from radiation
from Fukushima was...

One.

Yes, a single person. And he's only a probable.

Quite a lot of people died running away from it though.

Andy

Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood leukaemia
following those tests.

What has this to do with anything?

Oh dear ... these left brainers ... ;-(

Considering the bigger picture, it's not just the deaths / directly
related to an incident that need to be considered, it's all the
negative (and often unrecorded) events that come out of it.

So a plant blows up and a local shop that used to supply food to the
workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his accommodation
and eventually dies whilst homeless.

Only one (Chernobyl) can be said to have "blown up", and the operators
had to work quite hard to get it to a state where it was unstable enough
for that to happen (as can be seen by reading about it). You're just
employing the usual scare-mongering techniques, saying "So a plant blows
up ..." as if this is a common occurrence.

I have a 1978 report on the RBMK-1000 reactor, conducted by the company I
was working for at the time and it's conclusion is 'an accident waiting to
happen' (obviously not in those words)

On 17/02/2021 09:45, Robin wrote:
On 17/02/2021 09:08, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the
tests, compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)

I think there was a plume of radiation from Chernobyl which led to
concerns about grazing animals in parts of Scotland and Wales but I
don't remember any actual restrictions on later meat sales.


At first there was a complete ban on some Welsh sheep.Â* After that they
Â*had to be checked for radioactivity and some couldn't be sold into the
food chain - which lasted for 20+ years.


At the time I had some hippy neighbours who came around one evening
extremely worried, and asking what they should do. I said nothing, just
listen to the radio. However, they ignored me. They went off and camped
in North Wales. In all the rain.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

At Chernobyl it was:

1) ignorance of the possible behaviour of the reactor when run outside its
normal operating envelope, combined with removing or shutting down all the
computers and other safety equipment so the reactor could be forced into what
turned out to be a dangerous and unstable mode.

2) Poor operating procedures for running this sort of reactor test

3) Poor emergency procedures and lack of coordination with local fire
services.

4) The usual communist culture of secrecy which led to delays and made the
problem worse.

At Fukushima it was:

1) The assumption that the sea wall could contain the tsunami (they were
nearly right on that one).

2) Not siting the backup power generators and their fuel tanks where they
wouldn't be overwhelmed by a worse rsunami.


Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

Not only can it tell us how mistakes we made the past could and should have been
avoided, but it will also be able to tell us how mistakes we are inevitably bound
to make in the future, could and should have been avoided as well.

© michael adams

On 17/02/2021 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/02/2021 09:08, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the
tests, compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)

I think there was a plume of radiation from Chernobyl which led to
concerns about grazing animals in parts of Scotland and Wales but I
don't remember any actual restrictions on later meat sales.

Oh there were. lamb was banned from some areas.



And all milk in a huge area around windscale was collected
from the farms and destroyed to stop people drinking it.

On 17/02/2021 14:31, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Feb 2021 at 13:29:09 GMT, Pancho
wrote:



I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.

That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.


This is a straw man argument. We all know fossil fuels have killed a
huge number of people and there is great doubt about any more than a
handful of deaths from nuclear power.

Despite this there are real concerns about potential damage that could
be caused by Nuclear Power.

Such as?

FOAD I'm 100% in favour of nuclear power, I just think that safety
concerns should be considered and addressed sensibly.

Which safety concerns would those be then, that are not already addressed?


Well the concern would be that a reactor would explode releasing a large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

It is very hard to list every possible scenario and exclude it.

The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by unforgivable
design flaws.

At Chernobyl it was:

AIUI Chernobyl had feedback effects which caused a rapid increase in
power and hence an explosion. It is very hard to defend against such
feedback effects, if they exist. I don't know how easy it is to ensure
they are eliminated.

Yes you can list design flaws, Fukushima in particular seems pretty damn
stupid to me. Although, I wouldn't have been able to point to it in
advance on usenet.

We can and should make reactors safer, we can even tolerate an
occasional **** up. A 30 mile exclusion area is not the end of the world.

However I don't have much sympathy for someone who asserts all risks
have been uncovered and corrected. This just seems to be more of the
same complacent attitude that assured us risk events were 1 in a million
in the past.

On 17/02/2021 14:59, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

At Chernobyl it was:

1) ignorance of the possible behaviour of the reactor when run outside its
normal operating envelope, combined with removing or shutting down all the
computers and other safety equipment so the reactor could be forced into what
turned out to be a dangerous and unstable mode.

2) Poor operating procedures for running this sort of reactor test

3) Poor emergency procedures and lack of coordination with local fire
services.

4) The usual communist culture of secrecy which led to delays and made the
problem worse.

At Fukushima it was:

1) The assumption that the sea wall could contain the tsunami (they were
nearly right on that one).

2) Not siting the backup power generators and their fuel tanks where they
wouldn't be overwhelmed by a worse rsunami.


Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

Not only can it tell us how mistakes we made the past could and should have been
avoided, but it will also be able to tell us how mistakes we are inevitably bound
to make in the future, could and should have been avoided as well.

We have moved on to passively cooled reactors, so that loss of power,
fans, pumps, electricity, generators, etc. are not a problem.

That eliminates the common risks of external problems.

On 17/02/2021 12:59, AnthonyL wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:30:01 +0000, T i m wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 19:31:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 at 12:25:38 GMT, Andrew
wrote:

On 15/02/2021 21:47, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:50:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't produce
much and often
none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the surrounding
environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes near
oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Even then if you check the stats the death toll from radiation from
Fukushima was...

One.

Yes, a single person. And he's only a probable.

Quite a lot of people died running away from it though.

Andy

Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

What has this to do with anything?

Oh dear ... these left brainers ... ;-(

Considering the bigger picture, it's not just the deaths / directly
related to an incident that need to be considered, it's all the
negative (and often unrecorded) events that come out of it.

So a plant blows up and a local shop that used to supply food to the
workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his
accommodation and eventually dies whilst homeless.


I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.

Well you wont get them from B I G O T i m

That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.


consider 'a plant blows up'

No nuclear power plant has ever 'blown up'. Windcasle caught fire,
Chernobyl caught fire and Fukushima had a very small hydrogen explosion
because they were so worried about radioactive release they didn't vent
the gas

3MI just melted down as did fukushima and chernobyl

So Tim is just making stupid bigoted emotive statements there

Then he compounds his idiocy with "a local shop that used to supply food
to the workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his
accommodation and eventually dies whilst homeless."

Where is that then?

Firstly I am sure that there will be more workers solving a core
meltdown issue than there were running a reactor. 3MI and Chernobyl both
continued as power stations long after the accidents.

Fukushima was shut down completely as a political, not an engineering,
decision

There are more workers on site decommissioning it than there were
operating it

T I M is a typical leftybrain - he doesn't respond to reality, but to
scary images in what passes for his mind



--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 17/02/2021 15:23, Pancho wrote:
On 17/02/2021 14:31, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Feb 2021 at 13:29:09 GMT, Pancho
wrote:


Â* I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
Â* and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
Â* the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.
Â* That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.

This is a straw man argument. We all know fossil fuels have killed a
huge number of people and there is great doubt about any more than a
handful of deaths from nuclear power.

Despite this there are real concerns about potential damage that could
be caused by Nuclear Power.

Such as?

FOAD I'm 100% in favour of nuclear power, I just think that safety
concerns should be considered and addressed sensibly.

Which safety concerns would those be then, that are not already
addressed?


Well the concern would be that a reactor would explode releasing a large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

It is very hard to list every possible scenario and exclude it.

The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by unforgivable
design flaws.

At Chernobyl it was:

AIUI Chernobyl had feedback effects which caused a rapid increase in
power and hence an explosion. It is very hard to defend against such
feedback effects, if they exist. I don't know how easy it is to ensure
they are eliminated.

The feedback problem was known and the design would never have been
licensed in the West. IIRC existing RBMKs were retrofitted to correct
that, after Chernobyl.

Yes you can list design flaws, Fukushima in particular seems pretty damn
stupid to me. Although, I wouldn't have been able to point to it in
advance on usenet.

We can and should make reactors safer

Modern designs allow for sufficient passive cooling, so loss of all
outside and onsite services is not a problem.

we can even tolerate an
occasional **** up. A 30 mile exclusion area is not the end of the world.

It's a big chunk of land - especially if it happens to include a city or
is in one of the narrower sections of the country.

However I don't have much sympathy for someone who asserts all risks
have been uncovered and corrected. This just seems to be more of the
same complacent attitude that assured us risk events were 1 in a million
in the past.

There will always be risks, but if you concentrate on designing to
fail-safe on loss of both offsite and onsite utilities or failure of
control systems, you have removed most of the risk.

Primary and secondary containment remove much of the rest.

The structures are already seismically qualified for earthquakes far in
excess of anything that the UK experiences - and if they exceed the
planned for levels, we'll have many more things to worry about, as whole
cities will have collapsed!

On 17/02/2021 14:49, jon wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:19:59 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 at 20:30:01 GMT, T r o l l wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 19:31:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 at 12:25:38 GMT, Andrew

wrote:

On 15/02/2021 21:47, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:50:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't
produce much and often none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the
surrounding environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes
near oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Even then if you check the stats the death toll from radiation
from Fukushima was...

One.

Yes, a single person. And he's only a probable.

Quite a lot of people died running away from it though.

Andy

Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood leukaemia
following those tests.

What has this to do with anything?

Oh dear ... these left brainers ... ;-(

Considering the bigger picture, it's not just the deaths / directly
related to an incident that need to be considered, it's all the
negative (and often unrecorded) events that come out of it.

So a plant blows up and a local shop that used to supply food to the
workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his accommodation
and eventually dies whilst homeless.

Only one (Chernobyl) can be said to have "blown up", and the operators
had to work quite hard to get it to a state where it was unstable enough
for that to happen (as can be seen by reading about it). You're just
employing the usual scare-mongering techniques, saying "So a plant blows
up ..." as if this is a common occurrence.

I have a 1978 report on the RBMK-1000 reactor, conducted by the company I
was working for at the time and it's conclusion is 'an accident waiting to
happen' (obviously not in those words)

Indeed. Which is why they would never have been licensed for use in the
West.

On 17/02/2021 13:29, Pancho wrote:


I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.

That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.


This is a straw man argument. We all know fossil fuels have killed a
huge number of people and there is great doubt about any more than a
handful of deaths from nuclear power.

Despite this there are real concerns about potential damage that could
be caused by Nuclear Power.

No, there are concerns. Concerns are not real. And concerns about
nuclear power are not based on reality.




FOAD I'm 100% in favour of nuclear power, I just think that safety
concerns should be considered and addressed sensibly.

They have been address to an insane level of complexity which arguably
reduces safety


The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by unforgivable
design flaws.

No, they were not.

Chernobyl was pure operator error in conjunction with an unfortunate
design, not flawed and certinly not unforgiveable. ~50 people died as a
result. Rather a small body count for suich a big accident

Fukushima had no design issues at all. It was desighned to cope with
tsunamis just not with such a big one - a tsumani that killed 20,000
peole whilst Fukushima simply melted down as intended and released
almost no radioactivity at all/

The big problems at Fukushima were caused by 'fear of radioactivity'
Not by radioactivity, which killed no one.

The releases of radioactivity and death toll were larger than they
should have been for three reasons

1/. fear of radioactivity led to far more spent fuel being stored in the
ponds than should have been and seawater washed some of that out and the
earthquake damaged them slightly. The fuel should have been placed in
long term storage or recycled.

2/, fear of radioactivity led the operators to not vent the hydrogen
which had some radioactive gases as well, resulting in a hydrogen
explosion that then allowed uncontrolled release of the safely ventable
hydrogen and minor level of radioactive gases.

3/. fear of radioactivity caused a mass evacuation from the area that
killed several people

As with Chernobyl; the mass evacuations and media hysteria killed more
people than the accident did, and fear of radioactivity made Fukushima
more dangerous




--
€œThere are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isnt true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.€�

€”Soren Kierkegaard

On 17/02/2021 14:31, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Feb 2021 at 13:29:09 GMT, Pancho
wrote:



I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.

That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.


This is a straw man argument. We all know fossil fuels have killed a
huge number of people and there is great doubt about any more than a
handful of deaths from nuclear power.

Despite this there are real concerns about potential damage that could
be caused by Nuclear Power.

Such as?

FOAD I'm 100% in favour of nuclear power, I just think that safety
concerns should be considered and addressed sensibly.

Which safety concerns would those be then, that are not already addressed?

The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by unforgivable
design flaws.

At Chernobyl it was:

1) ignorance of the possible behaviour of the reactor when run outside its
normal operating envelope, combined with removing or shutting down all the
computers and other safety equipment so the reactor could be forced into what
turned out to be a dangerous and unstable mode.

2) Poor operating procedures for running this sort of reactor test

3) Poor emergency procedures and lack of coordination with local fire
services.

4) The usual communist culture of secrecy which led to delays and made the
problem worse.

At Fukushima it was:

1) The assumption that the sea wall could contain the tsunami (they were
nearly right on that one).

2) Not siting the backup power generators and their fuel tanks where they
wouldn't be overwhelmed by a worse rsunami.


The spent fuel ponds released far more radioactive material than the
reactor. They were full to bursting point for political reasons of not
wanting to decide on a spent fuel policy

The mess that Japan is now in is illustrative. Its all fear and politics.



"In January, Japan faced a power crisis for several reasons that need to
be mentioned and explored. First, a much colder than normal winter
pushed up electricity demand by about 10% compared to previous years.
Second, the shorter duration of days and the reduced number of sunny
periods that are both typical features of a colder winter meant the
capacity factor of renewable energy units, such as those using solar
power, decreased considerably. Third, as China increased its LNG
consumption (primarily also to deal with the colder winter), the global
supply of LNG to other countries could not easily be increased because
the smooth passage through the Panama Canal was disturbed by
restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consequently, wholesale electricity market prices skyrocketed to almost
USD2.5/kWh, which is 40-50 times higher than usual. Such a spike caused
consternation for consumers with contract-based prices linked to the
wholesale market. It also created serious problems for new electricity
suppliers from the burden of a drop in power generation capacity.

It is always troubling to hear about the introduction of ceiling prices
or price controls at the wholesale level. The Japanese power market
reform had been an attempt to revitalise the electricity industry and
the full liberalisation of the retail market was almost completed in
2016. It is true that markets sometimes fail and revisions must be made
where appropriate, but this winters power crisis was not necessarily a
market mechanism failure. It was instead caused by an insufficient level
of emergency preparedness and the slow achievement of an adequate power
generation mix, including the slow restart of nuclear reactors.

In terms of emergency preparedness, the current minimum reserve ratio of
as little as 3% is too low when you consider that 7% is desirable. Such
a ratio should be supported by the capacity market and, as in the USA
and some European countries, incentives should be provided for power
savings and better maintenance practice, again by the capacity market.

After assessing nuclear power's contribution to energy security, the
government determined that it favoured a share for nuclear in the power
generation mix of 20-22% by 2030. As it typically takes five years from
the purchase of nuclear fuel to the point at which it starts to be used
at nuclear power plants, Japan has been stockpiling five-year's worth of
fuel to ensure security of supply. Unfortunately, nuclear energy in
Japan currently accounts for just 6% of total power generation, while
its share before the Fukushima nuclear accident was as much as 30%.

Why is its share now so small? There are at least four reasons.

The first is that Japan closed all of its nuclear power plants following
the Fukushima-Daiichi accident in 2011, and the plant operators are
slowly going through the approval process to restarts their units with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. To date, nine reactors have been
permitted to restart, seven units are still under inspection and 11 are
waiting to be inspected. If all of these 27 reactors are approved for
restart, the target of a 20-22% share of the electricity mix from
nuclear could be achieved.

The eight years that have passed since the new regulatory agency was
established should have been enough time in which to pass over a
learning curve in conducting inspections under the new regulatory
requirements, but the process of granting permission for restarts needs
to be accelerated.

The second reason is that about half of the nine reactors that were
approved for restart were forced to stop again because of injunctions
issued by local courts. In the USA and major European countries, the
court intervenes only when a procedural deficiency is found. In Japan,
some local courts have passed substantial judgement on safety matters,
before having these overturned following requests for a re-examination
of their decision. Three cases have already been overturned and one is
still in dispute.

The third reason is that it takes longer to construct special
anti-terrorism facilities than the five years within which a unit is
required to be restarted after receiving approval to do so. Nuclear
experts overseas have advised the regulatory commission that power
companies should be permitted alternative measures to continue the
operation of their nuclear units. Unfortunately, the commission has not
taken this advice and has let reactors be shut down again. At present,
three reactors are under such suspended operation.

The last reason is that power companies are reluctant to restart their
nuclear units unless they receive consent from the given local
government. This year, one of the four reactors permitted to restart
might not be issued such consent.

Consequently, as of mid-February, only four of the nine reactors cleared
for restart are in operation and they account for just 6% of the power
generation mix.

These four reasons for the slow restart of Japan's reactor fleet reflect
the fact that nuclear energy in Japan is still only halfway towards
restoring public confidence in its safety. On the plus side, restarting
an existing nuclear unit would be in line with the spirit of the 3Es -
Energy Security, Economic Efficiency and Environment. The industry's
five years of fuel stockpiling is clearly good for energy security and
energy economics. Nuclear power is also undoubtedly good for the
environment as the country's established zero-carbon form of energy.

With Prime Minister Suga's declared aim to achieve a carbon-neutral
society by 2050, nuclear energy should be employed to help meet this
challenge and to enjoy its enviable attributes as a reliable source of
clean energy.

Restoring public confidence in nuclear safety is the biggest challenge
that the nuclear industry is facing in Japan. There is no silver bullet
for this. What is needed is a steady but accelerated effort to restore
trust through honest dialogue with the public in general and with those
who live near nuclear power plants in particular. We should rely more on
the advice of international organisations, such as the IAEA, OECD/NEA
and World Nuclear Association, and listen to nuclear experts and leaders
from countries where the benefits of nuclear energy are recognised and
appreciated.

Indeed, only when the 2030 target for Japan's power generation mix has
been achieved will it be possible to avoid the type of energy crisis the
country has experienced this winter."


--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 17/02/2021 14:59, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

At Chernobyl it was:

1) ignorance of the possible behaviour of the reactor when run outside its
normal operating envelope, combined with removing or shutting down all the
computers and other safety equipment so the reactor could be forced into what
turned out to be a dangerous and unstable mode.

2) Poor operating procedures for running this sort of reactor test

3) Poor emergency procedures and lack of coordination with local fire
services.

4) The usual communist culture of secrecy which led to delays and made the
problem worse.

At Fukushima it was:

1) The assumption that the sea wall could contain the tsunami (they were
nearly right on that one).

2) Not siting the backup power generators and their fuel tanks where they
wouldn't be overwhelmed by a worse rsunami.


Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

Not only can it tell us how mistakes we made the past could and should have been
avoided, but it will also be able to tell us how mistakes we are inevitably bound
to make in the future, could and should have been avoided as well.

We have moved on to passively cooled reactors, so that loss of power, fans, pumps,
electricity, generators, etc. are not a problem.

That eliminates the common risks of external problems.

Neither the Russians nor the Japanese were, or are, particularly stupid.

In pointing out the "mistakes" that they made Tim Streater is merely reinforcing
the point - of how easy it is, without the benefit of hindsight for people who aren't
particularly stupid to make "mistakes".

And that basically there's no reason to believe that people, who aren't particularly
stupid aren't going to continue making mistakes in the future of a kind and in areas
we can't even predict. The possible consequences of which may be similarly
difficult to predict.


michael adams

....

On 17/02/2021 15:23, Pancho wrote:
On 17/02/2021 14:31, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Feb 2021 at 13:29:09 GMT, Pancho
wrote:


Â* I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
Â* and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
Â* the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.
Â* That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.

This is a straw man argument. We all know fossil fuels have killed a
huge number of people and there is great doubt about any more than a
handful of deaths from nuclear power.

Despite this there are real concerns about potential damage that could
be caused by Nuclear Power.

Such as?

FOAD I'm 100% in favour of nuclear power, I just think that safety
concerns should be considered and addressed sensibly.

Which safety concerns would those be then, that are not already
addressed?


Well the concern would be that a reactor would explode releasing a large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

a reactor cannot explode, releasing a large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

Even Chernobyl which was a reactor under full criticality with no
shielding whatsoever burning itself out, did not 'explode' and it did
not 'release large amounts of radioactivity' the people who died from
radiation were actively within meters of the core fighting fires. Even
in pripyat, no one died of radiation although lack of iodine pills
caused 3000 avoidable thyroid cancer cases.

Engineers cannot prevent scenarios that cannot happen. They shouldn't
even need to answer questions about them

The point of SMRs is that they wont even melt down if they lose coolant.
They are too small - passive cooling is enough




It is very hard to list every possible scenario and exclude it.

Well in 50 years we have had most of them. It is not possible even
remotely to construct a scenario where a reactor 'blows up'

Your view is as idiotic as saying 'what if a car finds itself at 20,000
feet, will the airbags be enough when it hits te ground'



The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by unforgivable
design flaws.

At Chernobyl it was:

AIUI Chernobyl had feedback effects which caused a rapid increase in
power and hence an explosion. It is very hard to defend against such
feedback effects, if they exist. I don't know how easy it is to ensure
they are eliminated.


The definitive sequence is this

"Two explosions were reported, the first being the initial steam
explosion, followed two or three seconds later by a second explosion,
possibly from the build-up of hydrogen due to zirconium-steam reactions.
Fuel, moderator, and structural materials were ejected, starting a
number of fires, and the destroyed core was exposed to the atmosphere."

Now a steam explosion can happen with any boiler and of and by itself
its really no big deal

In the case of chernobly it and the hydrogen explosion ruptured te
primary containment and there was no secondary containment. That is
Russia for you.

The reactor didnt 'blow up'

Some steam pipes ruptured and then the hydrogen blew up. That's the
hydrogen they want to use to store renewable energy that 'doesn't blow
up' by the way.

then the core melted down and ran out on the floor where it still is.

the radioactive release was entirely down to the lack of secondary
containment. No reactor design today lacks that.
With secondary containment it would have been a minor pop, and a
contained core meltdown and no fire

Yes you can list design flaws, Fukushima in particular seems pretty damn
stupid to me.

No, it was perfectly sensible at the time. It was designed proof against
earthquakes, which it was, and against 10 m tsunamis, which it was. Just
not a one in a thousand year 15 m tsunami., That is a ****ing ENMORMOUS
wave.,
I know that rational thought is hard for you, and you like to think in
big scary pictures instead, but the tsunami killed 20,000 people. It was
a massive disater.

It also knocked out a nuclear power station and caused two reactors to
melt down with no loss of life due to radiocativity at all ever.

The sort of safety you people want is such that if someone drops a
nuclear bomb on Sizewell; B and takkes out all of east Anglia, and
kills 5 million people, as long as not one died from a release of
radioactivityy from the power station you would be happy

Cannot you see how demented that is? Fukushima was a minor side show in
a huge non nuclear disaster.

Medai8 and politics class the power station - which killed no one - the
'disaster' and completely ignores the tsunami - where are the calls to
proof the whole japanese coastline for 25 meter high waves?


Although, I wouldn't have been able to point to it in
advance on usenet.

The biggest problem as it turned out was not the reactor design at all.
It scrammed as it should and went onto backkup power as it should.

Even when the tsunami took out the diesel generators., it was fine. It
just melted down and the cores got caught as they should be by containment.

if the operators had had the courage to vent the hydrogen out of the
hall that would have been that. But they didn't for fear of releasing
radioactivity so they let the thing pop instead and released somewhat
more than they needed to. That should have been that - minor release, no
big deal, precautionary iodine and that's that.

As itr was there was rather more than necessary - but even that was no
big deal at all.

What was far more worrying was leaking spent fuel ponds and much more
radioactive water ****ing out. Well the Pacific is a big place and in
the end it was literally a drop in the ocean.A sideshow in comparison to
the tsunami itself.

That's what actually happened. Nothing much at all.

Until panic set in inspired by media and ignorant people and fuelled by
ignorant government.


We can and should make reactors safer,

But we dont need to. And in fat we are simply making them miore
expensive. You cant get 'safer' than 'safe' Fuju was a yonks old Gen 1
boiling water reactor with fairly basic safety and it performed bloody
well.

A modern PWR is a lot better - far more than it needs to be.

we can even tolerate an
occasional **** up. A 30 mile exclusion area is not the end of the world.

There was no need for even a 300 meter exclusion zone at Fukushima

The disaster was the ignorance of people.
Its no point in building a safe reactor as long as general ugnorance
stops it ever being switched on



However I don't have much sympathy for someone who asserts all risks
have been uncovered and corrected. This just seems to be more of the
same complacent attitude that assured us risk events were 1 in a million
in the past.

Chernobyl aside, which was not a great design, the actual records show
that that level of tsunami is probably a one on a ten thousand year
event and it being close to a reactor was even less likely.

And even so the damage was minimal and loss of life was zero. What more
do you want?

There are double standards here. We dont expect that level of safety
from anything else.

Why nuclear? The point was with Fuku that at what level do you say 'we
will let the people drown but we mustn't let them even suffer a
0.000001% chance of early death from radioactivity, when a wave hits?'

This is not rational. Cost benefit analysis is not being applied., Given
that tsunami the last place to worry about was a power station where no
one died. Flood defenses where people died are surely more relevant.

Since windscale Britain has operated a lot of nuclear power stations
without any serious releases of radioactivity - Sellafield is far more
an issue than any power station, and yet you still feel fearful. Why?

France has run its nuclear fleet as has sweden, and Switzerland and even
the old sovbloc where standards are much lower the known death toll only
stands at 50 odd. And they have skads of nukes

There are about 440 reactors in the world. Three have melted down. all
were old designs. Between them they generate about 10% of the worlds
electricity. The total death count is 50 odd. At an ageing Russian
reactor run by communist ****s who didnt give a ****, because no one in
a communist society does,. More people die in oil and gas or in windmill
erection in a year.
That's the rational position. The emotional positions is 'we are scared
of it and its got to be 100% safe' Nothing is 100% safe.

You are far far more likely to be killed by a piece of ice flung off a
wind turbine than by power stations releases of radioactivity.

And far far more likely to die of cold when renewable energy shuts the
grid down


--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.