If not Nuclear Power, then WHAT??

The_Unbeliever

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
103,197
At least we will finally know if there is any life out there in space, coz they will be pissed off when we use their backyards as a dumpsite. :D
And have the chance to play Quake 3 in real-life? :eek:

No thanks, pass please :D
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,359
Also you can not shoot nuclear waste up in space, if the rocket doing so blew up there would be nuclear waste covering a whole continent.
I'm surprised you are even vaguely concerned Mr Expert Financial Analayst. It's all safe, it's all good!

As stated in my posts above, nuclear power might *look* cheaper, but in the long run it is a very high-risk method that is going to cause a lot more trouble for mankind over many decades, maybe centuries. Humans just cannot handle nuclear materials.
 

a-person

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
1,184
I think it's a decent option...however let's hope the idjit gauvamint are willing to pay for the necessary skills and maintenance it takes to run nuclear power...Koeberg is small and much more manageable than what they are proposing to build..
 

semiautomatix

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
11,632
Spent fuel still contains approximately 96% of its original uranium, of which the fissionable U-235 content has been reduced to less than 1%. About 3% of spent fuel comprises waste products and the remaining 1% is plutonium (Pu) produced while the fuel was in the reactor and not "burned" then.

Reprocessing separates uranium and plutonium from waste products (and from the fuel assembly cladding) by chopping up the fuel rods and dissolving them in acid to separate the various materials. Recovered uranium can be returned to the conversion plant for conversion to uranium hexafluoride and subsequent re-enrichment. The reactor-grade plutonium can be blended with enriched uranium to produce a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel*, in a fuel fabrication plant.

* MOX fuel fabrication occurs at facilities in Belgium, France, Germany, UK, Russia and Japan, with more under construction. There have been 25 years of experience in this, and the first large-scale plant, Melox, commenced operation in France in 1995. Across Europe about 30 reactors are licensed to load 20-50% of their cores with MOX fuel and Japan plans to have one third of its 54 reactors using MOX by 2010.

The remaining 3% of high-level radioactive wastes (some 750 kg per year from a 1000 MWe reactor) can be stored in liquid form and subsequently solidified.

Reprocessing of spent fuel occurs at facilities in Europe and Russia with capacity over 5000 tonnes per year and cumulative civilian experience of 90,000 tonnes over almost 40 years.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm

So, the "spent fuel" isn't entirely spent?
 

Sneeky

Honorary Master
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
11,433
Because a 1st year electrical engineer can build a working wind power generator. Nuclear energy, though the pebble bed concept is thought sound, can not just be implemented. They will invent large amounts in it, and continue to do so to ensure it is safe. Exceeding the budget 14 times and still receiving funding without campaigning for it, goes to show how promising it is. Developed countries fund the research, it is a inflow of foreign reserves in to the country and employs many people. The reactor is also a major export.
If it is so good then why are they not building them on their own doorstep (i.e. the developed world), why Africa, or are they?
Germany ditched the idea, is Africa again going to be used as a guinea pig to fill the pockets of the first world suits?
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,359
An isolated incident occurs and Baron Tree-hugger cites it as if it happens every day.
Take a chill pill mate.

Power IS cutting all over the place daily. and not because we don't know how to generate the stuff, nor because we need one of those pebbly-things.
 

semiautomatix

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
11,632
This process could never contend with the levels of radioactivity that a plant such as the one planned produces.
Not yet, but maybe a technique could be introduced. Surely that would put an end to most arguments against nuclear power?
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,359
California inches toward 300 megawatt solar plant

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/03/california_300_megawatt_soloar_facility/

The California Energy Commission has accepted a construction application from solar startup BrightSource Energy to build a 300 megawatt solar plant in the high desert — the first large solar thermal facility proposed for California in 16 years.

The 3,400-acre complex would be built near Ivanpah Dry Lake in San Bernardino County, near the Nevada border.
...
Construction costs are estimated at $300m.
Looks interesting. Heat - boil water - steam - turbine.
 

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
I'm surprised you are even vaguely concerned Mr Expert Financial Analayst. It's all safe, it's all good!

As stated in my posts above, nuclear power might *look* cheaper, but in the long run it is a very high-risk method that is going to cause a lot more trouble for mankind over many decades, maybe centuries. Humans just cannot handle nuclear materials.
Cost benefit, risk reward. If you believe the risk of nuclear to be higher than coal you discount the cash flows at a higher rate. Risks are evaluated also. In the long-term, nuclear has lower cost and the same risk. There are natural nuclear materials all over earth, which pose an equal threat, just because nuclear waste is 500 times more deadly, does not make it more lethal than naturally occurring radiation. If both can kill you equally well, then they both pose the same risk. Humans have lived on earth a long time with radiation, we can manage nuclear waste.

If it is so good then why are they not building them on their own doorstep (i.e. the developed world), why Africa, or are they?
Germany ditched the idea, is Africa again going to be used as a guinea pig to fill the pockets of the first world suits?
Africans either complain because the West does not give them money or complain that they are given money. It is amazing how Africans want to shoot themselves in the foot given any opportunity. Is it the African way to degenerate back in to cavemen? Giving RSA $25 million to develop a technology only a few old toppies can create in Potchefstroom, is an accomplishment by Africans, yet here you are trying to make it in a we vs. them argument evil West East boohoo crap ffs STOP your whining.

I have a goldfish which understand that I give it food, therefore it comes to the top of the water when I approach, it does not go to the bottom least I give it the opportunity to eat. I can only imagine what will happen to RSA once all the smart goldfish leave the country, the remainder won't have a use for electricity anyway.

The Pebble Bed (as far as I know) has never had a real nuclear reaction in RSA, as I recall they did that in Germany. RSA simulates the temperatures ect because of the risks involved.
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,359
Cost benefit, risk reward. If you believe the risk of nuclear to be higher than coal you discount the cash flows at a higher rate. Risks are evaluated also. In the long-term, nuclear has lower cost and the same risk. There are natural nuclear materials all over earth, which pose an equal threat, just because nuclear waste is 500 times more deadly, does not make it more lethal than naturally occurring radiation. If both can kill you equally well, then they both pose the same risk. Humans have lived on earth a long time with radiation, we can manage nuclear waste.
Stick to finance - you seem clueless about nuclear waste. It's not like you go wandering in the veld one day and get terminated by a lump of your "natural" nuke. As for the risks see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg

Now superimpose that over Cape Town, and smile.

Edit - Here's one from the Windscale "leak":

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44159000/gif/_44159808_radiation_leak_203.gif
 
Last edited:

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659

Sneeky

Honorary Master
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
11,433
Africans either complain because the West does not give them money or complain that they are given money. It is amazing how Africans want to shoot themselves in the foot given any opportunity. Is it the African way to degenerate back in to cavemen? Giving RSA $25 million to develop a technology only a few old toppies can create in Potchefstroom, is an accomplishment by Africans, yet here you are trying to make it in a we vs. them argument evil West East boohoo crap ffs STOP your whining.

I have a goldfish which understand that I give it food, therefore it comes to the top of the water when I approach, it does not go to the bottom least I give it the opportunity to eat. I can only imagine what will happen to RSA once all the smart goldfish leave the country, the remainder won't have a use for electricity anyway.

The Pebble Bed (as far as I know) has never had a real nuclear reaction in RSA, as I recall they did that in Germany. RSA simulates the temperatures ect because of the risks involved.
You can save the sarc, really, it might amuse your life companion ms goldfish, but not me ;)
My point is African governments are regularly talked into having things they don't need, all for foreign financial gains, not local.
Sure we need more efficient and clean power, but why is nobody else doing it, why only on our shores?
It has everything to do with us vs them, it always has and always will. Africa has been exploited to the nth degree in the past and this is no different today.
I have nothing against a PBMR, if it is the right way to go but there seems to be a lot of credible people out their that say it isnt.
 

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
And why not? Meltdown is meltdown old boy!
No a meltdown, actually occurring, outside the protection built around Koeberg, is as likely as a Star Trek dimensional shift moving the control rods out of the reaction, then taking the whole thing and placing it outside the building.

Now here is the procedure:
Now you can possibly, force a meltdown, by installing the necessary components, after the rework, you can force the thing to meltdown, but then it will be contained. So after the rework, you have to remove the shielding, so technically it is possible. A meltdown of Koeberg is not similar to that of Russia, more like 3 mile island with extra protection.

And here I was thinking I was correct, you are actually technically correct but still wrong.
 

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
The developed world has done it, they are still using nuclear power and investing in it, which is why they are classified as the developed world. African can refrain from doing it, and blame the West in 50 years when they are still wallowing in abject poverty.
China and India will be classified as developed before Africa, which will be last and the first to assign blame to others. Mark my words.
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,359
No a meltdown, actually occurring, outside the protection built around Koeberg, is as likely as a Star Trek dimensional shift moving the control rods out of the reaction, then taking the whole thing and placing it outside the building.

Now here is the procedure:
Now you can possibly, force a meltdown, by installing the necessary components, after the rework, you can force the thing to meltdown, but then it will be contained. So after the rework, you have to remove the shielding, so technically it is possible. A meltdown of Koeberg is not similar to that of Russia, more like 3 mile island with extra protection.

And here I was thinking I was correct, you are actually technically correct but still wrong.
Riiiiigggghhhhttttt! So Koeberg heads into meltdown, and it is all neatly contained like a turd in a checkers-packet, and we all live happily ever after???? You're nuts! The half-life of the plutonium in there is 24,000 years ( according to the CB scientist chap )!

All this calm "removing the shielding" - have you seen how they have to work on the Chernobyl container? 30-seconds of work and you're off for the day! LOL!

And what about sabotage? Attack?
 

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
Riiiiigggghhhhttttt! So Koeberg heads into meltdown, and it is all neatly contained like a turd in a checkers-packet, and we all live happily ever after???? You're nuts! The half-life of the plutonium in there is 24,000 years ( according to the CB scientist chap )!

All this calm "removing the shielding" - have you seen how they have to work on the Chernobyl container? 30-seconds of work and you're off for the day! LOL!

And what about sabotage? Attack?
Yes I saw how they constructed the container, after it the meltdown occurred, which is why it is built before the meltdown occurs. 30s of radiation was all the humans could take before it became lethal..

They have factored in the occurrence of sabotage and attack, and negated those risks. Unlike some people in this country, the designers are able to anticipate the future and plan for it. If you find it so difficult to believe that it is possible for others to anticipate the future and make provisions for it, you should rather question your own abilities rather than those of others.
 

Syndyre

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
16,821
Riiiiigggghhhhttttt! So Koeberg heads into meltdown, and it is all neatly contained like a turd in a checkers-packet, and we all live happily ever after???? You're nuts! The half-life of the plutonium in there is 24,000 years ( according to the CB scientist chap )!

All this calm "removing the shielding" - have you seen how they have to work on the Chernobyl container? 30-seconds of work and you're off for the day! LOL!

And what about sabotage? Attack?
You have to admit though that different plants are more or less likely to have problems, go into meltdown, leak radiation etc. Chernobyl was probably one of the worst designs around and it wasn't very well managed either, you can't extrapolate from that one accident to the entire nuclear power industry.
 
Top