For NNadir

[kristopher]

Information you seem to require (Hope it helps; just bear in mind that the world trades the commodity "electricity" in watts. It might help your :
"In any case I have stated before that it is actually rather silly to talk "watts" when the issue is energy.

I'm trying not to be contemptuous, but I'm really, really, really having a hard time.

The cost of energy is not the cost of "watts", but rather the cost of joules."


Conversion of units#Energy, work, or heat

1 joule is exactly 107 ergs.
Information you seem to need:
1 joule is approximately equal to:

* 6.24150636309 × 1018 eV (electronvolts)
* 0.238845896628 cal (calorie) (small calories, lower case c)
* 2.390 × 10−4 kilocalorie, Calories (food energy, upper case C)
* 9.47817120313 × 10−4 BTU (British thermal unit)
* 0.737562149277 ft·lbf (foot-pound force)
* 23.7 ft·pdl (foot poundals)
* 2.7778 × 10−7 kilowatt hour
* 2.7778 × 10−4 watt hour
* 9.8692 × 10−3 litre-atmosphere

Units defined in terms of the joule include:

* 1 thermochemical calorie = 4.184 J
* 1 International Table calorie = 4.1868 J
* 1 watt hour = 3600 J
* 1 kilowatt hour = 3.6 × 106 J (or 3.6 MJ)

Useful to remember:

* 1 joule = 1 newton metre = 1 watt second

1 joule in everyday life is approximately:

* the amount of energy it takes to lift an object that weighs one Newton one meter. 1 Newton = 0.2248 lbs


And information you requested:


"If you can produce one report of the inclusion of this waste in the calculation of cost for wind plants, I'd love to see it."


Life cycle assessment of a 150 MW offshore wind turbine farm at Nysted/Roedsand, Denmark

Authors: Properzi, Scott1; Herk-Hansen, Helle

Source: International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, Volume 1, Number 2, 17 July 2003 , pp. 113-121(9)

Publisher: Inderscience

Abstract:
The purpose of this life cycle assessment (LCA) was to illuminate and describe the potential environmental impacts caused by an offshore wind turbine farm (WTF) throughout its lifetime and use this knowledge in the planning and improvement of future WTFs. The LCA was based on experience from the LCA on Danish electricity and district heating <1> as well as the offshore WTF project at Middelgrunden which is in operation. LCA of a wind turbine is not new. However, development in the area of wind turbines at sea and transmission of the electricity from the offshore WTF is new, and therefore, focus on the advantages and disadvantages in comparison with wind turbines on land is necessary. Data from the current wind turbine project, Middelgrunden, near Copenhagen, was collected from SEAS' wind energy centre and the other participating organisations and extrapolated in order to reflect the offshore WTF at Nysted/Roedsand. Nysted/Roedsand is expected to be in operation by the year 2003. All of the components of the WTF and transmission facilities have been examined and areas of environmental improvement have been identified. It was found that Nysted/Roedsand's offshore WTF and associated transmission facilities per produced kilowatt-hour have an improved environmental profile in comparison with a land wind turbine. Areas of improvement of an offshore WTF include the recycling of metals, recycling of the wings, minimising resource consumption and increasing the life expectancy of the entire wind turbine. The ISO 14040 standard on LCA was followed and the EDIP (Environmental Design of Industrial Products) method and modelling tool were used <2>.

If you are interested you can buy the article for $51

Then there is this:
"When the wind plants break apart, as they inevitably will, no one will give a rat's ass about the cost to say, fishing, of the heavy metals and lubricants that tumble into the sea."

What heavy metals? And the only oil product used in any quantity is the oil in the transformers, which is usually either vegetable or mineral oil. Both benign to the environment in the quantities used - IF they get spilled.

Your rants about Altamont Pass and the simple straw men you routinely throw up (ie "Now we are going to hear all sorts of dumb ass fundie yuppie talk about how the new wind plants are new and therefore - as all new stuff is very popular in consumerist yuppie circles - they will last for eternity.") is really a hoot. Do you ever take the time to learn? Or are you so angry you've forgotten how to integrate new information into that burning cauldron of a mind?

You raise some good questions, it's too bad you don't even care about hearing the answers.

[NNadir]

1. Come back and inform me about the transformers when you've figured out what's in them.

If you have some other point, I can't tell what it is.

[kristopher]

4. I told you what is in them - either mineral (baby) oil or vegetable oil (soy, I believe).

Of course you can't tell what the point is - that's the point. I actually took the time to give a measured response to a fair reading of one of your rants. They are full of so much misdirected anger and biased lack of knowledge that no one who reads them can tell what your point is. All we know is that you are really really pissed off.

Is that the message you're trying to get across?

[Yael]

2. Color me stupid but what in blazes are you on about?

[kristopher]

7. Nothing special, just trying to actually respond to our friend NNadir.

See my reply to his post if you wish to know more.

[wtmusic]

3. Stored "electricity" is energy

and is measured in joules, watt-hours, megawatt-hours, etc. As a grid commodity electricity is sold by watts because it is sold on demand, but wind generation is worth far less in those terms ("we'd love to sell you half a megawatt next Thursday, but we simply don't know if the wind will be blowing"). So measuring energy generated by the wind makes more sense, as well as looking forward to some kind of storage mechanism which will be feasible.

It would be wonderful if the wind could supply our power needs, but wanting it doesn't make it so. The act of harnessing the power -- constructing the turbines, the generators, transporting them, setting them up, maintaining them, and ultimately dismantling them, in exchange for a relatively meager and fickle source of power adds up to a net negative for the environment.

I would also like to see a "dust to dust" assessment of wind plants, but they seem to be very hard to come by. I sure as hell am not going to fork over $51.

[kristopher]

5. Your statement is needs a little work.

Your remarks about the market for wind energy shows that you either aren't familiar enough with the actual marketing of electricity/working of the grid, or that you haven't thought through the possibilities and potential that exists for wind. The grid is designed to accept variability in both demand and supply. Until we have nearly ten times the installed capacity that we have now, variability isn't a problem. When projects are planned, the costs of integration are a standard part of the pricing. There are several viable strategies for selling wind. Recent work suggests that the more wind is brought online the less of an issue the variability of wind becomes (start with Cavallo 1995, thru to Archer & Jcobson 2007).

There are a large number of resource evaluations and life cycle assessments out there, it you haven't seen them, you probably need to do real research looking for them instead of just relying on the internet.

It boils down to this -
1) wind is a huge, exploitable resource in close proximity to many of the heaviest load centers that CAN replace fossil fuels
2) your assertion that it is "a net negative for the environment" is remarkably uninformed.

[wtmusic]

32. And yours needs a lot.

Inform me, I don't believe you (don't take it personally, I just don't believe anything I read here without links).

You provide remarkably few in your bold claims.

[kristopher]

37. Perhaps that is part of your problem

the internet is good, but you too often get shallow analysis and false information. You should be cautious, but "links" alone may not be the best proof.

I included the reference for two well known scientific articles that have appeared in peer reviewed journals. From those two, you can use the bibliographies to track down more references. Unfortunately, many times you need special access from an academic institution for free access via the internet.
You could try two approaches, one would be to join the library of a local college. For a small yearly fee you can gain access to all the journals that they subscribe to.
The other way is to go in and research the stacks in person. They rarely control entry; they usually just check out.

Also, why the hostility? If you disagree with what I swrite, I'm perfectly willing to consider evidence that I'm wrong. Itt certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. I'm not here to fight.

[wtmusic]

41. For someone who provides little foundation for his argument

'your assertion that it is "a net negative for the environment" is remarkably uninformed' sounds a lot like fightin' words.

If I'm wrong, fine. But I live about a hundred miles away from thousands of rusting windmills in the Palm Springs desert (San Gorgonio) and AFAIC they've turned a beautiful desert landscape into an industrial park:



"Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has cancelled plans for three more offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in 2002. Germany reduced tax breaks to wind power in 2004. Switzerland is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of any significant benefit. The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities now severely limit the amount of wind generated power they buy because of the instability they cause. In 2003, Ireland halted all new wind power connections to the grid. In 2006, the Spanish government ended, by emergency decree, its subsidies and price supports for big wind. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy. On Aug. 31, 2004, Bloomberg News reported that "the unstable flow of wind power in their networks" has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices to the consumer. In the U.K., the Telegraph has reported that rather than providing cheaper energy, wind power costs the electric companies _50 per megawatt-hour, compared to _15 for conventional power.

Christopher Dutton, the CEO of Green Mountain Power, a partner in the Searsburg wind farm in Vermont and an advocate of alternative energy sources, has said that there is no way that wind power can replace more traditional sources; that its value is only as a supplemental source that has no impact on the base load supply. "By its very nature, it's unreliable," says Jay Morrison, senior regulatory counsel for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.."

http://www.windaction.org/opinions/9816

[kristopher]

43. I'm familiar with the case of San Gorgonio

I love the desert and I can completely understand your position. They weren't "fighting words", just a statement of truth. Now I understand; you are coming to your very generalized conclusion from a personal experience rather than objective analysis.

There is a very broad discussion going on and your sweeping statement is one that I have often heard - usually from people associated with the coal or coal power industries. I see you are not coming from there, but the erroneous message is the same. San Gorgonio and Altamont are often used by those critical of wind power, but they are drawing the wrong information from the examples.

Since those projects were planned and launched, the review process and the standards for contracting have altered dramatically to address the failures of early siting and management of wind farms. The Environmental Impact Assessment is now extremely rigorous and incorporates extensive avian studies. In the contracting process it is the industry standard for wind farm developers to post, in advance of construction, sufficient funds to cover the costs of decommissioning.

Mr. Dutton's comments notwithstanding, the articles I cited speak directly and much more authoritatively to the capability of wind to serve as baseload power.

That website, btw, is an offshoot of The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. They are an astroturf group formed by wealthy property owners on Cape Cod to prevent the construction of a wind farm in Nantucket Sound. Their president, Doug Yearly, recently retired from a long tenure with Phelps Dodge (a minerals mining company famous for raping the environment) and a member of the board for Marathon Oil.

I would take anything you read there with a big dose of salt.

Have you ever tried google scholar? Often you can find peer reviewed information that is published with free access. It is much more limited than library access, but it isn't bad for free. And you can almost always access the abstract.

Go there and try this search /archer, jacobson/. You can find the other, older article by /cavallo/ on the open internet, I believe. It is title something like "high capacity factor" wind.

Also relevant would be articles on /wind, grid integration/, /compressed air energy storage/ by a fellow named Greene at Princeton, and V2G storage by Willett Kempton at University of Delaware.

[wtmusic]

44. How arrogant

Your argument is "a statement of truth", mine is a "generalized conclusion from a personal experience rather than objective analysis".

I'm always tickled when a DUer proclaims their version to be truth, especially when that person is too lazy to provide specific quotes or links supporting their opinion (oops, I mean their "truth"). Sorry, but tossing out search words and Ivy League college names rings just a little hollow, and if there are lies or distortions in my source I'm sure you'll have no problem debunking them.

But I'm not going to do your homework for you.

[kristopher]

45. Sorry you're offended, but you are the one who used a personal anecdote

I have given you a number of reliable and authoritative peer reviewed citations in response to a single link from you to an astroturf antiwind group.

I have pointed you in the right direction, if you don't want to take a few minutes to do a couple of google searches, that is your problem. You are still incorrect. The only difference is now you are incorrect due to a willful, self imposed ignorance.


Do you have any idea of what peer review means, or are you an anti-intellectual on a par with the Bushies?

[wtmusic]

46. I would welcome a personal anecdote from you

in place of posturing, but in case you haven't noticed posturing means less than zero around here.

Call me incorrect if it makes you feel better, but your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't mean squat.

[kristopher]

47. So you are an anti intellectual?

The entire purpose of peer review is to separate bias from fact. When you post something from the type of site you use, that information hasn't been vetted by anyone. The only claim to validity that it possesses is that re-enforces an opinion or belief that you already possess.

So unlike you, by providing the authors of peer reviewed articles on the topic, I have, in fact, substantiated my statement. I have made no claim to some type of authority that cannot be confirmed. I rely on objective vetted sources. You on the other hand, have made one baseless claim after another and refused to even consult the objective sources. That is the very definition of posturing.

[wtmusic]

48. A more accurate term would be anti-pseudo-intellectual

and providing "authors of peer-reviewed articles" accomplishes nothing.

Have you ever even read a peer-reviewed article? Every conclusion not qualified by the data presented is copiously attributed using footnotes and other references. Granted, we're on a discussion board and the rules are more lax, but come on. You say you make no claim to some authority that can't be confirmed; I could make that same claim. Without evidence both are worthless.

No offense, but again--I don't have time to do your job.

[kristopher]

49. But I provided evidence, you just don't want to exert the effort to read it.

Here you go, just to get you started.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Archer+jacobson&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

[kristopher]

50. Here's another

http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:7ZIhh-NqY_oJ:fluid.stanford.edu/~lozej/Public/kemetal07_2006GL028016.pdf+Archer+jacobson

[kristopher]

51. And another

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TH1-4N7RY2T-9&_user=260508&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000015498&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=260508&md5=263c93fcf3a4e293a1f66f1864850ef4

[kristopher]

52. here's cavallo

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=78265
Description/Abstract Wind-generated electricity can be fundamentally transformed from an intermittent resource to a baseload power supply. For the case of long distance transmission of wind electricity, this change can be achieved at a negligible increase or even a decrease in the per unit cost of electricity. The economic and technical feasibility of this process can be illustrated by studying the example of a wind farm located in central Kansas and a 2,000 km, 2,000 megawatt transmission line to southern California. Such a system can have a capacity factor of 60%, with no economic penalty and without storage. With compressed air energy storage (CAES) (and with a negligible economic penalty), capacity factors of 70--95% can be achieved. This strategy has important implications for the development of wind energy throughout the world since good wind resources are usually located far from major demand centers.

Now if you want more, go to the bibliographies and branch out.

If you have questions, I'll help if I can. Feel free to PM me.

[wtmusic]

53. That's a start

OK I got waist deep into a 52-page paper that says 1320 behemoth 80-meter turbines could power 24% of the country some of the time for the price of coal but ignores transmission losses. I will read in the morning, too tired.

Thank you and good night.

[losthills]

6. Is there a full moon out this weekend?

[kristopher]

8. Clever remark. Take a look and see.

[Old and In the Way]

9. "I would also like to see a "dust to dust" assessment of wind plants"

I wonder if the same calculation has been done for nuclear energy? How does one factor the costs to monitor the spent fuel after decommissioning, forever?

Also, how does one calculate environmental impact in worst case scenario's when comparing energy production? I'm not looking to start a flame war, just asking for my edification.

[wtmusic]

35. Good questions

and very difficult to answer.

"The Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have established standards for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes. There is a general consensus in the scientific community that these standards are adequate to protect the public and the environment from the long-term hazards of nuclear waste. Under these standards, the risks to the public posed by the disposal of nuclear waste would be relatively small compared to many of the risks we face on a daily basis. Others believe, however, that our current scientific understanding is insufficient to be able to predict with any certainty that disposal systems will be able to last over the extremely long periods of time (many centuries) for which this waste will remain dangerously radioactive."

(From 1996, but AFAIK not much has changed since then).
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/november96/nuclear_waste9.html

So by the precautionary principle, intuitively, it would seem to make more sense to forego nuclear altogether. But we do so by ignoring the long-term effects of fossil fuel production and the uncertainty of whether wind and solar can make a significant contribution to our energy needs in time to make a difference.

[kristopher]

38. Standards are established, yes, but...

All of the spent fuel used at nuclear power plants since they were brought on line nearly 30 years ago is still sitting in non-permanent storage facilities at the plants themselves. To date the NRC has taken possession of none of the fuel for permanet storage.

You would not be comforted at the way they store the stuff in the temporary facilities either.

[GliderGuider]

10. Who cares? Nuclear power isn't the real enemy.

The real enemies are Peak Oil and Gas that is going to crash our civilization, and all those coal-fired power plants that are turning up the heat under our frog-pot.

Compared to those psychopathic serial killers, nuclear power is more like your crazy uncle who sits in the living room ranting to himself. "Winning the fight" against nuclear power is not going to save the planet, other species, our own species or even just our civilization. Every effort that is directed towards that straw man is an effort that is not being directed towards the real threat, the psychopathic killers of oil depletion and climate change. Those two have already cut the phone lines, broken down the back door, and are now starting to go from room to room with a chain saw looking for victims. Your crazy old uncle NNadir s not the problem here. He may be annoying, but he's not about to kill you. These two intruders are.

It's all comes down to priorities. Battling nuclear power under these circumstances is grotesquely misguided. The only thing that battle has going for it is that it's easy to win. Once you win it, then what? THEN WHAT? Your victory will do nothing whatsoever to stop the global slaughter from Peak Oil and carbon dioxide. That's the real fight, not this schoolyard dust-up over nuclear power.

[Zachstar]

11. Wonderful post!

I just wish more here could understand it.

Hopefully it wont take environmentalism going out the window when people get desperate for energy for them to understand.

[madokie]

12. I agree that nuclear power has a lot going for it but the downside is the potential for castrophe is

so fucking high. It can go bad in a very big way plus I've not seen or heard of any viable way to deal with the waste. We have much now now and no one knows what to do with it. I've heard the stories about recycling it but to my knowledge none of that is being done so what do we do keep on making the waste in hopes of someday someone figures out how to make it not so dangerous for the people of years to come, like millions of years to come maybe. I mean wtf over. I say we need to put the energy and money into discovering a new way to make energy in a form that we can use rather than continue on a very dangerous path that nuclear takes us on. I was a early anti-nuke when pso tried to build a plant in my back yard and trust me I heard all the lies and obfuscations back then, a lot of which I still hear today in I guess hopes maybe some of us will have forgotten. I haven't forgotten and prolly won't either so I as it stands today will continue to resist the urge to take the easy way out and go nuclear. I say that what we know today will only be a small fraction of what we will know in just the short time span of a decade or so. My efforts will continue to be toward finding a new way of doing things, doing things with what we have today to arrive somewhere better tomorrow.

Sorry, but no nukes for me

[GliderGuider]

14. Question about the danger of nuclear power

Do you believe that the danger from nuclear power is greater than the dangers of oil depletion and climate change?

[madokie]

16. well yes I do. with what is going on right now we still have a chance to make discoveries

whereas with another Chernobyl that may not be true. I know I know supposedly it can't happen again but each and every one of our nuclear facilities are a bomb waiting to blow. I know that fossil fuels are killing us and killing us off as I type but we still do have breath and as long as we do we still have hope. remember how the world was before Einstein hit the scene, well it can happen again. Before his theory man had no way to even think he could travel to the moon for instance let along land there and bring back samples. What I'm saying is for us not shoot ourselves in the foot with a waste that in itself is pretty scary for many many generations of humans when we still might have time to figure a better way to make energy. What do you propose to do with the nuclear waste we have already, answer me that and then maybe we can talk.
peace, I'll just continue on my fossilized way fighting nuclear with every breath I take. one word Waste and what to do with it

[GliderGuider]

17. OK

I would gently suggest that you have your priorities reversed, though. Nuclear power is a risk while oil depletion and climate change are clear and present dangers, and I've always thought you should work on the actual problems before tackling potential ones. However, I understand that a position like yours is deeply embedded and seems perfectly reasonable to you, so I'm not going to try and talk you out of it.

[madokie]

20. if that one little aspect of of nuclear power could be addressed in a way as to make it no more

dangerous than it was before we started using it then I would gladly change my thinking but as today I see us as protectors of the future generation and I still feel there are many new breakthroughs to be made as all new things have not been discovered yet. Thanks for being gentle with me as others are sometimes not though. I see the potential of things going really wrong with nuclear power to far out weight the good that could come of it so why continue pushing something that will never be safe in the sense of long time survival where as we today still have hope if we would only try harder in finding viable solutions to our fossil fuel problems rather than be placated with the promise of cheap clean nuclear power of which it is neither. Anyways I'll shut up for now continue the dialog between yourselves as I may, what you would call open my eyes, to nuclear energy as I learn more, but I'll not be holding my breath. one word, waste and one word only has the power to make me see it all in a whole different light, I just don't see that so

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Are you familiar with "Pebble Bed Reactors?"

These reactors are safer than "conventional" nuclear reactors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Mind you, there are still many problems. (Dwindling supplies of Uranium, safe disposal of waste, etc.) Most importantly, the delay before the damned things could go on-line.

[madokie]

23. I've read about it but I really can't get past the waste part

to learn enough to embrace nuclear power yet. I do agree and understand what we're doing to our planet now and know we must stop and reverse this slide we're on but I just for the life of me cannot think it is with going nuclear, at least at this point. I would love to have a safe and cheap energy source like all would but nuclear is not safe nor is it cheap as of today. I think we should continue to work on figuring out those problems but not at the expense of all other potential solutions as going nuclear in a big way would encourage us to do. Its not good for us and sure isn't good for the inhabitants of this world who evolve to inhabit the ruins of our fossil fuel use. More than likely they may not know just how dangerous this nuclear waste of ours is. Too many variables and too many questions to too few answers for me, thats all. Show me the light and I will see or have had the pleasure of having done these last almost 60 years. I am no where the same person I was just months ago for instance because as I learn I adapt to my new knowledge. knowledge is bliss

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. I'm merely playing the Devil's Advocate here

I am pretty much dead set against Nuclear Fission. However, I'm generally in agreement with GG on this issue.

The potential hazards associated with nuclear fission are relatively minor when compared to "global warming." If you disagree, I feel you should reexamine your assumptions.

[losthills]

26. "Devil's Advocate" is right....

I think you've been listening to the lobbyists too much, and you're starting to accept their false logic.
The trade-off between nuclear and coal that they push, day after day is a false choice. We don't have to choose between these two poisons and we don't have to compare the two. The nuclear salesmen have to try to get us to do that because comparing nuclear power to coal is the only way they can make it look good. And that only works because coal is producing 50% of our electricity and nuclear power is producing less than 5%. If we expanded Nuclear power to 50% and reduced coal to 5% the world would truly be a worse place than it is today. That is why all the major environmental organizations are united against nuclear power-- it is a true environmental nightmare.

We are better off holding the line against nuclear power and reducing the use of coal through renewables, energy conservation and changes in lifestyles and infrastructure. The "choice" between coal and nuclear is a false choice, and it's a mistake to even argue the topic with the shills that keep promoting it. It's not worth arguing about.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. Don't worry about me... I'm not going over to the "dark side"

Nuclear Fission is a dirty technology. As I've said repeatedly, in my view it is at best a stop-gap measure. I do not advocate its expansion.

I don't believe our possibilities are limited to the choice of burning coal or uranium.

That being said. If you believe the potential risks of nuclear fission are greater than the potential risks of "global warming," I believe you need to reconsider.

"Devil's Advocate"

[losthills]

28. Thanks....

Actually, though, I do think that the environmental impact of replacing all coal burners with nuclear reactors would be worse than the co2 reductions that would be acheived would warrent.
Slight difference of opinion...

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. Slighter difference than you perceive

I would not suggest replacing all coal burners with nuclear fission either.

Edited to add
On the other hand, I would not suggest replacing all current fission reactors with coal burners.

I would love to replace the whole lot of them with alternative energy sources (wind, tidal, geothermal, PV, CSP...)

This cannot happen overnight. (No complete changeover of our current infrastructure could.)

[jpak]

31. They are not safer - the fuel pellets contain graphite

In a loss-of coolant accident at full power, atmospheric oxygen infiltrating the core would oxidize graphite to produce combustible - and explosive - carbon monoxide.

As PBMRs do not have containment vessels, the results would be similar to Chernobyl...

:nuke:

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. Pebble Bed Reactor Containment

I don't know if you trust Wikipedia or not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor#Containment

...

Containment

Most pebble-bed reactors contain many reinforcing levels of containment to prevent contact between the radioactive materials and the biosphere.

1. Most reactor systems are enclosed in a containment building designed to resist aircraft crashes and earthquakes.
2. The reactor itself is usually in a two-meter-thick-walled room with doors that can be closed, and cooling plenums that can be filled from any water source.
3. The reactor vessel is usually sealed, as well.
4. Each pebble, within the vessel, is a 60 mm (2.6") hollow sphere of pyrolytic graphite. The sphere is one containment layer. The design of the pebbles (called "TRISO" fuel) is crucial to the reactor's simplicity and safety, because they include no less than four of the seven containments. The pebbles are the size of tennis balls. Each has a mass of 210 g, 9 g of which uranium. It takes 380,000 to fuel a reactor of 120 MWe. The pebbles are constructed of ceramics that are known not to melt at the maximum equilibrium temperature of the reactor. The ceramics also act as a renewable moderator for the reactor, and are strong containment vessels. In fact, most waste disposal plans for pebble-bed reactors plan to store the waste within the spent pebbles.

...

[OKIsItJustMe]

40. Pebble Bed Reactor design

Caveat - the following description was written by "the former President and CEO of Yankee Atomic Electric Company a nuclear plant operator ..."

http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/papers1_files/PBReactors.pdf

...

Pebble Bed Reactors offer a future for new nuclear energy plants. They are small, modular, inherently safe, flexible in design and operation, use a demonstrated nuclear technology and can be competitive with fossil fuels. Pebble bed reactors are helium cooled reactors that use small tennis ball size fuel balls consisting of only 9 grams of uranium per pebble to provide a low power density reactor. The low power density and large graphite core provide inherent safety features such that the peak temperature reached even under the complete loss of coolant accident without any active emergency core cooling system is significantly below the temperature that the fuel melts. This feature should enhance public confidence in this nuclear technology. With advanced modularity principles as described, a new way of thinking and building nuclear plants is proposed that would improve quality by factory fabrication of space frame modules and site assembly similar to “legos” would speed the time to operation. It is expected that this type of design and assembly could lower the cost of new nuclear plants such that the biggest impediment to new nuclear construction namely the capital cost of new nuclear plants is removed. This would allow nuclear plants to support the goal of reducing global climate change in an energy hungry world.

...

[OKIsItJustMe]

42. More on the design of Pebble Bed Reactors

Caveat - the following is from Eskom:

http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html

...

Safety

Any PBMR station built in South Africa will adhere to the stringent local and international safety standards that are laid down for nuclear stations in South Africa and throughout the world.

The PBMR is walk-away safe. Its safety is a result of the design, the materials used and the physics processes rather than engineered safety systems as in a Koeberg type reactor.

The peak temperature that can be reached in the reactor core (1 600 degrees Celsius under the most severe conditions) is far below any sustained temperature (2 000 degrees Celsius) that will damage the fuel. The reason for this is that the ceramic materials in the fuel such as graphite and silicone carbide - are tougher than diamonds.

Even if a reaction in the core cannot be stopped by small absorbent graphite spheres (that perform the same function as the control rods at Koeberg) or cooled by the helium, the reactor will cool down naturally on its own in a very short time. This is because the increase in temperature makes the chain reaction less efficient and it therefore ceases to generate power. The size of the core is such that it has a high surface area to volume ratio. This means that the heat it loses through its surface (via the same process that allows a standing cup of tea to cool down) is more than the heat generated by the decay fission products in the core. Hence the reactor can never (due to its thermal inertia) reach the temperature at which a meltdown would occur. The plant can never be hot enough for long enough to cause damage to the fuel.

...

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Let me try (Nixon going to China and all that...)

There are definite hazards to nuclear fission; at every step, from mining the uranium through disposing of the waste. A catastrophic accident, or terrorist incident near a major city (say... Manhattan for example) could potentially kill many, many people. (What would you say, thousands? millions?)



"Global Warming" could, potentially lead to mass extinction.

[wtmusic]

33. "every one of our nuclear facilities are [sic] a bomb waiting to blow"

It took about ten years and the brightest minds in physics to get a nuclear bomb TO blow up. It's not a particularly easy task, and simply cannot happen in a power generation nuclear reactor.

Chernobyl was a worst case scenario, but instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater let's take this amazingly safe and efficient fuel and make it safer. You call nuke waste dangerous, but coal has already killed more people than radiation ever will.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. The real danger of Nuclear Fission

Setting aside for a moment my concerns regarding the safety of Nuclear Fission, there is a clear and present danger associated with the promotion of Nuclear Fission as a solution to "Global Warming."

It is a dangerous distraction.

We need to take real substantive action now. If we decided today to switch our entire infrastructure over to nuclear fission, this would have the tendency to send the message, "Relax, go back to business as usual, we've solved the problem."

We really cannot afford to have people continue "business as usual" while we wait for all of those plants to be built.

• Those (theoretical) plants would not be built for some time.
• Using current technology, there is not enough readily available uranium to power them.

Every watt that's generated by some alternative method today is a watt that will not be generated by burning fossil fuels.

[GliderGuider]

15. The "nuclear renaissance" is fizzling out in front of our eyes.

There isn't enough money or time left to build enough nukes to make a damn bit of difference, and the whole world (including the nuclear industry) is starting to figure that out. So, let's get on with the next challenge.

And that challenge is, "How do we ensure that we won't just burn more coal?"

Your position that "Every watt that's generated by some alternative method today is a watt that will not be generated by burning fossil fuels" is an article of faith. How do you know that those renewable watt-hours won't be generated in addition to the fossil fueled watt-hours rather than instead of them?

It seems to me all you can do is make the technology available, put the scientific and the ethical considerations out in the public arena, and pray that people do the right thing. I've seen no evidence that the aggressive adopters (i.e. Chindia) are planning on displacing a single fossil fueled watt-hour with renewable ones. They want all the energy they can possibly get, and if renewables can add more energy to the mix they can come along for the ride.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Something you seem to have forgotten...

...

Your position that "Every watt that's generated by some alternative method today is a watt that will not be generated by burning fossil fuels" is an article of faith. How do you know that those renewable watt-hours won't be generated in addition to the fossil fueled watt-hours rather than instead of them?

...

Remember, the "business-as-usual" scenario is to keep accelerating our rate of carbon emissions. If we can simply stabilize carbon emissions, by building new capacity with alternatives, that alone would be a deviation from "business as usual."

Naturally, I want to go well beyond that, but stabilization is the first goal we must achieve.


Key to this all (as we both believe) is education.

In the meantime, your position that...

There isn't enough money or time left to build enough nukes to make a damn bit of difference, and the whole world (including the nuclear industry) is starting to figure that out. So, let's get on with the next challenge.

...is also an article of faith (faith nobly held despite evidence to the contrary, such as our cantankerous crazy uncle NNadir, and his buddies.)

[GliderGuider]

19. Business As Usual is precisely what I think will happen

At least on a global scale, until external events act to choke off growth. I think it's unlikely in the extreme that Chindia will voluntarily put their growth plans on hold because of moral considerations. I think even voluntarily stabilizing carbon emissions will ultimately prove to be an unattainable goal, though one we must keep striving towards. if it happens, education will be the key.

My position that the nuclear renaissance is a bust is less of an article of faith with each new story about cost escalations such as the one bananas just posted. You can't build plants whose costs keep rising if your pool of capital keeps draining.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. And here is where we differ

I believe the world is beginning (at long last) to wake up.

http://www.iisd.ca/vol16/enb1666e.html

[kristopher]

30. Setting the record straight

First let me say that I don't think we are to the point where the risks of insufficient energy and the negatives of carbon fuels justify shifting large scale to nuclear. Not yet.

However, I truly dislike people agreeing with based of faulty information.

The fears of a Chernobyl type meltdown are one of the prevailing images that people hold. It is a baseless fear based on lack of knowledge about how the process of fission is initiated and maintained.

The fuel is radioactive, that means it throws off particles that hit other particles and cause them to split hitting other particles and causing them to split - there you have it fission. Most people understand that.

What is not known so well is that the speed that the particles travel at is important. Pay attention here - the faster the particles travel, the less likely they are to hit another particle and cause it to split.

IN ORDER TO INITIATE AND MAINTAIN A FISSION REACTION, SOMETHING MUST BE USED TO SLOW DOWN THE PARTICLES.

This is usually heavy water*, but not always. The reactor at chernobyl used graphite. The human error that caused the meltdown was only possible because they used graphite. If they had used water, they could have emptied the water surrounding the fuel and stopped the reaction; no meltdown.

Don't confuse the three separate uses of water in these nonchernobyl type reactors. One use is to enable the fission reaction. The second use is to transfer heat to some device that powers a turbine.

If the water that is around the fuel is lost, then the reaction naturally and unavoidably shuts down. Of course, it is contaminated and if it is released into the environment, it would be bad, but it is nothing like the threat of a meltdown.

There are many reasons to proceed cautiously with nuclear power, but fear of meltdown shouldn't be one of them.




*heavy water:
A molecule of water contains two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Most water comprises of hydrogen/oxygen but a small percentage is composed of another hydrogen isotope, deuterium and oxygen. Deuterium differs from hydrogen by having one neutron in the nucleus of each atom. ...
http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/vchemlib/mol/glossary/

[wtmusic]

34. "The faster the particles travel, the less likely they are to hit

another particle and cause it to split."

Graphite and water are used to slow down emergent neutrons to siphon off energy from a nuclear reaction, not enable it. Not one ounce of graphite, or water, is necessary to explode a nuclear weapon.

The misinformation around here is astounding. :crazy:

[kristopher]

36. Did staff at Hope Creek lie to me? Maybe not...

This is confirmation of the briefing they gave me. I won't deny that it may be dumbed down, but I don't think it is inaccurate. they used the natural reaction at Oklo to demonstrate their point. http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

And I may be wrong, but aren't the properties we are concerned with in your "exploding a nuclear weapon" proof more a result of the degree to which the uranium is enriched. Nuclear power plants operate on slightly enriched uranium somewhere below 5% while bombs use highly enriched uranium of over 95%?

Doesn't that make the two processes radically different?

Are you asserting that if a heavy water moderated reactor loses it's water, the fission process will accelerate?


Neutron moderator
Heavy water is used in certain types of nuclear reactors where it acts as a neutron moderator to slow down neutrons so that they can react with the uranium in the reactor. The CANDU reactor uses this design. Light water also acts as a moderator but because light water absorbs more neutrons than heavy water, reactors using light water must use enriched uranium rather than natural uranium, otherwise criticality is impossible. The use of heavy water essentially increases the efficiency of the nuclear reaction.

Because of this, heavy water reactors will be more efficient at breeding plutonium (from uranium-238) or uranium-233 (from thorium-232) than a comparable light-water reactor, leading them to be of greater concern in regards to nuclear proliferation. The breeding and extraction of plutonium can be a relatively rapid and cheap route to building a nuclear weapon, as chemical separation of plutonium from fuel is easier than isotopic separation of U-235 from natural uranium. Heavy water moderated research reactors or specifically-built plutonium breeder reactors have been used for this purpose by most, if not all, states which possess nuclear weapons, although historically the first nuclear weapons were produced without it. (Pure carbon may be used as a moderator, even in unenriched uranium nuclear reactors. Thus, in the U.S., the first experimental atomic reactor (1942), as well as the Manhattan Project Hanford production reactors which produced the plutonium for the Trinity test and Fat Man bombs, all used pure carbon neutron moderators and functioned with neither enriched uranium nor heavy water).

There is no evidence that civilian heavy water power reactors, such as the CANDU or Atucha designs, have been used for military production of fissile materials. In states which do not already possess nuclear weapons, the nuclear material at these facilities is under IAEA safeguards to discourage any such diversion.

Due to its potential for use in nuclear weapons programs, the possession or import/export of large industrial quantities of heavy water are subject to government control in several countries. Suppliers of heavy water and heavy water production technology typically apply IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) administered safeguards and material accounting to heavy water. (In Australia, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987.) In the U.S. and Canada, non-industrial quantities of heavy water (i.e., in the gram to kg range) are routinely available through chemical supply dealers, and directly commercial companies such as the world's former major producer Ontario Hydro, without special license. Current (2006) cost of a kilogram of 99.98% reactor-purity heavy water, is about $600 to $700. Smaller quantities of reasonable purity (99.9%) may be purchased from chemical supply houses at prices of roughly $1 per gram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water