and these guys run nuclear power stations....

I've been saying that for decades.
There's plenty of ways of heating a house, but damn few ways of making
necessary poisons.

 

[...]

That depends on what you mean "still a matter of debate".

In science, EVERYTHING is still a matter of debate. We have not
assessed the true costs of burning fossil fuels (greenhouse gases,
using up of our petrochemical feedstocks), so the cost of coal energy is
also "still a matter of debate". (The big "climate change" discussions
in science right now for example are a giant debate on the true costs
of using fossil fuels)

However, for now the scientific consensus is that the costs of nuclear
energy are in more or less the same ballpark as coal now. In many countries
they are quite lower. See for example
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

 

Alll of this

They originally had the same V-6 that Volvo and DeLorean used, along with a
manual transmission known for sounding like a rock crusher. They used a
Renix fuel injection system with no ability to store codes or self-diagnose.
They also put in the silliest cooling system imaginable.

 

Ah.... the large white plastic Exploding Reservoir!
A true classic.... to avoid.

I have a '00 in the driveway... 4x4. It's a keeper.
4 point *OH*, baby! You have to love the straight 6.
__
Steve
..

 

Ah.... the large white plastic Exploding Reservoir!

My Wife's is an 89. Coolant tanks are about $30 online, i am ready for my
3rd one in 5 years. I will look for an aluminum neck in the warehouse if I'm
not snowed in in the morning and make an aluminum tank. I heard someone
sells them for around 4180.

 

I'll make you one for 3 grand and through in free shipping. ; )

Fraser

 

Oi!

Oh, as you were.

 

That was a bit short sighted wasn't it? Nobody knew at that point we'd
want to start recovering fossil fuels from the Irish Sea.

 

Hardly a neutral source. Do they mention that no civil nuclear power
station, anywhere, ever, has been built without a public subsidy? Has
anyone ever built a reactor on-time, on budget?

 

How quaint, you still watch live TV.

 

Your points are valid however they have also operated for twice their
original design lives.

The financial and logistical problems faced by Nuclear are Political.
The concepts and viability are rock solid. OK there is one other
problem. The engineering and planning overheads are so enormous there
are very few players and the industry is like a drifting supertanker.
New thinking and new technology are hard to adopt.

But you know there has been some breakthrough thinking in generating
energy from the marine environment. It is real "OF COURSE" stuff. The
Nodding Ducks and Snakes were never going to generate major power
percentages and were always going to be unsightly and tough to maintain.
Marine Wind farms are similarly high maintenence and of course sporadic,
they bug me because they sit in a high density power source harvesting a
low density power source.

www.aw-energy.com
www.aquamarinepower.com

Two breakthrough technologies. I really like the former. Sits below
the surface, no danger to small boats, no visual impact, the UK has all
the undersea technology experience and we have hundreds of miles of
suitable coastline where they could be anchored out past the low water
margin. An energy supply that never stops.

I would invest.

 

It would have been so easy to put it out past the Continental Shelf.

 

Concepts and viability are not solid: the newest reactor in the world
(in Finland) is three and a half years behind schedule and 50% over
budget. Nobody has yet worked out how to make the things properly.

That does look nice. The osmotic plant in Norway is sweet:

http://www.statkraft.com/energy-sources/osmotic-power/

 

[...]

Seeing as nuclear power is not something that should be let freely on
the private market it's not really that surprising. How many highway
projects or other large infrastructure investments are built without
a public subsidy anyway?

Of course. I've read of French and Japanese reactors for certain.
New Chinese plants also seem to be progressing as planned (maybe
because they're being built by the French ;-)).

 

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:35:50 GMT, (M J Carley) wrote:

snip>

People know how to make nuclear reactors work, the problem is making
them work safely at a low cost.

 

One could argue the toss endlessly about the subject but I do think that
with the right political environment it would be possible. But you
*still* need the right industrial entity, a conglomerate of companies,
to make it happen. Therin lies a huge challenge. Bit like making the
railways work. For that reason I don't think we have a good solution
other than letting the Frogs do it.

Sadly that means PWR. A compromise design. Difficult high cost
maintenance and exceptionally difficult decommissioning.

Truth is, doesn't actually have to be that way. Deep sea oil exploration
and production proved that incredibly difficult challenges can be
handled and huge new technology changes incorporated. And that industry
has proved huge projects can be done within reasonable budgets and
timescales.

 

The problem is making them work safely at a *known* cost.

 

[...]

The Nips, too. They have working railways and can build nuclear reactors
within budget and on schedule.

Or ABWR.

 

That is a nice niche product for many specific locations.

Oyster 1 is live. It was developed with Queens in Belfast BTW. It
feckin huge!
I don't think Aquamarine or AW are *quite* there yet. They have
identified the power source and location but the Transducer could more
efficiently be some sort of combination wave guide and hydrostatic tube.
But competing Patents and industrial interests are going to get in the
way I expect.

 

The Japs?!! I think you should read my replt to Ginge about their
Nuclear industry.

If the UK Gov and Industry could get its fucking act together then very
large 600/1200MWe Nuclear power plants would be a new generation AGR.
for a multitude of practical reasons.