Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 2:02 PM
38 online now:
ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,554 Year: 3,591/19,786 Month: 586/1,087 Week: 176/212 Day: 18/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   The Three Minute SOAPBOX:
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 61 of 72 (849187)
02-27-2019 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Taq
02-27-2019 4:24 PM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power
The problem with nuclear is that it is cost prohibitive and there is no cost effective, viable or safe remedy for spent fuel. With the low cost of renewables nuclear is a non-starter.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 02-27-2019 4:24 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 62 of 72 (849198)
02-28-2019 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Taq
02-27-2019 4:24 PM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power ... or not ...
Modern nuclear power technology is safer, cleaner, and pollutes less than carbon based energy production. ...

What do you do with the spent nuclear fuel?

Until you deal with the full cycle of energy production you are only looking at part of the issue. When you have waste products that last billions of years you have a problem of ever increasing storage of the toxic waste. This is not feasible to my mind.

Coal also produces toxic waste products (look at the news reports of the waste containment ponds from Duke Power and the recent floods in NC for more details). Solar has some issues with initial production waste, but it is one-time. Wind similar (steel production is not "clean"), and they also have issues with energy storage (batteries are not "clean").

There is one nuclear decay chain that does not produce long half-life byproducts, and it is usable in readily available naturally occurring levels: 232Thorium. It has a half-life of 1.405×10^10 years, however, the second and fourth byproducts are Radium (gas) isotopes, and it would seem to me feasible to extract this gas to use in a reactor and continuously recycle the Thorium. After all, this occurs naturally in the production of Polonium "halos" ...

quote:
Thorium-based nuclear power
Possible benefits

The World Nuclear Association explains some of the possible benefits[16]

The thorium fuel cycle offers enormous energy security benefits in the long-term – due to its potential for being a self-sustaining fuel without the need for fast neutron reactors. It is therefore an important and potentially viable technology that seems able to contribute to building credible, long-term nuclear energy scenarios.[17]

Moir and Teller agree, noting that the possible advantages of thorium include "utilization of an abundant fuel, inaccessibility of that fuel to terrorists or for diversion to weapons use, together with good economics and safety features … "[4] Thorium is considered the "most abundant, most readily available, cleanest, and safest energy source on Earth," adds science writer Richard Martin.[14]


The issue of weapons grade byproducts is of course major to concerns for world peace (another reason to use 232Thorium). For some reason governments seem to prefer using systems that can produce weapons ...

... It can completely replace every coal or gas fired power plant RIGHT NOW. Wind and solar energy are nice to have as secondary sources of power, but they can't replace fossil fuels right now. Nuclear can.

It takes less time to get solar and wind up and running than it does a new nuclear plant because the elements are currently available and all you need is installation. They can also be moderately scaled for rural/remote use or integrated into a web system (see below).

Every environmentalist should be supporting the increased use of nuclear energy and the advancement of nuclear power technology. It is the one known solution we have for quickly lowering carbon emissions, and it is much safer than the fossil fuel power plants they will be replacing.

Disagree. Again the full cycle needs to be considered as well as proper installation. True for any production system, but particularly for any nuclear system with long half-life concentrated byproducts.

quote:
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (福島第一原子力発電所事故 Fukushima Dai-ichi (About this soundpronunciation) genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko) was an energy accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Ōkuma, Fukushima Prefecture, initiated primarily by the tsunami following the Tōhoku earthquake on 11 March 2011.[8] Immediately after the earthquake, the active reactors automatically shut down their sustained fission reactions. However, the ensuing tsunami disabled the emergency generators that would have provided power to control and operate the pumps necessary to cool the reactors. The insufficient cooling led to three nuclear meltdowns, hydrogen-air explosions, and the release of radioactive material in Units 1, 2 and 3 from 12 to 15 March. Loss of cooling also raised concerns over the recently loaded spent fuel pool of Reactor 4, which increased in temperature on 15 March due to the decay heat from the freshly added spent fuel rods but did not boil down to exposure.[9]


The wrong type of reactor in the wrong place, still sending radioactive byproduct into the sea at levels detectable on the east side of the pacific (particularly South America) and detectable impact on marine life in the waters near the reactor site (see reports by some reactionary/concerned groups):

quote:
Fukushima Has Contaminated the Complete Pacific Ocean

The nuclear disaster has contaminated the world’s largest ocean in only five years and it’s still leaking 300 tons of radioactive waste every day.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Fukushima has contaminated the entire Pacific Ocean in just five years. This could easily be the worst environmental disaster in human history and it is almost never talked about by politicians, establishment scientists, or the news. ...

Even if we can’t see the radiation itself, some parts of North America’s western coast have been feeling the effects for years. Not long after Fukushima, fish in Canada began bleeding from their gills, mouths, and eyeballs. This “disease” has been ignored by the government and has decimated native fish populations, including the North Pacific herring. Elsewhere in Western Canada, independent scientists have measured a 300% increase in the level of radiation. According to them, the amount of radiation in the Pacific Ocean is increasing every year. ...

Further south in Oregon, USA, starfish began losing legs and then disintegrating entirely when Fukushima radiation arrived there in 2013. Now, they are dying in record amounts, putting the entire oceanic ecosystem in that area at risk. However, government officials say Fukushima is not to blame even though radiation in Oregon tuna tripled after Fukushima. In 2014, radiation on California beaches increased by 500 percent. In response, government officials said that the radiation was coming from a mysterious “unknown” source and was nothing to worry about.

However, Fukushima is having a bigger impact than just the West coast of North America. Scientists are now saying that the Pacific Ocean is already radioactive and is currently at least 5-10 times more radioactive than when the US government dropped numerous nuclear bombs in the Pacific during and after World War II. If we don’t start talking about Fukushima soon, we could all be in for a very unpleasant surprise.


Some hyperbole invoked, but pictures also give valid evidence of the full impact: click to see pictures This should be of major concern for environmentalists.

Integrated distributed web alternative

Your proposed use of nuclear to replace current coal/gas plants still uses the current point source grid distribution thinking, which is vulnerable to natural and man-made (terrorist) disasters causing wide-spread blackouts. Wind and solar can be integrated into a distributed web that is more resistant to such failures -- for example, my house runs 100% on roof-top solar power and it can be used when there is a blackout. I also produce excess power that I feed back to the grid, and this would lower the demand in my area which should lead to less brown outs.

To my mind and integrated web distributed power generation system is preferable to one based on point source large installations, as it is less vulnerable to disaster (natural or man-made), it also wouldn't require the large transformer stations to step-down the power to usable levels.

This requires a paradigm shift in thinking. For an example of the benefits look at the current use of multiple LED lights in traffic lights, street lights and vehicle headlights where some bulbs can fail but the overall lighting is still operational.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : subt


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 02-27-2019 4:24 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2019 8:57 AM RAZD has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 63 of 72 (849201)
02-28-2019 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
02-28-2019 7:54 AM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power ... or not ...
for example, my house runs 100% on roof-top solar power and it can be used when there is a blackout.

I have a grid tied solar system. My panels do not feed into my system if there is a black out. Code calls for the system to not produce electricity if there is not connection to the grid. This is to prevent power from feeding back into the grid and electrocuting power company workers. Do you have a battery system also that allows you to use your solar during power outages?

I am considering a battery system like Tesla Power wall or Fronius Solar Battery. As of right now cost prohibitive but batteries prices continue to drop.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2019 7:54 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 02-28-2019 11:12 AM Theodoric has responded
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2019 3:56 PM Theodoric has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16231
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 64 of 72 (849207)
02-28-2019 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Theodoric
02-28-2019 8:57 AM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power ... or not ...
I think the grid-tied, individual-house system may be a large part of "the answer". The current mega-grid system with only a few input nodes is too vulnerable even if the input nodes are nuclear.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2019 8:57 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2019 11:23 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 65 of 72 (849209)
02-28-2019 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by ringo
02-28-2019 11:12 AM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power ... or not ...
Agreed.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 02-28-2019 11:12 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 66 of 72 (849230)
02-28-2019 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Theodoric
02-28-2019 8:57 AM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power ... or not ...
... Code calls for the system to not produce electricity if there is not connection to the grid. This is to prevent power from feeding back into the grid and electrocuting power company workers. Do you have a battery system also that allows you to use your solar during power outages? ...

You need an isolation switch (manual or automatic) as is used for standby generators to prevent feedback, you can add batteries to the system or just use daytime power (sufficient for fridges if left closed at night). Your local electrician should know how to do this.

I am considering a battery system like Tesla Power wall or Fronius Solar Battery. As of right now cost prohibitive but batteries prices continue to drop.

This is the wholly grail of alternative power. I've been looking at battery alternatives, currently I use marine deep cycle batteries as I can add incrementally to them without too much sticker shock.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2019 8:57 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2019 4:33 PM RAZD has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 67 of 72 (849233)
02-28-2019 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by RAZD
02-28-2019 3:56 PM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power ... or not ...
There is an isolation switch. When isolation switch is thrown the system will not allow power to flow from panels into the house system. Code here does not allow the system to be running if there is no electricity coming from the grid. There is no legal way to do it. I need to find out if I can with a battery system.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2019 3:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2019 7:28 AM Theodoric has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 68 of 72 (849255)
03-02-2019 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Theodoric
02-28-2019 4:33 PM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power ... or not ...
There is an isolation switch. When isolation switch is thrown the system will not allow power to flow from panels into the house system. Code here does not allow the system to be running if there is no electricity coming from the grid. There is no legal way to do it. I need to find out if I can with a battery system.

Actually (my bad) it's more of an either/or switch. It turns off power to the grid to power the house OR it uses the grid for power. With it on "house" power it is like having a completely isolated solar system.

Compare to using a generator and how it should be wired to meet code and safety issues:
https://www.wikihow.com/...t-a-Portable-Generator-to-a-House
https://www.instructables.com/...y-Generator-to-Home-Hook-Up
for examples.

From second link

quote:
A generator transfer switch is the legal and proper way to power your home with an emergency generator. There are three main types: automatic, manual transfer sub panel and a breaker interlock. Each has varying degrees of complexity, benefits and expense.

Automatic transfer switches will sense a power loss, start your standby generator and automatically move your load to the generator. These are awesome - but very expensive and require a full time dedicated standby generator.

Manual transfer sub panel switches are good option. They are less expensive than the automatic transfer switches (Starting around $300) and can be used with a portable generator. They typically only cover a few breakers which was problematic for me.

Breaker Interlock is the option I chose. It is National Electric Code compliant and is in my opinion the least expensive and most flexible option. My setup cost was just under $150. In this setup you use a breaker to energize your existing breaker box. Switching it on is easy and safe. My wife did an unassisted dry run in under 5 min - which included getting the generator out of the building.


Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2019 4:33 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2019 11:26 AM RAZD has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 69 of 72 (849260)
03-02-2019 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
03-02-2019 7:28 AM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power ... or not ...
We cannot do that here. Code does not allow it. They treat solar system different than a home generator.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2019 7:28 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2019 11:30 AM Theodoric has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 70 of 72 (849278)
03-03-2019 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Theodoric
03-02-2019 11:26 AM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power ... or not ...
We cannot do that here. Code does not allow it. ...

Have you talked to your local building inspector?

... They treat solar system different than a home generator.

Perhaps they should treat home generators more like solar -- if the object is to prevent grid feedback.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2019 11:26 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2019 11:41 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 71 of 72 (849280)
03-03-2019 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by RAZD
03-03-2019 11:30 AM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power ... or not ...
Have you talked to your local building inspector?

Yup. I actually misspoke. It is not a code building code issue. It is a decision made by the local power company. It is a requirement in order to connect to their grid. They will not allow any production facility to connect to their grid unless it is isolated when power fails. Home generators are not power production facilities. My roof top solar is considered an electricity production facility.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2019 11:30 AM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 03-04-2019 9:08 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3393
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 72 of 72 (849288)
03-04-2019 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Theodoric
03-03-2019 11:41 AM


Re: Environmentalists Should Back Nuclear Power ... or not ...
Theodoric writes:

They will not allow any production facility to connect to their grid unless it is isolated when power fails.

I have an idea, but I don't think it's very good - and I wonder about it's practicality.
But, perhaps, it might initiate other ideas?

Can this be solved using a contactor and hard-wired timer?

That is... have "power from the grid" coming in and power a contactor and 5-min timer before it gets to your house (and your solar system's feedback connection.)
Use that contactor, again, to block power going to your house (and your solar system's feedback connection.)
Use the hard-wired timer to kill the contactor every 5-mins.

When grid power is on - everything's connected (and you can send your feedback back onto the grid.)
-your connection to the grid will go down every 5 mins. But, if you have power from your solar system - you shouldn't even notice (theoretically) before the gird powers the contactor back on again
-I'm not sure how practical this part is. That is, how often will the contactors fail if they're "firing" every 5 minutes? Do you actually not notice anything - or will this actually cause your lights to dimly flicker every 5 minutes (can cause power issues to other sensitive things like computers or electronics.)

When grid power goes down - everything will swap over to your solar system - again, at this point, you won't notice. As well, your connection to the grid will actually still be connected at this moment.
However, when the 5-min timer goes off, there will be nothing to power it back on again - this is where your connection to the grid gets severed (automatically) and your solar power will then be the only thing powering your house.

Not sure if there's anything useful there or not.
Just a thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2019 11:41 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019