bye bye standby?

Latest Articles

bye bye standby?
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects

Author

Message

monkey1973

Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 683
Location: Bonnie scotland

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:10 pm Post subject:
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.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:39 pm Post subject:
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

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:44 pm Post subject:

Shane wrote:

they're not claiming to reduce emissions, are they?

Nuclear?

Shane

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:45 pm Post subject:

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.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:48 pm Post subject:

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

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:51 pm Post subject:

Shane wrote:

And compared to Wind?

Shane

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:55 pm Post subject:
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)

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:57 pm Post subject:

tahir wrote:

Shane wrote:

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

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 3:58 pm Post subject:

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.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:03 pm Post subject:
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

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:04 pm Post subject:

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.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:07 pm Post subject:

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.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:07 pm Post subject:

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.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:12 pm Post subject:

Jonnyboy wrote:

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.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:15 pm Post subject:

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

	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