OT-A Slow Day in The Cabinet Shop

Page 2 of 3  
On 6/8/2010 12:56 PM, dpb wrote:

When enough people figure out that the choices are to pay ludicrous electric rates, freeze to death in the dark, or build nukes, the greenies will be told to go pound sand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote: ...

I used to think so; any more I'm not so sure it'll just not be roll-over time... :(
I've said numerous times that as the current spate of applications for new units comes up for licensing hearings we'll learn real soon now how serious the C-sequestration people are for actually accomplishing something as opposed to simply being obstructionists. I have my opinion what we'll see of them; hopefully to be shown it's wrong...
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some seqestering is being used to increase production of oil fields.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Markem wrote:

Yes, there are some byproduct uses but I think will remain quite small volumes relative to the product stream (product being a waste in this case).
I guess one could clean it up and use it for carbonation, too... :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Make dry ice.......
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I asked:

-------------------------------------
Got no answers, but onward and upward.
This is a commitment that can be described as serious.
http://tinyurl.com/23ytwd2
Interesting how many producing wells there are in Kern County which in addition to some very successful agriculture areas also has some of the most god forsaken desert areas in California.
As luck would have it, a lot of the oil is in the desert.
Wonder if this wind farm is also in the desert?
Lew
.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Might be nice if they could be switched to fans to suck the smog out of California.
--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/27/2010 6:14 AM, Gerald Ross wrote:

The already have them. It is my understanding that the big windmills have to be started with electricty from the grid. All they would have to do is run them when there is no wind and a lot of smog
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think there was a Beverly Hillbilliees episode that dealt with that very proposition wherein investors approached Jed with the idea of drilling a large shaft/tunnel through one of the mountains above L.A. to include giant fans that would suck the smog out of the L.A. basin. Having advised Jed they had investment commitments for all the major components save the tunnel Jed asked, "Well, who gets the shaft?"
Dave in Texas
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

...
There's only one way to answer the above initial question and that is by comparison of actual operating costs under the rules in effect at the moment. By those, other than for installed hydro, coal is clear overall cost-effective winner. Nuclear is also in the neighborhood as well.
Wind is for the local grid about a 1.8x multiplier over coal/nuclear; I've seen claims it's much closer than that to conventional but don't know how they get the figures; the above is based on the bus charge for our local REC for our costs to the supplying generators.
One problem w/ wind is that even here in SW KS known for being one of windiest places in the US the wind doesn't blow all the time, particularly less in Aug and Feb, the two peak months and at night when lose thermal heating effects that contribute. The Gray County farm has averaged only about a 40% capacity factor since it went online in 2002 or so based on their reported generation to DOE/EIA that I looked at a year or so ago. The maximum monthly average was just over 50% for a couple of months while the two slack months were in the mid-20% range. That means need 2.5X extra installed capacity to make up the target generation on average and 5X in weak months. That's a real construction burden to do more than augment conventional technologies.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I keep trying to reconcile the what we know about nuclear powered satellites and the size of the behemoths we seem bent on building on the ground. Even the small units that power subs and aircraft carriers. Why do these power plants always have to be so big and unwieldy? I don't want to go as far as suggesting 'Neighbourhood Black Power Boxes' but....(I understand there would be security issues but that is not why the big nukes are as big as they are.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Nuclear powered satellites" aren't powered by reactors (though it has been done, it gets messy). They use the heat from decaying material to generate electricity via what are essentially thermocouples (known as Radioisotope Thermal Generators). They produce very little power and are *expensive* so only used where the sun don't shine. Nothing in Earth orbit needs or uses them.
Nuclear reactors themselves aren't all that large. It's all the support stuff around them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

nuke plants are large because of the generation size, and containment (accidents).
subs don't have 'large' plants because they skip a lot of the safety and containment bits. if they get a meltdown, it just goes out the bottom of the hull.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
chaniarts wrote: ...

Not really. The prime reason is they're highly enriched, much higher power density (and much smaller total power output/reactor) than commercial power reactors.
They have design bases that are much more stringent in terms of load swing, maneuvering rates, ability to restart immediately after shutdown, etc., owing to the demands placed upon them by combat readiness. Hence, they're much more expensive per MW also.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...and aren't designed to be run by Homer Simpsons. A trade-off between safety and function.

They are also much smaller (MW) and have much tighter operational limits. They fail "safe". ...to the bottom of the ocean.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

In actuality, while naval operators are indeed very well trained, so are commercial operators (in fact, many commercial SROs and ROs are ex-Navy).
In many ways, the conservative design of the naval reactor makes it more "idjit-proof" than is the commercial reactor. The extreme over-design for the military exigencies provides greater margin in normal operation owing to that.

Only if all systems including the HPI and sea-water emergency systems are failed as well. Anything is possible in combat but they are definitely not designed as disposable single-failure systems as your posting makes them sound.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Many. Not all. I've known a few.

The submarine itself is a "disposable single-failure system", given a large enough "single" failure. It *has* happened, without the Earth ending.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Quote-- (... many commercial SROs and ROs are ex-Navy).
I met a quite sizable number in 30+ years in commercial nuclear power...and know a fair number of those from reasonably to very to about a dozen extremely well...
...

As is everything (including the Earth). The sub is, however, designed to come back from quite a severe mauling w/o that event occurring rather than that being the first or expected result.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote: ... I intended to add that I believe "containment" on subs is a bulkhead on either end of the reactors which isolate it. Naturally in such a confined space one isn't going to build the equivalent of the commercial reactor containment building--for one thing, they don't do refueling and other maintenance operations in anything at all similar manner that requires the area around the reactor in the commercial LWR.
I believe the carrier reactors are "packaged" to provide similar isolation/containment, again with space constraints albeit not to the degree of sub's.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

they have a multifeet thick concrete containment vessel, like land power plants, capable of surviving a jetliner hit? that's a good part of the bulk of land plants, from what i can see from the outside.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.