PDA

View Full Version : Idea for nuclear energy..............



jack grebe
06-17-2010, 06:11 PM
Didn't want to hijack the other thread, but what would
the feasability be of smaller power plants? I figure if they
can build nukes for large ships, why not ones to power,
say, a developement?

Make it part of the cost of doing business for the developer,
who would then pass it on to the consumer, who would benefit
long term from clean,cheap,fossel free, electric.

Of course, if it did provide for lower electric bills in the future,
folks might have to buy electric cars to maximize on it.

oznabrag
06-17-2010, 06:17 PM
Didn't want to hijack the other thread, but what would
the feasability be of smaller power plants? I figure if they
can build nukes for large ships, why not ones to power,
say, a developement?

Make it part of the cost of doing business for the developer,
who would then pass it on to the consumer, who would benefit
long term from clean,cheap,fossel free, electric.

Of course, if it did provide for lower electric bills in the future,
folks might have to buy electric cars to maximize on it.

It's being done (http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product-com.html).

jack grebe
06-17-2010, 06:21 PM
OK, so they stole my idea:rolleyes:............but it seems
to be just talk......are there any of these things
up and running?

WX
06-17-2010, 06:21 PM
Make it part of the cost of doing business for the developer,

I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust a developer with a bent penny let alone a Nuclear power plant.

Thorne
06-17-2010, 06:27 PM
Didn't work for the Communist Chinese when they tried small distributed manufacturing 50 years ago, and won't work here even if we were stupid enough to try it. Kids, can you say, "Economy of scale"???

And what a boon to domestic terrorists! Why bother to sneak a dirty bomb across the borders when we'll build them for 'em? A security nightmare, and the waste is actively carcinogenic for over 20,000 years -- aka "Dead American Babies Forever".

jack grebe
06-17-2010, 06:27 PM
I really don't know what the cost would be, but
to put a little perspective on it,

If a 1,000 home developement is planned, the cost
passed on for the nuke would only be $1000.00 per
household, per million in nuke construction costs.

jack grebe
06-17-2010, 06:30 PM
And what a boon to domestic terrorists!
I don't live my life in fear.......never have, never will

Thorne
06-17-2010, 06:35 PM
We aren't talking about you, but all the others who may be unhappy if they die young -- or old, for that matter.

I imagine that the BP execs also are pretty fearless, as they don't actually work on the drilling platforms -- so what??

WX
06-17-2010, 06:35 PM
A security nightmare, and the waste is actively carcinogenic for over 20,000 years -- aka "Dead American Babies Forever".

When people come out and promote Nuclear energy as a clean cheap fuel, they never address that point or how much it would cost to store it securely for that amount of time.

Thorne
06-17-2010, 11:25 PM
Jesus, people, you think we're stymied trying to deal with an oil leak 5000 feet down --- just what do you think will happen when (not if) we have another Chernobyl, where the workers risk death from cancer?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f6/Chernobyl_burning-aerial_view_of_core.jpg/220px-Chernobyl_burning-aerial_view_of_core.jpg

We know that Fearless Jack will certainly volunteer 'cause he's not afraid -- anybody else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

oznabrag
06-17-2010, 11:35 PM
This (http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/what-is-an-energy-server/) seems to be making a splash.

Google is powering their New York offices with one.

epoxyboy
06-18-2010, 01:49 AM
Jesus, people, you think we're stymied trying to deal with an oil leak 5000 feet down --- just what do you think will happen when (not if) we have another Chernobyl, where the workers risk death from cancer?


We know that Fearless Jack will certainly volunteer 'cause he's not afraid -- anybody else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

By all accounts, Chernobyl was a badly run 1970's reactor design, with some fairly nasty inherent flaws. Things have moved on in the nuclear industry some since then - just like cars, computers and phones. As I understand it, modern marine reactors are about as inherently safe as it is possible to make something that stonks out several MW from a handful of toxic waste. The other point is that these things run for years on one fuel load, and the cancerous output is probably considerably less than your average coal fired power station. You wouldnt have to bury one of these too deep would you, to make it pretty secure from anything short of a full scale military assault?

Pete

martin schulz
06-18-2010, 02:30 AM
Oh...I must have been sleeping...is there a solution for the radiating waste?

seanz
06-18-2010, 02:46 AM
Gone by lunchtime, eh, Pete?
;)



Didn't want to hijack the other thread, but what would
the feasability be of smaller power plants? I figure if they
can build nukes for large ships, why not ones to power,
say, a developement?

Make it part of the cost of doing business for the developer,
who would then pass it on to the consumer, who would benefit
long term from clean,cheap,fossel free, electric.

Of course, if it did provide for lower electric bills in the future,
folks might have to buy electric cars to maximize on it.


Have you seen the fights that result from communal swimming pools? :eek: You want a development to have a nuclear powerplant? I can see many, many bad things resulting from this. Mind you, if they could produce weapons grade plutonium that could make for a very secure gated community.

Maybe there is a case to be made for a development to have its' own power production but I haven't heard of any doing it.
Two things against developments using self-contained power production......most people don't plan 'long term' enough when they buy, so paying the premium for the facility might not be worth the cheap power and, around here, most of the small power companies have been swallowed up by larger companies.


Might work for a retirement village though,,,,higher initial purchase price and then lower overheads. You'd still be better off with some form of the 'alternative' energies though because if they have a major failure it's not a national emergency.

ishmael
06-18-2010, 05:37 AM
This issue gets emotional very quickly. No question, you need to keep an eye on the waste. But it's doable. How many people die of lung related disease here in New England because of what's spewing out of mid-west coal-fired electric plants? You don't hear about that so much, do you?

Do nuke plants present problems? No question. Anytime we generate power, aside from a wood burning stove, it makes problems. Even a wood burning stove makes ashes.

I think the West has lost faith, needs to regain it. We can do nuke power safely. It will take work, but it's doable. It will take some work, a will, but it's doable.

Iceboy
06-18-2010, 06:41 AM
U.S. Navy did it with the PM-3A reactor in Antarctica circa 1962. Had a few small problems though.

WX
06-18-2010, 06:49 AM
This issue gets emotional very quickly. No question, you need to keep an eye on the waste. But it's doable. How many people die of lung related disease here in New England because of what's spewing out of mid-west coal-fired electric plants? You don't hear about that so much, do you?

Do nuke plants present problems? No question. Anytime we generate power, aside from a wood burning stove, it makes problems. Even a wood burning stove makes ashes.

I think the West has lost faith, needs to regain it. We can do nuke power safely. It will take work, but it's doable. It will take some work, a will, but it's doable.
Yep I agree, I just we can securely store radioactive waste and spent fuel rods for 20, 000 years...must be the ole Elephant in the room syndrome.

Woxbox
06-18-2010, 06:58 AM
Hitachi and GE are working on such stuff, too. Small island nations, for example, can't afford to import oil, so a small reactor would be just the thing.

You don't have to like nuclear energy to look at the numbers and realize that it's the only source of power that's big enough to replace all the burnable sources. We don't have much choice, folks.

john l
06-18-2010, 07:06 AM
my bet is that within 15 years you will be able to go to home depot and purchase
a small home reactor that fits in place of your hot water heater. it will power your
house and car, and possibly heat your water. it will be made in china,
and you will not be able to access or change the fuel. when that's gone you will
have to either replace the entire unit or have a certified tech team protected by a
new division of blackwater type firms make the swap. the real kicker is that
it will be based on a 1950 US patent, now expired. wired magazine had an
article on small scale reactors the chinese were building in daisy chain. these
were each about the size of a 2000 sq ft house and made from off the shelf
components. instead of control rods they use "radioactive balls" about the size of
billiard balls. these balls move in orbit around a nucleus and when depleted
simply drop out of orbit into a bucket near or totally spent. wired mag
interviewed one of the MIT engineers who said that this approach was the
most prudent and he and his colleagues couldn't believe that GE and the US gov
didn't pursue this method of nuclear power, instead, adopting a more expensive
and complex approach to generating nuclear power. he surmised that it was due
to the Gov's willingness to give big bucks to GE and support job creation
and GE's salesmanship.

WX
06-18-2010, 07:42 AM
Hitachi and GE are working on such stuff, too. Small island nations, for example, can't afford to import oil, so a small reactor would be just the thing.

You don't have to like nuclear energy to look at the numbers and realize that it's the only source of power that's big enough to replace all the burnable sources. We don't have much choice, folks.
I beg to differ, Humans waste a large portion of all energy produced. I've managed quite well on solar for the last 25 or so years.

LeeG
06-18-2010, 08:03 AM
You don't have to like nuclear energy to look at the numbers and realize that it's the only source of power that's big enough to replace all the burnable sources. We don't have much choice, folks.

I'd like to see some numbers

Flying Orca
06-18-2010, 10:36 AM
For anyone interested in the topic, especially safety issues, I recommend the book Atomic Awakening (http://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Awakening-History-Future-Nuclear/dp/1605980404/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276875308&sr=1-3-spell) by James Mahaffey.

paladin
06-18-2010, 11:27 AM
Lessee...first you need a 3 inch diameter carbon rod with a 1 1/16th hole in the middle, about 30 inches long, then a ball about 4 inches in diameter that's hollow with 3/16th inch walls.......oops.........all the energy goes at once...you wanna very slow release.

Woxbox
06-18-2010, 08:23 PM
First, some numbers:


Primary energy
The United States Energy Information Administration regularly publishes a report on world consumption for most types of primary energy resources.
(source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption)

Fuel type Average power in TW[12]
1980 2004 2006
Oil 4.38 5.58 5.74
Gas 1.80 3.45 3.61
Coal 2.34 3.87 4.27
Hydroelectric 0.599 0.933 0.995
Nuclear power 0.253 0.914 0.929
Geothermal, wind,
solar energy, wood 0.016 0.133 0.158
Total 9.48 15.0 15.8


So it's almost all stuff that's being burned. Look at the most generous estimates of what non-combustion sources other than nuclear can provide. No one pretends they can replace the oil, gas and coal.

WX -- You're on the internet, I know that. How much energy did it take to manufacture your computer? Do you drive a car? Do you buy food at the supermarket? All of these activities involve mining and drilling energy sources, and burning most of it so that we can live as we do. The cost of a tomato? Mostly the cost of the energy to make the fertilizer and bug spray, to run the tractors to work the soil and the trucks to get it to market. Was it placed in plastic bag? It's very very hard to escape our dependence on oil, coal and gas.