Complimentary technologies (was Re: myth busting)
John G. De Armond
>Reading the above, it seems to me that Nuclear and Solar make excellent
>COMPLIMENTARY technologies. Using solar to provide peak power and nuke to
>supply the base load is a win-win situation in my eyes.
This is true. Turn the wick up on the nukes and let them cook. The problem
that must be addressed, however, providing high bandwidth peaking backup
capacity to fill in for solar when the clouds come. While some degree
of smoothing can be expected by incorporating heat storage at thermal sites
or batteries at electrical sites, the problem is only slightly mitigated.
An ideal, high bandwidth peaking generator could be designed around the
Navy's nuclear propultion systems. With some sub reactors being capable
of going from shutdown to full output (80-100 MWt) in <10 seconds, this
kind of bandwidth is ideally suited for peaking. Of course, I can already
hear the Greenies howling at the thought of a few Kg of 97% enriched
U-235 laying around in a core. Another political problem to solve.
>Why do the vocal pro(op)ponents of these methods of power generation
>constantly ignore this fact?
Well, us proponents of reliable power generation do not ignore these facts.
Indeed, in a proper engineering environment, we promote these very schemes.
It is the reckless suggestions that involve replacing reliable and clean
capacity with vaporware that disturbes us. And once we realize that
nuclear safety is not the real agenda of the antis, it becomes much easier
to understand why THEY "ignore" such technology.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress
Radiation Systems, Inc. | than we can prostitution on pimps. Both simply
Atlanta, Ga | provide broker services for their customers.
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| - Dr. W Williams | **I am the NRA**
Mike Smith
>m...@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Hofer) writes:
>>Reading the above, it seems to me that Nuclear and Solar make excellent
>>COMPLIMENTARY technologies. Using solar to provide peak power and nuke to
>>supply the base load is a win-win situation in my eyes.
>This is true. Turn the wick up on the nukes and let them cook. The problem
>that must be addressed, however, providing high bandwidth peaking backup
>capacity to fill in for solar when the clouds come. While some degree
>of smoothing can be expected by incorporating heat storage at thermal sites
>or batteries at electrical sites, the problem is only slightly mitigated.
For much of the best use of solar this wouldn't be much of a problem.
Solar is best matched, both seasonal and daily, to air conditioning loads
in the south west. Since the cloud tends to come in off the ocean and
the best solar sites are farther inland, the A/C demand will be dropping
a little before the solar supply drops. If you try using solar for
cooking lunch in December you may have a problem, though.
The easiest backup would be a gas fired boiler sited at the solar plant.
You already have the working fluid and generator going. If the sunshine
drops too low, fire up the gas burner to fill in the gaps! That way
you don't have to duplicate most of the capacity and plant; just the
heat source.
>An ideal, high bandwidth peaking generator could be designed around the
>Navy's nuclear propultion systems. With some sub reactors being capable
>of going from shutdown to full output (80-100 MWt) in <10 seconds, this
>kind of bandwidth is ideally suited for peaking. Of course, I can already
>hear the Greenies howling at the thought of a few Kg of 97% enriched
>U-235 laying around in a core. Another political problem to solve.
Oddly enough, though I have had reservations about the safety of
commercial operations (and some bomb operations) the Nuclear Navy has
been something I've always felt safe about. The attitude of the folks
who run it is great. Too bad the admiral who set the tone is gone from
the helm ... I still haven't quite identified why, but I don't mind
sharing the bay with the Enterprise while I don't trust Diablo ...
Maybe we should put the Navy in charge of power generation? ;-)
--
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.
John G. De Armond
>In article <21...@rsiatl.UUCP> j...@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes:
>>m...@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Hofer) writes:
>For much of the best use of solar this wouldn't be much of a problem.
>Solar is best matched, both seasonal and daily, to air conditioning loads
>in the south west.
One more time, The world does not revolve around the Southwest. (I'm
beginning to sound like a stuck record.) While solar is attractive
for the Southwest, it will not be so nice for other parts of the US,
especially most of the East.
>The easiest backup would be a gas fired boiler sited at the solar plant.
>You already have the working fluid and generator going. If the sunshine
>drops too low, fire up the gas burner to fill in the gaps! That way
>you don't have to duplicate most of the capacity and plant; just the
>heat source.
Not necessarily true. Assuming that low temperature (compared to
fossil/nuclear) solar collectors are used in conjunction with
non-aqueous working fluids (freon, [Oh No, Mr. Bill.....], etc),
substituting a combustion thermal source would be poor economics.
Almost every component, from the boiler to the turbine is markedly
different in going from a low pressure, probably saturated steam
system to a high pressure, superheated system. While the lower efficiency
inherent in low temperature solar systems is not per se bad, it is very much
so when the fuel must be paid for. Besides wasting gas, it would be poor
policy to allocate high quality chemical feedstock/residential fuel for
electricity generation. This assumes, of course, that our objective is
to optimize the usage of resources.
>Oddly enough, though I have had reservations about the safety of
>commercial operations (and some bomb operations) the Nuclear Navy has
>been something I've always felt safe about.
This is a fine example of where myth and fact diverge. The navy does
run a fine program. But they've had more *serious* accidents than
all the commercial programs in all the countries of the world combined.
I know of several total core failures. One that is not classified happened
at a the Westinghouse research facility in in Pittsburg. The Navy's
reputation stems mainly from a combination of excellent public relations,
rigid military training, and mostly, secrecy. Most aspects of reactor
operation, especially problem reports are classified. I think we
may have hit upon the solution to the civilian nuclear program's
public relations problem :-)
>The attitude of the folks
>who run it is great. Too bad the admiral who set the tone is gone from
>the helm ...
I had the unfortunate opportunity to share an office with His Imperial
Majesty, the Supreme Admiral Hyman Rickhover at Three Mile Island shortly
after he retired. GPU rented him for a few months as a public
relations stunt. He seemed totally lost in an environment where when
he grunted "shit", 2 dozen men did not squat and strain.... His stay
was ineffective (understatement).
>I still haven't quite identified why, but I don't mind
>sharing the bay with the Enterprise while I don't trust Diablo ...
You see, I look at it quite the opposite. Besides the fact that
naval reactors use highly enriched fuel, have vastly greater reactivity
margins (to be able to override xenon posioning under all conditions),
much less stable control systems (again for rapid response), and
the existance of a "battle short" switch (a switch that bypasses all
safety systems in the event of emergency), the naval system is regulated
by itself. Just like DOE.. Just like Hanford...
Actually I have no problem with either program. I just wanted to point out
how the media shapes public opinion totally uncoupled with reality.
Mike Smith
>e...@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>>In article <21...@rsiatl.UUCP> j...@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes:
>>>m...@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Hofer) writes:
>>For much of the best use of solar this wouldn't be much of a problem.
>>Solar is best matched, both seasonal and daily, to air conditioning loads
>>in the south west.
>One more time, The world does not revolve around the Southwest. (I'm
>beginning to sound like a stuck record.)
Yes, I can agree to that... ;-)
That doesn't change the fact that it is 'the best use of solar'.
>>The easiest backup would be a gas fired boiler sited at the solar plant.
>>You already have the working fluid and generator going. If the sunshine
>>drops too low, fire up the gas burner to fill in the gaps! That way
>>you don't have to duplicate most of the capacity and plant; just the
>>heat source.
>Not necessarily true. Assuming that low temperature (compared to
>fossil/nuclear) solar collectors are used in conjunction with
>non-aqueous working fluids (freon, [Oh No, Mr. Bill.....], etc),
>substituting a combustion thermal source would be poor economics.
Temperature is a design choice. Best solar todate is solar thermal
with a hot working fluid (~700 degrees F, if memory serves, for Luz)
and a non-aqueous working fluid (that isn't freon ) heating a steam
loop. While there are theoretical cases where gas backup would be
poor economics, there are real plants that use it just fine since it
was part of the design.
[long discussion of low pressure vs high pressure steam design
differences deleted; since it doesn't apply to todays production plant.]
>it would be poor
>policy to allocate high quality chemical feedstock/residential fuel for
>electricity generation.
And yet it is what is done today at gas turbine plants all over
the world. 'Poor policy' is an interesting term. It isn't poor
economic policy, since the plants that use it are making a profit.
It isn't poor public policy, since it keeps smog emissions low and
is a very effective way for our society to meet the peak demand for
electricity. Perhaps you mean poor technical policy since there is
some higher use that the material could be used for, if there were
enough market?
Natural gas is rather cheap at present. When it runs low, we can
gassify coal. There is no reason to expect that the demand for
chemical feedstock is going to make a giant leap from it's present
levels, but if it does the industrial fuel demand for gas can be met
by coal; methanol from coal can substitute for methanol from gas
as chemical feedstock. (similar substitutions are available for other
natural gas derived feedstocks; at a higher price than at present.)
There should be a smooth substitution of then 'cheaper' coal
gases for natural gas with the natural gas going to chemical feedstock
as the price rise justifies it. This should be followed by an
increase in coal derived feedstocks as prices warrant.
Or are you advocating that price levels should not be used to
determine the use of assets?
Mike Smith
>e...@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>>In article <21...@rsiatl.UUCP> j...@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes:
>>Oddly enough, though I have had reservations about the safety of
>>commercial operations (and some bomb operations) the Nuclear Navy has
>>been something I've always felt safe about.
>This is a fine example of where myth and fact diverge. The navy does
>run a fine program. But they've had more *serious* accidents than
>all the commercial programs in all the countries of the world combined.
>I know of several total core failures. One that is not classified happened
>at a the Westinghouse research facility in in Pittsburg. The Navy's
>reputation stems mainly from a combination of excellent public relations,
>rigid military training, and mostly, secrecy. Most aspects of reactor
>operation, especially problem reports are classified. I think we
>may have hit upon the solution to the civilian nuclear program's
>public relations problem :-)
Could well be. I've never stated that my feelings of safety had any
relationship to real risk... The fact that the guy running the reactor
in a sub was sitting right next to it, and was gonna get fried or drown
if he screwed up too much, seems like an effective motivator...
>>I still haven't quite identified why, but I don't mind
>>sharing the bay with the Enterprise while I don't trust Diablo ...
>You see, I look at it quite the opposite.
[list of why Navy reactors are less enherently stable deleted]
>Actually I have no problem with either program. I just wanted to point out
>how the media shapes public opinion totally uncoupled with reality.
I'm not sure how much of my opinion vis a vis Navy nuclear was shaped
by media and how much was shaped by my friends in the Navy. I expect
that alot of it was formed around my best buddy from high school being
in the Navy, along with a few dozen other close friends. On the Navy,
I'm a bit biased ... those guys are just Damned Good.
Per the Enterprise; maybe it's the fact that I don't have to worry about
a fault line under it :-) (or terrorists ;-0 )
John G. De Armond
>Could well be. I've never stated that my feelings of safety had any
>relationship to real risk... The fact that the guy running the reactor
>in a sub was sitting right next to it, and was gonna get fried or drown
>if he screwed up too much, seems like an effective motivator...
On the other hand, the civilian SRO is the final authority regarding
what happens to the reactor. If he does not feel an operation is safe,
he can stop it regardless. The navy nuke operator, on the other hand,
is oblidged to take and execute orders. And, of course, there are
instances of things that arise on a nuke sub that might just make
the op grab the battle short switch and get the hell out of Dodge -
and risk killing himself in the process. The point being that in
both cases, there are powerful motivating forces at work to ensure
as safe an operation as is physically possible.
>Per the Enterprise; maybe it's the fact that I don't have to worry about
>a fault line under it :-) (or terrorists ;-0 )
Of course, torpedos and mines are rare at civilian facilities :-)
Chuck Henkel
> I'm not sure how much of my opinion vis a vis Navy nuclear was shaped
> by media and how much was shaped by my friends in the Navy. I expect
> that alot of it was formed around my best buddy from high school being
> in the Navy, along with a few dozen other close friends. On the Navy,
> I'm a bit biased ... those guys are just Damned Good.
But wait: when those guys leave the Navy where do you think they go?
A lot of them go straight into commercial nuclear power. At least
that's the impression I have after meeting so many nuclear operations
people with Navy backgrounds.
--
| Chuck Henkel | |
| N.C. State University | Curious about evolution? |
| Department of Nuclear Engineering | Read Stephen J. Gould. |
| henkel%ne...@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu | |