• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "The never ending green bollox."

Collapse

  • Diver
    replied
    London Array Wind Farm


    3D Animation

    London Array - 3D Animation - YouTube



    The real thing

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwXe1...&feature=share
    Last edited by Diver; 17 May 2012, 17:17.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Do we have any idea how much suitable radioactive fuel there is around? In a sense, it's even more a fossil fuel than oil/coal, because at least those are still being produced, whereas Uranium and the like is continually disappearing even if we don't use it.
    Uranium enough for hundreds of years and thorium for thousands. At the moment uranium is pretty cheap (hundred of dollars/kg or something) and isn't a big factor in the total energy cost. Nuclear leccie should really be too cheap to meter, but somehow it comes out expensive.

    I don't hold out much faith in fusion being this cheap.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Do we have any idea how much suitable radioactive fuel there is around? In a sense, it's even more a fossil fuel than oil/coal, because at least those are still being produced, whereas Uranium and the like is continually disappearing even if we don't use it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diver
    replied
    Originally Posted by BlasterBates
    It only took an hour or two to decommission block 4 at Tschernobyl.
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Bollox.
    It did only take an hour or two!
    They carried out a safety test with the power levels too low.
    Reactor number four overheated, and the reactor's roof blew off
    Five seconds later the core erupted, scattering debris - including a block of graphite used as a moderator and housing the control rod channel - up to three kilometers away.
    Effectively decommissioning the reactor

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    It only took an hour or two to decommission block 4 at Tschernobyl.
    Bollox.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll View Post
    As anyone who has seen the China Syndrome knows, you just let the core go critical, burn through its containment vessel and voila!...it's somebody else problem.
    Interesting factoid. The film China Syndrome was released a few days before the 3 Mile Island incident. I don't recall how the film plot went, but I've heard it's a bit like the accident.

    China Syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Three Mile Island accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by Diver View Post
    Plus the cost and after affects of decommisioning these beasties which runs into taxpayer billions.
    As anyone who has seen the China Syndrome knows, you just let the core go critical, burn through its containment vessel and voila!...it's somebody else problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Diver View Post
    I spent several years working at Hinkley Point nuclear power station, i have little problem with nuclear power other than the cost to the taxpayer (me) and the risks from that one in a million accident that seems to happen every few years.
    Plus the cost and afteraffects of decommisioning these beasties which runs into taxpayer billions.
    Hinkley Point nuclear power station is due to be decommissioned in 2016 by the way, and will cost more to decommission than all of the offshore wind farms currently being built are costing the developers.

    As for a vested interest, Yes I have a vested interest. three grandchildren to date.
    AGRs are messy and beggers to clean up, and I think the earlier Magnox were worse still. The latest generation III power plants (ACR, EPR, and others) are allegedly a lot more efficient, longer lasting, cheaper and less costly to decommission. And some of them will burn thorium too!

    Generation III reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    It only took an hour or two to decommission block 4 at Tschernobyl.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diver
    replied
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Are you sure it was hinkley point? Bearing in mind your record with power tools are you sure it wasn't 7-mile island followed by chernobyl?
    They didn't know me

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    It's always tricky weighing up whether Nuclear is profitable in the UK because it was nationalised. However in Germany private companies are responsible for building and decommissioning power plants. The German power plants are profitable, that includes the decommisioning costs which have already been set aside. German wind generators are only profitable because the power companies have to buy their feed-in at 2 or 3 times the price they sell it on to the consumer. Therefore wind power has been driving up electricity prices, and will continue to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by Diver View Post
    I spent several years working at Hinkley Point nuclear power station, i have little problem with nuclear power other than the cost to the taxpayer (me) and the risks from that one in a million accident that seems to happen every few years.
    Plus the cost and afteraffects of decommisioning these beasties which runs into taxpayer billions.
    Hinkley Point nuclear power station is due to be decommissioned in 2016 by the way, and will cost more to decommission than all of the offshore wind farms currently being built are costing the developers.

    As for a vested interest, Yes I have a vested interest. three grandchildren to date.
    Are you sure it was hinkley point? Bearing in mind your record with power tools are you sure it wasn't 7-mile island followed by chernobyl?

    Leave a comment:


  • Diver
    replied
    Originally posted by Scoobos View Post
    Whilst I agree with you - this seems a bit out of character !!! - Do you have a vested interest in a competing technology by any chance?
    I spent several years working at Hinkley Point nuclear power station, i have little problem with nuclear power other than the cost to the taxpayer (me) and the risks from that one in a million accident that seems to happen every few years.
    Plus the cost and afteraffects of decommisioning these beasties which runs into taxpayer billions.
    Hinkley Point nuclear power station is due to be decommissioned in 2016 by the way, and will cost more to decommission than all of the offshore wind farms currently being built are costing the developers.

    As for a vested interest, Yes I have a vested interest. three grandchildren to date.

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Hydro from rivers and from the sea are quite different things... the UK is pretty useless as far as rivers are concerned.
    What energy potential difference would you see in any of the UK's rivers...unless you were proposing building big dams everywhere

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Scoobos View Post
    What I really dont get is :

    Why can canada fuel 50% of BC from Hydro electric power on its rivers and sea, and yet we , an island surrounded by water don't use hydro..
    Hydro from rivers and from the sea are quite different things... the UK is pretty useless as far as rivers are concerned.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X