Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 68471 2006-04-30 00:56:00 Nuclear power. Cicero (40) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
450695 2006-05-01 01:46:00 " Last edited by KiwiTT_NZ : Today at 12:17 PM." Your Post 12:13 PM.
Gasps with relief, it's not alzheimers after all :)
Terry Porritt (14)
450696 2006-05-01 01:48:00 Thermal is good but limited. The power plant can only take a certain amount of steam before it runs out. There are scenarios where water is pumped down to the magma to restore the supply of steam but inevitably the rocks cool and it isn't a longterm solution.

So for thermal we need a kitset plant which can be packed up every 5-10 years and moved to the next hole. Not impossible but not simple either.

But I agree that using thermal makes a lot of sense.
Winston001 (3612)
450697 2006-05-01 01:52:00 Gasps with relief, it's not alzheimers after all :)
Even I was worried there for a minute.
Socialist thinking has been known to frazzle the little grey cells.
Cicero (40)
450698 2006-05-01 01:55:00 "Thermal" is to do with heat, which includes nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc, so let's be specific. :D

Geothermal is what gives us electricity at the cost of some of the tourist geysers. There are corrosion problems ... it's not clean water/steam.

One bright guy found problems when he wanted to raise shrimps or something similar in the warm water from the geothermal station. Shell fish are very good at accumulating heavy metals. Guess what that water contains lots of. :(
Graham L (2)
450699 2006-05-01 01:58:00 Nuclear power has come a long way . You can buy plants "off the shelf" . Specifically from the French, Chinese and Russians . Submarines and aircraft carriers routinely use reactors .

There are plants designed to throw away . What happens is that they are constructed underground and at the end of their working life - 30 years - they are buried .

Yes I know - earthquakes, volcanoes, etc etc . But I suggest the same risk exists for dams and other types of power plant .

One thing to note - nuclear reactors run at 100% or nothing, unlike hydro . If we had a 600mw plant then we'd need 600mw of reserve capacity to run up very quickly for times the nuc was down . Otherwise the NZ electricity system would trip out all over and there would be some very dark nights .
Winston001 (3612)
450700 2006-05-01 01:59:00 May I just bang on about anti-matter for a moment . This is even better than nuclear fusion . Existing reactors use fission .

An anti-matter explosion when it contacts a piece of ordinary matter is a serious bang . Virtually total destruction of matter - no radioactive wastes to worry about . Lots of clean energy produced .
.
Yes, much better . No mess .
pctek (84)
450701 2006-05-01 02:03:00 Right Mr. Pedant :)

www.ew.govt.nz
Terry Porritt (14)
450702 2006-05-01 02:09:00 ... If we had a 600mw plant then we'd need 600mw of reserve capacity to run up very quickly No problem. Just plug in another AA alkaline cell and go for another 6 hours. :D If it was 600MW, you could indeed have load shedding problems. Graham L (2)
450703 2006-05-01 02:12:00 With mmp it is almost impossible to make any controversial decision,so don't hold your breath.one way or the other. Cicero (40)
450704 2006-05-01 02:31:00 It's not just nuclear reactor/steam turbines that like to run at 100%, conventional power station steam turbines of any size have to run more or less under constant thermal conditions, ie 100%.
Otherwise there are thermal distortion problems, labyrinth sealing gland rubbing used to be a problem with sets particularly those over 600MW.

New Zealand doesn't have any really big turbine sets.

Pumped storage was one idea for load shedding, whereby the water turbines are powered as pumps at night to pump water back up the hill.
Terry Porritt (14)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17