Page 12 of 16

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 25 Feb 2019, 17:44:34
by rdberg1957
Nuclear power could be the backbone of a well functioning grid which would use renewable power along with nuclear. Small reactors could supply a good base. I think the option is worth exploring given that 100% renewable seems pretty iffy.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 25 Feb 2019, 20:36:56
by KaiserJeep
A stable, low carbon grid needs three kinds of power generation:

1) Baseline power generation, 24X7. Hydropower and Nuclear power are both good for this. Since we don't have enough such power plants, we burn a lot of FF's for baseline power today.

2) Renewable, carbon-free power. Wind and solar are examples. However the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow 24X7, so we need an economical way to store such energy, and as of yet, we don't have such.

3) "Peaking Plants" which are used to make up the energy needed to fill the gap between renewables and actual power demand. These are for the most part gas turbines fuelled by natural gas. I have one less than two miles from my home. When you are nearby, you will hear the turbines scream as a cloud goes over Silicon Valley and reduces solar production.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Tue 26 Feb 2019, 07:43:26
by Yonnipun
KaiserJeep wrote:A stable, low carbon grid needs three kinds of power generation:

1) Baseline power generation, 24X7. Hydropower and Nuclear power are both good for this. Since we don't have enough such power plants, we burn a lot of FF's for baseline power today.

2) Renewable, carbon-free power. Wind and solar are examples. However the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow 24X7, so we need an economical way to store such energy, and as of yet, we don't have such.

3) "Peaking Plants" which are used to make up the energy needed to fill the gap between renewables and actual power demand. These are for the most part gas turbines fuelled by natural gas. I have one less than two miles from my home. When you are nearby, you will hear the turbines scream as a cloud goes over Silicon Valley and reduces solar production.


Which is what we already have everywhere at the moment. The trouble is that the amount of renewable must be quit small for this system to be stable.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Feb 2019, 12:13:12
by KaiserJeep
Correct, or you must have LOTS MORE renewables generation, plus energy storage. I have 2.8kva of solar PV on the roof, and in sunny California, it produces at 18% of rated capacity on average - and I have no batteries.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Feb 2019, 15:35:46
by diemos
Or you can reorganize your society to make hay while the sun shines. Use power when it's available and stop expecting any amount of power to be available whenever you want.

Which is what we will eventually do once reality grabs us by the hair and drags us kicking and screaming into the future.

There is no plug compatible replacement for our current system.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Feb 2019, 16:47:15
by KaiserJeep
diemos wrote:Or you can reorganize your society to make hay while the sun shines. Use power when it's available and stop expecting any amount of power to be available whenever you want.

Which is what we will eventually do once reality grabs us by the hair and drags us kicking and screaming into the future.

There is no plug compatible replacement for our current system.


Oh, you mean:

Using electric lighting in the daytime and not at night.

Heating your home when you are at work, not when you are at home.

Having hot water when nobody is there to use it.

Etc. Etc.

Yeah - that'll happen, NOT.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Feb 2019, 21:44:59
by diemos
KaiserJeep wrote:
Oh, you mean:

Using electric lighting in the daytime and not at night.

Heating your home when you are at work, not when you are at home.

Having hot water when nobody is there to use it.

Etc. Etc.

Yeah - that'll happen, NOT.


https://i2-prod.irishmirror.ie/news/iri ... People.jpg

I expect them to be using just as much heat during the day as at night.
I expect them to be using just as much electric lighting during the day as at night.
I expect them to be using just as much hot water during the day as at night.

As time goes on more and more people will be tossed over the side of the lifeboat and "normal life" will become available only to the privileged few.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sun 03 Mar 2019, 17:56:49
by Subjectivist
Sure, we should all happily throw away our modern lifestyle and become aesthetics living like monks rather than use clean safe nuclear fission.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 04 Mar 2019, 00:52:35
by Keith_McClary
KaiserJeep wrote:A stable, low carbon grid needs three kinds of power generation:

1) Baseline power generation, 24X7. Hydropower and Nuclear power are both good for this.

Hydro is good for peaking, if you don't mind downstream river flow fluctuating wildly.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 04 Mar 2019, 16:17:27
by Yonnipun
Keith_McClary wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote:A stable, low carbon grid needs three kinds of power generation:

1) Baseline power generation, 24X7. Hydropower and Nuclear power are both good for this.

Hydro is good for peaking, if you don't mind downstream river flow fluctuating wildly.


Hydro is very good at stabilizing frequency. Estonia is connected with Russia and the frequency is stabilized by big hydro stations in Russia.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 08 Mar 2019, 08:25:47
by EdwinSm
Problems at Hunterston B (UK). About 10% of graphite bricks in the core are found to be damaged. That seems to me to be a very high precentage.

The first pictures have emerged of cracking in the graphite bricks which make up the core of nuclear reactors at Hunterston B Power Station in Ayrshire.

Reactor three has not produced electricity since cracks were found to be forming quicker than expected.

About 370 hairline fractures have been discovered which equates to about one in every 10 bricks in the reactor core.


But they want to crack on with producing more power (until 20% of the bricks are damaged..

EDF plans to ask the regulator for permission to restart with a new operational limit of up to 700 cracks.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-47485321

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 25 Mar 2019, 09:35:38
by GHung
Federal Government Ups Its Commitment To Plant Vogtle, Secretary Perry Visits

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry visited Plant Vogtle for the first time Friday, to announce the federal government would guarantee $3.7 billion more in loans to the nuclear power plant’s expansion project.

Perry was joined by Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of Agriculture and former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue for the announcement. They also witnessed the “tuopping out” of the containment vessel for one of the new reactors. That’s the building that actually holds the nuclear reactor.

The plant, in Waynesboro, is the only one under construction in the country, and would be the first new one in more than 30 years. With $8.3 billion in loans already guaranteed by the Obama administration in 2011, this brings Vogtle’s total federal support to $12 billion.

The expansion of Plant Vogtle with nuclear reactors 3 and 4 has had a delayed and expensive history. Both units were already supposed to be on the grid by now, and the project’s current budget is double the original estimate, at more than $25 billion, split between four owners, the largest being Georgia Power.

Secretary Perry touted his strong support for nuclear energy as part of an “all of the above energy strategy” of the administration before a crowd of Vogtle employees: “Ladies and gentleman look around you, this is the real new green deal. That’s what we’re looking at folks. This is America. This is what we can do together.”

“If you want clean energy that helps our environment, there is no cleaner source than nuclear energy. This is it,” he said, calling nuclear and coal the only two sources of energy “that are on site and uninterruptable.” .......

https://www.wabe.org/federal-government ... ry-visits/

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 06 Apr 2019, 09:03:42
by vtsnowedin
StarvingLion wrote:They will abandon every one of them due to insolvency, and they will all melt down and blow up.

Nuclear plants that become un-economic are shut down and decommissioned. They do not blow up. Vermont Yankee the one nearest me has been shut down for a while now(2014) and all the fuel has been removed and is being placed in storage casks on site well ahead of schedule. The bad thing is they did not build a new state of the art nuclear plant next to it as a replacement instead moving to natural gas etc.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 10 Apr 2019, 12:27:21
by vtsnowedin
You are entitled to your opinion on that.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sun 14 Apr 2019, 21:47:39
by dissident
A reactor design that for some reason has been neglected is the fission-fusion hybrid. Instead of trying to get all the energy from pure fusion in a tokomak, a fissile blanket is deployed to be irradiated by the fast neutrons that are produced in abundant quantities by the tokomak plasma even if no break-even is reached. An advantage of the hybrid design is that it can burn actinides. So hybrid reactors are able to burn all nuclear waste. Molten metal fast neutron fission reactors can burn through the longer lived waste but not the actinides. (Nuclear waste actinides decay completely in about 300 years).

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsru ... or-6168535

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sun 14 Apr 2019, 22:36:12
by diemos
It hasn't been neglected. It's just an added complication that's not needed for a fusion test bed.

It also doesn't do anything to solve the problem of neutron damage in the inner wall of the tokamak.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 15 Apr 2019, 05:02:06
by EdwinSm
About eight (8) years after the accident:- Fukushima: Japan begins removal of nuclear fuel from damaged reactor

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47933031

This is good news, but it occurs in a time of relative prosperity and stability, so I wonder in nuclear reactors could ever be made safe in a collapse situation. I suppose the minimum would be to remove the rods from the cores and store in water.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 15 Apr 2019, 10:28:20
by diemos
If Mad Max arrives abandoned nuclear reactors are going to be the least of your worries.

We had three nuclear reactors melt down and even for the surrounding towns panic and fear did the most damage. Currently the wildlife there is running rampant. It's not exactly a blasted moon scape.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 15 Apr 2019, 11:44:28
by KaiserJeep
The legacy of Godzilla and the dozens of Grade "B" through Grade "D" monster movies lives on. Most people were exposed at a young and impressionable age to the BS about nuclear energy. Those who would debate endlessly and without any evidence were obviously frightened the most.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 15 Apr 2019, 20:27:57
by dissident
BTW, fusion-fission reactors are the safest design by far. It is very easy to disable the tokomak plasma. It is hard to get it to be self-sustaining, but shutting it down can be done in microseconds. Without the tokomak high energy neutron source the fission inside the thorium blanket shuts down. No control rods could ever achieve this sort of neturon flux termination. The reactions inside the thorium blanket are not self sustaining by construction. The blanket is not able to form any sort of sub-critical and critical mass for self-sustaining reactions.