16 October 2017

Using Nuclear Power Instead Of Coal Has Prevented 2,123,000 Premature Deaths.

99.99% of humanity do not give a You-Know-What where their electricity comes from as long as it's there on demand. 

It's pointless trying to argue the case for nuclear power on the basis of preventing pollution and premature deaths:

Macabre Indifference Rules:
A Gruesome and Horrifying Lack of Concern.

To be used when the Anti-Nukes trot out their 
Fukushima/Chernobyl deaths hyperbole ! 

13 June 2017

666,667 East Midlands Population Reject 1,003 x 2 MW Wind Turbines And Choose 1 Small Modular Reactor [SMR]

A single Rolls - Royce 440 MW Small Modular Reactor has a design life of 60 years and a availability factor of 90%. On average, it will deliver 396,000,000 W of 24/7, low-carbon electricity daily, for 60 years.
Every hour of every day, each man, woman and child in the UK uses 594 W of electricity - not just for our direct use but 'our content' of the electricity used by industry, commerce, business, schools, hospitals and everything that provides our wonderful way of life. So:
Small Modular Reactors - once in a lifetime opportunity for the UK
Keadby 68 MW Onshore Wind Farm
Keadby - Sustainability Impact Report
Supplying 38,000 homes is the 'starting point' that windfarm operators publicise. But wind turbine performance deteriorates by 1.6% p.a. In the last year of its 25 year lifespan, it will only be supplying 26,650 homes. On average, over 25 years, that's 29,444 homes.
Conclusion: 1.6% annual degradation.

This equates to a continual average delivery of 13,424,582 W of intermittent electricity, enough to supply electricity to 22,600 people.
To supply 666,667 people would require 29.5 Keadby-sized wind farms - a total of 1,003 x 2 MW wind turbines at a cost of £2,915 million.

The site size for 1,003 x 2 MW wind turbines would need to be 265.5 sq km.

And that's not the end of the story:

To provide electricity for the 60 year design life of the SMR, after 25 years a 2nd batch of 1,003 x 2 MW wind turbines would have to be built and then a 3rd batch would have to deliver for 15 years [40%] of its lifespan. Only then would intermittent wind power match the 24/7 nuclear power from an SMR. That's the intermittent output from 2,407 x 2 MW wind turbines.

That's a cost of 2.4 x £2,915 million:    £6,996 million.
The most appropriate costing for a R-R SMRs is to use the 'Current Study (adjusted-mature designs)' rate of £5,000/kW
Figure 21 - Overnight Capital Cost Comparison (£/kWe) for all Nuclear sectors

Added to this must be the Hinkley Point C ratio of £7.3 billion, for decommissioning, waste handling and storage, against the £18 billion capital cost.  
In total, a 440 MW SMR would cost:  £3,092 million.

Onshore Wind Turbines cost 2.26X more than SMRs !

11 February 2017

Intermittent Electricity From UK Solar PV Costs 3.78X More Than Nuclear !

There isn't a decent sized solar farm in the UK where the information is available on both cost and electricity generated.

Turn to France and we've got it all:
Source 1      Source 2

Calculating the Output of a 300 MW Plant in the UK: 

2012: 1,736 MW delivered 1,328 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 229.5 GWh

2013: 2,822 MW delivered 2,015 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 214.2 GWh

2014: 5,228 MW delivered 3,931 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 225.6 GWh

  2015: 8,915 MW delivered 7,556 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 254.3 GWh
Statistics Section - Table
Average of 229.5 + 214.2 + 225.6 + 254.3
 = 230.9 GWh/year

Reasonable Life Expectancy of a Solar Array to fall to 80% efficiency - 30 years     Source

The average over 30 years of delivery would be 90% of 
the 230.9 average value: 230.9 x 0.9 = 207.8 GWh/year

Delivery over 30 year Life Expectancy = 6.234 TWh

Exchange Rate 2014: GBP/USD - 1.6$ to the £     Source

So 2014 cost of 300 MW UK Plant = £281.25 million
Comparative Data: Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Plant

Source 1 - Page 15          Source 2

Delivery over 60 year Life Expectancy = 1,513.7 TWh

1,513.7 ÷ 6.234 = 242.8
242 Cestas-sized Solar Parks would have to be built
to deliver the same amount of electricity !

242 x 281,250,000 = 68,062,500,000
242 Cestas-sized Solar Parks would cost £68 billion !

£68 billion ÷ £18 billion = 3.78

For the same capital expenditure nuclear power will deliver nearly 
4X more 24/7 electricity 
than the intermittent electricity delivered by Solar Parks
242 x 2.5 = 605
242 Solar Parks would cover 605 square kilometres.

Solar Parks just about covering the 
Pembrokeshire Coast National Park !
Imagine:         Adventures Not In A Solar Park

04 February 2017

Kilgallioch - Here We Go Again - Twice The Price Of Nuclear!

Once the programme is completed, in 2017 this will be the UK’s third largest onshore wind farm, with 96 wind turbines with a generating capacity of up to 239 MW, the capacity of the wind farm will be enough to power the equivalent of 130,000 households per year.

A bit of simple arithmetic:
"...annual UK average domestic household consumption is 3,994kWh..."
"...Most wind turbines should last for about 25 years with normal inspection and maintenance..."
130,000 homes x 3,994 kWh = 0.51922 TWh/year.
0.51922 TWh/year x 25 year = 12.98 TWh
of intermittent electricity!

But Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant rated at 3.2 GW, operating at 90% capacity factor, with a design life of 60 years, delivers 1,513.7 TWh
of 24/7 electricity!

116 Kilgalliock-sized wind farms would need to be built to deliver the same amount of [intermittent] electricity as the [24/7] electricity delivered by HPC.
116 wind farms x £300 million = £34.8 billion.
That's HPC + 93%

116 of these GREEN power plants:
coupled with ISSUES:
"...Apart from water, peat bogs are largely composed of huge volumes of saturated, undecayed plants. A single hectare typically contains more than 5000 tonnes of carbon, ten times more than a typical hectare of forest. But any disturbance leads to lower water levels and to the peat drying, oxidising and releasing its carbon, says biochemist Mike Hall of the Cumbria Wildlife Trust.

The bog can decompose for hundreds of metres round every turbine, potentially releasing millions of tonnes of carbon. The process is slow, but frequently unstoppable, Hall says. So many wind farms may eventually emit more carbon than an equivalent coal-fired power station..."

Then there's LAND USE:
116 Kilgalliochs at 32 square kilometres each
= 3,712 square kilometres.

10 December 2016

11,184 UK Wind Turbines Supplying Intermittent Electricity = 1 Hinkley Point C Supplying 24/7 Electricity.

"...How long does a wind turbine last? The design life of a good quality modern wind turbine is 20 years. Depending on how windy and turbulent the site is, the turbine could last for 25 years or even longer, though as with anything mechanical, the maintenance costs will increase as it gets older..."

9,508,850 Homes x 25 Years = 237,721,250 Total
Homes Powered Equivalent (p.a.) - Calculated using the most recent statistics from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) showing that annual UK average domestic household consumption is 3,994 kWh.
Homes Powered Equivalent (p.a.) - 
Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Plant = 6,406,500
6,406,500 Homes x 60 Years = 379,000,500 Total
Hinkley Power Total ÷ Wind Power Total = 1.59
Total UK Wind Farm Capacity Needed to Deliver as much electricity to UK Households is: 
1.59 x 14,261.275 MW = 22,675.427 MW
The UK needs to build another 8,414.152 MW of Wind Turbine Capacity [that's another 4,150 wind turbines
to deliver the same [intermittent] power as Hinkley's [24/7] power.
11,184 Wind Turbines = 1 Hinkley Point C
But - Will that target be reached before Hinkley starts to deliver?

31 October 2016

Hinkley Point C Will Power More Than One Quarter Of All UK Homes For 60 Years!

What's the best way to compare power supply technologies?

So how does Hinkley Compare?

What a bit of Simple Arithmetic can show about The Ludicrous Cost of Offshore Wind compared to a 
Nuclear Power Plant:

22 August 2016

The Death Knell of the LNT Model?

The Death Knell of the LNT Model?

Biological and Environmental Research (BER)

Biological Systems Science Division (BSSD)

Radiobiology: Low Dose Radiation Research

Program Description

The Low Dose Program is unique within the US

 government in supporting experimental 

radiation biology research that studies the effects of 
very low dose exposures.

Program Accomplishments

Research from DOE's Low Dose Program re-examines

existing paradigms and provides the results that support

the development of new, biological paradigms.

One example that challenges an old assumption is the 
findings that exposure to a low vs. high dose of radiation 
results in both qualitatively as well as quantitatively 
different cellular and molecular responses, thus 
demonstrating non-linear response with respect to 

Another is the finding that in addition to high-dose 
biological damage that may lead to cancer, 
very low dose radiation exposure may participate in 
beneficial biological outcomes by stimulation of our 
natural tissue surveillance mechanisms
These processes are shaped by physical 
exposure parameters that include dose, dose-rate and 

The research has underscored the importance of the 
Low Dose Program's effort to study intact-tissue 
biological response to a stressor such as radiation 
exposure, rather than studying only the initial events 
within an individual cell.