The End of Nuclear

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Nov 2011, 11:14

It seems that moving a train with nuclear waste in Germany is a bit tricky. 20000 police are needed!
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/a ... rent_id=21

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Jan 2012, 17:23

Nice little report from Austrian nuke that never operated - it now has solar pv!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16396346

Post by **clv101** » 04 Jan 2012, 18:51

I think this the most likely outcome of our new build nukes. Half built before the money/motivation dies up.

monster · Post by **monster** » 05 Jan 2012, 20:01

Well temporarily anyway

- by Spring all will be closed for inspections - as of 25th Dec 2011 only 6 out of 54 are running

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120103f1.html

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 14 Mar 2012, 07:23

New nukes have gone from too cheap to meter to too expensive to matter for the foreseeable future.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/0 ... ing-curve/

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 29 Mar 2012, 11:09

The end of nuclear draws nearer.

RWE Npower and its partner E.On have said they will not develop new nuclear power projects in the UK.

The two were planning to invest in new plants in Anglesey and Oldbury, near Bristol, under a joint venture called Horizon Nuclear Power.

But the firms say that raising finance for power projects has become difficult due to the global financial crisis.

RWE has also been hit by costs associated with decommissioning nuclear power plants in Germany.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17546420

Post by **clv101** » 29 Mar 2012, 11:21

Indeed - they didn't even start pouring the concrete. I wasn't expecting them to give up until they had spend a few billion on a half finished reactor.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 29 Mar 2012, 12:44

clv101 wrote:Indeed - they didn't even start pouring the concrete. I wasn't expecting them to give up until they had spend a few billion on a half finished reactor.

Chris,

I seem to remember that you guessed that the UK would produce a half or one and a half new reactors by 2020?

Peter.

Post by **clv101** » 29 Mar 2012, 13:16

It'll be interesting to see if EDF bail as well - or just how much of a subsidy they can squeeze out of the UK Government to continue. Without new nuclear, the Government's energy policy is in tatters (well it is anyway, but they'll have to admit it publicly). Maybe we can get the Chinese to build (and pay for) some reactors here!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 30 Mar 2012, 07:24

Just been listening to German bloke on Radio 4 Today explaining why they pulled out, and then bloke from Chatham House said "electricity is too important to be left to the market place; there has to be government involvement".

I almost choked on my muesli.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 31 Mar 2012, 13:57

Reading that I almost tripped over my sandals

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 20 Jun 2012, 11:24

RWE AG, Germany's second-biggest utility, is abandoning plans to build new nuclear power plants outside its home market, where the government decided last year to phase out nuclear power.

"We will not invest in new nuclear power plants," incoming Chief Executive Peter Terium said.

Like E.ON and peer EnBW, RWE has been hit hard by the German government's decision to phase out nuclear power generation, forcing it to reinvent itself by shedding assets and tapping new growth areas such as renewable power.

"We can no longer afford the financial risks and the surrounding conditions for nuclear power plants," Terium, who is due to take the top job on July 1, said.

Three months ago, RWE and E.ON pulled out of a 15 billion pound ($23.5 billion) plan to build new nuclear power stations in Britain.

The companies said at the time that Germany's sudden decision to phase out nuclear power, the high running costs of their Horizon joint venture and the long lead times required for nuclear plants resulted in the decision to sell the venture.

RWE also owns a stake in a nuclear power plant in the Netherlands, and Terium said there were no plans to add more plants there.

Dutch utility Delta and its partners EDF and RWE earlier this year postponed plans to build a second nuclear power plant in the Netherlands because of the poor investment climate and low electricity prices.

Terium said RWE would continue to operate its plants in Germany until their planned shut-down.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/ ... ZI20120617

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Aug 2012, 22:13

More evidence of the end of nuclear power approaching:

http://ens-newswire.com/2012/08/07/u-s- ... decisions/

(Hat-tip RC)

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 11 Aug 2012, 22:21

I need to preface what I am about to say by stating that my knowledge is pretty thin when it comes to nuclear physics. However:

If nuclear fuel comes from the earth and if nuclear fuel was radioactive before it was dug up, it therefore follows that if the waste that arises from consuming some of it is then spread thinly enough around the crust of the earth, then the overall level of radiation in the crust following that must be at worst, the same as before it was dug up and, at best, less than it was before it was dug up since some of it must have been converted to other forms of energy (heat, light, movement etc) when it was being used in power stations.

Does the nuclear power generating industry make it's source material (uranium) more radioactive after finishing with it or does it merely exploit some of the radiation that is already being emitted from the source material? If it is the former, I can see the argument for stopping such activity. If it is the latter, then surely my main argument that it could be simply spread evenly and thinly across the crust holds up doesn't it? However, thinking about it some more, even if it is the former, then then the laws of thermodynamics must dictate that this extra radiation came from somewhere, namely via a reduction in the mass of the original source uranium. Thus, whatever material is left over after the process must contain the potential for releasing less radiation over time than was the case before the process.

So, if I have got this right:

either

The radiation that provides the heat for the turbines in a nuclear power station comes from existing radiation that was going to be emitted anyway from the uranium. It's just that a nuclear power station has access to a lot of uranium in one place (and so a lot of radiation in one place) and so can put it to useful work

or

The radiation that provides the heat for the turbines in a nuclear power station comes from radiation that is forced out of the uranium at a higher rate than would occur naturally. This must mean, though, that the uranium must lose some mass in the process (2nd law of thermodynamics). More mass in fact, than it would have lost in over the same period of time, had it remained in the ground. This, consequently, means that the remaining waste material must release a lowered amount of radiation over time than would have been the case had it been left in the ground.

and/or

The resulting nuclear waste has been transformed in some way such that it now releases radiation at a higher rate than was the case prior to it being used in a nuclear power station. However, this doesn't mean that the overall amount of radiation it will produce before it has lost 100% of its mass will be any greater than would have been the case prior to it being dug up. It just means it will be released faster than it would been released prior to it being dug up.

In other words, radioactive waste cannot contain more radioactivity by mass than was the case prior to it being processed in a power plant and the only difference that might conceivably be achieved is that the rate at which it decays has been altered. Thus, either radioactive waste lasts for ages, in which case it must have a very low level of radioactivity. Or, if it is highly radioactive, it isn't going to last very long. Either way, why can't it simply be spread as thinly as possible over the largest area possible since the total amount of radioactivity produced by this waste simply cannot exceed the total amount that would have been released by the source uranium anyway. The most that could happen is that it releases it over a shorter time frame due to it's rate of decay being altered in some way during its time in a power plant.

Now, I am sure I have got the above wrong. But, can someone point out where please?

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 12 Aug 2012, 11:05

Steve

Nuclear power currently requires Uranium 235 for its reactors where it is bombarded with neutrons to illicit a controlled reaction. Thing is that only 0.7% is U-235 with over 99% being Uranium 238 therefore all mined ores require enrichment before it is made into fuel rods. You might want to read wiki on nuclear power as a starting point. A by-product of the enrichment process is depleted uranium that has controversially been used in weaponry. Notice the role that the military has in all of this?

So going back to your questions, both parts 2 and 3 are right. The problem is in what form it is now in - alpha emitting particles - which are of the long lasting radioactive variety - are of no health concern if in its natural rock form but when it is in dust or in gaseous form it is extremely hazardous. (Note there is a problem with Radon gas - which is naturally occurring)

There are other options for fission, such as using Thorium which, allegedly, don't produce the high level radioactive waste that uranium does. However it can be converted into uranium 233 which can be used for nuclear warheads.

Does that answer your question?

PowerSwitch

The End of Nuclear

All of Japans nuclear plants to close