Cyprus Eastern Forum Archive


This is a text archive version of our main content. To view the full site with more information, features, formatting and images please click here.

>> Eastern Cyprus Forum Archive Index

View The Full Original Topic: Can the power stations cope?


>> Have YOUR say - Post A Reply To This Topic

Posted By: Tangutica

  • mouse wrote:
    • Deanna wrote:
      Fusion is what takes place naturally inside our very own star, the sun.:)

    And Confusion is when you havn't a clue what they are talking about. :?

:lol: :lol: :lol:



Posted By: Dave B

  • journo wrote:

    And yes, I'd say you've missed just about everything that is important on the issue of nuclear power.

Thanks - glad I missed the lot . No one likes to be only half right. :D

Posted By: journo

  • Dave B wrote:
    Well as we all understood the Devils explanation, can I precis it?

'Can I' as in 'am I permitted to try?' - obviously yes, because you posted.
Can I as in 'am I able to?'.....well...ermmm.... :? what you wrote isn't a precis of what devil said.
And yes, I'd say you've missed just about everything that is important on the issue of nuclear power.

Posted By: Dave B

Well as we all understood the Devils explanation, can I precis it? Fission is bad :evil: but we can't do without it. Except in Japan where the lights are going out and Germany where the lights will go out.! Fusion is good except we can't manage to create the reaction for more than a micro second or two - so that is a dead duck, for the moment. Did I miss something really important Devil?

Posted By: mouse

  • Deanna wrote:
    Fusion is what takes place naturally inside our very own star, the sun.:)

And Confusion is when you havn't a clue what they are talking about. :?

Posted By: devil

  • geoffreys wrote:

    I bow to your superior knowledge of these matters!
    If I read you correctly you are saying that the suggestion by the Discovery channel (and others) that nuclear waste from a fission reactor can be used as fuel in a fusion reactor (if such a reactor were to be constructed, or could be constructed) is incorrect? In which case what is the safest way to dispose of it?

What is nuclear waste? Again simplistic, there are several types. With MOX reactors, spent fuel rods are stored in cooling baths for 40 years, after which they are 96% recycled foe reuse. The 4% left (a bucketful/reactor/year) is high level and the radioactivity will decay rapidly, in a few hundred years. This presents no real problem. It can be vitrified and stored almost anywhere in lead-lined stainless steel drums. There is no long term problem. For non-MOX reactors, the same applies but the volume is greater, typically a 200 l drum/reactor/year after treatment. Ideally it, too, could be recycled in a fast breeder reactor, but these are too thin on the ground just now.
What is more problematic is low level waste, which is much more voluminous. This is typically the ashes of organic matter (contaminated clothing, wipe rags, ion exchange resins etc.) This contains traces of many different radionuclides, some of which may have half-lives of tens of thousands of years or more. The radiation levels from them are not high but they are an embarrassment as they will be too high for safety without precautions. The safest way is to bury them, after treatment and vitrification, in a stratum of anhydrite rock or a disused rock salt mine (by definition, both have no water seepage) with precautions. If done correctly, there is no foreseeable danger. Many countries have suitable geology. However, NIMBY applies.
  • geoffreys wrote:

    Putting that aside, do you agree with them that nuclear power generation is the way to go now - provided it is safely regulated etc (which maybe it wasn't in Japan?)?

Absolutely! Even Japan will restart two of its reactors within a week or so.
  • geoffreys wrote:

    Do you also agree that for Germany to decide to close down its nuclear power generation program because of what took place in Japan is very short sighted?

Not just Germany! This is a stupid knee-jerk reaction from Fukushima aided and abetted by extremist anti-nuke NGOs applying pressure. That having been said, I would be in favour of phasing out in the short term all GE first generation reactors (the Fukushima type) within, say, 3-5 years as they represent the greatest potential danger. I would also phase down, in chronological order, all other first and second generation reactors over a decade or so. I'm confident the risk from Generation III and IIIa reactors is negligible. This would be a pragmatic solution as they would have time to construct new IIIa reactors to replace them.

Posted By: geoffreys

  • devil wrote:
    OK, let me explain.
    Firstly, Discovery Channels are worse than the National Enquirer, Sun and the Daily Telegraph combined when it comes to Science. They are purveyors of male bovine excrement, which is how I describe your explanation.
    What is fission? For power and simply put, it is when heavy atoms emit neutrons, which knock off more neutrons from neighbouring atoms and so on in a chain reaction. It is accompanied by heat. In a power station, the chain reaction has to be moderated to prevent it snowballing out of control. The heavy atoms used are typically uranium and when the reaction is finished some of the uranium is transmuted into other metals such as plutonium etc., other heavy metals.
    What is fusion? Again, simplistically, it is when we take kinds of hydrogen, the very lightest element, called deuterium and tritium and collide their atoms together to form the second lightest element, helium. This can be done only in a plasma produced by a high-energy electrical discharge and prevented from cooling by an intense magnetic field which "pinches" the plasma away from the walls of the reactor tube (like a doughnut). The plasma must be at a very high temperature. Hopefully, the reaction generates heat by neutron emission, but that is difficult to extract without destroying the plasma, more heat than the energy used to create and maintain the plasma. This has been done, many times. The problem is maintaining the reaction for a sufficiently long time to extract sufficient additional heat to be useful. I believe the longest sustained fusion reaction to date lasted just a few seconds. The ITER project in France is hoped to sustain reactions for longer times.
    So, on the one hand we use the heaviest natural elements and on the other hand the lightest elements. I fail to see how plutonium would work in a fusion reactor because, even if by some means you got it to fuse, it would extract energy, not produce it.
    I respectfully suggest you don't try to BS us with statements you don't have the faintest understanding of. If you wish to discuss safe disposal of nuclear fuel, you have only to ask (or read Wikipedia).

I bow to your superior knowledge of these matters! I did say in my prervious post that I was a super optimist!
If I read you correctly you are saying that the suggestion by the Discovery channel (and others) that nuclear waste from a fission reactor can be used as fuel in a fusion reactor (if such a reactor were to be constructed, or could be constructed) is incorrect? In which case what is the safest way to dispose of it?
Putting that aside, do you agree with them that nuclear power generation is the way to go now - provided it is safely regulated etc (which maybe it wasn't in Japan?)?
Do you also agree with me that for Germany to decide to close down its nuclear power generation program because of what took place in Japan is very short sighted?
Geoff

Posted By: Deanna

Fusion is what takes place naturally inside our very own star, the sun.:)





Posted By: devil

OK, let me explain. Firstly, Discovery Channels are worse than the National Enquirer, Sun and the Daily Telegraph combined when it comes to Science. They are purveyors of male bovine excrement, which is how I describe your explanation. What is fission? For power and simply put, it is when heavy atoms emit neutrons, which knock off more neutrons from neighbouring atoms and so on in a chain reaction. It is accompanied by heat. In a power station, the chain reaction has to be moderated to prevent it snowballing out of control. The heavy atoms used are typically uranium and when the reaction is finished some of the uranium is transmuted into other metals such as plutonium etc., other heavy metals. What is fusion? Again, simplistically, it is when we take kinds of hydrogen, the very lightest element, called deuterium and tritium and collide their atoms together to form the second lightest element, helium. This can be done only in a plasma produced by a high-energy electrical discharge and prevented from cooling by an intense magnetic field which "pinches" the plasma away from the walls of the reactor tube (like a doughnut). The plasma must be at a very high temperature. Hopefully, the reaction generates heat by neutron emission, but that is difficult to extract without destroying the plasma, more heat than the energy used to create and maintain the plasma. This has been done, many times. The problem is maintaining the reaction for a sufficiently long time to extract sufficient additional heat to be useful. I believe the longest sustained fusion reaction to date lasted just a few seconds. The ITER project in France is hoped to sustain reactions for longer times. So, on the one hand we use the heaviest natural elements and on the other hand the lightest elements. I fail to see how plutonium would work in a fusion reactor because, even if by some means you got it to fuse, it would extract energy, not produce it. I respectfully suggest you don't try to BS us with statements you don't have the faintest understanding of. If you wish to discuss safe disposal of nuclear fuel, you have only to ask (or read Wikipedia).

Posted By: geoffreys

  • spanner wrote:
    • devil wrote:
      • geoffreys wrote:

        3. used as fuel in fusion type reactors.
        (3) is the best, but no one has yet made a fusion reactor of a big enough size to be commercially viable, the problem being the very high operating temperatures inside the reactor.

      Please explain to me how this works.

    Depends which method you use, but as you already know all about this subject it would be silly for me to explain it to you.
    It is well known that so far they have not managed to get more power out than they put in, but they are getting close to a break-even situation.

Wish I could. I watched a program on TV, Discovery channel I think it was, where this concept was discussed. The problem I gathered was not the theory (although the theory is beyond my capability) but the practicality/engineering. It said they HAD built a SMALL fusion reactor, test tube size.
And yes, something for nothing, or close to it. Another one where Einstein got it wrong?? Like when he said it is impossible to exceed the speed of light; on TV news this year it was reported that has now been achieved.
Maybe a search on the Internet for "Nuclear Fusion Reactors" will help?
Geoff

Posted By: spanner

  • devil wrote:
    • geoffreys wrote:

      3. used as fuel in fusion type reactors.
      (3) is the best, but no one has yet made a fusion reactor of a big enough size to be commercially viable, the problem being the very high operating temperatures inside the reactor.

    Please explain to me how this works.

Depends which method you use, but as you already know all about this subject it would be silly for me to explain it to you.
It is well known that so far they have not managed to get more power out than they put in, but they are getting close to a break-even situation.

Posted By: devil

  • geoffreys wrote:

    3. used as fuel in fusion type reactors.
    (3) is the best, but no one has yet made a fusion reactor of a big enough size to be commercially viable, the problem being the very high operating temperatures inside the reactor.

Please explain to me how this works.

Posted By: geoffreys

  • John & Ness wrote:
    Did you look at the wind farm outputs (Go to the home page then bottom RH corner). They look an expensive waste of money.

Yes they are. Much has been written on other threads about them saying and proving just that.
The long term solution to burning fossil fuels with all the problems that causes is of course Nuclear.
The radioactive waste from nuclear fission reactors can be:
1. buried in safe sites.
2. thrown into the sun via space rockets.
3. used as fuel in fusion type reactors.
(3) is the best, but no one has yet made a fusion reactor of a big enough size to be commercially viable, the problem being the very high operating temperatures inside the reactor. Hopefully only a matter of time as this method of energy production will in the end save the planet and the human race.
Geoff
(always the super optimist!).

Posted By: John & Ness

Did you look at the wind farm outputs (Go to the home page then bottom RH corner). They look an expensive waste of money.

Posted By: geoffreys

  • spanner wrote:
    Looks fairly safe http://www.dsm.org.cy/nqcontent.cfm?a_name=graphing_load_1&lang=l2

Many thanks Spanner, I have now bookmarked that link.
Yep, looks OK, provided both Moni and Dhekalia (which are pretty old facilities) don't develop any faults (like they did recently when Moni was off-line for maintenance and Dhekalia failed).
Fingers crossed!
Geoff



Posted By: spanner

Looks fairly safe http://www.dsm.org.cy/nqcontent.cfm?a_name=graphing_load_1&lang=l2

Posted By: geoffreys

  • johnrose wrote:
    Looking around at the amount of empty shops/business premises I would think that the consumption of electricity would have actually dropped
    Also less visiters to the island

Fair comment, I hope you are right. Which is why it would be nice to find that on-line Supply/demand graph again.
Geoff

Posted By: johnrose

Looking around at the amount of empty shops/business premises I would think that the consumption of electricity would have actually dropped Also less visiters to the island

Posted By: geoffreys

I see on the various weather forecasts that Cyprus is in for a heat wave starting today. Many busineses etc are of course closed over the weekend, but demand for electricity is bound to surge due to the increased use of aircons, not least by tourists in hotels, apts, and holiday homes - as well as by residents. I remember last year someone on here giving us a useful link to a website that shows supply and demand, but I cannot find it now. Maybe someone can direct us to that link? Driving past Dhekalia power station yesterday it seemed to be working flat out if the smoke from the chimneys is anything to go by, I imagine Moni will be at full output also. Can they cope, or should we expect blackouts in the near future maybe? Geoff


[ ADVERTS: UK Stores Delivering To Cyprus | Find eBay Misspellings - Grab A Bargain! ]



Viewing Cyprus Eastern Forum Archive - Lo-Fi Version | Visit Cyprus Eastern Forum - Full Version | Questions?

TOP TIP: BUYING PROPERTY IN CYPRUS? PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU SEEK INDEPENDANT LEGAL ADVICE FIRST.
Cyprus forum covering Kapparis, Protaras, Pernera, Agia Napa, Agia Thekla, Paralimni, Larnaca, Oroklini, Pervolia & surrounding areas
Please note that the views expressed on this forum are those of the author and may not reflect the views of the management.