Nuclear Power

MeekandMild, no offense but I don't think you understand the magnitude of the problem. A few dozen nuclear power plants isn't going to do the job... a thousand large ones might be up to the task. Electric generation in this country is already distributed (though the geographic distribution is substantially different from the distribution of consumption) and it will remain so.
 
I think the anti-nukers are invincibly ignorant and wish to remain so. Most of the anti's are like that.
 
Last edited:
One problem with having more "little" plants than fewer "big" plants: The entire power grid has to be phased in sync to function. This requires substations and equipment AT EVERY POWER PLANT to work. The peaks and valleys ALL have to match- 60 times a second for U.S. power- or there WILL be an explosion somewhere in the grid. More powerplants CREATES waste as there is more energy lost in the phasing process.
For "off the grid" stand-alone solutions, it is much more simple. There isn't anyone to 'phase' with, so produce away with solar, wind, waterwheel, etc. Unless you are proposing that every home generate its own power, small-scale power generation is NOT feasible. To tie each generator's output to a grid requires phase matching equipment at EVERY generator.
In commerical electricity generation whenever a plant is shut down for maintenance, it doesn't immediately add to the grid when turned back on. It has to spool up to MATCH the grid and then and only then can that output be added to the grid.
That's why on military generators (of 30kW capacity or higher)- designed to work as a parallel bank of 'small' generators- there's a phasic mode as either master or slave. The master generator sets the frequency for all the others in that bank to match. The reason it is only found on the larger gensets is because of the requirement for the "extra" equipment to match phase.
 
Perhaps on the other hand you don't understand the generic problem which underlies some of my concerns about the present discussion. The specific case of proliferation of nuclear power plants is a variation on the the age old theme of Hydraulic Despotism. Huge power plants which depend on expensive technology and immense construction effort risk creation of a political situation where the average citizen is dependent upon the central distribution system for survival.

I wonder if it's too late to bring up the earthquake vulnerability question?
 
Oy. A PROPERLY designed power grid has a productive capacity of 150%. Thus one out of three plants could 'drop off the grid' for maintenance, damage, disaster, etc. without affecting the end user. Unfortuately, due to ever increasing demand, we don't have a PROPER grid anymore. We are dangerously close to max capacity now. That's why nuclear power has appeal. The wastes- to those who truly understand it- are far less than oil, coal, or gas. The enviro-Nazis (don't get me wrong, I love clean air and water :D) won't allow any more hydro-electric plants and push hard against fossil fuels. By be frank, nuclear is about the ONLY viable choice.
 
Huge power plants which depend on expensive technology and immense construction effort risk creation of a political situation where the average citizen is dependent upon the central distribution system for survival.

And how exactly does that differ from current reality? We're already pretty far down that path, and a shift towards nuclear generation isn't likely to make it any worse than it already is. The free market reduces the impact of central control, though that can be manipulated (e.g. Enron).

I wonder if it's too late to bring up the earthquake vulnerability question?

Not a major issue, I think... the containment vessels are too strong.
 
Few people on the outside understand, but...

Virtually nothing in western civilization is as over built as a nuke plant. Norad HQ (Magic Mountain), maybe, but it is a different kind of structure. Commercial reactors (those famous containment domes) are built to withstand every kind of conceivable natural or manmade destructive force short of a direct nuclear strike (and I'm not sure about that) I do believe that a 747 strike like the terrorist attack on 9/11 would not breach the containment dome. It would raise hell with the support structure of the plant, but it would not damage the reactor itself.

Multiple redundant safety systems, any failure in which shuts down (scrams) the reactor. "Nuclear Grade" is both an inside joke among workers ("nuclear grade chili/salsa is beyond "hot") but it is a very real quality standard that surpasses nearly everthing else. Fanatical emphasis on safety and a highly formal standard for conduct of operations gives the US Nuclear industry a saftey record that is unmatched in industry any where.

Like guns in some ways, nuclear power has had the worst possible press for decades, and people who are not personally involved seldom understand thre difference between reality and the media hype that they have been fed for their whole lives. While it is entirely possible that you could be anti-nuke and pro-gun, or pro-nuke and anti-gun, those are combinations seldom seen, mostly because people in posession of the facts, and willing to think things through usually reach the conclusions that support both gun ownership and nuclear power. Both do have certain risks to society, but they are risks that can be, and must be dealt with. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle, either for gun ownership, or nuclear power. There are people who sincerely wish both would just go away, as if they had never been. And they honestly believe we would be better off were that to happen. People that much out of touch with reality frighten me.
 
warrior poet

One problem with having more "little" plants than fewer "big" plants: The entire power grid has to be phased in sync to function. This requires substations and equipment AT EVERY POWER PLANT to work.

Sorry that I wasn't clear. My idea was to have multiple reactors simply because it is easier to control a smaller reactor and/or take one offline for maintenance. You could have several reactors driving two or three large turbines.

MeekAndMild

Crosshair, begging to differ with you but if you transposed a similar fallout pattern onto Tennessee, supposing a leak at the plant in Chattanooga then dependent on the wind you could be wiping out Knoxville, Huntsville or Atlanta.

44 AMP pointed it out nicely that Chernobyl was a deliberate act. They poked the bull in the *ss and got the horns. It is also important to remember that Chernobyl was an unstable RBMK design and the reactor did not have a full containment shell that would be required in the US.

Had Chernobyl had western-style full containment shell there would have been no widespread disaster. It would have been a Russian 3-mile island. Meaning the reactor would have been trashed, but no significant amounts of radiation would have been released.
 
If France can do it, we can do it. We just need to figure out why are our leftists are whackier than their leftists.
 
Their leftists don't own oil and coal reserves?

It's not about leftists, it's about monopolists.

***

And I support nuclear power. Vigorously. I don't see, really, that we have a choice.
 
I gather in France, the educational system is much more competitive and more of a meritocracy than in the US, and an educational acculturation that results in less suspicious attitudes towards highly-educated expert professionals.

There's still anti-nuke protesters in France, but they have a much higher hurdle than in the US since France gets such a large component of its electricity from the atom and makes a lot of money selling excess electricity to neighboring countries.
 
Their leftists don't own oil and coal reserves?

It's not about leftists, it's about monopolists.
Ah, I see. So it's really the oil tycoons that put up the opposition by using the anti-nuke leftists as their cover. Very creative and deceptive. Isn't there at least a small part of you that admires that kind of duplicity?
 
The entire power grid has to be phased in sync to function. This requires substations and equipment AT EVERY POWER PLANT to work. The peaks and valleys ALL have to match- 60 times a second for U.S. power- or there WILL be an explosion somewhere in the grid. More powerplants CREATES waste as there is more energy lost in the phasing process.

The phasing of generators is done at the generator itself by synchronizing the actual mechanical rotation of the generator, NOT by substations adjusting phase.

It does NOT cause losses.

The rotation speed and position (physical angle relative to the AC voltage) of the actual generator shaft is how it is controlled.
Bringing a generator online requires aligning it to the local grid (actually slightly leading) and then connecting it.
It WILL snap into alignment at that point. If it lags it appears as a load to the grid and gets ‘pulled’ into alignment.

The fact that all the 'generators' are actually alternators (the magnetic field rotates and the output is taken from the stator windings) has some not obvious effects on operation, but they are secondary.

To further complicate power generation, the wavelength of 60 Hz power is ~5000 km, or ~3106 miles.
Strange things start to happen when your physical network size is a fraction of a major wavelength.
At a 90 degree phase shift an open circuit at one end of a line appears at the driving end as a short circuit.
90 degrees at 60 Hz (1/4 of a wavelength) is ~777 miles.
Long distance lines see these problems and have to deal with them.

Capacitor banks are used in the grid to adjust phase since the grid looks VERY inductive.
They do have some losses but they are actually very small.
The capacitors also help attenuate voltage disturbances on the line induced by lightning and switching of loads.

On long 3 phase transmission lines the 3 feeds are actually rotated in their tower positions periodically to make the impedance more uniform across the 3 conductors.

The main function of substations is increase and decrease the available voltage using transformers. They also provide control and overload protection (both voltage and current).
High voltage and low current save on transmission losses (both resistive and inductive).
We swap the high voltage for lower currents.
Even simple things like operating switches at very high currents is very difficult.
The magnetic fields cause all sorts of strange things to open as you try to open a switch.
We can prevent arcing from high voltage a lot better than we can deal with high magnetic fields from large currents.

If you have ever seen a power line fault you may have seen the lines feeding the fault actually move around and jump.
This is caused by the huge short circuit currents generating large magnetic fields that interacting with the earth’s magnetic field.
Even the typical 120/240 V house service requires an interrupt rating of 10,000 amps to ensure a short circuit WILL open under load.
 
Originally posted by 44 AMP
The radioactive iodines are very dangerous, short term, because our bodies actually accept them in preference to regular iodine.

Uhmm could I please get a reference on the above?

My understanding was that isotopes were biologicly indistinguishable from each other.

NukemJim
 
NukemJim

My understanding was that isotopes were biologicly indistinguishable from each other.

You are correct, radioactive isotopes are chemically identical to their stable counterparts. That is why it is so hard to seperate isotopes, you have to rely on their difference in mass to separate the isotopes.

They are unstable, and thus radioactive, because they have an exessive number of neutrons. In the case of Iodine-131, 4 extra neutrons compared to the stable Iodine-127.

I am not aware of any radioactive elements that can be separated chemically from their stable isotopes.

The reason why people who are going to be exposed to Iodine-131 are given massive amounts of Iodine-127 is BECAUSE the body cannot distinguish between the two. The Thyroid gland becomes saturated with the Iodine-127 resulting in virtually all of the Iodine-131 passing through the body without being absorbed.
 
Crosshair, thank you for your input but I sorta, kinda knew that, I've been dosing people with both I-131 and I-123 and occasionly for research patients I-125 for over 20 years as well as teaching others how to dose people. It's what I do for a living :D The Nukem in NukemJim is because I work in Nuclear Medicine.

because they have an exessive number of neutrons
It is my understanding that it is not only to many neutrons but also too few.

I was trying to be nice in my post by asking for a reference instead of typing in that AMP 44 was wrong. (and as always I could be wrong, but I realy doubt it in this case ;) )

Again thank you.

NukemJim
 
No wonder Edison was partial to DC, eh?

Edison failed to figure out how to deliver large amounts of power over a large area.
With no simple way to increase or decrease the DC voltage his DC systems would have needed a generator on almost every block.

While we can make things like DC to DC converters now, the capability did not exist in Edison's time.
 
While we can make things like DC to DC converters now, the capability did not exist in Edison's time.

And it still wouldn't be as cheap as an AC transformer. Not to mention, DC motors with brushes are a PITA.
 
Just had to revive

this thread. From today's LA Times editorial:


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-nuclear25mar25,0,6215661.story

Say no to nuclear power


The governor sees atomic power as a response to global warming. We need to look at the big picture.
March 25, 2008


Californians might have thought the subject of nuclear power was laid to rest in 1976, when the state banned construction of new plants. But 32 years is a long time, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can now be counted among a rising number of people who think that the threat of global warming provides a good reason to reconsider our distaste for radioactive waste.

If he's sending up this idea as a trial balloon, we'd like to borrow Schwarzenegger's Harrier jet from "True Lies" to blow it out of the sky.

In a recent speech in Santa Barbara, Schwarzenegger decried environmentalists who use scare tactics to "frighten everyone that we're going to have another blowup and all of those things." He was referring to the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters, which thoroughly soured Americans on the concept of nuclear power. It's true that Chernobyl was an ill-maintained monstrosity, and nuclear safety has improved since the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown. It's flatly wrong to conclude that this means nuclear plants are safe.

Nuclear waste remains highly toxic not for a few years but for millenniums; if the ancient Egyptians who built the Great Pyramid had also built nuclear plants, the waste would still be deadly. This material is being stored on-site at nuclear plants, including the two in California (San Onofre and Diablo Canyon) because Congress has been unable to agree on the location for a national repository. As these plants age, the chance of a system failure increases.

"There's no greenhouse gas emissions" with nuclear plants, Schwarzenegger told the Sacramento Bee. This is a constant refrain of the nuclear power industry, but it isn't true. Nuclear plants are fueled by uranium, which is becoming harder to find; uranium mining generates a good deal of carbon, which increases as we dig deeper for the radioactive material. Although nuclear power is considerably cleaner from a greenhouse-gas standpoint than alternatives such as coal-generated power, those mining emissions are nonetheless significant.

More compellingly, given the cost and time frame for building nuclear plants, it would be impossible to build them quickly enough to make an impact on global warming. There are safer, quicker, cheaper and cleaner alternatives, such as solar and wind power, greater efficiency measures and decentralized power generators that produce electricity and heat water at the same time. Let's exhaust them before even considering the nuclear option.



First they say nuclear would take too long to implement, then they say to try everything else first, delaying nukes even more! There is only emotion here, logic is sadly lacking.
 
Back
Top