nuclear plants

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Nuclear has yet to have a solution for waste storage -- how much money have we invested to date?

This is incorrect. There are actually a number of perfectly workable solutions, from the simple Oklo-type solution of burying it in the right kind of rock formation (demonstrated safe with 1.5 billion years of real-world testing :-)) to reprocessing the "wastes" and using them to generate more electricity.

What we haven't solved is the problem with dealing with the reflexive "omigawd we're all gonna die" anti-nuclear diehard, and that's because their opposition is not based on facts or reasoning, but is essentially religious.

What is wrong with diversifying? If we can get 33% of our power from wind in South Dakota alone (or 66% if we double our efficiency), and if we can get 100% from solar in 10% of Nevada...

There's nothing wrong with diversifying, per se. Indeed, isn't that exactly what some of us are urging you to do, diversify your options to include nuclear? But with your suggestions in particular, the things that might be wrong are A) capital cost; B) reliability; and C) environmental consequences.

Just for an example of that last, I spent the past weekend hiking in an area (the Toiyabe Range) that's covered by that big yellow spot that you want to cover with solar power plants. In addition to some pretty rugged mountains, there's an ecosystem there - elk & bighorn sheep, fish in the streams, trees and flowers and all that sort of thing. What happens to it when the area gets covered by solar cells?

I would think that wind would be a good possibility for Saskatchewan, similar to the upper midwest of the USA and to Denmark.

Which brings up a question: what happens to the blades of a wind turbine in icing conditions? I know what happens to an airplane: if you don't have deicing equipment, you crash. Turbine blades aren't all that different from airplane wings.

Now given that icing conditions aren't all that uncommon on the plains of Sasketchewan, or the Dakotas, it might be a good idea to find out. I suppose you could just turn them all off in winter storms, but isn't that just when a lot of people are going to be wanting power?

[dcb]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

This is incorrect. There are actually a number of perfectly workable solutions [for nuclear waste] ...


Now given that icing conditions aren't all that uncommon on the plains of ...I suppose you could just turn them all off in winter storms

I'm sorry, but this is a little incongruous. You think disposal of nuclear waste is "perfectly workable", but you cannot imagine any better way to de-ice a blade that is married to a giant generator?!?

[mavinwy]

Just for clarification....there are not a huge number of natural resources available for generating power. There are a LIMITED number of POTENTAL resources available.

I made a few comments early in this discussion, but maybe I should offer some background. You see, my in-laws (and their kids...including my wife) re-furbished a hydro-electric power plant that had been out of production for 50 years. It currently produces 600KW (peak) and is being expanded to 1200. I have worked at the powerhouse, and studied firsthand what it takes to make alternative energy work. I have also worked on the computer systems for remote tracking and operation of the plant, so I stay up on it. Even Hydro shuts down when the river ices (has to until you get a good top layer or it will block the racks) or in flood situations where there is no drop.

I live near many windmills, even in Wyoming...sometimes the wind does not blow and they sit idle. Additionally, sometimes the wind is too high, and they need to be set to limited spin as to not overspeed the generators....they do not produce power at these times either.

The fact is, renewable resources are not controllable....hence my statement of limited potential. The weather can change rapidly, and when it does...it affects the output of these sources.

Another limiting factor is location. Everyone wants the power, but they want the plant "somewhere else". As long as it does not disturb their view, evironment, caming area, quiet, traffic, etc....sure put it there. "What? You mean that is someone elses view...well that 's ok...at least it is not in my backyard."

In our current useage for power in the US (and world for that matter) we can augment the power produced from conventional means with renewable resources. However, with our current power structure and storage systems, there is not an economically viable way to go "whole hog" on renewable resources. People can come up with the greatest ideas ever, but getting them built is a completely different story. Look at what it takes in paperwork to get 10 windmills put up in a wind farm sometime. The environmental impact research alone can take several years to get through. Then there is the cost of the actual unit, wiring, infrastructure, maintenance...and trust me....power companies want to make a profit on their power. Alternative energy is not "Free"

I am certainly for using renewable resources, and using more of them. But if we need power now (meaning in the next 10 years) then we can either suck it up and build more power plants, or expand the current ones. We can continue to build alternative energy plants as well. I suggest anyone that is passionate about it to put their "money where their mouth is" and invest in companies that will do what you would like to have done.

I know firsthand what it cost for 600KW in a pre-existing structure, and what it makes every month. The payoff is not quick, nor easy.

Jim

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by dcb

I'm sorry, but this is a little incongruous. You think disposal of nuclear waste is "perfectly workable", but you cannot imagine any better way to de-ice a blade that is married to a giant generator?!?

I think you're reading rather too much between the lines there :-) Yes, I think disposal of nuclear waste for time periods over a billion years is workable, because it was DONE (by nature) at Oklo. How much more evidence does anyone need?

Of course I can think of ways to de-ice a wind turbine blade, but none that wouldn't add significant cost & complexity to the system. (As a point of reference, check out what it costs to maintain aircraft deicing boots.) Since one of the arguments being advanced in support of an exclusive dependence on "renewables" is the capital cost, isn't it reasonable to consider things that might affect that cost?

[dcb]

I guess it was too obvious that you would integrate some heating wires/surface into the windmill blades.

and it could be efficient enough.
http://202.120.57.205/cdbook/isope20...1/1065p435.pdf

[RH77]

Honestly, I would welcome a Nuclear Plant in my "back yard". The safety record and clean local emission of operations is stellar compared to most other power plants. Plus, it would employ 100's of employees in a destructive market.

The last major U.S. leak of radioactive substance was the "3-mile Island" incident in Harrisburg, PA -- in the early 80's. After it was all said-and-done, the total radioactive pollution exposed to local residents, was that of a usual X-ray at the Doctor's office. Most of us have lived through that, eh? Since then, I've been in Harrisburg a few times and lived to tell about it (I haven't grown a third third arm or anything either)...

I just have concerns of the storage. But, as mentioned previously, we have a place to stick it. That waste may have potential for further safe, productive use. The transport is the weakest link.

Alrighty then -- we have a percentage of power production aside from fossil fuels. The remainder of production? Good question, I suppose. It's usually breezy here in the Midwest. I certainly can approve of spinning wind turbines here.

The biggest complaint is Bird-life and appearance. I'm not aware of either being that big of a deal here.

On an aside, I drive from Kansas City to Sioux City, Iowa up I-29 once a month. There is a considerable amount of blades transported from somewhere to somewhere on this route, each way. The market is likely beyond its capacity. Wind power is popular and growing.

Let's keep the non-fossil trend going. Agreed?

RH Seventy-Seven

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by dcb

I guess it was too obvious that you would integrate some heating wires/surface into the windmill blades...

So you're running heating wires in the blades, thus using up a large part of the energy you're supposed to be generating? Think about capital cost, efficiency, and payback time :-)

Oklo? Some fission stopped 2 billion years ago, and was covered (by renewable energy ) and that's gonna take care of everyones concerns over the next few millennia while our radioactive poop is still steaming?

Should. The point is, all the stuff that was covered up (or its decay products) is still there. It hasn't migrated more than a few meters (I forget the exact figure, but you can easily look it up), in spite of everything a billion years of climate change & plate tectonics could throw at it. And it's certainly not in an arid region these days. Seems to me that's about as good a practical demonstration as anyone could ask for.

Of course sensible people wouldn't be burying this "waste", they'd be reprocessing it into the next generation of fuel.

On the other hand, people go off the grid all the time, it's just a matter of priorities for those folks.

I know I've said this before, but those people don't really go off the grid. All the components that went into their OTG power systems, all the appliances that those OTG systems power, and a great deal else that went into building their houses, were made by an industrial base that runs on the grid. Remove that grid, and as things wear out and can't be replaced, their OTG lifestyle will slowly deterioriate.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So you're running heating wires in the blades, thus using up a large part of the energy you're supposed to be generating? Think about capital cost, efficiency, and payback time :-)

All or nothing attitudes result in the latter I'd take the lower output for the deicing system than no output

I really don't know why de-icing is such a big deal in this thread... I mean, wind turbines have been employed in much colder regions - and deicing systems have been installed (ranging from microwave, thermo-electric and heated pneumatic jets). In Pori, Finland - electro-thermal deicers use ~1% of the annual output (yes, that's a lot - but no where near "a large part". There's more energy in cold wind - but not so much with a frozen blade (not to mention potential risk of overloading due to excessive weight)

I know it's nit picky - but I'm anal about it.... Power plants generate power - not energy

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

I really don't know why de-icing is such a big deal in this thread...

It's not a big deal at all: it just came up as one of the possible difficulties/extra costs of building wind turbines in Saskatechewan. The argument was that "renewables" of various sorts are less capital intensive than building nuclear plants. But that's a conclusion that comes from figuring the basic cost of one wind turbine (or a bunch of solar cells for your roof), while neglecting all the infrastructure costs that are included in the price of a nuclear plant. Do an honest comparison, figuring in all the costs (including the environmental ones!), and you find that "renewables" cost a lot more than some people would like to think.

[stevey_frac]

Perhaps i should leave this alone....

But this is something I feel pretty strongly about. And it looks like I'm not alone.

I'm going to choose to both agree, and disagree with Neil. Energy conservation could reduce total demand by huge amounts.

That being said, the capitol costs of Solar, and wind are orders of magnitude higher then nuclear per w/hr. The costs for a single watt of installed capacity of solar power is roughly $10 / watt (installed residential systems, distributed power production). The panels are actually less then half the cost. Then you need inverters, and big batteries. Now figure that at best case, you can depend on an insolation value of around 6 hours. Basically, that 1 watt rating is based on the optimum solar conditions, that only exist for a single instant of a day when the sun is at its peak. However, in excellent conditions, i believe you can get the equivalent of 6 hours of peak sunlight a day. So you would have to install 4 watts of panels to produce the equivalent of 1 watt for a day. We're already up to $40 / watt for baseload capacity. According to this US government site [http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...a/epates.html], there is roughly 100,000 MW of capacity installed, and available for summer use. At $40 / watt, solar power would cost $400,000,000,000,000,000. That's 400 quadrillion. There actually isn't that much money in the world i don't think.

Solar isn't cheap. Anyone who tells you otherwise is pulling your leg. Consider this:

1 kw/hr of power costs $.10 here in nuclear powered Ontario. And that includes a $.033 Ontario hydro debt retirement charge and transmission fees. If you installed a kw of solar panels, expect it to cost $10,000. For that modest fee, in the sunniest places in the world (which Ontario is definitely NOT) that earns you the right to roughly $.60 of power a day. That puts the payback period of your solar system at 45 years. Good luck with that. I'd like to be alive to break even.

Wind power is a different monster. Where it is reasonably windy, a good tower can have a payback period in terms less then 10 years, and will probably last 20 with proper maintenance. Local wind generation is feasible, and cost competitive with grid purchased power (if you have wind resource). I do think there is a place for wind generation in our future power mix, and I encourage it's development.

And nuclear power. Nuclear power is a beast. It is poorly understood, and poorly implemented at best. Mostly poorly implemented because of the political ramifications of having reprocessing and enrichment plants. I find it amusing that Canada could take spent fuel rods from American nuclear waste, and it would be a rich fuel source for our CANDU reactor! To bad it's rather nasty stuff to handle. Someone said earlier that there is not that much more concrete in a nuclear plant then a coal plant. You sir, are very mistaken. There is a very large, very thick, very strong containment building that surrounds the reactor. Like... withstand a bombing large.

I think if we were to build fast breeder reactors, and reprocess spent fuel, nuclear waste storage wouldn't be that much of a problem. Up here in Canada, the game plan is basically to drop it into a cavern in the Great Canadian Shield. It's a huge bedrock formation and it would allow very good containment over geologic time periods.

As for the future, I recommend fusion. Right now they are building the first fusion power plant capable of producing more power then it consumes (named ITER). Yes it's going to be fricken expensive. Yes it's only 500 MW. Yes it's only going to run in bursts no longer then a few minutes. But.. it'll be producing power from deuterium and tritium. (and helium!). And this is only the first step. Future reactor designs will hopefully be able to do deuterium - deuterium fusion. There is enough deuterium in the world to use for 10's of thousands of years. And eventually. The holy grail: Hydrogen - Hydrogen fusion.