Dear all,

I have been vaguely following the discussion on nuclear power so if I repeat what other's have stated, my apologies. 

Yes there are some plant seeds in Australia that have evolved to require the immense heat of bush fires in order to germinate and crack but I don't actually want to get caught up in this debate. Nevertheless I have no problem stating that I think nuclear power is bad. 

I previously responded to one of Karen's post with the following:
Hi Karen,

this is just a quick comment in response to your post, point 2

I understand that electricity derived from nuclear fission is commonly regarded as cheap or economical.
However, the cost for construction of nuclear power plants is immense. Apparently it takes up to 15 years for such power plants to be constructed. The fuel is considered cheap but it still has to be extracted and transported over considerable distances. In my opinion the most important factor in regard to cost and the most ignored is that of dealing with nuclear waste of over the next millennia. I can never get into my head how anyone can justify this incredible long-term expense for short-term economic gain.
Recently a fellow researcher mentioned an energy flow analysis of nuclear fission that concluded this for of electricity production costs more energy than it produces (taking plant construction, fuel supply, waste management, etc. into account). 
I'll try and find the source for this unless anyone else knows about it. 

I guess despite all of these cost factors we do safe some money as we don't have to pay insurance for nuclear electricity production ....


new post:
One thing that I do find really interesting is the notion that 'we need nuclear'. I ask myself who is 'we'? The majority of people currently living on this planet do not and will never never use nuclear fission to fulfil their energy demands. Okay, the population and therefore energy demand is growing but again the regions where this is happening (e.g. sub-saharan Africa) do not have nuclear power plants and won't have any in the near future (except South Africa). In the regions who are using nuclear, it is only 'our' parents' generation who grew up with it but we always treat it as if we've been using it centuries. I guess this is human nature. Finally, looking at data since the 1950s, some of the countries using nuclear, such as Germany, have been experiencing negative population growth rates (e.g. Germany) so I guess there is an argument to turn some of the nuclear power stations off then. I know, energy demand does not just depend on population growth but I thought I'd point this out. 

As far as I understand one of the issues in satisfying energy demand in the West is the dependence on inefficient national grid systems. When these were constructed efficiency wasn't a top priority. An example that illustrates this: I'm sure some of you have heard about plans to build a giant solar power infrastructure in the Sahara desert to feed electricity to North Africa, the Middle East and Europe. Apparently when the electricity from this reaches Germany, the unit cost will be four times more expensive then it would be in Spain. 
So I guess some of the discussion evolves around finding an alternative to long distance electricity supply using alternating current (AC which is what you get when you plug your hairdryer into the wall). I'm not an expert on this topic but I am aware that high voltage direct current (DC is what you get in car batteries) might be an option. 
There is also the idea that the grid systems in Europe should be looked at in a more holistic manner. In regard to renewable energy opposing arguments often mention something like "every time I drive past that ugly turbine it's not working'. There are actually a number of reasons for this and one of course might be that there is no wind. However if you look at for instance Europe as a whole, chances are if there is no wind round the corner you I live, there will be wind somewhere else. Therefore the solution would be to create grid systems that compliment each other and balance this out. 

I think the biggest problem we face is the fact that we can't store electricity except in batteries. In other words if 30 million people switch on the kettle during half time in the world cup final, energy production has to increase within seconds or we have to constantly produce enough to satisfy this eventuality. I recently visited the closest to a giant non-chemical storage battery that 'we' have: the Electric Mountain in Wales. I copied the following from their website: 
"Pumped storage hydro-electricity works on a very simple principle.
Two reservoirs at different altitudes are required. When the water is released, from the upper reservoir, energy is created by the downflow which is directed through high-pressure shafts, linked to turbines.
In turn, the turbines power the generators to create electricity.
Water is pumped back to the upper reservoir by linking a pump shaft to the turbine shaft, using a motor to drive the pump.
The pump motors are powered by electricity from the National Grid - the process usually takes place overnight when national electricity demand is at its lowest"
http://www.fhc.co.uk/pumped_storage.htm

The electric mountain uses more electricity to pump the water back into the top reservoir (I was shocked) but is viable for two reasons. The power plant sells more expensive electricity to the national grid during the day and uses cheaper electricity during the night to pump the water. More importantly, the system allows for one or more of its 6 turbines to switched on to full capacity within 10 seconds (from standby; otherwise 16 seconds). So the little time it takes for people to leave the sofa during half time to turn the kettle on is plenty to increase energy production. 

Anne Schiffer
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Filippo A. Salustri [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 22 March 2011 21:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to Norman - a Fukushima solution by Germany/ Are we playing with fire?

Karen et al,

What I mean by all this is that generalities are very dangerous things.  One
cannot just say "forest fires are bad."  Forest fires, no matter who starts
them, just *are*.  Badness and goodness of things only pops up when we put
value judgements on things like forest fires.  Same with nuclear power and
coal power.

Every time we say that something is bad or good, we're passing on all the
assumptions we make about the situation and the consequences of that
situation.  I suggest that it is very important that we reflect on the
assumptions we make and see what we *really* mean when we say something is
good or bad.

Karen, please don't put yourself out to get the data.  Again, all I meant
was that without a really clear understanding of the facts, it is very easy
to end up with an inconsistent value judgement on things.

If we decide that nuclear power is bad and shut down all the reactors, then
there will be consequences.

I believe that those consequences will be worse, in the long run, than not
using nuclear power, at least for a while longer (like, another century or
so).  I could explain that, but I get the feeling that I've been spouting
off a bit too much on this thread.

So I'll go mark some assignments instead. :)

Cheers.
Fil

On 22 March 2011 15:28, Karen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi All, and whoever is moderating this list:
> Can anyone on this forum fix the crazy reply to line that doesn't link
> to 'PhD design list'.
> Its a pain to delete the email of the author and replace it manually
> with the list's address...
>
> On with my elfin adventure on nuclear in the middle of the night/day,
> whatever you call it..
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Filippo A. Salustri
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Karen, see embedded comments.
> >
> > On 21 March 2011 15:52, Karen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >
> > Forest fires are nature's way.  Fires happen all the time, not started
> > by humans.  Sometimes, humans start bad fires, but nature recovers.
> > Read up on the nature, frequency, and response of nature to forest
> > fires.
> > And yes, nuclear energy is containable.  This is evident from the
> > history of nuclear energy.
> >
> >
>
> I just knew before I shut my eyes to sleep that someone would say this
> because
> I didn't specify 'Fire'. My apolgies for missing the explaination.
>
> Forest fires are natural occurance. But what I was trying to say was that
> fire is something we cannot control effectively despite our advancement
> in technologies. Fires can be started by humans as they could be started by
> nature. With climate change and weather conditions getting drier in places
> in California and Australia, prepare for more fires.
>
> And many fires are initiated by humans.
> And often it is very hard to recover. Often at the risks of firefighters.
> One typical example is the forest fire in California in the US about 2
> years back.
> It was outrageous. (see reference links below my sig.)
> And notably the fire caused in LA was human induced too.
>
>
> >
> > Nuclear energy is not spontaneous at all.  The nuclear fuel is HIGHLY
> > manufactured material.  Naturally occurring uranium is virtually
> > harmless.  I have samples of pitchblende in my rock collection.  Have
> > had since I was a boy.  I'm fine.
>
>
> Naturally occurring uranium is harmless, but after human intervention, this
> can
> become harmful. The same could be said about gun powder. Some cultures use
> it for fire crackers, celebration; while some used it to blast their
> enemies' heads off.
>
> The hard truth is there are people who have uncanny ways of doing things.
> They are all innovative. But the cause for concern is the potential and the
> extent of danger that each element poses. It I hold uranium. or even
> harmless
> amount of untouched hydrogen, I am fine. But if I hold just hydrogen
> alone and played
> with it in huge amounts under pressure, I get a hydrogen bomb. Human
> ingenuity
> can come up with ideas. Just that it has to be on the right track.
> Hydrogen is abundant.
> Wrong use, and its a terrifying abundant gas used for massive destruction.
>
>
> >
> > We are imperfect beings.  Your demand for "100 percent" containment is
> > not rational.  It can't be done.  Nature can't do it.  Humans can't do
> > it.
>
>
> True we are imperfect beings. And also due to our imperfection, we cannot
> also
> be confident and sure that humans can design the best containment to fuels
> that are potentially highly combustible. Both nature and humans cannot
> ensure 100 percent
> containment on any materials that we have to be totally safe. We need
> precautions.
> If we can prevent a disaster like Fukushima, and we are able to do now; I
> feel
> we should take the precaution now like some of the EU countires are doing
> now.
>
>
>
> >
> > Forget about coal being depleted.  What about the health risks and
> > GHGs from using coal as an energy source?
>
>
> Should have added to say that I don't even want coal / fossil fuels and
> anything
> that exhaust fumes.  Anyway I've just stated my stand on coal now at
> late bedtime.
>
> >
> > As far as cost goes, I would like to know where you got your
> > information on cost.  I expect that given the extremely tight control
> > on nuclear plants, that the costs would be higher.  But are the costs
> > that much higher - proportionally - than other high-tech / dangerous
> > technology?  I ask out of ignorance.  Until I have numbers, I will not
> > endorse one side or another of the argument.
> >
>
>
> I am trying to hunt for the stats. It comes with a large world map
> showing where the
> nuclear plants are. US has lots concentrated in the eastern part of
> their country.
> Then they show the costs of setting up a plant that is initially high
> and covers itself
> over a period of time. If memory doesn't fail me, in aroun 5-8 years
> time, and its covered.
> I should have recorded the link when I read it last week.
> I will try to find it.
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> In all, why should it be all fission?
> >>
> >
> > Cuz that is, for now, the only game in town.
>
>
> if thats the only game in town, then we are being utterly uncreative.
> How can we be confined by that one source of energy alone when there
> are clearly others at hand?
>
> Its like talking about using only force to answer problems in the world.
> There are many ways of doing it. Gandhi used peace for India to obtain
> freedom for
> his people. Singapore used to believe that merging with Malaysia as
> the only way to
> survive. People used to think that a country that has lots of natural
> resources are the ones
> which will prosper. It is via human creativity that makes our
> prosperity and it is
> humanity that keeps our society sustainable.
> All these policies/inventions.ideas are man-made. We can change. For
> that to change,
> we must have guts to go into the unknown and venture. And fortunately for
> us,
> we have other sources of energy that we can source. It may not be quick and
> cost
> effective like nuclear, but we can design it with our expertise of new
> forms of energy tio
> answer problems. Policies to encourage smart use of energies. My blog
> is about that.
> If anyone's interested, its below my sig too.
>
> The reality is do we need to really use
> that much energy? Of course we don't. Thats another topic.
>
> Its already 3:20 am here. I need to get some sleep. I only login an
> hour ago. Shouldn't have.
> But I did. So I might as well complete at least this email. I have
> books to cover and notes to take
> tomorrow.
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> I'm fully awake...
> >> Karen Fu
> >>
> >
> > I hope you get a good night's rest.
> > Try a shot of whiskey.  That always helps me. :-)
> >
>
>
> Thanks for the advise. But I don't drink.
> I only use wines for culinary purposes.
> And I don't take caffeine to wake me up.
> I use excercise. It works.  : )
>
> I'll look for the infographic and the stats and post later.
>
> Karen Fu
> elfin blog: http://daringtochange.wordpress.com
> Other blogs can be traced from here. Your adventure may vary.
>
> My sleepy links are for your reference. I shall endeavour to look for more.
> But for now, let me have my slumber.... (thanks)
>
> 1. California Forest Fire, New York Times:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30wildfires.html
> 2.What causes forest fires:
> http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-causes-forest-fires.html
> 3. Human caused wildfires increases in Calif
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wildfires/2009-05-14-human-caused-wildfires-increasing_N.htm
> 4. Eyeing Japan, Countries reassess Nuclear Plans:
>
> http://www.greatenergychallengeblog.com/blog/2011/03/15/eyeing-japan-countries-reassess-nuclear-plans/
>



--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/


To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm