"Need Nukes Now" - so says Silicon Valley Execs
fun...@my-deja.com
Need for Nuclear Power
Feb. 13, 2001 - Stung by the electricity shortages that have plagued
California this winter, two of the world’s top technology executives have
extolled the value of nuclear energy in recent weeks.
Last Thursday, at a National Press Club Newsmaker Luncheon in
Washington, D.C., Scott McNealy, chairman of the board and chief
executive officer of Sun Microsystems, spoke of California’s energy woes
and the impact they are having on his Palo Alto-based company and its
employees.
"This country needs to figure out an energy policy ... and I’m going to
do the politically incorrect thing and tell you the answer’s going to be
nuclear power. I have not yet heard anybody utter the phrase ‘nuclear
power’ in California yet. But in terms of environmental and cost and
competitiveness and all the rest of it, I just don't see any other solution
..
Rolling blackouts are a bad thing."
Just one month earlier, Craig Barrett, president and chief executive officer
of Santa Clara-based Intel Corp., voiced similar views on the urgent need
for the reliable, low-cost, bulk electricity that nuclear power plants
provide. As reported by Bloomberg News on Jan. 9, Barrett said his
company "was unlikely to expand in Silicon Valley and would instead
consider building in such far-flung locations as Ireland and Israel
because California’s energy crisis had made power supplies unreliable."
Barrett criticized government officials for blocking new power plants, and
said, "Nuclear power is the only answer but it’s politically incorrect."
McNealy said that, beyond his willingness to speak up, politicians need
to exhibit the leadership to shape a comprehensive energy policy that will
serve the national interest. "I’m happy to take the lead and take the
arrows if that’s what it takes, but I think the politicians have got to step
up and start driving this and come up with a better energy policy that
includes nuclear power."
above from http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?docid=711
I hope the executives are correct. However, at the current time, the answer
to power shortages isn't expected to be relatively safe, clean, affordable
nukes. It's going to be increased reliance on burning natural gas in
combustion turbines - lot of them.
--
fungee... Unsolicited commercial email (spam) is not desired. Senders
of spam will help me beta test new virii, mailbombs, and/or DoS attacks.
Sending spam to this address constitutes agreement to these terms.
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Graham Cowan
The people are told they don't like nukes;
Wayne will probably soon do his best to remind those in this forum
of their opinion, and if he doesn't, many state-fed talkers will.
It is an error for a self-supporting person like Barrett to take any
part in this effort, however.
---
Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydrogen?
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html#BoronDecombusted
steve spence
energy policy.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
ssp...@webconx.com
(212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children.
--
<fun...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:96rl4k$sbh$1...@news.netmar.com...
ant
"steve spence" <ssp...@webconx.com> wrote in message
news:abgk6.75559$%g3.12...@news02.optonline.net...
> I hope the execs stick with what they know, computers, and stay out of
> energy policy.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
> http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
>
> Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> ssp...@webconx.com
> (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
> we borrow it from our children.
> --
>
> <fun...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:96rl4k$sbh$1...@news.netmar.com...
> > Silicon Valley Executives Cite the
> > Need for Nuclear Power
> >
> > Feb. 13, 2001 - Stung by the electricity shortages that have plagued
> > California this winter, two of the world's top technology executives
have
> > extolled the value of nuclear energy in recent weeks.
> >
so if they start building now they will be ready to start pumping power into
the californian grid in about 5 years, real quick solution to the energy
crisis, now on the other hand if they increased investment in wind turbines
the power would start arriveing in the grid within a year, or if they
invested in energy efficeny measures the flow on would be even faster.
ant
Magnus Redin
> so if they start building now they will be ready to start pumping
> power into the californian grid in about 5 years, real quick
> solution to the energy crisis, now on the other hand if they
> increased investment in wind turbines the power would start
> arriveing in the grid within a year, or if they invested in energy
> efficeny measures the flow on would be even faster.
Building nuclear powerplants will not help the current crisis but the
next one wont happen. Besides for how long do the natural gas lasts if
the demand increases? And is there enough gas pipelines? Gas pipelines
takes longer to build then gas powerplants. You might be forced to
fuel the new powerplants with oil and you dont want to have that as a
permanent solution.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society re...@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046 and (0)13 214600
John McCarthy
> I hope the execs stick with what they know, computers, and stay out of
> energy policy.
They did until now. They left energy policy to the environmentalists.
It got them rolling blackouts.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
steve spence
advisors.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
ssp...@webconx.com
(212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children.
--
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4hitm6...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
John McCarthy
> > Feb. 13, 2001 - Stung by the electricity shortages that have plagued
> > California this winter, two of the world's top technology executives
have
> > extolled the value of nuclear energy in recent weeks.
> >
so if they start building now they will be ready to start
pumping power into the californian grid in about 5 years,
real quick solution to the energy crisis, now on the other
hand if they increased investment in wind turbines the power
would start arriveing in the grid within a year, or if they
invested in energy efficeny measures the flow on would be
even faster.
The computer companies don't want to go into the energy
business. The state of California is taking proposals to supply
electricity at fixed prices. None of the present proposals
involve wind turbines. Judging from the AWEA web page which
lists capacity but not actual outputs, the wind energy companies
are relying on some kind of subsidies and are not ready to sign
contracts - with definite prices and penalties for non-delivery.
All the present proposals involve natural gas.
The Silicon Valley executives have reason to fear shortages of
natural gas.
Natural gas now, and nukes at present gas prices.
j...@watson.ibm.com
on 19 Feb 2001 15:32:15 -0800,
John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> writes:
>"steve spence" <ssp...@webconx.com> writes:
>
>> I hope the execs stick with what they know, computers, and stay out of
>> energy policy.
>
>They did until now. They left energy policy to the environmentalists.
>It got them rolling blackouts.
This is just nonsense. Environmentalists can plausibly be
blamed for raising the price of electricity. However the blackouts are
basically a market failure caused by the price cap on the retail price
of electricity which is preventing the market from clearing in the
normal way. This is similar to other market failures caused by price
controls such as the gas lines in the 70's and is not the fault of
environmentalists.
Also the stupidity of the utilities should be mentioned.
They agreed to a deregulation law which left them with unlimited
exposure to a surge in wholesale electricity prices which as far
as I know they did not hedge in any way. Rather makes you wonder
if they can be trusted to operate a nuclear power plant.
James B. Shearer
Ian St. John
<j...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:20010219....@yktvmv.WATSON.IBM.COM...
> In article <x4hitm6...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,
> on 19 Feb 2001 15:32:15 -0800,
> John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> writes:
> >"steve spence" <ssp...@webconx.com> writes:
> >
> >> I hope the execs stick with what they know, computers, and stay out of
> >> energy policy.
> >
> >They did until now. They left energy policy to the environmentalists.
> >It got them rolling blackouts.
>
> This is just nonsense. Environmentalists can plausibly be
> blamed for raising the price of electricity. However the blackouts are
> basically a market failure caused by the price cap on the retail price
> of electricity which is preventing the market from clearing in the
> normal way. This is similar to other market failures caused by price
> controls such as the gas lines in the 70's and is not the fault of
> environmentalists.
The price cap was set high to allow utilities to pay off 'stranded costs'
from the regulation days. PG&E for example accrued $12B in extra profits for
this purpose before the 'crisis' cost them $2B. The reduction in capacity,
combined with high spot market prices, and possibly 'gaming' of the system
to increase profits drove the failure, not environmentalists, environmental
legislation, or the 'price cap'.
> Also the stupidity of the utilities should be mentioned.
> They agreed to a deregulation law which left them with unlimited
> exposure to a surge in wholesale electricity prices which as far
> as I know they did not hedge in any way. Rather makes you wonder
> if they can be trusted to operate a nuclear power plant.
In fact they reduced capacity as fast as possible to eliminate peak capacity
( which has lower profit margins ) and relied on spot markets to supply the
shortfall. The high spot prices for peak capacity gradually increased the
average cost, so the consumer paid more for the same power. The surge in
need while facing reductions in NorthWest coast hydro power for 'fill in'
set up the final crisis, while 'down for servicing' reductions by the power
companies to increase their profit on imported electricity from out-of-state
plants added fuel.
The municipal power companies had no such motive, maintaining capacity and
had no 'crisis'. The very fact that 'excess capacity' is a profit drag, yet
vital to secure power availability shows why 'market force deregulation' is
not necessarily the best strategy.
Now they get to whine about regulations restricting them, and eliminate
pollution control regulations designed to prevent deaths from dirty but
cheaper power production in a geography that already suffers from smog
problems.
> James B. Shearer
Jeffrey Siegal
> The price cap was set high to allow utilities to pay off 'stranded costs'
> from the regulation days.
Which the utilities were legally entitled to do. So what's the problem?
> PG&E for example accrued $12B in extra profits for
> this purpose
They were not "extra profits." They were recover of a cost they were
legally entitled to recover.
> before the 'crisis' cost them $2B.
The crisis has cost the utilities much more than $2 billion. According
to the PUC audit, PG&E's losses, even after netting profits from their
own generation (which is legally questionable in any case) totalled
about $5 billion as of 12/31/2000. In fact, the meter is still running,
especially if you count the taxpayer money which has now been used to
keep the lights on (running about $2 billion just in the past few
weeks).
> In fact they reduced capacity as fast as possible to eliminate peak capacity
> ( which has lower profit margins ) and relied on spot markets to supply the
> shortfall.
Selling off capacity does not reduce capacity. The capacity is still
available. Unless you can point to plants which have been
decommissioned, rather than simply changed ownership, your claim is
false.
Ian St. John
"Jeffrey Siegal" <j...@quiotix.com> wrote in message
news:3A91FA41...@quiotix.com...
> "Ian St. John" wrote:
> > The price cap was set high to allow utilities to pay off 'stranded
costs'
> > from the regulation days.
>
> Which the utilities were legally entitled to do. So what's the problem?
>
> > PG&E for example accrued $12B in extra profits for
> > this purpose
>
> They were not "extra profits." They were recover of a cost they were
> legally entitled to recover.
They were a higher rate than could be justified on the basis of power
production costs. Ergo, they were 'extra profits' Yes, they were legally
entitled to recover them, in fact legally obligated. The point is that the
price cap was not a problem and without the 'crisis' they themselves
generated by reducing peak capacity, they would have continued to make
profits.
>
> > before the 'crisis' cost them $2B.
>
> The crisis has cost the utilities much more than $2 billion. According
> to the PUC audit, PG&E's losses, even after netting profits from their
> own generation (which is legally questionable in any case) totalled
> about $5 billion as of 12/31/2000. In fact, the meter is still running,
> especially if you count the taxpayer money which has now been used to
> keep the lights on (running about $2 billion just in the past few
> weeks).
My figures are from http://www.eei.org/issues/comp_reg/ca_summer00.pdf,
though it was a month or more ago, and the link is now dead. Indeed, losses
will continue to mount due to the shortsighted policies of these companies.
Now. Did you have a point?
>
> > In fact they reduced capacity as fast as possible to eliminate peak
capacity
> > ( which has lower profit margins ) and relied on spot markets to supply
the
> > shortfall.
>
> Selling off capacity does not reduce capacity. The capacity is still
> available. Unless you can point to plants which have been
> decommissioned, rather than simply changed ownership, your claim is
> false.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/california/ca.html#t4
shows that between 1988 and 1993 there was virtually no change in utility
capacity. Yet by 1998 the capacity was about two thirds of previous levels.
. table reproduced in part below.
Table 4. Electric Power Industry Generating Capability by Plant Type, 1988,
1993, and 1998
1988 1993 1998
Total Utility 44,429 44,313 30,663
This change was due to decommisioning older plants with no replacement
planned. Note that most of the reductions were in oil fired and combined
cycle plants from before the rise in crude prices in the 70's. These had the
highest production costs and so were first to be chopped.
As is apparent by the list of utilities on the top of the page, there are
basically five large utilities and they each have their 'turf'. Selling a
plant in your own area to a competitor seems unlikely. In fact, I don't
recall it even being suggested. I've already discissed the reasons for this
decline with another poster who claimed 'environmental interference' and
'impossible siting process'. He was only able to point to the Calpine plant
as an example, and perusing the discussions by locals pointed out..
1: resistance was not based on environmental criteria
2. resistance is futile. The utility has too much clout.
John McCarthy
The environmentalists took, until the present crisis, a large share of
the credit for the fact that no power plants of any kind were built in
California over ten years. There's the state Energy Commission and
the Public Utilities Commission. They decided how much energy would
be needed.
Treeman
OK dreamer, but I hope you add the cost of decommissioning to your
estimates along with the cost of safe waste disposal, oh, and the cost
of insuring against contaminating California and Nevada so your
wonderful grapes don't poison anybody.
fungee
<spam...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
>so if they start building now they will be ready to start pumping power into
>the californian grid in about 5 years,
Yep. Even in the summer when the grid is strapped and the wind isn't
blowing.
>real quick solution to the energy
>crisis, now on the other hand if they increased investment in wind turbines
>the power would start arriveing in the grid within a year,
Every little bit helps, I suppose. However, building a 1000 MWe nuke in five
years will give you about eight times the energy production as building a 100
MW wind farm every year.
> or if they
>invested in energy efficeny measures the flow on would be even faster.
Not really a "flow", but I know what you mean. Considering that a new plant
hasn't been built in CA in 12 years, one would think efficiency has
contributed. Now with daily rolling blackouts, one would think that if
anything is to be gained from conservation, we would have seen it.
--
fungee... Unsolicited commercial email (spam) is not desired. Senders
of spam will help me beta test new virii, mailbombs, and/or DoS attacks.
Sending spam to this address constitutes agreement to these terms.
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
malcolm.scott
"fungee" <fun...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:96tto5$6ie$1...@news.netmar.com...
> In article <28hk6.35328$o85.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, ant
> <spam...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
>
> >so if they start building now they will be ready to start pumping power
into
> >the californian grid in about 5 years,
>
> Yep. Even in the summer when the grid is strapped and the wind isn't
> blowing.
>
> >real quick solution to the energy
> >crisis, now on the other hand if they increased investment in wind
turbines
> >the power would start arriveing in the grid within a year,
>
> Every little bit helps, I suppose. However, building a 1000 MWe nuke in
five
> years will give you about eight times the energy production as building a
100
> MW wind farm every year.
>
> > or if they
> >invested in energy efficeny measures the flow on would be even faster.
>
> Not really a "flow", but I know what you mean. Considering that a new
plant
> hasn't been built in CA in 12 years, one would think efficiency has
> contributed. Now with daily rolling blackouts, one would think that if
> anything is to be gained from conservation, we would have seen it.
But have any conservation measures really been applied? Has there been a
major upgrade to building regulations? Are people required to use compact
flourescents or to turn off the air conditioning when they leave home? Have
poor performing appliances been banned? Has the price of power been
increased? Are people offered incentives to use less?
Malcolm
Jeffrey Siegal
> > They were not "extra profits." They were recover of a cost they were
> > legally entitled to recover.
>
> They were a higher rate than could be justified on the basis of power
> production costs.
This is absolutely necessarily in order to transition from a regulated
to a deregulated system in less than, say 50 years. And the amount of
stranded cost recovery was computed based on "present value." In other
words, the legally entitled return was earned over a shorter period of
time than it would otherwise, but was reduced in amount. This was
simply a tradeoff, not a windfall.
> > The crisis has cost the utilities much more than $2 billion. According
> > to the PUC audit, PG&E's losses, even after netting profits from their
> > own generation (which is legally questionable in any case) totalled
> > about $5 billion as of 12/31/2000. In fact, the meter is still running,
> > especially if you count the taxpayer money which has now been used to
> > keep the lights on (running about $2 billion just in the past few
> > weeks).
>
> My figures are from http://www.eei.org/issues/comp_reg/ca_summer00.pdf,
I get a 404 on that. From the name, though, it looks like it refers
only to the summer problems, not the later (much larger) problems which
actually brought the situation to a crisis level.
> Now. Did you have a point?
Two points, in fact:
1. Get the facts right.
2. Stop trying to put some kind of spin on it that isn't justified by
the facts.
> > Selling off capacity does not reduce capacity. The capacity is still
> > available. Unless you can point to plants which have been
> > decommissioned, rather than simply changed ownership, your claim is
> > false.
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/california/ca.html#t4
> shows that between 1988 and 1993 there was virtually no change in utility
> capacity. Yet by 1998 the capacity was about two thirds of previous levels.
> This change was due to decommisioning older plants with no replacement
> planned.
Most of the "reduction" you see is made up for by the increase in the
"nonutility" line. The change was simply that plants were sold on paper
from from utility to non-utility owners. In the real world, the plants
are still there. The capacity is still there. Nothing much changed,
capacity-wise.
There was a small reduction of less than 5%, probably the oldest and
dirtiest plants which were cheaper to shutter than clean up.
> As is apparent by the list of utilities on the top of the page, there are
> basically five large utilities and they each have their 'turf'. Selling a
> plant in your own area to a competitor seems unlikely.
There are independent plant operators which own plants in most of the
regions. Those are probably included in the "Nonutility" line on the
chart you referenced.
John McCarthy
But have any conservation measures really been applied? Has
there been a major upgrade to building regulations? Are
people required to use compact flourescents or to turn off
the air conditioning when they leave home? Have poor
performing appliances been banned? Has the price of power
been increased? Are people offered incentives to use less?
The true reformer cannot decide which is the most beautiful word
in the English language - "compulsory" or "forbidden". - John
Ryder in the 1930s.
Conservation is a good thing to the extent that it saves money,
but there is plenty of energy to be had, and the cost to society of making
and enforcing all the regulations Malcolm Scott yearns for is
very large. It is better to generate as much electricity as
people wnat to buy - at whatever it costs plus a substantial
profit.
John Phillips
buzz
By Edie Lau
Bee Science Writer
(Published Feb. 19, 2001)
America's appetite for electricity -- highlighted by California's
energy crunch -- is driving an interest in nuclear power to heights
not seen in nearly a generation.
For the first time since the 1970s, a utility company is talking with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about building new units somewhere
in the United States, using a design completely different from plants
anywhere else in the world.
At the same time, senators in Washington, D.C., are drafting
legislation to promote the development of nuclear power.
Even in Sacramento, where the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant was
closed 12 years ago essentially by popular vote, a scattering of
people -- including a state legislator -- are asking the local
utility, why not revive Rancho Seco?
Whether the renewed discussion will translate into more nuclear
generators is a matter of pointed debate and plentiful rhetoric. The
industry dubs this era its renaissance. Nuclear opponents compare the
industry to a vampire that periodically rises from the dead.
David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned
Scientists in Cambridge, Mass., assesses the situation in calmer
terms:
"Do they have a bigger opportunity today? It's a bigger opportunity,
but it goes from being slim to slightly above slim," he said.
Sacramento is as experienced a place as any with the bruising debate
over nuclear power. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District closed
Rancho Seco in 1989 after voters demanded its shutdown.
But since the onset of brownout threats in California, some people
have wondered whether the nuclear plant couldn't be restored to
service. SMUD spokeswoman Dace Udris said the utility district
received about 15 e-mails in six weeks asking the question.
A world power
The United States is by far the No. 1 user of nuclear power in the
world in numbers of units and electrical output. However, 19 other
countries derive more of their total electricity from nuclear
generators. Here is how they ranked in 1999.
Country Pct.
1. France 75.0%
2. Lithuania 73.0%
3. Belgium 57.7%
4. Bulgaria 47.1%
5. Slovakia 47.0%
6. Sweden 46.8%
7. Ukraine 43.8%
8. South Korea 42.8%
9. Hungary 38.3%
10. Armenia 36.4%
11. Slovenia 36.3%
12. Japan 36.0%
13. Switzerland 36.0%
14. Finland 33.0%
15. Germany 31.2%
16. Spain 31.0%
18. United Kingdom 28.9%
19. Czech Republic 20.8%
20. United States 19.8%
Worldwide total 17.0%
Source: Nuclear Energy Institute
The short answer from SMUD is "no."
"A vast majority of the plant is no longer there," SMUD Assistant
General Manager Jim Shetler said. "All the steam-conversion
(equipment) ... all the turbines, pipes, valves, all have been
removed, shipped off for burial and disposal. ... So the power plant,
at least one-third to one-half of it, is no longer there -- pretty
much the operable part."
SMUD has spent more than $202 million on decommissioning.
The utility has new plans for the Rancho Seco site: using the land,
water rights and tie-in to the statewide electric transmission grid to
develop as many as four new natural gas-powered generators.
Shetler said he doubts the district would build a new nuclear plant.
"That's a very political question," he said. "It's a fairly risky
generation source for a small utility to be involved in. So while I
personally think nuclear power probably has a role to play in
providing electricity for the United States, I think it's probably a
technology that SMUD is not likely to invest in in the future."
Nevertheless, state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, said he
plans to introduce a bill within the next month that would encourage
more nuclear generation. And one aspect he's considering including is
a study of the feasibility of rebuilding Rancho Seco.
"Given the ideological opposition of the SMUD board to nuclear energy,
it would require the state acquiring the nuclear facility," he said.
There's no doubt that the hurdles to new nuclear power, particularly
in the United States, remain formidable. No permanent repository
exists anywhere in the world for high-level radioactive waste. And the
partial meltdowns at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986
left enduring doubts about the ability of humans to safely manage the
extraordinary power of fission.
"If you really want to do nuclear power big, you have to improve the
safety," said Hubert Ley, an engineer at the U.S. Department of
Energy's Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois.
"All these reactors that we have been running right now, it's kind of
the first big wave of reactors ever built. If we want to continue with
nuclear energy, it's probably good that we've had a bit of a
moratorium for a few years," Ley said. "It allows us to build reactors
with a little bit of safety philosophy. There's a lot of research to
be done."
Around the world, 433 nuclear units are churning out electricity, 103
of them in the United States. New or old, the vast majority work in
basically the same way. They are fueled by uranium contained in rods
12 feet long. A bombardment by neutrons splits some uranium atoms,
triggering a chain reaction that splits still more atoms. The energy
that pours out boils water into steam to turn turbines connected to
electrical generators. Water also cools the fuel core to keep it from
melting.
In the 23 years since anyone in the United States applied to build a
nuclear unit, the technology of such plants has changed only
incrementally.
But in late January, the NRC heard a presentation about a proposed
plant that would make nuclear power in a markedly different way.
The design, called the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, is being advanced
by the South African company Eskom, which hopes to build one in that
country. Exelon, a utility company in Pennsylvania, has a minority
stake in the project and started preliminary discussions with the NRC
about importing the design to America. Exelon has not named
prospective sites.
Nuclear engineers are intrigued by the new design for a few reasons:
It uses helium gas rather than water to cool the reactor and spin the
turbines. Water by nature is corrosive to metals (blame the oxygen in
H2O), and more importantly, water is more apt to leak
catastrophically.
The fuel core is designed to withstand temperatures up to 2,900
degrees Fahrenheit, far greater than conventional water-cooled plants,
thereby minimizing -- if not eliminating -- the risk of meltdown.
Less fuel is required to operate the plant. The uranium is contained
in beads a millimeter in diameter, 15,000 of which are mixed with
graphite and covered with carbon, forming a sphere the size of a
tennis ball.
About 310,000 such spheres are loaded into the fuel core. They're
checked every few months. Damaged or spent balls are removed; the rest
are returned for another round.
Lochbaum said the add-as-you-go method inherently is safer than
loading two years' worth of fuel rods. "It's like putting two years of
fuel into your car," he said. In an accident, that much gasoline could
make a spectacular, lethal mess.
Exelon introduced the pebble bed modular reactor to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission on Jan. 31. The presentation attracted a crowd;
some people sat on the floor of the meeting room.
"You sense a palpable buzz about it, and it's energizing," said Russ
Bell, a business services project manager at the Nuclear Energy
Institute, a trade group.
Still, the pebble bed model is just a design at this point. Other
generators have been built using "pebble" fuel or gas coolant, but
none has all the features of the proposed plant.
Jerry Wilson, a senior policy analyst at the NRC, said he would
recommend withholding approval of a similar reactor in the United
States until after seeing whether the proposed South African plant
works. The companies have set a target of 2005 to get that plant up
and running.
The Nuclear Energy Institute, meantime, is trying to assess and
influence public opinion on the question of new nuclear plants.
For several years, it has been promoting nuclear as an environmentally
sound energy source for a world concerned about the buildup of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Now, citing the California energy shortage, it reported in late
January that "support for building new nuclear power plants has
increased in all regions, especially the West."
Survey respondents were asked their opinion of the statement, "We
should definitely build more nuclear energy plants in the future." NEI
said 52 percent of respondents in the West agreed with the statement
in January, compared with 33 percent in October.
Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an
international group opposed to nuclear power, called the industry "a
bit of a vampire in that it's been able to resurrect itself from the
dead from time to time. This is certainly another opportunity that the
industry is seizing upon."
A more telling survey, Gunter said, would ask who would support a
plant being built nearby.
"When the industry starts announcing sites in people's back yards,
that's where public opinion will show its true value and nature," he
said.
In Washington, D.C., at least two nascent bills would promote more
investment in nuclear power. One is a broad energy bill that also
would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling,
sponsored by Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska. The other, by Sen. Pete
Domenici, R-N.M., focuses specifically on nuclear power.
Ultimately, for nuclear power to experience a true renaissance in this
country, it will have to overcome a soured reputation, said Lochbaum,
the nuclear engineer at Union of Concerned Scientists.
"The biggest problem with nuclear power (proponents), over their
history, they've never delivered on their promises," he said. "If they
can do it safely ... it's kind of like the field of dreams. Build it,
and they will come."
NEWS SEARCH
Search local and national political news.
anyall of the search words.
Problems? Suggestions? Let us hear from you. | Copyright © The
Sacramento Bee
Regards,
John Phillips
To respond by e-mail, please remove the
parentheses from my address
j...@watson.ibm.com
on 19 Feb 2001 22:54:48 -0800,
So what? In a market economy supply glitches occur all the
time and normally don't require rationing (the rolling blackouts are
a particularly inefficient form of rationing). Instead prices rise
reducing consumption to what can be supplied. If ecoterrorists blow
up 10% of existing power capacity then they can be blamed for the
blackouts which may ensue until the system has time to adjust.
However if environmentalists prevent an additional 10% of capacity
from being built the system has plenty of time to adjust by
restraining demand (via price increases or other means) or finding
alternative ways of increasing supply. If the politicians and
utilities in California decided to drive off a cliff instead this is
their fault not the environmentalists.
James B. Shearer
Germanating Thought
> So what? In a market economy supply glitches occur all the
> time and normally don't require rationing (the rolling blackouts are
> a particularly inefficient form of rationing). Instead prices rise
> reducing consumption to what can be supplied. If ecoterrorists blow
> up 10% of existing power capacity then they can be blamed for the
> blackouts which may ensue until the system has time to adjust.
> However if environmentalists prevent an additional 10% of capacity
> from being built the system has plenty of time to adjust by
> restraining demand (via price increases or other means) or finding
> alternative ways of increasing supply. If the politicians and
> utilities in California decided to drive off a cliff instead this is
> their fault not the environmentalists.
> James B. Shearer
You are correct. But who was it that coerced them into taking these stands.
I don't think it was the Energy lobby.
TNT
Brad
John McCarthy
Before the environmentalists got in the act, the utilities built
enough plants so there weren't blackouts. The environmentalists, who
claimed to know the utility business better than the utilities,
accused the utilities of building too much capacity and unnecessarily
raising rates and encouraging what the environmentalists considered
excess consumption.
Environmentalist ideology is attractive enough so environmentalists
and politicians repeating environmentalist ideas and slogans got a lot
of power. They even got the power to force the utilities to put their
slogans in the handouts that go with the bills.
However, there is a contrast between the slogans the public will vote
for, and what the public will do. Specifically, the public will not
use as little energy as is demanded by the politicians the same public
votes into office. The environmentalists know this and say that the
public isn't sufficiently educated. They also want coercive measures
to make the public use less energy. Someone recently posted a litany
of demands of that kind in sci.environment.
The result was a collision between what the public implicitly voted
for and what the public actually does.
Electricity isn't the only area in which the public has voted for
measures that they won't actually observe. The current fantasy about
zero emission vehicles is another.
If there were no source of all the energy anyone can want, and if the
current emission standards were causing large numbers of people to get
sick, there would be no choice. The public would eventually have to
learn.
In fact nuclear power will provide as much electricity as anyone wants
with greater safety than most other sources of energy in use and at
prices people can afford. The environmentalist leaders have, for
historical reasons that were always bad, fanatical prejudices against
nuclear energy. However, their prejudices extend to all forms of
energy. You can see plenty of minimalist ideology on this newsgroup
from people who brag that they use little energy and demand that
everyone else be forced to do likewise.
Amory Lovins is a little more cautious now than when he wrote
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us
to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy
because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking
for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that
won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which
we could do mischief to the earth or to each other. - Amory
Lovins in {\it The Mother Earth} - Plowboy Interview,
Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22
but the sentiments are the same.
Chris Torek
John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Before the environmentalists got in the act, the utilities built
>enough plants so there weren't blackouts. The environmentalists, who
>claimed to know the utility business better than the utilities,
>accused the utilities of building too much capacity and unnecessarily
>raising rates and encouraging what the environmentalists considered
>excess consumption.
If you mean "in California", the California Energy Commission
correctly forecast the peak load CA had last summer (about 55 GW)
and wanted new power plant construction in the early 1990s. The
utilities themselves petitioned FERC to quash new plant construction.
I take it your argument, then, is that the utilities *are* the
environmentalists (or were in 1995)? :-)
Of 21 new proposed power plants since 1998, 12 have been blocked
by other generating companies (not "environmentalists").
[Quote below is from <http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0130-04.htm>;
it is rather slanted, so you have to read between the lines.]
It is untrue that California's environmental laws have prevented
new plants from being built and are responsible for the current
crisis. As noted earlier, there is enough existing capacity tied
into the state's grid to meet even summertime peak demand. And
while the state's sensible environmental laws get the blame for
the lack of new construction, it is important to note that California's
utilities did not want to make investments in new power plants.
The state's utilities blocked decisions by the CPUC to build new
capacity because under deregulation, the utilities realized they
would have assumed the economic risk for bad decisions -- rather
than consumers -- who paid for past mistakes as part of rates.
Southern California Edison (SCE) even went so far as stopping the
development of 1,500 MW of new renewable energy and cogeneration
(the heat from industrial processes is used to generate electricity)
projects. This more environmentally friendly electricity would have
been available to help meet the current crisis, and would have cost
of under 5.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. But, SCE's Chief Executive
Officer, John Bryson, in the mid-1990s petitioned the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to stop the construction of these
projects.
Before deregulation, California had a planning process for building
the infrastructure for the energy sources to meet demand. In 1993,
this Biennial Resource Planning Update (BRPU) process set a price
that was below 5.5 cents per kilowatt (a much lower price than the
cost of power from long-term contracts today), and a bidding process
was initiated. The cost of environmental damage was taken into
consideration in the bidding process. The Public Utilities Commission
accepted bids and planned to build 1,500 MW of new wind, geothermal
and cogeneration plants. Bryson then started a petitioning process
at FERC, which resulted in none of the generation being built
because he did not want to risk investments in new capacity. FERC
voted to not allow the California Utilities Commission to require
the new projects. Today, California is suffering from the FERC's
bad decision and Bryson's efforts to stop new renewable energy
capacity from being build.
Even so some power plants were built, according to the agency that
permits new power plants:
In the 1990s before the state's electricity generation industry
was restructured, the California Energy Commission certified
12 new power plants. Of these, three were never built. Nine
plants are now in operation producing 952 megawatts of
generation...Since April 1999, the Energy Commission has
approved nine major power plant projects with a combined
generation capacity of 6,278 megawatts. Six power plants,
with a generation capacity of 4,308 megawatts are now under
construction, with 2,368 megawatts expected to be on-line by
the end of the year 2001.
In addition, another 14 electricity generating projects,
totaling 6,734 megawatts of generation and an estimated
capital investment of more than $4.3 billion, are currently
being considered for licensing by the Commission.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA Domain: to...@bsdi.com +1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/ (not always up) I report spam to abuse@.
Note: PacBell news service is rotten
D.A.Kopf
> So what? In a market economy supply glitches occur all the
> time and normally don't require rationing (the rolling blackouts are
> a particularly inefficient form of rationing). Instead prices rise
> reducing consumption to what can be supplied. If ecoterrorists blow
> up 10% of existing power capacity then they can be blamed for the
> blackouts which may ensue until the system has time to adjust.
> However if environmentalists prevent an additional 10% of capacity
> from being built the system has plenty of time to adjust by
> restraining demand (via price increases or other means) or finding
> alternative ways of increasing supply. If the politicians and
> utilities in California decided to drive off a cliff instead this is
> their fault not the environmentalists.
Agreed. Hopefully next election the voters will be offered some alternative to
an ennui of kaka-brokering accolytes.
Germanating Thought
power plant?
John McCarthy
to do the necessary research.
Chris Torek
Germanating Thought <the...@tznet.com> writes:
>Why would a power company have to petition to stop production a their own
>power plant?
The legal issues around building power plants are complex. State
and Federal regulators sit in and second-guess all kinds of decisions,
both before and after deregulation.
In any case, though, the above is not what they did. They (SoCal
Edison) petitioned to stop construction of power plants *not* owned
by them, that would generate relatively expensive electricity (six
or seven or even eight cents per kWh) that they would then have to
buy at high prices, to sell to their customers at not-so-high
prices. They assumed they would be able to buy *other* electricity
at prices like three or four cents per kWh.
The idea was: "If they don't build those expensive ones, someone
else will build cheap ones. If we don't build it, they will come
anyway."
As we have seen, "if you don't build it, they *won't* come". :-)
As a general rule, "environmentally friendly" power (whatever that
means) tends to be more expensive than (e.g.) coal power or (today)
nuclear. Whether cost should be the only consideration, or whether
there should be other issues considered, is a legitimate social
issue.
(Since my own personal leanings tend towards the libertarian, I
would prefer if "indirect" costs -- such as athsma induced by SOx
and NOx emissions, or building erosion from acid rain, or whatever
-- were recaptured and charged back to the ones setting up the
situation that produces those costs. Then everyone can just use
dollars to optimize the economy. Capturing such costs is very
difficult though, and there are legitimate reasons to try other
methods.)
Tim O'Flaherty
in my sent box I see nothing in the newsgroup. My apologies if you get it
twice.
Ian St. John wrote in message
>
>http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/california/ca.html#t4
>shows that between 1988 and 1993 there was virtually no change in utility
>capacity. Yet by 1998 the capacity was about two thirds of previous levels.
>. table reproduced in part below.
>
>Table 4. Electric Power Industry Generating Capability by Plant Type, 1988,
>1993, and 1998
> 1988 1993 1998
>Total Utility 44,429 44,313 30,663
>
>
They also note that over this same period the Non utility portion of
capacity has grown from 19.4% in 1988 to 41.4% in 1998.
Total Nonutility capacity
1988-10,705MW
1993-10,109MW
1998-21,686MW
The idea of distributed generation seems to be taking hold. It in
unfortunate that with over 40% of capacity no breakdown of non-utility
sources is provided.
They also note that the total capacity (all sources) dropped from 55.1MW to
52.3MW from 88 to 98. So it only took a little drop in total capacity to
squeeze prices into the stratosphere.
Regards , Tim O'Flaherty
Paul L. Studier
Chris Torek wrote:
>
> (Since my own personal leanings tend towards the libertarian, I
> would prefer if "indirect" costs -- such as athsma induced by SOx
> and NOx emissions, or building erosion from acid rain, or whatever
> -- were recaptured and charged back to the ones setting up the
> situation that produces those costs. Then everyone can just use
> dollars to optimize the economy. Capturing such costs is very
> difficult though, and there are legitimate reasons to try other
> methods.)
> --
Bravo! Without a system to internalize indirect costs by charging
polluters for pollution, it is not possible to even know which
technologies are better environmentally. All energy production
pollutes. Solar pollutes when the solar cells are fabricated from
sand and chemicals, and when you finally throw them away at
the end of their life. The only way to judge solar against gas or
oil is by charging both industries for their pollution at all the
stages, and then comparing prices.
--
Paul L. Studier <Stu...@pleasenospamtoPaulStudier.com>
When you work, you create. When you win, you just take from the loser.
Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org
Germanating Thought
> From: to...@elf.bsdi.com (Chris Torek)
> Organization: none of the above
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
> Date: 20 Feb 2001 17:31:26 -0800
> Subject: Re: "Need Nukes Now" - so says Silicon Valley Execs
>
Ian St. John
"Tim O'Flaherty" <pinw...@attcanada.net> wrote in message
news:rnFk6.378$TW....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
You assume that the non-utility power is available to the general market.
Non-utility power sources are a response to unreliable power, and generally
routed to one specific use, not connected to the general distribution
system.
malcolm.scott
"Chris Torek" <to...@elf.bsdi.com> wrote in message
news:96v5pe$5sd$1...@elf.bsdi.com...
Yes, we also need to put something in for CO2 and fuel depletion too. Just
enough to make renewables cost effective.
Malcolm
Tim O'Flaherty
Ian St. John wrote in message <96vegu$2u3b$1...@news.tht.net>...
Without information to the contrary it is reasonable to assume a portion of
that non-utility increase was plant sold by utilities. It is possible that
is was taken off line for private use but it is also possible the load went
with it.
You claim the drop in utility capacity was do to decomissioning and not
sell offs but the increase in non-utility capacity from 1993 to 1998 was
11.577 GW and the loss in utility capacity over that same period was 13.65
GW.
What new plants (The lack of which was the point of this thread eh?) or
decomissionings can you cite over the period from 1993 to 1998?
--
Windpower, over 16,461 Mw sold.
Assuming a 25% Capacity factor,
that's over 44,130 1980 F-100 equivalents !!
Germanating Thought
> Yes, we also need to put something in for CO2 and fuel depletion too. Just
> enough to make renewables cost effective.
> Malcolm
but would it make renewables cost effective.
Jeffrey Siegal
> Yes, we also need to put something in for CO2 and fuel depletion too. Just
> enough to make renewables cost effective.
CO2 yes, but fuel depleation is already reflected in the willingness of
the owner of the fuel to sell it. People like to bash OPEC, but the
truth is their limited production policies are entirely consistent with
sustainable long-term energy policy.
The exception, of course, is when nobody owns the fuel in the ground,
and politicians use various generous "lease", "exploration rights", and
"extraction fee" policies as ways of buying political favor with the
energy industry.
malcolm.scott
My understanding is that OPEC will attempt to roughly maintain a price just
below the level that will encourage alternative fuels. This level (e.g. the
present level) will, I'm sure, not be high enough to encourage serious
conservation either, so the result is business as usual.
Malcolm
Timothy Miller
McNealy's speech was on my local NPR station today. He also said that
we need less Microsoft. Who wants to CTRL-ALT-DEL in the dark?
>Silicon Valley Executives Cite the
>Need for Nuclear Power
>
>Feb. 13, 2001 - Stung by the electricity shortages that have plagued
>California this winter, two of the world’s top technology executives have
>extolled the value of nuclear energy in recent weeks.
>
>Last Thursday, at a National Press Club Newsmaker Luncheon in
>Washington, D.C., Scott McNealy, chairman of the board and chief
>executive officer of Sun Microsystems, spoke of California’s energy woes
>and the impact they are having on his Palo Alto-based company and its
>employees.
>
>"This country needs to figure out an energy policy ... and I’m going to
>do the politically incorrect thing and tell you the answer’s going to be
>nuclear power. I have not yet heard anybody utter the phrase ‘nuclear
>power’ in California yet. But in terms of environmental and cost and
>competitiveness and all the rest of it, I just don't see any other solution
>..
>Rolling blackouts are a bad thing."
j...@watson.ibm.com
on 20 Feb 2001 16:10:13 -0800,
John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> writes:
<snip>
>In fact nuclear power will provide as much electricity as anyone wants
>with greater safety than most other sources of energy in use and at
>prices people can afford. The environmentalist leaders have, for
>historical reasons that were always bad, fanatical prejudices against
>nuclear energy. However, their prejudices extend to all forms of
>energy. You can see plenty of minimalist ideology on this newsgroup
>from people who brag that they use little energy and demand that
>everyone else be forced to do likewise.
I think this is backwards. I expect the leaders being more
intelligent and worldly than their followers are somewhat less
against nuclear. However they know their fanatical antinuclear
membership will pitch them out if they compromise too much.
As I recall the Sierra Club at one time favored nuclear
until its membership revolted.
This pattern of comparatively moderate leaders constrained
by a rabid membership is not confined to the environmental movement.
FWIW I think attempting to build new nuclear power plants
would be an extremely stupid thing for California to do. Some LNG
terminals might be a good idea however. Anyone know what the cost
of shipping LNG is?
James B. Shearer
Ian St. John
The capacity went, but remember that 1: these are older oil or combined
cycle plants with high fuel costs. Despite this,
http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/business/story/0,2469,500290755-500460873
-503062270-0,00.html point out that these non-utility companies are reaping
enormous profits. One cluse as to why can be found in
http://www.uniontrib.com/news/reports/power/20010220-9999_1n20stadium.html
which notes that
-----------------------
"The company has seen sweet profit of late. Some say Enron, along with other
power concerns, has taken advantage of California's botched move to
deregulate the energy industry, though the company says most of its profits
came from outside the state. "
----------------------
In other words, they were selling California generated power during the
crisis outside of the state, and reimporting it on the spot market at high
profits. As
http://www.uniontrib.com/news/reports/power/20010211-9999_1n11shut.html
notes,
-------------------------------
"At the start of deregulation in 1998, it had outage coordination control
over 40 percent of the plants in its service area, which allowed the ISO to
mandate maintenance schedules. As key operating agreements with the new
plant owners expired, however, the ISO's coordination authority decreased to
just 20 percent of the 800 facilities in its control area.
This leaves some 640 power plants in California shutting down as they please
for routine maintenance. About half the outages in recent weeks were for
preplanned work.
"There are too many planned outages at the same time," said Gregory Van
Pelt, manager of outage coordination for the ISO.
The loss of authority leaves the ISO in the position of requesting but
unable to compel the operation of plants it considers essential. "
-----------------------------------
>
> You claim the drop in utility capacity was do to decomissioning and not
> sell offs but the increase in non-utility capacity from 1993 to 1998 was
> 11.577 GW and the loss in utility capacity over that same period was 13.65
> GW.
I claimed that regulated power capacity dropped, and this was not from one
utility selling to another. These plants, sold to 'non-utility' companies
are not regulated, or required to supply California with power as a duty.
They are free to export it, and sell it on the California spot market at
huge prices to supply the loads (which did *not* dissapear with the sale of
the plant). They are free to remove the plants for 'servicing' at any time
to inflate spot market prices, or just because they decide to. They may
supply one specific load, and remove it from requiring utility power, but
nothing shows this to be happening..
As seen by
http://www.geoinvestor.com/archives/fpgarchives/oct1900powerpolitics.htm
""Price movements in California and the WSCC are consistent with analysis by
Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which has demonstrated a high
correlation between low capacity reserve margins and high spot prices in
other regions of the U.S.," the report says. The PX also notes that prices
were sometimes higher in other parts of the western U.S. than in California
this summer -- further evidence of a genuine market imbalance between supply
and demand rather than collusive behavior in the California power market. "
indicates that all of that capacity offline, had more than a little to do
with the high spot market prices, on which they profited.
>
> What new plants (The lack of which was the point of this thread eh?) or
I've read fungees posting. Nothing in it points to a lack of new plants.
Only to nuclear as the most environmentally effective option for new plant
construction.
> decomissionings can you cite over the period from 1993 to 1998?
The point was the reduction in utility power capacity. I don't remember
claiming that any plants were decommisioned, although, it should be noted
that 10% of californias power plants over 50 years old, and 37% are over 40.
At some point the increased maintenance makes decommisioning a 'fait
acompli'.
Setting up a 'straw man'? This period is (mostly) before deregulation and
represents the capacity planning of that time and place.
Jeffrey Siegal
> My understanding is that OPEC will attempt to roughly maintain a price just
> below the level that will encourage alternative fuels.
That's not your "understanding," that's your conspiracy theory. If it
is true, and OPEC really is selling oil at a price which is too low,
then the beneficiaries of that policy are those who use oil. If you
believe that, then the logical response is to take the handout as long
as they're willing to give it, saving money which can be used to develop
alternatives later.
> This level (e.g. the
> present level) will, I'm sure, not be high enough to encourage serious
> conservation either, so the result is business as usual.
Then the oil will be deplete more quickly, the price will inevitably
rise (even if OPEC would prefer otherwise) and then alternative fuels
will become encouraged.
Problem solved. As I said, depletion is really a non-issue from the
point of view of market failure. Environmental impact is not.
Paul F. Dietz
> FWIW I think attempting to build new nuclear power plants
> would be an extremely stupid thing for California to do. Some LNG
> terminals might be a good idea however. Anyone know what the cost
> of shipping LNG is?
Anyone know what the cost of a worst-case LNG tanker explosion
would be?
Paul
malcolm.scott
I don't think it has anything to do with conspiracies, it's just standard
supply and demand. Their task is to maximise their returns, or it should be
if they are choosing to supply into other countries that are doing the same.
I like that bit about saving money :) Who's doing that then? and can you
make fuel from money or is it paper money for burning to keep warm? If you
said we were spending the savings on forests to feed the boilers of the
future I'd be more confident.
The quicker the oil is depleted the faster will rise the CO2 content of the
atmosphere. Do you really think that's OK? Wouldn't it be better to
encourage sustainable fuels now to extend the fossil fuel life, and reduce
noxious and CO2 emmissions?
Malcolm
Jeffrey Siegal
> I don't think it has anything to do with conspiracies, it's just standard
> supply and demand. Their task is to maximise their returns, or it should be
> if they are choosing to supply into other countries that are doing the same.
Maximizing their return means maximizing the value of what they have in
the ground. Selling it at too low a price doesn't do that.
> I like that bit about saving money :) Who's doing that then? and can you
> make fuel from money or is it paper money for burning to keep warm?
You can invest money to improve energy efficiency or develop new
technology, or you can just invest money elsewhere in the economy to
create greater wealth which can be tapped later for energy resource
development and/or research.
> The quicker the oil is depleted the faster will rise the CO2 content of the
> atmosphere.
That's not true. The quicker oil is *burned*, the faster the rise in
CO2 content (probably). But that's quite different from depletion. For
example, consider hypothetically oil in the ground to to be essentially
infinite. Depletion would be a non-issue, but the rate of *burning*
would still be an issue from the point of view of CO2.
> Do you really think that's OK?
I already said that CO2 is a separate issue, and one which really does
need to be incorporated into the cost of fuels through taxation or some
sort of pollution credit system.
> Wouldn't it be better to
> encourage sustainable fuels now to extend the fossil fuel life
Maybe, maybe not. It really all depends on the cost.
> and reduce noxious and CO2 emmissions?
Reducing emissions is a separate issue (which also depends on cost, but
in a different way).
Jeffrey Siegal
Not significantly higher in many parts of California than anywhere else.
fungee
malcolm.scott <malcol...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>I don't think it has anything to do with conspiracies, it's just standard
>supply and demand. Their task is to maximise their returns, or it should be
>if they are choosing to supply into other countries that are doing the same.
I think that's right. OPEC produces amounts predicted to maximize long-term
profitability. If they were to limit production drastically, the price would
skyrocket near-term, and this would make other fuels look more favorable.
Power plants would be even more reluctant to burn oil in peaking units. More
importantly, a drastic increase in price would cause Americans to migrate
away from gas guzzling SUVs toward hybrids, four-cylinders and public
transportation. Once they did that, their reduction in demand would likely
be long-term if not perpetual.
Didn't OPEC originally stand for Organized Petroleum Export Conspiracy? :)
--
malcolm.scott
> "malcolm.scott" wrote:
> > I don't think it has anything to do with conspiracies, it's just
standard
> > supply and demand. Their task is to maximise their returns, or it
should be
> > if they are choosing to supply into other countries that are doing the
same.
>
> Maximizing their return means maximizing the value of what they have in
> the ground. Selling it at too low a price doesn't do that.
I believe it does if it discourages people from developing alternatives.
>
> > I like that bit about saving money :) Who's doing that then? and can you
> > make fuel from money or is it paper money for burning to keep warm?
>
> You can invest money to improve energy efficiency or develop new
> technology, or you can just invest money elsewhere in the economy to
> create greater wealth which can be tapped later for energy resource
> development and/or research.
That would be ok if we did it. e.g. we could invest in higher levels of
insulation or we could build a high volume pv factory. We don't do it, we
just say oh it's cheap who cares about it let's waste it.
>
> > The quicker the oil is depleted the faster will rise the CO2 content of
the
> > atmosphere.
>
> That's not true. The quicker oil is *burned*, the faster the rise in
> CO2 content (probably). But that's quite different from depletion. For
> example, consider hypothetically oil in the ground to to be essentially
> infinite. Depletion would be a non-issue, but the rate of *burning*
> would still be an issue from the point of view of CO2.
I see what you mean but aren't they linked? Didn't the carbon in the ground
used to be CO2 in the air? I understand that you want to consider the
problems separately but to me they all come back to the one source, that we
are simply burning too much fossil fuel too quickly.
>
> > Do you really think that's OK?
>
> I already said that CO2 is a separate issue, and one which really does
> need to be incorporated into the cost of fuels through taxation or some
> sort of pollution credit system.
A small tax or credit is not going help here. If increased CO2 does cause
widespread disruption then money is not going to help. If people just pay
the tax then nothing will be done. The purpose of the tax must be to
incentivise people to switch to sustainable fuels.
>
> > Wouldn't it be better to
> > encourage sustainable fuels now to extend the fossil fuel life
>
> Maybe, maybe not. It really all depends on the cost.
Better to pay a small price now, I think. There are too many people with
the rock bottom price for fuels imprinted in their heads. I can't explain
it. They'll pay twice as much as they need to for a flashy car, but stamp
their little feet when the price of fuel goes up.
Malcolm
Jeffrey Siegal
> I think that's right. OPEC produces amounts predicted to maximize long-term
> profitability. If they were to limit production drastically, the price would
> skyrocket near-term, and this would make other fuels look more favorable.
But, at the same time, excess production would results in too low of a
return for the non-renewable asset they have in the ground. Selling it
at a slower rate can yeild a higher return.
This balances short term income against long term conservation.
Jeffrey Siegal
> > I already said that CO2 is a separate issue, and one which really does
> > need to be incorporated into the cost of fuels through taxation or some
> > sort of pollution credit system.
>
> A small tax or credit is not going help here.
I didn't say it would be small. The size would depend on the best
estimate of the environmental impact.
> The purpose of the tax must be to
> incentivise people to switch to sustainable fuels.
The purpose of the tax is to not to favor one outcome or another, but to
incorporate the actual cost of environmental damage back into the price
being paid by the user of one resource. If that makes other resources,
such as sustainable sources, more economical, then people will switch.
Whether it makes sense to encourage people to switch or not (or just
reduce energy usage altogether) is not an absolute but really does
depend on the cost.
People will not switch, in significant numbers, simply because you or
anyone else says it is a good thing. They will only do it if the
economics make sense. Money talks.
> > Maybe, maybe not. It really all depends on the cost.
>
> Better to pay a small price now, I think.
If the price is small, yes. If the price is not so small, then maybe
not. It really just depends.
> There are too many people with
> the rock bottom price for fuels imprinted in their heads. I can't explain
> it.
Then just save your breath and let it run for a while. If you are
correct and fuels start running out, then people will just have to
adjust. Really, nothing you say is going to change the basic economics
of cheap fuels anyway. If OPEC wants to liquidate their oil cheap, I'll
just use their cheap oil and then switch to something else later.
That's a problem for OPEC, not for me.
Don Libby
To BLEVE or not to BLEVE?
http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/PROJECT/ENERGY/WGSI/trinity5.htm
Why would CA build LNG terminals? To export LNG? For their own use,
they'd be *MUCH* better off building new pipelines to offshore gas
fields.
Net energy (NRG out/NRG in) of LNG: 5.6
Net energy of Pipeline NG: 26
Net energy of nuclear (Diffusion enrichment): 15-25
Net energy of nuclear (Centrifuge enrichment): 43-76
Why shouldn't CA extract gas from the outer continental shelf?
Why shouldn't SMUD replace the old Rancho Seco reactor with a new one?
-dl
--
*********************************************************
* Replace "never.spam" with "dlibby" to reply by e-mail *
*********************************************************
fungee
writes:
>"malcolm.scott" wrote:
>> > I already said that CO2 is a separate issue, and one which really does
>> > need to be incorporated into the cost of fuels through taxation or some
>> > sort of pollution credit system.
>>
>> A small tax or credit is not going help here.
>
>I didn't say it would be small. The size would depend on the best
>estimate of the environmental impact.
>
>> The purpose of the tax must be to
>> incentivise people to switch to sustainable fuels.
>
>The purpose of the tax is to not to favor one outcome or another, but to
>incorporate the actual cost of environmental damage back into the price
>being paid by the user of one resource.
Might as well raise the tax on cars, houses, food, clothing, etc. then, too,
eh?
fungee
>> > I already said that CO2 is a separate issue, and one which really does
>> > need to be incorporated into the cost of fuels through taxation or some
>> > sort of pollution credit system.
>>
>> A small tax or credit is not going help here.
>
>I didn't say it would be small. The size would depend on the best
>estimate of the environmental impact.
>
>> The purpose of the tax must be to
>> incentivise people to switch to sustainable fuels.
>
>The purpose of the tax is to not to favor one outcome or another, but to
>incorporate the actual cost of environmental damage back into the price
>being paid by the user of one resource.
Might as well raise the tax on cars, houses, food, clothing, etc. then, too,
j...@watson.ibm.com
on Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:40:22 -0600,
Well, I remember reading somewhere that the energy content
was the same as a 2 megaton bomb. Of course this would depend on the
capacity of the tanker. I would suggest putting the terminal in an
isolated area.
James B. Shearer
j...@watson.ibm.com
on Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:49:09 GMT,
Don Libby <never...@tds.net> writes:
>"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
>>
>> j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
>>
>> > FWIW I think attempting to build new nuclear power plants
>> > would be an extremely stupid thing for California to do. Some LNG
>> > terminals might be a good idea however. Anyone know what the cost
>> > of shipping LNG is?
<snip>
>Why would CA build LNG terminals? To export LNG? For their own use,
>they'd be *MUCH* better off building new pipelines to offshore gas
>fields.
For their own use. I was unaware that there are substantial
natural gas reserves off the California cost. Is that the case? Is
it currently legal to develop them?
>Net energy (NRG out/NRG in) of LNG: 5.6
>Net energy of Pipeline NG: 26
>Net energy of nuclear (Diffusion enrichment): 15-25
>Net energy of nuclear (Centrifuge enrichment): 43-76
What does this have to do with anything? Cost is what
matters.
>Why shouldn't CA extract gas from the outer continental shelf?
I don't know. Why aren't they doing it now.
>Why shouldn't SMUD replace the old Rancho Seco reactor with a new one?
Because it would be really, really stupid. Or to elaborate
because it would cost so much that the electricity generated would be
uncompetitive even assuming they were able to complete the plant which
I would not bet on given the vigorous opposition it would inspire and
the demonstrated inability of utilities to manage nuclear construction
projects well.
James B. Shearer
Dennis Towne
Woah, you're off by about 5 orders of magnitude there. A 20 ton LNG
trailer would have roughly the energy content of 20 tons of tnt, making
it a 20 ton bomb. You might get 2 MT into an oil supertanker tho...
-dennis T
Graham Cowan
10^n tonnes methane is equivalent to 10^(n+1.1) tonnes TNT.
Recall that TNT is fuel plus oxidizer, all in one molecule,
while methane can explode only after mixing with air.
---
Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydrogen?
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
j...@watson.ibm.com
on Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:41:26 -0600,
I am talking about huge ships designed to ship LNG as cheaply
as possible across oceans. They carry a bit more than 20 tons at a
time.
James B. Shearer
Jeffrey Siegal
> >The purpose of the tax is to not to favor one outcome or another, but to
> >incorporate the actual cost of environmental damage back into the price
> >being paid by the user of one resource.
>
> Might as well raise the tax on cars, houses, food, clothing, etc. then, too,
> eh?
No, because those don't achieve the desired goal as directly or
effectively.
For example, taxing new cars encourages people to keep their older, less
efficient cars. Taxing gasoline has the opposite effect.
Tim O'Flaherty
Ian St. John wrote in message <9720el$cnj$1...@news.tht.net>...
Tim O'Flaherty asked
>> decomissionings can you cite over the period from 1993 to 1998?
>
Ian responded
>The point was the reduction in utility power capacity. I don't remember
>claiming that any plants were decommisioned,
Here, let me jog your memory , From the point just before I joined this
thread...
Jeffery Siegal wrote
> Selling off capacity does not reduce capacity. The capacity is still
> available. Unless you can point to plants which have been
> decommissioned, rather than simply changed ownership, your claim is
> false.
Ian posted...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/california/ca.html#t4
shows that between 1988 and 1993 there was virtually no change in utility
capacity. Yet by 1998 the capacity was about two thirds of previous levels.
. table reproduced in part below.
Table 4. Electric Power Industry Generating Capability by Plant Type, 1988,
1993, and 1998
1988 1993 1998
Total Utility 44,429 44,313 30,663
Ian wrote...
"This change was due to decommisioning older plants with no replacement
planned. Note that most of the reductions were in oil fired and combined
cycle plants from before the rise in crude prices in the 70's. These had the
highest production costs and so were first to be chopped."
Talk about straw men?? All that chaff you send flying when you are wrong.
What a waste of time Tsk! Tsk!
Dennis Towne
(Yes, I knew that. The difference is minor compared to the difference I
was thinking of, eg 20 tons versus 2 MT.)
-dennis T
Dennis Towne
I had no idea they shipped LNG in that fashion, or in that volume.
The worst case disaster I can think of would be complete structural
failure of the tanker - it would make one hell of a fireball, but
probably wouldn't be as destructive as a nuclear weapon of similar
size. The liquid, once liberated, would float on the surface of the
ocean and spread out, flaming all the way. It's lighter than air, so as
it evaporated it would rise. The fire and rising gas would likely cause
unbelievable draft winds. Any ideas how large and area the liquid could
cover before being burned up? Muwahaha...
-dennis T
Don Libby
>
> In article <3A9533B6...@tds.net>,
> on Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:49:09 GMT,
> Don Libby <never...@tds.net> writes:
> >"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
> >>
> >> j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > FWIW I think attempting to build new nuclear power plants
> >> > would be an extremely stupid thing for California to do. Some LNG
> >> > terminals might be a good idea however. Anyone know what the cost
> >> > of shipping LNG is?
>
> <snip>
>
> >Why would CA build LNG terminals? To export LNG? For their own use,
> >they'd be *MUCH* better off building new pipelines to offshore gas
> >fields.
>
> For their own use. I was unaware that there are substantial
> natural gas reserves off the California cost. Is that the case? Is
> it currently legal to develop them?
I'll have to go back to the history books to verify, but IIRC, after the
Santa Barbara oil spill caused a huge public outcry in the early '70s,
oil and gas exploration and production on California's outer continental
shelf was banned, much to the chagrin of lease-holders.
>
> >Net energy (NRG out/NRG in) of LNG: 5.6
> >Net energy of Pipeline NG: 26
> >Net energy of nuclear (Diffusion enrichment): 15-25
> >Net energy of nuclear (Centrifuge enrichment): 43-76
>
> What does this have to do with anything? Cost is what
> matters.
It should go without saying that if you're using 75% of the natural gas
from the well to drive LNG compressors, the unit cost of LNG will exceed
pipeline gas, other things equal.
Likewise, if you're using much of your uranium energy to drive the
enrichment process, the cost of standard work units from gasseous
diffusion plants will exceed the cost from centrifuge plants, c.p.
>
> >Why shouldn't CA extract gas from the outer continental shelf?
>
> I don't know. Why aren't they doing it now.
It's against the rules.
>
> >Why shouldn't SMUD replace the old Rancho Seco reactor with a new one?
>
> Because it would be really, really stupid. Or to elaborate
> because it would cost so much that the electricity generated would be
> uncompetitive even assuming they were able to complete the plant which
> I would not bet on given the vigorous opposition it would inspire and
> the demonstrated inability of utilities to manage nuclear construction
> projects well.
> James B. Shearer
Er, I don't know how you're accounting for costs, but some of the
figures I've seen show nuclear power costs in the same neighborhood as
other alternatives. For example:
From Nordhaus 1997 _Swedish Nuclear Dilemma_
http://www.rff.org/books/descriptions/swedenuke.htm
Cost (1995 $US per mWh) of replacement power in Sweden (assuming 5%
discount rate)
Capital O&M Fuel Total
Coal 20.6 9.7 23.7 54.0
Gas 9.4 6.1 28.1 43.6
Nuclear 27.2 10.6 9.9 47.7
Levelized electricity generation costs (investment + O&M + fuel, costs
in $1991 $US per MWh, including decomissioning and waste disposal)
Nuclear Coal Gas
Canada 29.8 34.0 52.2
Finland 30.1 35.0 35.3
France 32.8 50.6 54.8
Germany 53.1 80.1 na
Japan 53.7 63.0 77.3
UK 50.0 49.2 45.2
Midwest US 42.7 44.7 47.7
Northeast US 43.7 51.3 51.1
West US 42.1 35.3 49.1
George William Herbert
>I'll have to go back to the history books to verify, but IIRC, after the
>Santa Barbara oil spill caused a huge public outcry in the early '70s,
>oil and gas exploration and production on California's outer continental
>shelf was banned, much to the chagrin of lease-holders.
That is correct. However, one large questionmark is whether the
advances in modern drilling technology may have literally poked
sideways past the literal ban.
Traditionally, drilling rigs could angle their boreholes somewhat
but not a lot, and had to drill more or less down from where they
were located. Modern oil drilling can use advanced lateral drilling
to go sideways accurately, as much as five miles of lateral distance
today and more coming as the techniques get better. One would be
able to produce a lot of oil from on-shore wells with current
techniques, drilling out under the seabed. That would avoid
putting rigs out at sea (ugly, environmental hazard if there's
a spill). I haven't read the laws in detail, but that might
be a way to both drill here and not put rigs up.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
John Phillips
>"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
>>
>> j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
>>
>> > FWIW I think attempting to build new nuclear power plants
>> > would be an extremely stupid thing for California to do. Some LNG
>> > terminals might be a good idea however. Anyone know what the cost
>> > of shipping LNG is?
>>
>> Anyone know what the cost of a worst-case LNG tanker explosion
>> would be?
>>
>> Paul
>
>To BLEVE or not to BLEVE?
>http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/PROJECT/ENERGY/WGSI/trinity5.htm
>
>
>Why would CA build LNG terminals? To export LNG? For their own use,
>they'd be *MUCH* better off building new pipelines to offshore gas
>fields.
>
>Net energy (NRG out/NRG in) of LNG: 5.6
>Net energy of Pipeline NG: 26
>Net energy of nuclear (Diffusion enrichment): 15-25
>Net energy of nuclear (Centrifuge enrichment): 43-76
>
>Why shouldn't CA extract gas from the outer continental shelf?
>Why shouldn't SMUD replace the old Rancho Seco reactor with a new one?
>
From what I've read, PG&E has an LNG terminal.
Regards,
John Phillips
To respond by e-mail, please remove the
parentheses from my address
Treeman
Don Libby wrote:
> Capital O&M Fuel Risk
> Coal 20.6 9.7 23.7 minor
> Gas 9.4 6.1 28.1 less
> Nuclear 27.2 10.6 9.9 huge
>
> Levelized electricity generation costs (investment + O&M + fuel, costs
> in $1991 $US per MWh, including decomissioning and waste disposal) oh yeah?
> How do you estimate the cost to future generations of dealing with a
> mineshaft full of poison?
>
>
>
>
Your shallow "cost" analysis fails to account for ecological costs, which are
far greater in the medium to long term for nuclear. Dollars are only part of
the total cost.
Tony Wesley
"Treeman" <N...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3A95E42E...@ihug.co.nz...
> > Cost (1995 $US per mWh) of replacement power in Sweden (assuming 5%
> > discount rate)
> > Capital O&M Fuel Risk
> > Coal 20.6 9.7 23.7 minor
> > Gas 9.4 6.1 28.1 less
> > Nuclear 27.2 10.6 9.9 huge
> Your shallow "cost" analysis fails to account for ecological costs, which
are
> far greater in the medium to long term for nuclear. Dollars are only part
of
> the total cost.
Perhaps you could give us an in-depth cost analysis of the ecological costs
of coal.
Ian St. John
"Tim O'Flaherty" <pinw...@attcanada.net> wrote in message
news:Q%hl6.938$TW....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>
> Ian St. John wrote in message <9720el$cnj$1...@news.tht.net>...
>
>
> Tim O'Flaherty asked
>
> >> decomissionings can you cite over the period from 1993 to 1998?
> >
I repeat my point.
The utilities did *not* sell plants to each other.
The plants were lost to the utilities. *Effectively decommisioning* them as
utility power generators.
You have a fine little point that the power plants still existed, but the
discussion was on *utility* power generation. A fifty year old plant, too
costly to run is effectively 'decommisioned' as utility power generation,
since even if it has enough pollution credits, is currently in repair, etc.
the power produced cannot compete, and is only useful if it sells on the
spot market above normal rates, or as a 'premium' source for reliable but
expensive generation for critical industries.
As I carefully pointed out, these 'non-utility' generators are not obligated
to run to supply reserve or baseload power. They are not part of power
regulation in California. They are mainly profitable during a crisis for
high priced 'spot market' energy, and are gamed to maximize the profits from
that use.
Got your brain in gear yet?
Gregory Greenman
Coal? Hell - I'd like to hear what he THINKS the ecological impacts
of nuclear are. Can you oblige us, Treeman?
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Gregory Greenman
James,
Let's do the calculation as to how big the ship is that would hold
20 MT equivalent.
Let's assume the ship carries 20 MT in weight of a chemical
explosive. 20 MT is 20 Million metric tonnes or 20 Billion kilograms,
or 2.0E+13 grams. For a ship of this weight to float, it would need
to displace 2.0E+13 grams of water. Since the density of water is
1 gm/cc - the volume would be 2.0E+13 cc.
Since there are a million cc in a cubic meter - the volume would
be 2.0E+07 cubic meters or 20 Million cubic meters. Let's say,
the draft of the ship is about 10 meters [ ~30 feet ]. Let's says the
breadth of the ship is 40 meters [ ~120 feet ].
Then the lenght of the ship would have to be 20 Million cubic
meters, divided by 400 square meters - the cross-section of
a ship with the above draft and breadth. The length of such a
ship would be 50,000 meters or 50 km or about 30.78 miles long.
Rest assured there are NO LNG tankers that are the
equivalent of a 20 MT thermonuclear bomb.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
George William Herbert
> Let's do the calculation as to how big the ship is that would hold
>20 MT equivalent.
>Let's assume the ship carries 20 MT in weight of a chemical
>explosive. 20 MT is 20 Million metric tonnes or 20 Billion kilograms,
>or 2.0E+13 grams. For a ship of this weight to float, it would need
>to displace 2.0E+13 grams of water. Since the density of water is
>1 gm/cc - the volume would be 2.0E+13 cc.
>Since there are a million cc in a cubic meter - the volume would
>be 2.0E+07 cubic meters or 20 Million cubic meters. Let's say,
>the draft of the ship is about 10 meters [ ~30 feet ]. Let's says the
>breadth of the ship is 40 meters [ ~120 feet ].
>Then the lenght of the ship would have to be 20 Million cubic
>meters, divided by 400 square meters - the cross-section of
>a ship with the above draft and breadth. The length of such a
>ship would be 50,000 meters or 50 km or about 30.78 miles long.
>Rest assured there are NO LNG tankers that are the
>equivalent of a 20 MT thermonuclear bomb.
No, but your analysis is off, too.
In rough terms, natural gas/oxygen has a 1.2 to 1.5 energy yield
per kg better than TNT, and is only about 35% by mass fuel.
I.e., you get a multiplier of around 4-5 from mass of natural
gas to TNT explosive equivalent. Let's pick 5 for example...
Very very large crude oil carriers are 1200 feet long, 200 feet
wide and 150 feet deep. They physically occupy about 85% of their
block volume. This is about 30 million cubic feet, 850 thousand
cubic meters or so. If filled with LNG that's around 600 thousand tons.
Actual LNG tankers are smaller (perhaps a third the volume) and the
tanks are only about half the ship's overall volume, so we're
talking a scaleback of mass of about 6 overall down to 100,000 tons
maximum credible fuel volume. That's the equivalent of 5 times
that mass in TNT per our earlier equation, or 500 kilotons of
TNT blast energy if properly and evenly dispersed and then
detonated.
This is not tens of megatons range, or even megatons range,
but the larger LNG tankers are solidly in the hundreds of kilotons
TNT equivalent range of maximum yield equivalent. In reality,
getting it to disperse and detonate smoothly would be incredibly
difficult if you had ideal conditions and did it intentionally with
full cooperation of qualified technical experts. So any practical
yield in an accident, or terrorist incident, will be a small
fraction of that.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Jeffrey Siegal
> From what I've read, PG&E has an LNG terminal.
It is possible that they do, but not in California. There is no LNG
terminal on the west coast. There has been talk of building one in
Mexico.
Russ Schmidt
>> Don Libby <never...@tds.net> writes:
>>
>> >Net energy (NRG out/NRG in) of LNG: 5.6
>> >Net energy of Pipeline NG: 26
>> >Net energy of nuclear (Diffusion enrichment): 15-25
>> >Net energy of nuclear (Centrifuge enrichment): 43-76
>>
<snip>
>
>Likewise, if you're using much of your uranium energy to drive the
>enrichment process, the cost of standard work units from gasseous
>diffusion plants will exceed the cost from centrifuge plants, c.p.
>
I don't know where the figures above came from, or what they include. I am
sure, from 14 years spent working in uranium enrichment, that the energy
used in gaseous diffusion requires about 3% of the electricity generated by
the enriched uranium. The centrifuge and laser processes require less than
10% of the energy per separative work unit that gaseous diffusion uses, but
the equipment and other costs must also be factored into the comparison.
--
Russ Schmidt (i...@y12.doe.gov)
BWXT Y-12 L.L.C.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-2009
Graham Cowan
Three percent implies a gain of 33,
a little over the 25 maximum quotes by Libby, but
that is supposed to include all losses.
How low-grade do you estimate a terrestrial uranium ore would have to be
for the energy cost of mining to be another three percent?
Don Libby
>
> Don Libby wrote:
>
> > From Nordhaus 1997 _Swedish Nuclear Dilemma_
> > http://www.rff.org/books/descriptions/swedenuke.htm
> >
> > Cost (1995 $US per mWh) of replacement power in Sweden (assuming 5%
> > discount rate)
> > Capital O&M Fuel Risk
> > Coal 20.6 9.7 23.7 minor
> > Gas 9.4 6.1 28.1 less
> > Nuclear 27.2 10.6 9.9 huge
Treeman added this bogus risk assessment
Nordhaus includes a somewhat better supported risk assessment:
Comparative Risk by Electricity Production by Fuel Cycle (accidents and
diseases per gWyr - including entire fuel cycle, excluding severe
accidents)
Occupational Public (Off-site)
Fatal Nonfatal Fatal Nonfatal
Coal 0.2-4.3 63 2.1-7.0 2018
Oil 0.2-1.4 30 2.0-6.1 2000
Gas 0.1-1.0 15 0.2-0.4 15
Nuclear (LWR) 0.1-0.9 15 .006-0.2 16
Fatalities per $Billion of output:
Nuclear power production cycle 1.90
Agriculutre 11.86
Mining 2.34
Manufacturing 0.63
Transport & utilities 2.55
Services 0.66
Total economy 1.60
You are entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion, the lower health
risks of nuclear power are *better* than the higher health risks of
fossil fuel power.
> How do you estimate the cost to future generations of dealing with a
> mineshaft full of poison?
The cost of waste disposal and decomissioning is paid for by people who
buy electricity produced by nuclear power. Once the waste is
permanently interred, it doesn't cost anything to let Yucca Mtn. just
sit there and do nothing. How much has it cost our generation and all
prior generations to deal with a mineshaft full of poison in Oklo,
Gabon?
See:
http://nova.nuc.umr.edu/~ans/oklo.html
http://www.uic.com.au/nip09.htm
>
> Your shallow "cost" analysis fails to account for ecological costs, which are
> far greater in the medium to long term for nuclear. Dollars are only part of
> the total cost.
My shallow "cost" analysis responded to J.B. Shearer's contention that
nuclear power is stupid because its monetary cost is too high, which
isn't at all apparent from these data.
Your shallow "ecological" analysis contends that nuclear power is stupid
because its ecological cost is too high, which also is not apparent.
Nuclear power reduces risk to the environment because it has the lowest
level of air pollution emission of any present power generation
technology:
Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions (grams CO2 equivalent per
kilowatt-hour) from electricity production
Range of
estimates
Coal 966 - 1306
Gas 439 - 688
Hydro 4 - 236
Solar-PV 100 - 280
Wind 10 - 48
Nuclear 9 - 21
See also:
http://www.uic.com.au/ne6.htm
http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t3/reports/utilexec.html
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Booklets/Development/devnine.html
Consider also that it takes 4000-6000 km^2 biomass plantation to fuel
1000MWe equivalent biomass power plant. That's alot of tree, man.
Treeman
sure, from 14 years spent working in uranium enrichment,
...that anything I write in favour of nukes is biassed as hell.
Treeman
level of air pollution emission of any present power generation
technology:
tell that to people living in Cumbria whose children die of leukemia.
George William Herbert
>>I am sure, from 14 years spent working in uranium enrichment,
>
>...that anything I write in favour of nukes is biassed as hell.
What he wrote was:
>>>I don't know where the figures above came from, or
>>>what they include. I am sure, from 14 years spent
>>>working in uranium enrichment, that the energy used in
>>>gaseous diffusion requires about 3% of the electricity
>>>generated by the enriched uranium. The centrifuge and
>>>laser processes require less than 10% of the energy
>>>per separative work unit that gaseous diffusion uses,
>>>but the equipment and other costs must also be
>>>factored into the comparison.
Are you disagreeing with the technical claim that the energy
used in gaseous diffusion enrichment is only 3% of the final
electrical production of uranium in reactors, or that centrifuge
or laser processes are more than 90% more energy efficient
than gaseous diffusion?
Or are you just kneejerking against any serious discussion
of nuclear power still?
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Richard Bell
Treeman, you cannot conscionably accuse anyone of being more biassed
than yourself. Unless you start spouting informed rhetoric, you will never
be taken seriously.
fungee
<Schm...@y12.doe.dov> writes:
>I don't know where the figures above came from, or what they include. I am
>sure, from 14 years spent working in uranium enrichment, that the energy
>used in gaseous diffusion requires about 3% of the electricity generated by
>the enriched uranium. The centrifuge and laser processes require less than
>10% of the energy per separative work unit that gaseous diffusion uses, but
>the equipment and other costs must also be factored into the comparison.
I seem to recall that one enrichment plant needed about a GW. Considering
that there are over 100 operating reactors and even if the plant operated
24/7, that would be a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope 1%. The 3% number
seems familiar, though. What's the disconnect?
--
fungee... Unsolicited commercial email (spam) is not desired. Senders
of spam will help me beta test new virii, mailbombs, and/or DoS attacks.
Sending spam to this address constitutes agreement to these terms.
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
wmbjk
"Don Libby" <never...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:3A968B5B...@tds.net...
>
> The cost of waste disposal and decomissioning is paid for by people who
> buy electricity produced by nuclear power. Once the waste is
> permanently interred, it doesn't cost anything to let Yucca Mtn. just
> sit there and do nothing
Wow Don, that does sound easy! Wonder what's taking so long and costing so
much then? Perhaps you could peruse this stuff
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/whatsnew.htm and give us an overview. While
you make it sound like a done deal, some of those articles make it seem like
Nevada is going to fight Yucca Mountain at EVERY possible level, and never
surrender. This one caught my eye
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2001/feb/22/511470953.html
Gives you some idea of how far the tentacles of this beast will reach.
My own feeling is that the "bury it and forget it at Yucca Mountain" idea
actually croaked a while back. Trouble is, nobody wants to sign the death
certificate. Perhaps holding out hope that Nevadans will have a change of
heart, or can somehow be bought off, or bullied. Although that doesn't seem
to have worked very well so far.
Got any figures about the economics of permanent, accessible,
storage/monitoring? Is there any chance in hell that the money collected so
far for disposal could cover that? Assuming that those who use the energy
would agree to keep the waste, would the cost of storage and monitoring end
their fantasy of (near term) cheap juice?
One more thing. I'm curious about your opinion about the public reaction,
should the current plants make an announcement like this: "There's been a
change of plan. We're not going to ship the waste off to Nevada like we
said. Instead, we're going to keep it where it is." 'Cause isn't that what
they're doing?
Wayne
Chris Torek
wmbjk <wm...@ctaz.com> writes:
>... This one caught my eye
>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2001/feb/22/511470953.html
>Gives you some idea of how far the tentacles of this beast will reach.
>
>My own feeling is that the "bury it and forget it at Yucca Mountain" idea
>actually croaked a while back. Trouble is, nobody wants to sign the death
>certificate. Perhaps holding out hope that Nevadans will have a change of
>heart, or can somehow be bought off, or bullied. Although that doesn't seem
>to have worked very well so far.
They probably *can* be bought off. A railroad right-of-way through
this part of Nevada would be a huge boon to the state. (Nevada
has terribly mountainous terrain. Most people think of NV as
nothing but flat desert as far as the eye can see, but NV actually
has more mountain ranges than any other continental state. Even
though it is smaller than TX and CA, it has more mountains. This
makes transportation difficult and expensive, and is one reason NV
has so little development.)
(One advantage to storing such waste in NV, or indeed anywhere in
the "basin" area, is that water only flows *in*. Any ground-storage
leakage stays in the area.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA Domain: to...@bsdi.com +1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/ (not always up) I report spam to abuse@.
Note: PacBell news service is rotten
Treeman
the "basin" area, is that water only flows *in*. Any ground-storage
leakage stays in the area.)
I'm sure the Nevadans wouldn't see that as an advantage. Oh but I
forgot, US nuclear waste is harmless, etc, etc.
Dennis Towne
Full references and citations to peer-reviewed literature, please.
-dennis T
Russ Schmidt
>In article <Xns90516AC92D06C...@128.219.128.109>, Russ
>Schmidt
><Schm...@y12.doe.dov> writes:
>
>>I don't know where the figures above came from, or what they include. I
>>am sure, from 14 years spent working in uranium enrichment, that the
>>energy used in gaseous diffusion requires about 3% of the electricity
>>generated by the enriched uranium. The centrifuge and laser processes
>>require less than 10% of the energy per separative work unit that
>>gaseous diffusion uses, but the equipment and other costs must also be
>>factored into the comparison.
>
>I seem to recall that one enrichment plant needed about a GW.
>Considering that there are over 100 operating reactors and even if the
>plant operated 24/7, that would be a quick-and-dirty
>back-of-the-envelope 1%. The 3% number seems familiar, though. What's
>the disconnect?
>
Several things: The two GDPs (gaseous diffusion plants) running in the US
are (or rather were) generally averaging more than 1000 MW (1 GW) each.
Nameplate capacities are 3040 MW at Paducah and 2260 MW at Portsmouth, but
they have not operated near those levels in a long time. Before the Russian
HEU deal, the complex was running at levels around 2400 MW. Now that USEC
(the US Enrichment Corp, which runs the US GDPs) is getting over half of
its product from down-blended Russian HEU, both plants are running at much
lower power levels and USEC plans to close Portsmouth.
Second, not all US utilities buy 100% of their requirements from USEC. On
the other hand, USEC also supplies some foreign reactors. I have been out
of that side of the business for a while, so I don't know how much these
two offset.
And finally, the 3% is actually a bit high. I remembered a value of ~ 2.5%
and rounded to three to post here. Since you asked, I went back and
recalculated based on current numbers for plant burnup and such, and I get
a bit under 2%.
>--
>fungee... Unsolicited commercial email (spam) is not desired. Senders
>of spam will help me beta test new virii, mailbombs, and/or DoS attacks.
>Sending spam to this address constitutes agreement to these terms.
>
>
>
> ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web
> -----
> http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+
> groups
> NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other
> posts
>made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email
>ab...@newsone.net
>
--
Russ Schmidt
>Russ Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> I don't know where the figures above came from, or what they include.
>> I am sure, from 14 years spent working in uranium enrichment, that the
>> energy used in gaseous diffusion requires about 3% of the electricity
>> generated by the enriched uranium. The centrifuge and laser processes
>> require less than 10% of the energy per separative work unit that
>> gaseous diffusion uses, but the equipment and other costs must also be
>> factored into the comparison.
>
>Three percent implies a gain of 33,
>a little over the 25 maximum quotes by Libby, but
>that is supposed to include all losses.
>
>How low-grade do you estimate a terrestrial uranium ore would have to be
>for the energy cost of mining to be another three percent?
I don't have any kind of feel for the energy used in mining and
transportation. I can tell you that for a reasonable set of operating
conditions a 1000 MWe reactor will use roughly 175 metric tons of natural
uranium per year. My gut feel is that the mining and transportation energy
use is likely to be much less than the energy needed for enrichment, but I
don't really have a solid basis for that.
Russ
fungee
>anything I write [...] is biassed [sic] as hell.
Ever think that someone who has actually worked in the industry they are
writing about may actually know something about it? As opposed to...
--
fungee
Paul L. Studier
Russ Schmidt wrote:
>
>
> I don't have any kind of feel for the energy used in mining and
> transportation. I can tell you that for a reasonable set of operating
> conditions a 1000 MWe reactor will use roughly 175 metric tons of natural
> uranium per year. My gut feel is that the mining and transportation energy
> use is likely to be much less than the energy needed for enrichment, but I
> don't really have a solid basis for that.
>
The Uranium Information Center Ltd has a paper on the economics
of nuclear power at http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm. According
to this, the costs for 1 kg of UO2 fuel (US $) is as follows:
U3O8 8kg x $25 200
conversion 7kg U x $2.5 18
enrichment 4.3 SWU x $80 344
fuel Fabrication per kg 240
total 800
Of course there is more to the cost than the energy, but it would
appear that mining takes less energy than enrichment.
--
Paul L. Studier <Stu...@pleasenospamtoPaulStudier.com>
When you work, you create. When you win, you just take from the loser.
Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org
Chris Torek
>>(One advantage to storing such waste in NV, or indeed anywhere in
>>the "basin" area, is that water only flows *in*. Any ground-storage
>>leakage stays in the area.)
In article <3A96B8DE...@ihug.co.nz> Treeman <N...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>I'm sure the Nevadans wouldn't see that as an advantage. Oh but I
>forgot, US nuclear waste is harmless, etc, etc.
Those who actually engage their brains might see it as an advantage. :-)
In particular, if you live in, say, Las Vegas or Reno, you should
pay attention to whether storage at Yucca Mountain drains *towards*
you or *away*.
One of the objections to the Ward Valley disposal site is that it
is in the Colorado River drainage area. That is, anything that
were to leak could eventually arrive at the Colorado River -- and
from there it would work its way down to Southern CA and Mexico.
If you do not want something in your back yard, you need to make
sure that not only is it not, personally, in your back yard, but
also that it is not uphill of your back yard. The Great Basin is
defined as "that which is uphill of nothing". Of course, it is
still *someone*'s back yard. Nothing is perfect. The question is,
which is the *least* imperfect?
Russ Schmidt
>In article <Xns90516AC92D06C...@128.219.128.109>, Russ
>Schmidt
><Schm...@y12.doe.dov> writes:
>
>>I don't know where the figures above came from, or what they include. I
>>am sure, from 14 years spent working in uranium enrichment, that the
>>energy used in gaseous diffusion requires about 3% of the electricity
>>generated by the enriched uranium. The centrifuge and laser processes
>>require less than 10% of the energy per separative work unit that
>>gaseous diffusion uses, but the equipment and other costs must also be
>>factored into the comparison.
>
>I seem to recall that one enrichment plant needed about a GW.
>Considering that there are over 100 operating reactors and even if the
>plant operated 24/7, that would be a quick-and-dirty
>back-of-the-envelope 1%. The 3% number seems familiar, though. What's
>the disconnect?
>
(I attempted a response several hours ago, but it seems to have vanished
without a trace, so I will try again.)
First, there are two GDPs (gaseous diffusion plants) operating in the US.
If they were providing all of USEC's (the US Enrichment Corp, which runs
the GDPs) enrichment, they would probably be running at a combined average
of ~2400 MW. USEC is currently recieving lots of LEU derived from Russian
HEU, so power levels are lower (and USEC has announced that the Portsmouth
GDP will be shut down soon).
Second, USEC does not provide all of the US reactors with all of their
demand. Some reactor operators buy from foreign enrichers or off of the
spot market. On the other hand, USEC also sells to foreign utilities.
Third, the 3% number I provided above is a bit high. I remembered a value
of about 2.5% and rounded up. Since you asked I re-did the calculation
using relatively current values for burn-up and enrichment, and get a
number a bit less than 2%.
Russ
wmbjk
"Chris Torek" <to...@elf.bsdi.com> wrote in message
news:976gug$fqb$1...@elf.bsdi.com...
>The question is,
> which is the *least* imperfect?
> --
No, I don't believe that's the question. It may be for you, or perhaps even
for most of the country, but it sure as hell isn't what Nevadans ask.
As for a rail line buying them off, good luck. Like the average Nevadan
would give a hoot. Start going through those news articles, you may notice a
trend. Oppose the concept on every level. Protest every meeting,
appointment, permit, etc. Not one single inch is to be given without a
fight. Make them wish they'd never proposed the idea, and make it so
expensive that they'll give it up. Perhaps the rail line is just one of a
million diversions. Then again, a rail line here, a highway there, a stadium
hither, a cash payment yon, and who knows, maybe it'll amount to an
acceptable price. I doubt it though. Plus, time is working against the
process. Nevada is becoming more populated each minute. Vegas and Henderson
were the two fastest growing cities in the country a year or so ago, perhaps
they still are. Any price per person, times more persons is.........more
than the other states are willing to pay I think. At some point, they might
just decide that it's cheaper, simpler, and fairer to keep the stuff at
home. I'm hoping that Don can put some numbers on that concept.
Wayne
Jeffrey Siegal
> Then again, a rail line here, a highway there, a stadium
> hither, a cash payment yon, and who knows, maybe it'll amount to an
> acceptable price. I doubt it though.
It really depends on cost. If cheap natural gas is available, and
global warming does not spiral quickly out of control, then we'll just
keep burning natural gas. But if people have to choose between giving
up cheap electricity and irradiating the Nevadans, get ready to start
seeing glow-in-the-dark showgirls.
We've seen a whole lot of steps taken recently in California to roll
back clean air regulations, plant siting regulations, and other things
that Californians have held dear for decades. All it took were a couple
of quick rolling blackouts and pretty soon those things didn't seem
quite so important any more.
j...@watson.ibm.com
on Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:33:14 -0600,
<snip>
>> I am talking about huge ships designed to ship LNG as cheaply
>> as possible across oceans. They carry a bit more than 20 tons at a
>> time.
>
>I had no idea they shipped LNG in that fashion, or in that volume.
>
>The worst case disaster I can think of would be complete structural
>failure of the tanker - it would make one hell of a fireball, but
>probably wouldn't be as destructive as a nuclear weapon of similar
>size. The liquid, once liberated, would float on the surface of the
>ocean and spread out, flaming all the way. It's lighter than air, so as
>it evaporated it would rise. The fire and rising gas would likely cause
>unbelievable draft winds. Any ideas how large and area the liquid could
>cover before being burned up? Muwahaha...
Worst case wise you don't set it off until it has vaporized
and formed an explosive cloud (even better if you can get the
explosive cloud to drift to a more populated area). Kaboom!
James B. Shearer
j...@watson.ibm.com
on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:11:43 GMT,>> In article <3A9533B6...@tds.net>,
>> on Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:49:09 GMT,
>> Don Libby <never...@tds.net> writes:
>> >"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > FWIW I think attempting to build new nuclear power plants
>> >> > would be an extremely stupid thing for California to do. Some LNG
>> >> > terminals might be a good idea however. Anyone know what the cost
>> >> > of shipping LNG is?
>>
>>
>> >Why would CA build LNG terminals? To export LNG? For their own use,
>> >they'd be *MUCH* better off building new pipelines to offshore gas
>> >fields.
>>
>> For their own use. I was unaware that there are substantial
>> natural gas reserves off the California cost. Is that the case? Is
>> it currently legal to develop them?
>
>I'll have to go back to the history books to verify, but IIRC, after the
>Santa Barbara oil spill caused a huge public outcry in the early '70s,
>oil and gas exploration and production on California's outer continental
>shelf was banned, much to the chagrin of lease-holders.
I believe existing production (oil as I recall) was allowed
to continue. I remain unaware of substantial natural gas reserves.
>>
>> >Net energy (NRG out/NRG in) of LNG: 5.6
>> >Net energy of Pipeline NG: 26
>> >Net energy of nuclear (Diffusion enrichment): 15-25
>> >Net energy of nuclear (Centrifuge enrichment): 43-76
>>
>> What does this have to do with anything? Cost is what
>> matters.
>
>It should go without saying that if you're using 75% of the natural gas
>from the well to drive LNG compressors, the unit cost of LNG will exceed
>pipeline gas, other things equal.
This is utterly bogus. First where did your 75% come from?
As I understand your figures about 15% of the energy in the gas is
consumed in transporting it by tanker as opposed to about 4% by
pipeline. This makes 85% of the energy available instead of 96%.
Second other things are most definitely not equal. I believe there
are parts of the world today where natural gas is being flared as a
unwanted by-product of oil production. The owners of this gas would
be happy to get anything for it. Third people make decisions based
on money yield not energy yield. If it costs $4 per 1000 cubic feet
to ship LNG across a ocean and NG sells in the US for $2 obviously
little will be imported (as has been the case). If however the
price rises to $5 in the US then it becomes attractive to import
LNG which would otherwise be flared. $1 per 1000 cubic feet is
better than $0 even if the same gas would be worth $5 if the well
were in the US. This is why I asked what the shipping cost is as
potential supply increases greatly as natural gas prices rise above
the shipping cost.
>Likewise, if you're using much of your uranium energy to drive the
>enrichment process, the cost of standard work units from gasseous
>diffusion plants will exceed the cost from centrifuge plants, c.p.
Do you believe a chip production line with 98% yield is
twice as good as one with 96% yield? That is not how it works.
>> >Why shouldn't CA extract gas from the outer continental shelf?
>>
>> I don't know. Why aren't they doing it now.
>
>It's against the rules.
If there is no gas there it doesn't matter what the rules
are.
>>
>> >Why shouldn't SMUD replace the old Rancho Seco reactor with a new one?
>>
>> Because it would be really, really stupid. Or to elaborate
>> because it would cost so much that the electricity generated would be
>> uncompetitive even assuming they were able to complete the plant which
>> I would not bet on given the vigorous opposition it would inspire and
>> the demonstrated inability of utilities to manage nuclear construction
>> projects well.
>> James B. Shearer
>
>Er, I don't know how you're accounting for costs, but some of the
>figures I've seen show nuclear power costs in the same neighborhood as
>other alternatives. For example:
The figures I have seen say an existing nuclear plants are
selling for less than $1 billion. Since the cost of building a new
nuclear plant is at least $5 billion (and probably much more) trying
to do so would appear to qualify as really, really stupid.
James B. Shearer
j...@watson.ibm.com
on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:10:20 GMT,
First I said I had read somewhere 2 MT not 20 MT. Second
as another poster pointed NG has more energy content than TNT per
unit weight (in part because you don't count the O2). Nevertheless
2 MT seems to be a bit high. Perhaps it was the energy content for
an oil supertanker.
James B. Shearer
Jeffrey Siegal
> Worst case wise you don't set it off until it has vaporized
> and formed an explosive cloud (even better if you can get the
> explosive cloud to drift to a more populated area). Kaboom!
It is almost impossible to imagine that natural gas could or would form
a large cloud of combustable mixture, because the range of
concentrations at which NG will burn or explode is *very* narrow. Now,
hydrogen is a different matter...
Jeffrey Siegal
> tell that to people living in Cumbria whose children die of leukemia.
Is that supposed to pass as science?
What about diseases caused by non-nuclear power plant emissions? For
example, childhood asthma (which may or may not be caused by power plant
emissions) causes far more hospitalizations than childhood leukemia, and
nearly as many deaths.
Jeffrey Siegal
> tell that to people living in Cumbria whose children die of leukemia.
Oh, and by the way,
http://www.acor.org/diseases/ped-onc/diseases/kinlen.html
Graham Cowan
No, it isn't. Not very different, anyway.
Natural gas is mostly methane, and methane's explosive range in air
is 5.40 volume percent up to 59.2 volume percent.
Hydrogen starts about the same, 4.65 percent, but goes all the way
up to 93.9 percent.
Impossible to imagine? What about remembering? New London, TX;
Taegu, South Korea; and maybe 100 other places.
---
Boron has more energy than methane, is explosive like turnip.
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Graham Cowan
Treeman knows nuclear energy is less harmful than the energies
whose taxation he lives off. He also knows how to troll ...
---
Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydrogen?
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Jeffrey Siegal
> > It is almost impossible to imagine that natural gas could or would form
> > a large cloud of combustable mixture, because the range of
> > concentrations at which NG will burn or explode is *very* narrow. Now,
> > hydrogen is a different matter...
>
> No, it isn't. Not very different, anyway.
> Natural gas is mostly methane, and methane's explosive range in air
> is 5.40 volume percent up to 59.2 volume percent.
According to this site, the range is 4% to 14%. Are they wrong?
http://www.technocarb.com/natgasproperties.htm
> Impossible to imagine? What about remembering? New London, TX; Taegu, South Korea; and maybe 100 other places.
Please estimate the number of megatons of energy released by these
explosions.
(The above quote of mine is somewhat out of context. The context was
the entire contents of a LNG tanker dispersing into a combustible
fuel-air cloud before igniting.)
Jeffrey Siegal
> > > It is almost impossible to imagine that natural gas could or would form
> > > a large cloud of combustable mixture, because the range of
> > > concentrations at which NG will burn or explode is *very* narrow. Now,
> > > hydrogen is a different matter...
> >
> > No, it isn't. Not very different, anyway.
> > Natural gas is mostly methane, and methane's explosive range in air
> > is 5.40 volume percent up to 59.2 volume percent.
>
> According to this site, the range is 4% to 14%. Are they wrong?
>
> http://www.technocarb.com/natgasproperties.htm
Here's another reference. The chart at the lower right corner of the
page graphically illustrates the huge difference between NG and hydrogen
in terms of explosive range.
http://www.norco-library.com/customer/safety/envirosurv_howcombustgas.htm