Subject:
|
Power (was: Unexplained power outages in New York, Toronto, and other cities)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:43:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
219 times
|
| |
|
|
There's a bunch of stuff I wanted to comment on so I'm just rolling it together
here. I'll also preface with the clear statement of my stance: I am part of
cult of alternative energy. I have done the research needed to completely back
off the grid. I love photovoltaics. I love low-head hydroelectric generation.
And contrary to most, I love nuclear energy. I don't care for the generation of
electricity through the combustion of hydrocarbons. And I don't think that we'd
be doing that if the total costs of doing so in a manner conducive to public
health were being paid by the energy companies.
Mike and Pedro wrote (sorry for no distinction):
> Back in the early days of electricity there was a powerplant in every block,
> at least in NYC; I believe that can be considered similar to what you
> advocate? Well, that system was later abandoned due to its utter
> inneficiency and high operative costs. What has changed since?
The technology of power generation and transmission. A lot.
> The advantage of a powergrid is obvious, allowing for remote generation
> of energy;
The advantage to the city dweller is that they can build large polluting
generation facilities out in the country and ship the power into the city so
that they don't have the direct effect of the pollution. And since the locals
a) benefit economically and b) don't have the political or financial power to
fight the new source of pollution in their backyard, the country folks suffer
(and benefit) for/from the city people. I do wonder how much easier it would be
for New Yorkers to be conservative with power consumption if they had to deal
with the pollution themselves.
> The solar panels that are illegal for me to use on my house, if used by
> everyone, would produce enough excess energy to power the cites.
Would it be too much to ask for a citation on this one? I personally know a
physicist who worked on a DoD grant testing some secret PV material that was
more efficient than was "possible" across very narrow spectra. But I'd like to
read the characteristics and legality surrounding the PV stuff you're talking
about.
> we should be building Breeder Nuclear Reactors. They are impossible
> to meltdown, leave no nuclear waste, and we could power the entire
> planet for 500 years on just the urainium we have mined now (let alone
> the exsisiting nuclear waste from conventional nuclear plants that will
> burn in breeder reactors.)
We should build a few breeder reactors. They are not impossible to meltdown,
just very safe. They do leave nuclear waste, just much less than conventional
reactors. And the stat that I have at hand suggests that we could maintain a
steadily increasing electricity demand (which is an assumption that may be
unsafe) with the natural uranium reserves that we know about (seawater) for
billions of years.
If you want to meltdown a breeder reactor you just have to remove the primary
coolant. Remove it. To shut down the cycling pumps (if the design of the
reactor, includes pumps) is not enough because the thermal characteristics of
the coolant (liquid sodium) pool allow for perpetual heat dispersion even
without the secondary colling system in operation. It would not be ideal, but
you wouldn't get a runaway. But if a reactor site were captured by hostiles,
the sodium could be extracted which would prompt a runaway reaction.
A theoretical peak fuel efficiency for a multiple-recycling breeder reactor
still spits out half the incoming fuel as waste. That beats the carp out of the
98% waste that our current reactors produce, but it's a long way from "no
nuclear waste." But that's not a reasonable concern anyway since no one has
shown a plausible scenario for contamination from the waste once it's glaized.
A good breeder should produce waste of less than 2 cubic meters per year --
after being cooled and rolled into glass.
Something that I'm unsure of is the consumption of our current waste reserves by
breeders. I've read that this is doable, but I'm not sure I understand how. If
the fuel mixture starts out being whacked by fast neutrons, then you generate a
bunch of Pu^239 from the useless U^238 while the U^235 is fizzing. But how do
we mix in our excess reasonably pure U^238 into fuel for the brteeder without
compromising efficiency? We might need a special reactor where the main purpose
is waste conversion and electricity is supplimental. I haven't read that
anywhere so I'm probably just missing part of the picture, but it's a thought.
> all solar powered systems are pretty much unreliable. It's not that
> they do not work in cloudy conditions, only they work at a very
> unneficient pace (so to speak). And then there is night - to store
> whatever amount of power for night use would be a nightmare, just
> think of the waste represented by worn-out batteries.
Glass-mat batteries are a fine storage medium at today's technology for small
applications. I'm not sure about largeish power plants. But why do you feel
limited to that mechanism? Why not store the power in Boron pellets or
Hydrogen? I could manage a small hydrogen tank and burner in my basement that
would suppply my nighttime needs that would "charge" while just drawing from the
daytime supply. This wouldn't be a good solution for a nuclear winter, but you
can reliably store hydrogen for a month of overcast days.
> > However with no central generation point to get disrupted by
> > whatever, you would not have mass blackouts.
> That's probably true, however you'd have massive amounts of
> "mini-blackouts" that would require a large specialized repair
> personnel.
No, because we'd still have the grid. So if _my_ generation facility is out of
order, the excess from my neighbors will feed me until I get my system back up.
And the modularity of the systems that exist today don't really require much in
the way of specialization. I have way more than enough technical skills to
install and replace any components in such a system and I'm not an electrician.
> Now think of something: [breeder reactors] require more cooling-water
> than conventional reactors. Look at what's happening in France, Germany,
> Italy now, and risk saying breeder reactors could operate under those
> conditions.
Where'd that come from? As far as I know, that isn't so. And I think there are
breeders running in France, the UK, and Russia right now.
> [Breeder reactors] do leave toxic waste, in this case sodium:
I don't think that's exactly fair. In the sense that a nuclear reactor leaves
radioactive waste, a breeder does not "leave" sodium. Liquid sodium is present
in large quantities and dangerous if accidentally released. But it's not a
waste product. If you are going to use that standard, then virtually any
industrial infrastructure is dangerous. There are certainly manufacturing
plants that manipulate much more dangerous substances in an acceptably clean way
and no one (well, not many) is complaining about them.
> In your own country there are people who aren't too fond of
> nuclear, plus there is Three Mile Island.
So? The main obstical to abundant cheap power thorugh nuclear reactors is
emotionally-driven political difficulties. We agree. That doesn't make it a
bad idea. And contrary to popular belief, Three Mile Island was a minor
incident.
> However pretty much all practical ways of generating power are
> illegal. (I think water wheels are allowed if you happen to have a
> river handy. Talk about unreliable.)
I don't get this. Even with the woeful PVs we have today, it's a practical
solution. And lots of people use hydro just fine. There are many small streams
that have never in recorded history dried up.
> the same kind of reaction gave us Chernobyl, when external factors
> concurred for the disruption of safety measures. So, it's one thing
> to understand the laws of physics, but an entirely different matter
> to pretend you control all factors (like in a drill).
Chernobyl was allowed to happen by design. Those old Soviet RBMK reactors were
supposed to produce material for bombs and that extra infrastructure
neccessitated decreased containment facilities. That kind of accident just
can't happen to modern European and Japanese reactors through any degree of
accident.
> And extremely costly. Consider that by the time the solar panels
> would require replacement, they still wouldn't have paid off their
> initial cost. Why else do you think non-oil producing countries have
> not implemented the system? It's not as if they'd gain anything from
> buying oil, other than paying less for the same outcome.
There is a substantial capital cost involved in getting started and a net
savings over as few as 20 years. The startup cost prevents poorer nations for
getting involved. Wealthy nations _all_ have very strong oil-interests that
pull too much weight to allow solar-electric generation to be pursued seriously.
In fact, there is serious retribution from the multi-national oil industry
toward any administration that funds alternative energy with more than a
pittance.
As Frank mentioned, PV has substantial problems today (though he may have been
overstating it due to old data) but how much better will the PV technology -- as
well as the associate manufacturing technology get with serious research? I see
no reason to expect anything less than astounding improvement. As far as I can
tell, we are surrounded by proof that solar collection is an amazingly
productive process when done right.
> > > Now the current oil buring generators create a lot of air borne
> > > pollution that actually is a health risk.
> > Yes, they are doing such. But if a coal plant (or oil, for that
> > matter) suffers a catastrophic accident, you're not increasing the
> > risk of having your children born with deformities, are you?
> No they would simply be dead. If an oil power plant were hit by an
> airplane or earthquake or something as you suggest for a reason against
> breeder reactors, it would cause a comparable explosion. Heck a simple
> propane storage facility about 16 miles from my house would level
> everything in 20 miles if it were somehow accidentally detonated. The
> odds of that happing are about the same as a breeder reactor suffering
> an extraordinary accident, which is to say the odds are better that I
> will be struck by lightning and survive.
Burning fossil fuels certainly degrades quality of life. Terrible and pretty
unlikely disasters at nuke plants could degrade quality of life more. So how do
you balance it? The health risk of minor exposure to radiation (like that
caused by Chernobyl) seems to be less severe than that routinely caused by coal
mining/burning but I suppose I'd listen to contrary epidemiological evidence.
There is pretty scant evidence that "deformities" are a serious worry.
Increased cancer rates are hard enough to measure and point to.
If you're comparing dropping a jetliner into a nuclear reactor v. an oil plant,
I think we all have to agree that the nuclear reactor poses more potential
threat (in the unlikely event that the radioactive elements were blown into the
atmosphere) and the oil reactor poses more definite threat (since igniting the
whole thing doesn't seem to be that hard).
I don't believe that your local propane facility will level a 20 mile radius --
that's just too much energy to be plausible. You might feel the rumbling boom
that far away. And what's more likely: that someone will fly a plane into a
target piece of infrastructure, or that you'll survive a lightening strike?
Chris (who agrees and disagrees with both of you)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Power links
|
| Oops, I meant to include links. Read the basics about fast breeder reactors at (URL) about the Integral Fast Reactor at (URL) and (URL) a brief nuclear energy FAQ with good links at (URL) about some considerations that go into when to and not to (...) (21 years ago, 17-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
