McCain calls for 45 new Nuclear Reactors

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

In summary, then, nuclear plants are more costly to build, take longer to build, cost more to operate and maintain than wind installations. Nuclear power plants are more costly to finance. In fact, there are currently no new nuclear power plants being planned in the US, in spite of so-called "incentives" built into the 2005 EPACT. I argue that nuclear power is completely unnecessary and uneconomical, given the alternatives of aggressive energy efficiency and large-scale wind.

Without taking issue with the rest of that article, which I'll leave to BrownTown, the above is out of date.

NRG Energy, the TVA, and Duke Energy have filed license applications for two reactors each. Other utilities are expected to file applications to add units to existing plants in the next year or two.

You continue to show that pin head engineer, out in left field, tree instead of forest, gift. The issue was not the licensing but the costs. Alternative energy will do nothing but become cheaper and cheaper in comparison to nuclear and there will be no nuclear waste and no need for the mining of dangerous fuel. Solar derived energy is human friendly.

But for that matter I would pay more for a doctor for my children over taking them to some cheaper quack. A pure financial analysis is just more pin headedness. Try to understand the beauty of acting morally toward the planet and future people.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

In summary, then, nuclear plants are more costly to build, take longer to build, cost more to operate and maintain than wind installations. Nuclear power plants are more costly to finance. In fact, there are currently no new nuclear power plants being planned in the US, in spite of so-called "incentives" built into the 2005 EPACT. I argue that nuclear power is completely unnecessary and uneconomical, given the alternatives of aggressive energy efficiency and large-scale wind.

Without taking issue with the rest of that article, which I'll leave to BrownTown, the above is out of date.

NRG Energy, the TVA, and Duke Energy have filed license applications for two reactors each. Other utilities are expected to file applications to add units to existing plants in the next year or two.

You continue to show that pin head engineer, out in left field, tree instead of forest, gift. The issue was not the licensing but the costs. Alternative energy will do nothing but become cheaper and cheaper in comparison to nuclear and there will be no nuclear waste and no need for the mining of dangerous fuel. Solar derived energy is human friendly.

But for that matter I would pay more for a doctor for my children over taking them to some cheaper quack. A pure financial analysis is just more pin headedness. Try to understand the beauty of acting morally toward the planet and future people.

Actually it would be a hell of a lot cheaper even to throw up a bunch of coal plants than nuclear. Then again those spew their pollution into the environment, unlike nuclear energy.

Even assuming the most optimistic projections for solar energy it cannot touch the efficiency and availability of nuclear at anything approaching economical level in the near term.

You refuse to deal with current realities instead opting to live in the world of "what if's" and "maybe sometime in the future". The people that actually have to make these decisions don't have that luxury.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: K1052
You refuse to deal with current realities instead opting to live in the world of "what if's" and "maybe sometime in the future". The people that actually have to make these decisions don't have that luxury.

This really is the crux of the matter, EVERYONE would love to have cheap, clean solar energy, but the fact of the matter is that there is no such thing. Its stupid how the environmental nuts try to act like anyone who doesn't support their beliefs is like those baddies in Captain Planet who get some perverse joy out of causing oil spills, or polluting our air etc. ITs not like we are choosing nuclear over solar, solar is not even an option. The only options for large scale electricity generation are natural gas, coal, and nuclear. That is IT, there is no other choices out there in the world, this isn't some fill in the blank question, its multiple choice and those are the ONLY choices. Putting "solar" as your answer is just ignoring the question all together. Sitting around with your ears, eyes and mouth covered shouting, "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" isn't going to solve the problem here. Its also kind of sad how the environmentalists like to talk down to engineers like they are somehow better people, but who the hell do you think is designing your solar panels, or your wind farms, or your electric cars? Maybe before you start bitching and moaning about our energy options YOU should go out and design something better. I supported nuclear power and now I am working at a nuclear plant, lets see you do the same and work for a company designing solar panels. Unfortunately for you rhetoric and philosophy aren't what it takes to solve this energy crisis.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: K1052
You refuse to deal with current realities instead opting to live in the world of "what if's" and "maybe sometime in the future". The people that actually have to make these decisions don't have that luxury.

This really is the crux of the matter, EVERYONE would love to have cheap, clean solar energy, but the fact of the matter is that there is no such thing. Its stupid how the environmental nuts try to act like anyone who doesn't support their beliefs is like those baddies in Captain Planet who get some perverse joy out of causing oil spills, or polluting our air etc. ITs not like we are choosing nuclear over solar, solar is not even an option. The only options for large scale electricity generation are natural gas, coal, and nuclear. That is IT, there is no other choices out there in the world, this isn't some fill in the blank question, its multiple choice and those are the ONLY choices. Putting "solar" as your answer is just ignoring the question all together. Sitting around with your ears, eyes and mouth covered shouting, "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" isn't going to solve the problem here. Its also kind of sad how the environmentalists like to talk down to engineers like they are somehow better people, but who the hell do you think is designing your solar panels, or your wind farms, or your electric cars? Maybe before you start bitching and moaning about our energy options YOU should go out and design something better. I supported nuclear power and now I am working at a nuclear plant, lets see you do the same and work for a company designing solar panels. Unfortunately for you rhetoric and philosophy aren't what it takes to solve this energy crisis.

The moment I have a financial interest in any energy technology I will announce it so you can disregard anything I say in that industry's favor. I have discovered that the most of human intelligence goes into rationalizing and making logical anything that benefits me.

In the mean time here is an argument, the validity of which you should understand because it's impeccable truth is modeled after your own:

The only option we have for energy are the alternatives to fossil or nuclear. And I love talking down to engineers because of their pin-head arrogance. If only the stupid voters didn't block their plans, we could all be happily up to our asses in nuclear waste.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Just FWIW concerning oil and nuclear, they are not really all that related. Nuclear is only used for electricity, and Oil is not used for electricity anywhere in this country. Nuclear and oil and in completely different parts of the energy sector and neither one really has any possibility to effect the other unless we get electric cars, or maybe if oil prices are cut to 1/5 what they are today (because thats how much more expensive it is than coal and nuclear).

According to the Department of Energy, 7% of our electricity comes from petroleum.

Then there is also oil and kerosene heating that could be replaced by electricity.

There are also backup generators and large portable generators that could be switched from petroleum products to nuclear.

Large ships could use nuclear. Aircraft Carriers and Submarines already use nuclear.

If our country had not stopped building and investing in Nuclear power, the technology would be further advanced that it is now. The cost would be cheaper, and it might have led to us being further along in developing electric cars. Of course admittedly that is speculative.

 

[Moonbeam]

Saving Humanity

 

[Moonbeam]

A claim was made earlier that concentrated solar in the desert wouldn't work because of the lack of water to cool the steam from turbines, but air cooling is all that is needed. There is no great water requirement with solar and no need to heat and destroy lakes and bays etc. Also there is no need to risk contamination of such water with nuclear waste via accident, etc.

 

[frostedflakes]

Do you have any links to confirm this? The impression I got earlier when I was reading about it on Google is that any turbine of a decent size would require water cooling to condense the steam.

But then there are probably other alternatives, for example, running the condenser through the ground to dissipate the heat. Or maybe it doesn't work very well, or is very damaging to the local ecosystem?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Do you have any links to confirm this? The impression I got earlier when I was reading about it on Google is that any turbine of a decent size would require water cooling to condense the steam.

But then there are probably other alternatives, for example, running the condenser through the ground to dissipate the heat. Or maybe it doesn't work very well, or is very damaging to the local ecosystem?

I had tried to find a link to this fact that was obvious from looking at pictures of solar farms where no water was anywhere to be seen, but the proof came in the last article I linked on saving the earth and why solar and not nuclear is the way to go.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Saving Humanity

Assumes a carbon price, further regulation of the electric industry requiring a higher percentage of renewable energy, tax incentives and breaks for electrical production, a new electrical transmission grid, and loan guarantees.

All that to still not reach price parity or anywhere close to the capacity factor of what nuclear energy can provide.

You've got me sold....

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A claim was made earlier that concentrated solar in the desert wouldn't work because of the lack of water to cool the steam from turbines, but air cooling is all that is needed. There is no great water requirement with solar and no need to heat and destroy lakes and bays etc. Also there is no need to risk contamination of such water with nuclear waste via accident, etc.

air cooling in 100 + temperatures and hardly any wind? Good luck.

The water won't destroy lakes and bays but if you recycle it warm water will destroy aquatic life because the solubility of oxygen decreases as water temperature goes up. This is the problem with nuclear.

Drop the waste argument unless you can provide evidence of wide spread contamination and glow-in-the-dark babies.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Saving Humanity

Assumes a carbon price, further regulation of the electric industry requiring a higher percentage of renewable energy, tax incentives and breaks for electrical production, a new electrical transmission grid, and loan guarantees.

All that to still not reach price parity or anywhere close to the capacity factor of what nuclear energy can provide.

You've got me sold....

Assumes 70 billion in gov subsidies to nuclear vs 10 billion to renewables. Lets see how we do with 60 billion in research. You are talking about prices of a new technology that hasn't yet begun to see economies of scale and modularization and even so it is being built all over the world.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Saving Humanity

Assumes a carbon price, further regulation of the electric industry requiring a higher percentage of renewable energy, tax incentives and breaks for electrical production, a new electrical transmission grid, and loan guarantees.

All that to still not reach price parity or anywhere close to the capacity factor of what nuclear energy can provide.

You've got me sold....

Assumes 70 billion in gov subsidies to nuclear vs 10 billion to renewables. Lets see how we do with 60 billion in research. You are talking about prices of a new technology that hasn't yet begun to see economies of scale and modularization and even so it is being built all over the world.

From 1948 to today, nuclear energy R&D exceeded $70 billion,

Fair enough, in 60 years and $70B later we might have cost effective solar energy.

That still leaves us the tiny problem of what to do TODAY.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A claim was made earlier that concentrated solar in the desert wouldn't work because of the lack of water to cool the steam from turbines, but air cooling is all that is needed. There is no great water requirement with solar and no need to heat and destroy lakes and bays etc. Also there is no need to risk contamination of such water with nuclear waste via accident, etc.

air cooling in 100 + temperatures and hardly any wind? Good luck.

The water won't destroy lakes and bays but if you recycle it warm water will destroy aquatic life because the solubility of oxygen decreases as water temperature goes up. This is the problem with nuclear.

Drop the waste argument unless you can provide evidence of wide spread contamination and glow-in-the-dark babies.

No luck is required, people that actually know something have already built huge facilities and are building even bigger ones. I linked to photos that show solar farms with no water cooling. You say they won't work but they do. Your imagination is better than reality. Kind of like being clinically insane.

And of course the waste issue has nothing to do with babies that glow in the dark. The problem of waste is a world wide problem that has never been solved. It is a political solution and nobody wants it anywhere near them. This is another reality your delusions just can't change.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

nice straw man. show me solar thermal farms with no water cooling in the desert that drive turbines.

 

[frostedflakes]

My bad, I checked the article earlier, but I hadn't noticed that it had a second page.

However, just because the condensers can be air-cooled doesn't mean it's practical. Water-cooling probably significantly increases efficiency of the turbines, and it may be necessary for working fluids like oil or molten salt that don't transfer heat as easily as water. The study below mentions on page 13 that CSP has similar water requirements to coal plants.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/us/...SP_Potential200309.pdf

EDIT: Check pages 12 and 13 of the PowerPoint below, it has a graph of output vs. temperature for both wet cooling and dry cooling. As expected, efficiency of dry cooling is decreased significantly as ambient temperature increases. Other links suggest that water is used for various other tasks (such as washing mirrors), but these are relatively small compared to what's needed if the plant is designed to water-cool the condensers.

http://www.nswep.org/docs/unlv_8-7-06_csp_v8-06.ppt

 

[Moonbeam]

Here we heat hydrogen gas

 

[BladeVenom]

What happens if you become dependent on solar power and get a week or two of cloudy weather?

 

[Moonbeam]

A myth about solar is that it doesn't work in cloudy weather

But you can look up how many days of sun there are in different deserts.

Nuclear also has to come off line for maintainence.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A myth about solar is that it doesn't work in cloudy weather

But you can look up how many days of sun there are in different deserts.

Nuclear also has to come off line for maintainence.

Everything has to come off line for maintenance at some point. That said our nuclear plants have been operating at an overall capacity factor of over 91% for the last year.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A myth about solar is that it doesn't work in cloudy weather

But you can look up how many days of sun there are in different deserts.

Nuclear also has to come off line for maintainence.

Everything has to come off line for maintenance at some point. That said our nuclear plants have been operating at an overall capacity factor of over 91% for the last year.

365-14/365=96% A solar farm is modular with many discrete units connected together. You don't have to bring the whole farm down to do maintenance.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A myth about solar is that it doesn't work in cloudy weather

But you can look up how many days of sun there are in different deserts.

Nuclear also has to come off line for maintainence.

Everything has to come off line for maintenance at some point. That said our nuclear plants have been operating at an overall capacity factor of over 91% for the last year.

365-14/365=96% A solar farm is modular with many discrete units connected together. You don't have to bring the whole farm down to do maintenance.

uh, what about at night...

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A myth about solar is that it doesn't work in cloudy weather

But you can look up how many days of sun there are in different deserts.

Nuclear also has to come off line for maintainence.

Everything has to come off line for maintenance at some point. That said our nuclear plants have been operating at an overall capacity factor of over 91% for the last year.

365-14/365=96% A solar farm is modular with many discrete units connected together. You don't have to bring the whole farm down to do maintenance.

uh, what about at night...

Exactly. He will suggest a heat storage system (molten salt probably) but the plant still won't be producing at it's nameplate power rating. There is no way it will achieve a 96% capacity factor.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
My bad, I checked the article earlier, but I hadn't noticed that it had a second page.

However, just because the condensers can be air-cooled doesn't mean it's practical. Water-cooling probably significantly increases efficiency of the turbines, and it may be necessary for working fluids like oil or molten salt that don't transfer heat as easily as water. The study below mentions on page 13 that CSP has similar water requirements to coal plants.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/us/...SP_Potential200309.pdf

EDIT: Check pages 12 and 13 of the PowerPoint below, it has a graph of output vs. temperature for both wet cooling and dry cooling. As expected, efficiency of dry cooling is decreased significantly as ambient temperature increases. Other links suggest that water is used for various other tasks (such as washing mirrors), but these are relatively small compared to what's needed if the plant is designed to water-cool the condensers.

http://www.nswep.org/docs/unlv_8-7-06_csp_v8-06.ppt

Leave Moonbeam to his own physics. The cartoon he lives in does not obey conventional laws. Moonbeam knows that we can reduce energy demand and cool solar-thermal plants if we hire storks to deliver buckets of water instead of babies. Of course we would then need to deal with rampant unemployment of soccer moms.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A myth about solar is that it doesn't work in cloudy weather

But you can look up how many days of sun there are in different deserts.

Nuclear also has to come off line for maintainence.

Everything has to come off line for maintenance at some point. That said our nuclear plants have been operating at an overall capacity factor of over 91% for the last year.

365-14/365=96% A solar farm is modular with many discrete units connected together. You don't have to bring the whole farm down to do maintenance.

uh, what about at night...

Exactly. He will suggest a heat storage system (molten salt probably) but the plant still won't be producing at it's nameplate power rating. There is no way it will achieve a 96% capacity factor.

There is also no way that I implied any solar systems wouod have 96% up time. I simply did the math for two weeks of clouds as if clouds totally shut down solar.

We have already been over solar for generation of electricity at night. Heat is a tremendously efficient way to store power. There's as much energy in your thermos of coffee as in your laptop battery, but the thermos is cheep.

Wind blows at night. New battery technologies are being developed, capacitance batteries built via nanotech, and here is something new that offers great potential.