Skip to content

Discussion regarding Grassroots in Nuclear PR

________________________________________________________________
Andrew Dodson <amdodson@email.uark.edu>

I received the attached call for papers yesterday. Conference session topics
are a great way to keep on the beat of how people are dealing with current
issues in power. However, the list of “solutions” does not cover much market
issues at all. The policy of renewables integration is the AD HOC driving the
organization of this function. Nuclear will never be considered here because
it in effect makes a large majority of this research unnecessary. Dispatchable,
reliable, efficient, and SUSTAINABLE nuclear energy makes all of these topics
sound near laughable. We now have ORDERS of MAGNITUDE of the microgrid

(mini.. instead of milli? and nano grids… WHAT IS THAT, your HOUSE?!?)

 

In conclusion, the grid should be a system of cables to deliver power to your
home from a generator. Please keep it simple, humanity.

 

This program is designed for electric utility engineers and managers
who are concerned with the designing, operating and planning
of electric power facilities and their engineering colleagues.

 

Smart Grid and Green Technologies

*Basic Concepts-Renewable Integration

*Operational/Communications Issues

*Cyber Security Issues

*Future Scenarios-Sustainability

*Decentralized Systems

 

Technology Issues

*Distributed Generation and Storage

*Plug-in Vehicles and their Impacts

*Energy Storage Options

*Power Electronics Applications/Power Quality

*Integrated Systems

*Sensors for Smart Grid

 

Operational/Planning Issues

*Planning in a Deregulated Environment

*Expert System Applications

*Supplying Critical Loads-DC Minigrids, Microgrids and Nanogrids

*Internet and Power Grid

*Dynamics and Control of DG Sources
 

Economic Issues

*Economic aspects of Smart Grid

*Energy/Power Marketing

*Transmission Access/Pricing

*Investment Opportunities & Challenges

*Customer Choice/Reliability Aspects
 

 

cordially, AMD

 

ps. I hate to be such a basher of others, but its all just unbearably silly.
The more infuriating bit still, is that there is a true recognition of the
frameworks that good power decisions are made in.

 

______________________________________________________________

Rick Maltese <malteserick@gmail.com>

 

I couldn’t resist quoting N Nadir from a recent comment made at Energy Collective:

http://theenergycollective.com/jemillerep/450556/what-are-capacity-factor-impacts-new-installed-renewable-power-generation-capaciti

 

Quote from N Nadir:

“The serious environmental problem that so called “renewable energy” has is that
even if it reached 50% capacity somewhere – it won’t, but let’s suppose it did
– this extraordinary waste of money and resources would still be dependent on
dangerous natural gas, which in the mind of any serious environmentalist with a
long term view, is nothing other than disasterous.
Natural gas is not safe – even if we ignore the news every few days when a gas
line blows up somewhere killing people about whom we couldn’t care less – it is
not clean, since there is no place to dump its waste; it is not sustainable; and
the practice of mining it is a crime against all future generations who will need
to live with shattered, metal leaching rock beneath their feet, and huge amounts
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

And let’s be clear, so called “renewable energy” is nothing more than a scheme to
entrench this natural gas tragedy.    As for the entirely questionable economics
of this disaster, it ought to be immediately clear on inspection that any system
requiring intrinsic infrastructure redundancy will be less economic than a single
system that operates nearly continuously.

 

The fact is that worldwide – with billions of people living in poverty
– we sank a trillion bucks into this wasteful so called “renewable energy” scheme
over the last decade and it has no real effect on environmental disaster before us.
 

And…

 
And…

 
As the OP points out, this stuff doesn’t last very long before breaking down.
The situation will be much, much, much worse when this trillion bucks worth of
short lived stuff has to make its way to landfills.   Trust me, that’s not far off.”

 

Rick Maltese

647-379-9655

 

__________________________________________________________

Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>

 

We aren’t really arguing against renewable energy solar and wind, are we?
Say it ain’t so. It would be totally crazy not to implement solar and wind where
they are feasible just so we can build more nukes?

 

Bob

__________________________________________________________

Robert Orr Jr <>

 

Rick,

 

Yours is a spark of intelligence, even wisdom, in a dark forest of ignorance,
fear, and, especially, money and power pushing the other way.
 

The key words you use are, “immediately clear on inspection”. The fearful and
ignorant don’t do much “nspecting”, which implies the cerebral, and when they do,
too often what they find is fed to them by the aforesaid money and power.

 

Nevertheless, that is no reason to quit what we are doing.
 
Rob Orr

______________________________________________________________

Corey Barcus

 

“We aren’t really arguing against renewable energy solar and wind, are we?
Say it ain’t so. It would be totally crazy not to implement solar and wind
where they are feasible just so we can build more nukes?”

 

We have been arguing against the ‘renewable delusion’, the notion that scaling up
wind and solar will meaningfully displace fossils and address global warming.

 

To get a good grasp of the underlying economic issues regarding these diffuse and
intermittent energy sources, please take a close look at:

 

GETTING TO ZERO: Is renewable energy economically viable?

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/08/1221552/-GETTING-TO-ZERO-Is-renewable-energy-economically-viable

 

 

This recent report presents a fair picture of some of the problems Germany has
encountered with their renewable development:

 

http://www.finadvice.ch/files/germany_lessonslearned_final_071014.pdf

 

 

Furthermore, consider that if we are to be remotely responsible with regards to ocean
acidification, we will need to quickly develop a much more powerful tool than LWRs:

 

 

 

So, do you believe it is safe for us to stand quiet while a confused public tries to
flush $trillions down this hole? As an alternative, we are suggesting strategic
investments of $billions so that we may have the tools to rapidly grow a sustainable

 

-Corey Barcus

 

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video Alex Cannara – Ocean Acidification @ TEAC6

 

Alex Cannara – Ocean Acidification @ TEAC6

_______________________________________________________________

Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>

 

Again I don’t think you can get to zero with just solar and wind. But it’s not
correct to argue that wind and solar won’t be important in eliminating the use
of fossil fuels.

 

Bob Zannelli

 

 

http://phys.org/news/2011-03-power-spain-historic-high.html

 

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/spain-sets-record-for-wind-power-production/150/537/60321/

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/22/2508191/germany-solar-generation-record/

 

_________________________________________________________________

Chris Uhlik

Wind and solar will always be minority contributors to global energy production with importance in rougly this order.

 

0. fossil carbon combustion

1. nuclear fission
2. hydro
3. biomass
4. wind & solar

 

The trick is to kick fossil carbon combustion out of position zero.

 

hydro will not rise to position 1 because of limited supply.
biomass is environmentally devastating, so should be limited.

wind and solar are intermittent, so even if they get cheap, their use is limited
to places with lots of hydro, or places that continue to burn fossil carbon,
and even then, their contribution will stay below 30% because that’s about
the best fraction of the time that the wind blows and the sun shines.

 

fission is the only available technology that can scale AND
run at better than 50% duty cycle, around the clock, around the year.

 

___________________________________________________________

jimnina9@aol.com

 

Rick, Spot-On… (your comments / quote below)

 

All “renewables” are just a distraction — a side show put on by industry and
the DoE.  Its like we are all stuck back in Plato’s cave.

 

jim

______________________________________________________________

Cavan Stone

 

Jim, largely in agreement, though I would call it “PhD welfare.”.
Pretty sad when we have our ” best and brightest” digging ditches
and filling them in again.

Meanwhile, Rome burns.   I should follow John’s rule and err on
incompetence instead of conspiracy.

 

_________________________________________________________________

Cavan Stone

Andrew, electric utilities are pretty darn close to be an extension of government
and quite far away from a free market.  Their profit and loss is completely
dictated by the public service boards and included in this relationship are
cost-plus contracts for infrastructure expansions.  You utilities don’t give a
damn about these added costs of FACTS and renewable energy because they just tack
the bill onto the cost plus contract which in turn gets passed on to captive end
users.  This is why utility stocks ate considered bond like equities.

The public service boards prohibit their  earnings growth rates to deviate far from
a preset amount, never too much growth nor too little.

 

For this reason, I do not consider the utilities to be the first customers for an
MSR barring the politicians in power see the truth of our words and impose a mandate
on them like they are with these sub par performing renewables.

Without the political mandate, there is simply no financial incentive for them to take
on the additional risk of a new design, regardless of how lucrative the reward is.

Let’s say a utility did adopt an MSR and made a ton of profit off that otherwise smart
decision.  The public service board would step in and take that profit away from them,
often in the form of a rate decrease.

 

________________________________________________________________

Cavan Stone

 

I would strongly encourage everyone interested in improving the electrical grid
to read this article:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/101805029

 

This wasted potential we all see are directly a product of the laws and regulations
of the electrical grid!

 

I see two options, either lobby the politicians to change these deeply flawed laws
OR form a company that sells carbon-free energy cheaper than (coal)

 

American natural gas directly to the heavy industrial consumers of energy, cutting out
these bloated middle-man utilities.

 

Personally, I am opting for the latter but I would not besmirch those who would choose
the former.

 

 

________________________________________________________________

Cavan Stone
 

I imagine server farms, heavily roboticized industries, and users of industrial
motors are not at all pleased with these subsynchronous resonances.

 

_________________________________________________________________

Rick Maltese <malteserick@gmail.com>

Excellent Cavan. Your posts help clarify some of my questions about utilities and
their relationship to the power providers as wall as government and the public.

I never realized they could be potential allies.
 

_________________________________________________________________

Stephen Boyd

outstanding point, Cavan –

 

SAB, Ph.D.

_________________________________________________________________

Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>

 

One word, Enron, that great experiment in  unregulated utilities. Another excellent
example of unregulated utilities are Cable companies , is everyone happy with their
cable bill. It’s far more expensive to bring in a cable signal in your house than
power up the entire house which includes AC, Heat, etc. Ever wonder why that is?

One word -regulation.

 

Today in some states, power production has been separated from power distribution,
so at least in theory , if you can’t produce power competitively , you don’t have a
market. This makes building a nuclear power plant extremely risky, because the
capital costs are so high and generally unpredictable. Where power production and
distribution are not separated, utilities have been able to throw some of the risk
onto the their customers, in Florida rate payers are paying for a nuclear plant that
might not even be built.

 

I know most here think LFTR will so cheap to build that it will almost be a mom and
pop operation. I rather doubt that, in fact strictly speaking LFTR’s only exist in
the imagination of its advocates, the engineering hurdles ahead are not even known
with any certainty. This isn’t unique to LFTR , it’s true of any new technology,
the first generation nukes all went through this difficult process.

LFTR won’t be any different.

 

Early nuclear power technology was developed by Big Government, working with private
super giants like Westinghouse , General Electric, B & W and Combustion Engineering.

Those are the facts. So stop hating government, its what makes things actually happen,
when it partners with private enterprise to get something done in those cases where
the risk is too high for private enterprise.

 

Bob Zannelli

 

_______________________________________________________________

Cavan Stone

 

Hi Bob,

 

My Responses to your email.

 

1) Enron was an example of some mixture of criminal activity exploiting a poorly
designed electricity pricing system run by the California ISO:

http://www.mresearch.com/pdfs/19.pdf.

Included in this pricing system were some arbitrage opportunities independent of
the criminal activity.  Beyond this, II don’t care who’s to blame.  I just want
politicians to fix the electricity pricing system so stuff like this wouldn’t keep
happening over and over again.

 

2) The cable companies are an excellent example about how monopolies / oligopolies
even ostensibly government regulated ones result in very little benefit relative
to the cost provided to the end users as illustrated by South Park:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAo5GgaJmsA

 

3) You are correct
“utilities have been able to throw some of the risk onto the their customers”
this is a moral hazard akin to a cost-plus contract.  Funny thing though,
if we look at the history of the space industry, much of the government done
was under a similar cost-plus financial structure, but instead of incentivizing
risk taking resulting in some awesome technology getting built, you get the
following as illustrated by Elon Musk:

“The game that [Boeing and Lockheed] play is to lowball the offer, then raise
the costs after the contract has been won, and then play this game of doing the
limbo where they try to raise the costs of the project right up to the threshold
of cancellation,” Musk said. “You create an incentive to maximize the cost. So the
big government contractors really hate the fixed-price, milestone-based approach.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/elon-musk-spacex_n_2727312.html

 

In fact I would speculate that much of the ballyhooed cost overruns associated with
the light water reactors were a result of this very same behavior.
Same incentives, same results.  What gets rewarded, gets repeated.
 
My point of view is that without coming into this with any gripe against big
government, that it is responsible for the failure for nuclear technology
to live up to its promise.  The utter failures of big government to incentivise
and itself make sound engineering and business decisions in the nuclear field is
precisely why we are still using 40 year old technology and that the field as a
whole has failed to ever achieve above 26% annual market penetration.  This is
even more a shame because based on the technical data I have seen measured by
Oak Ridge, for 40 freaking years the government has squandered the opportunity to
develop the most promising technology since the discovery of combustion.

On account of this data, I can no longer sit back and trust the government to ever
develop this technology. The only option I see is to have a private industry with
better incentive structures get this off the ground.

 

4) As for molten salt reactors only existing in the mind of its advocates, this is patently false:

 

 

5) “low costs of $ 2/ W and 3 cents/ kWh is an achievable objective. A $ 2/ watt capital  cost contributes $ 0.02/ kWh to the power cost, assuming a 40 year life, 8% interest rate,  and 90% capacity factor. With plentiful, inexpensive thorium fuel, LFTR can generate electricity at < $ 0.03/ kWh, underselling power generated by burning coal.”

–Hargraves, Robert (2012-11-06). THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal (Kindle Locations 3078-3080).

. Kindle Edition.

We can go through his cost estimates in detail if you wish.

 

6) Regarding the engineering hurdles, have you identified some specific challenges with the LFTR design or are you going to just chuck some of Russell’s teapots at it?

 

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video South Park – Cable Company

 

South Park – Cable Company

 

____________________________________________________________

Timothy Maloney

 

Bob,

 

There are two schools of thought, as I see it.

 

1.  WWS won’t work to energize a modern society’s electric grid, and we’re
certain of that. So just forget about it and get busy building nukes,
which we’re sure will work.

 

2.  WWS won’t work to energize a modern electric grid, but it’s an attractive
and virtuous quest.  So keep doing it, as rapidly as possible, until the amount
of penetration gets to a level where it becomes clear to everybody that it’s not a
viable overall solution.  That will provide the necessary proof that we were
right all along.

 

At that point everybody in our society will be obliged to embrace nukes,
unless willing to accept a changed  lifestyle in which electric energy is not
always available.  (Hah!)

 

Tim

 

_____________________________________________________________

Jorgensen, Lars

 

Tim,

 

You may be over-pessimistic about renewables here.
With enough natural gas you can make renewables work – it just costs a lot and
may well increase CO2 emissions (keeping peaking plants spinning ready to output
power at a moments notice).

 

I think with high temp nukes and thermal storage of molten salts we can use our
nukes at close to full power all the time and use the thermal storage for peaking
and get decent economics.  The renewables aren’t cost effective but if a society
decided we are going to have them and everyone else (all the other power generators
and the distribution grid) will just have to adapt then I’d still pursue nukes to be the workhorse.

 

Renewables are really tough on LWR economics but I think high temp nukes can work
with them.

 

Lars

 

_________________________________________________________________

Cavan Stone

 

Tim please add a third one:

 

There are niche markets for WWS.  While I am skeptical of any claim of WWS ever
achieving >30% annual market penetration, while I find many WWS promoters abuse
of their technology’s performance statistics ethically vile, while I will say
this in any discussion of the grid, I am not going to outright fight them directly.
I am not going to line up my severely outgunned resources in a formal battle line
to get shot to pieces by the equivalent of the British empire.  I am yielding the
whole electrical grid over to them to ruin because I don’t have the resources to
stop them from ruining it.  Instead, I am going to go out find all those
industrial grid customers who will be none to happy paying extra for energy or
that will be none to happy seeing their expensive industrial motors, robots, and
servers blow up, all just to make some severely misguided people feel better about
themselves.  I am going to sell them energy directly so that they can completely
disconnect themselves from the madness of our national electrical grid.  So, as
far as the issues of connecting WWS to the grid, I say let them.  Let the people
have exactly what they voted for and see for themselves what a disaster a 90% WWS
grid would be.  Besides trying to warn the people off this path, there are far
more productive uses of our resources building our own vision of the grid via going
directly to the industrial end users.

 

 

Cavan Stone

 

* I am skeptical of any claim of WWS ever achieving >30% annual market penetration
and not sending our grid back to third world style grid unreliability.

 

_________________________________________________________________

Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>

 

The right wing in this country is certifiable, but here is where the left lives in
a fantasy land. General prosperity is directly tied to the availability of affordable
energy. Some may dream of simpler times but no rational person would want to live in earlier times, the past was not better than the present and if we don’t screw the pooch , the future will be better than then the present. We have been living well off fossil fuels but we are  changing the environment  in ways that won’t be good, we need to figure out a way to retain affordable energy without burning fossil fuels. You would think this would be obvious. But the power of the fossil fuel industry allied with religious crazies on the right, aided and abetted unwittingly by the Luddites of the left are taking us over the cliff. Our government is so clogged with tea party crazies who see their job as destroying evil government,  that we can’t even get modest curbs on CO 2 production , let alone the full court press needed to revolutionize our energy industry. The issue isn’t solar verses nuclear, the issue is anything that works verses fossil fuels. I am sorry to say, that currently there seems to be little reason to be optimistic.

 

Bob Zannelli

 

=

_______________________________________________________________

Robert Hargraves

 

I agree with Cavan, however there are “merchant” generators such as Vermont Yankee that sell to the “grid” at market prices for hour-ahead, day-ahead, etc. That is a business whose returns are not regulated by public service boards. However, the states feed-in-tariffs and renewable energy mandates mean these merchants work in a distorted market, not driven by price. Hence the closure of at least two nuclear power plants.

 

Bob

 

THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal book

News on Facebook

Radiation: Safe Within Limits brochure and presentation

 

_________________________________________________________________

Robert Hargraves

 

Cavan,

 

I think this is possible now. After all, in Vermont you can buy cow-power direct
from the farmers. Businesses and even homes in NH can select their power production company; it doesn’t have to be NHPS.

 

Bob

 

________________________________________________________________

Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>

 

This is because Fossil plants shift environmental costs onto the public.

A carbon tax would be fair and make nukes more competitive

 

Bob Zannelli

 

In a message dated 8/7/2014 9:12:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

robert.hargraves@gmail.com writes:

I agree with Cavan, however there are “merchant” generators such as
Vermont Yankee that sell to the “grid” at market prices for hour-ahead,
Write an email to us for 100mg tablets of viagra any specific treatment- Testosterone test- Low level of male impotence. It levitra 100mg pills can be bought from the trusted online stores to prevent any case of side-effects of unreliable medicines. It offers effective cure for muscle weakness viagra sample online check out this link now and strengthen your reproductive system and boosts potency. Whenever the body is over- stressed a hormone known as adrenocorticotropic hormone viagra 5mg (ACTH). day-ahead, etc. That is a business whose returns are not regulated by
public service boards. However, the states feed-in-tariffs and renewable energy
mandates mean these merchants work in a distorted market, not driven by price.
Hence the closure of at least two nuclear power plants.

 

Bob

 

THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal book

News on Facebook

Radiation: Safe Within Limits brochure and presentation

 

=

_________________________________________________________________

Cavan Stone

Total agreement with you Bob on the carbon tax and I would tell congress they
should pass one.  I should note however that we have limited resources compared
to other groups at play.  And every item you add to our requests halves the
probability of it passing.
 
I would strongly urge people to keep the message simple and avoid joining battle
with groups on the periphery of the issue.  I would strongly suggest we keep the
message as simple as possible, “we want a reasonable regulatory pathway forwards
for Molten Salt  Reactors in 5 years, comparable to what Canada has already in
the works.”. If we score this one simple item, we solve most if not all of the
energy challenges we discuss here.  If you doubt this, I can walk you through the
Oak Ridge’s data and the wonderful work of many recipients here, that strongly
demonstrate this to be true.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________

jimnina9@aol.com

 

Carbon Tax = Friedman Fraud

Never worked, never will (a full decade of failure in Europe)
 
The idea behind the carbon tax is to financialize pollution.
Yep, so JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs can create derivative like scams to amass wealth.
The resulting scams have resulted in massive environmental degradation.
 

Back on topic, the carbon tax idea is the wet dream of the financial industry,
so they incubated the idea in academia.
The army of cant do / so teach have formulated justifications for this fraud
— just as they formulated justifications for derivatives and privatization.
 
To put it all in perspective, if you bother to look back in time these academics
never missed an opportunity to justify one fraud or another
(Enron, Supply Side Economics, De-Regulation, Off-Shoring, the utopia Service Economy).
 
Academia has become the mouthpiece of money, nothing more: thanks Milton Friedman.
 
 

_________________________________________________________________

Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>

 

Well I can’t disagree with this.  My hope was for a carbon tax that isn’t a scam.

 

Bob Zannelli

_________________________________________________________________

Cavan Stone

 

Robert, you are mostly correct.  Although we have to look at the laws very carefully

so we don’t get classified as an electric utility and saddled with legal requirement

to either subsidize Joe B Scamartist’s POS windfarm or buy “carbon indulgences” from

Goldman Sachs even if though our energy would be carbon free.

 

_________________________________________________________________

Peter J Millar

 

I don’t know what all this about “academic thought”. It seems more like a deeply
ontological problem about large things and our human relation to them.

 

Clearly, the nuke industry, whatever that is, has done a piss poor job of keeping it
safe and sane… and perhaps that is another larger truth about us beings. We can’t
handle power without it biting us in the ass. Or can we?

 

Further, “we” as a species-culture have taken the clear “evidence” of global warming
and eviscerated it.

Its now “climate change”.

How weak and circularly defeated is that?
 

And thus the whole reason for doing anything other than the status quo is suspect.

“We” (perhaps as a species being), cannot grasp the enormity of “it”. Its just too big
to understand. And its always been changing. And perhaps those in power just recognize
that keeping the populace “destabilized” is profitable.
( e.g. US approach to “third” world) and that makes some kind of evil, self-destructive

 

 

Unless we who presume to greater understanding can demonstrate the driver

 

>>>>> global warming driven by human activity <<<<<<

 

in such a way that is becomes understood and the need to act manifest as imperative, then short-sighted thinking and opportunistic behavior, greed, scams, crap contracts, and the assholes who seem to run the show will prevail. ANd people will choose to just live their lives as thay can.

 

I still have yet to see, read or witness a clear and simple elucidation,
a demonstration of global warming due to added CO2, methane, or anything else for that matter (and no the Arrhenius eq. won’t suffice)

 

The claims are couched in data, plots, references to monster computer models, lots of impenetrable scientific information and myriad other “claims”…

 

And that won’t do it.

 

Might as well accept… ? per Oppenheimer  after the Gita-d
 

“I am become death, the shatterer of worlds”.

 

Or…  adress the problem – that people do not understand the significance or fact of global warming. And if they do, even sort of, they dont know what the f*%# to do about it.

 

 

 

Peter J Millar, M.S. Eng. CEM

 

Building Energy Solutions

775-345-7300

 

Buildingenergy1@gmail.com

On LinkedIn at Peter J. Millar

_________________________________________________________________

George Erickson

 

Regarding safety, see the attachment.  NO ONE has died from commercial nuclear power production in Western Europe or the Western Hemisphere, but MILLIONS have died from the burning of coal and oil. Chernobyl “design” was illegal everywhere else in the world, and

 

See also Fuku facts.

 

If you have evidence that any of this is wrong, please elaborate.

 

George Erickson – www.tundracub.com

Member, Union of Concerned Scientists — Member, Thorium Energy Alliance

— past V P American Humanist Assoc.

Replace carbon-fueled power plants with modern, safe, efficient, nuclear reactors
that create NO CO2. —- Go nuclear or go “extinct”.

 

See http://thoriumforum.com/thorium-nuclear-power-climate-change-killer-21st-century

 

From: Peter J Millar

Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 12:00 PM

To: Cavan Stone

 

Preview attachment safety graphic.jpg

Image

safety graphic.jpg

Preview attachment Fuku facts.docx

Word

Fuku facts.docx

_______________________________________________________________

Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>

 

At Chernobyl the operators took about six actions absolutely not allowed by their
procedures. It’s a really a story about a shift engineer who should not have been
allowed to run a lemonade stand, let along a nuclear power plant. He bullied the
operators into violating their procedures and when one operator refused to carry
out a dangerous order he found someone else to do it. The RMBK was not a pile of
junk, it was driven into an accident by reckless and ignorant operation.

 

Bob Zannelli

___________________________________________________________________

Timothy Maloney

 

Lars,

 

But natural gas can’t be a long-term part of the electricity picture.
Even if the fracking proponents are correct that the US can eventually extract
over 2000 TCF, we’re going through it at 25 TCF per year.  Only 80 or so years’ worth.

 

Then we’re screwed for cheap nitrogen fertilizer.

 

Tim

 

_______________________________________________________________

Mike Conley

 

Bob – Point well taken re: Chernobyl operators, but in my view what the world needs is a “Homer-proof” reactor. Meaning that, no matter how incompetent the operator,  the mess they cause won’t result in a widespread catastrophe.

 

That’s a big reason why I’m an MSR fan, because a catastrophic spill from an MSR would be measured in square meters, not square kilometers. And I don’t think the importance of that can be overstated, since what the public is really freaked out about is not so much contamination per se, but rather the spread of contamination. With a damaged MSR, you’d get a contaminated reactor building, not a contaminated countryside.

 

_________________________________________________________________

Alex Cannara

 

Boy, go outta town for a day and have b’fast at The Madonna Inn and look
what hits the fan!

 

It’s essential that we all understand the physical realities of power
choices.  Scientifically speaking…

 

a) Combustion bad.

 

2) Local solar, good.

 

3) Nuclear, regulated, good.

 

d) Advanced nuclear, absolutely essential.

 

The reason wind is not on the list, Bob, is that it’s absurdly
inefficient for the investments in it of resources, land, power loss,
species threats, maintenance and even worker loss.  For example…

www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/

 

There’s no point in spending $ & land & resources on something that
produces <3W/sq meter, and has all the other issues above…

http://tinyurl.com/b7uboqe

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/015021/  (video, note graph axes, and attached)

 

And, if we want to understand the irrelevance of things like Fukushima &

Chernobyl to western nuclear power, read Mahaffey’s “Atomic Accidents”.

 

Chernobyl’s sibling RBMK reactors, by the way, are safely running in
other locations around the old CCCP.



Alex

_________________________________________________________________

Alex Cannara

Right, the gas issues are bigger than expected already.  So are fertilizer issues — note Toledo & Lake Erie.



Alex

 

_________________________________________________________________

Ed Pheil

I tried to look for a way to request nuclear power as my electricity option, but
there is no such option or even a tool to figure out the fraction of production
from each source e.g. nuclear from each of the companies available in my area
(national grid / old Niagara Mohawk territory)

 

Ed Pheil

 

edpheil@gmail.com

518-488-7786

________________________________________________________________

Robert Hargraves

I wrote to NEI a couple of times requesting they encourage their members to file such tariffs, but no response at all from NEI.

 

Bob

_________________________________________________________________

John Kutsch

 

Dear Ed and Robert,

 

That is such an awesome idea!
Making All Nuclear as my electricity option would make me the happiest guy around.

 

Could even justify / show support for keeping Kewannee and SONGS and Byron Facilities open.

 

_________________________________________________________________

Cavan Stone

Gents, I strongly encourage you to not pin your arguments on running out of fossil
fuel inventory.  The American companies are purposefully understating those reserves
because they are trying prop up the price and just like the 2000s again, as soon as
everyone starts panicking about a shortage and discussing alternatives, they’ll pull
a “surprise” revision to the upside for those estimates.  That’s the game they play.
 

There is plenty of gas in the sea: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-21752441 and
people will continue to burn it until either our atmosphere is like Venus OR when
we deliver a cheaper alternative.

________________________________________________________________

Walford, Graham V

I am also a person that sits largely by the sidelines and watches the discussions and try to make sense of our playing field.  I am not sure that we will find an answer through logic or persuasion and in the models I/we have worked.  Likewise using nuclear etc etc and discussing that is also not an answer.  We have to go to the mirror and look at us in the mirror.  We humans do not have the same internal codes of ethics and care levels and groups like ISIS, Putin etc have no interest whatsoever in our beliefs or  even know they exist or even care.

 

I believe that what is at work is evolution here and what will be selected will not
be very much and that the world after this will be different.  With the remaining
resource, its vulnerability, the rate at which we as a species find ourselves
distracted from our true situation is like people fighting in a flowerbed and
trampling everything underfoot. – Our own congress and others in governments will
look to self interest first – not common interest

 

Having said all that, looking to a future where some of us can survive and live in a
different world is most critical.  I for my part would prefer to share that new world
with you guys who lead a thinking argument

 

Graham

 

______________________________________________________________

Andrew Dodson

 

Include something along the lines of:
Bulk Soar and Wind production is in theory to be sourced from the south-west and
mid-west, respectively. Some off shore wind resources exist also, but will be fully
utilized locally. The same environmental groups promoting these renewable resources SIMULTANEOUSLY oppose the transmission line expansion projects required to utilize these resources AND ALSO oppose fracking for natural gas fuel, which is ideally located near to where the renewable resource is, much to Oklahoma’s and Texas’s delight. This local natural gas is used to support the variable output renewable at low cost. ( Locality of natural gas is important due to the high costs of transportation and storage. )

 

A policy of just universally hating energy could not be more effective. The prior
paragraph is certainly prefaced by “they never mention nuclear”.

 

cordially, AMD

 

________________________________________________________________

Ed Pheil

 

If such choices were available, it could have a downside depending on the mix of pro and anti-nuclear in the area, and it is easier to take down a nuke plant than get enough support to sustain it. This would take some investigation by someone more knowledgeable in the industry. But I had AssUMeD, incorrectly, that energy source choice was part of energy choice not just cost. But, nuclear is not even included in the green energy options, only hydro, solar, wind, biomass, and solar/wind are mostly gas.

 

Having said that I personally would pay a premium to not use coal or gas to reduce their unpaid downsides. Alternately, taxing coal/gas to pay the coal/gas (to a lesser extent) medical could help pay for the current healthcare, including mining and cleanup, but it would only be a temporary funding stream, presumably.

 

Ed Pheil

 

edpheil@gmail.com

518-488-7786

________________________________________________________________

Ed Pheil

 

Byron? Is that The Excelon in Chicago area? They haven’t announced shutting down yet, right? Just posturing to get more balanced regulatory system, I.e. stop solar/wind biased power purchase to get local support like the new Obama policy suggested of keeping existing nukes.

 

Ed Pheil

 

edpheil@gmail.com

518-488-7786

____________________________________________________________

Andrew Dodson

 

amdodson@email.uark.edu

What IS the fundamental difference in the US Government between 1960-70 and now? Just compounded idiocy over time? Something worse? :[

 

I totally agree we need them to back an MSR properly, but the web of bureaucracy is just too thick. Hopefully some good comes from the speed JK gave before the IAEA. I wonder what the Chinese think about all this. They are probably better informed on it than our own government, hah!

_______________________________________________________________

Ed Pheil

 

I knew NIMBYism, whether turbines, solar panels or power lines would eventually be what was the publically visible incarnation and downfall of the low power density.

 

Ed Pheil

 

edpheil@gmail.com

518-488-7786

_________________________________________________________________

Ed Pheil

 

Including low power density of fracking vs conventional gas/oil.

 

Ed Pheil

 

edpheil@gmail.com

518-488-7786

________________________________________________________________

Alex Cannara

 

Agree.  We stood next to one of 2 generators at Diablo Canyon Wed. They’re no bigger
than a stretch Escalade.  Each one generates >10% of all California’s electricity.

Together, they produce >20%, 24/7 with ~90% uptime.
 

The shafts into the generators could be seen turning smoothly at 1800 rpm and each
of the 2 shafts would have been easy to get arms around — when stopped!

 

The concept of power density for nuclear, even 33%-efficient steam versions, becomes
clear when you can stand next to two 1.2 billion-watt generators that are turned by
stored fusion energy in about 1 pound of Uranium consumption per hour.



Alex

 

_____________________________________________________________

Dana Runge

Alex,

 

Did they tell you that Diablo Canyon was originally planned to be a 6 reactor site?
You’ll notice that the intake cove is wide enough to include three times as many
intakes. If I recall correctly, the plan was for 5 power reactors, and a sixth
nuclear desalination reactor.

 

________________________________________________________________________

Alex Cannara

YEs, Dana.  Thanks for the reminder.  That would make the site supply
50% of our power and whatever 1GW could do for fresh water.

 

The craziness of calif. law & politics now is that a huge desalinator is
coming on line in Carlsbad in 2017, running partly on combustion power.
whereas if we fixed San Onofre, it would add little emissions.

 

Also, our insanity is documented in this crazy event…

 

Diablo installed more efficient low-pressure turbines a while back, that
gained power output of 40MW each (80MW total), without nuclear changes.

 

A more efficient version of their 2 high-pressure turbines was also
available, which would have added 70MW total additional, with no reactor

 

However, Calif. state law says “no new nuclear generation”.  If they had
installed the new high-pressure turbines, they’d have gone over the

100MW expansion limit set in their license and the anti-nukes would have
sued & made hearings on the plant drag on, so PG&E simply left the old
turbines in place.

 

Thus, some unenvironmental ‘environmentalists’ have forced us to burn
gas/coal or whatever, to supply 70MW of electricity that would have been
emissions free.

 

We need to educate folks and reverse this insanity.  The CEC hearing at
UCLA is on the 20th.



Alex

 

Rick Maltese

647-379-9655

 

 

MY ENERGY RELATED WEBSITES and ASSETS

http://energyrealityproject.com

http://thoriummsr.com

http://deregulatetheatom.com

http://MsSci.com

http://economicsofnuclear.com

http://nuclearclarity.wordpress.com

 

Two Sister Facebook Groups I Created

http://www.facebook.com/groups/energyreality/

http://www.facebook.com/groups/deregulatetheatom.com

 

MY WEB DESIGN

webcompose.ca  webdesign services

MY MUSIC

leadsheetz.com  music services – transposing, composing, teaching etc

rickmaltesemusic.com  piano gig page

 

 

 

On 9 August 2014 18:52, Alex Cannara <cannara@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

YEs, Dana.  Thanks for the reminder.  That would make the site supply

50% of our power and whatever 1GW could do for fresh water.
The craziness of calif. law & politics now is that a huge desalinator is
coming on line in Carlsbad in 2017, running partly on combustion power.
whereas if we fixed San Onofre, it would add little emissions.

Also, our insanity is documented in this crazy event…

Diablo installed more efficient low-pressure turbines a while back, that
gained power output of 40MW each (80MW total), without nuclear changes.

A more efficient version of their 2 high-pressure turbines was also
available, which would have added 70MW total additional, with no reactor
changes.

However, Calif. state law says “no new nuclear generation”.  If they had
installed the new high-pressure turbines, they’d have gone over the
100MW expansion limit set in their license and the anti-nukes would have
sued & made hearings on the plant drag on, so PG&E simply left the old
turbines in place.

Thus, some unenvironmental ‘environmentalists’ have forced us to burn
gas/coal or whatever, to supply 70MW of electricity that would have been
emissions free.

We need to educate folks and reverse this insanity.  The CEC hearing at
UCLA is on the 20th.

Alex

On 8/9/2014 3:29 PM, Dana Runge wrote:

Alex,

Did they tell you that Diablo Canyon was originally planned to be a 6
reactor site? You’ll notice that the intake cove is wide enough to
include three times as many intakes. If I recall correctly, the plan
was for 5 power reactors, and a sixth nuclear desalination reactor.

Dana

On Aug 9, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Alex Cannara <cannara@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Agree.  We stood next to one of 2 generators at Diablo Canyon Wed.
They’re no bigger than a stretch Escalade.  Each one generates >10%
of all California’s electricity.  Together, they produce >20%, 24/7
with ~90% uptime.

The shafts into the generators could be seen turning smoothly at
1800 rpm and each of the 2 shafts would have been easy to get arms
around — when stopped!

The concept of power density for nuclear, even 33%-efficient steam
versions, becomes clear when you can stand next to two 1.2
billion-watt generators that are turned by stored fusion energy in
about 1 pound of Uranium consumption per hour. — Alex

 

 

Leave a Reply

TESTING