A gentle and sane debate on energy sources

[John From Detroit]

Well, as I said when it comes to nuclear powered vehicles.. There are major issues that would have to be overcome

I can envision a simple method for controlling the reactor by simply using heat to operate the control rods, this should, in theory, keep the reaction chamber at roughly the same temperature and prevent thermal overrun (Run away)  In theory

Can it be done?  I don't know... But it sounds good

The next problem is any such device would have to be small enough (We only deed around 500 KW for a Motor home 100-200 for a car) and .. And this is a biggie.. CRASH PROOF.... It has to survive a worst case accident without loss of control or material

Now that.. Is one thing I don't see being over come any time soon.  When you consider that most of the stuff used to fuel nuke plants is very highly toxic.. Even the slightest release of materials would be deadly to those around.. Not radiation so much as just Toxins. 

 

[Ron]

Wyoming could also utilize geothermal technology by building electrical generating plants in some of the areas in Wyoming such as Thermopolis that have Geothermal resources available. Idaho also has Geothermal resources.

 

[egdeaile]

Wind doesn't really work in terms of efficiency. I mean, yes, there are efficiencies, and blah blah, but not like thermal plants. For thermal plants, you put in fuel, and you get x percent out as electrical energy.

Wind turbines, you let the wind blow, and they put out electricity. Their efficiency is a matter of how much of the wind can be converted. According to Betz's law, only 2/3 of the wind can be harnessed in an ideal turbine (no friction, no electrical losses). Real wind turbines fall somewhere under that. But again, because there is no fuel input, they are essentially 100% efficient.

The problem with wind power is, in fact, wind. We do our best to put them in the windiest places, but the wind does not always blow. Then there are times it blows too hard, so the turbines have to shut down. They can essentially only be considered a supplement to relieve thermal plants of load when the wind is cooperating.

Nuclear is pretty much the way to go.

As for me, having worked both Nuclear (Navy Nuke Electrician, Submarines), and Wind power, I believe a combination of the two is the future of power. The problem is that coal plants are so freaking cheap that none of the big companies want to stop operation them. Since they hold many politicians in their pockets, real change will be a while in coming.

Portable nuclear power plants are closer than you think. The need for control rods will soon be gone. New plants will convert nuclear energy directly to electricity without the loss of steam systems. They will be built so that as heat goes up, power goes down (meaning an over-temperature would effectively shut down the system). As far as crash proofing them... that's another issue entirely. Perhaps the folks at MIT that do the egg drops from a few stories up could think of something for us?


BTW- shoutout to Dave. I work for Granite Services, we commission GE turbines. I completed my training in Tehachapi in May 2007. Are you with Coram?

 

[Mike Goad]

Portable nuclear power plants are closer than you think. The need for control rods will soon be gone. New plants will convert nuclear energy directly to electricity without the loss of steam systems. They will be built so that as heat goes up, power goes down (meaning an over-temperature would effectively shut down the system). As far as crash proofing them... that's another issue entirely. Perhaps the folks at MIT that do the egg drops from a few stories up could think of something for us?

While I am quite optimistic about nuclear, I'm not that optimistic about the future of nuclear power. 

I think the power plants of 20 years from now will differ significantly from the power plants of today, but they won't be portable, they will have some control mechanisms -- probably something different than control rods --, the heat of the nuclear reaction will heat some medium such as helium or water which will produce a high energy gas to drive turbines or provide process heat for industries.  I don't see direct production of electricity from the fission process.

And 20 years from now, many of the plants that are operating today will still be in operation.  The plant that I worked has had it's operating life extended to 2034..., and the possibility of an additional 20 years for plants is being looked at by the NRC and the industry.  When you think of these plant operating for 80 years, their original extreme costs seem cheap.  The plant I worked at cost $100 million originally.

As an aside -- in the power plants of today, as the temperature goes up, power goes down -- by design (negative moderator temperature coefficient). In the Soviet RBMK plants, the opposite was true at lower power levels.  As temperature went up, power went up, which drove temperature higher, which sent power higher, which..., was Chernobyl  (positive moderator temperature coefficient).

I agree that wind and nuclear are energy sources of the future.

I don't have any experience in wind energy.  All of my experience is in nuclear -- 1972 to 2008.

 

[egdeaile]

Mike, the direct coversion process is in development now at KAPL in Schenectady, NY. The Virginia Class submarine was developed with the ability to accept the new type of plant, if and when it is ready to deploy.

That long in Nuclear, ever think of WIND? We need good people!

 

[Mike Goad]

Mike, the direct coversion process is in development now at KAPL in Schenectady, NY. The Virginia Class submarine was developed with the ability to accept the new type of plant, if and when it is ready to deploy.

That long in Nuclear, ever think of WIND? We need good people!

"Direct energy conversion" -- interesting stuff.  From what little I read of it ,though, it's energy conversion from radiant energy in crystalline material, similar to solar cells.  It's still not electricity directly from the nuclear reaction, but it is closer.  It looks like there will still have to be some heat transport system to take heat from the reactor to the radiant surface used for "direct energy conversion" and the "direct energy conversion" will still probably not be anywhere near 100% efficient so there will have to be some sort of method for getting rid of the waste.

I can see why Knolls is involved in it.  Man, if they can put that on a submarine, just think how quiet it would be! 

Nuclear still needs good people, too, and lots of them.

I'm retired and if I have to go back to work, I'll go back to what I know.  :

I've already done it once.  Just finished a contract job teaching a licensed operator class.  My desk was three doors down from the last one I had used for over 15 years.  I teach emergency operating procedures, mitigating core damage, severe accident management guidelines, and was in the simulator for this class every hour that there was an assigned session for the last 6 months of the class..., but I didn't have any of the admin BS and didn't have to do any development work.  I may have an opportunity to go do it again next summer. I need a leveling system under the motorhome..., and maybe a motosat dish on the top.

 

[egdeaile]

Mike,

I also instruct in my field. I teach at GE's Energy Learning Center in Schenectady, NY. We of course don't have to worry about casualty response, but that is one of the big reasons I chose wind over Nuclear.

To get back on the subject, has anyone see the Algae farms where they use oils that algae produce naturally to make gasoline? The program I was watching claimed that if you put these plants in the desert of NM, we could power them mainly with solar, and the output would be "enough" fuel that the US could being supplying mexico and canada for all it's fuel needs...

Has anyone else heard about this?

 

[bross]

Click hereHere's a video about algae to bio fuel. Sounds like promising stuff.

 

[Ron]

Very interesting and sound like it could be feasible.  Thanks for the info.

 

[Tom]

Saw that program on TV. Didn't recall which channel, but now I know.

 

[Mc2guy]

New to the forum here, thought I could add some perspective.  I work for an energy consulting firm specializing in the commercial side of power generation and green/alternative power/fuel applications for large energy consumers.

The economic reality is that there is no "one" single answer.  It is going to take a patchwork quilt of technologies to migrate us away from a hydrocarbon driven energy system.  Generally speaking, biofuels will only remain a niche solution as ultimately the value of food production will always outweight the value of energy production on a macro scale.  I believe strongly that nuclear power will make a strong come-back, but not without major governmental support.  The problem is that the construction of a conventional nuclear power station is so capitally intensive, that you need extremely deep pockets to even consider building one.  Combine that with the credit crunch and political risk, not to mention the NIMBY and BANANAs issues, and you will find the reason that not a single new commercial reactor has been built in the U.S. in the last 25 years. 

Compared to coal-fired power, nuclear is much cheaper to operate (about $10/MWh vs. $40/MWh), but that ignores debt service on the capital to build the plant.  A coal fired plant may cost $2000/kW installed, whereas a new nuclear plant in the US could exceed $6000/kW installed, and that is just a guess since a new one hasn't been built in 25 years here.  With that much cost to recover the resulting electricity must be priced very high to make the investment pay off over a typical 30 year project life-cycle.  That is one reason so few companies are even trying to build new nuclear capacity.  It will only economically make sense where power prices are very high like the Northeast and Upper Midwest.

Wind and Solar, as pointed out, are excellent technologies, but have very low capacity factors (25% at best), with no guarantee it will be there when required to meet load.  They will be part of the solution, but only a small part overall.  Even worse, the places where the wind blows and the sun shines tend to be places that do not have adequate electrical transmission capacity to get the power to where it is needed, which significantly increases the overall costs of the project making development even more challenging.

Geothermal has potential, but requires a geothermal heat source to be practical.  There are some new wave-generation technologies that are coming along as well, but again are very early in development.  To be clear, these technologies are double and triple the cost of conventional coal or gas fired power on a $/kWh basis, so we are looking at massive increases in our electric bills.

sigh...

The reality that we all need to consider is that the solution is not finding a one for one replacement, but transforming our demand for energy.  We may very well need to cut our per capita energy consumption in half or more to fully wean ourselves from foreign fossil fuel sources, and that reality will be painful.  More than 70% of the energy we use is wasted in the form of heat loss to the atmosphere, so there is a place to start.   :-\

 

[carson]

Thanks for your post Mc2Guy.  give us some time to digest it. Lots of food for thought there.

carson FL

 

[Mike Goad]

With that much cost to recover the resulting electricity must be priced very high to make the investment pay off over a typical 30 year project life-cycle.  That is one reason so few companies are even trying to build new nuclear capacity.  It will only economically make sense where power prices are very high like the Northeast and Upper Midwest.

With license extensions, nuclear plants that were originally licensed for 40 years are now being extended another 20 years, with the possibility/probability of an additional 20 year extension.  For some units that'll be an 80 year life.  The plant I worked at was licensed to operate in 1974.  It's original license was to 2014.  The license expiration is now 2034.  The company that operates it, Entergy, has applied for licenses for new plants in Mississippi and Louisiana. 

I agree that a mix of energy sources is required. 

Just as important, though, is improvement of and addition to the electrical transmission infrastructure -- to ensure we don't have a dark day anywhere in the country like August 14, 2003.

 

[carson]

Yes Mike,

Just as important, though, is improvement of and addition to the electrical transmission infrastructure

That's the part I have trouble with getting a grip on..  transfer of energy. CNG, LNG, Solar, Tidal, Geothermal, Wind etc. All we have now is Hydro, atomic and coal fueled A/C plants  The grid seems to be loaded now.

    What will that do to the expansion requirements of all these proposed sources. Who will pay for that? I guess it will be higher energy prices for the consumer in the long run. What am I missing?

   What if we could invent a system of storing A/C power? Good luck. I think some hydro dams are doing that now by pumping water back into the reservoirs during off hours. Is that the only way?

  carson Fl
ps. something went wrong with my QUOTE method.

 

[Dave Stringham]

So Cal Edison is in the process of now of adding new transmission lines to the Tehachapi Calif area to support new wind developement and to also ease grid overload here as we can now overpower their current lines.  Those lines are supposed to be complete end of next year.

One of big goals from the people who control our grid is to someday balance green power like wind, solar with a gas plant.  If the wind is down or its cloudy, you run the gas plant, if the wind is up, you back down the gas plant.  This is being discussed at the highest levels, the problem with it is the same guy who owns the gas plant has to also own the wind plant so he doesnt feel he is losing kw production and not making as much as he should have, to pay him for not producing while the wind is blowing doesnt hold down the cost of power and that double payment would get passed on to the end user (us  ;D) and the gas plant and the wind plant have to supply the same power provider or utility, which usually doesnt happen either.....but its a good plan

 

[Jim Godward]

There is another very real problem, you don't just turn on a generating plant, it can take a while, hours in the case of gas or coal so a sudden wind drop or start is not good either.  Steady as she goes is the name of the game in the power generation world. 

 

[Dave Stringham]

There is another very real problem, you don't just turn on a generating plant, it can take a while, hours in the case of gas or coal so a sudden wind drop or start is not good either.  Steady as she goes is the name of the game in the power generation world. 

To get involved in this scheme, the wind plant (for instance) has to forecast what days and hours of that day they plan to produce power and how many kw's.   This of course causes much concern. Even though we can get some pretty good forecasting and assume the wind is going to blow on x day, sometimes the hours of operation are not as accurate because that weather pattern might falter somewhere down the line and slow down or speed up.....it might get here before or after our promise to run..and the fines for not producing when you promise are very high because you now have to pay to buy someone elses power when you cant produce and that cost is "what ever the market will bare".  And you are correct, it does take several hours to start or stop a plant, but the wind just doesnt "quit" or "start" it sort of ramps up or down so if everyone can get some communication going at the earliest time possible, things can perhaps, maybe, kind a sorta, by the hair of your chinny chin chin, .........work, if you hold your mouth just right and stand on one foot  ;D

i am not sure how it is done because I am not in that loop, but the company I work for has a gas plant by Vegas, it has to be controlled 24/7 because they are asked to come on line or come off line at a moments notice depending on demand (it doesnt run everyday) and I believe (and please dont hold me to the exact time frame) but I think its a 2 hour notice to either run or shut down.

 

[tswms]

Every time I get hear one of these energy discussion I recall a forum at SDSU (So Dakota) where a professor made the statement I still remember.  All "energy is free" . Wind cost nothing, the sunshine is free, and oil and coal in the ground is free.  The cost and problem is getting it to a form that can be used by the public. The eventual choice of energy will be the ones that can deliver the most benefit th the public at the lowest cost. (Without massive government subsidy).
I am afraid the current debate is becoming a battle between special intrest groups to see who can get the largest subsidy.
By the way the next person who uses the term"GREEN" to try to sell me something I would like to barf on his shoes.

Tony

 

[Mike Goad]

By the way the next person who uses the term"GREEN" to try to sell me something I would like to barf on his shoes.

More than just a little bit of overkill, isn't it.  :

I dislike it about as much as prefacing the names of items with the letter "i." 

 

[carson]

Thanks, Tom for the edit. Don't know what went wrong..

carson Fl  (nice responses on the old post, I think)