|
samboct -> RE: Just a simple question about energy... (6/7/2009 7:45:43 PM)
|
"Still doesn't mean you'd use it.......because once you do all bets are off and chances are the people you'd use it against (or their friends) have more nukes than you and your country would look pretty silly as a big sheet of glass."
Do you really want to bet that a Mideast regime wouldn't use a nuke because they would get turned into glass? I must admit, I had a certain amount of faith that the Russians weren't going to be pushing the button too quick- they had a lot of cleanup left to go from the little fracas in the 1940s. Pakistan with a nuke is a scary thought, but amazingly, they've managed not to throw one at India.
Our track record is actually pretty good- we managed not to use them after '45 even with a fair amount of provocation by the Russians.
"Ted Kennedy has killed more people drunk driving off of bridges than nuclear energy accidents in the United States or the rest of the free world for that matter. All the ignorant anti-nuclear sentiment in this country has prevented our older plants from being replaced with current *safer* technology.
Ignorance perhaps, but I'd call it a lack of faith in an industry which is incredibly secretive, often employs undertrained workers, shortcuts safety inspections, and doesn't discuss its mistakes in science journals for open comment. And yes, they've made a few dillies- like running deuterium through a stainless pipe into the center of a reactor. (Hydrogen, or deuterium which is just hydrogen with an extra couple of neutrons embrittles steel. That was an expensive fix.) Breeder technology was also supposed to generate cheap, endless fuel, and that's been a wopping success now- hasn't it? (All breeder reactors have been shut down- they've proven to be uneconomical at the very least.) In terms of their accident record- well, there was also a meltdown back in the 50s in the UK I believe, which probably lead to a few cancer deaths- and IIRC, the Navy's had some fatal oops too. The civilian industry? Again, the tight secrecy doesn't lead me to feel warm and fuzzy that if there had been some accidental releases (and isotopes have certainly "wandered") that a fatality would actually be reported.
Ie. reactors like these which are passively cooled and could be placed close to or in cities safely (and therefore not require trillions of dollars in long distance transmission line costs). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S.
Nonsense. Transmission lines are in the billions- not trillions, and could probably come on line along with wind turbines a lot faster than nuclear plants which have very long construction times. The real radical solution I like is using American Superconductor's technology. Basically a single line of about a meter in diameter (maybe less) could carry all the power needs of the East Coast from the Midwest. New technology has also allowed a DC line to be tapped, so the line wouldn't have to be dedicated for say OK to NYC- you could tap off lines for Chicago, Michigan (is there anybody left who can pay an electric bill?) Dayton, Columbus, etc. No massive towers or lots of strings- just underground lines. (you need to keep things cool with a liquid nitrogen jacket.)
Note that although the nuke industry often claims the delays are due to red tape, the reality is that there are often oops on the construction sites, which then requires engineers to come and certify that the error is not going to have major repercussions. A standardized design might help reduce costs some, but then that basically doesn't allow for any improvements either.
But no...we'll continue to do stuff like wind farms which can only be connected to power grids in conjunction with conventional gas turbine generators. The gas turbines need to be throttled constantly to even out the power production as every gust or ebb of wind changes the windmill power output. This decreases the gas turbine efficiency so much they burn as much fossil fuel as they would if they were producing the entire load in the first place.
Not quite. The wind turbine power output is a bit steadier than you think because the farms have a lot of turbines to generate the power. Other grids such as Norway have been able to use up to 20% wind turbines for power generation.
There are two energy storage problems. There's the frequency regulation which is very short term- i.e. 15 min or less where loads can spike and need to be leveled out (if we'd ever get something like a smart grid) and Beacon Power has got a few megawatts of load leveling capability coming on line shortly. This problem exists for any technology.
We also need longer term energy storage- i.e. days. If we'd start going to some better energy storage technology such as hydro (hydro has a 95% conversion efficiency I think) we'd be in better shape. Using both these technologies would allow far greater utilization of wind.
Solar (in AZ) makes some sense but would still be massively more expense than the micro reactor concept. You *STILL* have to have alternate generators available because contrary to popular opinion it does get dark in Arizona at night."
That's why the solar plants store heat for several hours and use it when needed. And contrary to your opinion, the load in sunny states like Az does peak when the sun is out and AC is on full blast. Nor is solar thermal "massively expensive" - it's already cost effective, which is why they're building hundreds of megawatts now. It's also a very clean form of power generation.
Solar thermal also integrates well with natural gas. Since the solar thermal plant uses the sun to heat water for a turbine, it's not hard to substitute a gas flame. The biggest problem with solar thermal is the water requirements, since like any combustion process, you need a supply of water, and Az and CA do seem to have some water issues- don't they?
You also left out geothermal and improvements in hydro which are cost effective and quite clean.
I think its time for some new industries....
Sam
|
|
|
|
