Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
bye bye standby?
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects
Author 
 Message
monkey1973



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 683
Location: Bonnie scotland
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

I can't find anything comparing the concrete quantities between, say, a nuclear plant and the equivalent wind farms.

 
Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

It's the actual production of concrete that requires huge amounts of energy, not the quarrying / transport. Puts out some nasty chemicals too.

Okay, so other power stations need concrete too, but they're not claiming to reduce emissions, are they?

 
tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45676
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Shane wrote:
they're not claiming to reduce emissions, are they?


Nuclear?

 
Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

puffedpride wrote:
It ought to be simple though?

CO2-free energy created in lifetime of turbine minus CO2-reliant energy embodied in construction, maintenance and decommissioning...

...minus CO2 emitted by powerstation on standby...
puffedpride wrote:
...equals net gain or loss of CO2 emissions.

Doesn't it? And surely that isn't too difficult to work out for a windmill!

 
Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

tahir wrote:
Shane wrote:
they're not claiming to reduce emissions, are they?


Nuclear?

Ah - but a nuclear powerstation and a conventional power station will both use a similar amount of concrete (order of magnitude speaking). Not sure about the emissions due to extraction and processing of uranium, but I'd be surprised if they exceeded those caused by the extraction, processing and burning of fossil fuels.

 
tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45676
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Shane wrote:
Ah - but a nuclear powerstation and a conventional power station will both use a similar amount of concrete (order of magnitude speaking). Not sure about the emissions due to extraction and processing of uranium, but I'd be surprised if they exceeded those caused by the extraction, processing and burning of fossil fuels.


And compared to Wind?

 
Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Back to the reliable numbers issue again!

The (current) advantage with nuclear is that the technology is well developed, it works, it produces minimal (although rather nasty) waste, doesn't rely on certain areas of the world for fuel supplies, can supply a significant proportion of UK power demand, and (allegedly) puts out significantly less greenhouse gas than fossil fuels.

 
thos



Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 1139
Location: Jauche, Duchy of Brabant (Bourgogne-ci) and Charolles, Duchy of Burgundy (Bourgogne-�a)
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

tahir wrote:
Shane wrote:
Ah - but a nuclear powerstation and a conventional power station will both use a similar amount of concrete (order of magnitude speaking). Not sure about the emissions due to extraction and processing of uranium, but I'd be surprised if they exceeded those caused by the extraction, processing and burning of fossil fuels.


And compared to Wind?


But how many wind turbines would it need to match the generating capacity of one nuke?

 
tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45676
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

thos wrote:
But how many wind turbines would it need to match the generating capacity of one nuke?


That's sort of the question, how much concrete for a given generating capacity

 
Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Total power generated over a life time would be more representative.

Must be some numbers out there somewhere for the typical capacity of a turbine...<scarpers off a mo>

 
dougal



Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Shane wrote:
Ah - but a nuclear powerstation and a conventional power station will both use a similar amount of concrete (order of magnitude speaking).

Hmmm. Mmmmm. Not certain on that. ("I know that I don't know" as Rumsfeld might have said.)

The reactor support and containment is pretty damn massive.
Its not just a big shed with a sound foundation for heavy machinery....

 
Jonnyboy



Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Shane wrote:
Back to the reliable numbers issue again!

The (current) advantage with nuclear is that the technology is well developed, it works, it produces minimal (although rather nasty) waste, doesn't rely on certain areas of the world for fuel supplies, can supply a significant proportion of UK power demand, and (allegedly) puts out significantly less greenhouse gas than fossil fuels.


But nuclear only supplies a small proportion of the current demand, it will take far to long to get significant numbers of new plants online to prevent shortages and the real cost to supply is far higher than the subsidised cost we already pay.

Nuclear is only a financial goer because the cost of energy is expected to rise dramatically.

I'm totally gobsmacked that the 56% saving in usage that's possible with current technology isn't being shouted from the rooftops as our first, best and cheapest solution.

 
Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Yeah - that's why I cunningly slipped "order of magnitude" in there

Whilst the actual reactor building might need more concrete than a furnace, the total powerstation complex will need so much more that the difference might well end up fairly negligible. By the time you've factored in pipe supports, roads, support buildings, cooling towers, etc, etc, etc you end up with an almighty amount of concrete regardless of what type of reactor you've got.

 
Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Jonnyboy wrote:
But nuclear only supplies a small proportion of the current demand, it will take far to long to get significant numbers of new plants online to prevent shortages and the real cost to supply is far higher than the subsidised cost we already pay.

It's still generally accepted that it will be possible to get the next generation built and on line before renewable technology is developed far enough to make an impact.

Jonnyboy wrote:
Nuclear is only a financial goer because the cost of energy is expected to rise dramatically.

That's also what's making a lot of alternative technologies feasible, too.

Jonnyboy wrote:
I'm totally gobsmacked that the 56% saving in usage that's possible with current technology isn't being shouted from the rooftops as our first, best and cheapest solution.

There is currently a TV advert being screened every night urging people to save 20% on their domestic power consumption. But what do you do if they don't? Force them to? Guaranteed election loser!

Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating that we give up and just burn as much power as we can. Just a bit of a cynic on certain issues (like the feasibility of persuading the entire population to half their power consumption)!

 
Jonnyboy



Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Shane wrote:
Total power generated over a life time would be more representative.

Must be some numbers out there somewhere for the typical capacity of a turbine...<scarpers off a mo>


I can remember reading a blog of some guys visit to a nuclear power station, the figures involved are staggering. IIRC the turbine rooms alone are bigger than most normal power stations

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright � 2004 marsjupiter.com