Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Feb 23, 2018 5:22 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jun 20, 2015 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
Eino wrote:
Quote:
Nuclear might get some unintended positive press/public support from the drought:


If the plant is used to produce clean water for the parched local community, it "should" get some positive support.

How could even the most ardent left wing Berkeley environmentalist complain about this gift of clean water?


It is opposed because many areas are growth restricted due to water and environmentalists don't like growth. So when you solve the water problem you take away one of their most effective tools at preventing growth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 21, 2015 12:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1330
Location: NoOPWA
SONGS could be heated up as a heat source for desal.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 24, 2015 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 19, 2011 7:04 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Berkeley, CA
Lars wrote:
Eino wrote:
Quote:
Nuclear might get some unintended positive press/public support from the drought:


If the plant is used to produce clean water for the parched local community, it "should" get some positive support.

How could even the most ardent left wing Berkeley environmentalist complain about this gift of clean water?


It is opposed because many areas are growth restricted due to water and environmentalists don't like growth. So when you solve the water problem you take away one of their most effective tools at preventing growth.

As a Berkeley resident for the past decade I can back this statement, but that said it is getting a little better (at least in the general voting public). We've passed smarter growth laws here, I think from the crushing reality that the city has to get denser. A while back one of the long time city council members proposed removing Berkeley's "Nuclear Free Zone" rule. It didn't go anywhere really, but minds are changing, particularly with the help of people like Andrew, who I'm sure is known around here.


Last edited by glemieux on Jun 25, 2015 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 24, 2015 6:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
Does their nuclear free zone exclude nuclear power from songs...when it was running?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 28, 2015 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 23, 2014 2:20 pm
Posts: 9
Can LFTR Save California?
One problem we have today is Reactors cannot "Follow The Load". We have a local PWR running
here in Minnesota "Prairie Island" and it runs at a constant output. We start and stop coal and natural gas to "Follow The Load".

If California had a few more conventional Reactors running to follow the "Daytime Load" (air conditioners, industry and electric ranges). and filled water towers with "Desalinated Water" at night, (to cover the night time energy surplus), they could "Have their Cake and Eat it too". this is far to simple of a solution for the short term . It does not hurry LFTR to production, but increases the desire for cheap energy for the future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 29, 2015 3:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2238
If you want nuclear reactor or any other power source to follow the load, provide a heat storage in the form of molten salts. These can be cheap heat retainer outside the reactor core Just heat it by reactor coolant and extract heat as required.
http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/project- ... olar-power
It has been suggested for solar heat but could be used more efficiently for a reactor with molten salt or metal coolant.
The main problem with reactors in California is water coolant and waste disposal. Sea water could be pumped as coolant and a closed cycle can be used to minimize the radioactive waste.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 30, 2015 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Here and There
KAOGOLD stated:
Quote:
One problem we have today is Reactors cannot "Follow The Load". We have a local PWR running
here in Minnesota "Prairie Island" and it runs at a constant output. We start and stop coal and natural gas to "Follow The Load".


Makes sense to me. Fuel is cheap for Prairie Island (and Monticello), the labor is a constant and the output is emission free. You cannot say that about the output of coal plants like Sherco or gas plants. (Well - Maybe, not entirely natural gas is cheap right now)

I like your idea of overbuilding the nuke plants. Multiple turbines could be fed steam. Some of the turbines could be peakers. The excess steam could be used for desalination or a variety of things. I do not think the staff of a larger nuclear plant would vary much from that of a smaller one. The smaller ones are being picked off like Kewaunee, Vermont Yankee and Maine Yankee. Despite the common rhetoric of distributed energy being the thing of the future, the economy of scale still applies. There are savings to be had with per unit cost with a larger facility.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 03, 2015 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
Eino wrote:
KAOGOLD stated:
Quote:
One problem we... Despite the common rhetoric of distributed energy being the thing of the future, the economy of scale still applies. There are savings to be had with per unit cost with a larger facility.


I totally agree with this. If electricity were to become genuinely cheap & plentiful (it certainly isn't now) imaginative people would quickly come up with a million useful apps for off-peak power. For example, wouldn't it be nice to have a year-round lit/heated and/or cooled greenhouse room in your home?

The whole "modular reactor" concept is just another of DOE-NE's crazy (wrong) obsessions.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 10, 2015 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
KA0OLD wrote:
Can LFTR Save California?
One problem we have today is Reactors cannot "Follow The Load". We have a local PWR running
here in Minnesota "Prairie Island" and it runs at a constant output. We start and stop coal and natural gas to "Follow The Load".

If California had a few more conventional Reactors running to follow the "Daytime Load" (air conditioners, industry and electric ranges). and filled water towers with "Desalinated Water" at night, (to cover the night time energy surplus), they could "Have their Cake and Eat it too". this is far to simple of a solution for the short term . It does not hurry LFTR to production, but increases the desire for cheap energy for the future.

This actually nicely demonstrates the challenge. The capital cost of a desal unit that used all the electrical output of a nuclear power plant would be about 32 times the cost of the power plant! So, if you don't have a perfect match you should build just enough desal and overbuild your power plants. It is cheaper to idle the power plant than the desal plant.

As for load following, solid fuel reactors do have some challenges load following but the French have shown it can reasonably be done. For liquid fuel reactors load following is quite reasonable.

The challenge really is economic. Given that you own a nuclear reactor the cost delta between producing power and sitting idle is quite small. If you own both a nuclear reactor and a gas or coal plant and you have excess generating capacity at night you would idle the plant that will save you the most money by going to idle. That would be the gas or coal plant whose fuel costs are substantially higher than the nuclear plant.

Load following with nuclear really comes into play when nuclear makes up half of your grid generating capacity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 11, 2015 4:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2238
There can be many ways the nuclear output of reactors can be matched to requirement. I have mentioned one earlier, storing energy at surplus times in molten salts.
With increasing use of batteries in telephones, tv and computers, the charging of batteries in surplus times. Electric cars and power packs are now catching up.
Water desalination to recover water from waste or sea water can be done in many ways. Distillation as a bottom use of depleted steam after power production has possibilities.
Waste storage is a self-magnified problems. recycling of spent uranium fuel is one step earlier than thorium fuel use. I, however admit the superiority of U-233 in recycling.
There are areas of higher population pressure than California. Silicon valley mind set could show the way to rest of the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 11, 2015 7:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3431
Location: Alabama
Eino wrote:
Would the populace of California be open minded to explore such a project?


No, their elected representation thinks that this is a realistic goal:

SB 350: Golden State Standards 50-50-50

50% energy generation by "renewables" (whatever that means), 50% reduction in petroleum use, and 50% more energy efficiency.

Words fail me as I think about the intense effort California is making to impoverish itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 18, 2015 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3431
Location: Alabama
It is illegal under Mexican law to build a power plant in Mexico for the purpose of selling power into the United States.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 19, 2015 2:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 507
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
It is illegal under Mexican law to build a power plant in Mexico for the purpose of selling power into the United States.


I assume this law was imposed to stop people building the cheapest possible coal plants and polluting Mexico and exporting electricity.

If you built a clean plant, approved by Mexican regulators, to supply the Mexican market (clearly the first purpose), that would be different. If you then flood the Mexican market with cheap electricity, can they stop exports (and imports on the US side) under NAFTA rules?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 01, 2015 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
I just saw this interview with Duf Sundheim, candidate for US Senate in California, and it seems he understands the issue that a lack of water holds for the US and California.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGs4muGq6LU

No mention of nuclear power but he does seem to show a real interest in solving the problem rather than hoping for the problem to solve itself. At over 20 minutes long I won't blame you for not watching the video, I'd point out where he discusses California's water problem but then I'd have to watch the video again myself.

His website:
https://sundheimforsenate.com/

Those of you in California might want to press him on this issue. This is going to be a national problem soon if it is not already. If the solution to California's water problem is LFTR, and I believe that it is, then one of two things needs to happen nationally. Either the DOE must approve the building of a nuclear power plant in California or the states will have to assert their right to license nuclear reactors on their own.

Sundheim is running for the seat currently occupied by Barbara Boxer, someone that does not seem to be an advocate for nuclear power.

Again, I don't know where Sundheim stands on the issue of nuclear power, I just believe that he is someone that could be convinced of its merits. I wrote his campaign an e-mail asking for his position on the matter, hopefully I will see a reply. Perhaps others would like to send him a note? Here's his e-mail address:
info@sundheimforsenate.com

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 02, 2015 1:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
I have already received a reply from Duf Sundheim after sending him an e-mail Sunday afternoon. It appears that while he is ignorant of what LFTR is and what it can do that he is willing to learn how it can help California.

Mr. Sorensen, I hope you don't mind that I suggested he contact you directly.

I would think that having a candidate for US Senate on the side of LFTRs in California would be good for everyone. Reading Mr. Sundheim's bio leads me to believe that he is a very smart man that will know what a safe bet looks like if presented to him. LFTR looks like something that California could use but without the backing of the US Congress it cannot get far.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group