Jump-starting nuclear energy

[MontyB]

Just remember that there is far more to coal than just power.

I agree and if they could clean up coal emissions to a reasonable standard then I don't see a problem with coal fired power plants, as I have said before governments should set the standards they require from a plant and let technology and innovation determine what gets built.

I am very anti the idea of eliminating energy sources from processes because they are currently to dirty as this stifles research into making them cleaner.

Excellent post. This is a great example of the challenge that forward thinking liberals face.

Your dissatisfaction with the aesthetics of wind power. Faced with a renewable power source that does not pollute you are concerned with aesthetics.

Not entirely true while I don't like the idea of building bloody great ugly things of any kind in anyones backyard I am also not a fan of systems that use vast tracks of land for a low output generator as with growing populations worldwide land will also be at a premium one day for either settlement or food production.

I think the problem is that people are solely focused on the "clean" part and are not looking at all other aspects of these projects.

 

[senojekips]

We appear to have stepped on our own coat tails here, in that with coal fired plants being so unpopular we have all but stopped spending money on R&D in that field, whereas China is now the world leader in this field, as they realised many years ago that having the world's third largest coal reserves, coal is the most economically viable way for them to go.

By adopting “ultra-supercritical” technology, which uses extremely hot steam to achieve the highest efficiency, and by building many identical power plants at the same time, China has cut costs dramatically through economies of scale. It now can cost a third less to build an ultra-supercritical power plant in China than to build a less efficient coal-fired plant in the United States.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html

The UK is also adopting a cautious wait and see approach and is already re opening a few mines with more listed for the near future.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5271100.stm

 

[Czin]

When will the day come that we can directly harvest the energy produced by all our power plants and skip the usage of turbines altogether? Does anyone have any estimates?

 

[Chukpike]

When will the day come that we can directly harvest the energy produced by all our power plants and skip the usage of turbines altogether? Does anyone have any estimates?

Nope.

The turbines don't seem to be the problem. The problem is finding some way to turn them that does not upset someone.:wink:

 

[Czin]

Nope.

The turbines don't seem to be the problem. The problem is finding some way to turn them that does not upset someone.:wink:

The usage of steam driven turbines seems to be somewhat inefficient for things like Nuclear fusion and Anti-matter power. Though one will be seen quite soon in our life-time, the latter is a long ways off, the earliest I'd expect would be 2050.

 

[Chukpike]

The usage of steam driven turbines seems to be somewhat inefficient for things like Nuclear fusion and Anti-matter power. Though one will be seen quite soon in our life-time, the latter is a long ways off, the earliest I'd expect would be 2050.

Only if you think using such exotic systems to boil water is inefficient, as that is what they are used for.

The turbine is effective in supplying the rotation to the generators so that the frequency of the alternating current can be established. 60 cycles for the US and 50 cycles for most of the rest of the world. That cycle rate is crucial and is tightly maintained.

 

[senojekips]

The usage of steam driven turbines seems to be somewhat inefficient for things like Nuclear fusion and Anti-matter power. Though one will be seen quite soon in our life-time, the latter is a long ways off, the earliest I'd expect would be 2050.

What do you base this estimate upon.

At the moment the use of Antimatter is largely in the theoretical with occasional particles having only been produced for a few seconds by the expenditure of enormous amounts of energy.

The possible uses of these particles is also still in the theoretical stage and without any known method of storing them even if we do make them.

 

[Czin]

What do you base this estimate upon.

At the moment the use of Antimatter is largely in the theoretical with occasional particles having only been produced for a few seconds by the expenditure of enormous amounts of energy.

The possible uses of these particles is also still in the theoretical stage and without any known method of storing them even if we do make them.

You are not thinking far enough in the future. I expect 2050 to be very different from now and is perhaps as far as I can think of ahead with any clue as to how things will be like.

 

[senojekips]

You are not thinking far enough in the future. I expect 2050 to be very different from now and is perhaps as far as I can think of ahead with any clue as to how things will be like.

Thinking into the future is marvelous, I remember during my childhood imaginings of us by the year 2000, all living in space cities and without roads, everyone zooming about in mini rocket propelled vehicles, but in the clear light of day and with hindsight, we all realise how airy fairy these ideas were.

Making great predictions for such things as antimatter, which at the moment is no more than a quantum physicists plaything that has been developed as a theoretical answer for questions which as yet we are not even aware of.

If it ever comes to anything vaguely practical, I think you will find that the use of anti matter to do such mundane things as produce power would be akin to making a nuclear powered pocket watch. Possible?.... by all means, but practical or cost effective,..... not a hope. The production and storage of anti matter taking infinitely more power that it could ever develop. The process would need to be over unity in efficiency, something that regardless of the crackpot claims on YouTube and elsewhere, is physically impossible.

 

[Del Boy]

The production and storage of anti matter taking infinitely more power that it could ever develop.

Correct.

 

[Czin]

Thinking into the future is marvelous, I remember during my childhood imaginings of us by the year 2000, all living in space cities and without roads, everyone zooming about in mini rocket propelled vehicles, but in the clear light of day and with hindsight, we all realise how airy fairy these ideas were.

Making great predictions for such things as antimatter, which at the moment is no more than a quantum physicists plaything that has been developed as a theoretical answer for questions which as yet we are not even aware of.

If it ever comes to anything vaguely practical, I think you will find that the use of anti matter to do such mundane things as produce power would be akin to making a nuclear powered pocket watch. Possible?.... by all means, but practical or cost effective,..... not a hope. The production and storage of anti matter taking infinitely more power that it could ever develop. The process would need to be over unity in efficiency, something that regardless of the crackpot claims on YouTube and elsewhere, is physically impossible.

Well, at least Anti-matter would make a really damned nice bomb or planet sterilizer. Revolutionary colonists on some god-forsaken rock giving you trouble? Blast the buggers with anti-matter from orbit! Let's see them complain when their base is a giant, molten, radioactive hole in the ground.

But I still believe that Nuclear fusion is the way. And I do think we made pocket watches with radium in them to make them glow (and they wondered why everyone using them got cancer.)

 

[electricmermaid]

I think I may have gotten smarter just reading all your posts.

Actually, U.S. Gov't owns 86.1% of Nevada (yes, basically a majority Chukpike); I live here. I think coal, oil & nuclear energy are the best energy sources thus far but I'm still learning. Wind & solar look good.
Now the economy isn't really conducive to gambling for NV to make $, some up & coming leaders want to open Yucca Mountain for storing the rods. Since the bulk of the land here is government owned, NIMBY wouldn't really be too much of an issue.
For smart reasons, other countries (China, I think) recycle their rods instead of burying them.
I could be way off here but the U.S. had a plant on the east coast, to recycle the rods & it's moth-balled. Why?

 

[HokieMSG]

The usage of steam driven turbines seems to be somewhat inefficient for things like Nuclear fusion and Anti-matter power. Though one will be seen quite soon in our life-time, the latter is a long ways off, the earliest I'd expect would be 2050.

One thing that seems to have been overlooked is efficiency improvements. Traditioanlly humanity sees the answer to a power shortage being to build more generation. I think that the answer is to supplement the existing generation with alternative. The world will NEVER allow the complete replacement of a generation type unless it is economically advantageous to do so. Give me any type of generation technology and I can give you a reason why someone doesn't like it.

Czin. I think fuel cells are much closer to being deployed in significant quantities to have an impact. There are many different types and many of them require significant heat and pressure to operate. Or they contain chemicals so hazardous that a breach would be significant. One thing that a lot of people don't understand is that a lot of them use HYDROCARBONS for fuel. Hydrocarbons remain one of the densest energy sources available. Yes fuel cells have much cleaner exhaust, but we are still going to have to drill to get the oil we need to run them.

electricmermaid. There was a long and heated debate concerning spent fuel rod storage in Yucca Mountain. The environmental groups were up in arms about it and even some citizen groups from the surrounding areas were against it. Not sure what ever became of it.

Nuclear power has never been efficient. It doesn't have to be. I remember hearing 40% when I was in college. High pressure boilers used by the navy are very efficient IIRC.

 

[Partisan]

I seem to recall that that the main concern about the spent nuclear rods being stored in a mountain in Nevada, was the fact the storage site was on a major fault line and there was no impact statement. Given the current situation in the Gulf of Mexico, i expect to see a bit more weight put into environmental impact statements and risk assessments.

As for future energy sources - I'm opting for politicians, original hot air generators. The idea is rough, but it would work like a dynamo, with the politician carrying a battery, which they would then plug into the grid for the common good - of course collecting another to continue their altruistic crusades.

Honestly I think that the situation requires a multi pronged approach, with the long term goal of utilising only renewable energy sources - then we tackle the other looming crises of food and water. But as long as lobbyists have a hole pointing downwards and corporations to bankroll them, we'll bitesize, piecemeal and half arse the solutions, until we hit a critical point. Then we'll point fingers and continue on our merry way.

Feeling cynical tonight, but there you go.

 

[senojekips]

In regard to things like storage of spent fuel and other fissionable waste, there is a great difference between the interests of big industry and their financiers, and the general public.

All big industry cares about is big profits, they don't care what happens after they are dead and gone, and some of the nuclear waste will be a hazard for millions of years. I don't see that we have the right to risk the possible safety of generations to come, for that period of time.

Here are a few half lives of man made elements that are found to varying degrees in nuclear waste. Some of them extremely minute, but also absolutely incompatible with human life (There is no safe level of physical exposure)

Strontium-90 - 28 years
Caesium-137 - 30 years
Plutonium-239 - 24,000 years
Caesium-135 - 2.3 million years
Iodine-129 - 15.7 million years
128Te has the longest known half-life, 2.2×1024 years,approx. 2.2 sextillion years. Within a factor of a million or so. Or, it will still be about, long, lonnnnng after the sun has consumed the earth and we are all reduced to cosmic dust.