The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 65

Nuclear Power in Poland? Yes, please! Absolutely nobody disagrees!


Varsovian 92 | 634
28 Apr 2010  #1
Why are Poles such mugs?

I am against nuclear power precisely because I have a brain and am on occasion willing to use it. Greens are now IN FAVOUR of nuclear for precisely the opposite reason. Err - CO2. "Greens" like to blather on about the environment just to gain some sort of caped crusader kudos - the sort Commies could get in 1960s West Germany or Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1980s Britain. And they're just as sincere.

Four legs good, two legs better.

Human civilizations rise and fall - currently we've managed in total 8,000 years and that's the whole of mankind - but the atomic lobby reckons we'll happily continue war-free and at a high level of uninterrupted technological prowess for 500,000 years! Moron Greens agree.

No war for half a million years - they've passed a regulation banning it. Phew!

Of course in Poland all the parties have agreed to going nuclear and they've all agreed not to talk about it either. So that's OK then.
krakowiak
28 Apr 2010  #2
I'm against nuclear power too. A smart mix of renewable energies could cover the whole demand in a few decades if beeing promoted by goverment, until then coal should be sufficent. Why waste resources on nuclear power and high wages for its lobbyists?
wildrover 98 | 4,452
28 Apr 2010  #3
Tomorow i am setting off to meet my Russian girlfriend in Kiev , in the Ukraine , whilst there i wish once again to visit a place 80 miles north of Kiev , a small town called Chernobyl...

Nuclear power may be a great idea , but i am not sure that its entirely safe , anyone who has visited the dead zone around Chernobyl would have very serious doubts about having such a power station near them...

When i was in Belarus i helped an organisation that tried to look after children affected by this disaster , its not something i will ever forget....

I am not sure there is any other way to produce the power Poland needs...but i do wish there was....!
OP Varsovian 92 | 634
28 Apr 2010  #4
It's called coal.

It produces CO2 when burnt. Environmentalists don't like it because it's not sexy.
convex 20 | 3,978
28 Apr 2010  #5
Nuclear energy has come along quite a bit since then....
Arien 3 | 721
28 Apr 2010  #6
How much Uranium can be found worldwide? Barely enough for sixty to eighty years of energy production.

Even when they know where they can delve Uranium, it's still going to be impossible to actually reach some of these deposits. It takes eight years to build a fully functional, and fully productive nuclear reactor, and will cost a lot of money. In those wasted eight years, and for the same amount of money, you could've built many more water-turbines, solar panels and windmills, which all have an 100% effectiveness, without needing any other additional resources than the materials needed to produce them.

How much time, effort and energy does it cost to enrich Uranium? Much and much more than a water-turbine, a solar panel or a windmill, because these have an infinite supply of free energy, which makes them 100% effective.

Is coal sexy? No, it's not sexy. People who are afraid to lose their jobs shouldn't have to worry about that, if the government together with business people co-operate to make a smooth transition happen. People should simply be offered an education, so they can simply switch jobs from mine workers to electricians, engineers or become a part of the technical maintenance teams you will need to keep everything working. More jobs, more production, more money, and an infinite amount of cheap and clean energy for an infinite amount of time aswell.

Bring it on!
convex 20 | 3,978
28 Apr 2010  #7
How much time, effort and energy does it cost to enrich Uranium? Much and much more than a water-turbine, a solar panel or a windmill, because these have an infinite supply of free energy, which makes them 100% effective.

Which is great when you've got sunlight and wind, not too great for base load. Regarding being 100% effective, lifespan vs manufacturing cost vs energy output. Overall impact has to be taken into account.

How much Uranium can be found worldwide? Barely enough for sixty to eighty years of energy production.

Yawn, breeder reactors? Comeon, the technology has actually advanced over the last 50 years you know...
Arien 3 | 721
28 Apr 2010  #8
Which is great when you've got sunlight and wind, not too great for base load.

Check out the Hoover Dam please.

Yawn, breeder reactors?

Oh really? Well, answer this question then; How much time, money, effort and energy will it cost to actually create Uranium? And even with breeder reactors, you'll still need a certain amount of raw, natural Uranium! (U 235.)

Green technology looks more promising and you know it.
Harry
28 Apr 2010  #9
Tomorow i am setting off to meet my Russian girlfriend in Kiev , in the Ukraine , whilst there i wish once again to visit a place 80 miles north of Kiev , a small town called Chernobyl...

I think you mean Pripyat. If so, you lucky git. I really want to go there.
convex 20 | 3,978
28 Apr 2010  #10
Check out the Hoover Dam please.

Yea, hydro is awesome, but also very expensive. How much are the Chinese throwing down on their new project?

Oh really? Well, answer this question then; How much time, money, effort and energy will it cost to actually create Uranium? And even with breeder reactors, you'll still need a certain amount of raw, natural Uranium! (U 235.)

Or Thorium. Anyway, for the uranium argument, there is plenty. Little thing called reprocessing helps too...

Green technology looks more promising and you know it.

Again, no answer for base load. Would you suggest replacing all base load in a country the size of Germany with hydro? It's no feasible for the long term. Coal, nuclear, or gas, take your pick.
Arien 3 | 721
28 Apr 2010  #11
Yea, hydro is awesome, but also very expensive.

Less expensive than all the nuclear reactors, factories and personel you're going to need to achieve the same results. (Energy wise.)

Or Thorium. Anyway, for the uranium argument, there is plenty. Little thing called reprocessing helps too...

You'll need to repeat the whole splitting process again, which means you're going to create even more nuclear waste than you did before. (Ever thought about that?) There are four billion kilos of natural Uranium which we could delve if we wanted to. (Unless technological miracles happen, the rest would be impossible to reach!) There are two types of variants. Only U 235 would be suitable material. With our current energy usage, this means that we're talking about sixty to eighty years of supply. (But ofcourse we're going to use more energy as the population is still growing.)

Again, no answer for base load. Would you suggest replacing all base load in a country the size of Germany with hydro? It's no feasible for the long term. Coal, nuclear, or gas, take your pick.

No? I think I've already answered your question, because it's going to cost you much more to build nuclear reactors and factories to achieve the same results. (And it's going to cost you even more to actually delve, transport, reprocess or even create Uranium.) How often does a nuclear reactor needs maintenance? (Every month?) What is the lifespan of a nuclear reactor? (70 years?) Thorium? How much of this material do you think you'll need? That's even worse than Uranium if we're going to talk about effectivity!

Windmills, water-turbines or solar panels. Take your pick. (Actually, take them all at the same time!) No waste, no transport, a less work-intensive process, a hundred percent effectiveness, no risks. More jobs, an endless supply of energy resources and more money in your pockets.

Give me a real argument please.
krakowiak
28 Apr 2010  #12
replacing all base load in a country the size of Germany with hydro

not with hydro alone for sure. yesterday the first offshore windmill park was launched in Germany, it came in the news and of course one executive interviewed said: "we can provide energy for the whole Germany with projects like this", but what if an orkan hits the north sea and the mill have to be stopped for a day? should germany go fishing for this day?

the trick is to invest in many renewable projects.
This should go in hand with reforming the grid system throughout europe. now we have small cells all hanging on a powerplant, this cells are connected together, in future you will see power-autobahns which can transport energy from windy northsea to sunny spain and back, depending if its too windy or not sunny enough.
convex 20 | 3,978
28 Apr 2010  #13
Less expensive than all the nuclear reactors, factories and personel you're going to need to achieve the same results. (Energy wise.)

For some reason, nuclear is still on par with hydro on cost per kwh. A nuclear plant has a fairly small footprint compared to hydro. Uranium is cheap for a reason. The supply of uranium for reactors will last thousands of years. Thorium is all over the place.

You'll need to repeat the whole splitting process again

Not too up on how fast breeder reactors work. 300,000 kwh/kg before reprocessing...not going to have supply problems. If there were supply problems, energy companies wouldn't be pushing for new reactors...

Windmills, water-turbines or solar panels. Take your pick. (Actually, take them all at the same time!) No waste, no transport, a less work-intensive process, a hundred percent effectiveness, no risks. More jobs, an endless supply of energy and more money in your pockets.

Wind and solar can't provide base power. They are nice for augmenting the grid, and I like the decentralized aspect of it. Hopefully it will become cost effective sooner than later.
kondzior 8 | 947
28 Apr 2010  #14
I, for one, am happy that there are to be the nuclear power stations in Poland. It is cheap. It is safe. It is clean. And I did not heared any reasonable arguments against it. The nuclear energy' haters always go all emotional and I turn off my attention at once.
wildrover 98 | 4,452
28 Apr 2010  #15
I think you mean Pripyat.

I have been to both Pripyat and Chernobyl....In case anyone does not know , Pripyat was the first town to be evacuated when the power station at Chernobyl exploded...

The residents were told to take only essential documents , and get on board one of the many buses brought into the town , they left everything they owned behind , thinking they could return later , they were never able to return...

Its one of the saddest places i have ever been to in my whole life , a ghost town , abandoned by its people in a panic , now taken over completly by nature....

Try telling those people , who watched their childern die slowly that nuclear power is a good thing....
kondzior 8 | 947
28 Apr 2010  #16
Eh, Chernobyl. An emotional argument. The sheet happens. The cost of the progress?
Anyway, Chernobyl was the Russian stunt. What else can be reasonably expected from Russians? If Poland was to use Russian "technology" I would be somewhat anxious, I admit.

If humanity is to go into space, to colonize the other planets, we need to master the nuclear energy first. And it is about time for Poland to stop to lag behind. We need to become the vangard once more. It is about time for us to recover from the partitions and stuff...
Harry
28 Apr 2010  #17
I have been to both Pripyat and Chernobyl.

Is Chernobyl worth a visit? I know that Pripyat is an unforgettable site (and sight). Have you also been to the Duga-3 over-the-horizon radar array?
Cardno85 31 | 976
28 Apr 2010  #18
Chernobyl was a disaster, yes. However it was also badly maintained. France has a huge nuclear power base, and as far as I know there are no disasters there. Nuclear energy is much more safe now and, to those who compare it to green energy, provides an almost infinite amount more power for the area a reactor takes up.

Take it from a physicist, nuclear power is the way forward.
jwojcie 2 | 763
28 Apr 2010  #19
I'm in favour of it... considering France example the risk seems to be not very high. Besides, everybody has to die sooner or later... Don't we use planes on massive scale? Some of them crashes... I suppose probability of major breakdown of modern nuclear plant is far less than explosion of asleep vulcano for thousand of years. Does milions of people don't live in such areas anyway? Does milions of people don't live in the city of Los Angeles which can be destroyed by earthquake in any minute? We risk our lives everyday just by going out, some even by staing in ;-)

Green energy looks fine in some papers, but there are other papers where after counting all of the energy cost of producing those pretty and modern windmills it looks like many of them don't give enough energy to cover even that... like this modern ecological cars which you need to change every two years, nobody is counting the ecological cost of building that stuff.

To sum things up, green energy is not enough to cover northern Poland needs, there is no coal there, nuclear plant seems to be the obvious choice...
wildrover 98 | 4,452
28 Apr 2010  #20
Have you also been to the Duga-3 over-the-horizon radar array?

Yep...had my photo taken just in front of this massive radar array....

Yes Chernobyl is definatly worth a visit , when i first went the road was blocked by concrete blocks and declared out of bounds , but you could get around them on a motorcycle , and later in a 4 x 4 by going through the forest....

Now there seems to be no restriction , i believe they are running tours there now...!
Arien 3 | 721
29 Apr 2010  #21
Wind and solar can't provide base power.

No? Have you seen the E-126 produced by Enercon? 7 Mega Watt. If you build 143 of these windmills you'll have 1 Giga Watt. Build 2288 of these windmills and you'll have 16 Giga Watt. I don't think I have to tell you that's 16 times as much as the average nuclear reactor? You'll need to build 16 nuclear reactors (And factories.) to match that. Oh, and base power? Ever heard about energy storage?

Oh, and about solar power, solar power has the potential to provide over 1000 times the total energy consumption. (Worldwide.) Everyone is always talking about PV cells, but you should really look into CSP for a change, which basically means Concentrated Solar Power, which generates thermal energy. (Same principle as with coal, only 100% clean.)

Alright, I gave you an argument. Now where's yours?

Take it from a physicist, nuclear power is the way forward.

Is it? What are you going to do with all that nuclear waste? (It can stay radioactive for over 3000 years you know!) How are you going to deny that alternative sources, if you combine them, together have much and much more potential than nuclear energy will ever have? (Without waste, without risks!) Because you can talk for as long as you want, nuclear energy is not without risks. (Its effectivity isn't all that either if you look at what the whole process will cost you.)

Another thing which didn't get a mention here: Tidal energy. (Which will completely dwarf any of the above alternatives!)

Tidal Energy

That should give you an idea about the principle?

SeaGen, was installed by Marine Current Turbines in Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland in April 2008. The turbine began to generate at full power of just over 1.2 MW in December 2008 and is reported to have fed 150 kW into the grid for the first time on 17 July 2008, and has now contributed more than a Giga Watt/hour to consumers in Northern Ireland.

1 turbine. 1 Giga Watt/hour. Okay?

I still haven't heard any arguments that made sense.
marsoe - | 4
29 Apr 2010  #22
There are also many savings to be made at the client-side, not the supply-side. Insulation gets at least $1.5-$2 of benefits for every $1 spent, and in cold climates improved insulation can increase that to 4:1 benefits.

Small localised generation spread out close to areas of demand also reduces the power lost through transmission. The UK National Grid loses between 3-12% of its generation during transmission.

If you can address the wastage and inefficiencies in the system, then you can reduce the need to construct new generation capacity.
plk123 8 | 4,150
29 Apr 2010  #23
It produces CO2 when burnt. Environmentalists don't like it because it's not sexy.

no.. it makes you croak prematurely dude. it has nothing to do with sexiness. NOTHING.

which all have an 100% effectiveness, without needing any other additional resources than the materials needed to produce them.

no they don not.. besides you are forgetting about upkeep and all that..

People should simply be offered an education, so they can simply switch jobs from mine workers to

i disagree.. if they want to they can take on such learning on their own.. PL is not a socialist/communist country anymore.

Overall impact has to be taken into account.

exactly

Check out the Hoover Dam please.

there are huge environmental drawbacks to dams.. i suggest you read about it some..

there is plenty

there is plenty, no need to reprocess although that would probably the most "green" anyway.

you're going to need to achieve the same results. (Energy wise.)

1 reactor can produce way more power then a number of huge dams.. this isn't even comparable..

a hundred percent effectiveness,

no it's not man.. sheesh.
Arien 3 | 721
29 Apr 2010  #24
1 reactor can produce way more power then a number of huge dams.. this isn't even comparable..

Kendal Power Station, the world's largest coal-fired power plant: 4.116 Giga Watt.
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Reactor, the world's largest nuclear power plant: 8.21 Giga Watt. (7 reactors.)

Hoover Dam: 4 Giga Watt.
Itaipu Dam: 12.6 Giga Watt.

Please?

But you know what? Let's forget about this whole discussion about needing more energy for a second. Let's all pretend we're Arien for a second, and let's all pretend we've been paying some attention to our surroundings, because I'm going to say something clever. (Yes, I'm serious.)

We can lower our daily energy consumption by making simple adjustments to electronics and electrical devices.

For example, I'm sitting behind my computer. My computer doesn't really need 230 V to work properly. It needs 12 V to be exact. I've just made coffee, and my coffee machine doesn't really need 230 V either! (I'm willing to bet it needs 12 V aswell!) Lightbulbs? Televisions? They don't need 230 V either! (Yup, 12 V will suffice!)

For your information, most lightbulbs work perfectly on 12 V, but the power grid in our houses still provide us with 230 V. (How the heck are we trying to be efficient here?!)

If we were to lower the Voltages, we would need less crazy ways to run all of our households. And Cardno, take it from an Electrician, we could all run a household on 20 solar panels if we really wanted to. (Easily!) I'm just going to be so bold and brave to say that we could probably lower our daily energy consumption by 30% (Maybe even 40 to 50% with alternatives!) if we made a few simple adjustments to electronics and electrical devices, so that they'll actually work on 12 V without converting, instead of on 230 V, which is obviously a waste of energy.

I don't mind if you disagree with me, but atleast give me some arguments and facts, instead of going on like nuclear energy is our saviour all of a sudden. It really isn't! It's just another money making scheme for a select few.

A few things to keep in mind; The average nuclear power plant will cost you 3.2 Billion Dollars to build. (75% of what it will actually contribute. With gas and coal this is 25%.) Keep in mind that it's subsidized, because in reality, nuclear energy is 15% more expensive than coal. (According to the IEA!) Nobody is picking up the bills when it comes to actually storing all that radio-active waste. Nobody is picking up the bills when it comes to undoing the environmental damage while they're delving for raw materials. (And also leaving radio-active material exposed to the elements.) Oh, and keep in mind that we don't really need all of this because there are plenty of realistic alternatives.
convex 20 | 3,978
29 Apr 2010  #25
Alright, I gave you an argument. Now where's yours?

Sure, why aren't they being built like mad? Why do they need to subsidized? What do we do in the short term? Where will you build these thousands of turbines? These are all great ideas if you have the space.

Ever heard about energy storage?

Beautiful, 100% in, 70% out, on a good day. Plus of course the increased cost per kwh to the home.

Keep in mind that it's subsidized.

Wow, don't know where to start with that. In Europe, all nuclear plants have a cleanup fund that has to be funded before construction can begin. It's factored in to the pricing. The coal market is fairly volatile, and it's getting much more expensive year on year to burn coal.

For example, I'm sitting behind my computer. My computer doesn't really need 230 V to work properly. It needs 12 V to be exact. I've just made coffee, and my coffee machine doesn't really need 230 V either! (I'm willing to bet it needs 12 V aswell!) Lightbulbs? Televisions? They don't need 230 V either! (Yup, 12 V will suffice!)

Not following you here. Wouldn't that be a bit dangerous?

Nuclear isn't the long term end all answer. But we need energy right now, and gas and coal are quickly becoming unacceptable.
Arien 3 | 721
29 Apr 2010  #26
Sure, why aren't they being built like mad?

Because of certain lobbyists, politicians and certain people *cough* who keep going on about nuclear power as if it's the only option we have.

Beautiful, 100% in, 70% out, on a good day. Plus of course the increased cost per kwh to the home.

True, but this is ofcourse a back up, and if you combine the use of multiple alternatives, you probably won't need to store energy at all. (Just trying to make a point to the people who were talking about power outages!)

Wow, don't know where to start with that. In Europe, all nuclear plants have a cleanup fund that has to be funded before construction can begin.

True, but have you looked at these funds? These funds are nowhere near sufficient to clean up the mess. Have you looked at the so-called insurances for nuclear power plants? No insurance company wants to insure these guys! Same story, they have an insurance policy, backed by the government and business ofcourse, but again these funds are nowhere near sufficient to cover in case of a worst-case scenario. (I guess they're keeping their fingers crossed nothing will happen?)

It's factored in to the pricing. The coal market is fairly volatile, and it's getting much more expensive year on year to burn coal.

I'm aware of that, and to me that's good news!

Not following you here. Wouldn't that be a bit dangerous?

What's dangerous about adjusting electronic equipment, so that it can work on a lower Voltage? We could adjust most of our electronic equipment so that this would use up less Amps and Watts aswell. We could even install two seperate powergrids in a house. (One for low power.) Oh, and you could also choose to put solar panels in parellel, instead of in serial, which will provide a higher voltage. (I'm sure Electricians will understand my Dutch?)

Nuclear isn't the long term end all answer. But we need energy right now, and gas and coal are quickly becoming unacceptable.

Europeans could build dams too if they really wanted it. The Itaipu dam for example, took 11 years to complete. If we would build smaller ones, and with today's construction methods, we might be looking at 5 or 6 years? Ambitious, I know, but the results don't lie. One dam could easily compete with 8 to 10 reactors. 8 to 10 reactors will cost billions, and a dam will cost billions aswell, but a dam will be cleaner, safer, reliable, produces no waste, will not damage the environment, needs no delving, or the transport of materials and resources and will have a lifespan of atleast a few hundred years if built well. So yeah, I'm all for water, because it's without question, the most powerful solution.

Who's afraid of water?
convex 20 | 3,978
29 Apr 2010  #27
Because of certain lobbyists, politicians and certain people *cough* who keep going on about nuclear power as if it's the only option we have.

Not really. Energy companies build based on the technology with the best return. Right now, the best option that a lot of companies see is nuclear. Do you have any idea how powerful the green lobby is? That's why they're getting so much tax payer money. Huge handouts, that's all. The largest wind turbine manufacturer is also the largest steam turbine manufacturer...

True, but this is ofcourse a back up, and if you combine the use of multiple alternatives, you probably won't need to store energy at all. (Just trying to make a point to the people who were talking about power outages!)

Now we're getting really expensive. You're going to combine solar and wind to power Poland through the winter? How does that work?

What kind of mess are you expecting with a new nuclear plant? Damages are capped at 700m in Europe. If you're worried, you might want to focus on the chemical plants...

What's dangerous about adjusting electronic equipment, so that it can work on a lower Voltage?

Voltage has nothing to do with energy consumption. Lower voltage would mean higher amps, with all the drawbacks that brings. If you know how to make ICs use less juice, please let me know. I'll split the money with you.

The problem with hydro is that if you build small, the cost is extremely high. Plus you need a huge swath of land to destroy in order to build a reservoir (with all the negative side effects that brings). The reason that nuclear plants aren't bigger is to ensure that the grid isn't disrupted if you lose a plant. It's not that difficult to add reactors to increase capacity. They're doing it right now in Sweden. Anyway, for new hydro projects, you have to take the land into account, which makes it unfeasible in densely populated countries. Grand Coulee needs 350km2 for 6500MW. That's an expensive choice if you don't already have the land.

Hypothetical situation. I'm an energy company. I need an additional 10000MW of base load in the next 10 years. How would you do it?
Arien 3 | 721
29 Apr 2010  #28
Voltage has nothing to do with energy consumption.

It has everything to do with frequency, energy transport and distance, and therefore, it has everything to do with energy consumption.

Lower voltage would mean higher amps,

Not necessarily, no. (Are you an Electrician, or did you just Google something?) Because if you are, I'm willing to explain this in great detail to you, but I'm afraid it won't make much sense to you or anyone else here if you aren't.

If you know how to make ICs use less juice, please let me know. I'll split the money with you.

It's just that it's never been done before but theoretically there are many options. (Ever thought about different types of conductors? Different circumstances? Distance? Cooling?) We all know that it's warmth which increases resistance, - ofcourse it also depends on what type of conductor - and that the warmth is caused by a higher frequency. (Hint!)

The problem with hydro is that if you build small, the cost is extremely high.

The actual size would depend on the pressure you intend to design it for.

Plus you need a huge swath of land to destroy in order to build a reservoir.

Who said anything about land? Ever seen the Delta Works in Holland?

Hypothetical situation. I'm an energy company. I need an additional 10000MW of base load in the next 10 years. How would you do it?

10 Giga Watt? Okay. (I'm just going to assume I have a lot of money here!) I would create a huge U-shaped artificial canal/pipe near the coast line, which would go through the dunes at one point, and exit through the dunes at the other point. (We're living 9 meter below sea level remember?) I would build 10 turbines in this canal/pipe, whatever! The pressure will be enormous, and these turbines will rotate much faster than the larger ones they're currently planting near the coast lines. You'll have your 10 Giga Watt (Probably 20!) within 4-5 years.
kondzior 8 | 947
1 May 2010  #29
Sure, there are some more or less viable alternatives to the nuclear energy. But why bother with developing any alternatives when proved, simple, cheap nuclear plants are perfect solution anyway.

And nuclear plants do offer to Poland the best way torwards our own nuclear weapons, wich we do need desperately. Can be something like that be told about hydro turbines or solar panels? How?
z_darius 14 | 3,969
1 May 2010  #30
I'm just going to be so bold and brave to say that we could probably lower our daily energy consumption by 30%.

And you are an electrician?
You are a danger, man.

There is nothing simple or inexpensive in switching from 220v to 12v. Where I live the common household has 110v power switches and receptacles. I actually upgraded my 110v service in my workshop to 220v because it is more efficient and cheaper to install than 110v. The wires don't have to be as thick as for lower voltages.

By way of example, my dust collector (a big vacuum cleaner with a 15 cm diameter hose) uses 9 amps on 220v. I could rewire the motor to make it run on 110v, but then, to maintain the same power, it would run at 18 amps which is dangerous on a 15amp circuit that I have and that is common in households. I'd have to upgrade the circuit wire to handle 30 amps (10AWG), as 20amps (12 AWG) would not be sufficient to carry continuous 18 amp load - the wires would overheat and that would be the first step to a nice fire.

Having done that I'd need to change my circuit breaker, and if I decided to similarly downgrade all my 220v machines to 110v then I would eventually have to change the entire electrical panel. In fact, I'd love to have some 660v 3phase equipment in my workshop.

And the above examples are only for voltage drop from 220 to 110. If you were to go from 220v to 12v then the wires in an average household would probably the diameter similar to that of a tennis ball, and the wiring of an average house would be probably about $1M. And that's only inside a house. Now, imagine the long distance transmission lines. Do you have even a faint idea how thick the wires would have to be to supply electricity to an average village, let alone a city?

And don't even get me started on voltage drops, or DC current transmission over large distances.

I hope you do not actually do electrical work. This is not rocket science, but it is very dangerous if you have only an approximate idea of what you are doing. For your own sake stay away from electrical wires, please.


Home / News / Nuclear Power in Poland? Yes, please! Absolutely nobody disagrees!
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.