Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Fri 04 Oct 2019, 00:47:26

asg70 wrote:When it comes to nuclear, I think humans are the weak link in the chain. If all nuclear plant designs were optimal and operated optimally, we never would have had a Chernobyl, 3-mile island, or Fukushima. The failure mode of nuclear is just an unacceptable risk. Even if we're talking about a so-called safe or meltdown-free design, what if through incompetence it's built wrong? What if some natural disaster happens? It's just Murphy's Law. All of the efforts to try to make sure nothing goes wrong add cost that is rarely factored in to the estimated electricity rates, plus the cost of decommissioning. So when I see these estimates, they are a complete joke. I get that we're in dire straights vis a vis global warming but the way some people simplistically promote nuclear as a panacea ignores all of the gotchas.


What if there's a hypothetical future melt down that dwarves even Chernobyl, but we have the cure for cancer?
What if living in Chernobyl or Fukushima just wouldn't be that bad for people?
What if we melt the planet down instead of a reactor every 10,000 years because we were too dumb at scientific risk assessment to let our leaders roll these off the assembly lines?
What if we built MCSFR's that friggin CANNOT EVER melt down because they've ALREADY melted down? They're a hot liquid reactor that, if anything, want's to 'freeze-up' the moment it 'cools' to 400 C!
No energy source is infallible, but today's passive safety reactors are darn close, and certainly much safer than hydro power!

"26,000 dead from flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless. Caused loss of generation, dam failed by overtopping in a 1-in-2,000 year flood[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... n_failures
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 04 Oct 2019, 11:56:30

asg70 wrote:When it comes to nuclear, I think humans are the weak link in the chain. If all nuclear plant designs were optimal and operated optimally, we never would have had a Chernobyl, 3-mile island, or Fukushima. The failure mode of nuclear is just an unacceptable risk. Even if we're talking about a so-called safe or meltdown-free design, what if through incompetence it's built wrong? What if some natural disaster happens? It's just Murphy's Law. All of the efforts to try to make sure nothing goes wrong add cost that is rarely factored in to the estimated electricity rates, plus the cost of decommissioning. So when I see these estimates, they are a complete joke. I get that we're in dire straights vis a vis global warming but the way some people simplistically promote nuclear as a panacea ignores all of the gotchas.


Translation: Can't afford Nuclear Reactors and EV's. So the Nukes have to go. Can't afford Shale Gas either.

Now ask asg70 what electricity generation will charge the EV's? It doesn't exist.

Is it any surprise that the eV Fanboys don't like Nuclear?
Cog: "Who are these people at my door carrying poleaxes"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Fri 04 Oct 2019, 22:15:02

StarvingLion wrote:Translation: Can't afford Nuclear Reactors and EV's. So the Nukes have to go. Can't afford Shale Gas either.

Now ask asg70 what electricity generation will charge the EV's? It doesn't exist.

Is it any surprise that the eV Fanboys don't like Nuclear?


What? Today's nuclear is already cheaper than coal if you include the fact that coal kills nearly 3 million people a year, which is about 650 Chernobyl disasters (and the west NEVER built a single Chernobyl reactor — surprise surprise, not all nuclear reactors are the same!) https://tinyurl.com/pqgdd5q
This is why George Monbiot says: “….when coal goes right it kills more people than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. It kills more people every week than nuclear power has in its entire history. And that’s before we take climate change into account.”
https://tinyurl.com/93nm9sn
The health costs nearly double the cost of coal! You pay once in your electricity bill, and again in your public health bill.
https://tinyurl.com/6m2o7c5
Dr James Hansen has calculated that by displacing coal, nuclear power has already saved 1.8 million lives.
https://tinyurl.com/ydx6mxrb

HOW TO REPLACE OIL?
The transport oil market is roughly divided in half, with light vehicles using petrol (gasoline) and heavy vehicles using diesel. America's renewable labs, NREL, have done the math and concluded we could mostly replace petrol with EV's on today's grid, without building a single new power plant! Just turn all existing power plants up to full and let them run that way all night. Most light vehicles like family cars and delivery vans could be charged by today's grid! “For the United States as a whole, 84% of US cars, pickup trucks and SUVs could be supported by the existing infrastructure.” http://tinyurl.com/y6b6s7nx
Technology Review August 2013 puts it this way: "the grid has enough excess capacity to support over 150 million battery-powered cars, or about 75 percent of the cars, pickups, and SUVs on the road in the United States." http://tinyurl.com/y3qvtv5k
That's like saying we can replace a third of the total oil market without building a single new power plant — just by buying EV's.
Heavy diesel vehicles like long haul trucking and mining and harvesters are a little more problematic. They will require new nuclear power plants to separate out hydrogen and CO2 from seawater to make a synthetic diesel or 'e-diesel'. But because CO2 is 28 times more concentrated in seawater than it is in the air, they've got that price down to almost parity with today's oil prices, and that *includes* the cost of building the nuclear reactors to power the process. They can also set it up to make airline jet fuel the same way. After all, the idea came from the US Naval fleets to make fighter fuel on nuclear powered aircraft carriers out in the ocean! https://tinyurl.com/y6oq9f3m   https://tinyurl.com/yytd3k7s
Dr James Hansen has a colleague at his Science Council for Global Initiatives by the name of Tom Blees. Tom makes a compelling case in his free book "Prescription for the planet" that we should just nationalise the energy market and get our governments provide cheap affordable clean electricity from nuclear, and various renewable replacements to oil from this abundant power source as well. See Chapter 9 "Cui Bono" at this link. https://tinyurl.com/yxef25veBut whatever the mix of government and private sector, one thing is clear. The sooner we start building modern safe breeder reactors that eat nuclear waste, the better.
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sat 05 Oct 2019, 17:06:40

The RBMK reactor was the not the cause of the Chernobyl "accident". It was the criminal "experiment" that was conducted on a full scale production reactor that caused the runaway regime. If no such "experiment" was conducted and the reactor was operated as designed, then nobody would know any incident by the name of Chernobyl.

It is hard to believe that this "experiment" was properly authorized. Any sane advisor to upper management at the government level would have stopped it in its tracks. Such experiments are only to be done on test reactors and under controlled conditions. We are not talking about some sort of tuning of production plants after their initial deployment. The RBMK was being operated for decades before this "accident".

If there was some actual part failure at this power plant then we could call it an accident and talk about what a dangerous design it was. Criminal "experiments" can be arranged to produce meltdowns at all nuclear power plants, except possibly for the III+ generation. The control systems of these reactors would have to be sabotaged to allow criminal idiots to stage dangerous "experiments".
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Sat 05 Oct 2019, 19:00:10

dissident wrote:The RBMK reactor was the not the cause of the Chernobyl "accident". It was the criminal "experiment" that was conducted on a full scale production reactor that caused the runaway regime. If no such "experiment" was conducted and the reactor was operated as designed, then nobody would know any incident by the name of Chernobyl.

It is hard to believe that this "experiment" was properly authorized. Any sane advisor to upper management at the government level would have stopped it in its tracks. Such experiments are only to be done on test reactors and under controlled conditions. We are not talking about some sort of tuning of production plants after their initial deployment. The RBMK was being operated for decades before this "accident".

If there was some actual part failure at this power plant then we could call it an accident and talk about what a dangerous design it was. Criminal "experiments" can be arranged to produce meltdowns at all nuclear power plants, except possibly for the III+ generation. The control systems of these reactors would have to be sabotaged to allow criminal idiots to stage dangerous "experiments".

Hear hear!
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby sparky » Mon 07 Oct 2019, 00:14:00

.
In the old soviet Union , the electrical generator were under the authority of the electrical grid
one of the problems was how would the grid react to a shutdown
the authorities decided to run a failure test
the local nuclear management told them vehemently that it was a VERY VERY bad idea
they were overruled by their tutelar authorities and told that if they did not comply ,
other people would be found who would
the technicians decided that if something really stupid was going to be done , it was better if that was them doing it , they knew the plant inside out and which safety system had to be neutralized and which one to keep

the test proceeded , starving the reactor of cooling water every operators were watching with some trepidation
as soon as they could , they declared the test over gave the GO to restart the water pumps
when the water rushed in , the highly radioactive and overheated reactor core created a dissociation of the water molecule in Hydrogen and Oxygene which then recombined as an explosion
the 100 feet concrete lid weighing several hundred tonnes flipped like a penny and the core fuel with the graphite blocks were thrown all over the place

the official responsible for forcing the test was send to Siberia
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Mon 07 Oct 2019, 01:41:29

sparky wrote:.
In the old soviet Union , the electrical generator were under the authority of the electrical grid
one of the problems was how would the grid react to a shutdown
the authorities decided to run a failure test
the local nuclear management told them vehemently that it was a VERY VERY bad idea
they were overruled by their tutelar authorities and told that if they did not comply ,
other people would be found who would
the technicians decided that if something really stupid was going to be done , it was better if that was them doing it , they knew the plant inside out and which safety system had to be neutralized and which one to keep

the test proceeded , starving the reactor of cooling water every operators were watching with some trepidation
as soon as they could , they declared the test over gave the GO to restart the water pumps
when the water rushed in , the highly radioactive and overheated reactor core created a dissociation of the water molecule in Hydrogen and Oxygene which then recombined as an explosion
the 100 feet concrete lid weighing several hundred tonnes flipped like a penny and the core fuel with the graphite blocks were thrown all over the place

the official responsible for forcing the test was send to Siberia


Yes, and so let's not do that again. However, I am kind of in favour of nationalisation of the energy sector (French style) and having the government agency standardise high safety modern designs like the CAP1400, and just rolling them off the production line for the next 10 years. By then they could have perfected ThorCon's non-breeder MSR's and of course be trialling the biggest badest beast of them all, the MCSFR breeder that eats almost any fuel or nuclear waste!

The following is what Dr James Hansen's friend Tom Blees wrote on energy economics.

“The implementation of a global energy plan requires some fresh thinking in order to provide oversight on a worldwide level. Elimination of the profit motive would be a great place to start. Looking at the record of publicly owned utilities in the United States, which serve fully 26% of American consumers with an enviable record of dependability and rates averaging 18% lower than private utilities, provides a strong argument in favor of extending the nonprofit model to a global scale. There would be many compelling advantages to such a plan, and few if any drawbacks. Indeed, unless one considers the inability of utility companies to skim off profits as a negative feature, there would seem to be no drawbacks whatsoever.

This is hardly a radical concept. Indeed, it is already a reality on a national level in France, where their AREVA national nuclear power agency oversees all aspects of their nuclear industry, from mining, power plant construction, training, reprocessing, and every other detail up to and including waste disposal. The only obstacle to copying their system and implementing it worldwide is political. They have clearly demonstrated its effectiveness. Let’s examine the features of this proposed nonprofit global energy consortium and how it will work. We’ll call it, henceforth, the Global Rescue Energy Alliance Trust (GREAT). The international negotiations and hard choices required to create such a system will be formidable, requiring policies that will cut harshly against the corporate and political grain—more in some countries than others. But nobody ever said that implementing a plan to save the planet was going to be a bed of roses. In reality, though, we’ll see that aside from the impossibility of placating the greediest power mongers (in both senses of the phrase), the advantages of such a system would be overwhelmingly positive for the rest of us
.
Corporatist true believers (free market ideologues) will undoubtedly argue that GREAT is a matter of ideology, and its supporters will surely be tarred as socialists or even communists in the inevitable efforts to discredit this proposal. But GREAT is not a matter of ideology, it’s a matter of sanity. Just as the world lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation during the long tense years of the cold war, so we will continue to live under the threat of nuclear terrorism until we recognize the fact—not the opinion—that the only way we can ever hope to remove the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is to put the entire nuclear fuel cycle under strict international control. This perforce requires us to end the era of private utility companies’ involvement in nuclear power. As newclear power assumes its role as the dominant energy source of the future, the only recourse for private utilities will be in renewable technologies that contribute to the overall energy supply system. Given that IFRs and the existing thermal reactors will likely supply the vast majority of power at least in the near term, it stands to reason that the overall energy infrastructure and administration will fall under the purview of GREAT, making electrical generation and distribution a de facto near-socialized system. (Since usage will still determine users’ costs, it would not be a socialized system per se, but more akin to a cooperative. But what’s in a word?) If wind and solar power are practical alternatives to nuclear, as their proponents maintain, then there will be plenty of room for investment by private sector energy companies, though given the history of manipulation of energy markets it would be prudent to limit the generating capacity of any one company…”

From Chapter 9, Cui Bono, Prescription for the Planet free to download here:
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 17 Oct 2019, 11:59:55

Bankrupt France is PLANNING new reactors. Translation: Our New Business Model is PLANNING. Fuggetaboutit.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6145 ... wer-again/

by James Temple
Oct 16, 2019

After years of backing away from nuclear power, France suddenly wants to build six huge reactors.

This week Le Monde reported that the government asked EDF, the country's main state-controlled energy company, to work up plans to build three new nuclear plants, each with a pair of its EPR reactors. The third-generation design produces enough electricity to supply 1.5 million people, and automatically shuts down and cools in the event of an accident.

It doesn’t appear that any developments are final—or even funded—at this stage. But energy experts were surprised by the news because it seemed to suggest France is adjusting its stance on nuclear. Plus early efforts to build the same style of pressurized-water reactor have been plagued with cost overruns and repeated delays.

The nation produces more than 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, the highest share of any nation in the world. But sentiment shifted after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.

French nuclear regulators pushed for safety upgrades to existing plants, and in 2015 the government voted to cut the share of nuclear in the nation’s energy supply to 50% by 2025 (a date later pushed out to 2035).

In recent years, the nuclear industry has struggled in general amid safety concerns, rising competition from natural gas and renewables, and high-profile development boondoggles.

So what’s likely at work here?

France intends to shut down about 15 aging reactors before 2030, says Jessica Lovering, a nuclear researcher at Carnegie Mellon. So building six reactors wouldn't necessarily increase the share of electricity produced by nuclear plants across the nation, particularly as demand increases in the coming years.

Meanwhile, some energy experts noted that France committed just this summer to become carbon neutral by 2050. That’s across the economy, meaning the country will need to slash climate pollution not simply from the electricity sector but in agriculture, transportation, and heavy industry as well. So officials likely want to avoid losing emissions-free electricity at this point. In addition, nuclear plants produce heat that can be used to drive crucial industrial processes.

Some were still surprised that France is forging ahead with large EPR reactors instead of small, modular ones that might significantly cut up-front costs and development risks.

But Lovering and others noted that with the first EPR plants coming online, the industry has developed expertise, supply chains, and design refinements that should help cut costs and reduce the time it takes to develop subsequent reactors.

“Rather than starting over with a new design, I think they’re trying to learn from the failures of the first one and improve on the next generation,” she says.
Cog: "Who are these people at my door carrying poleaxes"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests