Here for the arcade.
Wouldn't want the engine to go bang...Originally Posted by P38
I'm lookin forward to Suzuki bringing out a Nuclear powered Cruiser
That way I can frag those Thieving Bastard Oil Companies too.
I'm sure the people selling plutonium rods are pillocks too.
Kiwibiker Senior Member
But I bet they still put an ugly front light on it.I'm lookin forward to Suzuki bringing out a Nuclear powered Cruiser
That way I can frag those Thieving Bastard Oil Companies too.
Find out more at www.unluckyones.co.nz
Forum whore
Nuclear knowledge makes you grumpy, short and irritable, that much I've learned
LOL!!! But he's actually pretty much right on the money, here. It's completely uneconomic for little NZ. We'd need a backup reserve of "conventionally" produced electricity as well, which means maintaining a huge power plant, or several, probably coal-fired, "at the ready". If the Nuclear plant shut down for any reason, it being by then pretty much the sole energy source for the country, we'd be right up the creek!
Personally, I'm seriously considering solar for much of our power needs. Each household could be almost completely independent for power using a combination of solar and wind generators. Every new home built should be required to install solar water-heating systems. Would be cost effective, and if the Govt was serious about it they'd make a proper subsidy available.
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
x
What are you on about? Are you trying to tell us that the WHOLE of NZ is only using the equivalent of 5 2kW heaters at 5:30 in the morning? Where did you get THAT bit of info? Sounds like bollocks to me.
And what makes you think that nuclear plants can't control their power output? Haven't you ever heard of control rods? You know - insert rods, reaction damps down, less heat generated, so less steam. Turn off steam feed to some turbines, get less power output. Want more power? Pull the control rods, reaction speeds up, more heat, more steam, open up lines to extra turbines. Simple.
Geez - a nuke reactor is just a thermal generation plant. In fact - IIRC, the geothermal plant just out of Taupo was designed so that it could be switched over to nuke should the need ever arise...
Jantar and K14 are right. You don't appear to be.
2GW = 2000MW. Total NZ draw at 6:20 pm today was 5000MW (=5GW). This link gives current draw: http://www.transpower.co.nz/?id=5969
This link gives the loading by area: http://www.transpower.co.nz/?id=5970
Where do you get a 2GW reactor from? From what I've been able to find - most reactors are <1GW, with an occasional one that runs to ~1.5GW - this link lists the UK reactors, and generation capacities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...on_reactors_16 - and a bunch of others. This link will get you to all available lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors
AND - just for fun - this link takes you to a downloadable nuke power plant simulation: http://www.ae4rv.com/games/nuke.htm
Base power - Ok - so most nuke plants in the world are 'Base Power' systems - as the difference in fuel consumption between high output and low output is negligible - making them more efficient to run at a high output. BUT there are 'Load Following' plants available also - mainly in France, due to a high percentage of their electricity being produced by nuclear generation - see following from Wiki, from this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
Nuclear power representing such a large percentage of the electrical production is unique to France, and as such, there are some technical differences from the nuclear power programs of other countries. For instance, in order to meet changing demand throughout the day, some plants must work as load following plants, whereas most nuclear plants in the world operate as base load plants, and allow other fossil or hydro units adjust to demand. Nuclear power in France has a total capacity factor of around 77%, which is considerably low due to load following, but availability is around 84%, indicating excellent overall performance of the plants.
Last edited by steveb64; 21st February 2008 at 18:44. Reason: Add correction re base power/load following
UKMC #64
Homo Sapiens Vulgaris
There's a lot opposition towards wind power which is actually the main problem. There's always going to be wind somewhere in NZ - so the trick is to have substantial wind farms spread out all over the country. (Unfortunately off-shore is tricky down here).
That's the misconceptions that needs changing! True that big wind turbines make substantial noise - but NZ has such a low population density that it shouldn't be a problem. As for the visual bit - HTFU or stop using as much electricity NZ! (There's this clever thing called insulation that can be integrated in house building - that should help a bit. Double glazing was invented at least 25 years ago too).
No, fission is a physical reaction - a neuclear reaction (nuclear coming from nucleus meaning the core of the atom). Chemical reactions rely on changes in the electron configuration of atoms and the reactions associated with that.
Fission occurs when an unstable nucleus collides with a neutron with a certain kinetic energy. This strikes an oscillation in the now heavier nucleus which eventually (we're talking very small timespans - less than a microsecond) tears the oscillating compound nucleus into two fission products (about 50/50 mass share) and releases an amount of energy and, on average, 2.5 new neutrons that zooms away with some kinetic energy.
These neutrons, if their kinetic energy is right, can start a new fission process in another nucleus.
Packing fissible material together is done to achieve either a controlled (reactor) or uncontrolled (bomb) chain reaction where enough of the new neutrons react with other nuclei to keep the reaction running.
One of the issues here is the kinetic energy of the neutrons - if it's too high it won't strike a resonance in the nucleus and therefore just bounce off. For uranium you use two different isotopes: U-238 and U-235. U-238 is pretty common in natural uranium 99.27% compared to U-235 0.7204%. Thing is - U-238 only interact with slow to medium speed neutrons and as such you need a moderator (often heavy water) to slow the fast new neutrons down before they can cause fission in U-238.
U-235 on the other hand are not so picky and will interact with both fast and very fast neutrons. This is desirable if you don't want to wait for the neutrons to slow down (giving a higher rate of energy release - BOOM!). Enriched uranium contains a higher percentage of U-235 compared to U-238 and can be produced by mass spectrometry in large centrifuges.
The higher level of enrichment the less uranium you need to bunch together to get critical mass - the point where the chain reaction accelerates.
In a reactor you use neutron absorbers (control rods) to adjust the level of activity in the reactor. In a bomb you just let go of the reins.
Anyway, I got carried away... But it's not a chemical reaction, that's all I wanted to say.
Your focus seems to have been nuclear weapons. And sure enough you can start fusion with the energy (heat) from a small fission warhead.
However, most research into using fusion as an energy source rather than a weapon does not use fission (other as in electricity from a nuclear power plant perhaps) to start the process. Some use highly focused pulse lasers, others electric fields to create a very dense and very energetic plasma. Problem is that in order to cause fusion (merge two nuclei into on nucleus) you need to force two electrically charged particles close enough together for the nucleatic forces to overcome the coulomb repulsion. The nucleatic forces are proportional to 1/r^(4-6) where as the coulomb repulsion is proportional to 1/r^2. That means that you have to overcome a HUGE resistance know as the coulomb barrier. In order to do that the atoms needs to travel at huge speed - which equals huge temperature (millions of degrees celsius!). As you say, we haven't got any material that can withstand these temperatures - however we can use strong magnetic fields to levitate the plasma so it doesn't touch any material and reflective surfaces to direct the thermal radiation back into the plasma... Tricky though - and takes a lot of power unless you have a super conductor...
It's a dream - not magic. The idea is to somehow alter the hydrogen (deuterium or tritium) to decrease the coulomb barrier so you don't need as much energy to jam them together. (Bringing the temperature down from perhaps 50 million degrees to a mere 50 thousand degrees - I know it's not our idea of cold, but relatively speaking it's a lot).
I'm a geek and I'm proud
It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities. (...such as the word fuck.)
Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. - Joseph Rotblat
Homo Sapiens Vulgaris
Oh, and Nuclear waste in NZ wouldn't be too much of a problem. There are heaps of old and deep coal mines you could chuck it into!
It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities. (...such as the word fuck.)
Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. - Joseph Rotblat
Fair weather rider
You cannot build a nuclear power plant on or anywhere near a fault line.We would be better off to invest in a plant in Australia,lay a cable,and import power across the ditch. All for nuclear energy myself....
Moped rider
Saw an article in the paper about 6-8 months ago where they were talking about putting turbines in the Manukau Harbour. Worked on the same principle as wind turbines but operated on the tide.
If you can't be a good example, be a horrible warning
Hardcore Biker
Or you could have a Floating nuclear power station.
Edit: hang on that station says it has an output of "70MW electric or 300MW heat power".
What do you have to say about that mr NZ is too small.
r4q2
Maybe I shoulda used the search button?
Yup I should used the search button!Nuclear power was discussed on this site as recently as 5 weeks ago, so I'm NOT going to repeat the reasons why nuclear isn't yet suitable for New Zealand. See http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=64316 .
As for wind: 10 days ago the Power Syatem in New Zealand faced its first Grid emergency of the year. Every available power station was generating to capacity, and even the Standby Whirinaki Station was on full load. Mid summer and there was nothing left. But the wind farms were generating zilch. There was simply no wind. The Waikato river was so hot that Huntly was on reduced output because of its Resource Consent Limits. Cook Straight Cable was at its limit because of insuffient North Island reserve. The Taranaki Combined Cycle station was shut down for planned maintenence.
The downside of wind generation is that can help supplement energy, but does not help with producing power. And I'm sure that motorcyclists Know the difference between energy and power.
Ain't that the truth!Nuclear knowledge makes you grumpy, short and irritable, that much I've learned
Sorry dude I couldn't be bothered reading all that!There's a lot opposition towards wind power which is actually the main problem. There's always going to be wind somewhere in NZ - so the trick is to have substantial wind farms spread out all over the country. (Unfortunately off-shore is tricky down here).
That's the misconceptions that needs changing! True that big wind turbines make substantial noise - but NZ has such a low population density that it shouldn't be a problem. As for the visual bit - HTFU or stop using as much electricity NZ! (There's this clever thing called insulation that can be integrated in house building - that should help a bit. Double glazing was invented at least 25 years ago too).
No, fission is a physical reaction - a neuclear reaction (nuclear coming from nucleus meaning the core of the atom). Chemical reactions rely on changes in the electron configuration of atoms and the reactions associated with that.
Fission occurs when an unstable nucleus collides with a neutron with a certain kinetic energy. This strikes an oscillation in the now heavier nucleus which eventually (we're talking very small timespans - less than a microsecond) tears the oscillating compound nucleus into two fission products (about 50/50 mass share) and releases an amount of energy and, on average, 2.5 new neutrons that zooms away with some kinetic energy.
These neutrons, if their kinetic energy is right, can start a new fission process in another nucleus.
Packing fissible material together is done to achieve either a controlled (reactor) or uncontrolled (bomb) chain reaction where enough of the new neutrons react with other nuclei to keep the reaction running.
One of the issues here is the kinetic energy of the neutrons - if it's too high it won't strike a resonance in the nucleus and therefore just bounce off. For uranium you use two different isotopes: U-238 and U-235. U-238 is pretty common in natural uranium 99.27% compared to U-235 0.7204%. Thing is - U-238 only interact with slow to medium speed neutrons and as such you need a moderator (often heavy water) to slow the fast new neutrons down before they can cause fission in U-238.
U-235 on the other hand are not so picky and will interact with both fast and very fast neutrons. This is desirable if you don't want to wait for the neutrons to slow down (giving a higher rate of energy release - BOOM!). Enriched uranium contains a higher percentage of U-235 compared to U-238 and can be produced by mass spectrometry in large centrifuges.
The higher level of enrichment the less uranium you need to bunch together to get critical mass - the point where the chain reaction accelerates.
In a reactor you use neutron absorbers (control rods) to adjust the level of activity in the reactor. In a bomb you just let go of the reins.
Anyway, I got carried away... But it's not a chemical reaction, that's all I wanted to say.
Your focus seems to have been nuclear weapons. And sure enough you can start fusion with the energy (heat) from a small fission warhead.
However, most research into using fusion as an energy source rather than a weapon does not use fission (other as in electricity from a nuclear power plant perhaps) to start the process. Some use highly focused pulse lasers, others electric fields to create a very dense and very energetic plasma. Problem is that in order to cause fusion (merge two nuclei into on nucleus) you need to force two electrically charged particles close enough together for the nucleatic forces to overcome the coulomb repulsion. The nucleatic forces are proportional to 1/r^(4-6) where as the coulomb repulsion is proportional to 1/r^2. That means that you have to overcome a HUGE resistance know as the coulomb barrier. In order to do that the atoms needs to travel at huge speed - which equals huge temperature (millions of degrees celsius!). As you say, we haven't got any material that can withstand these temperatures - however we can use strong magnetic fields to levitate the plasma so it doesn't touch any material and reflective surfaces to direct the thermal radiation back into the plasma... Tricky though - and takes a lot of power unless you have a super conductor...
It's a dream - not magic. The idea is to somehow alter the hydrogen (deuterium or tritium) to decrease the coulomb barrier so you don't need as much energy to jam them together. (Bringing the temperature down from perhaps 50 million degrees to a mere 50 thousand degrees - I know it's not our idea of cold, but relatively speaking it's a lot).
I'm a geek and I'm proud
So thats a no to Nuclear then?!
Forum whore
Fission is a chemical reaction compared to a Fusion reaction, but we're arguing semantics.
I'm a geek and I'm proud
The problem with being a geek is that you have to come up with an argument where the non-geeks don't just give up and walk away.
Blowing up shit most people get.
Coulumb barrier is guaranteed to make people snore, as are a series of equations.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
Deus ex ukulele
Funny that nobody has mentioned nimbys. They are the single largest threat to New Zealand's energy future.
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
Forum whore
It is. I even used small "k" just to make it doubly wrong.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
Night rider
Construction has just started on a prototype. Completion is due in 2010, and no mention of certification or costs.
So far all naval types are far too costly for domestic use. The closest to having a suitable reactor for New Zealand is the 360 MW Westinghouse unit due for certification in 2010.
Time to ride
Forum whore
Westinghouse you say? So Fisher and Paykel will service it here in NZ? Could I pick one up from Smiths City?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks