US eyes boom in nuclear reactors

BBC ^ | October 11, 2007 | Laura Smith-Spark

[chimera]

What they don’t understand is that power generation has to come from somewhere, from some thing. When pressed, they mumble stuff about “alternative” sources like solar or windpower, energy sources that have merit but in no manner come even close to providing current requirements for a modern society.

One professional society I belong to did a national survey about 20 years ago to determine how the public felt about energy resources. As part of this, they did detailed, in-depth interviews with selected individuals who were willing to take the time. One of the interviewees was a fairly young, college-educated guy, working a white collar job in a service industry. They asked him about his feelings on various sources of energy. The interview went something like this:

Question: "So, how do you feel about increased use of coal for electricity generation?" Answer: "Ummm, well, no, I don't think that is a good idea. It causes air pollution and coal mining is a dangerous job."

Question: "Okay, then, how about burning oil to produce electricity?" Answer: "That's a bad idea. It makes us more dependent on Arab oil, and besides that, it's kind of expensive."

Question: "Well, what about using more nuclear power?" Answer: "Nope. No way. That stuff's dangerous and nobody knows what to do with the waste."

Question: "Well, okay, what sources of energy do you feel we should use?" Answer (after a long pause): "Well, I think we should use more electricity. It is clean and efficient. We should have more of that."

All I could say after hearing this was, sheesh. But it typifies the extent of knowledge many in the general public have about energy issues. Where does electricity come from? Why, out of a plug, of course. Where does gasoline come from? Out of a pump. In the last 20 years, I don't think things have gotten any better. I guess that explains why we're on the verge of electing Hillary! to the WH.

[thackney]

fairly young, college-educated guy, working a white collar job in a service industry...

I think we should use more electricity. It is clean and efficient. We should have more of that.

I still get surprised by this lack of understanding combined with the desires to change the industries. Thanks for the discussion above; I didn't realize the industry was at least supposed to fund all of the storage issues.

[chimera]

Thanks for the discussion above; I didn't realize the industry was at least supposed to fund all of the storage issues.

Thank you. Yes, the waste disposal funding was one of the central themes of the NWPA. It is a good idea. Would that other industries would do likewise. It would increase the cost of some of our commodities and products, but either way we end up paying the cost anyway. And at least it would outline a clear pathway for waste management. One Love Canal is too many.

[WOSG]

Sorry, that chart is based on highly dubious cost estimates, not real data. Even today gas is more expensive than coal, and wind is far more expensive than either that and nuclear. These cost estimates are biased probably due to overnight costs wrt capital. The real cost order is coal (cheapest) < Nuclear < gasfired CC < Wind.

Here is yet another chart from EIA. Can't vouch for it exactly, but it is closer to what industry numbers suggest. I am still suspicious that it is understating gas combined cycle cost, mainly because these are based on estimates for NG prices, and those estimates have been less than actual (ie who would have prediced $80/barrel oil 5 years ago?) As for wind, the rating capacity versus actual production is not near 100% like it can be with nuclear and coal baseline, so depdning on assumptions of generation/capacity it may be understating the cost there as well.

[WOSG]

“Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Yucca Mountain are fully funded by utilities?”

IN a word, yes.

[thackney]

Then why is it still a line item in the Federal Budget and has been for years?

[timer]

$500M for Yucca Mtn in the 2008 budget, that’s the real driver here. LENR has long since been proven to transmutate nuc waste into stable isotopes. Google Stan Gleason’s cell for the transmutation of thorium into Cu and Ti isotopes. But those yuccers who bask in that $500M/yr don’t want you to know about it. Thus the nuc waste can be remediated on-site, quickly and cheaply, but who cares? Dingy Harry?

As to site location, some 75% of our population lives w/in 30 miles of an ocean beach. If we don’t give the oceans of the world to the &%^#$@ UN, we could have them as floating power plants : out of sight over the horizon. Only power cables come ashore.

As to wind/solar/wave vs hydro/nuc/coal/NG/oil, there you need to cover a vast catchment AREA with mechanical things whereas with h/n/c/NG/o you have concentrated VOLUMES as energy sources. Maybe you can get thru to these anti-nuc people by educating them as to AREA vs VOLUME.

[Grizzled Bear]

Back in the 1950s, nuclear power was sold to us with grossly exaggerated claims of virtually free electrical power.

---

Not only that! The radiation would also turn all of us into superheroes!

[chimera]

I suspect the numbers for coal are low because they haven’t fully captured the external costs on the back end. Right now there are a lot of plants that just spew their emissions out with minimal controls. We ultimately pay for the environmental damage that causes but the cost of the product doesn’t reflect that. In the future, either through a carbon tax or demands for more and better pollution controls (like AEP just settled with EPA for), the cost per kwhr for coal will likely be higher.

[decimon]

The radiation would also turn all of us into superheroes!

Worked for me.

[Grizzled Bear]

Well, I have an incredible ability to alter the basic nature of liquids. I’d be glad to demonstrate it for you. First; I need a case of beer...

[chimera]

As to wind/solar/wave vs hydro/nuc/coal/NG/oil, there you need to cover a vast catchment AREA with mechanical things whereas with h/n/c/NG/o you have concentrated VOLUMES as energy sources. Maybe you can get thru to these anti-nuc people by educating them as to AREA vs VOLUME.

I have pointed out to groups I speak to and on threads like these that there is nothing "wrong" or "evil" about energy sources like solar or wind. It is just their nature that they are diffuse, low-intensity energy sources. That means you have to do more work to gather their energy in quantities that make it economical to do so.

One way I illustrate that to middle and high school students is to spread a dozen marbles across a tabletop and have one or two students collect them. I time the exercise and also ask them how much work it was to do that collection. Then I spread those same number of marbles around the classroom and ask them to collect them. We compare the time and effort of that to the first exercise. They always take longer and are more winded and tired after the spread-out collection. After doing that, they have a practical understanding of the difference between diffuse and concentrated energy sources.

[timer]

Good, you’re a TEACHER. As an architect I’ve often been called “professor”. It’s an inherited trait from my teacher-grand father. Yes, where people go wrong in solar energy thinking is that there is whole atomic bombs worth of sunlight-energy falling on a tropical square mile every day : their eyes light up...

That’s the artist-right brain response, then comes the engineer-left brain filtering process : 5280^2=27,878,400 sf. At a nominal $10/sf(total solar power system)that’s $278,784,000. At the standard conversion efficiency you get something like 500 to 1000 years just to break even. Been there, done that(27 years ago). This is why no “solar farm”, as a profitable enterprise, exists anywhere in the world; “neva hoppen” as the japanese say.

Good analogy with the marbles. Now tilt the floor so that all the marbles roll into one corner. That’s what a hydroelectric dam essentially does : a vast catchment area as energy collector is reduced to a few high tension cables as a concentrated POINT-LINE.

Well, good luck on getting thru to some of them before the algoreites screw up their minds, at least the smarter ones. There are REASONS solar/wind/waves/geothermal sources are a tiny fraction of the energy market. And as to powering the “hydrogen economy”...show them how to LAUGH at such nonsense.

[chimera]

The only way those diffuse sources are going to become practical is if there is a tremendous increase in the cost of the energy sources we’re using now, and even then there are alternatives in concentrated energy sources, things like fission and fusion. It could happen, primarily because of scarcity. But we can make a conscious decision to go with things like nuclear and preserve the finite resources of petroleum-based products for more useful purposes. And for sure stop burning NG in electricity generation. NG is much better matched to end use in domestic applications, heating, cooking, water heat, etc.

[timer]

There is one thing that futurists consider as a real danger. Let’s say you get your new energy source from fission, fusion, ZPE, hydrinos...whatever. Look around : the human race is already trashing the planet with CxHx sources(85% of supply)at an accelerating rate. Give them 1000 times the energy(whole atomic bombs for EVERYONE)and the environment gets wasted 1000 times faster.

No, not with CO2/global warming, WASTE HEAT from countless electrical/electronic gizmos COOKS the biosphere. Instead of a cleaner, greener world you get, from completely undisciplined human children, a HOT stinking garbage dump with 150 deg F and rising ambient daytime temps.

Oh yes, a VAST new energy source will be greeted with JOY by everyone; and a free KW leads immediatly to the demand for a free MW, then GW(energy is POWER to the people, and the love of money is the root of all evil, yes?). Do the math for 7 billion completely undisciplined children, idiots, criminals....

So, a hobson’s choice : either suffer high CxHx prices and thus limited uses thereof(shiver a bit)or watch the world/biosphere MELT with too much free energy=waste heat being dumped into it.

Energy babblers of one kind or another : hydrogen economy = solar/windmill sources, wave machines/geothermal = pathetic amounts produced, nucs = rad waste, on and on...and nobody looks into the MIRROR and thinks : white man buildem BIG fire, standem way back; indian buildem little fire, sittem up close....or learn to live within a limited budget and survive, the europeans do.

[chimera]

Well, certainly more efficient use of existing energy resources is a reasonable goal to strive for. Anyone with any common sense will know that wasting energy is a bad idea. I see waste everytime I drive anywhere. More than half the vehicles on the road are humongous SUVs or vans or pickup trucks, very often with a single occupant and nothing else. I see those and I think, dinosaurs.

As an architect you probably understand things like the use of passive solar. That is probably the best use of solar I can think of. Design structures in such a way as to take advantage on insolation when needed, and screen it when it's not needed. Better for large covered areas like big-box retail stores to put in skylights instead of feel-good gimmicks like PV panels.

I guess I'm not sure about the waste heat issue. The climate models I've seen account for it, but it is a relatively minor contributor to the global climate effects. GHG and particulate accumulation results in a systemic change to the atmosphere, leading to more heat trapping on a worldwide scale. It is a systemwide change in the atmosphere. Certainly waste heat sources contribute to the heat load but the primary driver is insolation. Without the greenhouse effect, waste heat becomes a multitude of point sources where normal heat rejection through radiation and evaporative cooling becomes dominant.

[timer]

Think back to the streamlined cars of the 1930s, google DYMAXION CAR by Buckminster Fuller. The VW bug is just about the only intelligent aerodynamic form left on the road, “bricks” with single occupants are the norm. A cubical brick has 14 times the aerodrag of a similar cross section torpedo/fish form. They well understood that in the 1920s/1930s and thus the bullet noses and tapered tails. This also was the period that airplane design was being adapted to high speed airflow.

But then oil energy got real cheap : boutique designer fantasies meant boxy cars and the hell w/aerodrag losses. This went on from WWII until the oil crisis of 1973, but by then the “box” mentality had become almost genetic. Then about 20+ years ago crude aeroshells started appearing on semitruck cabs as the bullet nosed “fish head”. Now they are the boutique designs and standard on all new trucks.

But the box still has its flat back/double doors with the inevitable turbulence-drag from the partial vacuum-hole it blows thru the air. Fish have TAPERED TAILS, thus allowing laminar flow in the recollapsing air, thus minimal rear drag. So where’s the tapered fish tail to go with the boutique fish head over the cab?

So here you have truckers going out of business because of rising diesel prices and flat cartage rates. Could you find even one out of a million that stands there, holding a dead fish in one hand, and LOOKS at his truck form the side, and makes the psychic connection : where’s the TAPERED TAIL?

Now, how would you do it? It has to pooch out into a curved pyramid form at highway speeds(70mph)on straight freeway lanes, but retract upon slowing to a stop/slow traffic speeds. It also has to swing out of the way upon loading/unloading(opening rear doors).

Solution : either parachute form with edge umbrella ribs that stiffen, on a 9’x10’ frame that swings 270 deg to the truck side upon loading/unloading(a 3rd rear door); or a double balloon, inner surface presses against the back doors, outer surface pooches out into the curved pyramid form. It is blown up by internal high psi source, then sucked back below 25 mph upon slowing to a stop.

Embedded LED lights for tail/turn/brakes. Cost for retrofit : probably about the same as the front aeroshell. Fuel savings : from 1 mpg to 3 mpg for your standard semitruck. Long hauls on flat freeway lanes would see the biggest savings.

So maybe one of these days, some(right brain)boutique aeroshell designer will SEE the tapered fish tail and UNDERSTAND why FISH have been around a lot longer than boxy semitrucks have...and they don’t have 350HP engines, just “wagging their tails” on alternating Karman Vortices, and minimal energy expenditures thereby.

As to roof top solar on box stores : picture your standard perforated acoustic tile with random holes. Those holes are called Helmholtz Cells, virtually all the sound(compression wave)energy that goes into the hole is trapped inside. Same thing with a 3’(above roof plane)high square pipe/hole thru the roof of the store. Tilted, acrylic flat top plate for runoff, swinging(square)insul vane in shaft that closes down for nite(photocell activated).

Since sunlight is variable(goes behind clouds)you’d have variable lights on dimmers that maintain a constant lumen level inside. The only difference you might notice is a subtle shift in spectrum(solar vs fluorescent). If the tilted tops were all faced south(north high end), you could have a higher reflective panel sticking above the north face, and east-west side panels that slide up-down as the sun arcs across the sky. That, with reflective interiors in this sun-pipe, would give much more light/heat.

As a practical matter though, this requires a LOT of roof penetrations/flashing and constant maintenance of washing/cleaning off dust that constantly falls from the sky. There is also a code limit of 25% of floor area for skylights, and in a fire those sun-pipes become exhaust ports. But major stores usually have sprinkler systems anyway, so that may not be a big safety issue. And too, VERY rarely are major stores chock-a-block full of people, and they know where the exit doors are anyway.

So, yes, your idea has merit, now who can you talk into doing it? Stress CLEAN-GREEN.

As to the WASTE HEAT issue, I’m thinking way ahead. You see, I KNOW of several non-polluting, non-nuclear energy sources that have been discovered by my new energy collegues, including anti-gravity. Think HARD : if you gave everyone in the world his own magic flying carpet, the entire third world would be landing on YOUR lawn like a plague of locusts, a FLOOD 500 times greater than the current mexican FLOOD. Be careful what you wish for...

And, if you give everyone(7 billion people)a free KW(from this new energy source)they’ll DEMAND a free MW, then GW. Do the math. The only way the earth gets RID of heat is by blackbody T^4 radiation; conduction, convection don’t count. It’s looking thru the microscope vs the telescope. You see it as TOO LITTLE energy, what happens if EVERYONE has whole atomic bombs worth of free energy to play with?

Do you leave a loaded shotgun in a nursery for children to play with? Or let a 5 year old drive a semitruck(even w/tapered tail)on the freeway? Thus now we have escalating energy prices as controls on TOO MUCH waste heat. Remove those controls and almost instantly you’ll get a HOT, STINKING GARBAGE DUMP of a biosphere. No, not a cleaner, greener world; idiots, children, criminals will bring that naive view to an abrupt end(as you watch the outside thermometer rising....rising....).