Nuclear power stations

**SixPackBack** · 24th November 2006, 17:36

Originally Posted by Finn

Thank you for the correction Professor Swoop. Actually, Fusion has been invented, it's just not perfected.

At room temperature?

**sAsLEX** · 24th November 2006, 17:37

Originally Posted by Finn

Fusion has been invented, it's just not perfected.

H Bomb??????

**Ixion** · 24th November 2006, 18:08

Originally Posted by Finn
fusion has been invented, it's just not perfected.

Aye, to be sure, given that the only reliable method of fusion power generation pretty much lets it all out at once...

Uh, last time I looked up, the local fusion power plant seemed to be running pretty well, and has been for a long time now. And it shows every sign of producing energy at a steady sustained rate for a long time to come.

**SPman** · 24th November 2006, 18:19

The longest sustained controlled fusion reaction, I think is currently measured in nano seconds......gotta long way to go to get to the "Mr Fusion" stage of Back to the Future....

Meh, modern nuclear power stations are inherently fail-safe,

Fail-safe.........them's brave words.............shall we hang it up on the long list of other disasters that have been confidently deemed thus?

Originally Posted by Mr H

The safety record of nuclear power stations is impressive, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aside.

About 13 (unofficial), ranging from a total fuckup in the Urals to several in the UK and USA of 3 mile island level.
These were older designs, but, where there is money and profits involved, past experience has shown that corners are cut and risks taken. The Simpsons scenario is closer to reality in some places than is comfortable.

West Australia is non- nuclear, but, with the new powers of the federal government, we fear they may force WA to have 2 NP stations in the Perth area.....

**Jamezo** · 24th November 2006, 19:00

Screw cold fusion, when the ITER comes online it's expected to achieve a well over unity Q factor for sustained periods!

Don't besmirch the name of Tesla Jim2, his wireless transmission system would by necessity be an AC system. DC, eww, go fellate Edison!

**sAsLEX** · 24th November 2006, 19:03

Originally Posted by Ixion

[/I]

Uh, last time I looked up, the local fusion power plant seemed to be running pretty well, and has been for a long time now. And it shows every sign of producing energy at a steady sustained rate for a long time to come.

Where well fucked if that craps out though aint we!

**k14** · 24th November 2006, 19:27

Well if there's going to be a nuke in NZ they need to invent one that is about 200MW and can be ramped down to approx 50MW fairly easily. NZ is too small for a 380MW CCGT with a min load of 240MW let alone a 500MW+ nuke plant.

Even if we weren't nuke free I doubt you'd find a company that would want to build one. Even the government wouldn't have the funds to pay for one. Would take such a long time to pay off being so restrained by its output. Not to mention the impact it would have on the whole NZ electricity market economics.

**Hitcher** · 24th November 2006, 19:35

Originally Posted by k14

Not to mention the impact it would have on the whole NZ electricity market economics.

Huntly is 1,000MW, so what's the problem? Build a couple of nukes and give the Waikato River, minus the dams, back to Tainui...

**k14** · 24th November 2006, 19:49

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Huntly is 1,000MW, so what's the problem? Build a couple of nukes and give the Waikato River, minus the dams, back to Tainui...

Nah mate. Huntly is 4 250MW generators. Very very big difference when the dynamics of the NZ electricity market is taken into account.

**cowpoos** · 24th November 2006, 20:09

Originally Posted by k14

Nah mate. Huntly is 4 250MW generators. Very very big difference when the dynamics of the NZ electricity market is taken into account.

ain't 4 x 250 = 1000

I'm guessing there is more to your point about that.....and I'm curious?

**k14** · 24th November 2006, 20:54

Originally Posted by cowpoos

ain't 4 x 250 = 1000

I'm guessing there is more to your point about that.....and I'm curious?

Yeah you're talking about a power station. I'm talking about the individual generator units. Thats the key issue. All to do with how much power would be lost in a trip of a single unit. The more power lost in one go the more reserve (backup) power required. NZ has bugger all and with the current state of play, Otahuhu B being the biggest generator, it is very easy to see that it is even too big at 395MW.

Simple fact is that NZ is just too small to sustain such a big station. NZ is perfect for hydro (max size generator being 120MW) subsidised with coal and gas units of up to around 300MW. Wind has its place but isn't the be all and end all that the greens would have you believe. Infact in some instances the wind turbines have meant other renewable power sources (hydro) have had to spill water when the wind was blowing. Meaning we were no better off at all.

**Jamezo** · 24th November 2006, 22:14

Agreed with k14. Nuclear power is only economic when you are big enough to be able to support multiple stations along with all the (significant) nuclear infrastructure that they require. Significant economies of scale, but a single plant in NZ doesn't have a shit show of being viable.

**James Deuce** · 24th November 2006, 22:24

Originally Posted by Jamezo

Don't besmirch the name of Tesla Jim2, his wireless transmission system would by necessity be an AC system. DC, eww, go fellate Edison!

I'm struggling to see how a stream of ionised plasma in the stratosphere could be regarded as AC, but full marks for picking up on the inherent bad taste in mentioning DC and Tesla in the same sentence.

**Skyryder** · 24th November 2006, 22:30

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Melt down, rather than blow up. But the chances of that happening are remote. The safety record of nuclear power stations is impressive, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aside.

The most significant issue for nuclear power stations is all of the hot water they produce. Ideally they should be located in the middle of large population centres so that this boiling water can be reticulated for homes and for heating. Otherwise vast cooling lakes and canals are required to get the temperatures low enough before the water can be recycled into lakes or river systems.

Not every country in the world is like New Zealand, where most of our electricity is generated from renewable sources, like hydro, geothermal and (gahh) wind. Most of the world gets its electricity from burning coal. Australia produces 75% of its electricity from coal, other countries are totally dependent. Our current fixation on "climate change" and the emissions from fossil fuels mean that energy planners are having to look elsewhere. Until somebody figures out how to cheaply manufacture hydrogen for fuel cells or cracks the dark art of cold fusion, all of the alternative ways of producing electricity are known. And nuclear is a credible option that should not be discarded or lampooned by the tree-hugging, SUV-driving soccer mums amongst us.

So Hitch if one gets built near you...........you've got no problems??

Skyyrder