Nuclear vs. Renewables... again
Jeff Bailey
I received therein, I submit the following. I said some weeks ago
something along the lines of "If alternative energy research had
received the level of federal support that nuclear energy had received
over the years, solar energy and other alternatives would be much more
widely used today." I was then challenged by someone who claimed that
no such funding disparity existed. I said I would dig up the numbers to prove
that a funding disparity DOES exist. Here they are. Draw your own
conclusions. I've stated mine.
********************************************************************
Here are the data I was looking for, listing U.S. Government energy
research and development appropriations over the last 15 years. I'll
send the yearly totals for years before FY 1993 to anyone who is
interested.
(amounts in $millions)
FY 1978-1993 1993 %_tot. %_tot._93
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Renewable energy 5,740 249.8 19.2 13.4
Nuclear power 13,169 981.0 44.0 52.5
Fossil energy 7,786 306.7 26.0 16.4
Conservation/end use 3,245 329.4 10.8 17.6
Total DOE 29,940 1,867 100 100
OTHER PROGRAMS
DOE clean coal 2,238 500 40.9 77.2
NRC safety research 2,398 121.4 43.8 18.8
USGS oil programs 228 26 4.2 4.0
Interagency NAPAP* 606 0 11.1 0.0
Total unallocated 5,470 647 100 100
Grand total 35,410 2,514
*NAPAP = U.S. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
Now, if you total DOE funding for Nuclear (DOE Nuclear power + NRC safety
research), Fossil (DOE Fossil + DOE clean coal + USGS oil programs +
Interagency NAPAP), you end up with the following breakdown:
Nuclear 15,567 371.2 44.0 43.9
Fossil 10,858 832.7 30.7 33.1
Renewable 5,740 249.8 16.2 9.9
Conservation 3,245 329.4 9.2 13.1
(Sources: US DOE, Comptroller's Office, Dept. of Energy Appropriation
History Tables (March 29,1991); and US DOE, US Dept of Energy Posture
Statement and Fiscal Year 1993 Budget Overview (Wash.DC, March 1992. US
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program: Mission, Goals, and
Program Plan Post 1990 (Wash.DC, Nov. 1991).)
************************************************************************
So, I stand by my original point: funding for nuclear power has vastly
outpaced that for alternative energy over the last decades, and as you
can see from the numbers, continues to enjoy a margin of 3-4:1 today.
Adios, net.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Bailey, Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering |
| University of California Berkeley |
| bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu Barney + Rush = Barney |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jigs
>So, I stand by my original point: funding for nuclear power has vastly
>outpaced that for alternative energy over the last decades, and as you
>can see from the numbers, continues to enjoy a margin of 3-4:1 today.
Jeff,
I am a Mechanical Engineering student at the Univeristy of Illinois. My
specialization is Solar Energy. Although I believe that Solar Energy is
awesome, and I believe that from what I know all of your numbers are correct,
I believe that Nuclear Energy will provide energy for the masses in cities
while Solar Energy will be used in remote locations and in places where
small energy needs are required (too expensive to put up a power plant for your
needs). I agree that is Solar Energy got all of the money that Nuclear got
the world would be more advanced in Solar technology, but in terms of using
Solar Energy (PV mostly, not biogas, direct heating, etc), it is not
designed for generating large amounts of energy yet.
Fusion and Breeder Reactors are well on their way if the government lobbyists
would give them a chance. Waste is not a problem being that we are removing
radioactivity from the ground and putting it back in a lead case a half
mile under a mountain in Nevada. breeder Reactors have little waste anyway.
Give nuclear a chance. I think they made the right funding decision at that
point in time. Solar's time is approaching shortly.
Jigar Shah
js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
Jeff Bailey
|bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu (Jeff Bailey) writes:
||So, I stand by my original point: funding for nuclear power has vastly
||outpaced that for alternative energy over the last decades, and as you
||can see from the numbers, continues to enjoy a margin of 3-4:1 today.
|
|I believe that Nuclear Energy will provide energy for the masses in cities
|while Solar Energy will be used in remote locations and in places where
|small energy needs are required (too expensive to put up a power plant for your
|needs). I agree that is Solar Energy got all of the money that Nuclear got
|the world would be more advanced in Solar technology, but in terms of using
|Solar Energy (PV mostly, not biogas, direct heating, etc), it is not
|designed for generating large amounts of energy yet.
|
|Give nuclear a chance. I think they made the right funding decision at that
|point in time. Solar's time is approaching shortly.
Solar energy can provide as much energy as we need. The question is how
much it is going to cost.
I think you, and perhaps most readers of this newsgroup, have missed my
point: I'm asking YOU to give SOLAR ENERGY a chance. Considering that
nuclear technology has benefited from four times the federal research
money that renewables have (previous post), I'm asking that solar energy
and other renewables be given an equal effort as has been given fossil
and nuclear technology.
Jigs
>In article <2e95eh$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jigs) writes:
>|bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu (Jeff Bailey) writes:
>||So, I stand by my original point: funding for nuclear power has vastly
>||outpaced that for alternative energy over the last decades, and as you
>||can see from the numbers, continues to enjoy a margin of 3-4:1 today.
>|
>|I believe that Nuclear Energy will provide energy for the masses in cities
>|while Solar Energy will be used in remote locations and in places where
>|small energy needs are required (too expensive to put up a power plant for your
>|needs). I agree that is Solar Energy got all of the money that Nuclear got
>|the world would be more advanced in Solar technology, but in terms of using
>|Solar Energy (PV mostly, not biogas, direct heating, etc), it is not
>|designed for generating large amounts of energy yet.
>|
>|Give nuclear a chance. I think they made the right funding decision at that
>|point in time. Solar's time is approaching shortly.
>Solar energy can provide as much energy as we need. The question is how
>much it is going to cost.
>I think you, and perhaps most readers of this newsgroup, have missed my
>point: I'm asking YOU to give SOLAR ENERGY a chance. Considering that
>nuclear technology has benefited from four times the federal research
>money that renewables have (previous post), I'm asking that solar energy
>and other renewables be given an equal effort as has been given fossil
>and nuclear technology.
Not to drag this out any farther, I have strong convictions about the future of
Solar Energy. This type of energy may be the key to our future, but Nuclear
Fusion is probably the answer to our mass energy woes. Solar Energy will
never be (strong wording I know) used (I am referring to PV's) as a mass form
of energy. There are many places where building and entire power plant ro
running power lines would be much more expensive then just using Solar arrays.
The number of examples for this will increase significantly as solar
PV efficiency goes up. Again, I agree that Solar, Wind, Hydro, etc would be
in better shape if the funduing would have been equal or shifted in their
favor during the past 20 years, but we can't really gripe about that now. It
seems that nuclear has done a tremendous amount, and for those of us who are
waiting for the ignorant to get off their arguments against nuclear waste,
supposed radiation from the plant itself the world is a very cold place. After
the ignorant accept nuclear for what it has done, more money will be pumped and
is currently trying to get pumped into alternative methods of energy production.
I know that I am hoping that will be true, cuz I am majoring in Solar Energy and
other alternatives.
JIgar shah
js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
SEC...@psuvm.psu.edu
power is held to is driving me up a wall. It is environmentally en vogue to
oppose it no matter what the facts may be. The US is in danger of loosing
it's leadership in this quickly growing(overseas that is) industry. If we
are not careful you will see French Super Pheonixes instead of AP-600s being
the reactor of choice in asia in the future.
How long will it take for nuclear power to be seen as the clean, safe, and
renewable power supply it is? Think about that while you bask in the glow
of your computer screen in a lit, warm room and when you get something cold
out of your fridge.
Stephen
Jigs
I am sorry that the subject was worded like that. The articles had to do with
Nuclear vs. Solar and Wind. Nuclear truly is renewable. With current breeder
technology we can use the millions of toms of Uranium-238 that has been sitting
around to make Plutonium to reuse. The modular GE Prism actually is much
better then the Super Phoenix of France. The biggest plus is that it can be
mass produced (modules I mean) at a factory somewhere and shipped. The
Super Phoenixes all have to be built on site which is a reason for the high
building costs for Nuclear Energy. The Prism also (being that is comes in
modules) can be added in shorter time periods. A power company doesn't have to produce another 1000 MW plant if it only needs an additional 200MW. That is
a huge capital loss. The Prism modules are 135MW I think.
Anyway, sorry for the confusion. I apologize for pitting nuclear against
"renewables" when in fact it is a renewable.
JIgar Shah
js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
Russ Brown
Jeff Bailey <bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>After a refreshing break from the internet and the verbal pummeling
>I received therein, I submit the following. I said some weeks ago
>something along the lines of "If alternative energy research had
>received the level of federal support that nuclear energy had received
>over the years, solar energy and other alternatives would be much more
>widely used today." I was then challenged by someone who claimed that
>no such funding disparity existed. I said I would dig up the numbers to prove
>that a funding disparity DOES exist. Here they are. Draw your own
>conclusions. I've stated mine.
>
>********************************************************************
>Here are the data I was looking for, listing U.S. Government energy
>research and development appropriations over the last 15 years. I'll
>send the yearly totals for years before FY 1993 to anyone who is
>interested.
>
>(amounts in $millions)
>
> FY 1978-1993 1993 %_tot. %_tot._93
>DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
>Renewable energy 5,740 249.8 19.2 13.4
>Nuclear power 13,169 981.0 44.0 52.5
>Fossil energy 7,786 306.7 26.0 16.4
>Conservation/end use 3,245 329.4 10.8 17.6
> Total DOE 29,940 1,867 100 100
>
Please check the reference to verify that the "nuclear" component is
related to the production of power. A great deal of the nuclear
research was and is defense-related.
Assuming for the moment that the 1993 figures are for _power_, they do
seem disproportionate...at least given the potential for producing
power. The _renewable_ fraction seems large.
russ
Thomas D. Orth
|> >
|> >(amounts in $millions)
|> >
|> > FY 1978-1993 1993 %_tot. %_tot._93
|> >DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
|> >Renewable energy 5,740 249.8 19.2 13.4
|> >Nuclear power 13,169 981.0 44.0 52.5
|> >Fossil energy 7,786 306.7 26.0 16.4
|> >Conservation/end use 3,245 329.4 10.8 17.6
|> > Total DOE 29,940 1,867 100 100
|> >
|>
|> Please check the reference to verify that the "nuclear" component is
|> related to the production of power. A great deal of the nuclear
|> research was and is defense-related.
|>
|> Assuming for the moment that the 1993 figures are for _power_, they do
|> seem disproportionate...at least given the potential for producing
|> power. The _renewable_ fraction seems large.
|>
|> russ
It was a sly way of making the defense budget look smaller I guess.
In reality, nuclear energy research gets about 112 million per year
out of approximately 19 to 20 billion dollars.
Tom Orth
Argonne National Laboratory
or...@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
Speaking for myself
T Sofu RA/208/xxx 9673
>Solar energy can provide as much energy as we need. The question is how
>much it is going to cost.
>nuclear technology has benefited from four times the federal research
>money that renewables have (previous post), I'm asking that solar energy
>and other renewables be given an equal effort as has been given fossil
>and nuclear technology.
I hate to say that, but, solar energy, after years of costly
research and development, is one of the most expensive energy
sources we have today. In order to make figures meaningful,
you should compare (energy generated)/(money spent) for each
alternative.
I don't understand why you have to be "anti-nuclear" in order
to promote "solar." Each energy production method has specific
advantages and problems. And the best policy is to keep a well-balanced
approach, relying on diversified sources. I sympathize your
call to "give SOLAR ENERGY a chance." But, does it have to mean
killing the nuclear option?
Tanju
Jeff Bailey
>
>I hate to say that, but, solar energy, after years of costly
>research and development, is one of the most expensive energy
>sources we have today. In order to make figures meaningful,
>you should compare (energy generated)/(money spent) for each
>alternative.
The amount of money spent on solar energy research, compared to that spent on
conventional "water-boiling" sources, is little, as I pointed out in an earlier
post. It is clear that we have put most of our energy eggs into one or two
baskets. The fact is that we have made a tremendous investment in nuclear
energy, and relatively little in others. When we reach the point that solar
electricity plants generate a significant amount of energy compared to the
others, and economies of scale which the other generating sources presently
enjoy are available as well, then a comparison like the one you suggest will
be more valid.
>I don't understand why you have to be "anti-nuclear" in order
>to promote "solar."
You don't. I'm trying to suggest that nuclear energy, which is widely touted
in some circles as the best alternative to continued fossil fuel use, is not the
best option. I happen to have big problems with nuclear energy generation, and
not for the reasons that many assume I have.
B. Alan Guthrie
Those aren't the numbers I find. According to the April 1, 1993 edition
of ENERGY DAILY, page 5
Department of Energy Budget
FY 1994 OMB Budget
(dollars in thousands)
FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
Actual Adjusted Request to
Congress
Total Atomic Energy Defense Activities 11,968,000 12,118,265 11,521,027
Energy Supply R&D
Energy Research 1,549,946 1,712,692 1,764,614
NUCLEAR ENERGY (my caps) 364,311 345,353 283,956
SOLAR & RENEWABLE ENERGY (still my caps) 241,689 257,334 327,191
Environment, Safety, & Health 159,029 159,670 174,846
NUCLEAR SAFETY (yep, my caps) 12,530 --- ---
Environmental Management 609,913 709,694 710,098
Other Energy Supply 84,500 42,589 42,749
Subtotal, Energy Supply R&D 3,021,918 3,227,332 3,318,434
Use of Prior Year Balances & Other Adj - 37,160 - 211,539 - 163,900
Total, Energy Supply R&D 2,984,758 3,015,793 3,154,534
General Science & R&D 1,458,819 1,417,784 1,599,114
Isotope Production 8,500 5,000 3,910
Uranium Enrichment Activities - 397,046 - 175,680 160,000
UE Decontamination & Decommiss Fund --- --- 286,320
Federal Energy Regulation Commission --- --- - 3,289
Total, Power Marketing Administrations 551,947 762,689 445,663
Total, Departmental Administration 366,396 87,112 175,488
Inspector General 33,002 30,362 31,757
NUCLEAR WASTE FUND (my caps) 275,071 275,071 260,000
Total, Energy & Water Development
Appropriations (sum of all above) 17,249,447 17,536,756 17,634,524
Interior & Related Programs Appropriations
Clean Coal Technology 410,125 --- 250,000
Fossil Energy R&D 440,512 418,353 398,442
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves 232,335 236,070 231,216
ENERGY CONSERVATION (my caps) 511,296 563,490 762,610
Economic Regulation Administration 14,585 14,441 12,994
Emergency Preparedness 8,195 9,168 8,901
Strategic Petroleum Reserve 185,062 176,867 173,110
Strategic Petroleum Account 88,413 - 700 ---
Energy Information Administration 76,260 33,341 89,373
Total, Interior & Related Programs 1,966,783 1,451,030 1,926,646
Payments to States 2,280 2,523 2,523
Total, Department of Energy 19,218,510 18,990,309 19,563,693
The 1992 figures should be pretty firm.
I suppose that the 1993 figures are Bush's last budget
The 1994 figures are Clinton's proposal as of last spring. Much has changed
(for instance, $ 640,000,000 for the SCSC), so do not treat the numbers as
absolute.
Looks to me that nuclear power is getting less than $400 M every year, while
solar&renewables and conservation get in excess of $700 M. (Note that the
DoE is by statute required to dispose of High Level Rad Waste and that the
nuclear utilities pay a steep fee to it presently, even though it has not
yet taken possession of any spent fuel, so you can't charge this expenditure
against nuclear power).
The other point is that solar and renewables got some spiffy and lucrative
tax breaks under Carter. Dr. Bailey did not include these in his figures
(nor did I).
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | E pur si muove!
|
zc...@monarch.pgh.wec.com | Galileo Galilei
Jeff Bailey
|Those aren't the numbers I find. According to the April 1, 1993 edition
|of ENERGY DAILY, page 5
|
| Department of Energy Budget
| FY 1994 OMB Budget
| (dollars in thousands)
|
| Energy Research 1,549,946 1,712,692 1,764,614
| NUCLEAR ENERGY (my caps) 364,311 345,353 283,956
| SOLAR & RENEWABLE ENERGY (still my caps) 241,689 257,334 327,191
| Environment, Safety, & Health 159,029 159,670 174,846
| NUCLEAR SAFETY (yep, my caps) 12,530 --- ---
| Environmental Management 609,913 709,694 710,098
Please describe who gets the lion's share of the $1.5 billion you didn't count.
John De Armond
>> FY 1978-1993 1993 %_tot. %_tot._93
>>DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
>>Renewable energy 5,740 249.8 19.2 13.4
>>Nuclear power 13,169 981.0 44.0 52.5
>>Fossil energy 7,786 306.7 26.0 16.4
>>Conservation/end use 3,245 329.4 10.8 17.6
>> Total DOE 29,940 1,867 100 100
>>
>Please check the reference to verify that the "nuclear" component is
>related to the production of power. A great deal of the nuclear
>research was and is defense-related.
>Assuming for the moment that the 1993 figures are for _power_, they do
>seem disproportionate...at least given the potential for producing
>power. The _renewable_ fraction seems large.
Yup. It might also be instructive to point out that since today's
nuclear plants were designed in the 50s and 60s, little to none of what
the government spends on nuclear has anything to do with power production.
Most of the government power work involves either developing new
reactor designs that people don't necessarily want (IFR, for instance)
or dog'n'pony shows in order to "prove" how safe nuclear reactors are
(waste interrment, BORAX, modern variants). Neither is the appropriate use
of public funds and certainly shouldn't be presented as some government
subsidy of nuclear power.
Hmm, I wonder if fusion research funding, the granddaddy of all scientific
wellfare programs, is rolled up in that nuclear catagory? Hmmm.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | For a free sample magazine, send
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
Marietta, Ga "Love America" | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
j...@dixie.com "Hate its government" | Marietta, GA 30066
Email to me may be published at my sole discretion.
Geoffrey A. Landis
...
> >Here are the data I was looking for, listing U.S. Government energy
> >research and development appropriations over the last 15 years. I'll
> >send the yearly totals for years before FY 1993 to anyone who is
> >interested.
> >
> >(amounts in $millions)
> >
> > FY 1978-1993 1993 %_tot. %_tot._93
> >DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
> >Renewable energy 5,740 249.8 19.2 13.4
> >Nuclear power 13,169 981.0 44.0 52.5
> >Fossil energy 7,786 306.7 26.0 16.4
> >Conservation/end use 3,245 329.4 10.8 17.6
> > Total DOE 29,940 1,867 100 100
The discussion was about how much money went into solar as compared to
nuclear. These numbers are a bit misleading, since the vast majority of the
money labelled "renewable energy" went for hydro, which is a conventional
technology, and for conservation, which applies to all energy technologies.
Until 1993, the peak year for research funding for photovoltaics was in 1980,
and hit a high of $65M. In 1981--Reagan's first year--it was abruptly cut.
Total government research funding for photovoltaics, from the first solar
cells to present, is roughly $1,000M, or approximately one year's budget for
nuclear.
This isn't an argument that solar is "better" than nuclear, but it just isn't
true that
>solar energy, after years of costly
>research and development, is one of the most expensive energy
>sources we have today.
The solar research budget is and has been very small compared to other energy
research budgets.
(A few years ago the DOE made a proposal to Congress that they should be put
in charge of all space power systems. The secretary of DOE was given a
presentation about DOE's capabilities, and the presenter said, "and then, of
course, for solar arrays we have the expertise of the Solar Energy Research
Institute" [now NREL]. The secretary of DOE said "Really? You mean we have
a solar research lab? That's great.")
>I don't understand why you have to be "anti-nuclear" in order
>to promote "solar."
I agree entirely. Likewise, I don't see why you have to be "anti-solar" in
order to promote nuclear. Conventional fossil fuels will have problems in
the long term. Solar and nuclear are both alternate energy sources.
Geoffrey A. Landis
NASA Lewis Research Center mailstop 302-1
GLA...@LERC.NASA.GOV
Currently reading: _West With the Night_, Beryl Markham
Dr. Memory
(Jeff Bailey) wrote:
> In article <2e95eh$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jigs) writes:
> |
> |I believe that Nuclear Energy will provide energy for the masses in cities
> |while Solar Energy will be used in remote locations and in places where
> |small energy needs are required (too expensive to put up a power plant for your
> |needs). I agree that is Solar Energy got all of the money that Nuclear got
> |the world would be more advanced in Solar technology, but in terms of using
> |Solar Energy (PV mostly, not biogas, direct heating, etc), it is not
> |designed for generating large amounts of energy yet.
> |
> |Give nuclear a chance. I think they made the right funding decision at that
> |point in time. Solar's time is approaching shortly.
>
>
> Solar energy can provide as much energy as we need. The question is how
> much it is going to cost.
> I think you, and perhaps most readers of this newsgroup, have missed my
> point: I'm asking YOU to give SOLAR ENERGY a chance. Considering that
> nuclear technology has benefited from four times the federal research
> money that renewables have (previous post), I'm asking that solar energy
> and other renewables be given an equal effort as has been given fossil
> and nuclear technology.
.......... I think, perhaps, that maybe *you* have missed the point.....
..... Jigs gives a pretty good summary: Yes, solar has good points, but
for the energy for the masses, solar is just not going to hack it........
....... ever seen one of the steel mills? ... major energy usage... huge
vats of molten metal.... the bus bars to heat the metal are huge, requiring
MegaWatts of electrical energy.... now, are solar cells are going to
provide that energy?? I think not.......
..... how many acres will have to be covered to supply one steel mill? are
we going to cut down forests to make room for solar cells or simply convert
farm land? An idea! Let's put them in the desert! Well, two things wrong
with that: A decent desert (say, the Mojave) is about 2000+ miles away
from Pennsylvania and second, well, deserts have eco-systems too........and
forget about a three-shift operation.. only make steel when the sun
shines!!!!
..... Look, I'm not slamming solar, per se..... There is a distinct need
for all kinds of energy sources... My house is heated, primarily, with
solar power... I live in a rural state... all over the state are signs lit
with solar cells, wells pumped by windmills, cattle tanks heated in winter
by free energy from the sun...... let's just keep things in
perspective..... Heavy industry requires heavy-duty energy sources (like
nukes).... solar energy has it's place, but that place is a single slice
out of a larger energy pie.............
....... one final point before stepping off the soapbox....
.... I worked at Sandia Labs during the seventies when alternative energies
got major funding from the feds..... many innovative ideas came out of that
time: direct electical generation from solar heating (the Barstow plant
came from a Sandia design), wind turbines (the turbines outside of
Livermore CA were designed at Sandia), hot salt mechanical energy (an
irrigation pumping plant near Willard NM demostrated the technology)....
also, extensive testing was made to determine consvervation efforts... the
bottom line was that most of these technologies were not economically
justifiable (and this was at a time when energy costs were at record
levels!!)...
Dana
--
===Dana Netz, Electrical Systems Engineer | "All I know is, everything
===GM/DOE Electrochemical Engine Program | you know is wrong"
===Los Alamos Nat'l Labs, New Mexico | - "Happy" Harry Cox
===I won't put Vicki Robinson in my sig until she puts me in hers
Jeff Bailey
>....... ever seen one of the steel mills? ... major energy usage... huge
>vats of molten metal.... the bus bars to heat the metal are huge, requiring
>MegaWatts of electrical energy.... now, are solar cells are going to
>provide that energy?? I think not.......
Can solar cells provide megawatts of electrical power? If we build megawatt-
scale generating plants they will! If we never build them then your
statement is correct.
>..... how many acres will have to be covered to supply one steel mill? are
>we going to cut down forests to make room for solar cells or simply convert
>farm land? An idea! Let's put them in the desert! Well, two things wrong
>with that: A decent desert (say, the Mojave) is about 2000+ miles away
>from Pennsylvania and second, well, deserts have eco-systems too........and
I did some rough calculations the other day and found that 15% efficient
solar cells could produce 15,000 MW (roughly PG&E's peak annual demand)
from an area roughly the size of San Francisco. Now, there are plenty of
areas in the southern San Joaquin valley which are currently used for
cotton production (a surplus crop, I believe), using subsidized irrigation
water. This is a good location for PV arrays. Keep in mind, too, that
the Pacific coast is laced with high-voltage transmission lines sending all
that Wash./Oregon electricity down south, 500 miles or so. It CAN be done,
but sending electricity from California to Pennsylvania probably isn't a
good idea. Other energy storage methods should be developed (e.g., H2
storage, which is being actively pursued by the Germans and Japanese).
Jigs
>In article <2e95eh$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Last time I saw it, DOE was projecting that the study on Yucca Moutains
>might be done after the end of the century and that deliveries might
>start after 2010 (or was it 2040?). Considering the strong objections
>to the site on the part of the people of Nevada and the uncertainties
>in costs and DOE's management of the project, it is more than a little
>premature to state that this is "not a problem".
You're right, I guess what I mean is that I don't understand why when all of
us know (at least I do) that there will be no adverse affects from an
increase in radiation due to placing the nuclear waste under the Yucca
Mountains in Nevada. Being that we don't produce that much radioactive wate
every year, space shouldn't be a problem. There are some plans which call for
recycling the excess plutonium within the breeder reactors, so that the only
thing we have to do to the breeder reactor is add uranium-238 to the outside
of the reactor (outside of the inner core). In this process there is very little
waste produced. Nuclear power seems to be getting better and better. The
Nuclear hype in this country really gets to me sometimes. Everyone knows
Chernobyl and no one knows the facts. Cernobyl can't happen in America cuz
our safety systems are no gravity based, so some schmuck can't turn off
all of the safety systems . . . . . . .
Anyway, I just don't think it is much of a problem from the scientific point
of view. I guess politically the problems are still growing.
Jigs
>I did some rough calculations the other day and found that 15% efficient
>solar cells could produce 15,000 MW (roughly PG&E's peak annual demand)
>from an area roughly the size of San Francisco. Now, there are plenty of
>areas in the southern San Joaquin valley which are currently used for
>cotton production (a surplus crop, I believe), using subsidized irrigation
>water. This is a good location for PV arrays. Keep in mind, too, that
I agree that Megawatts of power can be produced from Solar cells and the size
of this area can probably be reduced since cells with efficiencies of slightly
more than 15% are available, but then there are maintenance problems. Are
you gonna have a machine maintain the arrays. How well can they be maintained?
The biggest thing is that land is expensive. How much would it cost to buy
enough acreage to do what you are using as an example. Then add the cost
of the cells. At this point in time, I would plan for the future. Even though
our country is not overpopulated like China, japan, and India, it soon will
be. We are protecting many areas with national parks and stuff. The rest
of the available space will be used to produce cotton or other goods whose
demand increases every year. Until you can place Solar in an area of lets say
50 acres and produce that much power, I think we should just stick with
Research and feasible applications, such as remote places in India where
they can't get power lines to, etc.
Eric Perozziello
>>solar cells could produce 15,000 MW (roughly PG&E's peak annual demand)
>>from an area roughly the size of San Francisco. Now, there are plenty of
>demand increases every year. Until you can place Solar in an area of lets say
>50 acres and produce that much power, I think we should just stick with
>Research and feasible applications, such as remote places in India where
>they can't get power lines to, etc.
And you'll never get *that* kind of power density. With an average
insolation of 250W/m^2, even at a magical 100% efficiency, you'd need
60 square km!
Solar has its place, but for the major power production that the first
poster dreams of....... that's going to cost a bundle!
With the inherent low utilization of photovoltaics, they'd need to
be down in the 20 cents/per peak watt installed to compete with
other technology.
-Eric
--
--
Governments that don't trust honest people with weapons, deserve no trust.
Steinn Sigurdsson
I did some rough calculations the other day and found that 15% efficient
solar cells could produce 15,000 MW (roughly PG&E's peak annual demand)
from an area roughly the size of San Francisco. Now, there are plenty of
areas in the southern San Joaquin valley which are currently used for
Ok, I'll grant you free land, free maintenance.
Now, how are you switching this distributed source into
the grid? You have to have a grid - even if domestic sinks
are buffered by local storage (at what cost?) the industrial
sinks demand high secure power.
Now, a cold front moves in at, oh, 30 miles per hour, the cloud
front is ragged - local PV cell clusters are putting less out on
the grid, those linked as variable sources/sinks (eg domestic
and warehouse rooftop cells) change their grid demand as the
cloud shadow moves in, some sources disappear, some sinks are smaller
(eg cooling demand) some sinks become bigger as local supply drops.
You have say 25%
baseline demand that must be maintained at all cost (say local
smelter and other critical systems).
Now, what do you switch in to meet the varying demand? How much
storage do you need with what peak capability and for how long?
What do you need to do to your grid and transformers to meet
this sort of switching, which will be frequent? What voltage
drop can various customers tolerate? How much will all this cost?
Is it even doable?
* Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory *
* ste...@lick.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" *
* I know people whose idea of fun *
* Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun *
* Oh let me be as free as them *
* - BB 1986 *
Jeff Bailey
>Anyway, I just don't think [nuclear power] is much of a problem from
>the scientific point of view. I guess politically the problems are still
>growing.
I assume you mean the biggest obstacles to further nuclear energy
production are not scientific but political, i.e, popular perceptions and
opinions, exaggeration of risks, etc. You're probably right, and I
believe that one of the biggest problems with nuclear energy is political,
too, but not how you mean the word. Nuclear energy requires a high
degree of political and economic centralization. The plants MUST be
big to be economically viable, waste disposal is a problem of national
scope, and all of this requires huge amounts of economic and political
capital. I think this is a big liability for us in the U.S., and an
even bigger problem for developing countries. In the future (and I mean
the _long_ run), decentraliztion will be seen to be an advantage among
energy sources, here and abroad. This is where most alternative energy
sources are big winners.
Jeff Bailey
>>>I did some rough calculations the other day and found that 15% efficient
>>>solar cells could produce 15,000 MW (roughly PG&E's peak annual demand)
>>>from an area roughly the size of San Francisco. Now, there are plenty of
>And you'll never get *that* kind of power density. With an average
>insolation of 250W/m^2, even at a magical 100% efficiency, you'd need
>60 square km!
60 sq. km = 22 sq. mi. divide by three for 750 w/m2 (_peak_ insolation--
when PG&E needs it the most--summertime), and divide by 0.15 for 15%
efficiency, gives you about 50 square miles. This is not unreasonable.
>Solar has its place, but for the major power production that the first
>poster dreams of....... that's going to cost a bundle!
Of course it will, but I've been arguing that _substantial_ economies
of scale and subsidies (subject of an ongoing debate) which are available
to other technologies have not been made available to the photovoltaics
community. When they are, and only then, will there be a level playing
field.
Jeff Bailey
>Ok, I'll grant you free land, free maintenance.
No, marginal land, low maintenance.
|Now, a cold front moves in at, oh, 30 miles per hour, the cloud
|front is ragged - local PV cell clusters are putting less out on
| (stuff deleted)
|Now, what do you switch in to meet the varying demand? How much
|storage do you need with what peak capability and for how long?
|What do you need to do to your grid and transformers to meet
|this sort of switching, which will be frequent? What voltage
|drop can various customers tolerate? How much will all this cost?
|Is it even doable?
Are you also assuming that the utility won't read weather forecasts?
Hydro takes up the slack. The rest are questions which I cannot answer,
except the last, to which the answer is yes. I cannot believe that these
problems rank anywhere near the difficulty required to contain,
transport, and dispose of high-level radioactive wastes for a period
of up to several thousands of years. Yet I routinely hear that THAT is
no problem. Am I wrong?
Steinn Sigurdsson
In article <STEINLY.93...@topaz.ucsc.edu> ste...@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>Ok, I'll grant you free land, free maintenance.
No, marginal land, low maintenance.
|Now, a cold front moves in at, oh, 30 miles per hour, the cloud
|front is ragged - local PV cell clusters are putting less out on
| (stuff deleted)
|Now, what do you switch in to meet the varying demand? How much
|storage do you need with what peak capability and for how long?
|What do you need to do to your grid and transformers to meet
|this sort of switching, which will be frequent? What voltage
|drop can various customers tolerate? How much will all this cost?
|Is it even doable?
Are you also assuming that the utility won't read weather forecasts?
Hydro takes up the slack. The rest are questions which I cannot answer,
Hydro takes up the slack? Are you considering current systems - if
that is the case you better not have more solar capacity than that can
buffer. If you want to build pumped storage, then you have to factor
in that capital (and environmental cost) - paid off with low duty
factor, by definition.
I'm glad you have such faith in weather predictability
of few mile scales, then the utility just has to spend a few years
gathering experience in how load demand changes with local weather...
except the last, to which the answer is yes. I cannot believe that these
problems rank anywhere near the difficulty required to contain,
transport, and dispose of high-level radioactive wastes for a period
of up to several thousands of years. Yet I routinely hear that THAT is
no problem. Am I wrong?
Qualitatively different problems. There is no problem transporting
radioactive wastes. As you know, high level wastes are by definition
short lived and small volume, storing for a century is not a technical
problem. Low level wastes are more voluminous, but also less
dangerous, adequate containment for centuries should be easy,
especially if you grant that we'll actually be around to check
up on the containment and do something about it if something looks
like it is going wrong. If we really want, then there are no physical
reasons for not reprocessing the waste and using it.
In contrast, a "large enough" network with partially independently
variable sources and sinks may be intrinsically unstable. I believe
AT&T has some results that this is the case and it is a problem
for large phone networks - power grids are harder because the
sources are strong. If you can prove that a 10**6-8 node decentralised
mixed source/sink grid is stable I will be very impressed and
the utilities very grateful.
Jigs
>You're right, I guess what I mean is that I don't understand why when all of
>us know (at least I do) that there will be no adverse affects from an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>increase in radiation due to placing the nuclear waste under the Yucca
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-> I meant there will be no increase in radiation due to all of the safety
measures and depth of burial.
Sorry
>Mountains in Nevada. Being that we don't produce that much radioactive wate
>every year, space shouldn't be a problem. There are some plans which call for
>recycling the excess plutonium within the breeder reactors, so that the only
>thing we have to do to the breeder reactor is add uranium-238 to the outside
>of the reactor (outside of the inner core). In this process there is very little
>waste produced. Nuclear power seems to be getting better and better. The
>Nuclear hype in this country really gets to me sometimes. Everyone knows
>Chernobyl and no one knows the facts. Cernobyl can't happen in America cuz
>our safety systems are no gravity based, so some schmuck can't turn off
>all of the safety systems . . . . . . .
>Anyway, I just don't think it is much of a problem from the scientific point
>of view. I guess politically the problems are still growing.
>Jigar
>js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
Jigar
Paul Dietz
> I agree that Megawatts of power can be produced from Solar cells and
> the size of this area can probably be reduced since cells with
> efficiencies of slightly more than 15% are available, but then there
> are maintenance problems. Are you gonna have a machine maintain the
> arrays. How well can they be maintained?
Maintenance of PV arrays is inexpensive (this is known from operating
experience at existing arrays), and there are economies of scale
(for example, washing rows of collectors with a spray truck is easier
than washing collectors distributed on homes).
> The biggest thing is that land is expensive. How much would it cost to buy
> enough acreage to do what you are using as an example. Then add the cost
> of the cells.
In fact, land is a tiny fraction of the total cost. Cost of the
cells, supports, and such is much larger. Hell, PV modules cost
something like $40/square foot. I can buy a *house* for nearly that
little.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
"Once, galactic empires might have seemed a Posthuman
domain. Now, sadly, even interplanetary ones are."
Vernor Vinge, on technological singularity
Eric Perozziello
>>>>solar cells could produce 15,000 MW (roughly PG&E's peak annual demand)
>>>>from an area roughly the size of San Francisco. Now, there are plenty of
>
>>And you'll never get *that* kind of power density. With an average
>>insolation of 250W/m^2, even at a magical 100% efficiency, you'd need
>>60 square km!
>
>60 sq. km = 22 sq. mi. divide by three for 750 w/m2 (_peak_ insolation--
>when PG&E needs it the most--summertime), and divide by 0.15 for 15%
>efficiency, gives you about 50 square miles. This is not unreasonable.
You (or someone) had suggested 50 ACRES (but you deleted that part).
50 Sq miles is a helluva lot bigger than 50 acres, and yes, I think
that IS unreasonable. Wouldn't this be the largest man made structure
on earth, by a large margin? (What's the area of Rhode Island, anyone?)
Also, the PG&E number assumes an AVERAGE 15000MW ,day and night. It's
not fair to use the 750W/m2 number- remember, it gets dark at night.....
The sun is only 1000W/m2 WHEN IT SHINES!
Edison Electric built a Solar Plant in the Mojave Desert, and their
average (over 24 hours) insolation was 250W/m2. I have no reason
to believe that anyone else can do significantly better than this.
And you'll need auxilliary equipment to keep the cells always facing the
sun......
Owing to the (comparitively) low energy density of solar energy,
(Unless someone can come up with a very cheap, very low energy
manufacturing process), PV's are better left to special (IE: remote)
applications.
Jeff Bailey
|You (or someone) had suggested 50 ACRES (but you deleted that part).
|50 Sq miles is a helluva lot bigger than 50 acres, and yes, I think
|that IS unreasonable. Wouldn't this be the largest man made structure
|on earth, by a large margin? (What's the area of Rhode Island, anyone?)
I never said 50 acres. Fifty sq.mi. is big, but on marginal land in the
western US it's not so big as it might seem. It would displace coal and
uranium mines, for example, and they're prime wasters of real estate.
|Also, the PG&E number assumes an AVERAGE 15000MW ,day and night. It's
|not fair to use the 750W/m2 number- remember, it gets dark at night.....
|The sun is only 1000W/m2 WHEN IT SHINES!
|Edison Electric built a Solar Plant in the Mojave Desert, and their
|average (over 24 hours) insolation was 250W/m2. I have no reason
|to believe that anyone else can do significantly better than this.
|And you'll need auxilliary equipment to keep the cells always facing the
|sun......
No, no, no, no, no... PE's PEAK ANNUAL DEMAND is somewhere around
15,000 MW. This is not AVERAGE LOAD. I did not assume it was, so don't
think that anymore. I used 750 W/m2 as a ballpark PEAK power, which I
think is reasonable since peak load and peak insolation are coincident.
|Owing to the (comparitively) low energy density of solar energy,
|(Unless someone can come up with a very cheap, very low energy
|manufacturing process), PV's are better left to special (IE: remote)
|applications.
>
Well, rather than waiting for someone else to do it, many of us are
trying to discover that very manufacturing process you mention.
T Sofu RA/208/xxx 9673
>I assume you mean the biggest obstacles to further nuclear energy
>production are not scientific but political, i.e, popular perceptions and
>opinions, exaggeration of risks, etc. You're probably right, and I
>believe that one of the biggest problems with nuclear energy is political,
>too, but not how you mean the word. Nuclear energy requires a high
>degree of political and economic centralization. The plants MUST be
>big to be economically viable, waste disposal is a problem of national
>scope, and all of this requires huge amounts of economic and political
>capital. I think this is a big liability for us in the U.S., and an
>even bigger problem for developing countries. In the future (and I mean
>the _long_ run), decentraliztion will be seen to be an advantage among
>energy sources, here and abroad. This is where most alternative energy
>sources are big winners.
It sounds like what you mean by decentraliztion is
"keeping it small and quite so that public won't notice."
Could you elaborate on it? What are the impacts of
decentralization on industry, or economy in general?
Tanju
Jeremy Whitlock
>research and development appropriations over the last 15 years. I'll
>send the yearly totals for years before FY 1993 to anyone who is
>interested.
>
>(amounts in $millions)
>
> FY 1978-1993 1993 %_tot. %_tot._93
>
>
>Now, if you total DOE funding for Nuclear (DOE Nuclear power + NRC safety
>research), Fossil (DOE Fossil + DOE clean coal + USGS oil programs +
>Interagency NAPAP), you end up with the following breakdown:
>
>Nuclear 15,567 371.2 44.0 43.9
>Fossil 10,858 832.7 30.7 33.1
>Renewable 5,740 249.8 16.2 9.9
>Conservation 3,245 329.4 9.2 13.1
>
>
>So, I stand by my original point: funding for nuclear power has vastly
>outpaced that for alternative energy over the last decades, and as you
>can see from the numbers, continues to enjoy a margin of 3-4:1 today.
These numbers compare favourably with my own data for total federal
expeditures from 1976 - 1992 [1]:
Nuclear 21,434 (1992 US$ millions)
Coal 15,171
Renewable 8,682
However, you'll note that these aren't the same figures I posted earlier,
which were [1]:
Nuclear 3,200 (1992 US$ millions)
Coal 3,200
Renewable 4,000
The reason is that I was comparing the federal R&D expenditures for
*commercial electricity-producing technologies* -- i.e., money spent
directly on each competing technology and not on generic support research
or non-commerical technologies.
Therefore, for nuclear this excludes waste management, radioisotope power
systems, space reactors, breeders, programme administration, and
environmental restoration.
For coal this excludes mining R&D, coal liquification, fuel cells, heat
engines, coal gasification, advanced environmental control technology,
programme administration, environmental restoration, EPA and Dept. of
Interior R&D.
For renewable sources this excludes solar buildings technology, biofuels,
ocean energy systems, international solar energy research contributions
and technology transfer, program administration, electric energy systems,
renewable R&D included in the conservations programme, energy storage
systems, Dept. of Agriculture and NASA R&D.
In other words, if you want to compare what's been spent to what's been
produced, the figures quoted by Jeff and in my first list above are
misleading. The figures in my second list apply to the specific
technologies that we're talking about here.
However, I will note that even if you *do* use the figures in my first
table (which, as I've said, are misleading), you still get the following
disparity in the return of investment [1]:
RATIO of PERCENT U.S. ELECTRICAL CAPACITY to FEDERAL R&D INVESTMENT
(nomalized to 1 total)
Nuclear 0.2
Coal 0.8
Renewable 0.01
Therefore, I fail to see the point which you originally made (and which I
note you've modified above) -- that if it weren't for this disparity in
funding, renewable technologies would be performing as well as others.
Jeremy.
[1] "Federal Research and Development Expenditures for Nuclear Energy,
Coal, and Solar and Renewable Energy, 1950 - 1992", USCEA Report (1992).
--
Jeremy Whitlock e-mail: whit...@mcmaster.ca
Department of Engineering Physics phone: 905-525-9140 ext.27140
McMaster University, 1280 Main West
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
B. Alan Guthrie
>>....... ever seen one of the steel mills? ... major energy usage... huge
>>vats of molten metal.... the bus bars to heat the metal are huge, requiring
>>MegaWatts of electrical energy.... now, are solar cells are going to
>>
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Jeff Bailey, Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering |
>| University of California Berkeley |
>| bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu Barney + Rush = Barney |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Back to the numbers, from the monograph "Federal Commercialization of
Nuclear Energy: A Success Story," prepared by Management Information
Services, Inc, for the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness in December,
1992. The USCEA is the public relations arm of the commercial nuclear
industry.
Between 1950 and 1992 Federal incentives for energy development --
narrowly defined and conservatively estimated -- totalled $484 billion
(1992 dollars). These incentives are summarized in Table 1. This table
illustrates that Federal support for commercial nuclear energy has
been of about the same magnitude as Federal incentives for natural gas
and for coal, just over three-quarters of that provided for all types
of renewables, and less than one fourth the magnitude of incentives for
the oil industry.
Table 1
The Cost of Federal Incentives for Energy Development Through 1992
(Billions of 1992 Dollars
Nuclear Coal Oil Gas Hydro Solar Geotherm TOTAL %
Research and
Development 50 19 5 3 1 10 2 90 19
Regulation 8 4 85 2 3 -- 102 21
Taxation -- 19 121 51 8 5 1 205 43
Disbursements ( 3 ) -- 4 -- 1 1 -- 6 1
Government
Services 2 9 21 1 1 1 -- 35 7
Market Activity -- 1 3 1 39 1 1 46 10
TOTAL 60 52 239 58 53 18 4 484 100
Percent 12 11 50 12 11 4 1 100
Legend
- Research and Development - Federal R&D funding
- Regulation - the cost to the government of regulating an industry, or
a loss of revenue to the government as a result of regulatory
actions that are directed at helping a specific technology/
industry
- Taxation - technology or industry specific exemptions, allowances,
deductions, credits, etc related to the Federal tax code
- Disbursements - direct financial subsidies such as grants
- Government Services - assistance provided by the Federal government
without direct charge
- Market Activity - direct Federal involvement in the marketplace
On page 10 of the monograph
The $50.2 billion includes R&D costs for programs directly supportive of
nuclear energy as an electricity generation source (i.e., LWR Technology) [7].
Funds were also expenede for the breeder program, development of
government facilities such as the Fast Flux Test Facility, and for basic
nuclear and physics R&D. The R&D costs for supporting technologies (waste
management and reactor safety research) are also included, as are research
funds for advanced radioisotope power systems, space reactor power
systems, and related programs. Remedian action and and environmental
restoration programs for Federal nuclear facilities, funded out of the
non-defense DOE budget, are also included. Expenditures for the fusion
program are not included, as fusion represents a technology with little
direct application to current commercial nuclear energy.
Table 3
Summary of Federal Research and Development Expenditures
for Nuclear Energy, 1950 - 1992
(Billions of 1992 Dollars)
1950-1975 1976-1992 1950-1992 1992
Light Water Reactor R&D $ 2.6 $ 0.8 $ 3.4 $ 0.06
Breeder R&D 6.8 10.8 17.6 0.0
Environmental Restoration and
Environmental-Related R&D 2.5 3.0 5.5 0.6
Other Nuclear Energy R&D 16.9 6.8 23.7 0.28
TOTAL $ 28.8 $ 21.4 $ 50.2 $ 0.94
[7] In deriving these estimates it was assumed that the military nuclear
programs contributed technological information to the commercial nuclear
energy program in an amount about equal to that which the military programs
received from the commercial program. The one exception to this is the
submarine propulsion program, which made significant technological and
personnel contributions in the 1950s to industry LWR programs. The
financial contribution of the submarine propulsion program was assumed to
be 50% in 1950, declining to zero in 1959, a total of approximately $300
million over the period.
John De Armond
>In article <STEINLY.93...@topaz.ucsc.edu> ste...@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>Ok, I'll grant you free land, free maintenance.
>No, marginal land, low maintenance.
>|Now, a cold front moves in at, oh, 30 miles per hour, the cloud
>|front is ragged - local PV cell clusters are putting less out on
>| (stuff deleted)
>|Now, what do you switch in to meet the varying demand? How much
>|storage do you need with what peak capability and for how long?
>|What do you need to do to your grid and transformers to meet
>|this sort of switching, which will be frequent? What voltage
>|drop can various customers tolerate? How much will all this cost?
>|Is it even doable?
>Are you also assuming that the utility won't read weather forecasts?
>Hydro takes up the slack. The rest are questions which I cannot answer,
>except the last, to which the answer is yes.
This is the problem with all these pie-in-the-sky schemes. The proposer
has no concept of the numbers he's batting about. Your basis in
this exercise is 15,000 MW or roughly the output of 15 large nuclear units.
You have any conception of how much power that is? Obviously not, since
you propose hydro to carry the load when the sun goes down. Hydro in
your area is a speck on the map capacity-wise. Perhaps someone with the
data will post the actual amount but I'd be surprised to see even
1,000 MW of installed hydro capacity. And even disregarding the bleatings
of the econazis, there just arent't enough un-damed rivers to make
any significant impact.
Pumped storage? Surely you jest. The nearby (to me) Racoon Mountain
Pumped Storage facility, the world's largest can produce about 1,000 MW
for about 8 hours at a time. It required whacking off the top of
a mountain to make the lake and the lake falls over 80 feet during a cycle.
Not only will the econazis not tolerate whacking off whole mountaintops,
but you've also overlooked another aspect. That is, one must generate
TWICE the needed power so that half of it can charge the pumped storage
system. That is, assuming you want the pumped storage to only supply
power half the time AND neglecting effeciency losses.
>I cannot believe that these
>problems rank anywhere near the difficulty required to contain,
>transport, and dispose of high-level radioactive wastes for a period
>of up to several thousands of years. Yet I routinely hear that THAT is
>no problem. Am I wrong?
Yes you are. High level wastes are short lived. Low level wastes are
long lived but easy to contain and economically valuable. The only
difficulties with nuclear waste processing are political in nature.
E. Michael Smith
>You (or someone) had suggested 50 ACRES (but you deleted that part).
>50 Sq miles is a helluva lot bigger than 50 acres, and yes, I think
>that IS unreasonable. Wouldn't this be the largest man made structure
>on earth, by a large margin? (What's the area of Rhode Island, anyone?)
Um, I don't remember seeing 50 acres go by. 'Size of SF' is what I
remember...
BTW, I think the Interstate Highway System is most likely the 'largest
man made structure on earth'. Oh, not 'A structure' you say? But
then neither is a field of solar panelS. ... or A power grid ...
--
E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
Thomas D. Orth
|> Hydro takes up the slack? Are you considering current systems - if
|> that is the case you better not have more solar capacity than that can
|> buffer. If you want to build pumped storage, then you have to factor
|> in that capital (and environmental cost) - paid off with low duty
|> factor, by definition.
|> I'm glad you have such faith in weather predictability
|> of few mile scales, then the utility just has to spend a few years
|> gathering experience in how load demand changes with local weather...
|>
ALSO, in the midwest, we have what is known as tornados, and in the se, hurricanes.
What sort of damage would one of theses beasts rage on a solar array? Excuse
my ignorance please.
|> * Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory *
|> * ste...@lick.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" *
|> * I know people whose idea of fun *
|> * Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun *
|> * Oh let me be as free as them *
|> * - BB 1986 *
|>
|>
Tom Orth
Argonne National Laboratory
or...@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
Speaking for myself
JM Alvis
>data will post the actual amount but I'd be surprised to see even
>1,000 MW of installed hydro capacity. And even disregarding the bleatings
>of the econazis, there just arent't enough un-damed rivers to make
>any significant impact.
Even if hydro was an option (not a given, I believe America has reached its limit on acceptable rivers), the environmental impact statement (EIS) will kill any attempt to add new hydro capacity.
John Alvis
d3e...@alvis.pnl.gov
Joseph A. Green
>Right now a sizable fraction of the radiation you receive comes from
>Xe & Kr liberated from the military Pu reprocessing over the last five
>decades.
This seems to be a very questionable statement at best. Where did this
information come from? The latest that I have seem comes from NCRP
(National Council on Radiation Protection ?) No. 93 dated Sept. 1, 1987:
Source Average Annual
Effective Dose Equivalent
============================================
Natural
Radon 2.0
Other 1.0
Occupational 0.009
Nuclear Fuel Cycle 0.0005
Consumer Products
Tobacco --
Other 0.05-0.13
Misc. Enviromental 0.0006
Medical
X-rays 0.39
Nucl. Medicine 0.14
===================================
Total 3.6
where everything is in milliSieverts and 1mSv=100 mrem
(& a note about tobacco being hard to determine)
(& also dependent upon elevation & location where you live)
So the total non-nuclear occupational dose to joe-average
is only 360 mrem/yr (with 82% natural and 18% man-made)
So how can you say a SIZEABLE FRACTION comes from these
gaseous radioisotopes? Either the military nuclear operations do not fall
into the above report (is that the case??) or you are misinformed?
Best regards,
Joe Green
Materials & Nuclear Engineering
University of Maryland @ College Park
Email: jag...@eng.umd.edu
Paul Dietz
>>ols...@plasma.kth.se (Goran Olsson, Plasma Physics, KTH) writes:
>
>>Right now a sizable fraction of the radiation you receive comes from
>>Xe & Kr liberated from the military Pu reprocessing over the last five
>>decades.
>
>This seems to be a very questionable statement at best. Where did this
>information come from? The latest that I have seem comes from NCRP
>(National Council on Radiation Protection ?) No. 93 dated Sept. 1, 1987:
>
> [ numbers deleted ]
Mr. Olsson's original claim is somewhat suspect, not least because the
longest lived xenon radioisotope has a halflife of 36 days. It should
be mostly decayed away by the time the fuel elements are reprocessed.
The ones to be more concerned about would be Kr-85 and Kr-81. The
former has a halflife of 10 years, and so would be the main
contributor from current reprocessing activities. However, it could
be captured and stored until it decayed without great difficulty.
Kr-81 is more problematic, since its halflife is 210,000 years.
However, it is produced in smaller amounts than Kr-85 (the yield curve
of fission is dropping off rapidly as atomic weight decreases in that
region), especially for fission of plutonium and higher actinides. So
in equilibrium (after it has been building up for several halflives)
its contribution to the dose would be a fraction of that from the
uncontrolled release of Kr-85. If this is too much, then some means
would have to be found to dispose of it. At least three means --
disposal in space, transmutation, or deep injection -- are in
principle adequate (space disposal even at today's launch costs,
because very little Kr-81 gets made). Since the halflife is so long,
the problem is very long term, so there would be thousands of years to
find and perfect a solution.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Russ Brown
Joseph A. Green <jag...@eng.umd.edu> wrote:
>>ols...@plasma.kth.se (Goran Olsson, Plasma Physics, KTH) writes:
>
>>Right now a sizable fraction of the radiation you receive comes from
>>Xe & Kr liberated from the military Pu reprocessing over the last five
>>decades.
>
>This seems to be a very questionable statement at best. Where did this
>information come from?
stuff deleted
>
>So how can you say a SIZEABLE FRACTION comes from these
>gaseous radioisotopes? Either the military nuclear operations do not fall
>into the above report (is that the case??) or you are misinformed?
>
The dose from xenon isotopes is insignificant; they are short-lived.
The dose from krypton-85 is larger...and still insignificant.
I can provide reference data if needed.
Where do these factoids and the quoters of factoids originate?
Keyboards seem to be activated well in advance of brains.
russ
Jeff Bailey
|ALSO, in the midwest, we have what is known as tornados, and in the se, hurricanes.
|What sort of damage would one of theses beasts rage on a solar array? Excuse
|my ignorance please.
Well, as long as we're speculating...
Would it be anything like the effect of an earthquake on a nuclear plant?
Thomas D. Orth
|>
|> Well, as long as we're speculating...
|> Would it be anything like the effect of an earthquake on a nuclear plant?
|>
|> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|> | Jeff Bailey, Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering |
|> | University of California Berkeley |
|> | bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu Barney + Rush = Barney |
|> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
designed to withstand major quakes.
JM Alvis
>
>|>
>|> Well, as long as we're speculating...
>|> Would it be anything like the effect of an earthquake on a nuclear plant?
>|>
>|> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|> | Jeff Bailey, Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering |
>|> | University of California Berkeley |
>|> | bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu Barney + Rush = Barney |
>|> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>This is part of site licensing, and subsequant PRA studies. They are specifically
>designed to withstand major quakes.
I might add that there have been several strong earthquakes that have hit Japan. None of these events affected the nuclear power plants there. Earthquake resistance is one of the reasons for the high costs in building and maintaining nuclear plants; Per NUREG-0800, power plants must be designed to withstand earthquakes and this documented in there licensing submittals.
John Alvis
d3e...@alvis.pnl.gov
John De Armond
>Right now a sizable fraction of the radiation you receive comes from
>Xe & Kr liberated from the military Pu reprocessing over the last five
>decades.
This is the kind of rank ignorance we have to deal with, isn't it.
This is an absolutely fantastic claim considering that the longest
lived isotope of Xe is Xe-133 at 5.24 days and decays with a weak
beta and a weaker gamma; and that of Kr is Kr-85 at 10.73 years,
decaying with a weak beta and a very weak gamma. (I'm ignoring
Kr-81 with a half life of 2E5 years. It's fission abundance is
very low and besides the very low specific activity means it doesn't
do much.)
What this says is all the Xe is gone in a couple of weeks after release
and the Kr is gone in a few decades. Besides both gases are heavy enough
that they settle out of still air in short order, as I well know from
personal experience, having accidentally released a couple hundred
curies of Kr-85 and then tracked it for a few days.
B. Alan Guthrie
Gee, I don't think so. Nuclear plants are extensively engineered
to protect them against earthquakes. They are designed to operate
during earthquakes up to some magnitude (dependent on location) and
to be shutdown during bigger ones.
Solar arrays, on the other hand, must, by their very nature, have
large surface areas with which high winds will play havoc.
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | When the going gets tough,
| the tough hide under the table.
zc...@monarch.pgh.wec.com |
| E. Blackadder
Michael Pereckas
>>>ols...@plasma.kth.se (Goran Olsson, Plasma Physics, KTH) writes:
>>Right now a sizable fraction of the radiation you receive comes from
>>Xe & Kr liberated from the military Pu reprocessing over the last five
>>decades.
>This is the kind of rank ignorance we have to deal with, isn't it.
Ignorance is a renewable resource.
>and the Kr is gone in a few decades. Besides both gases are heavy enough
>that they settle out of still air in short order, as I well know from
>personal experience, having accidentally released a couple hundred
>curies of Kr-85 and then tracked it for a few days.
Someone has to ask: What did you do, John? There has got to be at
least a moderatly interesting story behind this.
--
Michael Pereckas pere...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu N9TNC
A message without a .signature is like a car without a bumper sticker.
yoda...@chelm.uucp
Jigs <js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>yoda...@chelm.uucp () writes:
>
>>In article <2e95eh$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>
>>Last time I saw it, DOE was projecting that the study on Yucca Moutains
>>might be done after the end of the century and that deliveries might
>>start after 2010 (or was it 2040?). Considering the strong objections
>>to the site on the part of the people of Nevada and the uncertainties
>>in costs and DOE's management of the project, it is more than a little
>>premature to state that this is "not a problem".
>You're right, I guess what I mean is that I don't understand why when all of
>us know (at least I do) that there will be no adverse affects from an
Well, not all of us "know" that. We don't know what happens to
vitrified waste over the centuries, we have little experience forecasting
long term movement of the water table and ground water, we have
bad experience with DOE quality control, we do not know what
costs of long-term monitoring of wastes will be, ....
>every year, space shouldn't be a problem. There are some plans which call for
>recycling the excess plutonium within the breeder reactors, so that the only
>thing we have to do to the breeder reactor is add uranium-238 to the outside
>of the reactor (outside of the inner core). In this process there is very little
This is rather misleading. The used cores must be taken from the reactor
and processed using large amounts of solvents and producing more waste
material. As far as I know, plans for reprocessing without solvents
are still in the speculation stage.
>The
>Nuclear hype in this country really gets to me sometimes. Everyone knows
And me too.
>Chernobyl and no one knows the facts. Cernobyl can't happen in America cuz
>our safety systems are no gravity based, so some schmuck can't turn off
>all of the safety systems . . . . . . .
What? It is always possible for some schmuck to turn off all of the
safety systems and a runaway reactor fire with breach of containment
is possible in the US, only the probabilities are debated. I don't
know what a "no gravity based" safety system is.
>Anyway, I just don't think it is much of a problem from the scientific point
>of view. I guess politically the problems are still growing.
The Union of Concerned Scientists claims otherwise.
Jigs
>In article <2eljja$5...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Jigs <js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>yoda...@chelm.uucp () writes:
>>Chernobyl and no one knows the facts. Chernobyl can't happen in America cuz
>>our safety systems are no gravity based, so some schmuck can't turn off
>>all of the safety systems . . . . . . .
>What? It is always possible for some schmuck to turn off all of the
>safety systems and a runaway reactor fire with breach of containment
>is possible in the US, only the probabilities are debated. I don't
>know what a "no gravity based" safety system is.
Sorry about the major typo, I meant "now gravity based". What I mean by
that is that, yes pumps can be shut off, but newly designed plants are
designed to remove decay heat through convection. Some designs have particles
in the fuel designed to absorb excess neutrons if the core gets too hot.
All of our nuclear power plant (old and new unbuilt ones) have containment
buildings. This is something that Chernobyl did not have. No one died at
three-mile island. Something messed up, the containment building was there
so nothing leaked out, but it left the facility inoperable. Granted there
was money down the tubes, but no one was injured (****containment building is
a HUGE point****). There are other saftey measures now that cannot ne turned
off. I can get sources if you are not convinced. I am sure that some of the
readers have better knowledge then I do. I have only taken a class, where some
of our readers probably haev done research in this area.
>>Anyway, I just don't think it is much of a problem from the scientific point
>>of view. I guess politically the problems are still growing.
I hope that I am not being rude, but please tell me what problems you haev about
nuclear, so that I may either accept them as problems or try to clear them
up for you.
Jigar Shah
js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
Jeremy Whitlock
>
>The amount of money spent on solar energy research, compared to that spent on
>conventional "water-boiling" sources, is little, as I pointed out in an earlier
>post.
And I posted a more meaningful comparison that showed direct technology
expenditures since 1976 to be weighted in favour of renewable sources.
Ignoring that post won't make the facts go away.
I do recognize, however, that you've now lumped all "water-boiling" sources
together instead of focussing on nuclear power. This will probably help your
case but you're modifying your original argument.
Jeremy.
--
Jeremy Whitlock "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University e-mail: whit...@mcmaster.ca
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 phone: 905-525-9140 ext.27140
Thomas D. Orth
|>
|> >What? It is always possible for some schmuck to turn off all of the
|> >safety systems and a runaway reactor fire with breach of containment
|> >is possible in the US, only the probabilities are debated. I don't
|> >know what a "no gravity based" safety system is.
Well, last I heard, water doesn't burn Victor.
|> Sorry about the major typo, I meant "now gravity based". What I mean by
|> that is that, yes pumps can be shut off, but newly designed plants are
|> designed to remove decay heat through convection. Some designs have particles
|> in the fuel designed to absorb excess neutrons if the core gets too hot.
|> All of our nuclear power plant (old and new unbuilt ones) have containment
|> buildings. This is something that Chernobyl did not have. No one died at
|> three-mile island. Something messed up, the containment building was there
|> so nothing leaked out, but it left the facility inoperable. Granted there
|> was money down the tubes, but no one was injured (****containment building is
|> a HUGE point****). There are other saftey measures now that cannot ne turned
|> off. I can get sources if you are not convinced. I am sure that some of the
|> readers have better knowledge then I do. I have only taken a class, where some
|> of our readers probably haev done research in this area.
Furthermore, there wasn't a "runaway" reaction at TMI, only decay heat
insufficiently removed.
|>
|> Jigar Shah
|> js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
Good points Jig.
Tom Orth
or...@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
Speaking for myself
B. Alan Guthrie
>In article <2eljja$5...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Jigs <js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>yoda...@chelm.uucp () writes:
>>
>>>In article <2e95eh$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>
>>>Last time I saw it, DOE was projecting that the study on Yucca Moutains
>>>might be done after the end of the century and that deliveries might
>>>start after 2010 (or was it 2040?). Considering the strong objections
>>>to the site on the part of the people of Nevada and the uncertainties
>
>>Chernobyl and no one knows the facts. Cernobyl can't happen in America cuz
>>our safety systems are no gravity based, so some schmuck can't turn off
>>all of the safety systems . . . . . . .
>
>What? It is always possible for some schmuck to turn off all of the
>safety systems and a runaway reactor fire with breach of containment
>is possible in the US, only the probabilities are debated. I don't
>know what a "no gravity based" safety system is.
>
you disable some, then the plant will trip. Reactor protection systems
are designed that way.
Have you ever been in the containment of a light water reactor - there's
not much in there that is flammable (maybe this posting is however).
Besides, containments are designed against large overpressures (all the
steam generated by a loss of coolant accident will pressurize the
containment).
>>Anyway, I just don't think it is much of a problem from the scientific point
>>of view. I guess politically the problems are still growing.
>
>The Union of Concerned Scientists claims otherwise.
>
My favourite organization - it's just like the Holy Roman Empire
neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
When I was in grad school, the local anti-nukes brought Dr. Henry
Kendall, the driving force behind the UCS, to campus. He debated
Mr. T. W. T. Burnett, and Advisory Engineer in the Nuclear Safety
Department of Westinghouse, and Dr. Bernard Cohen, Professor of
Physics at U of Pittsburgh. Mr. Burnett tried to debate reactor
safety with Dr. Kendall, but Dr. Kendall weaselled out of his
arguments. Dr. Cohen was less kind - he put up over-heads giving
the deaths due to air pollution, transportation, &c of generating
electricity from coal and the deaths due to generating electricity
from nuclear power using the numbers put forth by the UCS. Of
course, even using the UCS numbers, nuclear was clearly superior.
He asked Dr. Kendall which he preferred. Dr. Kendall could only
mumble a response. It is sad that such a towering intellect as
Dr. Kendall would pursue such a cause.
Jeff Bailey
>>|ALSO, in the midwest, we have what is known as tornados, and in the se, hurricanes.
>>|What sort of damage would one of theses beasts rage on a solar array? Excuse
>>|my ignorance please.
>>Well, as long as we're speculating...
>>Would it be anything like the effect of an earthquake on a nuclear plant?
>Gee, I don't think so. Nuclear plants are extensively engineered
>to protect them against earthquakes. They are designed to operate
>during earthquakes up to some magnitude (dependent on location) and
>to be shutdown during bigger ones.
>
>Solar arrays, on the other hand, must, by their very nature, have
>large surface areas with which high winds will play havoc.
Oh, then for some reason solar arrays will NOT be well engineered?
Come on, guys. You're reaching. The only real argument against the use
of solar energy for electricity is cost of the electricity. All other
factors are included in that price. If the cost of nuclear electricity
from California is increased because of earthquake mitigation (which I've
heard confirmed), then the cost of solar electricity from Oklahoma will
be increased because of tornado mitigation. Why should there be a double
standard?
As far as that problem with intermittent PV output is concerned, consider
that the scenario in which independent PV electricity producers spring
up all over the grid is no different from the situation which HAS ALREADY
developed with independent cogenerators. Cogenerators are no more
predictable than vairable output from PV arrays due to weather changes.
And by the way... Nuclear reactors (and other generating sources) shut
down all the time for lots of reasons, don't they? And they do it pretty
quickly, too. Why is this less problematic for the electicity grid than
a (much less rapid) weather-induced PV slowdown? The beauty of distrib-
uted sources is that they are LESS likely to fail concurrently, causing
fewer problems overall.
Don T. Borowski
: In article <2eqf62...@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zc...@monarch.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie) writes:
: As far as that problem with intermittent PV output is concerned, consider
: that the scenario in which independent PV electricity producers spring
: up all over the grid is no different from the situation which HAS ALREADY
: developed with independent cogenerators. Cogenerators are no more
: predictable than vairable output from PV arrays due to weather changes.
: And by the way... Nuclear reactors (and other generating sources) shut
: down all the time for lots of reasons, don't they? And they do it pretty
: quickly, too. Why is this less problematic for the electicity grid than
: a (much less rapid) weather-induced PV slowdown? The beauty of distrib-
: uted sources is that they are LESS likely to fail concurrently, causing
: fewer problems overall.
But when all this independent generators shut down at the same time
(PV at night), then you have a problem if they are a significant
contributor to the grid.
Donald Borowski WA6OMI Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
-G.K. Chesterton
Carl J Lydick
=>Gee, I don't think so. Nuclear plants are extensively engineered
=>to protect them against earthquakes. They are designed to operate
=>during earthquakes up to some magnitude (dependent on location) and
=>to be shutdown during bigger ones.
=>
=>Solar arrays, on the other hand, must, by their very nature, have
=>large surface areas with which high winds will play havoc.
=
=Oh, then for some reason solar arrays will NOT be well engineered?
Within the context of this discussion, no. Or at least, the folks touting
solar power don't seem to be including the cost of making solar arrays
tornado-proof in their statements regarding cost of solar arrays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>
>Yup. It might also be instructive to point out that since today's
>nuclear plants were designed in the 50s and 60s, little to none of what
>the government spends on nuclear has anything to do with power production.
>Most of the government power work involves either developing new
>reactor designs that people don't necessarily want (IFR, for instance)
>or dog'n'pony shows in order to "prove" how safe nuclear reactors are
>(waste interrment, BORAX, modern variants). Neither is the appropriate use
>of public funds and certainly shouldn't be presented as some government
If the public doesn't want new reactors which could burn Pu, then tell
me oh great sage..why the heck have they been giving the nuclear
industry an earfull over nuclear waste? The solution is at hand; tell
me why no one "wants a solution" to the waste and safety issues
but are quick to point out the faults/deficiencies of the current
system? BTW who are these people who don't necessarily want new
reactors which other countries want? You will be suprised to find
out that those who advocate no government sponsorship of high tech
research are those that either have theirs allready (close out
competetion), or cant get any to boot? Which end do you fall into?
Since I can surmise that you don't have yours, then you feel no one
can...pretty shabby if I do sayso. You leaving the nuclear industry was
the best thing for the business.
>subsidy of nuclear power.
>
>Hmm, I wonder if fusion research funding, the granddaddy of all scientific
>wellfare programs, is rolled up in that nuclear catagory? Hmmm.
>
Uh, by your standards, NASA is the grandaddy of all scientific
welfare programs. What are you going to do, crusade to privatize that
effort? Somethings are left best to centralized organizations.
Its people like you who hurt science and engineering and why most kids
today want to be something other than a physicist or an engineer.
Might as well be goddam lawyers.
>John
>
>--
>John De Armond, WD4OQC | For a free sample magazine, send
>Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
>Marietta, Ga "Love America" | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
>j...@dixie.com "Hate its government" | Marietta, GA 30066
>Email to me may be published at my sole discretion.
____________________________________________________________________
Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
email pan...@anl.gov Idaho Falls,ID
"O.K. you guys, coffee break is over, everybody back on their heads.."
(The Univ of Chicago and ANL/DOE are absolved of my sins)
____________________________________________________________________
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <2eljja$5...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jigs) writes:
>
>>Anyway, I just don't think [nuclear power] is much of a problem from
>>the scientific point of view. I guess politically the problems are still
>>growing.
>
>production are not scientific but political, i.e, popular perceptions and
>opinions, exaggeration of risks, etc. You're probably right, and I
>believe that one of the biggest problems with nuclear energy is political,
>too, but not how you mean the word. Nuclear energy requires a high
>degree of political and economic centralization. The plants MUST be
>big to be economically viable, waste disposal is a problem of national
>scope, and all of this requires huge amounts of economic and political
>capital. I think this is a big liability for us in the U.S., and an
>even bigger problem for developing countries. In the future (and I mean
>the _long_ run), decentraliztion will be seen to be an advantage among
>energy sources, here and abroad. This is where most alternative energy
>sources are big winners.
>
>| Jeff Bailey, Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering |
>| University of California Berkeley |
>| bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu Barney + Rush = Barney |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jeff,
For the past month I've observed, read and replied to your personal
crusade for PV. I do share your passion, but to bring the solutions to
the problems of nuclear energy to reality. I do understand your need
for a forum on PV, however, bashing nuclear doesn't help your cause.
You have cited some common challenges facing the industry, but what
you have yet to do is to put forth some tangible solution. You, like
me are trained in the sciences and engineering, are products of our
upbringing, etc. Mine was shaped in the 70's when I saw someone pull
out a gun in an Oil-Embargoed gas line.
I put it to you, do you think (as do I and many silent majority) that
the problems of nuclear can be solved technically (like an IFR type
waste-burner/safe reactor)? Or do you think we should padlock the
gates and walk away, and cut our losses (which are BTW- gains in
reality). You just cant walk away from Pu; it'll be here long after
you and I are dust. People outside our industry bash us, but fail to
recognize the achievments of our industry. These achievements have
been hard fought and are still being fought.
When we do (very soon ) solve the waste
issue technically, then we will have done the easy job. (It is
basically an easy problem-transmutation not burial). The
hard part is public acceptance; and this comes with education, getting
the facts out, and challenging people's thinking. And this will be
done when the masses do come to the realization that appreciation
of the hard problems will go along way in motivating the industry
to reach new goals and achievments.
After all, how many times can you kick a dog before it bites you
back?
I think the anti-nukes are threatened when someone articulates an
argument with passion and fact. Its as if the public airwaves are
their domain, and they would be happy if we as scientists and
engineers stayed in our labs and communicated amonst ourselves,
being the sterotypical social poindexter/panty-waists they want us
to be. But as we have learned, its not what you know that counts, but
how you market,package,sanitize,spin-doctor the message. Because no
policy maker has the patience nor desire to spend the time training,
and working to understand the solutions. They want the sound bite
and quick fix, but are not willing to see the "light" of day.
Jeff Bailey
>
>I put it to you, do you think (as do I and many silent majority) that
>the problems of nuclear can be solved technically (like an IFR type
>waste-burner/safe reactor)? Or do you think we should padlock the
>gates and walk away, and cut our losses (which are BTW- gains in
>reality). You just cant walk away from Pu; it'll be here long after
>you and I are dust. People outside our industry bash us, but fail to
>recognize the achievments of our industry. These achievements have
>been hard fought and are still being fought.
>
did, it would be a big waste, and would create serious job loss and
economic hardship. I wouldn't like that any more than you would. I
honestly don't know if a new generation of reactors would solve the
waste problem; you're trained in nuclear engineering--I'm not. It's
a problem I wish we didn't have to solve, but somehow we'll have to.
I don't think it's fair to assume, however, that I don't recognize the
achievements of the nuclear industry. I do. But whether I did or didn't,
I've benefited from these achievements as much as anyone else. I also
recognize the limitations of the nuclear industry. I've tried to point
out a few. My reasons for doing so are not just to jump on the anti-
nuclear bandwagon, but to raise some issues that should be raised. These
issues are especially important today because of what we're learning
about global warming and CO2 emissions, and we'll have to make a very
big choice VERY SOON to avert what looks like an impending disaster.
I'd assume each of us is equally impressed by the importance of this
threat.
So which energy source should we turn to? I've been suggesting in the
previous few weeks that the playing field isn't level; i.e. we can't
compare nuclear power and solar energy face-to-face because of a number
of reasons. I'll summarize:
1. Nuclear and alternative energy have received different levels of
support from the U.S. Government. I suspect that this has to do with
the ties between the nuclear power and weapons industries--nuclear power
has been the protected child historically. You may argue that this is
not true anymore, but the infant nuclear power industry received a big
boost by the Price-Anderson Act, and in those days there was great hope
for nuclear power to provide electricity that was "too cheap to meter."
No one believes this anymore.
I've been trying to point out (speculation, of course) that if the solar
and alternative energy fields had seen the same levels of federal support
over the same period of time, their achievements would have been commen-
surately higher. Solar cell efficiencies have been climbing steadily in
the last few decades, and will continue to do so as long as private and
federal support continue. (although in the future costs will decrease
more than efficiency will increase)
2. Solar energy and other alternatives do not lend themselves as easily
as conventional sources to centralized generation. People have pointed
out that weather, tornadoes, acts of god, can take out a PV array with
disastrous consequences much more easily than they will a nuke or fossil
fuel plant. That may be right. But I'd argue that maybe the best
implementation of PV and alternative energy sources is NOT a centralized
generating plant. You couldn't take out Diablo Canyon and replace it
with an equivalent number of solar cells, but you might be able to install
an equivalent number of distributed, smaller PV plants, to make up the
difference. Some pro-nuclear people have suggested (their knees jerk as
quickly as the anti-nuclear people) that we shouldn't even attempt to
apply alternative energy sources for these very reasons. I suspect that
their decentralized nature makes alternative energy sources suspect for
some, but I believe that instead this will be an advantage in the future.
PG&E has looked into PV as a generating source, so clearly they would
consider large-scale PV electricity generation if it were cheap enough.
But I have a feeling that they'd get pretty nervous if independent, small-
scale PV generators started popping up within their service territory. This
is exactly what happened a few years ago with cogenerators, BTW.
>I think the anti-nukes are threatened when someone articulates an
> opinion with passion and conviction. Its as if the public airwaves are
>their domain, and they would be happy if we as scientists and
>engineers stayed in our labs and communicated amonst ourselves,
>being the sterotypical social poindexter/panty-waists they want us
>to be.
Perhaps, but don't believe that all scientists and engineers are pro-nuke!
And not all of those who oppose nuclear power are technophobes, either.
>But as we have learned, its not what you know that counts, but
>how you market,package,sanitize,spin-doctor the message. Because no
>policy maker has the patience nor desire to spend the time training,
>and working to understand the solutions. They want the sound bite
>and quick fix, but are not willing to see the "light" of day.
Sure, but the anti-nukes hold no monopoly on distortion of truth.
Wherever there's money to be made, there's probably someone who's willing
to lie to make it.
yoda...@chelm.uucp
Jigs <js...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Fusion and Breeder Reactors are well on their way if the government lobbyists
>would give them a chance. Waste is not a problem being that we are removing
>radioactivity from the ground and putting it back in a lead case a half
>mile under a mountain in Nevada. breeder Reactors have little waste anyway.
Last time I saw it, DOE was projecting that the study on Yucca Moutains
might be done after the end of the century and that deliveries might
start after 2010 (or was it 2040?). Considering the strong objections
to the site on the part of the people of Nevada and the uncertainties
B. Alan Guthrie
>In article <2eis8e...@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zc...@monarch.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie) writes:
>|Those aren't the numbers I find. According to the April 1, 1993 edition
>|of ENERGY DAILY, page 5
>|
>| Department of Energy Budget
>| FY 1994 OMB Budget
>| (dollars in thousands)
>|
>|Energy Supply R&D
>| Energy Research 1,549,946 1,712,692 1,764,614
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>| NUCLEAR ENERGY (my caps) 364,311 345,353 283,956
>| SOLAR & RENEWABLE ENERGY (still my caps) 241,689 257,334 327,191
>| Environment, Safety, & Health 159,029 159,670 174,846
>| NUCLEAR SAFETY (yep, my caps) 12,530 --- ---
>| Environmental Management 609,913 709,694 710,098
>
>Please describe who gets the lion's share of the $1.5 billion you didn't count.
>
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Jeff Bailey, Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering |
>| University of California Berkeley |
>| bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu Barney + Rush = Barney |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Glad you asked!
Department of Energy
FY 1994 Congressional Budget Request
(dollars in thousands)
FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 %
Non-comp Non-comp Change
Energy Research
Biological&Environmental Research 352,369 356,700 416,060 16.6
Fusion Energy 332,216 339,710 347,595 2.3
Basic Energy Sciences 760,357 860,730 801,965 - 6.8
Advanced Neutron Source --- --- 39,000 ---
Energy Research Oversight,
Analysis and Univ's'ty Support 78,263 126,969 115,173 - 9.3
Multi-Program Lab Facilities Supp't 25,591 26,700 41,588 55.8
Policy&Managment - ER 1,150 1,913 3,233 69.0
Total, Energy Research 1,549,946 1,712,722 1,764,614 3.0
Small Business InnovationResearch 42,645
This Table is on p 11 of the April 1, 1993 ENERGY DAILY.
I do not have figures broken down any further, so I have no idea what is
hidden away in the Basic Energy Sciences. Nor do I understand what is
meant by "non-comp," but I'm sure that some policy wonk can explain it.
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | E pur si muove!
|
zc...@monarch.pgh.wec.com | Galileo Galilei
yoda...@chelm.uucp
B. Alan Guthrie <zc...@monarch.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>>What? It is always possible for some schmuck to turn off all of the
>>safety systems and a runaway reactor fire with breach of containment
>>is possible in the US, only the probabilities are debated. I don't
>>know what a "no gravity based" safety system is.
>>
> No it's not possible - the safety systems are interlocked so that it
> you disable some, then the plant will trip. Reactor protection systems
> are designed that way.
So what happened at TMI? What automatic interlocks would have kept
the operators from persisting in their error for another hour or
two? I don't believe that engineers can design machines that cannot
be misoperated. Claims of the existence of such machines make me as
skeptical as claims of the existence of perpetual motion machines.
> Have you ever been in the containment of a light water reactor - there's
> not much in there that is flammable (maybe this posting is however).
The core. Or consider the fire at Brown's Ferry.
> Besides, containments are designed against large overpressures (all the
> steam generated by a loss of coolant accident will pressurize the
> containment).
Containments of current US plants were not designed to contain melt-downs.
>>The Union of Concerned Scientists claims otherwise.
>>
>
> My favourite organization - it's just like the Holy Roman Empire
> neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
>
> When I was in grad school, the local anti-nukes brought Dr. Henry
> Kendall, the driving force behind the UCS, to campus. He debated
> Mr. T. W. T. Burnett, and Advisory Engineer in the Nuclear Safety
> Department of Westinghouse, and Dr. Bernard Cohen, Professor of
> Physics at U of Pittsburgh. Mr. Burnett tried to debate reactor
> safety with Dr. Kendall, but Dr. Kendall weaselled out of his
> arguments. Dr. Cohen was less kind - he put up over-heads giving
> the deaths due to air pollution, transportation, &c of generating
> electricity from coal and the deaths due to generating electricity
> from nuclear power using the numbers put forth by the UCS. Of
> course, even using the UCS numbers, nuclear was clearly superior.
> He asked Dr. Kendall which he preferred. Dr. Kendall could only
> mumble a response. It is sad that such a towering intellect as
> Dr. Kendall would pursue such a cause.
UCS has quite a coherent response, but nuclear advocates insist on this
false choice -- old coal plants vs. nuclear.
John De Armond
>j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>and the Kr is gone in a few decades. Besides both gases are heavy enough
>>that they settle out of still air in short order, as I well know from
>>personal experience, having accidentally released a couple hundred
>>curies of Kr-85 and then tracked it for a few days.
>Someone has to ask: What did you do, John? There has got to be at
>least a moderatly interesting story behind this.
My company in the 80s specialized in designing, building and calibrating
RegGuide 1.97 post accident monitors. We did a full scale calibration with
Kr and Xe on each. We learned quickly that the Kr could be poured like
water out of its shipping container, down some large bore tygon tubing
and into the monitor. We also found that we had to maintain a high flowrate
through the monitors lest the Kr settle in the bottom of the sample
chamber. When we were finished with the Kr, we froze it out on a cold
finger full of activated charcoal cooled with liquid nitrogen. One
afternoon, one my my technicians captured a couple hundred Ci in the
cold finger, clamped off the ports and then forgot about it. When the
Dewar boiled dry, the cold finger exploded. The gas ran along the
floor, down about 3 flights of stairs to the basement of the old
experimental reactor building we were working in and settled on the floor.
A survey meter would be almost quiet until you got the probe within
a couple of inches of the floor. You could stir it up with your feet
and it would settle back in. The building ventillation system had
no effect on it. We finally got a fire department smoke ejection fan
to get the stuff out.
John De Armond
>If the public doesn't want new reactors which could burn Pu, then tell
>me oh great sage..why the heck have they been giving the nuclear
>industry an earfull over nuclear waste? The solution is at hand; tell
>me why no one "wants a solution" to the waste and safety issues
>but are quick to point out the faults/deficiencies of the current
>system? BTW who are these people who don't necessarily want new
>reactors which other countries want? You will be suprised to find
>out that those who advocate no government sponsorship of high tech
>research are those that either have theirs allready (close out
>competetion), or cant get any to boot? Which end do you fall into?
>Since I can surmise that you don't have yours, then you feel no one
>can...pretty shabby if I do sayso. You leaving the nuclear industry was
>the best thing for the business.
Ah, Peter, you do bellow when your funding is at stake. We almost got
you this year. There's always next year.
>Uh, by your standards, NASA is the grandaddy of all scientific
>welfare programs. What are you going to do, crusade to privatize that
>effort? Somethings are left best to centralized organizations.
Boy, Peter, you really picked a good example of cetralization in NASA.
How much did they just get finished spending to fix their previous
fuckups? Best thing congress could have done was to disband NASA in
1970 instead of turning it into a toothless gymp.
Andy Holland
>>Solar arrays, on the other hand, must, by their very nature, have
>>large surface areas with which high winds will play havoc.
>
>Oh, then for some reason solar arrays will NOT be well engineered?
>Come on, guys. You're reaching. The only real argument against the use
>of solar energy for electricity is cost of the electricity. All other
>factors are included in that price. If the cost of nuclear electricity
>from California is increased because of earthquake mitigation (which I've
>heard confirmed), then the cost of solar electricity from Oklahoma will
>be increased because of tornado mitigation. Why should there be a double
>standard?
>
>As far as that problem with intermittent PV output is concerned, consider
>that the scenario in which independent PV electricity producers spring
>up all over the grid is no different from the situation which HAS ALREADY
>developed with independent cogenerators. Cogenerators are no more
>predictable than vairable output from PV arrays due to weather changes.
>And by the way... Nuclear reactors (and other generating sources) shut
>down all the time for lots of reasons, don't they? And they do it pretty
>quickly, too. Why is this less problematic for the electicity grid than
>a (much less rapid) weather-induced PV slowdown? The beauty of distrib-
>uted sources is that they are LESS likely to fail concurrently, causing
>fewer problems overall.
Yes nukes do go down. They do not, however, go down as a mass after dark!
Typical nuke availability factors are around 75%.
>
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Jeff Bailey, Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering |
>| University of California Berkeley |
>| bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu Barney + Rush = Barney |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Ok, put your money where your mouth is and build one. Get a research grant from
the government, get the banks to loan you the money, and generate all that
wonderful ecologically benign solar energy. Why do you need the goverment anyway?
Did Edison need the government? Did old George Westinghouse? Heck no! Sell your
ideas to a banker or two, perhaps a venture capitalist, and loose their money.
You need the government, because solar energy is a big looser. Remember
magnetohydrodynamics? It was first proposed over a hundred years ago by
Maxwell himself to harness the power of the Thames. How many bucks were spent on
that by our wonderful government? How many plants use those principles today
for direct generation of electricity?
The fact is, that nobody will lend you the money to build your gigantic solar
arrays, because it is not practical to do so. Nuclear used to be economically
practical, because it only cost $100 Million dollars to build a sizable power
plant, and fuel costs are nect to nothing. Thanks to collective stupidity on the
part of the government, the some vendors (CE, B&W, and GE - Not Westinghouse, we're pros)
and utility regulators, as well as a special thanks to our buddies at TMI, it now costs
$1,000+ Million to build the same plant. Even still, its not too economically bad
compared to other forms of energy, however, passing on the building costs and O&M
costs is near impossible while passing on the fuel costs is trivial (Thats why
nobody builds a nuclear plant anymore, cost per Kw is still small on average,
even for a new plant. As fuel costs can be passed directly to utility customers,
it is advantageous to build gas turbines which have low capital and operating costs,
but large fuel costs. Nuclear does not stand a chance in that kind of environment,
because the whole economics of a nuclear power plant is based on low fuel cost). So
near term, and mid-term, nuclear is out. I am not too optimistic about nuclear in the
long range, except in other nations, where the economics are still quite favorable,
and the accounting practices are not skewed toward high fuel cost.
Some of those nations are run by intelligent men and women. They will reap
the rewards of their foresight, while we watch our entire heavy industrial
base rust away.
| Andy Holland | You shouldn't have to stick your nose
| Westinghouse NMD | in it, to know you shouldn't step in it.
| zc...@ncstate.pgh.wec.com |
| Views Expressed here are soley my | Solar's NOT right, nukes do it all night!
| own and are not representitive of |
| Westinghouse Electric Corporation |
| etc... |
he...@ruc.dk
Andy Holland wrote:
>The fact is, that nobody will lend you the money to build your gigantic solar
>arrays, because it is not practical to do so. Nuclear used to be economically
>practical, because it only cost $100 Million dollars to build a sizable power
>plant, and fuel costs are nect to nothing. Thanks to collective stupidity on the
>part of the government, the some vendors (CE, B&W, and GE - Not Westinghouse, we're pros)
>and utility regulators, as well as a special thanks to our buddies at TMI, it now costs
>$1,000+ Million to build the same plant. Even still, its not too economically bad
>compared to other forms of energy, however, passing on the building costs and O&M
>costs is near impossible while passing on the fuel costs is trivial (Thats why
>nobody builds a nuclear plant anymore, cost per Kw is still small on average,
>even for a new plant. As fuel costs can be passed directly to utility customers,
>it is advantageous to build gas turbines which have low capital and operating costs,
>but large fuel costs. Nuclear does not stand a chance in that kind of environment,
>because the whole economics of a nuclear power plant is based on low fuel cost). So
>near term, and mid-term, nuclear is out. I am not too optimistic about nuclear in the
>long range, except in other nations, where the economics are still quite favorable,
You have an argument here, that I would like you to expand on. You are saying
that building costs and O&M costs are much more difficult to pass on, than fuel
costs.
Do you mean, that utilities (because of regulation) are unable to take a normal
private business view on long term investments? Can you substantiate that?
Could you give me some reference to litterature on that problem?
Are you aware, that if this is the case, it would presumably discriminate
against renewables as well as nukes, insofar as renewables (wind, solar) often
has the same problem of very delayed cash flow as nukes do.
Peter Helby
Lund University, Sweden
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>>recycling the excess plutonium within the breeder reactors, so that the only
>>thing we have to do to the breeder reactor is add uranium-238 to the outside
>>of the reactor (outside of the inner core). In this process there is very little
>
>This is rather misleading. The used cores must be taken from the reactor
>and processed using large amounts of solvents and producing more waste
>material. As far as I know, plans for reprocessing without solvents
>are still in the speculation stage.
>
VIctor.VIctor.Victor.
As far as I know, your last sentence shows that you have not been following the
threads on pyroprocessing (IFR). The demonstration phase (culminating from
10 years ACTIVE (not speculative paper studies) research and development out
here and else where (Japan) indicate that the techology is closer than you think.
Whether you are pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear, you still must come to grips with the
waste issue. Transmutation of long-lived actinides still remains the most attractive
alternative; from a safety, economics, and proliferation (yes..it reduces proliferation
risk..) POV.
>
>What? It is always possible for some schmuck to turn off all of the
>safety systems and a runaway reactor fire with breach of containment
>is possible in the US, only the probabilities are debated. I don't
>know what a "no gravity based" safety system is.
Same rationale applies to airline pilots. Whats preventing some unbalanced flight
captain from killing us all? Its called multiple backups and strength of character.
Ever wonder what it takes to operate a plant (in terms of mental stability,
intellectual capability, and focus?)
Gravity based safety system? Look up the term "Natural Circulation", then make
a coment that has some merit.
>>Anyway, I just don't think it is much of a problem from the scientific point
>>of view. I guess politically the problems are still growing.
>
>The Union of Concerned Scientists claims otherwise.
>
The Union of "Concerned Scientists" are neither.
Thomas D. Orth
|>
|> So what happened at TMI? What automatic interlocks would have kept
|> the operators from persisting in their error for another hour or
|> two? I don't believe that engineers can design machines that cannot
|> be misoperated. Claims of the existence of such machines make me as
|> skeptical as claims of the existence of perpetual motion machines.
|>
air, it would always come down, providing of course that a human
threw it? It's called physics, try learning some.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <7561649...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>
>>I put it to you, do you think (as do I and many silent majority) that
>>the problems of nuclear can be solved technically (like an IFR type
>>waste-burner/safe reactor)? Or do you think we should padlock the
>>gates and walk away, and cut our losses (which are BTW- gains in
>>reality). You just cant walk away from Pu; it'll be here long after
>>you and I are dust. People outside our industry bash us, but fail to
>>recognize the achievments of our industry. These achievements have
>>been hard fought and are still being fought.
>>
>Peter: I don't think we should lock the gates and walk away. If we
>did, it would be a big waste, and would create serious job loss and
>economic hardship. I wouldn't like that any more than you would. I
>honestly don't know if a new generation of reactors would solve the
>waste problem; you're trained in nuclear engineering--I'm not. It's
>a problem I wish we didn't have to solve, but somehow we'll have to.
Yes we do have to come to grips with that reality. Whether you are pro-
nuke or anti nuke, the waste issue must be solved responsibly. We working
on the issue basically came up with the solution long ago, howver the
forces in this country were bent on LWR development, mostly as an offshoot
of the Navy Nuclear Program> Don't get me wrong, light water is an
excellent moderator, coolant, and is cheap to get. The problem lied in the
marriage of the technology with the social infrastructure coupled with
relative inexperience in scale and some just plain bad luck.
However, I am one who believes that some good can come out of lessons
learned; Its why the Shuttle is flying high again, or our automobiles
are more environmentally designed, or our computer systems are less
prone to "Fail Safe" scenarios, or our airplanes are more reliable,
or our medicine is more serving to man.
The debate isn't whether or not nuclear energy as a concept should be
developed. The concept is challenging and contains both risks and
benefits, as does any modern technological venture (you can't tell
that to those poor souls down wind of Bhopal, but I dont see Dow
Chemical cringing at its knees). The fact remains that even the most
ardent pro-nuclear position recognizes that nuclear in its current
large scale, custom design, bureaucratic form cannot continue as is.
This is why there has been a need to reach a more competitive market
solution, and deal with the public perception problem.
I personally (and professionally)
believe that it is a straightforward solution (as others will attest) to
integrate waste recycle, inherrent safety, modular and economic in
one neat package (IFR).
>I don't think it's fair to assume, however, that I don't recognize the
>achievements of the nuclear industry. I do. But whether I did or didn't,
>I've benefited from these achievements as much as anyone else. I also
>recognize the limitations of the nuclear industry. I've tried to point
>out a few. My reasons for doing so are not just to jump on the anti-
I think the nuclear industry is very much aware of what it needs to
do. Many lay people don't even recognize (or know of for that matter)
that INPO has made great strides (with results) into more efficient
and safe operations. It has become a world model, by which many foreign
operations have pattered practices from. This all in the past 8 years,
but you never hear of it because the media is inherrently biased to
report only the bad or unfavorable aspects of the technology. Even
Chrysler had air time wher Iacocca (a mechanical engineer) turned the
company around and paid off his loan from the government early.
There is good news out there, you just have to know where to look.
>issues are especially important today because of what we're learning
>about global warming and CO2 emissions, and we'll have to make a very
>big choice VERY SOON to avert what looks like an impending disaster.
>I'd assume each of us is equally impressed by the importance of this
>threat.
All the more reason to support the only power producer > 1000MWe that
doesn't emit green house gasses.
>So which energy source should we turn to? I've been suggesting in the
>previous few weeks that the playing field isn't level; i.e. we can't
If nuclear were given the level plaing field in the public media, it
would be a more favorable option, as it deserves
>compare nuclear power and solar energy face-to-face because of a number
>of reasons. I'll summarize:
>1. Nuclear and alternative energy have received different levels of
>support from the U.S. Government. I suspect that this has to do with
>the ties between the nuclear power and weapons industries--nuclear power
>has been the protected child historically. You may argue that this is
>not true anymore, but the infant nuclear power industry received a big
>boost by the Price-Anderson Act, and in those days there was great hope
>for nuclear power to provide electricity that was "too cheap to meter."
>No one believes this anymore.
I think you will find that any new technology and development had its
roots in some government activity. I don't think nuclear had a monopoly
on being a favorite son, but I do feel that the forces that challenged
the establishment in the 60's, have used nuclear as an easy whipping
boy over say- peaceful biological or chemical development. If the
forces of influence and ultra-left partisianism were not so hell bent
in destroying nuclear for the sake of their own adgendas, then you
would see the "level playing field"
Just because
the government developed mustard gas or biotoxins, should not preclude
funding for penicillin, interferron, or the many biological or chemical niceties
we want today. This is what the "Swords to Plowshares" program did for energy.
At that time in our history, we were a world power, having just won a two-
front world war. Our society was enamored with the bomb, and it destructive
power. It also saved millioons and millions of American lives, by quickly endig
the war. The "too cheap to meter" phrase just does not apply to todays world,
nor should you hold the industry to it like a sword of Damacles.
I admit that the public is distrusting of a technical elite, but should they not
hold the same standard for a political elite, an entertainment elite, a
sports elite? We all to some degree abrogate our personal liberty for some choice
which ultimately benifit us. I can't understand the anti's use of risk choices
viz a viz air travel, driving, smoking, vs say electric generation, when the risks
of the latter (save high power lines) has been proven much less. Isnt it their
choice to use energy, and benefit from electricity? You are right, the field isnt
level here.
Read BOTH Rhodes' books, "The Making of the Atomic BOmb", and "Nuclear
Renewal". Surely a pulitzer prize winning author can appeal to the
common man's sensibilities over some insider or technical expert.
>I've been trying to point out (speculation, of course) that if the solar
>and alternative energy fields had seen the same levels of federal support
>over the same period of time, their achievements would have been commen-
>surately higher. Solar cell efficiencies have been climbing steadily in
>the last few decades, and will continue to do so as long as private and
But you fail to recognize that since nuclear technology is inherrently more
complex, more technical and adninistrative oversignt is needed; and this
translates into dollars. You should realize there (non nuke ) would be no hand full
of watchdogs and government agencies getting you from both ends. I agree that
there has been more money, but this is money well spent. Without, the Soviet
Union may still be around today. Think of the benefits, and tell me it has
been a good investment.
>federal support continue. (although in the future costs will decrease
>more than efficiency will increase)
>2. Solar energy and other alternatives do not lend themselves as easily
>as conventional sources to centralized generation. People have pointed
>out that weather, tornadoes, acts of god, can take out a PV array with
>disastrous consequences much more easily than they will a nuke or fossil
>fuel plant. That may be right. But I'd argue that maybe the best
>implementation of PV and alternative energy sources is NOT a centralized
>generating plant. You couldn't take out Diablo Canyon and replace it
>with an equivalent number of solar cells, but you might be able to install
>an equivalent number of distributed, smaller PV plants, to make up the
>difference. Some pro-nuclear people have suggested (their knees jerk as
>quickly as the anti-nuclear people) that we shouldn't even attempt to
>apply alternative energy sources for these very reasons. I suspect that
>their decentralized nature makes alternative energy sources suspect for
>some, but I believe that instead this will be an advantage in the future.
>PG&E has looked into PV as a generating source, so clearly they would
>consider large-scale PV electricity generation if it were cheap enough.
>But I have a feeling that they'd get pretty nervous if independent, small-
>scale PV generators started popping up within their service territory. This
>is exactly what happened a few years ago with cogenerators, BTW.
>
Having worked for SCE, the first solar utility, the inside scoop is that
the major baseloads will allways be needed, despite a Lovins-esque scenario
as you propose. The Rocky Mountain Institute fails to understand that the
rest of the country is not geographically or culturally like them. Try living
in the Northeast, and tell me their industrial infrastructure would fare
better under your scenario. It is not physically possible, nor realistic.
>>I think the anti-nukes are threatened when someone articulates an
>> opinion with passion and conviction. Its as if the public airwaves are
>>their domain, and they would be happy if we as scientists and
>>engineers stayed in our labs and communicated amonst ourselves,
>>being the sterotypical social poindexter/panty-waists they want us
>>to be.
>
>Perhaps, but don't believe that all scientists and engineers are pro-nuke!
>And not all of those who oppose nuclear power are technophobes, either.
I do understand my opponent. Never take them for granted. Neither they you.
we are alot more alike than dissimilar. Its too bad both sides could not
reach a mutual understanding and respect. History has showed us that
elitism never works for the common good.
BTW I am one of those who believes in a balanced plate of energy choices,
and one who believes that nuclear will evolve (like the airline,auto,computer,
aerospace technologies) into a more viable and attractive technology. How
long depends on how long the public is willing to let the wounds heal,
and how they like their standard of living.
>
>>But as we have learned, its not what you know that counts, but
>>how you market,package,sanitize,spin-doctor the message. Because no
>>policy maker has the patience nor desire to spend the time training,
>>and working to understand the solutions. They want the sound bite
>>and quick fix, but are not willing to see the "light" of day.
>
>Sure, but the anti-nukes hold no monopoly on distortion of truth.
>Wherever there's money to be made, there's probably someone who's willing
>to lie to make it.
The same goes for power. People will crave power and influence like a
drug. Humans will kill, and die for it. Its just our nature. Like the
scorpion and the toad..The scorpion offers the toad a ride across the
river and the toad reluctantly agrees, only if the scorpion doesn't
sting him. Half way across, the scorpion stings him and they both are
drowning..When the toad asks kim why he did iy, the scorpion replys..
" I'm sorry..but its in my nature". They both die.
If the anti's only knew of the counterproductive tactics they use.
I am not against debate or dissention. Just the abuse and misuse of it.
It is ironic that the same ones crying for a level playing field, are
the same ones distorting it-for their selfish agenda.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>
>Ah, Peter, you do bellow when your funding is at stake. We almost got
>
solution to the waste problem, nor any evolution of an industry you
bash, rather than tout. My funding is called a paycheck. I'm just happy
I'm working in something that is cutting-edge, and worthy of every
penny it gets. Don't thank me. Thank the Senate (esp Sam Nunn), for the
clear vision it has in holding a hand in this country's future. Someone
has too.
BTW have you hugged the SBA today?
>>Uh, by your standards, NASA is the grandaddy of all scientific
>>welfare programs. What are you going to do, crusade to privatize that
>>effort? Somethings are left best to centralized organizations.
>
>Boy, Peter, you really picked a good example of cetralization in NASA.
You bet I did. Just to show you how ridiculous President DeArmond
would steer this country.
>How much did they just get finished spending to fix their previous
>fuckups? Best thing congress could have done was to disband NASA in
>1970 instead of turning it into a toothless gymp.
>
>John
>--
Tell me you weren't proud of those Endeveor Astronauts. Kind of gets
you right here...
Peter
JM Alvis
Just a couple of points:
1) The Brown's Ferry fire was started in electrical wiring and affected reactor safety systems not the reactor core. Since this event, all nuclear plants were backfitted with improved fire protection systems and design modifications to ensure that a fire will not impare all redundant safety systems.
2) The energetics of a severe accident leading to the melting of components in the reactor pressure vessel is contained by that vessel. Once the temperature is high enough to melt the components, this mass of material called corium will slowly move down the remaining structures in the pressure vessel. The material may begin to solidify and form a plug (as in TMI) or it has been spectulated that it could breach the vessel itself. As the molten corium drops onto the contaiment floor, losing energy as it
goes, it begins to interact with the concrete. Experiments show that the corium can penetrate upto several inches into the contaiment wall before it solidifies. The contaiment, though not specifically designed to contain the corium material, still acts as a barrier to corium release, and in fact is thich enough to prevent any material escaping.
John Alvis
d3e...@alvis.pnl.gov
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <1993Dec1...@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov> or...@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Thomas D. Orth) writes:
||ALSO, in the midwest, we have what is known as tornados, and in the se, hurricanes.
||What sort of damage would one of theses beasts rage on a solar array? Excuse
||my ignorance please.
|Well, as long as we're speculating...
|Would it be anything like the effect of an earthquake on a nuclear plant?
The plant shuts down automatically, gets inspected and is than restarted.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Thomas Richard Hubbard
<yoda...@chelm.uucp> wrote:
>In article <2esevb...@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
>B. Alan Guthrie <zc...@monarch.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>>>safety systems and a runaway reactor fire with breach of containment
>>>is possible in the US, only the probabilities are debated. I don't
>>>know what a "no gravity based" safety system is.
>>>
>> No it's not possible - the safety systems are interlocked so that it
>> you disable some, then the plant will trip. Reactor protection systems
>> are designed that way.
>
>the operators from persisting in their error for another hour or
>two?
If the operators at TMI had waited longer to restart the emergency core
cooling system, then the core damage would have been worse, and may
have been harder to clean up as a result. The interlocked automatic
safety system that worked was the low pressure trip that shut down the
reactor exactly as it was designed to do, and the operators couldn't
have prevented this if they had wanted to. In Chernobyl, on the other
hand, the automatic trip had been overridden while the reactor was
operating (no interlock to prevent this), which resulted in a criticality
accident which is much worse than an inability to remove decay heat.
-Tom Hubbard
Robert Stucky
On GE designed BWR's, there are safety systems which cannot be trivially
overridden. The system initiation logic contains interlocks which
prevent operators from reducing the number of online ECCS system below
the design minimums. The design minimums are manyfold over that required
to keep the core intact.
Gravity based safety systems are the ones that work without pumps. There
are passive reactor systems under design now in which the safety systems
work without pumping or external energy input.
One of the things that TMI proved was that with incompetent operators, and
faulty indicators, the reactor's safety systems achieved their intended goal.
The nuclear option in the US is in jeopardy. The economics of nuclear are
such that many plants are candidates for early shutdown. This is being
caused by a number of reasons. The capital cost was and is the primary
economic issue for a plant; however, O&M costs for nuclear plants are
extremly high.
Unless "things change" there will most likely not be another fission
plant built in the US. Why? Politics, Economics, and the lack of need for
large baseload plants.
This is more the fault of the NSSS providers than the utilities. The NSSS
provicers were not interested in providing long term service to utilities
when the plants were being built. They were taking orders faster than
plants could be built, and design is far more interesting than
maintenance. Literally, I've heard jokes told by people who were there
that in the late 70's utilities would call with service needs and the
reply was, "call us when you want a new plant."
It started an adversarial relationship that resulted in utilities
maintainin huge staffs to do what the NSSS providers could have done for
far less, on an industry wide scale. The service priciing policies that I
have witnessed are still such that any utility that relied on its NSSS
provider would be sorely screwed.
The add to the picture the recent regulatory changes and the creation of
IPP's. Now these plants have to complete with non-utilities who are
producing excess power. My guess, from having been in the industry,
albeit only for a short time, is that the industry will not be able to
make the business model shift it needs to make to remain competitive.
This is an easy guess, cuz IBM Wang, Xerox, GM, Ford, American Motors,
Chrylser, the -great- railroads, among thousands of others have not been
able to make business model shifts in time. Companies and industries that
do not adapt don't necessarily cease to exist (you can still buy a nice
buggy whip), they just whither, until their usefulness is gone.
JM Alvis
>It started an adversarial relationship that resulted in utilities
>maintainin huge staffs to do what the NSSS providers could have done for
>far less, on an industry wide scale. The service priciing policies that I
>have witnessed are still such that any utility that relied on its NSSS
>provider would be sorely screwed.
I have worked in a utility's safety analysis group. The prices that the vendors charge to prepare licensing calcs is amazing. In fact, now that they are not building plants anymore, they are using these service agreements to make money. Large utilities with multiple plants can afford to maintain their own engineering capabilities, However, smaller utilities with only one or two units, are the ones who can't afford the own staff so the are preyed on by the vendors.
John Alvis
d3e...@alvis.pnl.gov
yoda...@chelm.uucp
>
>Just a couple of points:
>
>1) The Brown's Ferry fire was started in electrical wiring and affected reactor safety systems not the reactor core. Since this event, all nuclear plants were backfitted with improved fire protection systems and design modifications to ensure that a fire will not impare all redundant safety systems.
>
There are still questions about the fire resistance of reactor electrical
cables.
>2) The energetics of a severe accident leading to the melting of components in the reactor pressure vessel is contained by that vessel. Once the temperature is high enough to melt the components, this mass of material called corium will slowly move down the remaining structures in the pressure vessel. The material may begin to solidify and form a plug (as in TMI) or it has been spectulated that it could breach the vessel itself. As the molten corium drops onto the contaiment floor, losing energy
>goes, it begins to interact with the concrete. Experiments show that the corium can penetrate upto several inches into the contaiment wall before it solidifies. The contaiment, though not specifically designed to contain the corium material, still acts as a barrier to corium release, and in fact is thich enough to prevent any material escaping.
From: Rosztocy, Consideration of Severe Accidents in the Licensing of Nuclear
power Plants. NE&D 115(1989) 193-199.
|... Results obtained up to date from probabalistic risk assessment studies
|and the Reactor Risk Reference Document, indicate that containment buildings
|designed to design-basis accident loads will survive many of the credible
|core melt accidents, but not all of them.
yoda...@chelm.uucp
Thomas Richard Hubbard <tr...@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>If the operators at TMI had waited longer to restart the emergency core
>cooling system, then the core damage would have been worse, and may
>have been harder to clean up as a result. The interlocked automatic
And the pressures inside the containment may have been even greater.
I reiterate my point-- one cannot engineer complex machines that are
proof against misoperation. Engineers who think otherwise have been
woefully miseducated. Interlocks are good things, but let's be realistic
about what they can and cannot do.
yoda...@chelm.uucp
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 <b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov> wrote:
>In article <1993Dec17....@Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu> yoda...@chelm.uucp () writes:
>>This is rather misleading. The used cores must be taken from the reactor
>>and processed using large amounts of solvents and producing more waste
>>material. As far as I know, plans for reprocessing without solvents
>>are still in the speculation stage.
>>
>threads on pyroprocessing (IFR). The demonstration phase (culminating from
>10 years ACTIVE (not speculative paper studies) research and development out
>here and else where (Japan) indicate that the techology is closer than you think.
>
You have been somewhat less than forthcoming on this issue before.
Has the feasability of on site reprocessing without use of solvents
been actually demonstrated (that is, with an experiment not a simulation)?
If so, please include a reference.
>>What? It is always possible for some schmuck to turn off all of the
>>safety systems and a runaway reactor fire with breach of containment
>>is possible in the US, only the probabilities are debated. I don't
>>know what a "no gravity based" safety system is.
>
>Same rationale applies to airline pilots. Whats preventing some unbalanced flight
>captain from killing us all?
We do not have designers of government subsidized airplanes telling us that
their safety interlocks make accidents impossible. Perhaps the risk
of nuclear disaster is worth taking, but it is absurd to
claim that these risks can be completely eliminated.
>Its called multiple backups and strength of character.
>Ever wonder what it takes to operate a plant (in terms of mental stability,
>intellectual capability, and focus?)
The answer to this has been made dismally clear.
>>>Anyway, I just don't think it is much of a problem from the scientific point
>>>of view. I guess politically the problems are still growing.
>>
>>The Union of Concerned Scientists claims otherwise.
>>
>
>The Union of "Concerned Scientists" are neither.
And what credentials do you have that make it possible for you to
claim the Kendall and Weiskopf are not scientists?
yoda...@chelm.uucp
I'd love to learn what physical principles you have in mind. When I studied
physics they never told us about the laws that invalidate Murphy's law
or that allow the construction of machines that cannot fail. Shucks
knowledge must have really advanced in the last few years. Please enlighten
us. BTW, try throwing a basketball onto a flat roof and tell me how long
it takes for it to return to the ground.
Gary Coffman
>In article <2eqf62...@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zc...@monarch.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie) writes:
>>>|ALSO, in the midwest, we have what is known as tornados, and in the se, hurricanes.
>>>|What sort of damage would one of theses beasts rage on a solar array? Excuse
>>>|my ignorance please.
>
>>>Well, as long as we're speculating...
>>>Would it be anything like the effect of an earthquake on a nuclear plant?
>
>>
>>large surface areas with which high winds will play havoc.
>
>Oh, then for some reason solar arrays will NOT be well engineered?
Well you *could* design them to retract into concrete bunkers at the
first sign of a storm, but I doubt that would be practical given the
enormous area they'd cover.
>Come on, guys. You're reaching. The only real argument against the use
>of solar energy for electricity is cost of the electricity. All other
>factors are included in that price. If the cost of nuclear electricity
>from California is increased because of earthquake mitigation (which I've
>heard confirmed), then the cost of solar electricity from Oklahoma will
>be increased because of tornado mitigation. Why should there be a double
>standard?
Well of course cost for reliable 7x24 electricity is the issue. And
protecting the plant from catastrophic loss is one of the factors in
costing. There shouldn't be a double standard, which is why it's valid
to raise this potential cost constraint on solar and wind systems.
Nukes have to be designed to withstand any credible scenario, regardless
of actual plant siting. For example, they *all* have to be designed to
withstand a fully laden 747 impact on the containment, even if they're
sited nowhere near airliner flight paths. Solar advocates like to gloss
these issues over when it comes to their systems. They want to use best
case numbers for output while ignoring as many system costs as possible.
>As far as that problem with intermittent PV output is concerned, consider
>that the scenario in which independent PV electricity producers spring
>up all over the grid is no different from the situation which HAS ALREADY
>developed with independent cogenerators. Cogenerators are no more
>predictable than vairable output from PV arrays due to weather changes.
That's true, and grid stability problems are already occurring from these
uncontrollable generation sources. As they become a larger fraction of the
grid's capacity, it's possible that the grid will begin to behave
chaotically. Note that the same situation happens on the flip side with
loads, but generally individual loads are smaller percentages of total
load than generators are percentages of total supply. That tends to make
the statistics flatten out. But like the water pressure drops at half
time of the Superbowl, other factors can cause mass synchronized fluctuations
of demand, or supply in the case of solar and wind.
>And by the way... Nuclear reactors (and other generating sources) shut
>down all the time for lots of reasons, don't they? And they do it pretty
>quickly, too. Why is this less problematic for the electicity grid than
>a (much less rapid) weather-induced PV slowdown? The beauty of distrib-
>uted sources is that they are LESS likely to fail concurrently, causing
>fewer problems overall.
All the generating sources under the control of the utility are tied
together into a total management system. They can thus be ready for
graceful handoffs from one system to another if one of the systems
needs to go down. Weather related PV shutdowns are less graceful because
they are uncontrollable widespread outages. It's still not much of an
issue as long as total PV capacity is a small fraction of system demand
such that other online generation sources can gracefully pick up the
load, but if PV becomes a major part of the grid supply, then real
problems present themselves.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | I kill you, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | You kill me, | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | We're the Manson Family | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | -sorry Barney |
Karl Hallowell
ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <2esspt$o...@agate.berkeley.edu> bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu (Jeff Bailey) writes:
>>In article <2eqf62...@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zc...@monarch.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie) writes:
>>>>|ALSO, in the midwest, we have what is known as tornados, and in the se, hurricanes.
>>>>|What sort of damage would one of theses beasts rage on a solar array? Excuse
>>>>|my ignorance please.
>>
>>>>Well, as long as we're speculating...
>>>>Would it be anything like the effect of an earthquake on a nuclear plant?
>>
>>>Gee, I don't think so. Nuclear plants are extensively engineered
>>>to protect them against earthquakes. They are designed to operate
>>>during earthquakes up to some magnitude (dependent on location) and
>>>to be shutdown during bigger ones.
>>>
>>>Solar arrays, on the other hand, must, by their very nature, have
>>>large surface areas with which high winds will play havoc.
>>
>>Oh, then for some reason solar arrays will NOT be well engineered?
>Well you *could* design them to retract into concrete bunkers at the
>first sign of a storm, but I doubt that would be practical given the
>enormous area they'd cover.
You can shield them somewhat by using some sort of "windshield" say a row
of hedges. The hedges can be placed back far enough so they don't "shade"
the solar panels. For other things, like tornadoes and hurricanes, there is
insurance. That will drive up the cost - oh well. Beats a real fancy and
expensive scheme.
>>Come on, guys. You're reaching. The only real argument against the use
>>of solar energy for electricity is cost of the electricity. All other
>>factors are included in that price. If the cost of nuclear electricity
>>from California is increased because of earthquake mitigation (which I've
>>heard confirmed), then the cost of solar electricity from Oklahoma will
>>be increased because of tornado mitigation. Why should there be a double
>>standard?
>Well of course cost for reliable 7x24 electricity is the issue. And
>protecting the plant from catastrophic loss is one of the factors in
>costing. There shouldn't be a double standard, which is why it's valid
>to raise this potential cost constraint on solar and wind systems.
>Nukes have to be designed to withstand any credible scenario, regardless
>of actual plant siting. For example, they *all* have to be designed to
>withstand a fully laden 747 impact on the containment, even if they're
>sited nowhere near airliner flight paths. Solar advocates like to gloss
>these issues over when it comes to their systems. They want to use best
>case numbers for output while ignoring as many system costs as possible.
It seems to me that solar power has a big advantage here. Solar and wind
systems don't need the infrastructure that a nuclear plant does. Similarly
the maintainance costs are much lower. However, they produce much less power
which tends to negate the advantage.
I think that these systems are really incomparable. For small systems,
solar and wind power are more flexible. For big requirements, nothing
fits the bill like a nuclear power plant. A nuclear plant would not be used
to power a few dozen houses, and the city of New York can't be run with
solar power.
>>And by the way... Nuclear reactors (and other generating sources) shut
>>down all the time for lots of reasons, don't they? And they do it pretty
>>quickly, too. Why is this less problematic for the electicity grid than
>>a (much less rapid) weather-induced PV slowdown? The beauty of distrib-
>>uted sources is that they are LESS likely to fail concurrently, causing
>>fewer problems overall.
>All the generating sources under the control of the utility are tied
>together into a total management system. They can thus be ready for
>graceful handoffs from one system to another if one of the systems
>needs to go down. Weather related PV shutdowns are less graceful because
>they are uncontrollable widespread outages. It's still not much of an
>issue as long as total PV capacity is a small fraction of system demand
>such that other online generation sources can gracefully pick up the
>load, but if PV becomes a major part of the grid supply, then real
>problems present themselves.
So don't depend on PV solely. However, I thnk PV's can handle a large
portion without causing problems. Energy can be stored for later use. If
all else fails, just buy electricity from somebody else on the grid. I
think that solar power systems will lure power companies because they'll
be generating power during the highest demand hours of the day. They could be
more expensive than other ways of generating power (i.e. nuclear), yet still
be profitable.
Karl
Karl Hallowell Department of Mathematics and CS
ka...@tinuviel.cs.wcu.edu Western Carolina University
(704) - 227 - 7245 Cullowhee, NC 28742.
--
Karl Hallowell Department of Mathematics and CS
ka...@tinuviel.cs.wcu.edu Western Carolina University
(704) - 227 - 7245 Cullowhee, NC 28742.
Gary Coffman
>ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Well of course cost for reliable 7x24 electricity is the issue. And
>>protecting the plant from catastrophic loss is one of the factors in
>>costing. There shouldn't be a double standard, which is why it's valid
>>to raise this potential cost constraint on solar and wind systems.
>>Nukes have to be designed to withstand any credible scenario, regardless
>>of actual plant siting. For example, they *all* have to be designed to
>>withstand a fully laden 747 impact on the containment, even if they're
>>sited nowhere near airliner flight paths. Solar advocates like to gloss
>>these issues over when it comes to their systems. They want to use best
>>case numbers for output while ignoring as many system costs as possible.
>
>It seems to me that solar power has a big advantage here. Solar and wind
>systems don't need the infrastructure that a nuclear plant does. Similarly
>the maintainance costs are much lower. However, they produce much less power
>which tends to negate the advantage.
No, solar and wind are the big losers here. They need a vastly larger
and vastly more dispersed infrastucture than nuclear, including monumental
issues of *storage*, in order to meet reliable 7x24 electrical demand.
>I think that these systems are really incomparable. For small systems,
>solar and wind power are more flexible. For big requirements, nothing
>fits the bill like a nuclear power plant. A nuclear plant would not be used
>to power a few dozen houses, and the city of New York can't be run with
>solar power.
I agree that large baseload is out of solar and wind reach, but even
a few dozen houses can be usually powered cheaper, and more efficiently,
by the grid than by solar and wind. It's only when they are far from an
existing grid, and storage issues can be resolved, that solar and wind
become the preferred choice. Even in those cases it's sometimes better
to use a diesel generator set, micro-hydro, or forego electricity usage
altogether in favor of other methods, such as gas lights and gas powered
refrigeration and primary battery powered essential electrical loads.
>>All the generating sources under the control of the utility are tied
>>together into a total management system. They can thus be ready for
>>graceful handoffs from one system to another if one of the systems
>>needs to go down. Weather related PV shutdowns are less graceful because
>>they are uncontrollable widespread outages. It's still not much of an
>>issue as long as total PV capacity is a small fraction of system demand
>>such that other online generation sources can gracefully pick up the
>>load, but if PV becomes a major part of the grid supply, then real
>>problems present themselves.
>
>So don't depend on PV solely. However, I thnk PV's can handle a large
>portion without causing problems. Energy can be stored for later use. If
>all else fails, just buy electricity from somebody else on the grid. I
>think that solar power systems will lure power companies because they'll
>be generating power during the highest demand hours of the day. They could be
>more expensive than other ways of generating power (i.e. nuclear), yet still
>be profitable.
Storage is a *big* question mark. Pumped hydro is the only really
viable method, and it has site and environmental problems, as well
as being rather expensive. As to just buying electricity from the
grid, that's almost always the best choice, buy it from someone with
a nuke plant *all* the time and forget about solar and wind. Note
that in many climates, other than Southern California, peak demand
does *not* occur in the middle of the day. In Georgia it occurs in
the evening, and in the Northeast it's a nighttime peak as well.
Industrial usage is 7x24 while residential usage is mostly in the
evenings and at night. Only office/retail usage is somewhat tied to
the sun.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <756405...@flash.ra.anl.gov>,
>P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 <b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>As far as I know, your last sentence shows that you have not been following the
>>threads on pyroprocessing (IFR). The demonstration phase (culminating from
>>10 years ACTIVE (not speculative paper studies) research and development out
>>here and else where (Japan) indicate that the techology is closer than you think.
>>
>
>You have been somewhat less than forthcoming on this issue before.
>Has the feasability of on site reprocessing without use of solvents
> been actually demonstrated (that is, with an experiment not a simulation)?
Victor, Victor, Victor.
Not only has the feasability been demonstrated at ANL-E CTD, but full scale
demonstration tests are only months away.If I have not been forthcoming then it
is no fault of my own. I have offered to send you alot of information, and even
volunteered at personal risk, some information which a more prudent individual may
not offer. I do feel it is necessary to set the record straight. Your arguments
against the status quo nuclear are pretty much standard fare these days , even by those
who are working in the field. However, I do take exception to the use of old
historical archival data (you have constantly cited references in the 60's and
70's- which has been shown to be inappropriate knowing what we know today ) to
illustrate your side.
I do feel the existing nuclear paradigm has had a myriad of cards stacked against
it (read the Rhodes book), and that the technology has not been allowed to
evolve to its potential. There are alot of people who know that this technology
can be made viable- from an economic, environmental and safety point of view. What
is going on in Eastern Idaho represents a culmination of what a next generation
nuclear can bring. THere are the finest minds in the world working on this solution,
and now we are more visible to policy makers, so it is prudent to be cautious and
yet forthright.
> If so, please include a reference.
There are too many
references to cite, however, please refer to the last chapter of Pulitzer
Prize winner Richard Rhodes book "Nuclear Renewal" -
It was shown in 1986, a few months before Chernobyl, that engineers here turned
off the coolant pumps to EBR-II, and watched the reactor shut itself down. This
has been well documented in the technical literature and popular press, a fact you
still will not acknowledge. Refer to S.Fistedis, "The EBR-II Inherrent Safety Demonstration
Holland Press 1986,
>
>>>What? It is always possible for some schmuck to turn off all of the
>>>safety systems and a runaway reactor fire with breach of containment
>>>is possible in the US, only the probabilities are debated. I don't
>>>know what a "no gravity based" safety system is.
>>
>>Same rationale applies to airline pilots. Whats preventing some unbalanced flight
>>captain from killing us all?
>
>We do not have designers of government subsidized airplanes telling us that
>their safety interlocks make accidents impossible. Perhaps the risk
>of nuclear disaster is worth taking, but it is absurd to
>claim that these risks can be completely eliminated.
>
I dont think any nuclear engineer worth his/her salt would accept your premise that
risks can be completely eliminated, not in this world at least. However, as
Rhodes has pointed out, even the UCS figures indicate the LLE (loss of life equivalent
for operating a nuclear plant is 3 days vice much more for coal plants. It makes
no sense to build a coal plant which would over its life lead to 30,000 deaths by
C02, pollution, radon emission (yes radon in the coal gets into the atmospphere
UNMONITORED)
>>Its called multiple backups and strength of character.
>>Ever wonder what it takes to operate a plant (in terms of mental stability,
>>intellectual capability, and focus?)
>
>The answer to this has been made dismally clear.
Huh? It is obvious your contempt for nuclear engineers
has clouded your thinking.
>
>>>>Anyway, I just don't think it is much of a problem from the scientific point
>>>>of view. I guess politically the problems are still growing.
>>>
>>>The Union of Concerned Scientists claims otherwise.
>>>
>>
>>The Union of "Concerned Scientists" are neither.
>
>And what credentials do you have that make it possible for you to
Oh nothing, just a lot of paper I can hang on the wall, just like
any other garden variety academic you trod out. THe difference is the
real world experience which puts me in a better position to understand
shortcomings as well as positives.
If I had an analog in the aerospace
industry, that person would have flown 747s, and have about 12 years
of college/advanced training. Pretty hard to find, unless you count
some astronauts.
>claim the Kendall and Weiskopf are not scientists?
Whether or not one uses the scientific method (ala Feynman) to back
up a hypothesis. THe UCS hypothesis is deeply rooted in an inherrent
bias against nuclear power, mainly due to the fact that their perceptions
have been molded from weapons usage. Most notably, as Rhodes has pointed
out, nuclear power has been an easier target to protest a moralistic
and elitist view against radiation, than weapons, mainly because those
scientists (ala Szliard et al) who spoke up against weapons were branded
subversive, and threatened with severe punishment. There is no punishment
for attacking nuclear power. In fact, it is encouraged to speak one's
mind, which can be a healthy thing.
I did not claim any particular person was not a scientist per se. However,
anyone with an adgenda can call themselves whatever they want.
BTW Rhodes gives equal time to bashing utility executives, the DOE, and
the NRC, activists, et al.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
About two minutes. One to go and get the ladder. Another one to climb
and throw it off. The point is that if you want it to roll off by itself,
have an angled roof. Thats why good designs take advantage of
the laws of nature. Check out Natural Circulation, Negative
Feedback, things lacking at Chernobyl. Even our current crop of nuclear plants
have those features. What is needed is less human
intervention in any highly complex venture. Tell that to those people
downwind of Bhopal.
Your premise that man is incapable of mastering his world leads me to wonder
why such a Luddite would want to involve himself in computer technology,
when the potential for abuse and human suffering is evident. Ever try
and correct an incorrect credit rating? What of "Fail Safe? Big Brother?
Heck, for that matter, practically every control system is computer driven.
Got a gripe about technology?...Get the log out of your eye before noticeing
the spinter in your brother's....
Michael Raynold Zika
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 <b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov> wrote:
>In article <1993Dec21.1...@Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu> yoda...@chelm.uucp () writes:
>>In article <756405...@flash.ra.anl.gov>,
>>P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 <b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>As far as I know, your last sentence shows that you have not been following
>>>the threads on pyroprocessing (IFR). The demonstration phase (culminating
>>>from 10 years ACTIVE (not speculative paper studies) research and development
>>>out here and else where (Japan) indicate that the techology is closer than
>>>you think.
>>You have been somewhat less than forthcoming on this issue before.
>>Has the feasability of on site reprocessing without use of solvents
>>been actually demonstrated (that is, with an experiment not a simulation)?
>Not only has the feasability been demonstrated at ANL-E CTD, but full scale
>demonstration tests are only months away. If I have not been forthcoming then
>it is no fault of my own. I have offered to send you alot of information, and
>even volunteered at personal risk, some information which a more prudent
>individual may not offer.
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that this thread started with a discussion
of the reprocessing options surrounding the current LWR oxide fuel. On this
topic, I don't think the EBR-II project has been able to demonstrate feasibility
of processing spent oxide fuel into a metal fuel cycle. I believe Victor
(pardon me for putting words into your mouth) was inquiring into the feasibility
of a fuel management scheme which incorporates the present day reactor fuel
and the possiblity of a metal-fueled fuel cycle.
Please cite any references contradicting the above. One of the open questions
when last I was in Idaho was an efficient method of charging spent LWR fuel
into the metal fuel cycle.
>Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
--
Michael Zika (zi...@fatman.tamu.edu) | Hey don't ask me "why?",
Texas A&M University | I'm still working on "how?" !
School of Nuclear Engineering |
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
A very good point. And in time, one which will be answered. We have to learn to crawl
before we can walk. If all LWR fuel could be pyroprocessed in an IFR, what more
would you want?
I think there is some historical confusion here since in the early days, solvent
extraction was practiced here. I think what VY wanted was some info on any non-solvent
extraction process. Notably, the pyroprocess is about the closest one can get to
non-solvent reclaimation. From his posts, he may not be aware of the work being done
here, nor the importance of it, nor whats at stake.
>
>Please cite any references contradicting the above. One of the open questions
>when last I was in Idaho was an efficient method of charging spent LWR fuel
>into the metal fuel cycle.
There are on-going studies wrt LWR fuel. However,the present focus has been
to illustrate that the integrated process can be demonstrated within the
metal fueled fast reactor concept. This is a major accomplishment in itself.
Allthough the option to recycle LWR fuel is in itself a separate issue, the cart
should not be placed before the horse wrt to the overall mission and concept. Just
getting the word out that LWR fuel could possibly be pyroprocessed much like metal
fuel opens even the most ardent skeptics ears that maybe, things can be simple.
I know that the cavalcade of utility executives which have been here, have asked
that very question. Many PUC execs agree. Japan surely does, and Monju runs a MOX fuel.
My guess is that something will have to be done to deal with the oxide part of
the fuel. The zirc or ss clad would come out as husks and the fuel meat would have
Alas, my baliwick is not electrochemistry.
to be refabricated as metal fuelled assemblies, to be burned in the IFR.
>Michael Zika (zi...@fatman.tamu.edu) | Hey don't ask me "why?",
>Texas A&M University | I'm still working on "how?" !
>School of Nuclear Engineering |
Thanks for your question. I appreciate it.
____________________________________________________________________
Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
Paul Dietz
> My guess is that something will have to be done to deal with the oxide
> part of the fuel.
I thought the idea was to react the fuel with calcium metal or
calcium hydride to reduce the actinides to metals before
the electrolytic step. Does this not work (say, does too
much of the actinides end up in the calcium oxide slag)?
Paul
yoda...@chelm.uucp
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 <b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov> wrote:
>In article <1993Dec21.1...@Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu> yoda...@chelm.uucp () writes:
>>In article <756405...@flash.ra.anl.gov>,
>>P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 <b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>As far as I know, your last sentence shows that you have not been following the
>>>threads on pyroprocessing (IFR). The demonstration phase (culminating from
>>>10 years ACTIVE (not speculative paper studies) research and development out
>>>here and else where (Japan) indicate that the techology is closer than you think.
>>>
>>
>>You have been somewhat less than forthcoming on this issue before.
>>Has the feasability of on site reprocessing without use of solvents
>> been actually demonstrated (that is, with an experiment not a simulation)?
>
>Victor, Victor, Victor.
>
>Not only has the feasability been demonstrated at ANL-E CTD, but full scale
>demonstration tests are only months away.If I have not been forthcoming then it
What all this stuff about EBR-II's self-shutdown has to do with this
discussion is beyond me.
Once again, I do not know of any demonstrated methods for recycling
fission wastes that to not involve use of solvents and the production
of toxic wastes of no commercial value. I'd be happy to see a
reference showing otherwise.
Jeff Bailey
>Your premise that man is incapable of mastering his world leads me to wonder
>why such a Luddite would want to involve himself in computer technology,
>when the potential for abuse and human suffering is evident. Ever try
>and correct an incorrect credit rating? What of "Fail Safe? Big Brother?
>Heck, for that matter, practically every control system is computer driven.
Sorry, Peter, it's no premise--it's a fact, and it's proven all the time.
The world is much too complex a place for us to claim ownership. I prefer
to think that we learn from nature, rather than master it. But perhaps the
most important lesson we can learn from nature is humility. Nature does
what it wants, when it wants. We're much better off learning to adapt.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
Victor.Victor.Victor.
THe combination of metal fuel's safe shutdown followed by metal
fuel's pyroprecess is the discussion. As I recall, your knowledge base
only stems from a cursory treatment of solvent extraction. I pointed
you in the right direction to get info on electrorefining metal fuel.
I dont understand what more do you want. Electrorefining is not
solvent extraction so ergo, your requirements to identify a recycle
method other than solvent extraction have been met. What more do you
want? To hear about it on the 6 o'clock news? Parse the literature
on electrorefining of spent nuclear fuel, and you will find literallly
hundreds of references.
I dont look at plutonium as a toxic waste, rather a resource which
needs to be exploited, as fuel, rather than buried in the ground.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
Jeff,
We are all just temporary structures on this planet, and I in no way claim
ownership for it. I do claim ownership of my actions as Prof. Covey states
in his "Seven Habilts of Highly Effective People". We all must bear some
personal responsibility for our actions. We CAN learn from nature, that is
the point. A nuclear reactor which uses nature to its advantage is proving
to be more simple than man's need to "Rube Goldberg" or quick fix a problem.
You bring up an interesting point of adaptation. Like John Hollands "Adaptation
in Natural and Artificial Systems", the most rapid adaptation takes place
at the onset of understanding. We as a species are only coming to this onset
of understanding of the natural world. Technology is just man's expression
of his needs through this understanding. THus, technology evolves as man
evolves in his thinking. My thesis is that since mans understanding of flight
has evolved, so has his level of understanding and implemtation of air travel,
space travel evolved. Man's ability to communicate is only very recent (10,000
years) however his level of understanding takes quantum leaps with communication
application.
All I said was that if other vehicles of mans expression has evolved (language,
social structures,technology) then it is inevitable that man will never suit
the needs of the world, which is evolving, but at a much lower time scale.
Thus we have no choice, by your own words, but to adopt a life strategy not
on our terms, but on the terms of the world. ANd this is why I advocate a more
simpler,more natural approach to nuclear power. What I don't understand is the
lack of understanding on those who bash the past, to allow the technology to
evolve into a more compatible form. No the next generation of nuclear will not
be anything like the present. Its called applying your lessons learned.
Man's developments can co-exist in the natural world. A perfect example of this
is the house built into the mountain in SO.Cal. It was the only one standing after
the fire which destroyed all those homes
Michael Raynold Zika
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 <b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov> wrote:
>In article <2f9tvh$b...@TAMUTS.TAMU.EDU> mrz...@TAMUTS.TAMU.EDU (Michael Raynold Zika) writes:
>>I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that this thread started with a
>>discussion of the reprocessing options surrounding the current LWR oxide
>>fuel. On this topic, I don't think the EBR-II project has been able to
>>demonstrate feasibility of processing spent oxide fuel into a metal fuel
>>cycle. I believe Victor (pardon me for putting words into your mouth) was
>>inquiring into the feasibility of a fuel management scheme which incorporates
>>the present day reactor fuel and the possiblity of a metal-fueled fuel cycle.
>A very good point. And in time, one which will be answered. We have to learn
>to crawl before we can walk. If all LWR fuel could be pyroprocessed in an IFR,
>what more would you want?
Indeed, this would be great option in the overall nuclear fuel cycle. However,
I think that Argonne is selling the fast reactor as a "waste burner". Don't
we need to know that there is some viable methodology for charging spent LWR
waste to the metal fuel cycle before we can tout this reactor as an answer
to our spent fuel problems in this country?
If we are going to call it a Metal Fueled Fast Reactor, then fine -- EBR-II
is an _excellent_ demonstration process for an integral fuel cycle. If we
are going to call it a Plutonium Burner, again, fine -- EBR-II can be used
to demonstrate that mission. But, it seems to me that the fast reactor concept
as a transmutation device for spent LWR fuel has many, many important
unanswered questions remaining...
>>Please cite any references contradicting the above. One of the open questions
>>when last I was in Idaho was an efficient method of charging spent LWR fuel
>>into the metal fuel cycle.
>There are on-going studies wrt LWR fuel.
Could you post the present efforts that show promise (if there are no
proprietary issues, of course). I would be interested to know who is doing
the work and in what direction they are focusing...
>My guess is that something will have to be done to deal with the oxide part of
>the fuel. The zirc or ss clad would come out as husks and the fuel meat would
>have
> Alas, my baliwick is not electrochemistry.
>to be refabricated as metal fuelled assemblies, to be burned in the IFR.
That sounds like it would involve a PUREX-like process to get the oxide and
higher actinides to separate. I don't think that we can input oxide fuel
directly to the pyroprocess -- the oxide wouldn't be ionized particles in
solution, would they?
>Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
--
Douglas A. Harrell
>Once again, I do not know of any demonstrated methods for recycling
>fission wastes that to not involve use of solvents and the production
>of toxic wastes of no commercial value. I'd be happy to see a
>reference showing otherwise.
Gee, Yack, I'm sittin' here looking at pictures of electrorfined
uranium and plut. Not drawings, photographs of the real thing.
10 kg of U to be specific. Can't tell how much plut.
References? Well, let's see there's:
1. Insight, Jan 23, 1989 "A Safer Breed of Reactor in Sight", R Lipkin.
2. Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, Vol 8, 1992,
"Integral Fast Reactor", JC Courtney, MJ Lineberry.
3. Ann. nucl. Energy., Vol. 16, No. 6,pp301-305,1989, Great Brit.,
"Advanced Reactor Development", ed., MMR Williams.
4. Nuclear Engineering International, November 1992,
"Integrating the fuel cycle at IFR", CE Till, YI Chang.
A couple of these have some nice photos, #4 particularly, but I have a
few color glossies that were sent to me by the nice folks at ANL-W
just for asking. Have you bothered to read anything on the IFR and
it's fuel cycle, or are you just blindly, fearfully bashing again?
I really, honestly don't think you have a clue in the world what
you're talking about, Yack. You're just afraid of something
you don't understand.
--
Douglas Alan Harrell
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Internet: gt0...@prism.gatech.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------