| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18429
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  | | It’s a nuke plant that’s why the NIMBY’s wanted to close it down. Nuke is fine but in someone else's state or country please!
|
I would not want it in my back yard. Especially now, when it looks like we are on verge of civil war. Nuke staff will likely abandon their posts when
war starts! Then meltdown!
Other potential melt down causes: mega earthquake, tsunami, mega flood, sabotage, meteor strike, mismanagement by PG&E, trump regaining control
of NRC,… the list of potential meltdown causes is long!
[Edited on 8-14-2022 by mtgoat666]
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666 | | Quote: Originally posted by RFClark | | It’s a nuke plant that’s why the NIMBY’s wanted to close it down. Nuke is fine but in someone else's state or country please!
|
I would not want it in my back yard. Especially now, when it looks like we are on verge of civil war. Nuke staff will likely abandon their posts when
war starts! Then meltdown!
Other potential melt down causes: mega earthquake, tsunami, mega flood, sabotage, meteor strike, mismanagement by PG&E, trump regaining control
of NRC,… the list of potential meltdown causes is long!
[Edited on 8-14-2022 by mtgoat666] |
Let's hope they have the emergency diesel generators up the hill and not beneath ground level, susceptible to flooding, like at ***ushima. THE cause
of the meltdowns. Pure stupidity.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Tidal Waves are probably not a problem
Tidal waves are probably way down the list of dangers.
BTW, the excess heat could be used to generate a lot of fresh water as it does run on steam and uses water to cool it.
Someone asked about total thermal output vs electrical output. The electrical output for thermal steam plants is around 40% of the total output if I
remember correctly. The best solar panels run 30% or less.
[Edited on 8-14-2022 by RFClark]
[Edited on 8-14-2022 by RFClark]
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Goat,
11,000 Ukrainians work at the largest Nuclear Power complex in Europe it’s occupied by Russian troops and in the middle of a real shooting war zone.
Few of them have abandoned their responsibilities.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18429
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
Yep, tidal waves are probably not a threat.
But tsunamis are.
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1676
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RFClark | Tidal waves are probably way down the list of dangers.
BTW, the excess heat could be used to generate a lot of fresh water as it does run on steam and uses water to cool it.
Someone asked about total thermal output vs electrical output. The electrical output for thermal steam plants is around 40% of the total output if I
remember correctly. The best solar panels run 30% or less.
[Edited on 8-14-2022 by RFClark]
[Edited on 8-14-2022 by RFClark] |
Thermal generating plants ran at about 45% in 1981, but the newer combined cycle natural gas turbine plants have exceeded 65%. Cars run at somewhere
around 20% on gasoline. Grid transmission losses have to be factored in, but natural gas is far lower pollution than gasoline, so combined cycle gas
plants powering autos would cut pollution and CO2 significantly when used to power electric vehicles...somewhere around 65-75%. Converting an IC to
natural gas alone saves 35%. The engineering and cradle to grave studies are decades old, but progress is frustratingly slow.
[Edited on 8-14-2022 by JDCanuck]
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1676
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
Lencho: I began my career as a power engineer at a coal fired thermal plant producing over 2 gw of power in the early 1970's. At that time, 55% of the
energy went to atmosphere(mainly to the cooling water in a cooling pond) the rest went to steam and heat in the exhaust gas and some small amount was
lost in mechanical losses in the turbines. I can't comment on the variable grid losses, as we exported all the way to 4 Corners New Mexico and were
tied into a grid that pushed demand to us whenever California demanded excess power.
Note: That coal fired plant is converted to cleaner nat gas now, and the smaller surrounding ones were shut down and replaced by wind power by the
same utility in the 1990's.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
SF&H,
Electric and Hybrid cars use regenerative braking which is about 50% efficient as a system. Conventional cars use friction braking which outputs heat.
Thermal solar energy systems like the solar mirror steam plants on the way to Vegas release more heat into the atmosphere than the desert underneath
them did but far less thermal energy than a conventional thermal power plant of the same size.
PV systems are more complicated especially if they store energy that is used after dark. Bare ground radiates heat into space at night as do trees and
structures. So there are a lot of variables for pv systems including their manufacturing carbon footprint.
[Edited on 8-15-2022 by RFClark]
|
|
|
AKgringo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6035
Registered: 9-20-2014
Location: Anchorage, AK (no mas!)
Member Is Online
Mood: Retireded
|
|
Back to de-salination...
The neighbor across the street from me here in Nevada County has a long history of being the superintendent on major construction projects. He just
wrapped up the one he has been running for the last year and a half, and now they want to send him to a new de-sal plan near Antioch.
Reduced flows from the San Joaquin River drainage, and increased draws from the river have resulted in salt water incursion to the existing water
treatment plant.
If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!
"Could do better if he tried!" Report card comments from most of my grade school teachers. Sadly, still true!
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Yes, a common problem. Ask him how many miles of pipe he needs to get rid of the brine generated! It could be a few. Beaumont has a brine discharge
line that runs down to Redlands!
|
|
|
AKgringo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6035
Registered: 9-20-2014
Location: Anchorage, AK (no mas!)
Member Is Online
Mood: Retireded
|
|
I will be surprised if he takes the job. It is about a 2 1/2 hour drive (one way) and I get the impression that he is past the point in his career
that he needs to commute that far.
If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!
"Could do better if he tried!" Report card comments from most of my grade school teachers. Sadly, still true!
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1676
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
RFClark: I did an informal survey of neighbours and they get an average of 3 1/2 gal per day per 1 ton AC unit of collected distilled water. Thats a
lot of water to be discarding when it's essentially a free byproduct. If you have not gone past the point of running discharges already, you might
want to collect it to a common point for recovery. We are too far gone to do that easily, but can get about 2/3 of present discharges recovered.
Collection tank about 20-30 gal buried and used as RO source with excess levels pumped to Cisterna would be ideal I think. Comments?
[Edited on 8-16-2022 by JDCanuck]
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
What ever happened to the nice new desal plant they built in BOLA 40 years ago. It worked wonderful
What about small nuc plants instead of monstrous eyesores? Less direct foot print, less danger. easy to place where needed
Think of all the nuc Navy boats and what powers all those shiny objects going overhead all night long!
Hate to say it but Texas proved what I've said for years-
Sometimes the wind don't blow at night!
The grid doesn't store electricity
without dino juice or nuc we go dark
There is no shortage of fresh water on earth there is only a distribution system problem
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1676
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by lencho | | Quote: Originally posted by RFClark | | ...keeping the plant open would help fight climate change because Diablo doesn’t produce planet-warming pollution. |
Huh? Doesn't a two gigawatt power plant pump two additional gigawatts of thermal energy into the biosphere no matter WHAT the fuel source?
When discussing global warming, I can't figure why that point is not included as part of the conversation; photovoltaic, wind, or hydro power are
simply moving incoming solar energy around, while combustion and nuke plants actually pump additional heat into the system.
|
2GW at 65% efficiency will release mainly heat of 0.7 GW at source, useful work at the delivery end of something under 1.3 GW, the rest will be in
transmission losses. Or, you can ignore the available stored energy and let it release it over a far longer period naturally. Fuels left to decay
naturally will eventually release that energy, why not use it practically?
Best example is a decaying tree. It will release Methane, CO2 and other gasses along with heat over it's decay period, eventually becoming ash in a
natural cycle. People forget fuels will not remain stable but are in constant decay, using them instead just speeds up the process.
Or, you can cut down that tree while the energy required to produce it is stored, encase it in a building and stop the energy release cycle
altogether.
[Edited on 8-23-2022 by JDCanuck]
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1676
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
The problem with Nuclear is what to do with all that enriched plutonium that isn't used up to generate electricity. Over 20,000 years later U239 will
be 1/2 as radioactive as when it's stored. We have yet to come up with a reliable storage method that will contain it until it has lost it's
radioactivity. Best solution yet is to launch it into the sun in space ships.
Then there's the risk of meltdowns', and we have come very close on several occasions, not to mention the accidental releases like Chernobyl and a
multitude of smaller ones we were never told of.
I think there will be a far better solution in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium
[Edited on 8-23-2022 by JDCanuck]
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
JD,
The overall thermal efficiency of the best hydrocarbon fueled generating plants in the real world is 40%. Nuke plants run around 33% but they don’t
emit CO2! Were either type of plant to use the waste heat to distill water the efficiency would be higher!
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1676
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RFClark | JD,
The overall thermal efficiency of the best hydrocarbon fueled generating plants in the real world is 40%. Nuke plants run around 33% but they don’t
emit CO2! Were either type of plant to use the waste heat to distill water the efficiency would be higher! |
RFClark: You haven't looked into the Natural gas combined cycle plants presently being pushed out at 65% efficiency, with carbon capture and storage
being put in place at present using abandoned natural gas pipelines to route the CO2 to depleted natural gas caverns and capping them.
Here is one of the older ones, but the newer ones are breaking 65%
https://www.araner.com/blog/combined-cycle-power-plants
And here is an article of existing carbon capture on a commercial scale:
https://energyrates.ca/carbon-capture-storage/
Another big advantage of combined cycle is the very rapid startup cycle to fill in when other sources fail. Older thermal plants took hours to come
online, while these can be online in less than 1/2 hour as the gas turbine section can be started and producing within minutes.
Using additional waste heat downstream of the exhaust steam generator to distill water is an interesting concept, that could push the advantages even
higher.
[Edited on 8-23-2022 by JDCanuck]
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
JD,
You’re talking about gas turbine peaker plants. I’m talking base load conventional plants which represent the majority of US plants. Cabo has a
bunch of gas tribunes on the way into town. They can be very efficient especially in the cogeneration mode where they output AC and hot water too.
Disney World has used them for a long time. They now make micro-turbine plants as small as 65KW.
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1676
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
RFClark: The article I posted has a very simple description of Combined Cycle plants. We used simple Gas Turbines of 66MW back in the late 70's to
provide peaking or recovery on major trips, these are far more efficient as the waste heat is used to provide steam for a steam turbo generator and
that's where the additional 25% efficiency comes from. The latest technology is stripping out the CO2 for storage in deep underground caverns, further
reducing the environmental impact.
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1676
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
RFClark and others: Thanks to your posts here, we have redirected the first of our A/C units (2 1/2 tons combined) condensate drains to our well
supplied cistern. Initial results were very encouraging as the level in the cistern rose above the normal float supplied level, overcoming our total
non -potable water use on the first 2 days. We will be tieing in another 3 units doubling the expected flow rates, and I expect our scale producing
hard water issues will disappear altogether without the need for RO or other whole house treatments.
Secondary positive was the humidity in the house dropped from over 80% to 60% as we ran the A/C units longer than usual, so we also hope to see
humidity related electrical issues decrease.
Thanks for all the info you provided.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
