John McCain: "If France can produce 80% of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?"

[Future Guy]

I'm sure we'd find ways to use all that excess energy output at night. Electric cars would be one of them. I'm sure we could install more lights in our cities just out of spite so we can say we're the 'brightest country on the planet' and actually mean what we say.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Future Guy
I'm sure we'd find ways to use all that excess energy output at night. Electric cars would be one of them. I'm sure we could install more lights in our cities just out of spite so we can say we're the 'brightest country on the planet' and actually mean what we say.

how about some type of refrigeration device to slow down the global warming.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

I'm no scientician, but don't nuclear plants need large amounts of water to operate? I'm sure we'll start running out of useable water for our next natural resource shortage. Also the amount of potential nuclear waste alarms me. how much can we store, and where,....forever?

 

[Superrock]

Y:ea, like others have said, maybe not 80% of our power from nuclear, but we absolutely need to diversify our power consumption needs.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think we need solar and enough solar for night and day. You can pump water up hill in the day time and let it fall through turbines at night. You can also spin up gyros.

Are you high? Gyros??

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think we need solar and enough solar for night and day. You can pump water up hill in the day time and let it fall through turbines at night. You can also spin up gyros.

Are you high? Gyros??

Great big ones.

 

[JohnCU]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I'm no scientician, but don't nuclear plants need large amounts of water to operate? I'm sure we'll start running out of useable water for our next natural resource shortage. Also the amount of potential nuclear waste alarms me. how much can we store, and where,....forever?

Yes, but it's recycled. We (the nuke plant I work at) pull it in from the ocean and discharges through a long canal, back to the ocean. The canal gives it time to cool down before going into the ocean.

Also, the article is partly true. The plants run most stable at 100% power, as you lower power they get a little more erratic. Think of it this way, it's easy to ride and control a bike when you are moving fast, but when you are just barely pedaling, it's a little more tricky.

We can't stay online below 23% power, have to trip the turbine off, although we can keep the reactor going, we just dump all the steam to the condenser instead of pushing it through the turbine.

EDIT: I will add that we came down to 70% power last weekend due to low load on the grid. Didn't seem to have any problems then, and today we're back at 100%.

 

[StageLeft]

Holy crap! What a pathetically bad article. The first question I have is: Why can we have nuclear plants setup that will create enough juice for peak loads and then when nobody is using them just basically throw the energy away. If right now the US uses what it makes and with nuke it would have a waste, would that be cost ineffective, or is nuke so comparitively cheap that even with wasting vast sums it could still have a net gain? This is my question and one not addressed by the article at all.

I think that with a major increase in plug in hybrid vehicles down the line or other domestic needs for juice, we could crank up use during the night.

edit: That is to say, if power is used during peak periods, charge users a significant premium over base load power sources.

Problem is you'd have to retrofit basically all houses with upgraded power meters. I know that mine has no indication at all as to when I actually used my power and it's a new house.

Off-peak energy production could be used to produce hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles (e.g. Honda's new FCX).

I agree. Although France may be turning off their reactors, I cannot believe there isn't some kind of 'battery' that can be used. Not a real battery, but store the excess energy in either hydrogen production or energy somewhere else somehow.

I think we need solar and enough solar for night and day. You can pump water up hill in the day time and let it fall through turbines at night. You can also spin up gyros.

That is not bad--the hill idea. Crank water up to some reservoir on a mountain and then by morning it's full and you let it all down again. With a little ingenuity there are probably countless ways to store used electricity in some manner. I think the French are just too stupid to come up with one

I'm no scientician, but don't nuclear plants need large amounts of water to operate?

They use it for cooling. There is one 10 miles from my house on a lake but it's not using the lake for anything other than how a car uses radiator fluid.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: yllus
Here's an article about the state of nuclear energy in France, and how it would translate into a North American market.

In summary: Nuclear energy, being a steady-stream source of energy (as opposed to one that can be turned on/off as demand warrants) would be fiscally ruinous for America if implemented as its primary power source. France, with a nearby market of nearly a billion people, is still forced to shut down its reactors on weekends rather than produce in excess. The U.S. has no such external market - meaning that nuke energy would be cost-ineffective in the extreme during non-peak periods.

Our infrastructure is setup to send electricity over broad areas of the country which are currently being serviced by other means of generation. So by all means we could easily handle enough nuclear power plants running 24/7 to satisfy constant normal use in those areas. Anything required above it, like in peak hours, the other means of generations like from dams etc? can be kicked on as needed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

While the French model may not work for the North American market, I still don't understand why nuclear power cannot fill more of the base demand.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think we need solar and enough solar for night and day. You can pump water up hill in the day time and let it fall through turbines at night. You can also spin up gyros.

Are you high? Gyros??

Great big ones.

Now I'm hungry.

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
While the French model may not work for the North American market, I still don't understand why nuclear power cannot fill more of the base demand.

Because of the NIMBYs.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I agree. Although France may be turning off their reactors, I cannot believe there isn't some kind of 'battery' that can be used. Not a real battery, but store the excess energy in either hydrogen production or energy somewhere else somehow.

I think some one else alluded to the point, but I believe norway simply uses excess wind power to pump water in to an elevated tank, then runs that water back down through a generator when power generation is low and demand high. Its another form of batter I suppose.

 

[OS]

what an obviously terrible and slanted article

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steve

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think we need solar and enough solar for night and day. You can pump water up hill in the day time and let it fall through turbines at night. You can also spin up gyros.

Are you high? Gyros??

Great big ones.

Now I'm hungry.

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
While the French model may not work for the North American market, I still don't understand why nuclear power cannot fill more of the base demand.

Because of the NIMBYs.

Effing NIMBY's. I have a Nuke plant about 5 miles from me. I see the smoke stacks from the coal plant adjacent to it from my house.

 

[extra]

Oh noez, we might have too much electricity sometimes. Whatever will we do with a surplus of electricity that we can't sell! Oh wait...What? You mean we could use it to make hydrogen, or to desalinate water?

OR!!! What's that? No way...

Encourage electric car production by having an overabundance of power during off-peak hours....where people could like....I duno... I know, it's a stretch but bear with me here....*charge their cars cheaply with the excess electricity!*

I don't think people are going to whine about paying a few dollars more if it means getting rid of a huge chunk of Co2 and pollutants (coal is pretty much the worst offender this country has got).

 

[EarthwormJim]

Use the surplus energy to pump large amounts of water to a higher altitude (up a mountain). Then when you can't meet the power demand with just nuclear power, run the water down through turbines. Energy storage.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: yllus
Here's an article about the state of nuclear energy in France, and how it would translate into a North American market.

If a country produces more nuclear power than it needs in the dead of night, it must export that low-value, off-peak power. This is what France does. It sells its nuclear surplus to its European Union neighbours, a market of 700 million people.[/b] That large market --more than 10 times France's population -- is able to soak up most of France's surplus off-peak power.

The EU is not even 500 million, let alone billion, and France exports to only a handful of countries. For example, Eastern Europe is in dire need of energy (after the shortsighted idiots in the EU imposed as a condition in Bulgaria, Latvia, etc to close some of their reactors when they entered the EU). Seeing that this is the National Post, I'm not surprised at their shoddy research. The National Post and The National Inquirer are not very far apart.

 

[arkcom]

Charge your car at night, and discharge onto the grid during they day. We could run 100% nuke (or close). NewsWise

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: yllus
Here's an article about the state of nuclear energy in France, and how it would translate into a North American market.

If a country produces more nuclear power than it needs in the dead of night, it must export that low-value, off-peak power. This is what France does. It sells its nuclear surplus to its European Union neighbours, a market of 700 million people.[/b] That large market --more than 10 times France's population -- is able to soak up most of France's surplus off-peak power.

The EU is not even 500 million, let alone billion, and France exports to only a handful of countries. For example, Eastern Europe is in dire need of energy (after the shortsighted idiots in the EU imposed as a condition in Bulgaria, Latvia, etc to close some of their reactors when they entered the EU). Seeing that this is the National Post, I'm not surprised at their shoddy research. The National Post and The National Inquirer are not very far apart.

Were those reactors designed with the aid of Soviet engineers using safeguards inherited from Chernobyl? Just asking.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: fornax
Eastern Europe is in dire need of energy (after the shortsighted idiots in the EU imposed as a condition in Bulgaria, Latvia, etc to close some of their reactors when they entered the EU).

Do you really think closing Soviet built reactors was idiotic?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: yllus
Here's an article about the state of nuclear energy in France, and how it would translate into a North American market.

If a country produces more nuclear power than it needs in the dead of night, it must export that low-value, off-peak power. This is what France does. It sells its nuclear surplus to its European Union neighbours, a market of 700 million people.[/b] That large market --more than 10 times France's population -- is able to soak up most of France's surplus off-peak power.

The EU is not even 500 million, let alone billion, and France exports to only a handful of countries. For example, Eastern Europe is in dire need of energy (after the shortsighted idiots in the EU imposed as a condition in Bulgaria, Latvia, etc to close some of their reactors when they entered the EU). Seeing that this is the National Post, I'm not surprised at their shoddy research. The National Post and The National Inquirer are not very far apart.

The EU found those older reactors to be unsafe to continue operating. IIRC, the EU provided funding for replacements reactors/upgrades in exchange.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: yllus
Here's an article about the state of nuclear energy in France, and how it would translate into a North American market.

If a country produces more nuclear power than it needs in the dead of night, it must export that low-value, off-peak power. This is what France does. It sells its nuclear surplus to its European Union neighbours, a market of 700 million people.[/b] That large market --more than 10 times France's population -- is able to soak up most of France's surplus off-peak power.

The EU is not even 500 million, let alone billion, and France exports to only a handful of countries. For example, Eastern Europe is in dire need of energy (after the shortsighted idiots in the EU imposed as a condition in Bulgaria, Latvia, etc to close some of their reactors when they entered the EU). Seeing that this is the National Post, I'm not surprised at their shoddy research. The National Post and The National Inquirer are not very far apart.

Were those reactors designed with the aid of Soviet engineers using safeguards inherited from Chernobyl? Just asking.

The safeguards in the RBMK-1000 worked just fine, provided you didn't turn them off.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Steve

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: yllus
Here's an article about the state of nuclear energy in France, and how it would translate into a North American market.

If a country produces more nuclear power than it needs in the dead of night, it must export that low-value, off-peak power. This is what France does. It sells its nuclear surplus to its European Union neighbours, a market of 700 million people.[/b] That large market --more than 10 times France's population -- is able to soak up most of France's surplus off-peak power.

The EU is not even 500 million, let alone billion, and France exports to only a handful of countries. For example, Eastern Europe is in dire need of energy (after the shortsighted idiots in the EU imposed as a condition in Bulgaria, Latvia, etc to close some of their reactors when they entered the EU). Seeing that this is the National Post, I'm not surprised at their shoddy research. The National Post and The National Inquirer are not very far apart.

Were those reactors designed with the aid of Soviet engineers using safeguards inherited from Chernobyl? Just asking.

The safeguards in the RBMK-1000 worked just fine, provided you didn't turn them off.

I thought I remember reading that the design of the reactor was of dubious quality, and that design contributed to the catastrophic nature of the accident. Working off very old memories here though.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Steve

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: yllus
Here's an article about the state of nuclear energy in France, and how it would translate into a North American market.

If a country produces more nuclear power than it needs in the dead of night, it must export that low-value, off-peak power. This is what France does. It sells its nuclear surplus to its European Union neighbours, a market of 700 million people.[/b] That large market --more than 10 times France's population -- is able to soak up most of France's surplus off-peak power.

The EU is not even 500 million, let alone billion, and France exports to only a handful of countries. For example, Eastern Europe is in dire need of energy (after the shortsighted idiots in the EU imposed as a condition in Bulgaria, Latvia, etc to close some of their reactors when they entered the EU). Seeing that this is the National Post, I'm not surprised at their shoddy research. The National Post and The National Inquirer are not very far apart.

Were those reactors designed with the aid of Soviet engineers using safeguards inherited from Chernobyl? Just asking.

The safeguards in the RBMK-1000 worked just fine, provided you didn't turn them off.

I thought I remember reading that the design of the reactor was of dubious quality, and that design contributed to the catastrophic nature of the accident. Working off very old memories here though.

Nothing to do with the safeguards exactly, but the design was such that the reactor ran best/safest at around 22% efficiency. At the time of the accident it was at around 7%. This was the second time they put it that low, only this time they did it with the safeguards disabled.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I'm no scientician, but don't nuclear plants need large amounts of water to operate? I'm sure we'll start running out of useable water for our next natural resource shortage. Also the amount of potential nuclear waste alarms me. how much can we store, and where,....forever?

You know this is one theory I've always disagreed! Water will always be water. It doesn't matter if you turned it into steam or ice, but eventually it will come back to be water! Sure it may not be fresh anymore when it comes back but it's still water whether it's sea or rain water. The only thing that matters is the energy required to pump it into desalination plants, filtration and piping it into houses and buildings! But damn it, it's still water!