If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
D. Peter Maus wrote:
snip As much as I can't believe I'm going to say this...ahem, ...we might wish to take a lesson from the French. (sincerest apologies.) They generate much of their energy from nuclear. They recycle and reuse the depleted fuel, and unrecoverable waste is cast in glass bricks. Glass bricks neither corrode, nor leak. And can be stacked underground for centuries without incident. As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision. Instead of letting Brown and Root rape and pillage for billions, let the Navy build reactors for the power grid, sell them to the transmission companies. Help fund Naval development, and produce clean, cheap energy in abundance. It's not all sweetness and light in France either. During summer heatwaves, the ambient temperature of rivers etc. used for cooling was high enough to impair the cooling available without exceeding the allowable exit water temperature. Coupled with peak electricity demand for air conditioners, the nuclear stations were overloaded and forced to reduce output, compelling the French to import about 2,000 MW daily from adjoining countries. Google for 'french nuclear heatwave' and read. Colin D. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
Rich wrote:
And in France, 80% of their power is nuclear an they do it in about 1/1000th the space used up by wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy. But at times it seems they hired Homer Simpson as the Chief Security Officer in the plant. -- Bertrand |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
? "Alan Browne" ?????? ??? ?????? ... Allen wrote: Jürgen Exner wrote: Rich wrote: [...] issues put forth by the global warming kooks. Like covering thousands of acres of land with solar cells or "wind farms" all of which are pathetic energy producers. Indeed, wind energy is so pathetic that it covered only 20% of Danmark's energy needs last year. Of course the 20% of power coming from nuclear plants in the USA is much more admirable......... And in some regions wind energy covers much more, e.g. 71% in Ostfriesland-Papenburg (region in North-Germany) in 2005. That's just a tad more than the share of coal (49%) and nuclear power (20%) combined in the USA. Pathetic, indeed. jue One of the biggest problems that we have concerning electricity generation is that there are far, far too many players of one-string fiddles (to make it on topic). Where is it written that we should put all our eggs in one basket? My preference would be to generate as much as we can via renewable, non-polluting methods (wind, sun, tides) and supplement as needed by other means--natural gas, nuclear, coal), each of which has major disadvantages: The real disadvantages of major renewables (solar, wind, wave, tide) is that they suck for baseload. The only renewable that is great at baseload AND peaking load is hydro. Texas has more wind than any other US state. However, a couple years ago, during a drop in wind while there was little available fast NG turbine capacity available, ERCOT had to tell . various . industries to go offline for about 40 minutes or so to the tune of a few MWatts until baseload could be built up again (coal and NG fired boilers take a while to raise additional steam even if already fired up). NG turbines can turn on quick (10 minutes or less) - but need to be available - not always the case. Nuclear will make a huge resurgence over the next 30 years (Great at baseload, not peaking). Renewables are a good fit between baseload and peaking load allowing the baseload to be throttled a little bit. You just can't have too much of it in the mix. Wind turbines need electricity from the grid to start turning;when the wind blows enough for them to start turning on their own, their electronics "convert" them from motors to generators. Since the wind cannot be controlled at will, unless we have a pact with God, when the wind stalls again, the turbines don't stop, but get electricity again from the grid, thus become from generators motors. Furthermore, wind turbines can't generate reactive power, like "normal" plants, but instead they drain reactive power from the grid. Here, in Crete, we have many wind turbines, resulting in light "flickering". Base load plants run 24/7 (obviously) preferably at full load. They need 8 hours for a cold start, and more time to pick additional loads. The run 1 1/2 year before they must be shut down for service. -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/13/09 17:40 , Alan Browne wrote: D. Peter Maus wrote: And when does this come on-line? Nuclear is stalled in the US due to the blizzard of misinformation, and bad press of a couple of accidents. Nuclear isn't even on the administration's agenda. License applications are up (26 reactors in queue) in the US and most applications will go ahead with the first reactors expected on line ca 2018. Some of these will have federal loan guarantees. So you're wrong about stalled. And you're wrong about policy. I"m going to have to see that. Our state reps and our Congressional representatives have all declared that they will opposed implentation of any new nuclear facilities. Period. I've heard this not only in Illinois, but Missouri, New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Activist groups are interfering with process, and the lawsuits to stop nuclear implementation are real. Meanwhile, Dresden 1 has been closed since '78. Zion was last operational in 1997. In all, 23 plants have been closed nationwide. 63 have been cancelled. Meanwhile prices for electric service skyrocket. Consider also, that Illinois has enacted legislation prohibiting transmission companies from buying energy outside of specified proportions from sources including gas, oil, coal and nuclear. Exelon, the primary generating company in the state, owns most of the nuclear plants, but is prohibited from selling their nuclear generated electricity to Edison, the transmission company, in sufficient quantities to reduce electric rates. Edison may not purchase but a specified percentage of nuclear from Exelon (between 10 and 20%), but must purchase the bulk of its operating supplies of energy from coal, oil and gas generation in specified proportions. That, Mr Browne, would be stalled. And it would be stalled as a matter of policy. Fact is 26 reactors in 17 licenses are in process. Several are all but approved and include federal loan guarantees. Much of this is based on policy and congressional action since the 90's. Seems like policy is proceeding apace (hint: 99.99% of federal policy goes on without you reading about it in the papers or seeing a sound bite on the news). Is there opposition? When isn't there (regardless of the issue)?) That you don't like hearing the truth does not make it false. It has been stalled indeed since Three-Mile. In the meantime everything about the technology has improved and moved forward. As a major source of baseload that emits very little carbon (even accounting for the huge amount of concrete involved) it is fast becoming a viable choice again. I _really_ suggest you begin some serious reading on the subject. If the Navy can do it well, and civilian has a bad rep, then there is a lesson to take. Profit and investment recovery aside. Civilian only has a bad rep from the nuke-naysayers. Ya THINK? Again, if the Navy can do it, and we 't, we need to ta Again, if you persist on referring to the Navy wrt to civilian operations, which are quite different in nature, you are simply deluding yourself. I would even hazard a guess that for MW-h produced, the civilian sector has had far fewer incidents of all kinds than the Navy. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
ColinD wrote:
It's not all sweetness and light in France either. During summer heatwaves, the ambient temperature of rivers etc. used for cooling was high enough to impair the cooling available without exceeding the allowable exit water temperature. Coupled with peak electricity demand for air conditioners, the nuclear stations were overloaded and forced to reduce output, compelling the French to import about 2,000 MW daily from adjoining countries. Google for 'french nuclear heatwave' and read. Effects of the environment affect all sorts of electrical production in adverse ways - including the semi-voluntary shutting down of industry in Texas for an hour or so a couple years ago. Reason: bad wind forecasts had scheduled too much wind power in the mix (Texas is the largest wind power generator). When the wind died off early, the grid was short until other baseload could be brought online. A couple MW worth. Likewise, Google will help you find it... Perhaps wind, solar and wave should be used to store power (pumped hydro and thermal storage (molten sodium) for two examples) and then used to peak or supplement base load. This would decouple natural unpredictability from the grid - which is sensitive enough as it is. However, that would impair the economics of renewables even further (less efficient). |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
On 10/14/09 13:41 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote: On 10/13/09 17:40 , Alan Browne wrote: D. Peter Maus wrote: And when does this come on-line? Nuclear is stalled in the US due to the blizzard of misinformation, and bad press of a couple of accidents. Nuclear isn't even on the administration's agenda. License applications are up (26 reactors in queue) in the US and most applications will go ahead with the first reactors expected on line ca 2018. Some of these will have federal loan guarantees. So you're wrong about stalled. And you're wrong about policy. I"m going to have to see that. Our state reps and our Congressional representatives have all declared that they will opposed implentation of any new nuclear facilities. Period. I've heard this not only in Illinois, but Missouri, New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Activist groups are interfering with process, and the lawsuits to stop nuclear implementation are real. Meanwhile, Dresden 1 has been closed since '78. Zion was last operational in 1997. In all, 23 plants have been closed nationwide. 63 have been cancelled. Meanwhile prices for electric service skyrocket. Consider also, that Illinois has enacted legislation prohibiting transmission companies from buying energy outside of specified proportions from sources including gas, oil, coal and nuclear. Exelon, the primary generating company in the state, owns most of the nuclear plants, but is prohibited from selling their nuclear generated electricity to Edison, the transmission company, in sufficient quantities to reduce electric rates. Edison may not purchase but a specified percentage of nuclear from Exelon (between 10 and 20%), but must purchase the bulk of its operating supplies of energy from coal, oil and gas generation in specified proportions. That, Mr Browne, would be stalled. And it would be stalled as a matter of policy. Fact is 26 reactors in 17 licenses are in process. Several are all but approved and include federal loan guarantees. Much of this is based on policy and congressional action since the 90's. Seems like policy is proceeding apace (hint: 99.99% of federal policy goes on without you reading about it in the papers or seeing a sound bite on the news). Is there opposition? When isn't there (regardless of the issue)?) That you don't like hearing the truth does not make it false. You're presumptions are all false, here. Since you appear to be disinterested in any explanations, I'll not waste my time. It has been stalled indeed since Three-Mile. In the meantime everything about the technology has improved and moved forward. As a major source of baseload that emits very little carbon (even accounting for the huge amount of concrete involved) it is fast becoming a viable choice again. I _really_ suggest you begin some serious reading on the subject. I would suggest you do the same. Starting with this thread. You seem to have missed the key point that you and I are in agreement on many of these points. DAMN. WTF does it take, Brother. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/14/09 13:41 , Alan Browne wrote: D. Peter Maus wrote: On 10/13/09 17:40 , Alan Browne wrote: D. Peter Maus wrote: And when does this come on-line? Nuclear is stalled in the US due to the blizzard of misinformation, and bad press of a couple of accidents. Nuclear isn't even on the administration's agenda. License applications are up (26 reactors in queue) in the US and most applications will go ahead with the first reactors expected on line ca 2018. Some of these will have federal loan guarantees. So you're wrong about stalled. And you're wrong about policy. I"m going to have to see that. Our state reps and our Congressional representatives have all declared that they will opposed implentation of any new nuclear facilities. Period. I've heard this not only in Illinois, but Missouri, New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Activist groups are interfering with process, and the lawsuits to stop nuclear implementation are real. Meanwhile, Dresden 1 has been closed since '78. Zion was last operational in 1997. In all, 23 plants have been closed nationwide. 63 have been cancelled. Meanwhile prices for electric service skyrocket. Consider also, that Illinois has enacted legislation prohibiting transmission companies from buying energy outside of specified proportions from sources including gas, oil, coal and nuclear. Exelon, the primary generating company in the state, owns most of the nuclear plants, but is prohibited from selling their nuclear generated electricity to Edison, the transmission company, in sufficient quantities to reduce electric rates. Edison may not purchase but a specified percentage of nuclear from Exelon (between 10 and 20%), but must purchase the bulk of its operating supplies of energy from coal, oil and gas generation in specified proportions. That, Mr Browne, would be stalled. And it would be stalled as a matter of policy. Fact is 26 reactors in 17 licenses are in process. Several are all but approved and include federal loan guarantees. Much of this is based on policy and congressional action since the 90's. Seems like policy is proceeding apace (hint: 99.99% of federal policy goes on without you reading about it in the papers or seeing a sound bite on the news). Is there opposition? When isn't there (regardless of the issue)?) That you don't like hearing the truth does not make it false. You're presumptions are all false, here. Search the web. Easy enough to find. See Duke Energy 2008. See South Texas Project. See Vogtle. See So. Carolina E&G. TVA. Unistar. And so many more. Just because some states are slow, doesn't mean they all are. Since you appear to be disinterested in any explanations, I'll not waste my time. Your explanations do not hold up to the facts. It has been stalled indeed since Three-Mile. In the meantime everything about the technology has improved and moved forward. As a major source of baseload that emits very little carbon (even accounting for the huge amount of concrete involved) it is fast becoming a viable choice again. I _really_ suggest you begin some serious reading on the subject. I would suggest you do the same. Starting with this thread. You seem to have missed the key point that you and I are in agreement on many of these points. But not those that count. For example the 26 US reactors under license process, some backed by US Fed loan guarantees. You don't seem to like that ... inconvenient truth. And your assertions regarding US Navy nuke operations as an example to civil operations are just plain ... naive. DAMN. WTF does it take, Brother. It takes you to go read. I've put out all the data you need to find the rest. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
On 10/14/09 15:31 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote: On 10/14/09 13:41 , Alan Browne wrote: D. Peter Maus wrote: On 10/13/09 17:40 , Alan Browne wrote: D. Peter Maus wrote: And when does this come on-line? Nuclear is stalled in the US due to the blizzard of misinformation, and bad press of a couple of accidents. Nuclear isn't even on the administration's agenda. License applications are up (26 reactors in queue) in the US and most applications will go ahead with the first reactors expected on line ca 2018. Some of these will have federal loan guarantees. So you're wrong about stalled. And you're wrong about policy. I"m going to have to see that. Our state reps and our Congressional representatives have all declared that they will opposed implentation of any new nuclear facilities. Period. I've heard this not only in Illinois, but Missouri, New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Activist groups are interfering with process, and the lawsuits to stop nuclear implementation are real. Meanwhile, Dresden 1 has been closed since '78. Zion was last operational in 1997. In all, 23 plants have been closed nationwide. 63 have been cancelled. Meanwhile prices for electric service skyrocket. Consider also, that Illinois has enacted legislation prohibiting transmission companies from buying energy outside of specified proportions from sources including gas, oil, coal and nuclear. Exelon, the primary generating company in the state, owns most of the nuclear plants, but is prohibited from selling their nuclear generated electricity to Edison, the transmission company, in sufficient quantities to reduce electric rates. Edison may not purchase but a specified percentage of nuclear from Exelon (between 10 and 20%), but must purchase the bulk of its operating supplies of energy from coal, oil and gas generation in specified proportions. That, Mr Browne, would be stalled. And it would be stalled as a matter of policy. Fact is 26 reactors in 17 licenses are in process. Several are all but approved and include federal loan guarantees. Much of this is based on policy and congressional action since the 90's. Seems like policy is proceeding apace (hint: 99.99% of federal policy goes on without you reading about it in the papers or seeing a sound bite on the news). Is there opposition? When isn't there (regardless of the issue)?) That you don't like hearing the truth does not make it false. You're presumptions are all false, here. Search the web. Easy enough to find. See Duke Energy 2008. See South Texas Project. See Vogtle. See So. Carolina E&G. TVA. Unistar. And so many more. Just because some states are slow, doesn't mean they all are. Again, your presumptions, here, are false. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
On 10/14/09 15:31 , Alan Browne wrote:
I _really_ suggest you begin some serious reading on the subject. I would suggest you do the same. Starting with this thread. You seem to have missed the key point that you and I are in agreement on many of these points. But not those that count. For example the 26 US reactors under license process, some backed by US Fed loan guarantees. You don't seem to like that ... inconvenient truth. And your assertions regarding US Navy nuke operations as an example to civil operations are just plain ... naive. Well, thank God, we have you to point that out. Your presumpions, here, are false. DAMN. WTF does it take, Brother. It takes you to go read. Again, your presumptions, here, are false. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/14/09 15:31 , Alan Browne wrote: Search the web. Easy enough to find. See Duke Energy 2008. See South Texas Project. See Vogtle. See So. Carolina E&G. TVA. Unistar. And so many more. Just because some states are slow, doesn't mean they all are. Again, your presumptions, here, are false. Not presumptions. Facts. Facts that you can find on the web. For that matter there is a single web page that summarizes all the current projects, their status and much, much more. Shouldn't take you more than 1 minute on Google to find it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|