On 1/5/2022 at 4:30 PM, dave2013 said:

Fusion power would be a game-changer. 

Not only would it solve the problem of producing enough "clean" power, but it would allow the creation of powerful ion plasma engines to propel spacecraft to Mars and beyond.

Dave

 

We can do that with fission. Fusion would be better but we can still do nuclear thermal propulsion with fission. And indeed Nuclear Electric Ion propulsion with fission.

On 1/7/2022 at 3:43 PM, dave2013 said:

My desire for nuclear power is not just about climate change.  Nuclear power plants provide not only an affordable, reliable, and relatively clean power source, but a reliable backup in case of issues with the primary sources.  My power comes from a nuclear plant and costs me 14c/kWh.  The plant produces about 1.75 Gigawatts of power, has been fully operational since around 1980, and can operate until 2037 on its current license.  That's almost 60 years of power for 1.6 billion dollars.  Pretty good investment IMO.  

If one doesn't like nuclear, then natural gas plants can be good backups.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel secure just having solar and wind as our primary power sources right now.  Perhaps 25+ years from now they will be viable primary sources, but not now and probably not even in the next 10 years.

I sincerely hope that we have fusion reactors in 30 years or less.  I might not be around to see them, but it will be good for humanity.

Dave

Here's an excerpt from a recent article in The Telegraph about wind power:

****************************

Low wind levels have sent power prices soaring to their highest in a month as Britain struggles to keep up with a rebound in demand.

Power prices for Monday evening jumped to £1,161 a megawatt-hour – the highest since 16 December. At the same time, wind output is forecast to slide below 1.5 gigawatts, down from a 10-day average of 6.3 gigawatts."

****************************

This is why it's a bad idea put all your eggs in the "renewable" or "green" basket.

Dave

14 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

This is why it's a bad idea put all your eggs in the "renewable" or "green" basket.

I suppose one could argue that the Texas blackout/freeze-out demonstrates that natural gas is a terrible idea outside of the tropics.

When things are in transition, there are going to be challenges. These price spikes are a strong market signal to invest in electricity storage and other grid improvements, which I'm sure a free market conservative would favor.

There are always people squawking from the peanut gallery when things aren't perfect. When things improve (remember that the grid was not as reliable as it is now) the peanut gallery looks foolish. The market is moving.

Cheers!

2 hours ago, Luke said:

I suppose one could argue that the Texas blackout/freeze-out demonstrates that natural gas is a terrible idea outside of the tropics.

When things are in transition, there are going to be challenges. These price spikes are a strong market signal to invest in electricity storage and other grid improvements, which I'm sure a free market conservative would favor.

There are always people squawking from the peanut gallery when things aren't perfect. When things improve (remember that the grid was not as reliable as it is now) the peanut gallery looks foolish. The market is moving.

Cheers!

Yes, natural gas power plants in some areas may not be a good idea.

I've advocated for nuclear power, which would be unaffected by cold weather.

I point out these things because for years now a very loud minority has been screaming that we are on the verge of disaster due to carbon dioxide emissions, therefore we must shut down all the fossil fuel power plants and quickly switch to "renewable", "green", or "clean" power sources, namely wind and solar.

It is simply impractical and ill-advised to become reliant on wind and solar only for our power.  One day it may be practical as more plants are built in appropriate locations and the infrastructure is built out to supply the power to other areas far away, but right now it is a bad idea.

The UK is smart to build the solar array in Morocco and install cables to transport that power to themselves.  Nevertheless, I would still want to have backup sources which don't rely on the wind and sunshine.

Dave

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

I've advocated for nuclear power, which would be unaffected by cold weather.

Although, if there is a malfunction, it could be shut down for months, couldn't it?

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

and install cables to transport that power to themselves. 

The article stated that the cables would be laid in shallow water where there is a very slight, i.e. non-zero, chance of damage from dragging anchors, for example.

If a cable is damaged and the conducting wire is exposed to the sea water, what would happen to all the marine life in the area?

 

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

It is simply impractical and ill-advised to become reliant on wind and solar only for our power.

 

The brief period of low wind speeds were addressed on the last page. I'm not going to type it twice. And again, its not just wind and solar. I recall I gave you a list of all renewable sources. We need all, not just wind and solar. 

 

Quote

I've advocated for nuclear power, which would be unaffected by cold weather.

 

And I gave you a list of reasons why nuclear isn't the answer on the previous page. 

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Yes, natural gas power plants in some areas may not be a good idea.

I've advocated for nuclear power, which would be unaffected by cold weather.

There are two points you should consider that I omitted - first, if memory serves correctly, the plants themselves didn't fail. Instead, the pumping mechanisms had issues in the cold and the plants were unable to get enough fuel. That leads into the second, which is that failure modes for complicated systems such as power plans (of all varieties) are unpredictable and I would be very, very leery of drawing any sorts of conclusions around what nuclear power is and is not affected by. Remember, Fukushima handled the tsunami just fine, it was a failure of its backup power that doomed the plant.

One other note, Texas isn't a particularly cold part of the world. Natural gas grids farther north in marginally colder parts of the world such as Canada handle much colder temperatures just fine. Perhaps the real lesson is that insufficient regulation is a bad thing? 😉

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I point out these things because for years now a very loud minority has been screaming that we are on the verge of disaster due to carbon dioxide emissions, therefore we must shut down all the fossil fuel power plants and quickly switch to "renewable", "green", or "clean" power sources, namely wind and solar.

I grew up in a part of the world where renewables handled over 80% of our power needs just fine. It can be done. I think the challenge is that people are reflexively opposing a rapid switch to renewables because of their advocates. And unless you've spent your entire time in the public sector, you'll know that advocating for change "only when we're ready" means that we'd still be using wood and manure for our primary energy sources. (At least they are renewable and carbon neutral!)

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

It is simply impractical and ill-advised to become reliant on wind and solar only for our power.  One day it may be practical as more plants are built in appropriate locations and the infrastructure is built out to supply the power to other areas far away, but right now it is a bad idea.

Everything is a bad idea until it becomes acceptable, and the only way to make it so is by pushing.

Honestly, I am amazed that so-called conservatives aren't in favor of renewable energy as a national security issue, like they used to be. Depending on fossil fuels means being subject to pricing and availability pressures dictated in large part by nations either run by former KGB officers or the source of the 9/11 hijackers. No thank you - I'll take vast, renewable energy made in the USA!

Cheers!

Edited January 17, 20224 yr by Luke

1 hour ago, dmwalker said:

If a cable is damaged and the conducting wire is exposed to the sea water, what would happen to all the marine life in the area?

 

Nothing!

Its not going to electrically energise the ocean. Current is cut when the cable is cut, residual current circuit breakers  have been around for a long time. Undersea power cables are laid all over the world in many oceans. Its not new technology. 

The primary means by which undersea cables are damaged is during installation.

The only issue for the environment is EM fields from the cable and research has demonstrated that the impact on the marine environment is negligible.

Edited January 17, 20224 yr by martin-w

5 minutes ago, martin-w said:

The primary means by which undersea cables are damaged is during installation.

I was thinking of the Internet cables which were damaged in the Mediterranean. It was thought that anchor dragging might have caused the damage, or even a deliberate act of sabotage.

2 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

I was thinking of the Internet cables which were damaged in the Mediterranean. It was thought that anchor dragging might have caused the damage, or even a deliberate act of sabotage.

 

Anchors can damage cables. Not the primary risk for cables though. And as I say, power is cut. No issue for the marine environment. 

France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear reactors, and the U.S. operates 93 reactors providing about 20% of its electricity.  France also exports electricity to its neighbors.

In nearly 50 years of operation, there has never been a serious incident in France and only one in the U.S. in 1979, the infamous three-mile island accident, which was a partial meltdown and adverse health effects on the nearby population are inconclusive.  Nevertheless, it was a regrettable, and avoidable, accident.

In the U.S., several new reactor designs are being tested, some with planned deployment in the 2020s.  The newer reactors are smaller, safer, and more efficient.  They will provide a solid, reliable source of power while the renewable power technology improves and plants and infrastructure are built out.

Nuclear power is, and should be, part of the "clean" energy mix.

Dave

 

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

In the U.S., several new reactor designs are being tested, some with planned deployment in the 2020s.  The newer reactors are smaller, safer, and more efficient.  They will provide a solid, reliable source of power while the renewable power technology improves and plants and infrastructure are built out.

Objection - facts not in evidence. Right now they've been very successful at extracting money from investors, less so at generating economic power at scale. Unless they are economical at capacity factors below 70% they simply will not work. The iron hand will eliminate them.

You're also conveniently forgetting (or maybe that's the quotes around clean) that there is no identified place to store the wastes and no mechanism to insure against accident (which do occur). Is Alabama volunteering to take the wastes? Maybe we can call the storage site the "Nuclear End Zone" and Coach Tuberville will vote for it. 🙂

Cheers!

5 hours ago, Luke said:

Instead, the pumping mechanisms had issues in the cold and the plants were unable to get enough fuel.

During the Texas freezout  a portion of central New Mexico was shut off from natural gas and had no other source for heat.  The pumping stations froze up.

We use natural gas for heat.  After the Texas freezout I bought portable electric heaters in case it ever happened to us.  It hasn't yet, but we have the electric heaters stored in the garage just in case.

Noel

5 hours ago, Luke said:

Objection - facts not in evidence. Right now they've been very successful at extracting money from investors, less so at generating economic power at scale. Unless they are economical at capacity factors below 70% they simply will not work. The iron hand will eliminate them

Object all you like.  I stated, quite clearly, that the new designs are being "tested", and that deployment is "planned" for the 2020s.

France stores their waste deep underground.  There's plenty of space in the western part of the U.S. for that.  BTW, what happens to all the old wind turbines and solar panels once they've reached the end of their life?  And please don't tell me that everything gets recycled because we know that's simply not the case.  I've seen pictures of old wind turbines in junkyards.

Please don't mention certain people and bring you-know-what into the discussion.  FWIW, I'm not a fan.  For that matter, I'm not a fan of *any* of them.

Dave

Here's an excellent article on disposal problems of wind turbine blades.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-caused-by-wind-energy

Noel