I used to think so; any more I'm not so sure it'll just not be roll-over
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...
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... :)
Got no answers, but onward and upward.
This is a commitment that can be described as serious.
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?
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
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.
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.)
"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.
nuke plants are large because of the generation size, and containment
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
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.
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.
(... 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.
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.
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.
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.