BajaNomad - split thead--nukes in Mexico

split thead--nukes in Mexico

jerry - 7-24-2007 at 08:29 PM

im sorry oldhippie but i just wont live my life not trusting anyone besides with that attatude why would anyone trust you???
baja just need a nuclear power plant and there would be plenty of power to run desal plant and everything else effecently the whole world except the stupid gringos are using them

split thead--nukes in Mexico

oldhippie - 7-25-2007 at 08:51 AM

Jerry, I probably should have said there's no one you can trust when it comes to money. And I'm not asking for you to trust me. Sure, I express opinions but I also try to back up what I say that are not opinions with links to supporting material.

It is my opinion that the proposed developments are too large when considering the water supply and the very fragile nature of this bone dry area. In addition, the national marine park directly off shore ( http://www.loreto.com/marinepark/) cannot withstand the usual solution to pollution from sewer and storm runoff systems. The usual solution being "the solution to pollution is dilution". San Diego has been in violation of the clean water act forever, but because the outfall is rather far offshore in a deep trench, the dilution solution works. It won't work in the Sea of Cortez.

It is also my opinion that if the Loreto Bay developers were as environmentally conscious as they claim to be, they wouldn't be doing what they are doing. Their greenwashing is an obvious marketing ploy. I really resent that. Ten years ago developers characterized environmentalists as tree hugging wackos. Now that the wackos are looking to retire and the IRAs/401Ks are freeing up, they have found religion. BS.

I agree with the nuclear plant idea. Their time is coming.

split thead--nukes in Mexico

elizabeth - 7-25-2007 at 10:30 AM

Gee, Jerry and oldhippie, nuclear power plants are a great idea in earthquake prone areas...

split thead--nukes in Mexico

jerry - 7-25-2007 at 11:12 AM

elizabeth check it out all most all of the world is supplyed with
power from nukes its safe clean effective effecent with that cheep power a hydrogen engine powered car would be fieasable and effecent
i dont think that earthquakes are part of the problem there built for a hole lot of shakin going on and still being safe
in the history of nukes world wide very few people have been injured or killed compared to any other type of power
people are usally scared of things they dont understand and or cant see
equating a nuke bomb with a power plant is apples and limons

if earthquakes has anything to do with it there shouldnt be any building in most of cali

split thead--nukes in Mexico

oxxo - 7-25-2007 at 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by elizabeth
nuclear power plants are a great idea in earthquake prone areas...

They do it all the time in California. :lol:

split thead--nukes in Mexico

oldhippie - 7-25-2007 at 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo

Quote:

Originally posted by elizabeth
nuclear power plants are a great idea in earthquake prone areas...

They do it all the time in California. :lol:

If there is anything that can withstand an earthquake it's a reactor. And they don't build them ON fault lines. Their numbers will be increasing. But I don't want to get into a nuclear debate.

Now, Loreto Bay mud (oh, excuse me, adobe) houses will probably disintegrate at the slightest rumble. Is there any rebar in those things?

[Edited on 7-25-2007 by oldhippie]

split thead--nukes in Mexico

oldhippie - 7-25-2007 at 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jerry
elizabeth check it out all most all of the world is supplyed with
power from nukes its safe clean effective effecent with that cheep power a hydrogen engine powered car would be fieasable and effecent
i dont think that earthquakes are part of the problem there built for a hole lot of shakin going on and still being safe
in the history of nukes world wide very few people have been injured or killed compared to any other type of power
people are usally scared of things they dont understand and or cant see
equating a nuke bomb with a power plant is apples and limons

if earthquakes has anything to do with it there shouldnt be any building in most of cali

Absolutely!

split thead--nukes in Mexico

comitan - 7-25-2007 at 12:51 PM

Is this the type of Nuclear power plant your talking safe about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/asia/25japan.html?re...

split thead--nukes in Mexico

oldhippie - 7-25-2007 at 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by comitan
Is this the type of Nuclear power plant your talking safe about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/asia/25japan.html?re...

yep, exactly! Seven reactors near the epicenter of a 6.8 quake and:

"Nuclear experts applaud the fact that all four of the Kashiwazaki plant’s seven reactors that were operating when the earthquake struck were safely shut down, despite the unexpected strength of the tremors. "

Now, you probably don't believe the nuclear experts. So who do you believe?

If there were an oil refinery there the whole friggin' thing probably would have exploded.

I'm not going to argue the merits of nuclear power here, nor anywhere unless the participants have some credentials in the area. Both of my degrees are in physics and the master's work specialized in nuclear power, specifically as it pertains to the environment.

split thead--nukes in Mexico

comitan - 7-25-2007 at 02:47 PM

Oldhippie

I'm not against nuclear power plants I was just bringing this up since some people were saying they were safe.

split thead--nukes in Mexico

Russ - 7-25-2007 at 03:15 PM

I am absolutely in favor of nuke power However the waste scares the living crap out of me. So If the waste could be cleaned I'd say go for it.
How about Salt Water for fuel? http://youtube.com/watch?v=BtmK3hwYO6U&mode=related&...

split thead--nukes in Mexico

Sharksbaja - 7-25-2007 at 03:24 PM

I also support intelligently designed and operated nuke plants.

split thead--nukes in Mexico

oldhippie - 7-25-2007 at 03:36 PM

Sharks, you're right on with estuaries being the environmental keystone. What do you think about the Loreto Bay development and its effects on local estuaries?

OK, one more nuke factoid: there are applications for 28 new power reactors under consideration now.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-file...

[Edited on 7-25-2007 by oldhippie]

split thead--nukes in Mexico

oldhippie - 7-25-2007 at 03:57 PM

I can't help myself. Reactors typically and dependably produce a kilomegawatt or so.

1,000,000,000 - looks like a billion watts.

A wind turbine produces roughly 20,000 watts (assuming there's the normal amount of wind).

http://www.awea.org/faq/basicen.html

So one reactor = 50,000 wind mills. Man-oh-man, imagine that, whirlygig heaven.

split thead--nukes in Mexico

Kencito - 7-25-2007 at 04:01 PM

Old Hippie,
Since you are so well schooled on nukes maybe you could help figure out where we are going to put the radioactive wastes. Right now they are being "stored" on site at the nuke plants.
Next we could use your help in keeping Iran from developing nuclear power since the uranium enrichment process (which can ultimately produce bomb grade material) is what's scaring the hell out of lot of folks lately.
The LA times just ran an editorial(no Nukes) explaining some of the key draw backs. Check it out. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-nuclear23jul23,0,3...
I've got faith that our best minds can invent a safer and cheaper way of boiling water to make steam.
On second thought forget about working on the nuke issue and stay on Loreto Bay's case. Your insights there are much appreciated.

split thead--nukes in Mexico

oldhippie - 7-25-2007 at 04:20 PM

Kencito,

Thanks for the link, an excellent article except for the conclusion "Tax dollars are better spent on windmills than on cooling towers."

I could debate this author, but not here. There are solutions to the issues he's raised, he's just not aware of them.

split thead--nukes in Mexico

Dave - 7-25-2007 at 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jerry
baja just need a nuclear power plant and there would be plenty of power to run desal plant and everything else effecently the whole world except the stupid gringos are using them

A nuclear power plant... in Mexico?

Out of curiosity, just how many Mexican electricians do you know who understand the concept of a grounded circuit?

split thead--nukes in Mexico

edinnopolo - 7-25-2007 at 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

A nuclear power plant... in Mexico?

Out of curiosity, just how many Mexican electricians do you know who understand the concept of a grounded circuit?

Don't forget they know how to plumb :?:

split thead--nukes in Mexico

oldhippie - 7-25-2007 at 08:39 PM

Larry, I'd like to answer your questions but I'm not going to go into it here.

This thread is about the development of Loreto Bay.

However you all might be surprised by the number of reactors around the world. Mexico has two.

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

jerry - 7-25-2007 at 10:14 PM

ed-- both of them in loreto lol

Al G - 7-25-2007 at 10:38 PM

The disposal question needs to be answered...and I have for sometime believed it would be possible to use the cheap power to manufacture nitrogen as a cheap fuel to send the waste to a depository on the back side of the sun....or maybe someone else's sun. Maybe a transport tax on the cheap power? I don't know...just what is rattling around up there now.

Mango - 7-25-2007 at 11:09 PM

While I have no inherent problem with Nuclear power in theroy; but, the disposal issue in reality is a huge problem.

The quake in Japan worries me too. Mistakes do and have happened with every human creation. Sure, the Titanic was a very safe boat; but, I'd rather have a shattered solar panel than a meltdown.

In my opinion, we should work on improving the efficiency of the powered devices we use. I also think a de-centralized power grid would be more redundant in the event of a terrorist attack or large scale natural disaster.

What would be easier for a terrorist to attack? A few mega-power plants or millions of passive solar houses with solar power running ultra-efficient appliances?

Solar produced hydrogen is the future. If you don't have any sun where you live I'm sure somebody will be willing to transport some hydrogen to you in ship or truck that is powered by hydrogen.

:light:

WOW

Dave - 7-25-2007 at 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie
However you all might be surprised by the number of reactors around the world. Mexico has two.

I'm both impressed...and nervous. :rolleyes:

Nuclear waste disposal

oldhippie - 7-26-2007 at 07:15 AM

This is a huge topic and I'd have to do a lot of reading and writing to even attempt to inform the nomads. If you're interested in the topic, I recommend you start at the Environmental Protection Agency. After that, do a Google search on nuclear waste disposal. There's tons of information.

One thing you don't want to do is read a single editorial opinion in a Sunday newspaper and assume the writer knows what he's talking about.

I will say this though, highly radioactive nuclei reach stability quickly, a result of being highly radioactive. Radioactive nuclei that have half-lives of 1000s of years are barely radioactive; that is, almost stable, much less dangerous, and easily handled.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/radwaste/index.html

Pescador - 7-26-2007 at 07:22 AM

I am not smart enough to scientifically figure out whether or not nuclear power is safe or not, and the scientists who should be figuring out this stuff are usually so predisposed to either be flaming liberals or given to radical ideology that I find it hard to trust or agree with their flawed reasoning, but, I do know that to continue to use coal, fuel oil, and diesel to generate electricity verges on the edge of stupidity.

As an aside note, I talked to several geologists who were working on exploration of the Geothermal Electic Plant between Santa Rosalia and Vizcaino, and they claim that there is enough geothermal power to easily provide all of the power needed for the whole baja by simply drilling a few new holes and setting up the generators. Of course the distribution lines would present some challenge but it seems less expensive than building new plants.

Don Alley - 7-26-2007 at 07:22 AM

Building nuclear reactors assumes that the builders will maintain (or improve) their social, political and economic position, for a LONG time, perhaps thousands of years.

We make certain tradeoffs of safety and security for electricity the plants will produce. Should economies falter as plants age, perhaps we will take more risks, defering maintenance or pushing plants beyond their designed lifetimes. Well, we'll see.

I don't see any nuke plants coming soon to BCS, though.

I always thought they should be built in highly populated areas, so that if they do mess up, at least they take a lot of the demand for electricity with them so there will be no problem with replacement costs. :biggrin:

oldhippie - 7-26-2007 at 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mango
While I have no inherent problem with Nuclear power in theroy; but, the disposal issue in reality is a huge problem.

The quake in Japan worries me too. Mistakes do and have happened with every human creation. Sure, the Titanic was a very safe boat; but, I'd rather have a shattered solar panel than a meltdown.

In my opinion, we should work on improving the efficiency of the powered devices we use. I also think a de-centralized power grid would be more redundant in the event of a terrorist attack or large scale natural disaster.

What would be easier for a terrorist to attack? A few mega-power plants or millions of passive solar houses with solar power running ultra-efficient appliances?

Solar produced hydrogen is the future. If you don't have any sun where you live I'm sure somebody will be willing to transport some hydrogen to you in ship or truck that is powered by hydrogen.

:light:

Everything you say is true except the implication that solar power should be used instead of other sources ("I'd rather have a shattered solar panel than a meltdown").

The energy density needed to run manufacturing facilities and large data centers such as Wall Street isn't there with solar panels. But go ahead, buy a solar system and light up your patio at night.

All sources of energy should be made available and the different technologies applied appropriately.

It's not an either/or situation.

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by oldhippie]

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by oldhippie]

Mexitron - 7-26-2007 at 07:30 AM

Nuclear waste takes up little land area for the amount of energy it produces(or in the case of Yucca Mountain--no land space). I would imagine that in a hundred years aor so our understanding of physics would be such that we can figure out how to deal with it...or perhaps burn it up in fusion reactors(old hippie--is that possible? Someone mentioned that in an article a while back and I couldn't figure out if it was possible or not).

Fusion would be nice but we're still a couple decades away, at present rate of funding.

I've always worried about Mexico putting a nuke on the Central Baja coast--not because I don't think they can handle it but because it is precisely the answer for getting water and jugo for new development. Unless of course that salt water radio wave thing works... :wow:

oldhippie - 7-26-2007 at 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mexitron
Nuclear waste takes up little land area for the amount of energy it produces(or in the case of Yucca Mountain--no land space). I would imagine that in a hundred years aor so our understanding of physics would be such that we can figure out how to deal with it...or perhaps burn it up in fusion reactors(old hippie--is that possible? Someone mentioned that in an article a while back and I couldn't figure out if it was possible or not).

Fusion would be nice but we're still a couple decades away, at present rate of funding.

I've always worried about Mexico putting a nuke on the Central Baja coast--not because I don't think they can handle it but because it is precisely the answer for getting water and jugo for new development. Unless of course that salt water radio wave thing works... :wow:

All true.

"or perhaps burn it up in fusion reactors(old hippie--is that possible?"

The transmutation (changing proton/neutron numbers) of the bad stuff to something safe is the holy grail. But, alchemists have been around a long time (Newton was one). Today's alchemists make safe things radioactive. It hasn't gone the other way yet. Want a Nobel Prize? Get to work.

"I've always worried about Mexico putting a nuke on the Central Baja coast"

In the vicinity of the new cargo shipping facility at Colonet would be a perfect spot. A money maker for sure, close enough to connect to the US distribution grid.

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by oldhippie]

CaboRon - 7-26-2007 at 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie

Quote:

Originally posted by Mango

In my opinion, we should work on improving the efficiency of the powered devices we use. I also think a de-centralized power grid would be more redundant

:light:

All sources of energy should be made available and the different technologies applied appropriately.

Mango, I have always felt that the path to rely entirely on the "grid" was a mistake. So I'm in agreement with the concept of small nuclear or hydrogen power sources to supply high density manufacturing or population centers ..... however most homes would rely , as Oldhippie suggested, on a combination of power cells, solar, and photovoltaic .......
Of course, the disposal issue remains the Achellies Heal of nuclear generation .... an issue that could have truly dark implications for our living planet "Gaia" .
CaboRon

oldhippie - 7-26-2007 at 08:44 AM

CaboRon,

"truly dark implications for our living planet "Gaia"

Let's try ot keep hyperbole out of this (that will be tough for me too).

"truly dark implications" ???

CaboRon - 7-26-2007 at 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie
CaboRon,

"truly dark implications for our living planet "Gaia"

Let's try ot keep hyperbole out of this (that will be tough for me too).

"truly dark implications" ???

I may have read "Lord of the Rings" one too many times, however I do feel the decisions made now will affect generations to come. CaboRon

jerry - 7-26-2007 at 09:12 AM

old hippie isnt it true that the spent fuel rods materal can be reinritched and reused leaving only a small amount of waist to deal with?

oldhippie - 7-26-2007 at 09:47 AM

The reprocessing of spent fuel rods is a nasty business. I worked for the DOE Environmental Laboratory at what was then the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (reactor experiments) and the reprocessing plant there had a smokestack a mile high.

Why, because all sorts of radioactive particles and gases were coming out of it. The unusal height was due to the old solution to pollution is dilution method.

They even had pickup trucks with geiger tubes on a boom in the front close to the roadway looking for hotspots. The reason the place is so huge is because EPA regs for environmental contamination were enforced only outside the facility.

It's true that there is unused fissile material in spent rods, even small amounts plutonium I think.

I don't think reprocessing plants should be built. Highly radioactive transuranic chemistry is messy and dangerous. Just start with uranium ore for fuel fabrication.

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by oldhippie]

Mexitron - 7-26-2007 at 10:20 AM

The old/new "Pebble Plant" design does away with the control rods entirely and makes meltdowns an impossibility...South Africa is building a prototype of this plant that was designed some time ago, I think in Germany. They are also designing the power plants to use the vast amount of unused but not quite warm enough cooling water to aid in co-generating power for hydrolysis.

bacquito - 7-26-2007 at 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by comitan
Oldhippie

I'm not against nuclear power plants I was just bringing this up since some people were saying they were safe.

Nothing is safe-oilrigs, refineries, ships carring fuel explode causing death and pollution. Our dependency on foreign fuel causes us alot of grief and affects our politics and our economy.

We should have been developing nuclear power plants sometime ago. Hopefully we can catch up.

Nuts about Nukes

MrBillM - 7-26-2007 at 10:47 AM

Nuclear Power Generation IS the most rational course for the U.S. to follow. In second place would be Advanced Coal-Fired systems.

I'm not too sure about Mexico. I once joked that the only thing scarier than Iran having Nuclear Weapons would be if Mexico did. The theft years ago of used Radioactive device by a technician in Baja comes to mind among other things.

Political Fear-Mongering has been the sole reason that the U.S. hasn't built more Nuclear Power Stations.

The United States Navy is proof that we can safely operate Nuclear Reactors. They are also proof that a tightly-regulated and monitored system is a necessity. Reading "The Warning" which discussed the failure of the Three Mile Island reactor, it is pointed out that the American "Ideal" of a free-market system contributed greatly to the accident. Competing manufacturers building dissimilar equipment control and safety systems, along with operator error, doomed that facility. Even so, the aftereffects of the failure were minimal considering the potential disaster.

Waste disposal is the one valid point of contention, however, none of the current methods have been a problem and our progressive research for more advanced methods make it likely that the disposal problem will be resolved.

Mexitron - 7-26-2007 at 11:51 AM

Yes, coal too, if they can work out the bugs(scrubbing it enough to satisfy pollution standards--they tried to build 11 new plants here in Texas but they got shot down in part because the claims of "clean coal power" were dubious)...here's a press release from 2003 on an interesting design:

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2003/tl_futuregen...

The government will ask the industrial consortium to design a plant that will turn coal into a hydrogen-rich gas, rather than burning it directly. The hydrogen could then be combusted in a turbine or used in a fuel cell to produce clean electricity, or it could be fed to a refinery to help upgrade petroleum products. In the future, the plant could become a model hydrogen-production facility for President Bush's initiative to develop a new fleet of hydrogen-powered cars and trucks. Common air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides would be cleaned from the coal gases and converted to useable byproducts such as fertilizers and soil enhancers. Mercury pollutants would also be removed. Carbon dioxide would be captured and sequestered in deep underground geologic formations.Carbon sequestration will be one of the primary features that will set the prototype plant apart from other electric power projects. Engineers will design into the plant advanced capabilities to capture the carbon dioxide in a form that can be sequestered. No other plant in the world has been built with this capability. The initial goal will be to capture at least 90 percent of the plant's carbon dioxide, but with advanced technologies, it may be possible to achieve nearly 100 percent capture. Once captured, the carbon dioxide will be injected deep underground, perhaps into the brackish reservoirs that lie thousands of feet below the surface of much of the United States, or potentially into oil or gas reservoirs, or into unmineable coal seams or basalt formations. Once entrapped in these formations, the greenhouse gas would be permanently isolated from the atmosphere. The plant would be sized to generate approximately 275 megawatts of electricity, roughly equivalent to an average mid-size coal-fired power plant. Finally, the department said, the prototype plant would be a stepping stone toward a future coal-fired power plant that not only would be emission-free but would operate at unprecedented fuel efficiencies. Technologies that could be future candidates for testing at the prototype plant could push electric power generating efficiencies to 60 percent or more – nearly double the efficiencies of today's conventional coal-burning plants.Coal is the workhorse of the United States' electric power sector, supplying more than half the electricity the nation consumes. It is also the most abundant fossil fuel in the United States with supplies projected to last 250 years or more. The ultimate goal for the prototype plant, the Energy Department said, is to show how new technology can eliminate environmental concerns over the future use of coal and allow the nation to tap the full potential of its massive coal deposits.

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by Mexitron]

Mango - 7-27-2007 at 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie

Quote:

I agree with you. Solar is not the only answer. As I mentioned in my previous post, solar power can be used to create hydrogen. We could use hydrogen powered generators for the more energy intensive tasks such as factories, mining, and running computer databases.

There has been much progress in producing hydrogen via solar power. That is where I believe we would be best to invest our time and money.

Oh, yeah...

neilmac - 7-27-2007 at 08:45 AM

The big one in Japan just did really well..... they don't know when it'll start up again, or how much radioactive material was released... and that was from a 6.8 quake.

Neil

Oh, and just beacause they do something in Cal, doesn't mean it makes sense.

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo

Quote:

Originally posted by elizabeth
nuclear power plants are a great idea in earthquake prone areas...

They do it all the time in California. :lol:

Solar Alternative

MrBillM - 7-27-2007 at 09:06 AM

Coincidentally, there was a Discovery Channel program earlier this week regarding power generation options.

According to their numbers, To duplicate the Daily output of the typical Nuclear Power Station under consideration would require a Solar Array covering 58 Square Miles. A Wind farm takes up less space at over 20 Square Miles. Those alternatives are assuming prime location for either Solar or Wind.

oldhippie - 7-27-2007 at 09:14 AM

My knowledge of a hydrogen based economy doesn't go much further than the Hindenberg "Oh, the humanity of it all" or something like that. Dangerous stuff. But, it appears that obtaining hydrogen will be largely done by starting with those dang fossil fuels.

Here's a concise study of the various techniques. You may want to read the Conclusion chapter first.

http://www.mpr.com/pubs/hydroprod.pdf

The first and most benign thing to do is stop wasting so much energy. Like flying to your new house in Loreto Bay to drink tequila and take photos to impress your friends back home.

Renewables vs. Nuclear

oldhippie - 7-27-2007 at 09:28 AM

Here's a debate between:

A nuclear physicist at Oxford University who has been active in the field since 1948.

and

The director of the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology, Imperial College, London, former chief economist to the Royal Dutch Shell Group and former economist and energy adviser to the World Bank.

Do we need nuclear power?

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/14/6/2

oldhippie - 7-27-2007 at 09:46 AM

Mexitron

I had to put paragraph breaks in what you posted. That author must have had 20 concepts all wrapped into one paragraph. Why do people do that?

The government will ask the industrial consortium to design a plant that will turn coal into a hydrogen-rich gas, rather than burning it directly. The hydrogen could then be combusted in a turbine or used in a fuel cell to produce clean electricity, or it could be fed to a refinery to help upgrade petroleum products. In the future, the plant could become a model hydrogen-production facility for President Bush's initiative to develop a new fleet of hydrogen-powered cars and trucks.

Common air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides would be cleaned from the coal gases and converted to useable byproducts such as fertilizers and soil enhancers. Mercury pollutants would also be removed. Carbon dioxide would be captured and sequestered in deep underground geologic formations.Carbon sequestration will be one of the primary features that will set the prototype plant apart from other electric power projects.

Engineers will design into the plant advanced capabilities to capture the carbon dioxide in a form that can be sequestered. No other plant in the world has been built with this capability. The initial goal will be to capture at least 90 percent of the plant's carbon dioxide, but with advanced technologies, it may be possible to achieve nearly 100 percent capture.

Once captured, the carbon dioxide will be injected deep underground, perhaps into the brackish reservoirs that lie thousands of feet below the surface of much of the United States, or potentially into oil or gas reservoirs, or into unmineable coal seams or basalt formations. Once entrapped in these formations, the greenhouse gas would be permanently isolated from the atmosphere.

The plant would be sized to generate approximately 275 megawatts of electricity, roughly equivalent to an average mid-size coal-fired power plant. Finally, the department said, the prototype plant would be a stepping stone toward a future coal-fired power plant that not only would be emission-free but would operate at unprecedented fuel efficiencies.

Technologies that could be future candidates for testing at the prototype plant could push electric power generating efficiencies to 60 percent or more – nearly double the efficiencies of today's conventional coal-burning plants.

Coal is the workhorse of the United States' electric power sector, supplying more than half the electricity the nation consumes. It is also the most abundant fossil fuel in the United States with supplies projected to last 250 years or more.

The ultimate goal for the prototype plant, the Energy Department said, is to show how new technology can eliminate environmental concerns over the future use of coal and allow the nation to tap the full potential of its massive coal deposits.

Hydrogen Production

MrBillM - 7-27-2007 at 09:52 AM

It seems that Hydrogen Production for vehicle use would go well along with Nuclear Power Production. The "Cleanest" way to produce Hydrogen is via Electricity but, at present, the cost of that production exceeds its produced value. IF we can produce "Cleaner" Electricity in a cheap manner, we can make Hydrogen production viable.

It IS an explosive Gas, but so is Natural Gas and Propane, both of which are used in Automotive and Marine environments. We already have the capability to design safe containment vessels and failsafe shutoff system for those applications.

Properly managed, ANY Gas can be (relatively) safely used. There will always be accidents, but they can be minimized.

Given the volume of worldwide transportation and usage of explosive gases (LPG and LNG), the accident rates must be in the Hundredths or Thousandths of a percent.

Al G - 7-27-2007 at 10:06 AM

oldhippie...the conclusion chapter was a good read. I will read all tonight, as most of my retirement portfolio is in hydrogen. Coal gasification is the best choice for now. I would think all, down to, but not including, Electrolysis, (Solar) will play a part. Everyone should be aware Solar is not an answer except when no other power is available...oh and in stupid California. Hydrogen production and distribution is the main reason it will take another 2-3 years for an emergence of a hydrogen economy. The first economical products will be in the electronic field.

Al G - 7-27-2007 at 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
It seems that Hydrogen Production for vehicle use would go well along with Nuclear Power Production. The "Cleanest" way to produce Hydrogen is via Electricity but, at present, the cost of that production exceeds its produced value. IF we can produce "Cleaner" Electricity in a cheap manner, we can make Hydrogen production viable.

It IS an explosive Gas, but so is Natural Gas and Propane, both of which are used in Automotive and Marine environments. We already have the capability to design safe containment vessels and failsafe shutoff system for those applications.
Properly managed, ANY Gas can be (relatively) safely used. There will always be accidents, but they can be minimized.

Given the volume of worldwide transportation and usage of explosive gases (LPG and LNG), the accident rates must be in the Hundredths or Thousandths of a percent.

Well stated MrBill....I would also point out we already have the containers that are in vehicles with 300+ mile ranges.

... oh yeah... that OTHER disaster....

islandmusicteach - 7-27-2007 at 08:39 PM

I enjoyed this fascinating thread... did anyone see this article in Nat. Geographic?

"Today the fiercely radioactive remnants of reactor four continue to smolder beneath the so-called sarcophagus, a decaying concrete-and-steel crypt, hastily built after the accident, that now threatens to collapse. Work is about to get under way on a replacement: an arched structure, the size of a stadium, that will slide over the sarcophagus and seal it off. With its completion the destroyed reactor will be out of sight. But for the region's people it will never be out of mind, as a slow-motion catastrophe continues to unfold."

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0604/feature1/index.htmlhttp://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0604/feature1/index.html

[Edited on 7-28-2007 by islandmusicteach]

Al G - 7-27-2007 at 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by islandmusicteach
I enjoyed this fascinating thread... did anyone see this article in Nat. Geographic?

"Today the fiercely radioactive remnants of reactor four continue to smolder beneath the so-called sarcophagus, a decaying concrete-and-steel crypt, hastily built after the accident, that now threatens to collapse. Work is about to get under way on a replacement: an arched structure, the size of a stadium, that will slide over the sarcophagus and seal it off. With its completion the destroyed reactor will be out of sight. But for the region's people it will never be out of mind, as a slow-motion catastrophe continues to unfold."

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0604/feature1/index.htmlhttp://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0604/feature1/index.html

[Edited on 7-28-2007 by islandmusicteach]

What is this Journalism 101...how to distort the truth???
That said, this was 1986...oooh, I remember, I was running DOS Basic, What do you think the damn Russians had to use???
This is possibly the most irreverent post today....

It is OK you are allowed to catch-up...but you should study technology theory. Has to do with time....

[Edited on 7-28-2007 by Al G]

Mexitron - 7-28-2007 at 05:52 AM

Quote:

What's your point? That shabbily built nuclear reactors can fail? No surprise there...they don't build them like that in the U.S.(despite the stupidity, in hindsight, of building custom reactors for each site, instead of a modular system like France has).

Cypress - 7-28-2007 at 06:03 AM

The National Geographic appears to have a political agenda. Each issue has negative comments etc. about how bad the current administration in the USA is regarding environmental issues.

oldhippie - 7-28-2007 at 08:26 AM

I should post my receipe for my Chernobyl Chili, HOT, HOT, HOT.

That reactor and others like it (graphite moderated) produced electricity as a byproduct. Their main purpose was to irradiate U-238 with fast neutrons to get Pu-239 (the alchemists at work again). Pu-239 makes real nice bombs. Much more bang for the buck!

The Chernobyl reactors didn't have containment structures and the graphite used to moderate the neutrons could (and did) catch fire. Plus they were, obviously, hard to control. All of that lead to the disaster. Sort of the Frankenstein reactor design.

As a graduate student collecting data for my master's thesis I made in-situ gamma spectra measurements in the area of the SL-1 reactor in Idaho. Now that's a wild story. One of the best euphemisms I have ever heard was used to describe what happened. It was a "rapid disassembly incident". In other words, it blew up. It was a steam explosion not an out of control fission chain reaction.

"One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins."

http://www.radiationworks.com/sl1reactor.htm

What you probably won't read anywhere is the story behind it. It was not an accident. The SL-1 reactor was designed by the military to be flown in parts to remote areas, assembled, and then fired up to provide power. They shut it down for the Christmas break and in early January were starting it up again. Two or three guys were doing it and one was attaching the control rods to their drive (raising and lowering) mechanisms. He was standing on top of the reactor vessel, perhaps 15 to 20 feet in diameter, I'm not sure, but it was small as reactors go.

It turns out that one guy was messing around with the other's wife (hubba hubba). The jilted guy on top of the reactor decided it was time to die and get the other guy too. Therefore he manually pulled out the neutron absorbing boron control rod, the reactor went prompt super critical, the water coolant flashed to steam, and KABOOM.

Women sure can cause problems. (that's a joke gals).

Al G - 7-28-2007 at 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lencho

Quote:

Originally posted by Al G
What is this Journalism 101...how to distort the truth???
That said, this was 1986...

I'm confused. Are you saying that National Geographic article (from last year) is a distortion? :?:

--Larry

All media is a distortion to some degree...a human is writing it..right.
We all have agendas right? We will say whatever promotes the spin we need to convey. Some of it is to just make it more interesting.
Most is for a political agenda to get people to see things your way.
With that said...No...I was referring to the person tossing in a 20 year old story from a country notorious for taking risk and building shabby everything. He/she has a antinuclear agenda to promote and as the type of people they are...they attempted to distort with irrelevant data.
Sorry I confuse you...I think I confused myself now.... :biggrin:

Mexitron - 7-28-2007 at 10:56 AM

Great story oldhippie...thanks for all the info above too.

islandmusicteach - 7-28-2007 at 11:31 AM

Al, I posted a link to a National Geographic article that I thought was thought- provoking and contained fantastic photography. That in and of itself is relevant enough to post, and does not indicate my personal "anti-nuclear" agenda.

If suggesting that you actually read something that may provide insight is your idea of "attempting to distort with irrelevant data," than I pity your defensiveness and suggest toning down the self-aggrandizing, ponderous, pontificating comments.

Marko

Al G - 7-28-2007 at 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by islandmusicteach
Al, I posted a link to a National Geographic article that I thought was thought- provoking and contained fantastic photography. That in and of itself is relevant enough to post, and does not indicate my personal "anti-nuclear" agenda.

If suggesting that you actually read something that may provide insight is your idea of "attempting to distort with irrelevant data," than I pity your defensiveness and suggest toning down the self-aggrandizing, ponderous, pontificating comments.

Marko

OK let us hear it...in what way is it relevant...conceding human tragedy.

oldhippie - 7-28-2007 at 12:25 PM

Chernobyl is relevant in that it proves that exceedingly dangerous reactors can be built and unfortunately it's the cheapest way of doing it. There is absolutely nothing to stop a country from building another one.

I know it's probably impossible because of the absurd nationalism that prevails these days, but the entire nuclear fuel cycle including disposal of spent fuel should be under the jurisdiction of an international body of experts, probably within the United Nations.

Someday the collective consciousness will grow from its current adolescence to maturity.

Al G - 7-28-2007 at 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie
Chernobyl is relevant in that it proves that exceedingly dangerous reactors can be built and unfortunately it's the cheapest way of doing it. There is absolutely nothing to stop a country from building another one.

I know it's probably impossible because of the absurd nationalism that prevails these days, but the entire nuclear fuel cycle including disposal of spent fuel should be under the jurisdiction of an international body of experts, probably within the United Nations.

Someday the collective consciousness will grow from its current adolescence to maturity.

I disagree...Chernobyl was a weapons manufacturing plant, operating at the highest risk level possible. This discussion is about nuclear power for Baja. The risk factor is minimal with today technogy...so I see no relevance between the two.

I know it's probably impossible because of the absurd nationalism that prevails these days, but the entire nuclear fuel cycle including disposal of spent fuel should be under the jurisdiction of an international body of experts, probably within the United Nations.
I agree with this

Good choice

Dave - 7-28-2007 at 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie
I know it's probably impossible because of the absurd nationalism that prevails these days, but the entire nuclear fuel cycle including disposal of spent fuel should be under the jurisdiction of an international body of experts, probably within the United Nations.

I particularly love the way they have handled Iran. Leadership at its finest. :rolleyes:

bancoduo - 7-28-2007 at 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

A nuclear power plant... in Mexico?

Out of curiosity, just how many Mexican electricians do you know who understand the concept of a grounded circuit?

Don't any of you wanabe MENSA'S know that there have been NUKEs operating in Mexico for years.

What are your points other than BLAW! BLAW! BLAW! :lol:

oldhippie - 7-28-2007 at 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

I particularly love the way they have handled Iran. Leadership at its finest. :rolleyes:

Off topic. Al G insists we keep on topic. I suppose we could split the thread again and start a UN as it pertains to baja thread. :?:

oldhippie - 7-28-2007 at 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bancoduo

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

A nuclear power plant... in Mexico?

Out of curiosity, just how many Mexican electricians do you know who understand the concept of a grounded circuit?

Don't any of you wanabe MENSA'S know that there have been NUKEs operating in Mexico for years.

What are your points other than BLAW! BLAW! BLAW! :lol:

Your post seems to be the most lacking in making a point.

bancoduo - 7-28-2007 at 01:29 PM

That's the point!

oldhippie - 7-28-2007 at 01:34 PM

duh, OK

enough of this, I'm going to a MENSA meeting today

http://www.pushrodwear.com/

Nuclear Power in Mexico

MrBillM - 7-28-2007 at 04:13 PM

This thread prompted me to browse the info on current Nuclear Power production in Mexico.

One thing stood out as curious. With two nuclear reactors working since 1989 and 1994 accounting for a current production of 4.6 % of their power generation usage, they now have 1000 tons of used nuclear fuel stored at the existing facilities. They intend to put another unit online in 2015 with seven more to follow in 2025 for a production figure of 12 % of their overall use.

What intrigued me is that the report shows that they have only identified a resource of 2000 tons of Uranium not yet mined. Barring the discovery of additional resource, it seems a small amount given that they have already gone through 1000 tons.

The report was dated June 2007.

???

bancoduo - 7-29-2007 at 03:53 PM

Quote:

Out of curiosity, just how many Mexican electricians do you know who understand the concept of a grounded circuit?

John BOBBITT knows. But I'm not sure he is a MEXICAN.

Maybe the SQUARE CIRCLE knows the answer. :spingrin: