# So what do you think of nuclear energy???



## Swedishchef (Nov 2, 2012)

Hey guys

I am not certain that this topic/thread belongs in this particular forum however it is a start.

I am a huge fan of nuclear energy and wanted to hear other opinions. My point of view is like this: take away Chernobyl, "little boy" (nuclear weapons), Fukushima and I think we have a pretty solid energy source.

I am not a big fan of Uranium being used as a source. I am a HUGE supporter of Thorium reactors. However this technology is not at the point of full scale commercialization yet...google it!

Andrew


----------



## begreen (Nov 2, 2012)

I hear they get glowing reports. Ask Hog.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 2, 2012)

It is the energy source of the future. I have spent plenty of time in and around nuclear powered submarines and ships, even helped scrap them. After we all get tired of pollution scattered into the air from conventional energy sources we'll be happy to know how great it is to make power with a reactor.


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 2, 2012)

AAAAAAAAAAAMEN. Finally someone who sees eye to eye with me. lol.

Thorium reactors are much safer tha Uramium ones. They simply do not require high volumes of heavy water at high pressure to keep the reactors cool. That is the fault in CANDU reactors. If you lose water pressure or water, you lose the cooling ability and a nuclear "meltdown" ensues.

Lots of people I know say" windmills" are they future..Realllly? Ask the people who work at a plant nearby who build 145 foot blades. Fiberglass doesn't breakdown. How do you dispose of a faulty blade? They tried shredding them: nogo. it sends fibers into the air that coats your lungs. How about cutting them into pieces? They don't decompose.

What about solar? Well, the sulfuric acid batteries the size of small motorcycles can't be all that great once we must dispose of them...

Also, thorium is approximately 3 times more abundant than uranium. Lots of countries have it!!

ANdrew


----------



## begreen (Nov 2, 2012)

The issue is waste and the reality is hitting home in France which is highly nuclear dependent. We hear about vitrification processes etc. but the fact is that it has to be stored for 40-50 yrs in ponds, just to cool down before the vitrification process can take place. Guess what are leaking, in some cases big time into the local groundwaters there? I'll take the half life of fiberglass any day.

That is not to say that we should continue work in this direction. Fusion may be a game changer. But right now increasing efficiency and reducing waste is our best investment with the fastest payback.

FWIW, lead acid batteries are quite recyclable.


----------



## ironpony (Nov 2, 2012)

BOOM.................actually I say go for it, nothing is fool proof and if we wait that long we will be riding horses again


----------



## fossil (Nov 2, 2012)

I was trained in the Navy Nuclear Power program.  I was a qualified Nuc Plant Mechanical Operator and Engineering Laboratory Technician (primary & secondary system chemistry and Radiological Controls).  I trained other sailors (enlisted & Officer alike) to operate Naval nuclear ship propulsion plants while on the instructional staff of the S5G submarine prototype plant on what was then called the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho (now INEL). 

I know that a nuclear power plant can be operated safely...I've done it.  The US Navy has been safely operating nuclear powered ships for 58 years.  Yes, the waste problem from fission reactors is non-trivial, but it's not non-solvable.  I was optimistic that the Yucca Mountain repository would be completed and put into use...alas, it was not to be.  Stupid.  I think that public misunderstanding, ignorance, and fear have stood in the way of exploiting this power source more widely than it has been in the US ever since the post-WWII era.  Yes, I'm a fan...but I've no idea whether or not this country will ever take full advantage of the technology that we developed.  I'm not particularly optimistic.  Rick


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 2, 2012)

Every technology has risks...steam boilers killed a lot of folks (and were protested) in the 1800s, before they got all the kinks worked out.

Uranium fission is ok, modern cost estimates are coming in spendy at $5-15/W to build, fuel costs are low. Boosters will blame that on lawyers, impact statements etc, but I haven't seen any really reliable info....and you don't really want to cut corners.  Seems some standardization in design would be nice, doesn't exist at present.

Thorium seems to be vapor-ware.  Until it isn't. 

Interesting fact about fission reactors they don't advertise....the control rods control not the rate of the reaction, but rather its acceleration.  IF you lock the rods in place the reaction naturally grows (or decays) exponentially.  Don't want to let those rods get stuck!

My favorite story about nuclear fission is Enrico Fermi and the first reactors....they weren't sure how big the critical mass was, so they first built a miniature test reactor the size of a microwave oven (stacking tiny uranium and graphite bricks, with tiny manually operated control rods).  Didn't do chit.  Then they built another one the size of a car (same design, bigger bricks), same thing, nada.  The third one (which they had estimated would go critical)... they all assembled next to it, and slowly pulled up the rods while watching a 'geiger' counter.  At a certain point, the needle goes abruptly from squat to pegged, and the guy holding the (manual) rods looks at Enrico for some....guidance. What does Enrico do? He slowly looks around at the assembled people, and says, 'Ahem... gentlemen, at this moment Man has for the first time realized the controlled release of nuclear energy.'  Everyone's is staring at the pegged needle.  After another beat, Enrico says, 'you may now lower the control rods'.

Biggest cajones ever.

When they were done playing with that puppy, they trucked all the uranium and graphite bricks out to the 'burbs and dumped them there in an open lot!


----------



## fossil (Nov 2, 2012)

Dunno where you come up with some of this stuff...but your control rod description is quite misleading, and you might want to review the real history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1

I highly recommend Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" for a scholarly and authoritative history.  Rick


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 2, 2012)

I will defer to your technical expertise...and it is certainly true that the control of a reactor is more complicated (and more stable) than a single exponential due to the side reactions and minor daughter species. But it is not inherently stable without very careful engineering. Not a problem...just requires a good controller, models and appropriate startup/shutdown procedures. But the instabilities are not advertized.

I got the story from someone who was there....I suppose he was pulling the kid's leg.


----------



## Delta-T (Nov 2, 2012)

one time I ate a whole bunch of these cheese stuffed hot peppers that my wife makes....it was like a nuclear reaction a few hours later. This is my only first hand experience with atomic energy. Impressive stuff. All "sciency" and whatnot.


----------



## Jack Straw (Nov 2, 2012)




----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 2, 2012)

Delta-T said:


> one time I ate a whole bunch of these cheese stuffed hot peppers that my wife makes....it was like a nuclear reaction a few hours later. This is my only first hand experience with atomic energy. Impressive stuff. All "sciency" and whatnot


lol


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 2, 2012)

BeGreen: I understand your point. But go ask anybody working in a windmill blade plant if they enjoy themselves, most would rather work in a coal mine. Serious health issues from the resin of the fiberglass, always working with a suit on, etc. And the fact if are still very dependant on one issue that you can't control: wind. Vitrification is a bit of an issue but just imagine how little waste there is vs the amount of energy we receive from it. Considering the amount of coal the US burns, I would rather see modern day Thorium salt bath reactors. How about those wonderful Tar Sands that we send down your way for refinning?? Ever see what a tar pond looks like? It aint pretty. Large companies receive fines year after year for not scaring birds off efficiently. They must scare birds off. The minute a bird lands in a pond, it's over.

I agree Lead based batteries can be recycled. However, my understanding is that it is the lead that is recycled and not the acid. The fact is, where does this acid end up? They don't add baking soda to try and neutralize it. I think if we compared  the amount of environmental damage from nuclear energy, batteries, coal burning, etc I am certain nuclear produces the least amount. Nuclear simply received a bad name because of bad examples on how to use it. It's kind of like saying I went to get an MRI. There's one letter that they forget to use: NMRI: it is nuclear medicine.

I agree fossil: public misunderstanding, fear, misinformation and ignorance are blocking us from developping technologies and advancing in the nuclear world. According to the web, Advocates estimate that five hundred metric tons of thorium could supply all U.S. energy needs for one year.[12] The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the largest known U.S. thorium deposit, the Lemhi Pass district on the Montana-Idaho border, contains thorium reserves of 64,000 metric tons of thorium

Woodgeek: the story was a little off but either way they set off a nuclear reaction without any backup in a HUGELAY populated area. It could have gone wrong...all in the name of science and did it without computer's calculations! BIG CAJONES is right!

Here's an amazing video you should all check out:


----------



## raybonz (Nov 2, 2012)

Swedishchef said:


> Hey guys
> 
> I am not certain that this topic/thread belongs in this particular forum however it is a start.
> 
> ...


I do not like it! It is much too dangerous when things go wrong and they are expensive to build and operate plus the waste has to be dealt with forever!

Ray


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 2, 2012)

Ray, watch the video I just posted. There is a BIG misconception that all nuclear plants are/should be Uranium ones. This video is pretty easygoing and explains alternatives. "Is Nuclear Energy Safe?" Which ones? "It's like saying, is a car safe? Which ones?"

Andrew


----------



## raybonz (Nov 2, 2012)

Swedishchef said:


> Ray, watch the video I just posted. There is a BIG misconception that all nuclear plants are/should be Uranium ones. This video is pretty easygoing and explains alternatives. "Is Nuclear Energy Safe?" Which ones? "It's like saying, is a car safe? Which ones?"
> 
> Andrew


OK Andrew I did watch the video and it appears that Thorium is safer than other nuclear fuels and also plentiful. I am still not convinced of the safety system. One thing that is not talked about in the video is the waste and how it's handled.. This part is dangerous and very expensive over time..

Ray


----------



## fossil (Nov 2, 2012)

I'm movin' this outta the Inglenook over into the Green Room.  Rick


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 2, 2012)

Tks RIck. I just didn't think it necessarily fit into the "green" room


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 2, 2012)

Some 'greens' def think nuclear is green b/c it is low carbon.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Nov 2, 2012)

I don't know Rick.
There is this part of me (a little devil on my shoulder) that hopes it was done just as WG typed (retold) it.
Wildwest at it's best. Just friggin do it, we will figure out what happened later. If anyone survives that is.
Thanks WG, very hearty  on my part.


----------



## begreen (Nov 2, 2012)

Delta-T said:


> one time I ate a whole bunch of these cheese stuffed hot peppers that my wife makes....it was like a nuclear reaction a few hours later. This is my only first hand experience with atomic energy. Impressive stuff. All "sciency" and whatnot.


 
And I imagine the waste disposal was still hot!


----------



## raybonz (Nov 2, 2012)

LOL a real flame thrower for sure! 

Ray


----------



## jharkin (Nov 2, 2012)

In general I am pro-nuclear if its done right. I'm all for solar/wind/hydro but I seriously doubt we can ever scale them to replace 100% of whats currently supplied by FF (and future demand growth). I think nuclear HAS to be part of the solution.... and I get worried by backlash from events like Fukushima resulting in a resurgence of coal,etc.

On the other hand the risks are non trivial for sure. In spite of so many good intentions the solution to the waste issue seems to be "store it in big pools at the plant"  And then look what happens when we get a Fukushima event   Also I believe that even if its low carbon its not necessarily low impact... what about all the waste heat killing off wildlife in rivers used for cooling water etc?

I think thorium breeders or better yet real working fusion could truly be a game changer and get us out of a tight spot but they both seem to be perpetually 50 years away....


----------



## Adabiviak (Nov 3, 2012)

Nuclear reactions could mean any number of things. The uranium reactors that we're all largely familiar with can certainly be done right, but compared to other technologies, they're messy (leftovers are a drag to deal with), and they often deal with weapon-grade radioactive materials, so there's inherent security risks (which can also be managed). Uranium must also be mined somewhere, and, like oil, won't last forever. Modern fission reactors (not our current crop of, what, 40+ year old designs?) can certainly get more, safer, and cleaner bang for your uranium dollar, but as was mentioned earlier, thorium reactors are better due to a higher abundance (cheaper) fuel, and shorter half lives for the waste product. 

The nuclear power we should be after is fusion. We're currently operating fusion reactions where we get more energy out than was put in. The trick is that to translate these reactors into something reliable enough to go onto the grid, there are other problems to solve. For example, you'll want a duty cycle of maybe a year for one of these reactors. Our current test reactors couldn't reliably be expected to run non-stop for a year. You'll also want much more than, say, twice the return on your initial energy investment for this application. For something running on the grid like this, you'll want higher returns than that, which means fine tuning these reactions in ways we haven't yet figured out. Needless to say, they're much safer to operate than fission reactors (major failures aren't catastrophic, there's no security issues with the (cheaper) fuel, and the waste is much cleaner). The link below points to an interview with some of the MIT researchers working on fusion from April of this year - it's about as good a description of exactly where this technology is at as any I've come across (and gets into some wonderful details about handling the plasma). 

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fusion-researchers-answer-your-questions


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 3, 2012)

Sadly, I think fusion for commercial electricity is dead as a doornail. Beyond the hurdle of getting it to be energy positive is something called cost.... Fission reactors 'worked the first time' using a design done by some (v smart) folks basically with pencil and paper. And while we have a fleet of them working now (sunk cost), the unsubsidized, amortized cost per kWh has IMO not been compelling computed anywhere I have seen. The estimates I have seen come in above wind and often above solar PV! In contrast, imagine they get a fusion plant to be energy positive tomorrow after 60 YEARS of 'almost theres', and spending 10 billion dollars on a (huge) demo scale plant. We're going to somehow manage to take that technical monster, scale it up to the GW scale, do all the engineering so it can run for 30-50 years and multiply that 1000x fold and the result will be juice at an amortized cost of $0.15/kWh?? Really? ON the bright side...I guess its a heckuva jobs program.

I guess that for fission, I think the cost and safety concerns can be allayed by a 'standard design' or a family of them, using modern metallurgical and modeling know-how. The waste issue in my opinion can be handled by the existing pools til the daughters decay, then dry casks. Not rocket science. If folks in 1000 years want to move/bury the dry casks, they can, in the meantime they don't take up a lot of space (compared to the amount of real estate available on earth, or say, a single big strip mine). As I said before, I think the jury is still out on fuel breeding and reprocessing and thorium. The costs for a single pass U reactor are marginal, and reprocessing is very difficult/expensive. Hmmm.

Beside costs, there is still the issue of duty cycle. Ironically, if all your generators ran at constant output all the time, that is also a problem for grid management. The existing fleet of N reactors don't throttle well if at all, whereas demand has daily and seasonal cycles. I got my juice at a 50% discount in the winter (up until last year) because my utility had a lot of N plants that exceeded demand in the winter. All those pumped hydro storage facilities that folks want to store wind and solar....go check...most of the existing ones were built to store nighttime power from N-plants!

So, a grid based solely on solar/wind and nuclear is not manageable with current technology (no storage)! Dispatchable hydro and geothermal might help, but seldom are all these resources located in the same region. A future decarbonized energy system will still need massive energy storage even with all the N-plants you want. Or N-plants with new designs that can be throttled on something like a diurnal cycle. Or both.

Lest you think I am too negative...I'm not. Storage and distributed load management 'smart grid' technology might, worst case, double the price of a kWh. And that is not the end of civilization.


----------



## raybonz (Nov 3, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Sadly, I think fusion for commercial electricity is dead as a doornail. Beyond the hurdle of getting it to be energy positive is something called cost.... Fission reactors 'worked the first time' using a design done by some (v smart) folks basically with pencil and paper. And while we have a fleet of them working now (sunk cost), the unsubsidized, amortized cost per kWh has IMO not been compelling computed anywhere I have seen. The estimates I have seen come in above wind and often above solar PV! In contrast, imagine they get a fusion plant to be energy positive tomorrow after 60 YEARS of 'almost theres', and spending 10 billion dollars on a (huge) demo scale plant. We're going to somehow manage to take that technical monster, scale it up to the GW scale, do all the engineering so it can run for 30-50 years and multiply that 1000x fold and the result will be juice at an amortized cost of $0.15/kWh?? Really? ON the bright side...I guess its a heckuva jobs program.
> 
> I guess that for fission, I think the cost and safety concerns can be allayed by a 'standard design' or a family of them, using modern metallurgical and modeling know-how. The waste issue in my opinion can be handled by the existing pools til the daughters decay, then dry casks. Not rocket science. If folks in 1000 years want to move/bury the dry casks, they can, in the meantime they don't take up a lot of space (compared to the amount of real estate available on earth, or say, a single big strip mine). As I said before, I think the jury is still out on fuel breeding and reprocessing and thorium. The costs for a single pass U reactor are marginal, and reprocessing is very difficult/expensive. Hmmm.
> 
> ...


OMG are you a physicist or similar? Very impressive knowledge of the subject matter! Nuclear power is scary due to unforeseen disasters that can happen and when things go wrong a nuke plant can destroy a massive area plus they tend to located in populated areas placing a huge number of people at risk. I feel there is no safe storage for nuclear waste either plus you have to deal with it for eons and that can't be cheap either! Pilgrim nuclear plant is close enough to me that if something were to go wrong could force me out of my home if not kill my family! Can you imagine America's hometown being laid to waste?? These risks are totally unacceptable and how this country allows this is beyond my imagination boundaries. We have enough proof that nuclear power is unsafe it's time we learn from history or suffer the consequences.

Ray


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 3, 2012)

For the purposes of of the OP, I will clarify issues....

Assuming that safety concerns can be addressed, the question with nuclear is the extent to which it would 'help' with a future decarbonized 'ecotopic' energy grid. 'Help' could be defined as (i) simply providing large amounts of needed power or (ii) helping with grid management through provision of baseload while doing these at (iii) costs that are competitive with alternatives.

The ability of N-plants based on existing technology to do (i-iii) is debatable.

For single-pass U plants, (i) might be an issue...many think there is not enough U to last that long for a ramped up fleet. A 'bridge' but not sustainable.
For breeders/thorium, (i) is aok, but (iii) has yet to be demonstrated, and new safety issues are raised.
For both, (ii) is a actually a problem, since they don't throttle. Not intutive to someone afraid of the lights going out when the wind stops blowing, but there it is.

IMO there are a lot of (amateur) N-boosters out there. Frankly, I think a lot of them are responding to perceived problems with other renewable energy technology, which are themselves being promulgated by think tanks and other bad-faith actors, not engineers. These critics of solar and wind power argue inadequate scale (i) and intermittency (ii). Utilities with N-plants helpfully point out that there reactors are BIG (i) and NOT intermittent (ii), yay! And an armchair N-booster is born.

There is a lot of talk about 'solar break-even' on cost. Clearly, a loose concept that has already been achieved for unsubsidized grid-tie in some areas and markets and assumed discount rates. I find it significant that no-one ever requires such cost break-even for N-power. If it is cheaper (really), show me the numbers and round up some private investors and lets go. The stunning lack of private investment would suggest that the real numbers suggest even single-pass U plants are not a good ROI. If the problem is legal costs rather than engineering costs, show me the numbers, and I will happily call my congressman a tell them they need to get lawyers of the poor N-plant investors back.

I think the bigger issue is 'break-even' for _stored_ and dispatchable wind or solar power, currently about 2X that of grid-tie solar per kWh. If THAT were cheaper than your N-plant power, why would anyone build or even invest in an N-plant? It would be obsolete and expensive technology.  IOW, whale oil. A carbon tax would raise the cost of FF electricity to the point where storable wind/solar could be cost competitive today, and ready for mass rollout (also a jobs program). Since the carbon tax would not hit the N-plants too hard, they can still play in this future, if they can compete in terms of dollars and cents and ROI.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 3, 2012)

raybonz said:


> OMG are you a physicist or similar?


 
Yes.



raybonz said:


> Nuclear power is scary due to unforeseen disasters that can happen and when things go wrong a nuke plant can destroy a massive area plus they tend to located in populated areas placing a huge number of people at risk. I feel there is no safe storage for nuclear waste either plus you have to deal with it for eons and that can't be cheap either! Pilgrim nuclear plant is close enough to me that if something were to go wrong could force me out of my home if not kill my family! Can you imagine America's hometown being laid to waste?? These risks are totally unacceptable and how this country allows this is beyond my imagination boundaries. We have enough proof that nuclear power is unsafe it's time we learn from history or suffer the consequences.
> Ray


 
My heart goes out to those victims of N-plant disasters. Just like all those folks killed by steam boilers in the 1800s, or skewered by their steering wheel rods in 1950s cars. Bad engineering.

Should we discuss the idea that existing coal plants kill more people in a month than all N-plants have in their entire history? Its statistical, so it doesn't play well to journalists. And people are dying.

Whether there is a role for civilian nuclear power (i.e. outside of the military and naval/space applications) will likely be decided in the next 10-20 years. I _personally_ don't think the 'anti-nuke movement' and politics of nuclear power are helpful in deciding its fate...its an engineering issue. If nuclear makes cheap safe power, people will build it; if it can't they won't.


----------



## raybonz (Nov 3, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that coal is not the answer either. I like hydro-power as it uses a force that exists naturally however it is disruptive to nature so that won't happen in USA anymore. Another great prime mover would be wind with storage but of course that's debatable. Solar with storage would be great employed on a local level such on rooftops of homes factories etc. but cost is the issue. The best part of wind and sun is they do not destroy anything. Bottom line is we need a prime mover that doesn't go away, is economically feasible and doesn't destroy the environment. The problem is that profits will override plausibility and this will dictate the direction we take.

Ray


----------



## btuser (Nov 3, 2012)

Thorium in a  LFTR reactor:

You can throttle the output to demand, so you can respond in minutes rather than days. That makes it much easier to scale up/down vs. a 1GW coal/nuke plant.  It's also incredibly safe because the fissionable materials are kept at 1 atmosphere, so there's no chance of the reactor vessel explosion/rupture.  

The safety features are real.  No triple redundancies, no 3' thick reinforced concrete containment vessel, and a negative coefficient of re-activity:  As it gets hotter, the liquid expands and the extra space in between the molecules slows down the neutron collisions so it can only get "so hot", well below the reactor temp limit.   It's capable of much higher temperatures, which dramatically increases efficiency ratios and gives us the chance to do reformation of natural gas and even coal into clean liquid fuels.  No more turning food into gas.  

And we'll never, ever run out of it, and it's abundant and very easy to mine/process.  That may in fact be what it keeping it in the dark, because the money to made in nukes is all about the supply chain.  Nixon administration was the ones who squashed it, so I'm guessing it clashed with plans for the petrodollar.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 3, 2012)

btuser said:


> Thorium in a LFTR reactor:
> 
> You can throttle the output to demand, so you can respond in minutes rather than days. That makes it much easier to scale up/down vs. a 1GW coal/nuke plant. It's also incredibly safe because the fissionable materials are kept at 1 atmosphere, so there's no chance of the reactor vessel explosion/rupture.
> 
> ...


 
Can you rec some good sources of info on this to get started?? AFAIK, Thorium tech was discussed at the dawn of the nuclear age....do you have any insights why they didn't build 'em? I might **guess** that they ran with U reactor tech from bomb building, rather than starting from scratch?


----------



## jharkin (Nov 3, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> IMO there are a lot of (amateur) N-boosters out there. Frankly, I think a lot of them are responding to perceived problems with other renewable energy technology, which are themselves being promulgated by think tanks and other bad-faith actors, not engineers. These critics of solar and wind power argue inadequate scale (i) and intermittency (ii). Utilities with N-plants helpfully point out that there reactors are BIG (i) and NOT intermittent (ii), yay! And an armchair N-booster is born.


 
The amateur part probably applies to me, maybe not the booster part. I'm kind of ambivalent. I used to really like the idea of nuclear - the potential to supply really large amounts of power in a small space.. But given the waste issue and various accidents, and the fact that solar and other things are really improving by leaps and bounds Im not so sure anymore. And from what little Ive read it seems the cost was nowhere near as cheap as was promised at the dawn of the nuclear age.

I should probably read up on it a lot more... heck read up on a lot of things a lot more... before making a decision. I just hope the people who are making these decisions are giving all the options a fair look.

At a very high level, it does seem to me that we are going to need/want a very diversified strategy - solar, wind, hydro, tidal etc each in places where its most effective. Possibly some nuclear to handle base load.  ANd I wouldnt rule out keeping NG for load balancing.  If we were able to cut out all the coal and oil maybe we could reduce carbon emissions enough that retaining some NG for electric generation is not a problem.

I'm totally speaking out of my rear here... no research just rambling.


Off topic- woodgeek just curious what do you do for a living? you mentioned physics.


----------



## begreen (Nov 3, 2012)

I have a friend that has a business based on plasma control, fascinating stuff.


----------



## begreen (Nov 3, 2012)

Swedishchef said:


> BeGreen: I understand your point. But go ask anybody working in a windmill blade plant if they enjoy themselves, most would rather work in a coal mine. Serious health issues from the resin of the fiberglass, always working with a suit on, etc. And the fact if are still very dependant on one issue that you can't control: wind. Vitrification is a bit of an issue but just imagine how little waste there is vs the amount of energy we receive from it. Considering the amount of coal the US burns, I would rather see modern day Thorium salt bath reactors. How about those wonderful Tar Sands that we send down your way for refinning?? Ever see what a tar pond looks like? It aint pretty. Large companies receive fines year after year for not scaring birds off efficiently. They must scare birds off. The minute a bird lands in a pond, it's over.
> 
> I agree Lead based batteries can be recycled. However, my understanding is that it is the lead that is recycled and not the acid. The fact is, where does this acid end up? They don't add baking soda to try and neutralize it. I think if we compared the amount of environmental damage from nuclear energy, batteries, coal burning, etc I am certain nuclear produces the least amount. Nuclear simply received a bad name because of bad examples on how to use it. It's kind of like saying I went to get an MRI. There's one letter that they forget to use: NMRI: it is nuclear medicine.
> 
> I agree fossil: public misunderstanding, fear, misinformation and ignorance are blocking us from developping technologies and advancing in the nuclear world. According to the web, Advocates estimate that five hundred metric tons of thorium could supply all U.S. energy needs for one year.[12] The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the largest known U.S. thorium deposit, the Lemhi Pass district on the Montana-Idaho border, contains thorium reserves of 64,000 metric tons of thorium


 
I can't emphasize enough that the main issue with current nuclear energy is waste. No matter what industry sugar coating says, no one has a great long-term (10,000 yr) storage plan. The interim plans are turning into local disasters, often political, that keep kicking the can down the road at huge taxpayer expense. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation in our state is a prime example. This is the elephant in the room. Pointing to another dirty fuel issue is a strawman, it doesn't change the facts. I'm not anti-nuclear, but it will take a much smarter solution than the currently used technology to sell me. Fusion seems like the best bet so far, but it still is a lab experiment.

All parts of lead acid batteries are recycled. Here's what happens to your recycled lead-acid battery. http://www.batteryrecycling.com/battery recycling process


----------



## woodchip (Nov 3, 2012)

Safety concerns in nuclear reactors will always be the number one thought in people's minds.

In fact, many more people have died in coal mining accidents than in any nuclear reactor accident.

The worst disaster recently was that of Fukishama in Japan, where an old fashioned out of date reactor was caught up in the tsunami.

The tsunami  killed well over 15000 people, but there is no record of anyone yet dying as a result of the nuclear catastrophe.

Fear rules above all else............


----------



## begreen (Nov 3, 2012)

There's more than fear of death, though death by radiation can be slow and painful. I think Chernobyl is an example of what can go terribly wrong. Long term effects of chromosomal damage may last generations. The long term evacuation of millions of people from good farming land around Fukishima is not trivial. Death of people, wildlife and land are real risks with older technologies. When you are dealing with toxic materials that have side-effects measured in hundred and thousands of year, extraordinary  caution is prudent.


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 3, 2012)

BG: thanks for the video for battery recycling. Things are moving along nicely!

I agree that waste is a big issue with *current *nuclear technology. However most people don't see that. They see the pictures of Chernobyl. Fukushima. The spent fuel rods and contaminents are a pain in the ass to deal with. But that is *not *why governments are getting rid of them. They are getting rid of them based on the fear of nuclear meltdowns. When all the people get scared, the government responds as they want votes long term.

Woodgeek: I like your point about more people killed in coal mining accidents in 1 year than all nuclear disasters in history. Since you're a phycisist (I am a chemist), what's your thought on TLFR??? Did you watch the video I posted? I think that TLFR was not pursued as the technology was developped for N-bombs, why develop a new one? The governments of the day would not get on board. They had cheap oil, nuclear energy already researched...with oil reserves starting to run low, things are changing....

BTuser: I think you're right. It all came down to oil and oil prices.

jharkin: I am also talking out of my rear a bit..I am a chemist that took 8-9 physics classes in University. Did you get a chance to watch the video I posted?

Living in a province that has some of the most advanced hydroelectric projects in the word and is developing windmill farms 700 MW at a time I know there are other great technologies out there. But here's a question: what do you do if in 20 years the wind stops blowing in the areas where the windmill farms are built? A friend of mine works for the local utility company and put it simple: "when the wind blows, we close down our dams. when it stops blowing, we open them up".

Here's a quote about my utility company: "On December 31, 2011, Hydro-Québec Production owned and operated 59 hydro plants—including 12 of over a 1,000 MW capacity—and 26 major reservoirs.[136] These facilities are located in 13 of Quebec's 430 watersheds,[137] including the Saint Lawrence, Betsiamites, La Grande, Manicouagan, Ottawa, Outardes, and Saint-Maurice rivers.[138] These plants provide the bulk of electricity generated and sold by the company.
Non-hydro plants include the baseload 675-MW gross Gentilly nuclear generating station, a CANDU-design reactor slated for closure by the end of 2012[4] and three gas turbine peaker plants, for a total installed capacity of 36,971 MW in 2011.[139] Hydro-Québec's average generation cost was 2.11 cents per kWh in 2011.[140]" Attached is a graph that represents how my province's electricity is generated...

FWIW, they decided to close the nuclear plant last month.

A


----------



## jharkin (Nov 3, 2012)

Chef-

haha  not accusing anyone else of talking out their rear. I'm a Mech.E  I took physics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluids etc.  but in engineering school its more about practical applications of these concepts to design challenges rather than the raw science.  I remember doing the calculations for things like sizing steam turbines and such based on the heat output but I know nothing about  how the actual reaction works or other issues in nuclear.

Needless to say this stuff does fascinate me though so I try and add something of value to the discussion


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 3, 2012)

You know what I wish I had taken: mechanical or chemical engineering. Ugh.   I am simply admitting that I am not overly familiar with the topic, I was curious to see what people thought of nuclear energy!

Andrew


----------



## pdf27 (Nov 3, 2012)

Adabiviak said:


> The nuclear power we should be after is fusion. We're currently operating fusion reactions where we get more energy out than was put in.


Nope. There is currently **one** machine in the world that could theoretically generate fusion power (as it happens, I work on it), and it is next likely to use the Tritium fuel which would enable it to generate power in 2015 or possibly later. 



Adabiviak said:


> The trick is that to translate these reactors into something reliable enough to go onto the grid, there are other problems to solve. For example, you'll want a duty cycle of maybe a year for one of these reactors.


Ummm... Right now reactors are limited to about 10-20 second pulses. ITER is planned to be able to pulse for 600 seconds, although once you get to that duration extending it further isn't all that hard. It isn't clear that this is a good idea though - right now the deigns for DEMO/PPP I've seen are split between pulsed and steady state operation.



Adabiviak said:


> You'll also want much more than, say, twice the return on your initial energy investment for this application. For something running on the grid like this, you'll want higher returns than that, which means fine tuning these reactions in ways we haven't yet figured out.


JET set the record of Q=0.7 return on energy (you get back 70% of what you put in) back in 1997. JT-60 have claimed Q=1.25 but that's a bit artificial as it's based on pure Deuterium fuel which doesn't actually release energy while the JET record was with a Deuterium-Tritium mix which does. ITER is currently predicted to give Q=10 when it eventually starts Deuterium-Tritium operations in about 15 years time.



Adabiviak said:


> Needless to say, they're much safer to operate than fission reactors (major failures aren't catastrophic, there's no security issues with the (cheaper) fuel, and the waste is much cleaner).


Ummm... again sort of half true. They're safer provided you've got a nice big bioshield as the prompt radiation from the reaction is actually rather more dangerous than inside a similar nuclear reactor (much higher energy neutrons and the plasma is glowing in the X-ray region). The burnt fuel itself is inert after the reaction stops, but the reactor vessel becomes activated and is actually very hot - so everything has to be done by remote handling. Tritium has some security risks associated with it (it's used in nuclear weapons but is of no real use to a terrorist without one).
HOWEVER, unlike fission plants it doesn't produce actinides so the waste is very short lived. Turn the plant off and within 100 years or so everything is safe for reuse or recycling. It's much safer and cleaner than a fission plant, and will release less radioactivity than say a coal burning power station, but it isn't magic.


----------



## Delta-T (Nov 3, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Can you rec some good sources of info on this to get started?? AFAIK, Thorium tech was discussed at the dawn of the nuclear age....do you have any insights why they didn't build 'em? I might **guess** that they ran with U reactor tech from bomb building, rather than starting from scratch?


my first guess would be political cronyism was the killer of thorium. He who passes the most cash under table gets sweet government contract.


----------



## pdf27 (Nov 3, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> In contrast, imagine they get a fusion plant to be energy positive tomorrow after 60 YEARS of 'almost theres', and spending 10 billion dollars on a (huge) demo scale plant. We're going to somehow manage to take that technical monster, scale it up to the GW scale, do all the engineering so it can run for 30-50 years and multiply that 1000x fold and the result will be juice at an amortized cost of $0.15/kWh?? Really? ON the bright side...I guess its a heckuva jobs program.


Those are the estimates I've seen (actually a little lower - most recent estimates for the whole lifecycle of a fusion plant based on what we think it would look like have electricity being generated at a little less than combined cycle gas plant cost (sample report here - http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...noHgCw&usg=AFQjCNHpszDnh2q12l0hwL5Ag0qNWnJ7jg - read 10 different reports and you'll get 10 different estimates, but they broadly agree that it's roughly cost competitive).
The reason it's getting so much cash in Europe is that long term we're faced with either importing all our fuel while emitting a LOT of CO2 (global warming is much more accepted here than in the US, so this is politically unpopular), trashing lifestyles to get consumption down to the level renewables can generate in Europe, covering a bunch of unstable countries in North Africa in PV panels or making fusion work. The first two are politically unacceptable and the third is deeply risky (we may be faced to recolonise some of the countries or let them turn out the lights to a continent  ), so fusion is getting a lot of support and funding.



woodgeek said:


> So, a grid based solely on solar/wind and nuclear is not manageable with current technology (no storage)! Dispatchable hydro and geothermal might help, but seldom are all these resources located in the same region. A future decarbonized energy system will still need massive energy storage even with all the N-plants you want. Or N-plants with new designs that can be throttled on something like a diurnal cycle. Or both.


Fusion takes to being turned on/off rather better than fission plant, although since for both the fuel is essentially free you don't want to turn them off if you can get anything at all for the electricity. Having said that, my personal opinion is that the storage problem will solve itself with the advent of electric cars and smart metering - they should level off diurnal demand quite nicely, coupled with a big chunk of solar PV which also matches summer peak loads quite well. That leaves interseasonal variation, which isn't a problem as plants will need to be shut down for maintenance on a fairly regular basis.

Disclaimer: I'm an engineer on JET, so will tend to be quite positive about the future of Nuclear Fusion!


----------



## pdf27 (Nov 3, 2012)

Delta-T said:


> my first guess would be political cronyism was the killer of thorium. He who passes the most cash under table gets sweet government contract.


The first nuclear power stations were thinly disguised plutonium factories - the steam turbines were added on to find something to do with the waste heat and convince the public they weren't just about preparing for nuclear war. This did mean however that the vast majority of the design work and operating experience for uranium-reactors had already been built up and paid for by the military, so making uranium plant a lot cheaper to build than thorium. Since thorium can't be turned into plutonium, nobody spent money on that up front and until uranium prices go up a lot there is no incentive for anybody to do so.


----------



## jharkin (Nov 3, 2012)

Swedishchef said:


> You know what I wish I had taken: mechanical or chemical engineering. Ugh.  I am simply admitting that I am not overly familiar with the topic, I was curious to see what people thought of nuclear energy!
> 
> Andrew


 

haha  me too. You know funny thing is when I got out of school mechanical jobs were a bit slow and I ended up in software.. Now its a bit late to change back but I do miss it. Some of my internships actually involved shop time prototyping things were where designing, that was fun. Always liked hands on.


----------



## btuser (Nov 3, 2012)

pdf27 said:


> The first nuclear power stations were thinly disguised plutonium factories - the steam turbines were added on to find something to do with the waste heat and convince the public they weren't just about preparing for nuclear war. This did mean however that the vast majority of the design work and operating experience for uranium-reactors had already been built up and paid for by the military, so making uranium plant a lot cheaper to build than thorium. Since thorium can't be turned into plutonium, nobody spent money on that up front and until uranium prices go up a lot there is no incentive for anybody to do so.


That's what I heard.  The government wasn't interested in LFTR reactors running on thorium because you couldn't use them to make a bomb.  Another piece of the puzzle is the US attempt to consolidate the oil markets and peg our currency to it.  Possible, plausible, yeah I believe it.  I think there's some pretty daunting technical challenges, the first of which would be how do you process the fuel so you maximize the desirable U233 and not just get stuck with the byproducts you don't want.  That seems to get glossed over in the 30 minute videos plastered all over Youtube.  Another concern would be crashing prices putting people out of business.  I'm not kidding.  High prices will kill high prices, but low prices can be deadly to a technology too.  No reason to build a nuke plant when gas is $2/therm.  

Thorium is everywhere and reserves of even .5% are worth it to mine.  You can't corner that market, so why would you try?  As far as the reactor, heck anyone can build a reactor.  But then there's coal, or wood, or oil, or a land resource you can really OWN.  There's no reason to support a technology (like solar, and to a certain point wind) that isn't "manageable".


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 3, 2012)

pdf27 said:


> Those are the estimates I've seen (actually a little lower - most recent estimates for the whole lifecycle of a fusion plant based on what we think it would look like have electricity being generated at a little less than combined cycle gas plant cost (sample report here - http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=efda fusion power cost estimates&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFkQFjAJ&url=http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/p1250-cd/papers/sese-v.pdf&ei=PWyVUKGNAobO0QXcnoHgCw&usg=AFQjCNHpszDnh2q12l0hwL5Ag0qNWnJ7jg - read 10 different reports and you'll get 10 different estimates, but they broadly agree that it's roughly cost competitive).
> The reason it's getting so much cash in Europe is that long term we're faced with either importing all our fuel while emitting a LOT of CO2 (global warming is much more accepted here than in the US, so this is politically unpopular), trashing lifestyles to get consumption down to the level renewables can generate in Europe, covering a bunch of unstable countries in North Africa in PV panels or making fusion work. The first two are politically unacceptable and the third is deeply risky (we may be faced to recolonise some of the countries or let them turn out the lights to a continent  ), so fusion is getting a lot of support and funding.
> 
> Fusion takes to being turned on/off rather better than fission plant, although since for both the fuel is essentially free you don't want to turn them off if you can get anything at all for the electricity. Having said that, my personal opinion is that the storage problem will solve itself with the advent of electric cars and smart metering - they should level off diurnal demand quite nicely, coupled with a big chunk of solar PV which also matches summer peak loads quite well. That leaves interseasonal variation, which isn't a problem as plants will need to be shut down for maintenance on a fairly regular basis.
> ...


 
I would think those N African countries would be happy to let you have some desert for solar panels if you pay them enough.

An interesting paper you linked to, but assumes what now seems like rather expensive natural gas and expensive PV, and the fusion was still rather expensive. It's clear that the Europeans are making a lot of bets on new energy technology...and that's all good, research of plausible ideas is a good idea.  The US is happy to keep a little skin in the game by contributing money and some researchers (rather than building duplicate machines). 

But it does appear that fusion is just that...a bet.  Might not work out.  Or it might work, but be 2 or 20x more expensive than wind or solar + storage (at the same point n development, fission looked like it would be 'free').  Or it could be the big solution.  I personally think it is looking like a worse bet every year, as the other technologies mature and get fielded, and fusion is still in the lab.  Kinda like betting on a horse race where one horse is not only in the barn, it's still lying down.  When fusion was 30 years in the future during the last energy crisis 30 yrs ago it looked a lot better.  It is still 30 years away from the field?  Where will solar or wind be then and how will fusion catch up??  I think unless you get sustained operation demonstrations in 10 years, the govts will likely pull the plug.  Members of the american NAS are already starting to grumble.


----------



## begreen (Nov 3, 2012)

pdf27, thanks for jumping in with some knowledgeable details about fusion. This is an interesting thread.


----------



## pdf27 (Nov 4, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> I would think those N African countries would be happy to let you have some desert for solar panels if you pay them enough.


Right now they would. And if they were stable, friendly places (governed something like, say, Canada) we might even take them up on the offer. Unfortunately, they're a mix of absolute monarchies, tribal revolutions and military dictatorships, with a whole bunch of Salafists thrown in. In the circumstances, nobody would build mass PV down there without keeping an equivalent amount of backup plant idle in Europe - which puts the price right up. 



woodgeek said:


> An interesting paper you linked to, but assumes what now seems like rather expensive natural gas and expensive PV, and the fusion was still rather expensive.


Natural gas is actually pretty expensive over here - prices have crashed in the US due to fracking, but that hasn't happened in Europe and it's probable that it will not. Current gas prices are sufficiently high that where allowed generators are burning coal and turning their gas plant (brand new CCGT) off. Add in a legal requirement for carbon capture and storage (looking probable over those timeframes) and high prices for gas generation don't look implausible at all.
PV is one I'm not sure about. Some places like Italy, Spain and Greece I would expect (if they get the cash) to see it becoming the dominant form of generation over the next few decades, probably with gas plant for overnight. The problem is latitude - I'm at the southern end of the UK, and I'm level with the southern end of Alaska where I'm sitting. Additionally, peak demand is shortly after sunset and just before dawn in winter - the very worst times of day and year for PV given that you'll probably need interseasonal storage. That pushes you back to either looking at putting the PV in North Africa where they're close enough to the equator that they can provide sufficient power in winter, or looking at non-solar options.
My best guess is that most houses in northern Europe will be fitted with solar PV over the next 10-30 years, probably to about a level where peak demand is during the night in summer but not winter. In the near future most of the residual demand will come from gas and offshore wind, with fusion supplanting the gas and maybe some of the wind from around 2060.



woodgeek said:


> It's clear that the Europeans are making a lot of bets on new energy technology...and that's all good, research of plausible ideas is a good idea. The US is happy to keep a little skin in the game by contributing money and some researchers (rather than building duplicate machines).


See above. As we see it, our options are rather limited. The US is less worried about CO2 emissions, has more domestic gas supply, and is a LONG way further south so solar PV is substantially cheaper - and hence has a lot more options that don't apply to us. 



woodgeek said:


> But it does appear that fusion is just that...a bet. Might not work out. Or it might work, but be 2 or 20x more expensive than wind or solar + storage (at the same point n development, fission looked like it would be 'free').


The fission point is a little disingenuous - governments knew it wasn't that cheap, they just hid the subsidies to get their Plutonium production. We also know for certain that a lot of the high cost areas on a fission plant (secondary containment, "insurance" against accidents, high level waste disposal) are either much cheaper or not required at all for fusion. That makes the cost estimates rather more reliable. In terms of getting it to work, the following graph should be illuminating:




In blue is Fusion Triple Product, which is a measure of Tokamak performance (the dotted line is that expected from ITER, which will be the first self-sustaining fusion reaction). The red is Moore's law. From 1970-2000, fusion did better than the semiconductor industry - and I'm fairly sure nobody is going to claim them to be a failure or predict they will be unable to improve beyond current levels due to the laws of physics. 



woodgeek said:


> Or it could be the big solution. I personally think it is looking like a worse bet every year, as the other technologies mature and get fielded, and fusion is still in the lab. Kinda like betting on a horse race where one horse is not only in the barn, it's still lying down.


See above - it's still been on a lab scale (a very BIG lab scale - the machine I work on is the size of an apartment block and the supporting buildings take up most of an old airfield) because there has been so much to do. It's kind of like racing a horse against a motorbike you've never seen before with the back wheel off - you're pretty confident you'll beat the horse when you get the back wheel on, it looks like it ought to fit but you've never actually seen it on so can't be certain.



woodgeek said:


> When fusion was 30 years in the future during the last energy crisis 30 yrs ago it looked a lot better. It is still 30 years away from the field? Where will solar or wind be then and how will fusion catch up?? I think unless you get sustained operation demonstrations in 10 years, the govts will likely pull the plug. Members of the american NAS are already starting to grumble.


Fusion was only that close if it had been given far faster sustained funding than it ever got, and if there was another breakthrough along the lines of the invention of the Tokamak. Neither have happened.
Wind is getting pretty close to it's maximum theoretical efficiency right now, the only way it will get cheaper is if build costs go down. As (in Europe at least) it is heading offshore into deeper and rougher waters, the reductions in cost will probably not be all that big over time. PV is probably capable of 2-3 times the power output per unit area, and cost is limited by land and raw materials. Land probably won't get any cheaper (hence my view that it will tend to be on the roofs of buildings rather than a solar farms, at least in Europe) but materials probably will. The issue then becomes the electricity price - PV costs the same whether it is producing or not, and with smart metering coming in will in the long run be paid whatever the spot market price for electricity is. At some point that will drop low enough that even very cheap PV will be unviable, while fusion (not limited by weather/season) can get significantly higher prices for the power it generates. Hence, there isn't really a requirement for it to be cost-competitive with very cheap PV - the two should be seen as complementary in many ways, given the need early fusion stations will have for regular maintenance outages.

Grumbles from the American NAS are likely to be related to NIF - that's a laser confinement fusion experiment (like the early fission plants, built for military purposes) and the Deuterium-Tritium experiments they did recently were a bit of a failure. Off the top of my head they got Q~0.001, compared to JET's record of 15 years ago of Q=0.7 and JT-60's claim of equivalent to Q=1.25. Worse, as they cranked the power up the Q-value got worse, not better. If they follow the same track as magnetic confinement fusion has, they're roughly 25 years of development behind. In a country much less dependent on fusion working (see above) and which is trying to cut budgets, that's a very hard sell.
Incidentally, where I work the UK government has been robbing just about every other research budget going to pay for an upgrade of the smaller (UK-only) fusion machine I work on. If they weren't convinced it was worthwhile they wouldn't be doing that.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 4, 2012)

Great discussion pdf. Sounds like a fun and exciting project you're working on. I would love for fusion tech to work out, whether it turns out cheap enough for civilian power or not. Imagine the spinoff tech and other things you could do with it.

I am just trying to think of another transformative technology....ICEs, internet, indoor plumbing, microprocessors, mobile phones, civilian aviation, electrical grid, etc that took 90 years (60 behind, 30 ahead) of multi-billion $/yr of public funding to develop. I guess we can say that microprocessors have been at it for 40 years now, and that current fabs cost as much and are every bit as complex as your machine. But they are not competing with some guy digging up fossil processors and selling them by the tonne.

OK, got one....electric cars.

I don't really buy your 'past funding was inadequate' explanation for the slow progress (a small chunk of my national debt paid for the first part of your curve), but I will offer this explanation to take its place. To take your side, we can say that every technology requires other technology as prerequisites, and your machine prob relies on large scale computing and advanced instrumentation and materials to work, and those technologies were not available until, say, 10-15 years ago. The 'mistake' isn't to fund fusion now, but to try to have tried it 30,40 or 50 years ago. IF someone had the bright idea of building a moon rocket in 1860, all that money would have been wasted too. Apple wasted billions trying to invent the iPad in 1992 (they called it the Newton). But it was quite a smash 15 years later.

I still think you're a bit behind the curve on your competition, though. I appreciate your concerns with PV, the solar resource in the UK (or Germany for that matter) is pretty sad, and it is a long way to the Sahara. In the US years ago, there were naysayers that insisted that solar only made sense in the desert southwest (Arizona), when in fact it is quite viable over much of the US (my PV solar resource is only about 30% less than the sunniest spot in Arizona). Similarly, you don't need the Sahara, Spain will do quite nicely and they have plenty of open space for large-scale PV and a democratic govt friendly to the UK (for the time being). As for the intermittency and/or mass storage issues...I think those are a smaller engineering challenge than (commercially viable) fusion....e.g. large flow batteries are simpler tech than tokamaks. Current estimates are that multiple storage technologies would increase the delivered cost by <$0.10/kWh. There is little incentive to field these technologies---at current solar/wind penetration the electricity can just disappear into the grid. So your competition isn't PV or CSP plants in the Sahara delivering intermittent power in 2050...it is a huge PV plant with mass storage selling you cheap **dispatchable** power from a friendly Spaniard. Doesn't exist in 2012 but I wouldn't bet against it in 2030, when your future machine is still in field tests.

And if I lose that bet (no cheap dispatchable solar in 2030) it would only be because something cheaper came along to kill it...like frack gas. My natural gas was as expensive as yours in 2007, and forecast to get more expensive all the way into the future or disappear altogether ('Peak Gas'). And then it wasn't. Europe and Asia both have large shale gas resources too. While not popular politically, and far from ideal from a CO2 perspective, if the US shale gas experiment works out favorably (i.e. commercially viable over a sustained period with well regulated, minimal environmental impacts) then it is just a matter of time before European and UK public opinion will demand its development there too.


----------



## btuser (Nov 4, 2012)

The one thing (one of the things) I don't like about nuclear power is it's centrally controlled. You build a 10 GW station and you own a lot of lives. That's it, no reason to build another station and lower your own prices. Fusion looks to be a huge boom that can solve a huge problem but requires a huge infrastructure to do it. Traditional Uranium reactors benefited from a fuel cycle developed by the military, and had amazingly generous funding. Still, I think if you count the benefits of clean power rain or shine they are a vital part of the solution to rapid climate change.

Small 1-5 MW reactors that could power a few thousand homes would be my choice. I know the economy of scale may not be there for such things but I would put down 25k if I could get $.03/KWh juice for 30 years. 125 million dollars might buy a reactor for our town if you can build them small enough to be delivered by truck.


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 4, 2012)

+1, same goes for wind, solar and hydro. Mid sized and local use of produced energy. Never happen; nobody makes any money.

Ehouse


----------



## raybonz (Nov 4, 2012)

Obviously I am way in over my head in subject so I will bow out. I will say I am quite surprised that physicists would be wood burners lol.. I expected they would have some state of the art highly automated heating system but instead they burn ordinary wood stoves. I guess this says something about simplicity and reliability. Wood burning brings everyone together from all walks of life and creates a common bond. Keep up the great posts guys!

Ray


----------



## pdf27 (Nov 4, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> I still think you're a bit behind the curve on your competition, though. I appreciate your concerns with PV, the solar resource in the UK (or Germany for that matter) is pretty sad, and it is a long way to the Sahara. In the US years ago, there were naysayers that insisted that solar only made sense in the desert southwest (Arizona), when in fact it is quite viable over much of the US (my PV solar resource is only about 30% less than the sunniest spot in Arizona). Similarly, you don't need the Sahara, Spain will do quite nicely and they have plenty of open space for large-scale PV and a democratic govt friendly to the UK (for the time being).


Problem is Spain is only a partial solution. The sheer scale of the problem is such that we would need to plate over the WHOLE of Spain to get even close. Since most of the fresh vegetables in northern Europe are grown in southern Spain, that's a non-starter. The main attraction of North Africa is that the unused desert areas are so enormous compared to anything else available.



woodgeek said:


> As for the intermittency and/or mass storage issues...I think those are a smaller engineering challenge than (commercially viable) fusion....e.g. large flow batteries are simpler tech than tokamaks. Current estimates are that multiple storage technologies would increase the delivered cost by <$0.10/kWh. There is little incentive to field these technologies---at current solar/wind penetration the electricity can just disappear into the grid. So your competition isn't PV or CSP plants in the Sahara delivering intermittent power in 2050...it is a huge PV plant with mass storage selling you cheap **dispatchable** power from a friendly Spaniard. Doesn't exist in 2012 but I wouldn't bet against it in 2030, when your future machine is still in field tests.


I can see that happening in summer. The problem is seasonal rather than diurnal variation - the UK gets about 10 times as much solar energy in summer as it does in winter. Spain is better, but even so the summer production is double the winter production. The most promising large scale storage techiques (liquid/compressed air) are fine for day to day variations, peaking, etc. but the sheer amount of energy needed for seasonal use is likely to make that impractical. 10 tonnes of liquid air can provide 1 MWH at costs of around $1/W. UK electricity consumption is around 350,000,000 MWH/year. Assuming that over the winter a third of the total consumption is needed from storage (totally reliant on PV that produces twice as much in summer as winter, hence neglecting the fact that electricity is used for a lot of heating) you're looking at a requirement to store 500,000,000 tonnes of liquid air. That's a tank 30ft high and with sides 5 miles long. Not impossible, but extremely difficult and expensive.



woodgeek said:


> And if I lose that bet (no cheap dispatchable solar in 2030) it would only be because something cheaper came along to kill it...like frack gas. My natural gas was as expensive as yours in 2007, and forecast to get more expensive all the way into the future or disappear altogether ('Peak Gas'). And then it wasn't. Europe and Asia both have large shale gas resources too. While not popular politically, and far from ideal from a CO2 perspective, if the US shale gas experiment works out favorably (i.e. commercially viable over a sustained period with well regulated, minimal environmental impacts) then it is just a matter of time before European and UK public opinion will demand its development there too.


 What seems to be happening so far is that the government are trying to develop it and the public are demanding that it isn't developed. 






What seems to be going on in the US is a combination of lack of export capability and supply getting close to or potentially exceeding demand. That isn't going to happen in Europe (the US gets 90% of it's natural gas domestically and gets the rest from Canada and Mexico - the EU gets 40% of it's production domestically and buys the rest on the world market - either from Russia by pipeline or from North Africa/the Gulf as LNG). We need to increase production or decrease consumption by perhaps 300 trillion m3/year to get into that position. That's double the current US shale gas production, in a region with less shale available, much denser population and stricter environmental restrictions. I can certainly see a lot more shale gas being produced, but until we get to the point where we're relatively isolated from the world markets in the stuff I don't see the price coming down much.


----------



## ScotO (Nov 4, 2012)

This is one of my favorite types of power generation......I'm just a good ol' redneck engineer, so I can't put any real science towards the nuclear talk.  I will say, however, that I think it is both dated and dangerous, with lots of waste in the end that is very very bad for the environment.  There seems to be little to no impact of geothermal generation....


----------



## semipro (Nov 4, 2012)

This pragmatic treehugger will support further use of nuclear power only when we find a way to deal with the waste that doesn't require sequestering it somewhere in our biosphere, and only then as a transition supply until better energy sources are tapped. 
In the end nuclear is not sustainable as there is:
- only so much fissile potential (materials); though like coal there's a lot, and
- a limited capacity for disposal of the waste heat produced. Thermal pollution of waterways and the atmosphere is already an issue.

Tapping the power of the sun is really our best shot at sustainability.


----------



## pdf27 (Nov 4, 2012)

btuser said:


> Small 1-5 MW reactors that could power a few thousand homes would be my choice. I know the economy of scale may not be there for such things but I would put down 25k if I could get $.03/KWh juice for 30 years. 125 million dollars might buy a reactor for our town if you can build them small enough to be delivered by truck.


Unlikely to happen with fusion for the foreseeable future - we're stuck using Tritium fuel which needs to be bred within the reactor for the fuel cycle to work. This then produces a lot of very hot, very short-lived waste which you really, really don't want to take off site. That then forces you to build a Tritium plant to handle it, and those things cost much the same no matter what the size due to regulatory and manning requirements. Upshot is you will pay something like 10 times as much for the electricity from a 10MW plant as from a 1GW plant.

There's another more insidious problem as well - plasma cooling. To get a decent amount of energy out you need a relatively well insulated plasma. As you guys will be well aware, a big tank will cool down slower than a small one for the same level of insulation. Given the plasma temperatures (~100,000,000 deg C) the cooling is all from radiation anyway so there's little you can do to insulate it - meaning that it is much easier to get a big Tokamak to give you net power than it is to get a small one to do so. We're getting better at plasma confinement and compact Tokamaks, but even so I think it'll be maybe 40 years after we first produce grid power from Tokamaks before we see small ones of that size capable of being grid-connected to produce power.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 4, 2012)

pdf27 said:


> Problem is Spain is only a partial solution. The sheer scale of the problem is such that we would need to plate over the WHOLE of Spain to get even close. Since most of the fresh vegetables in northern Europe are grown in southern Spain, that's a non-starter. The main attraction of North Africa is that the unused desert areas are so enormous compared to anything else available.
> 
> I can see that happening in summer. The problem is seasonal rather than diurnal variation - the UK gets about 10 times as much solar energy in summer as it does in winter. Spain is better, but even so the summer production is double the winter production. The most promising large scale storage techiques (liquid/compressed air) are fine for day to day variations, peaking, etc. but the sheer amount of energy needed for seasonal use is likely to make that impractical. 10 tonnes of liquid air can provide 1 MWH at costs of around $1/W. UK electricity consumption is around 350,000,000 MWH/year. Assuming that over the winter a third of the total consumption is needed from storage (totally reliant on PV that produces twice as much in summer as winter, hence neglecting the fact that electricity is used for a lot of heating) you're looking at a requirement to store 500,000,000 tonnes of liquid air. That's a tank 30ft high and with sides 5 miles long. Not impossible, but extremely difficult and expensive.
> 
> ...


 
Don't disagree with anything you said....but the size of the renewable resource being adequate depends on the details and projected growth, efficiency, Jevon's, etc. I think David McKay at Cambridge has done an excellent job characterizing the 'problem' re the UK. The US has both 2X higher per capita usage and a much larger per capita solar resource. The higher usage is prob an 'opportunity' as it indicates more low hanging fruit eff-wise.

Seasonal storage IS much harder than diurnal storage, but that doesn't constitute an argument against the feasibility of diurnal storage. For seasonal we might just overbuild the PV supply (it would prob be cheaper to overbuild than store, if the resource was big enough). Or rely on UK offshore wind. Or rely on gas in the winter until fusion comes along.

I think your comparison of the US/UK energy differences on nat gas alone is 'selective'. Natural gas is largely a captive market with big cost penalties for LNG. The other side of the coin is petroleum....the US has been importing a huge fraction since the 70s, a huge drain on its economy and balance of trade, whereas the UK has been awash in oil (and exporting) since the North Sea came on stream. Your expensive gas (and depleted coal) limit your heavy industry options, while the oil revenue gives the entire economy a boost. Until recently NA gas was expensive enough to also hurt heavy industry, and supplying petroleum (including yes those air carrier groups) has been much more expensive than 100 fusion programs.

Re fracking here: The current US gas price hit a floor when it got cheaper than thermal coal...and utilities started running their idle gas plants and idling or shutting down their coal plants. In the last year, for the first time ever, the US made more kWh from gas than coal. Whether the price stays that low going forward remains to be seen.

Re fracking in the east: Its clear that the Russians have no need...they have plenty of conventional gas and they like the current price (and have been hilariously naysaying fracking tech in recent months). But I still think that if the US and China make a go of fracking, decreasing their carbon intensity and supplying cheap kWh, without 'destroying' their environments, the people of the UK and Europe will see the light (as their leaders already have started to). And the transition will likely take more like the 5 yrs it took in the US, rather than 30.


----------



## btuser (Nov 4, 2012)

pdf27 said:


> That then forces you to build a Tritium plant to handle it, and those things cost much the same no matter what the size due to regulatory and manning requirements. Upshot is you will pay something like 10 times as much for the electricity from a 10MW plant as from a 1GW plant.


Yeah, I figure as much. It would be tough, and there's a limit to how low/cheap power can get before you're giving it away at a loss.



pdf27 said:


> There's another more insidious problem as well - plasma cooling. To get a decent amount of energy out you need a relatively well insulated plasma. As you guys will be well aware, a big tank will cool down slower than a small one for the same level of insulation. Given the plasma temperatures (~100,000,000 deg C) the cooling is all from radiation anyway so there's little you can do to insulate it - meaning that it is much easier to get a big Tokamak to give you net power than it is to get a small one to do so. We're getting better at plasma confinement and compact Tokamaks, but even so I think it'll be maybe 40 years after we first produce grid power from Tokamaks before we see small ones of that size capable of being grid-connected to produce power.


I heard that. The surface area-to-volume is better in a larger reactor, giving much better returns.

Fracking has the potential to supplement our energy supply, but we need to seriously think about a new leap forward, not just replacing our dwindling supplies.  People will continue to fight over resources.  We need REALLY cheap, plentiful energy


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 4, 2012)

pdf27 said:


> Unlikely to happen with fusion for the foreseeable future - we're stuck using Tritium fuel which needs to be bred within the reactor for the fuel cycle to work. This then produces a lot of very hot, very short-lived waste which you really, really don't want to take off site. That then forces you to build a Tritium plant to handle it, and those things cost much the same no matter what the size due to regulatory and manning requirements. Upshot is you will pay something like 10 times as much for the electricity from a 10MW plant as from a 1GW plant.


 
Why not distribute the (relatively small amount) of tritium from a central plant? Years ago I was on an experiment on the muon machine at Los Alamos. The expt next door was working on muonic fusion, and their target was something like 10 Megacuries of tritium as cryogenic liquid T_2!  For the rest of you, think a Chernobyl worth of radioactive stuff in a thermos.

Nice guys over there, I asked them what their 'accident plan' was...and they showed me an explosion-proof blower, a vent stack through the roof and a big red button. They said the T_2 would go straight up, and if any of it went to TOH and rained out, it would be plenty diluted in the genl water supply over Texas and the SE US.  Unlike iodine or small particles, radioactive H20 has no target organs.


----------



## pdf27 (Nov 4, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Why not distribute the (relatively small amount) of tritium from a central plant?


Fine for experiments, on a power plant scale it won't work. Tritium has to be bred in a fusion reactor to generate any decent quantities, making use of the 14MeV neutrons. Unfortunately every Tritium nucleus used emits 1 neutron, and 1 neutron is required to breed each Tritium nucleus from Lithium. Break even is possible with neutron multipliers, but it's going to be difficult to exceed break even by very much. That means the overwhelming majority of Tritium will be bred and used on site - only a very small fraction of the total Tritium bred can be exported to keep the system working.



woodgeek said:


> Years ago I was on an experiment on the muon machine at Los Alamos.
> The expt next door was working on muonic fusion, and their target was something like 10 Megacuries of tritium as cryogenic liquid T_2!  For the rest of you, think a Chernobyl worth of radioactive stuff in a thermos.
> 
> Nice guys over there, I asked them what their 'accident plan' was...and they showed me an explosion-proof blower, a vent stack through the roof and a big red button. They said the T_2 would go straight up, and if any of it went to TOH and rained out, it would be plenty diluted in the genl water supply over Texas and the SE US. Unlike iodine or small particles, radioactive H20 has no target organs.


Tritium is apparently 10 kilocuries/gram, so that's about 1kg in that flask. Our site inventory was 20g back in about 1995 or so, so down to a bit under 10g now.
To be fair, I don't really find it easy to take the threat from Tritium seriously - it's a git to work with because it gets everywhere, but the biological half life is only about a week and the damage is minimal. The recommended treatment is a large quantity of beer (diuretic + additional liquid), which always leaves people a bit less scared of it when they hear that.


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 4, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Why not distribute the (relatively small amount) of tritium from a central plant? Years ago I was on an experiment on the muon machine at Los Alamos. The expt next door was working on muonic fusion, and their target was something like 10 Megacuries of tritium as cryogenic liquid T_2!  For the rest of you, think a Chernobyl worth of radioactive stuff in a thermos.
> 
> Nice guys over there, I asked them what their 'accident plan' was...and they showed me an explosion-proof blower, a vent stack through the roof and a big red button. They said the T_2 would go straight up, and if any of it went to TOH and rained out, it would be plenty diluted in the genl water supply over Texas and the SE US. Unlike iodine or small particles, radioactive H20 has no target organs.


 

And was this, in your opinion, an adequate "accident plan"?

Ehouse


----------



## pdf27 (Nov 4, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Don't disagree with anything you said....but the size of the renewable resource being adequate depends on the details and projected growth, efficiency, Jevon's, etc. I think David McKay at Cambridge has done an excellent job characterizing the 'problem' re the UK. The US has both 2X higher per capita usage and a much larger per capita solar resource. The higher usage is prob an 'opportunity' as it indicates more low hanging fruit eff-wise.


He's quite good when it comes to generation options. What isn't as good is when he starts measuring consumption - his heat pump estimates are somewhat optimistic for instance. The net result is fairly grim for the UK though - we've got to trash lifestyles, import massively or go for wholesale nuclear. 



woodgeek said:


> Seasonal storage IS much harder than diurnal storage, but that doesn't constitute an argument against the feasibility of diurnal storage. For seasonal we might just overbuild the PV supply (it would prob be cheaper to overbuild than store, if the resource was big enough). Or rely on UK offshore wind. Or rely on gas in the winter until fusion comes along.


I think it'll be as much offshore wind as they can build (they're installing it as fast as they can right now, and there's no sign of that slowing down for some years to come), some storage as and when the technology is mature enough, and the rest topped up with gas. A European-scale supergrid is a long way in the future, unfortunately. We're having enough trouble linking Scotland to the rest of the UK, let alone the UK to Europe. 



woodgeek said:


> I think your comparison of the US/UK energy differences on nat gas alone is 'selective'. Natural gas is largely a captive market with big cost penalties for LNG. The other side of the coin is petroleum....the US has been importing a huge fraction since the 70s, a huge drain on its economy and balance of trade, whereas the UK has been awash in oil (and exporting) since the North Sea came on stream. Your expensive gas (and depleted coal) limit your heavy industry options, while the oil revenue gives the entire economy a boost. Until recently NA gas was expensive enough to also hurt heavy industry, and supplying petroleum (including yes those air carrier groups) has been much more expensive than 100 fusion programs.


It was deliberately selective on Natural Gas alone - that's the only fossil fuel that is politically feasible to generate electricity with for new plant in western Europe right now. 



woodgeek said:


> Re fracking here: The current US gas price hit a floor when it got cheaper than thermal coal...and utilities started running their idle gas plants and idling or shutting down their coal plants. In the last year, for the first time ever, the US made more kWh from gas than coal. Whether the price stays that low going forward remains to be seen.
> 
> Re fracking in the east: Its clear that the Russians have no need...they have plenty of conventional gas and they like the current price (and have been hilariously naysaying fracking tech in recent months). But I still think that if the US and China make a go of fracking, decreasing their carbon intensity and supplying cheap kWh, without 'destroying' their environments, the people of the UK and Europe will see the light (as their leaders already have started to). And the transition will likely take more like the 5 yrs it took in the US, rather than 30.


Problem remains that every unit of natural gas on the market will be sold at the same price, and that price will be set by the most expensive source. Given how much Europe needs to get close to not importing (3-4 times the level of US fracking production) I think we're stuck with high gas prices even if (as I also expect) we do start producing a lot of fracked gas.


----------



## begreen (Nov 4, 2012)

I don't think any one technology is going to dominate. The best plan appears to be to take advantage of regional resources. In addition to wind or solar, geothermal and tidal energy are worth considering. As fusion becomes cost-effective it will definitely help. In the meantime, in spite of a desire to clean up emissions, the UK is back to using coal at 1961 levels. It's good to hear that folks like pdf27 are working to make working fusion power generation a reality. This can't happen too soon. I sure hope they succeed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/29/coal-threatens-climate-change-targets


----------



## btuser (Nov 4, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> And was this, in your opinion, an adequate "accident plan"?
> 
> Ehouse


A lot of beer sounds like a pretty decent place to start.    Sign me up for hazardous duty.


----------



## WhitePine (Nov 4, 2012)

The problem with nuclear power is the inevitability of human error or gross incompetence with catastrophic consequences for us all. Here's a perfect example with nowhere near the destruction that could result from a nuclear disaster.











Details at the following link:

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

The very same group of idiots  organization that visited that particular disaster on us, the Tennessee Valley Authority, also operates several nuclear power plants. But not to worry, Tom Kilgore, the TVA's President who is retiring at the end of this year, took only a token, temporary pay hit for overseeing the disaster. His total annual compensation has since been boosted to $3.95 million. In the meantime, TVA ratepayers are seeing increases in their electric bills. 

We can hardly wait to see how high our bills will go once a TVA nuke plant heads for China. On second thought, we probably won't have to worry about those bills at all, since our land will probably no longer be habitable.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 4, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> And was this, in your opinion, an adequate "accident plan"?
> 
> Ehouse


 
They got the safety folks to sign off....they're the experts!


----------



## Dune (Nov 4, 2012)

Swedishchef said:


> AAAAAAAAAAAMEN. Finally someone who sees eye to eye with me. lol.
> 
> Thorium reactors are much safer tha Uramium ones. They simply do not require high volumes of heavy water at high pressure to keep the reactors cool. That is the fault in CANDU reactors. If you lose water pressure or water, you lose the cooling ability and a nuclear "meltdown" ensues.
> 
> Lots of people I know say" windmills" are they future..Realllly? Ask the people who work at a plant nearby who build 145 foot blades. Fiberglass doesn't breakdown. How do you dispose of a faulty blade? They tried shredding them: nogo. it sends fibers into the air that coats your lungs. How about cutting them into pieces? They don't decompose.


So what? Fiberglass can be buried with no ill effects.



> What about solar? Well, the sulfuric acid batteries the size of small motorcycles can't be all that great once we must dispose of them...


What do lead/acid batteries have to do with solar power? Here, I'll answer for you; NOTHING.



> Also, thorium is approximately 3 times more abundant than uranium. Lots of countries have it!!


 
Let us known when it becomes viable. By the way, I am not opposed to nuclear power, just inaccuracy.

ANdrew[/quote]


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 4, 2012)

pdf27 said:


> He's quite good when it comes to generation options. What isn't as good is when he starts measuring consumption - his heat pump estimates are somewhat optimistic for instance. The net result is fairly grim for the UK though - we've got to trash lifestyles, import massively or go for wholesale nuclear.


 
I actually thought McKay's (air-source) heat pump estimates matched the current state of the art (East Asian mini-split manufacturers with variable speed compressors, etc) and he (rightfully IMO) trashed 'geothermal' heatpumps as having sustainability problems in the UK at any reasonable population density due to thermal depletion.

I guess I took away a different message....if the UK dropped their primary consumption by >50% (not necessarily a lifestyle hit if done properly over the next 20 years), shipped most of their heavy industry and manufacturing overseas (to places with perhaps more renewable energy resources), electrified most of their ground transport and did a massive (maximal) renewable energy rollout (affordable?) they could get close to net zero carbon at their present lifestyle.



pdf27 said:


> It was deliberately selective on Natural Gas alone - that's the only fossil fuel that is politically feasible to generate electricity with for new plant in western Europe right now. Problem remains that every unit of natural gas on the market will be sold at the same price, and that price will be set by the most expensive source. Given how much Europe needs to get close to not importing (3-4 times the level of US fracking production) I think we're stuck with high gas prices even if (as I also expect) we do start producing a lot of fracked gas.


 
I thought the UK and Europe were still using plenty of coal, and germany was increasing its coal use post-Fukushima. The US hasn't built a lot of new coal plants in last decade, but that is beside the point if we are still burning the stuff hand over fist.

For fracking in the US, they kept drilling not until they ran out of places to drill, but rather until the price collapsed. If there had been more demand...they would have kept going. But I can see your point that Europe is in a deeper hole in terms of gas supply than the US (was), so it'll take a lot of new supply to get it out.


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 4, 2012)

Dune: relax my friend. I thought that micro solar outfits ( IE house) normally (to my knowledge) have some sort of an electrical storage unit. However, I have not looked into these in a long time perhaps they no longer do. Obviously industrial size windmill farms don't: and that is their big disadvantage.

And if you think fiberglass can be simply buried without any negative effect you must be super pro "throw everything in the garbage and don't recycle, it has no ill effect". The fact is, where I live we have a windmill blade plant for LM Windpower. When they scrap a blade they must dispose of it. Not every dump allows them to dispose of the blades. Therefore, they were hauled 800 miles away to be disposed of at an industrial dump. Unless I am mistaken, windmill blades are not biodegradable.

It is already viable. Several countries are already building thorium reactors.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/science/thorium.html
http://www.mining.com/why-not-thorium/
"Thorium nuclear waste only stays radioactive for 500 years" "
That means thorium could be used to fuel nuclear reactors, just like uranium. And as proponents of the underdog fuel will happily tell you, thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium, is not fissile on its own (which means reactions can be stopped when necessary), produces waste products that are less radioactive, and generates more energy per ton.
So why on earth are we using uranium? As you may recall, research into the mechanization of nuclear reactions was initially driven not by the desire to make energy, but by the desire to make bombs. The $2-billion Manhattan Project that produced the atomic bomb sparked a worldwide surge in nuclear research, most of it funded by governments embroiled in the Cold War. And here we come to it: Thorium reactors do not produce plutonium, which is what you need to make a nuke.
How ironic. The fact that thorium reactors could not produce fuel for nuclear weapons meant the better reactor fuel got short shrift, yet today we would love to be able to clearly differentiate a country's nuclear reactors from its weapons program."


----------



## Dune (Nov 4, 2012)

Swedishchef said:


> So why on earth are we using uranium? ."


 
Same reason we are not using electric cars. Too much profit in burning fossils.


----------



## Dune (Nov 4, 2012)

By the way, Fiberglass reinforced plastic can be burned as fuel, leaving the glass fibers unscathed and recyclable.
My point about burying was in comparison to nuclear by-products. I am very much into recycling. 
For what it is worth, FRP has a usable lifespan of up to 50 years, so I am just not seeing the disposal issues you are worried about.


----------



## pdf27 (Nov 4, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> I actually thought McKay's (air-source) heat pump estimates matched the current state of the art (East Asian mini-split manufacturers with variable speed compressors, etc) and he (rightfully IMO) trashed 'geothermal' heatpumps as having sustainability problems in the UK at any reasonable population density due to thermal depletion.


They do in a reasonably dry climate. The UK is very wet in winter, so air source heat pumps are in practice getting substantially lower COPs than nominal due to the need to defrost the heat exchanger rather more frequently than expected. No argument on ground source - perhaps 10% of the population could make good use of them.



woodgeek said:


> I guess I took away a different message....if the UK dropped their primary consumption by >50% (not necessarily a lifestyle hit if done properly over the next 20 years), shipped most of their heavy industry and manufacturing overseas (to places with perhaps more renewable energy resources), electrified most of their ground transport and did a massive (maximal) renewable energy rollout (affordable?) they could get close to net zero carbon at their present lifestyle.


Agreed it **could** be done, I just don't think it will be - there is no sign of anything like the rate of insulation/rebuild of houses needed (current replacement rate gives houses an average life of 1000 years), manufacturing is if anything coming back to the UK, it's anybody's guess how fast electric cars will be taken up and subsidies for renewable energy are being cut.



woodgeek said:


> I thought the UK and Europe were still using plenty of coal, and germany was increasing its coal use post-Fukushima. The US hasn't built a lot of new coal plants in last decade, but that is beside the point if we are still burning the stuff hand over fist.


Short term, not long term. Half (7 out of 17) of the coal power stations in the UK are closing over the next couple of years due to the EU Large Combustion Plant directive (SOx/NOx/particulate) - they're getting close. Didcot is closing in IIRC March of next year.


----------



## btuser (Nov 4, 2012)

WhitePine said:


> The problem with nuclear power is the inevitability of human error or gross incompetence with catastrophic consequences for us all. Here's a perfect example with nowhere near the destruction that could result from a nuclear disaster.


I would say this is a very good argument in favor of nuclear energy.  

A LFTR reactor (as well as the fusion reactors currently in development) have to be prodded to maintain critical.  A LWR does not, and needs constant cooling (for decades, if you want to count the waste products) to avoid a meltdown.  Sure, they're not off the shelf yet but other than a stable fuel cycle there's nothing insurmountable about the technology, and it's here now just like wind and solar.  A molten salt reactor can't melt down, and can't reach a "dangerous" temperature.  It can't happen.




The engineers who worked on this reactor routinely drained the core on the weekends, then re-heated and pumped the fuel back into the reactor on Monday.  If they hadn't shown up on Monday nothing would have happened.  If they had left early on Friday and there was a catastrophic failure of every safety system in the entire plant, nothing different would have happened. Fly a plane into the core  and you might spill the  fuel, but it's not going anywhere.  It's will simply freeze and most likely plug the hole in the reactor vessel.  Can stuff happen?  Sure, we've all got wood stoves.  How scared of a wood stove should I be?  

A problem with wind is the cost, which right now is subsidized not only by federal subsidies, but also cheap fossil fuels.  Yes, that's right, wind project construction is subsidized by the cheap cost of steel and concrete.  

1 nuke plant = 2000 wind turbines
A wind farm will take 250 times more land, and must be located where there is wind vs where there are people
The same size wind farm will take 8x the concrete and much as 30x the steel as the same capacity nuke plant.

I know there are many advantages to wind, most notably fuel and what to do with radioactive left overs.  But it needs a side kick till we figure out what to do about storage.  More people have died falling off of roofs and windmills than in all the nuclear accidents we've ever had in this country.
Currently, the capital cost of wind farms and nuclear plants are competitive, at around $8/watt.  If we could inject a little sanity into the nuclear debate the cost of building a modular-based plant could be dropped by 1/2 or more.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 4, 2012)

pdf27 said:


> They do in a reasonably dry climate. The UK is very wet in winter, so air source heat pumps are in practice getting substantially lower COPs than nominal due to the need to defrost the heat exchanger rather more frequently than expected. No argument on ground source - perhaps 10% of the population could make good use of them.
> 
> Agreed it **could** be done, I just don't think it will be - there is no sign of anything like the rate of insulation/rebuild of houses needed (current replacement rate gives houses an average life of 1000 years), manufacturing is if anything coming back to the UK, it's anybody's guess how fast electric cars will be taken up and subsidies for renewable energy are being cut.
> 
> Short term, not long term. Half (7 out of 17) of the coal power stations in the UK are closing over the next couple of years due to the EU Large Combustion Plant directive (SOx/NOx/particulate) - they're getting close. Didcot is closing in IIRC March of next year.


 
Not to get too OT.... Agreed that COP losses due to bad defrost control are rampant in older tech, but getting better all the time.  In the mild climate in the UK, (lots of load hours above 0°C), I personally think those mini-splits will work great.  I thought the UK was doing relatively well with retrofitting home insulation, hindered somewhat by brick construction??  As for coal, great news about the future plans.  Don't tell anyone, but Obama's EPA is in the process of killing new coal, and gearing up to effectively ban old coal.  After next tuesday we should have a better idea how that will pan out.

OT, is the UK going to build new fission plants to replace the fleet that is slated for shutdown in the next few years??


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 4, 2012)

btuser said:


> I would say this is a very good argument in favor of nuclear energy.
> 
> A LFTR reactor (as well as the fusion reactors currently in development) have to be prodded to maintain critical. A LWR does not, and needs constant cooling (for decades, if you want to count the waste products) to avoid a meltdown. Sure, they're not off the shelf yet but other than a stable fuel cycle there's nothing insurmountable about the technology, and it's here now just like wind and solar. A molten salt reactor can't melt down, and can't reach a "dangerous" temperature. It can't happen.
> 
> ...


 
Ok, I looked briefly at the thorium thing.  Sounds like a nice reactor technology, already demonstrated.  It seems the fuel cycle is actually U-233 based, and that is made from Thorium by neuteration.  Overall it seems a superior fuel cycle re waste and safety.  BUT, it inherently does require fuel processing which in past experiences has had both cost and maintenance and safety issues. That salt will still be quite radioactive, hard to handle for reprocessing, and producing traces of product species that could lead to corrosion.

Would I support a $200M project to explore thorium cycle in the US?  If the nuclear engineers said it looked feasible, I would.  Is it clear that it is easy as pie and the solution to all our problems? Not yet.


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 4, 2012)

Dune: I agree that burrying radioactive materials is not the best solution. Nor is dropping off fiberglass in a dump. Will the fiberglass kill us via chrosomal mutiny or radiactive poison? Nope. However, I feel that there will be safe technologies to bury this stuff soon enough.

Here's an interesting link regarding the waste of LFTR: "In theory, LFTRs would produce far less waste along their entire process chain, from ore extraction to nuclear waste storage, than LWRs. A LFTR power plant would generate 4,000 times less mining waste (solids and liquids of similar character to those in uranium mining) and would generate 1,000 to 10,000 times less nuclear waste than an LWR. Additionally, because LFTR burns all of its nuclear fuel, the majority of the waste products (83%) are safe within 10 years, and the remaining waste products (17%) need to be stored in geological isolation for only about 300 years (compared to 10,000 years or more for LWR waste). Additionally, the LFTR can be used to "burn down" waste from an LWR (nearly the entirety of the United States' nuclear waste stockpile) into the standard waste products of an LFTR, so long-term storage of nuclear waste would no longer be needed."

http://energyfromthorium.com/lftradsrisks.html


----------



## begreen (Nov 4, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Not to get too OT.... Agreed that COP losses due to bad defrost control are rampant in older tech, but getting better all the time. In the mild climate in the UK, (lots of load hours above 0°C), I personally think those mini-splits will work great. I thought the UK was doing relatively well with retrofitting home insulation, hindered somewhat by brick construction?? As for coal, great news about the future plans. Don't tell anyone, but Obama's EPA is in the process of killing new coal, and gearing up to effectively ban old coal. After next tuesday we should have a better idea how that will pan out.
> 
> OT, is the UK going to build new fission plants to replace the fleet that is slated for shutdown in the next few years??


 
We live in an equally damp, mild climate and mini-splits are starting to rule here. The newest generation perform excellently, inspite of the dampness and that is down to low digit numbers.


----------



## begreen (Nov 4, 2012)

Swedishchef said:


> Dune: I agree that burrying radioactive materials is not the best solution. Nor is dropping off fiberglass in a dump. Will the fiberglass kill us via chrosomal mutiny or radiactive poison? Nope. However, I feel that there will be safe technologies to bury this stuff soon enough.


 
I have heard that statement for over 40yrs now. Exactly what is acceptable as "soon enough" when govts. and nations often have a half-life of less than 500 years. Just what budget maintains this stuff then? It's wishful thinking and a kick the can down to the next generation attitude.


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 4, 2012)

Dune said:


> Same reason we are not using electric cars. Too much profit in burning fossils.


 

+1. 

Ehouse


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 4, 2012)

begreen said:


> It's wishful thinking and a kick the can down to the next generation attitude.


 
That is what society is doing right now: burning non-renewable fossil fuels on a regular basis.

I know one thing, I don't plant a tree every time I cut one down. That is my own fault. And I believe that if all homes in North America started heating with wood (only), our forests would take a severe kick in the rear end with their lack of ability to sustain themselves...


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 4, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> They got the safety folks to sign off....they're the experts!


 

That's the answer I expected, but not the one I'd hoped for.

Ehouse


----------



## pdf27 (Nov 4, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Not to get too OT.... Agreed that COP losses due to bad defrost control are rampant in older tech, but getting better all the time. In the mild climate in the UK, (lots of load hours above 0°C), I personally think those mini-splits will work great.


In theory they should be great, practice seems to have been problematical so far. We'll hopefully see a lot more data in the next few years as a fairly large subsidy for them is in the process of being introduced. 



woodgeek said:


> I thought the UK was doing relatively well with retrofitting home insulation, hindered somewhat by brick construction??


It is, but the problem is there's a limit on how much can be added easily. Roof insulation is a doddle and now mostly done, as is filling the cavity between the two layers of masonry. Problem is the cavity tends not to be very thick (IIRC ours is about 2-3"). After that the only options are internal or external insulation - internal isn't really an option due to small house sizes (ours is ~1000 sq ft and larger than average for a 3 bedroom house) and due to a tradition of pebbledash/render being used to cover up dodgy brickwork there is resistance to external wall insulation. Until we overcome the resistance to external wall insulation we're not going to knock consumption down very far.
To give you an example, I figure it would cost £7-10,000 to fit external wall insulation to my house at current prices, and it would be harder to sell as it would then be the only non-brick house in the terrace. My current gas bill is ~£300/year. The economics of doing so are clearly crazy, but if we are to get down to the consumption levels given in _Without Hot Air_ then we have to do it. Incidentally my consumption works out at about 100kWh/m2/year, .vs. the Passivhaus standard of 15kWh/m2/year which is more what MacKay is thinking of.



woodgeek said:


> OT, is the UK going to build new fission plants to replace the fleet that is slated for shutdown in the next few years??


The government would like to, but is insistent that it's paid for by private industry. That's unclear - the Germans have dropped out, but were bought out by Hitachi last week for more than expected. At a guess it'll happen, but probably only enough to replace our current reactor fleet (~20% of generation IIRC).


----------



## dougstove (Nov 4, 2012)

Great thread, thought provoking.
My concern with nuclear is human attention span and sustained attention to detail.

I live near a CANDU going through a refurbishment that went way over budget and way over time, with things like major components getting dropped off a barge into a salt water harbour, known defective parts being installed (after the installers were over-ruled), and then having to be removed etc.

I fear that human organizational psychology is not up to the sustained attention to detail needed for nuclear power. An earlier poster noted the examples of military power plants, but in a civilian, profit driven, day-in, day-out routine, the average primate is too distractable.
If someone gets negligent around a gas fired boiler, it blows up and kills the work crew.
The same negligence around a nuclear plant creates a 500 year exclusion zone in the Ukraine.


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 4, 2012)

Hey Doug

The idea of this thread was to generate discussion and I think it has served it's purpose!

Good ole Point Lepreau eh? What a mess that is.... Situations like you mentioned happen when you take the lowest bidder on the refurbishment project!

Andrew


----------



## btuser (Nov 4, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> BUT, it inherently does require fuel processing which in past experiences has had both cost and maintenance and safety issues. That salt will still be quite radioactive, hard to handle for reprocessing, and producing traces of product species that could lead to corrosion.
> 
> Would I support a $200M project to explore thorium cycle in the US? If the nuclear engineers said it looked feasible, I would. Is it clear that it is easy as pie and the solution to all our problems? Not yet.


 
It isn't flamable or soluable in air or water and is very stable over a large temperature range (boils at 1500c and the thermal limit is 600c, so in essence it "can't"). A spill may contaminate the immediate ground area but it won't explode into the atmosphere, spreading radioactivity over the planet. It also won't continue to heat up and melt the fuel rods, pooling in the bottom of the reactor to eventually burn whatever it can find and leak/vent into the atmosphere.

The thorium fuel cycle has it's issues which would most likely lead to on-site refinement and large scale reactors being the only cost effective option. I'm not sold/married to thorium, but all reactors should be standardized/licensed so the custom shop prices can be avoided. They should also be walk-away safe, and not require pumps or positive cooling. We've got to think of something other than keeping 60yr old facilities running past their decommision date.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 5, 2012)

begreen said:


> We live in an equally damp, mild climate and mini-splits are starting to rule here.


 
Absolutely false. Take a drive. It will be a long time before this technology is anything but a minority in our region. Mostly, of course, because we overwhelmingly heat with hot air and the standard mini split heats hot air with that gawd awful indoor unit. The specs are amazing and the cost per btu is outstanding, just an unconventional method of delivery to the heated space will take a long time to be accepted, much less "rule".


----------



## btuser (Nov 5, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> Absolutely false. Take a drive. It will be a long time before this technology is anything but a minority in our region. Mostly, of course, because we overwhelmingly heat with hot air and the standard mini split heats hot air with that gawd awful indoor unit. The specs are amazing and the cost per btu is outstanding, just an unconventional method of delivery to the heated space will take a long time to be accepted, much less "rule".


It could work with cheap juice.  If we paid power companies the way we pay farmers to grow grain we could push power prices down.  I know the money has to come from somewhere garndarnit, I wanna nuke plant.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 5, 2012)

btuser said:


> It could work with cheap juice. If we paid power companies the way we pay farmers to grow grain we could push power prices down. I know the money has to come from somewhere garndarnit, I wanna nuke plant.


 
I was referring to, and quoted, BG's post about mini-splits which somehow appeared here in a nuke thread. Electric is very cheap here in WA and heat pumps work great.


----------



## begreen (Nov 5, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> Absolutely false. Take a drive. It will be a long time before this technology is anything but a minority in our region. Mostly, of course, because we overwhelmingly heat with hot air and the standard mini split heats hot air with that gawd awful indoor unit. The specs are amazing and the cost per btu is outstanding, just an unconventional method of delivery to the heated space will take a long time to be accepted, much less "rule".


 
I am in contact with two local installers. This technology has become a large part of their heating business that is growing nicely. Your personal opinions on looks don't seem to be deterring a larger local business case. Heck you just bought an ugly stove with blacked out glass. I rest my case.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 6, 2012)

The mini-split discussion seems on-topic, since in a fossil-fuel free future a large proportion of folk's space heating will have to be high eff electric, powered by either wind, solar, fission, LFTRs, tokamaks, etc.  As pdf points out, if the seasonal energy load peaks in the winter....then that IS bad for solar+wind, even with massive (diurnal) storage systems and load mgmt.  And seeming to require some dispatchable (low/zero carbon) electric.

I get 95% of my BTUs now from a low-end ASHP using ~8000 kWh of wind power/season.  Cost per BTU today? About 1/2 that of oil, and dead even  with delivered wood in my area.  Works for me, but like the 'grid-battery' of current PV systems, if everyone tried it, the grid would fail.

Personally, I think we should do a build out of home superinsulation to get space heating and AC loads way down, and for the natural cooling rates to be so low that you can fire the tiny ASHP central heaters by central control only when the sun/wind is 'on'. Use the thermal mass of the enitre superinsulated housing stock as a thermal battery we all live in.


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 6, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> The mini-split discussion seems on-topic, since in a fossil-fuel free future a large proportion of folk's space heating will have to be high eff electric, powered by either wind, solar, fission, LFTRs, tokamaks, etc. As pdf points out, if the seasonal energy load peaks in the winter....then that IS bad for solar+wind, even with massive (diurnal) storage systems and load mgmt. And seeming to require some dispatchable (low/zero carbon) electric.
> 
> I get 95% of my BTUs now from a low-end ASHP using ~8000 kWh of wind power/season. Cost per BTU today? About 1/2 that of oil, and dead even with delivered wood in my area. Works for me, but like the 'grid-battery' of current PV systems, if everyone tried it, the grid would fail.
> 
> Personally, I think we should do a build out of home superinsulation to get space heating and AC loads way down, and for the natural cooling rates to be so low that you can fire the tiny ASHP central heaters by central control only when the sun/wind is 'on'. Use the thermal mass of the enitre superinsulated housing stock as a thermal battery we all live in.


 

Woodgeek, I'm always baffled as to why small and medium hydro is always left out of the discussion.  what's your take on that?

Ehouse


----------



## semipro (Nov 6, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> Woodgeek, I'm always baffled as to why small and medium hydro is always left out of the discussion. what's your take on that?
> 
> Ehouse


 
I know you asked Woodgeek specifically but I think I can give you at least one good reason:
in many states its illegal to dam waterways without a permit from the State and the permits are very hard to get. 
Falling water is both a material resource and potential energy source.  Start altering flows or storage and neighbors can get agitated quickly.


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 6, 2012)

semipro said:


> I know you asked Woodgeek specifically but I think I can give you at least one good reason:
> in many states its illegal to dam waterways without a permit from the State and the permits are very hard to get.
> Falling water is both a material resource and potential energy source. Start altering flows or storage and neighbors can get agitated quickly.


 

Open question to anyone, of course.  In my neck of the woods there used to be several what I would call small to medium hydroelectric set ups to provide local juice.

Some of the newer turbine designs for small installations (Czech drop tube)  reduce head requirements and seem to be very low impact on the watercourse.  Municipal entities are looking into it (Cooperstown NY for one). 

Ehouse


----------



## macmaine (Nov 6, 2012)

Swedishchef

I have a good friend who has been talking up Thorium as well. I love his and yours enthusiasm
It sounds like it so much better than the usual nuclear reactor.
I think we need to explore all options to get off carbon especially after Sandy demonstrated how much damage global warming is doing

I think however solar and wind will clean the clock of all nuclear for the following reasons:

Compare
*SOLAR WIND GEOTHERMAL*
1) Free Fuel Forever
2) Installed cost dropping like a rock
3) Democratic, distributed electricity consumers can be producers "the sun shines everywhere"
4) Safe
5) No storage issues
6) Timeline for deployment is in months
7) Easily insured
8) IvanHoe Molten Salt Solar =  100% solar round the clock power

*NUCLEAR*
1) Fuel costs mining transport etc.
2) Costs are going nowhere but up in nuclear
3) Centralized, long term inflexible issues
4) Safety Fukushima; Sandy??
5) Storage of nuclear waste, can we dump this in your backyard please?
6) Timeline for deployment is decades
7) NO private insurers. Only governments ie taxpayers insure these plants:why?
8) Nuclear can do round the clock as well but as noted cannot throttle back and forth for low  power needs at night.

Please note GERMANY my hero solar nation, produced 50% of its electricity on a weekend in May 2012!
BTW Germany has a terrible solar resource compared to New England let alone the southwest.
Germany installed  Gigawatts of solar in 2010
Worldwide in one year Solar industry installed 17 Gigawatts of Solar; that is in one year 17 nuclear power plants produced.
IOWA, my hero wind state, produces 18% of electricity from wind today.

Also note on this graphic the solar circle is ANNUAL production while uranium coal oil is the entire planets supply.
That is one year of solar dwarfs all the coal and nuclear oil on earth.


----------



## semipro (Nov 6, 2012)

macmaine said:


> Also note on this graphic the solar circle is ANNUAL production while uranium coal oil is the entire planets supply.
> That is one year of solar dwarfs all the coal and nuclear oil on earth.


Mac, could you provide a link to the source of that graphic. I'd like to know more about it.
Thanks.


----------



## macmaine (Nov 6, 2012)

http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/



http://cleantechnica.com/solar-power/


Another way to think about it is that enough solar energy  hits the earth in one hour than mankind uses in an entire year


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 6, 2012)

begreen said:


> I am in contact with two local installers. This technology has become a large part of their heating business that is growing nicely. Your personal opinions on looks don't seem to be deterring a larger local business case. Heck you just bought an ugly stove with blacked out glass. I rest my case.


 
You got me there BG, I may also install a mini-split someday since the technology is so dang darn appealing. Appealing enough to overcome the obvious aesthetic shortcomings. What is not happening, is a mainstream conversion to this tech. I am seeing new houses built and they absolutely do not get these ugly mini splits installed. Our local energy provider, PSE, heavily subsidized retrofit installations which is likely a large part of the business that your local installers saw.

I really wish that we could get some development of minisplit water heaters for both domestic supply and hydronic heat. Everybody needs to heat water.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 6, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> Woodgeek, I'm always baffled as to why small and medium hydro is always left out of the discussion. what's your take on that?
> Ehouse


 
Already answered above...not enough of it.  Very useful otherwise (when done right).


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 6, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> You got me there BG, I may also install a mini-split someday since the technology is so dang darn appealing. Appealing enough to overcome the obvious aesthetic shortcomings. What is not happening, is a mainstream conversion to this tech. I am seeing new houses built and they absolutely do not get these ugly mini splits installed. Our local energy provider, PSE, heavily subsidized retrofit installations which is likely a large part of the business that your local installers saw.
> 
> I really wish that we could get some development of minisplit water heaters for both domestic supply and hydronic heat. Everybody needs to heat water.


 
It is just a matter of time before the conventional split ASHP systems catch up to the minis in terms of performance.  The 'greenspeed' units are already there, just wait for the premium to come down.  I suspect that the mini's are a 'teaser' for early adopters, and best for certain retrofit applications. Ultimately, I think new construction will run a central unit with nice big ducts in the conditioned space.  Or even hydro-coil systems with distributed air handlers.  The distinctions blur.

Not to go political, but the transition could easily be sped up with some slightly tougher min nominal HSPF requirements at the federal level.


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 6, 2012)

MacMaine: I agree with your points, I never said it was perfect.  BUt it is A LOT better than standard Uranium water cooled systems we have today. If a storm hits and even if there is a leak, a plug forms and shuts the system down. Did you get a chance to watch the video I posted?? It explains the systems fairly well.

In Canada there has not been much talk about solar development whatsoever. Perhaps there should be...have the prices of PV cells gone down?

What the heck is this "conventional split systems" or mini-split systems"???

Andrew


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 7, 2012)

Ok.  So a heat pump is like an AC in terms of the hardware.  You could make an 'all in one' unit that looks like an AC window unit, but it would put out so little heat that it would be useless. 

Instead, the conventional approach is a 'split system' that looks like a central AC system with an outdoor unit with a coil, compressor and fan and an indoor unit, usually in a basement attached to a furnace, or freestanding in an attic, crawspace or closet, which has a air blower, another coil and ducts that distribute the heat. The two units are only connected by copper refrigerant lines that carry the heat between the two 'split' units.  IOW, just like a central AC unit, maybe a little bigger coils/ducts.

A mini-split is the same technology, a bit smaller, with an indoor unit that is usually wall mounted that blows out heat to a single room, w/o any ductwork.  Simplifies the installation.

Mini-splits are v popular in east asia (and europe), and the engineering on them has improved dramatically in the last couple years making them very efficient.  Manufacturers are mostly large asian companies.  Conventional split systems are made or distributed by the same outfits that sell HVAC in NA....trane, york, rheem, goodman, etc.  The difference in consumer preferences is presumably due to size of home....a mini is perfect for a small flat in Tokyo, but a McMansion in Atlanta would like a bigger system with ductwork.  Sadly, the American companies are behind the curve engineering wise...their eff lag their asian competitors.  But they are starting to catch up.


----------



## semipro (Nov 7, 2012)

This is an usual thread... thorium reactors and mini-split HVAC systems.


----------



## jharkin (Nov 7, 2012)

Mini splits are also far easier to retrofit to existing construction (especially older construction that predates central heat or in areas that don't typically use force air central heat - hence the Europe/Asia popularity) and fit small spaces and open layouts well where you would only need one centrally located indoor unit.

For me personally if I ever got one it would be a high velocity system where you snake the hoses through walls... just don't like the look of the air handler hanging on the wall.


----------



## jharkin (Nov 7, 2012)

I want a mini split thorium reactor


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 7, 2012)

jharkin said:


> I want a mini split thorium reactor


 ME TOO!

Thanks for the info Woodgeek. I didn't know the name of those setups, they have them around here in various places. Mostly the mini splits. Is it possible that a very popular company that makes these would be Misubishi?

thorium mini-split system has been added to my Christmas list.

Andrew


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 7, 2012)

Indeed.  I am no expert on minis, but Mitsu, Sanyo, LG, etc are all in it.

A nice feature is that some have a continuous throttle, allowing them to give good dehumification in AC mode, useful for a machine thast is sized for a winter (heating) load that is much larger than the summer (cooling) load.  My single speed conventional system is just adequate on dehumidification.

And dude, they're U233 reactors, they just make the U out of thorium!


----------



## begreen (Nov 8, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> It is just a matter of time before the conventional split ASHP systems catch up to the minis in terms of performance. The 'greenspeed' units are already there, just wait for the premium to come down. I suspect that the mini's are a 'teaser' for early adopters, and best for certain retrofit applications. Ultimately, I think new construction will run a central unit with nice big ducts in the conditioned space. Or even hydro-coil systems with distributed air handlers. The distinctions blur.
> 
> Not to go political, but the transition could easily be sped up with some slightly tougher min nominal HSPF requirements at the federal level.


 
Several of the mini-split mfgs also make splits that have a central air handler or package. With this type of installation all you will see indoors are the registers. But so far the most efficient units seem to be the true mini-splits. We almost installed a Sanyo unit of this design, but we would have been one of the first in Western WA and I was unsure about support. Little did I know how quickly the mini-split market would take off here.


----------



## begreen (Nov 8, 2012)

Swedishchef said:


> ME TOO!
> 
> Thanks for the info Woodgeek. I didn't know the name of those setups, they have them around here in various places. Mostly the mini splits. Is it possible that a very popular company that makes these would be Misubishi?
> 
> ...


 
Mr Fusion!


----------



## hemlock (Nov 10, 2012)

CANDU reactors use non-enriched Uranium.  If you lose the moderator (heavy water in the reactor), the reaction stops.  The heavy water is used to slow the neutrons to enable the reaction to occur.  This, along with several other emergency shut down systems (and their redundancies) make CANDU the safest reactor going - the most expensive, but the best.
Nuclear is the only viable option on the table for a sustainable energy source.


----------



## pdf27 (Nov 11, 2012)

I'd have to check CANDU specifically, but in many reactors removing the moderator/inserting the control rods doesn't actually stop heat production or even reduce it by all that much for the first hour or two - the very short lived decay products are the source of much of the heat, giving you at least enough to melt the core. 
Personally I quite like the UK design of gas-cooled reactor, or rather the concept of it. The implementation was utterly screwed up however and nobody else has adopted them so PWR is the way to go in future


----------



## btuser (Nov 11, 2012)

If it's not cheaper it's not going to work.  People didn't dig for coal until they ran out of wood.


----------



## begreen (Nov 12, 2012)

btuser said:


> If it's not cheaper it's not going to work. People didn't dig for coal until they ran out of wood.


 
Actually they used it loooong before that. 3-4,000 yrs ago in Wales it was used for funeral pyres and according to Wikipedia it's mentioned in the bible at the time of Solomon. People knew about it, but didn't use it as a fuel because it stunk when burned.


----------



## btuser (Nov 12, 2012)

begreen said:


> Actually they used it loooong before that. 3-4,000 yrs ago in Wales it was used for funeral pyres and according to Wikipedia it's mentioned in the bible at the time of Solomon. People knew about it, but didn't use it as a fuel because it stunk when burned.


Surface sources don't count.  The act of digging hundreds of feet into the earth for a fuel source is an act of desperation.  So are solar panels and windmills.  The steam engine came from a need to pump water out of coal mines and transformed the earth, brought us the industrial revolution, surplus food and the weekend, all by accident due to a lack of wood.  

We will need a revolutionary energy source to get us past where we are at, otherwise the economy will not grow.  Oil is never going to run out, but we will never find sufficient reserves to push our living standards higher.  Nuclear can be that source, and its safer than any other source of power.  Problem I see is there isn't a lot of money to be made in $.000002/kwh  electrical rates.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

btuser said:


> Nuclear can be that source, and its safer than any other source of power. Problem I see is there isn't a lot of money to be made in $.000002/kwh electrical rates.


Hey, we were promised power so cheap we wouldn't need meters (I'm almost old enough to remember...)  Now I'm mad. I even went to Hanford to see what I could do about it, but I couldn't make it happen.

I now have dwindling hopes for fission. It _can _be safe. It _could _be made a lot cheaper. But, don't underestimate the public perception, the "not in my back yard" problem but mostly the waste issue. It's a huge problem. Having seen the ugly side of fission at Hanford, I'm pretty disenchanted.

Now, fusion is a fascinating project and should continue.  (Incidentally, successful fusion reactors could solve the whole fission waste issue. They could be an ideal transmutation device.  Poof, actinides gone). Don't hold your breath, though.  It's so far off...


----------



## semipro (Nov 13, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> Hey, we were promised power so cheap we wouldn't need meters (I'm almost old enough to remember...) Now I'm mad. I even went to Hanford to see what I could do about it, but I couldn't make it happen.
> 
> I now have dwindling hopes for fission. It _can _be safe. It _could _be made a lot cheaper. But, don't underestimate the public perception, the "not in my back yard" problem but mostly the waste issue. It's a huge problem. Having seen the ugly side of fission at Hanford, I'm pretty disenchanted.
> 
> Now, fusion is a fascinating project and should continue. (Incidentally, successful fusion reactors could solve the whole fission waste issue. They could be an ideal transmutation device. Poof, actinides gone). Don't hold your breath, though. It's so far off...


 
Related to Hanford: I saw a documentary once about folks living downwind of Hanford in a very rural area....they all thought thyroid cancer was just a normal part of life...and then death.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

semipro said:


> Related to Hanford: I saw a documentary once about folks living downwind of Hanford in a very rural area....they all thought thyroid cancer was just a normal part of life...and then death.


Don't get me started. I grew up in Spokane in the 50's and 60's and it was quite controversial. Spokane was usually not exactly downwind, but we got a lot of our milk from dairies that were and cows ingested I-131 by the ton. I-131 releases were minimized by the government because making WGPu (weapon grade) was considered a national security priority, and causing a little thyroid cancer in the general public wasn't about to stop that. The whole thing stunk. The story of Hanford and the technical aspects of the whole Project is fascinating, but it sure has a dark side.


----------



## Swedishchef (Nov 13, 2012)

I agree btuser: the "not in my backyard" syndrome is a problem. It even is with oil! Who wants an oil well dug within 2 miles of their house? Not many people, that's for sure. It's ok as long as it's not in my view or my backyard.

Check out these pictures of the Alberta oilsands. http://images.workabove.com/-/galleries/oil-sands-images/industry Most of the oil imported by the US comes from there...

There's no perfect solution, simply a difference on opinion of the best solution.


----------



## begreen (Nov 14, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> Don't get me started. I grew up in Spokane in the 50's and 60's and it was quite controversial. Spokane was usually not exactly downwind, but we got a lot of our milk from dairies that were and cows ingested I-131 by the ton. I-131 releases were minimized by the government because making WGPu (weapon grade) was considered a national security priority, and causing a little thyroid cancer in the general public wasn't about to stop that. The whole thing stunk. The story of Hanford and the technical aspects of the whole Project is fascinating, but it sure has a dark side.


 
It still is controversial. The holding tanks have leaked at times into the Columbia. Study after study is done, then emergency remediation, then more more kick the can down the road because of the huge costs involved. WA state has had to sue the Fed to get this moving. It is now, yet both technical and financial problems remain.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2014001657_hanford23m.html
http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/HanfordCleanup


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 14, 2012)

begreen said:


> It still is controversial. The holding tanks have leaked at times into the Columbia. Study after study is done, then emergency remediation, then more more kick the can down the road because of the huge costs involved. WA state has had to sue the Fed to get this moving. It is now, yet both technical and financial problems remain.
> 
> http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2014001657_hanford23m.html
> http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/HanfordCleanup


I spent the 90's there and saw little (real) progress. I don't know if it will ever go away (cynical remark). The cleanup issue is separate from the downwinder thing (and with more long-term implications), but it all goes to the fact that the "prize" of Pu production way trumped any environmental considerations (if there were any at all). The Cleanup sure has pumped up the local economy, though!


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 14, 2012)

I didn't want to come off as being completely anti-nuc power. I still think that, as Rick (fossil) pointed out, you darn well _can_ make a safe nuc plant (and the Navy does know how, at least small ones) . Certainly the industry has learned from past mistakes, as tragic as some were, and the problems are not completely insurmountable IMO. But there is a lot to do about the waste problem, and we're just not there yet.


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 15, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> I didn't want to come off as being completely anti-nuc power. I still think that, as Rick (fossil) pointed out, you darn well _can_ make a safe nuc plant (and the Navy does know how, at least small ones) . Certainly the industry has learned from past mistakes, as tragic as some were, and the problems are not completely insurmountable IMO. But there is a lot to do about the waste problem, and we're just not there yet.


 

You (we) darn well can, but we darn well won't.  The cover up, fudge inspection, outsource safety ( and accountability, see Woodgeek's chilling [to me] anecdote above), collateral damage, kick the can down the road paradigm is the law of the land, and until we change that, the concentration and centralization of any large scale energy production is a disaster waiting to happen. 

Ehouse


----------



## begreen (Nov 15, 2012)

The bottom line as I stated when the thread started is the issue of dealing with the spent fuel from a fission reactor. I haven't yet read of a practical, working long term (for many millenia) solution. In the meantime just the US is creating 2000 metric tons of the stuff a year. I think we need to move on and put our focus on fusion.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 19, 2012)

I thought the dry cask approach had a lot of promise.  The casks need just passive air circulation for a couple centuries to stay cool, but then can go to a geologic repository.  High level waste only.  The volume to be stored is a few hundred m^3 (say a few hundred refrigerator-sized casks) per year for the US N-plant fleet.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 19, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> I thought the dry cask approach had a lot of promise. The casks need just passive air circulation for a couple centuries to stay cool, but then can go to a geologic repository. High level waste only. The volume to be stored is a few hundred m^3 (say a few hundred refrigerator-sized casks) per year for the US N-plant fleet.


Dry cask seems to be the way things are leaning right now, at least for the interim. They've got to get that stuff out of the pools as soon as possible. What to do with them afterwards is still a problem. It's still controversial whether it's best to put it in geological vaults like Yucca or keep them on surface (for a while), but it is clear that no proposal is perfect or foolproof.

The dry casks now being built to receive stuff from the pools are probably only good for 50-100 years depending on who you talk to.  Not to say they couldn't be built better, of course.

I kind of like the idea of injecting the stuff into subduction zones, myself. Somehow I think that may be a bit impractical at this point...


----------

