Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, May 7, 2019.
That's what nuclear energy is (or should be) for...
Nuclear should be assessed but we don't have a clue what to do with the waste. Additionally, when **** goes bad, it's catastrophic. Sat next to a geologist doing research at Hanford in SE Washington during my sons college orientation. He works for a 3rd party that has a contract with the government to keep tabs on the flow of hazardous radiation. He says the radiation there has already reached the Columbia river, dozens of miles from the Hanford reactors and storage. They are finding it in the soil, fish and groundwater.
Meanwhile, some mock renewable energy. Renewable energies aren't the end all be all yet but should be our focus going forward. The vast wind farms in the Columbia River basin are impressive.
You could not be more wrong about nuclear;
- 3rd generation much safer than previous designs. Already commercialized around world, particularly China.
- 4th generation cannot meltdown by design. It uses spent rods as fuel.
- Your Hanford comment is a red herring. No one is talking about nuclear fuel for bombs.
- Bill Gates on record as saying nuclear is only viable solution to global warming. I guess you are smarter than Bill Gates?
How many cities does that power? How many people are drawing energy off that grid? Honest question.
As of 2015 wind energy was just surpassing 7% of Washington State's total energy consumption with 3075 MW production (source: Wikipedia). Per this site. There is another 120 MW capacity under construction. The state is estimated to have a potential of 18k MW.
Washington State does have another significant renewable energy advantage. ~70% of our states energy comes via Hydro, the Bonneville dam on the Columbia River.
I'm over the moon that you have a method of safely eliminating nuclear waste. I trust you are willing to share your discovery with Hornfans.
Here is where Bill Gates is putting his money. He appears to be make bets on many different technologies, including nuclear.
This Company Says The Future Of Nuclear Energy Is Smaller, Cheaper And Safer
Jeff BradyMay 8, 20196:02 AM ET
Artist rendering of NuScale Power's nuclear power plant design, which would use small modular reactors.
Nuclear power plants are so big, complicated and expensive to build that more are shutting down than opening up. An Oregon company, NuScale Power, wants to change that trend by building nuclear plants that are the opposite of existing ones: smaller, simpler and cheaper.
The company says its plant design using small modular reactors also could work well with renewable energy, such as wind and solar, by providing backupelectricity when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
The 98 nuclear reactors operating in the country now are large because they were designed to take advantage of economies of scale. Many are at risk of closing in the next decade, largely because they can't compete with less expensive natural gas and renewable energy.
To respond to this dilemma, "we've developed economies of small," says Jose Reyes, chief technology officer and co-founder of NuScale.
Instead of one big nuclear reactor, Reyes says his company will string together a series of up to 12 much smaller reactors. They would be built in a factory and transported by truck to a site that would be prepared at the same time.
Article continues after sponsor message
"You're making your [reactor] pool and all that stuff on-site," says Reyes. "In parallel, you're manufacturing the modules, and then that cuts the construction schedule to about half."
NuScale Power's simulator in Corvallis, Ore., was designed to show regulators that the company can operate 12 reactors from one control room.
NuScale says it also has simplified how the plants are operated in ways that make them safer.
The 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japanhappened when a tsunami knocked offline the emergency generators that cooled the reactors and spent fuel, leading to reactor meltdowns.
"We've looked at ways the systems have failed in the past and tried to remove those kind of failure modes from our design," says Karin Feldman, vice president for the company's Program Management Office.
NuScale's design doesn't depend on pumps or generators that could fail in an emergency because it uses passive cooling. The reactors would be in a containment vessel, underground and in a huge pool of water that can absorb heat.
That means that even a reactor that fails would still be safe."It doesn't require any additional water," says Feldman. "It doesn't require AC or DC power. It doesn't require any operator action. And it can stay in that safe configuration for as long as is needed."
A backup power source for wind and solar
NuScale plans to build its first nuclear power plant at the Idaho National Lab. The electricity will power the lab and go to Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, or UAMPS, which serves 46 member utilities in six Western states.
The organization was looking for a carbon-free source of electricity to generate power when intermittent sources, such as solar panels and wind turbines are offline.And it turns out NuScale's modular design is good for that.
Big nuclear reactors run all the time, but NuScale's collection of smaller reactors can be ramped up and down relatively quickly. Batteries can back up intermittent sources of renewable energy, too, but UAMPS CEO Doug Hunter says NuScale's reactors are cheaper.
"Each module would have enough fuel in it for up to two years of operations, so it's like we're a battery that has a two-year charge to it," says Hunter.
NuScale still must convince the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that its plant design is safe. The company cleared the first phase of that review last year.
Licensing this design ischallenging. It's so different from existing plants that regulations must be changed to accommodate it. That worries some watchdogs and critics.
"My concern about NuScale is that they believe so deeply that their reactor is safe and doesn't need to meet the same criteria as the larger reactors, that it's pushing for lots of exemptions and exceptions," says Edwin Lyman, acting director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Lyman argues that even with NuScale's passive safety design, things could go wrong. He'll be among those watching regulators closely as NuScale pushes to have its first power plant built and operating in 2026.
Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia
A number of the reactor types highlighted in the wiki article are closed-loop (meaning they generate no waste).
Next-Gen Nuclear Is Coming—If Society Wants It
“There are reactors that burn nuclear waste. There are reactors designed to destroy isotopes that could be made into weapons. There are small reactors that could be built inexpensively in factories.”
“This stuff can sound like science fiction — but it’s real. Russia has been producing electricity from an advanced reactor that burns up radioactive waste since 2016. China has built a “pebble bed” reactor that keeps radioactive elements locked inside cue ball-sized graphite spheres”
You really should spend more time educating yourself. By the way, is this you?
NPR?? That ultra conservative site?
Husker will discount anything reported there.
BTW I really liked learning so much from the sites you linked. Thanks for the information.
Anyone who is seriously concerned about global warming knows nuclear is the only viable solution. Everyone else like AOC and most Dems just want to use the issue to implement their socialist utopia.
Nuclear is very safe. Claims about not knowing how to deal with the waste are either due to ignorance or deception.
Solar and wind are expensive and unreliable. No reason to use them at all. Use fossil fuels, nuclear, geo, and dams where appropriate. Renewables are a net drain on our resources.
On top of that keep making traditional energy sources cleaner. There is a new process that captures 100% of the CO2 for sell for other uses. I am not as concerned of CO2 as some but there are great ways for technology to lead the way and not government policy.
Well, that's a snarky comment that got the crap thoroughly knocked out of it. Good work, MC
We have a rapidly growing world that needs energy. I favor the full range of available options, including nuclear. Wind is great, and Texas is #1 in that area (along with oil and natural gas). Problem is, wind energy (with the current technology) is merely a supplement. It's a smallish side dish to the meat-and-potatoes of natural gas, coal, and nuclear.
Another "green" source that for some reason never gets talked about: hydroelectric. Dam some more rivers. The Hoover Dam, the Grand Coulee Dam, and dams in B.C. generate enormous amounts of electricity with almost no polution at all. We live in a world of limited resources. The needs of the masses outweigh the needs of a small % of disgruntled kayakers and some supposedly endangered sand worms or whatever.
You could say I nuked it.
@mchammer What gave you the idea that I was anti-nuclear? Quoting myself for emphasis...
Though I appreciate the information nothing you've posted answers my primary concerns. There is still waste that has no discernable solution. I appreciate there are some Gen 4 designs that would further minimize the waste but in the end we still have radioactive material for hundreds or thousands of years. On accidents, even the nuclear agencies won't claim accident proof reactors.
Nuclear must be part of the energy equation but I wouldn't make it the tip of the spear for research.
Your problem, like many others, is the belief in the fallacy that only green technologies can innovate to a high degree to lower cost, etc. Established technology can innovate too given new drivers. Wind and solar have intrinsic problems that are impossible to work around until economical battery storage is feasible. Best bet is to invest heavy in nuclear innovation.
Darn. Thought you actually wanted a discussion. Alas, this is the West Mall.
Can you please stop erecting straw men and putting my name on them? Where did I say we should ONLY invest in green technologies? I lauded Bill Gates investment above who is spreading his money around in lots new technologies, including green, biomass, storage and nuclear.
To be sure, there will never be a singular solution to serve the energy needs for 6B people.
Damn, we need more people who think like this. I remember back in 2008 when Paris Hilton actually had the smartest energy policy because she favored drilling and investing in renewable energy. It's indicative of our screwed up politics that a dumb skank with a public sex tape makes more sense than our politicians and most citizens.
Energy should not and cannot be a binary issue. You don't have to be a crackpot who thinks the world is coming to an end in 12 years to see the downsides of fossil fuels. They do pollute, and they do empower and enrich some of the worst actors on the global stage.
Nuclear power is getting better, and we should do more to ensure its safety, but the concerns are real. That doesn't mean it should be dismissed as a solution, but it does need improvement. Furthermore, there is potential for abuse. It can't be the solution for everybody. For example, I'd rather Iran burn coal than split uranium.
Wind and solar shouldn't be forced on the public to the point that their energy bills double or triple, but there's no denying their potential if we can store their energy, which we're getting better at.
The point is that the answer shouldn't be "no nukes," "no fossil fuels or drilling," or "no green energy." It should be "all of the above." We should continue fossil fuel use and exploration AND develop other options at the same time. It's not hard.
That leads to my primary issue with wind power. You need a "vast field" to get 7 percent coverage.
When I was working in Vegas I used to drive to Palm Springs and would drive through miles of those wind farms, and I was always struck at how half of them (not an exaggeration) weren't working. It's either maintenance issues, or they were shut down because the grid didn't need or couldn't handle the energy from all of them. So at least right now, it seems to me that it's incredibly inefficient, it kills a bunch of birds, it's a public nuisance, and it's a waste of land.
To me wind seems like a good alternative for an individual with plenty of private property to set it up and work on his individual grid. But We have such a long way to go before wind is useful on a large scale.
We're clearly getting better in all those areas, but still not very good, certainly not good enough to start forcing our economy into a path that may or may not go anywhere.
Wind mills cause many deaths per year to humans working on them. More people have been killed working on wind mills than nuclear in the last 10+ years.
But what is not to like?
If we just had energy storage we could use them. Yes, but we aren't getting close to make than an economic option. I don't have the exact numbers, but just to store enough energy to power run the US for 1 hr we the batteries would cost more than the GDP of the world or of the US. So we are multiple orders of magnitude away from being to have any meaningful back up from battery technology.
Even worse, the cost of Li+ batteries would be even more expensive if you use renewable sources to produce them. The comparison I gave is if the batteries are made using fossil fuels as the energy source.
Renewable have very limited utility at this point in time, maybe in some off-grid applications. They are expensive, unreliable, and in the case of wind turbines dangerous. All they do is drain resources away from better energy sources and other parts of the economy we need to development.
Why are you talking about batteries to store electricity? 95% of electric energy storage is in pumped hydro. It works just fine.
Hydro storage only works where there are hydro plants. No one in the industry is talking about building stand alone stations for energy storage. There are talking about Li+ battery farms, like what Google is advertising. It is economically infeasible and extremely far away being realistic.
Hydro is what like 5% of US energy supply and very limited geographically? It isn't scalable. More can be done, but it doesn't address the issue of the unreliability of wind and solar.