Author Topic: clean and safe energy, huh? (Read 2401 times)

magooch · « **Reply #30 on:** March 15, 2011, 05:36:25 AM »

If you're bugged by nuclear fallout from a couple of damaged plants in Japan, it must have really bothered you when the U.S., Russia, France, China and who knows who else were testing nuclear weapons above ground. The fallout from that testing produced fallout that was spread far and wide and was thousands of times worse than the worst case possibilities from what is going on in Japan.

All the same, I don't want a nuke in my backyard--been there, done that. Besides, if Algore is right, we won't be needing as much energy as in the past, because there will be no need to heat houses and other buildings--global warming, don't ya know.

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #31 on:** March 15, 2011, 05:48:24 AM »

Magooch:

Now there we have some common ground: I don't want one near my house either. There are a couple nearby, though. One's about 40 miles as the crow flies, and that's plenty close.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #32 on:** March 15, 2011, 06:01:25 AM »

Even if Japan has a complete meltdown. Steam from the resulting meltdown will only carry so many radioactive particles and will only carry it so far. It will be localised not world wide. This is a 40 year old plant built to withstand a catagory 7 on Rictor scale. This was a 9. The plant held up better than expected. Backup pumps running diesel generators for power were damaged by the tsunami and the pumps are electric which were also damaged. No pumping of fresh water to cool the reactors and spent fuel rods, thus steam produced causing steam explosions. That is why they were pumping sea water to cool the plants. Nuclear reactions continue even in the spent fuel rods thus creating heat. Reactors were "shut down" but the still continue to produce head and lots of it. With no cooling they will melt. They are trying to get additional generators on line from portable ones provided by their Army, but the don't interface with what they have, so wiring mods are underway to try to get their pumps on line to cool down the reactors and fuel rods.

This only tells us one thing. Build nukes away from coastal areas with hurricanes or potential tsunamis. Also away from earthquake fault lines and volcanoes. Build them to navy standards like on the ships and subs. Build them to withstand catagory 9 or 10 earthquakes even in non dangerous zones. Build them to withstand a small nuke bomb. I think deep in abandoned coal mines in Appalachia would be a good place. Underground in the Rockies and Southwest desert.

Build new homes earth sheltered or very highly insulated and go back and give tax credits for people who reinsulate their homes with the new foam insulation that is twice as effective as fiberglass.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #33 on:** March 15, 2011, 06:30:04 AM »

Looks like things are still quite uncertain as to the outcome of the nuke plant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16nuclear.html?_r=2&hp

GuzziJohn

Cabin4 · « **Reply #34 on:** March 15, 2011, 06:51:52 AM »

The situation in Japan is unique and we should only contrast/compare that which is actually comparable. All of Japan is located in the most active earth quake zone on the planet. The country is very small compared to the USA. All if the USA is not earth quake prone. There will be no "Melt Down"/China Syndrome in Japan. The worst likely to happen is some radiation leakage and they will kill those reactors with a great loss of money.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #35 on:** March 15, 2011, 07:03:03 AM »

The eastern or southeastern side of Japan is the earthquake zone and where most of the people live. The western or northwestern side is not, and it is colder. However, maybe they should build their reactors on the western or northwestern side to avoid earthquakes and tsunami's. The 40 year old plant held up, but the cooling pumps and backup generators to operate the cooling pumps were taken out in the tsunami. Resulting in pumping sea water from fire ships to cool them. Didn't work quite as well. It is quite possible they will have a meltdown resulting in massive steam clouds carrying some radioactive particles. Once cooled, they will fall either on the nearby land or in the sea. Staying inside will protect those still with homes from any radioactivity until things are cleaned up. Clean up for that on top of tsunami clean up is going to take a long time.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 15, 2011, 07:08:39 AM »

I'm not sure that knowledgeable folks think nuke power is fool-proof, only pretty safe if done right. And it has been pretty safe, mostly. It is expensive.

Very hard in Japan right now. Most of us will never have such hardship. Here's hoping they recover and damage from nukes is minimized. With earthquake and tsunamis that big... there's go guarantees of anything.

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #37 on:** March 15, 2011, 07:12:34 AM »

Expensive relative to what? In terms of creating a kilowatt hour of electricity it costs about 1/3 as much as coal, and about 1/150th as much as wind.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #38 on:** March 15, 2011, 07:45:53 AM »

New reactors will probably be thorium pebble bed reactors. Far less radiation.

DakotaElkSlayer · « **Reply #39 on:** March 15, 2011, 05:16:25 PM »

Had a customer come in today and ask if we sold Geiger Counters!!!

People have been calling about potassium iodine pills, too! Think I might start marketing aluminum foil hats to protect folks from the Japanese radiation.

Jim

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #40 on:** March 15, 2011, 06:05:36 PM »

Quote from: DakotaElkSlayer on March 15, 2011, 05:16:25 PM

Had a customer come in today and ask if we sold Geiger Counters!!! People have been calling about potassium iodine pills, too! Think I might start marketing aluminum foil hats to protect folks from the Japanese radiation.

Jim

Glad i don't listen to their news stations. I cannot believe that people here in N America are getting freaked out by this. I gotta wonder if the radiation levels are going to be blamed on a resurgence of the global warming bravo sierra?

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #41 on:** March 16, 2011, 03:31:12 AM »

From what I am hearing, the spent fuel rods, which are still hot and the atoms are still splitting in the remaining fuel, need to be put in pools of water to take the heat off. Without pumps and power, the water evaporates or boils to steam, which caused the first explosions. Also the rods becoming exposed gets even hotter causing the fires in the buildings. Power is out, pumps don't work, back up generators were also out, and portable generators brought in by the army will not interface with their equipment. Seems like even if the cores of the reactors melt and don't release much radiation, the spent fuel rods in the unprotected pools are the main problem. Hopefully and radioactive material will be localised to Japan and won't get in the jet stream. However, even if it did it will be dissipated over distance. Remember we blew up numerous bombs in the southwest and in the pacific, not counting what Russia, China, India, and Pakistan tested the last 50 years. Also England and France tested weapons. I think France tested theirs in the Algerian desert. England buys a lot of our old equipment so they may not have tested their stuff. In the US, just eat more iodized salt with your food if you are afraid. I do however pity Japan, having to clean up the tsunami mess, and now probably having to clean up melted down fuel rods.

As a side note, we built a huge underground storage in the Nevada desert to store our spent fuel, but it was cancelled by Jimmy Carter. Now all our spent fuel rods are stored in pools at each of our nuke sites. If we built pebble bed reactors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor we could reuse our spent fuel and cut it down to only about 10% of what is having to be stored now. They are also much safer.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #42 on:** March 16, 2011, 04:08:40 AM »

I could not copy and paste the table but here is the site to compare costs of different power sources, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levelized_energy_cost.jpg

GuzziJohn

magooch · « **Reply #43 on:** March 16, 2011, 04:25:46 AM »

Something to keep in mind is that any power generating fascility must be located within a reasonable distance of where the power is to be used. Otherwise there is a considerable loss of energy from the transmission lines. Not that the plants have to be right next door, but a couple of thousand miles isn't practical.

Also, for wind and solar advocates; those units have to be backed up by some kind of combustion based generators and depending on what type, they must be at least idling. Unless, you're into black, or brown outs.

Here's another little tidbit that not many people are aware of: Electrical power generation is a by-product of paper manufacturing. There are probably other industries that have similar capabilities. However, this may not mean much for domestic power consumers, because I think in most cases the plant would probably not be able to produce power in excess of what they consume themselves.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #44 on:** March 16, 2011, 04:41:14 AM »

there are cogeneration plants making steam and elec. for plants .

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #45 on:** March 16, 2011, 06:29:57 AM »

From Guzzis' chart, solar and wind were the most expensive. Natural gas the least expensive. You can install a natural gas plant in less than 2 years from the property purchase to startup. There are 2 units about 20 miles from where I live. We do not sell gas to the power company in the winter because we need it for home heating. It is used for max power drain in summer afternoons. A natural gas turbine can start up from scratch and be producing electricity in less than 4 minutes. It is a shame, because natural gas can better be used in vehicles to cut oil imports, especially in fleet vehicles. If we want to get rid of coal or use coal to make synthetic oil and plastics, we have to go nuclear. The generation 4 are much safer, some I think are using pebble bed reactors which can recycle the old spent rods and will not meltdown in a complete failure. I also think most of the wind costs is in building the collection and transmission grids from the windy areas to the end users.

I want to know what happened to the 300' diameter flywheels suggested back in the '70's placed near power plants to store excess power for use during peeks use. Theoreticaly they could increase power by 1/3 without building another power plant by placeing these beside all power plants.

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #46 on:** March 16, 2011, 09:20:30 AM »

Maybe that idea and its patent were bought up by the fuels companies??

no guns here · « **Reply #47 on:** March 17, 2011, 07:42:26 AM »

Quote

yet N-power necessitates an uber security state, intense governmnet co-operation and cover, and ever increasing taxation to subsidize these operations, and EXTREME EVERLASTING PUBLIC RISK for generations (quite unlike other disasters), not to mention risks to basic LIFE on the planet. This is all denied or downplayed by the n-industry proponents, but not very well denied.

We agree again... somehow, I almost feel dirty.

NGH

FourBee · « **Reply #48 on:** March 17, 2011, 07:59:52 AM »

In light of all that's going on over there, if a meltdown occurs, and since they own lots of interests here in America, reckon they'll all come over here and take ownership of all their property, home mortgages and businesses ?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #49 on:** March 17, 2011, 10:55:54 AM »

TM,
Of course, energy costs are not a concern to Conservatives/those on the Right. Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Ried and the rest of those that represent those on the Liberal/Left, are. What a laugh.

Have you thought about an Energy Strategy? How do we solve the long term issues and work towards lowering costs and reducing oil imports. Does N-Energy play a role or not in the strategy? Of course it does. Deployment (how/when/where/if) is a tactical issue. Stupid to ignore it and shut it off before you start.

A defined Energy Strategy that looks to leverage all sources of our doemstic ability, will have a direct impact on oil costs today and into the future. The oil cost we pay today, is largly based on forecasted supply/demand scenarios of the future based on the collective Energy Strategies of all nations.

torpedoman · « **Reply #50 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:13:40 AM »

Quote from: Old Syko on March 14, 2011, 03:26:38 AM

When a dam breaks in eastern Kentucky and a sludge lake rushes over the hill and wipes out a whole town and forever destroys the ground below, it just isn't as press worthy. It was almost as though those people weren't worthy of notice. What has taken place in Japan was inevitable due to the history of the fault in the area but nobody actively questioned the intelligence of their placement because there is no viable option to produce power on an island with no other resources. As others have stated, there are no free lunches. How you plan for and handle the end result is what matters.

Coal kills more every year than nuke has in it's history but then poor dumb Appalachia hillbilly's are not worth mentioning unless it is 50 or 60 in one whack.

myronman3 · « **Reply #51 on:** March 18, 2011, 03:36:31 AM »

when there is a coal accident, those involved die. tradgic? certainly. if you cant see the difference between a coal accident, and a nuclear meltdown, then i dont know what to tell you.

gypsyman · « **Reply #52 on:** March 18, 2011, 03:52:38 AM »

The sky is falling,the sky is falling. Quote chickenlittle. gypsyman

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #53 on:** March 18, 2011, 05:37:02 AM »

Well, back in the '70's there was talk of building 300' diameter flywheels at each power plant. This would store excess power produced during off peeks, and release the power during peek usage. It was said realistically it would increase power output by 1/3, 20% if everything was old tech. This is now being done on a small scale in New York and New England. The 300' diameter flywheels would be partially burried in case they flew apart and would be made of steel wire bundles. The smaller scaled ones would be composite and could spin faster for more concentrated power. Jauguar is going to install some small composite ones on their cars in England in 2012 and said it would increase fuel efficency by 20% in lew of hybrid batteries. They call it Flybrid because it uses the flywheels to store power while idleing or you can plug it in overnight to get th flywheel spinning. It uses the flywheel power to accelerate but engine power to maintain speed. This translates into 20% fuel savings.

However, we still need power plants. Wind could produce 20% of our nations power from coastal and plains states production. Giant flywheels may increase power by 20-30% without new plants. Solar could produce about 20-30% of power needs in southwest. Might could increase that by 10-15% more with flywheel storage. That still leaves 60% of the country with some other means of production. About 10% of power is produced by hydrodams, that can't be improved much unless you go with smaller localised power from smaller dams.

Therefore it is either coal or nuclear. Nasa could build giant solar panels in space, but the power would have to be beamed back to earth via microwaves or lasers. 1 sq mile of solar panels in space will get you as much power as a nuke plant and will cost about the same, but the solar space station will rotate the earth every 2 hours and can only beam power to an area only a short period of time unless it is a giant ring.

We can continue to use coal, no problem, but transportation fuel is our biggest problem.

no guns here · « **Reply #54 on:** March 18, 2011, 07:32:49 AM »

There is no ONE answer. The problem is, no one wants to formulate a plan that includes ALL the options. There is no reason you can't build more hydro power on smaller scale for local power needs. There is no reason you can't build more wind farms and solar farms. Wind is better than solar. With good siting, wind power can provide power almost all the time. Solar can provide power but only part of the time. Geo-thermal is good in certain locallized circumstances. Likewise for tidal power. Energy savings will realize a greater benefit than most realize. A concerted program to push for "old-fashioned" things like, back yard gardens, solar water heating, line-drying clothes (strangely it's banned in some areas) and canning your own food has the potential to save tons of energy. Imagine how much energy we could save if folks would line dry 75% of their clothing instead of running a dryer. Imagine how much energy we would save if folks would grow and can about 50% of their own veggies in their backyard. Imagine if 50% or more of the domestic hot water useage in the US came from free solar energy. No one program will fix all of it... but huge benefits could come from large scale use of many smaller programs.

NGH

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #55 on:** March 18, 2011, 07:55:30 AM »

ngh, you are right. The is no one answer. We still need the larger power plants to produce enough power for the demand in this country. However, there is a new foam insulation that is being used in new homes that is twice as good as fiberglass. Cuts heating and cooling in half. It is about twice as expensive as fiberglass, but in the long term could save millions in electric and natural gas use. Building new homes semi-underground could save tons also. We still need liquid vehicle fuel. I think the feds should decare a national emergency and release all patents reguarding carburators, etc, that would dramatically reduce our imports if implemented on all new cars. There is no reason we can't get 75-100 mpg on small cars and 25-35 mpg on big cars and trucks. My SIL uses biodiesel in his work truck from used cooking oil. Solar heat and water heating can be used now. Newer solar panels will eventually be cheaper. Ground water heat pumps can be used now. Firewood if available can be used.

This thread is about nuclear energy, which we will eventually have to use, so it must be designed to navy standards, use pebble bed reactors to avoid meltdowns, and resuse spent fuel to avoid having to dispose of it. Remember the unforeseen earthquake and tsunami caused this problem in Japan. The plant was 40 years old. Putting it so close to an earthquake zone and so low lying as to be affected by tsunami was not forward thinking. It withstood the earthquake, but not the tsunami.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #56 on:** March 18, 2011, 11:10:43 AM »

This is how it works TM. The US puts forth and aggressive energy strategy to levergae ALL sources. That becomes O's published policy on Energy strategy. It lists N,Solar,Water,coal, alternative fules, ect, ect and a basic timeline. Oil prices drop. Again, the tactics of how/when/why on N energy are out-year tactics (still needs full vetting

.

This is whats broken. We have no strategy. Oil prices go up.

bikerbeans · « **Reply #57 on:** March 19, 2011, 04:46:35 AM »

The two US Nuc subs lost in the 1960s were the

Thresher - 1963

Scorpion - 68 or 69.

Thresher was lost do to the rupture of a large seawater pipe that rapidly flooded the ship. US Navy responded with the Subsafe program to improve the QC of the construction of the nuclear subs.

Scorpion was sunk from a non-nuclear related explosion. Most folks say it was a hydrogen explosion related to the battery compartment. The folks that think Oswald had help killing Kennedy believe the Scorpion was sunk by a Russian sub.

Neither loss was directly related to issues with the Nuclear Power Plant.

BTW, the US Navy's first nuclear powered vessel, Nautilus, was launched in 1954 and I believe commissioned in 1955. We all owe Admiral Richover a debt of gratitude for the US Navy Nuc. Submarine force as it was one of the primary reason the USSR no longer exists.

Too me the disaster in Japan once again shows that humans should not pack themselves into coastal regions.

BB

US Navy
Nuclear Machinist Mate
USS California
1977-80

US Navy
Nuclear Staff Instructor
US Navy Nuclear Site - West Milton, NY
1975-77

Guy Pike · « **Reply #58 on:** March 20, 2011, 05:57:23 AM »

Bikerbeans: I was at West Milton with class 7505! What startles me is the difference between boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors. the extra layer of protection in the pressurized seems too good to eliminate. so good that several high mucky mucks have quit there jobs in protest over building boilers! My best, Guy. MM1SS SSN 571 1976-80

bikerbeans · « **Reply #59 on:** March 20, 2011, 03:14:45 PM »

Quote from: Guy Pike on March 20, 2011, 05:57:23 AM

Bikerbeans: I was at West Milton with class 7505! What startles me is the difference between boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors. the extra layer of protection in the pressurized seems too good to eliminate. so good that several high mucky mucks have quit there jobs in protest over building boilers! My best, Guy. MM1SS SSN 571 1976-80

Guy,

S3G plant, class of 7407 if my memory is still working. I was originally at D1G, got sick and missed 3 months. D1G went down for refueling so I went to S3G to qualify and help with that refueling. Remember Georges or Neutral Corners?

BB