| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Solar Alternative
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
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
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.
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
Renewables vs. Nuclear
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
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
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.
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Hydrogen Production
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2647
Registered: 12-19-2004
Location: Todos Santos/Full time for now...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wondering what is next???
|
|
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.
Albert G
Remember, if you haven\'t got a smile on your face and laughter in your heart, then you are just a sour old fart!....
The most precious thing we have is life, yet it has absolutely no trade-in value.
|
|
|
Al G
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2647
Registered: 12-19-2004
Location: Todos Santos/Full time for now...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wondering what is next???
|
|
| 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.
Albert G
Remember, if you haven\'t got a smile on your face and laughter in your heart, then you are just a sour old fart!....
The most precious thing we have is life, yet it has absolutely no trade-in value.
|
|
|
islandmusicteach
Junior Nomad
Posts: 78
Registered: 4-30-2007
Location: catalina island
Member Is Offline
Mood: almost in baja
|
|
... oh yeah... that OTHER disaster....
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2647
Registered: 12-19-2004
Location: Todos Santos/Full time for now...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wondering what is next???
|
|
| 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]
Albert G
Remember, if you haven\'t got a smile on your face and laughter in your heart, then you are just a sour old fart!....
The most precious thing we have is life, yet it has absolutely no trade-in value.
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| 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'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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
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
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2647
Registered: 12-19-2004
Location: Todos Santos/Full time for now...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wondering what is next???
|
|
| 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.... 
Albert G
Remember, if you haven\'t got a smile on your face and laughter in your heart, then you are just a sour old fart!....
The most precious thing we have is life, yet it has absolutely no trade-in value.
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
Great story oldhippie...thanks for all the info above too.
|
|
|
islandmusicteach
Junior Nomad
Posts: 78
Registered: 4-30-2007
Location: catalina island
Member Is Offline
Mood: almost in baja
|
|
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2647
Registered: 12-19-2004
Location: Todos Santos/Full time for now...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wondering what is next???
|
|
| 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.
Albert G
Remember, if you haven\'t got a smile on your face and laughter in your heart, then you are just a sour old fart!....
The most precious thing we have is life, yet it has absolutely no trade-in value.
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2647
Registered: 12-19-2004
Location: Todos Santos/Full time for now...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wondering what is next???
|
|
| 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
Albert G
Remember, if you haven\'t got a smile on your face and laughter in your heart, then you are just a sour old fart!....
The most precious thing we have is life, yet it has absolutely no trade-in value.
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
Good choice
| 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. 
|
|
|
bancoduo
Banned
Posts: 1003
Registered: 10-3-2005
Location: el carcel publico mazatlan sin.
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Dave
| 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? |
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!
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
