Lockneed breakthough in fusion reactors.

[McHrozni]

So this is wrong, then? nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html

No, just irrelevant

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

In what sense is it not utilized?

It has been mentioned here that Germany utilizes coal and imports electrical energy at peak hours, while it also dumps electrical power at off hours when their alternative sources produce more than the grid needs.

In light of that, why is this reverse hydropower not utilized to a significantly larger degree?

I think I know why - it's too expensive to be worth it. Coal is cheaper

McHrozni

 

[Belz...]

Even purely in terms of radioactivity, coal plants are worse than nuclear plants.

Whichi is hilarious, when you think about. Or even when you don't.

 

[jimbob]

It has been mentioned here that Germany utilizes coal and imports electrical energy at peak hours, while it also dumps electrical power at off hours when their alternative sources produce more than the grid needs.

In light of that, why is this reverse hydropower not utilized to a significantly larger degree?

I think I know why - it's too expensive to be worth it. Coal is cheaper

McHrozni

They have different roles. The UK has had pumped storage for 50-years, and according to wiki was initially planned to help use Nuclear generational capacity, which can't change output quickly.

The example given in the 1980s was that there used to be a surge in demand after an the Queen's Speech on Christmas Day, or after a particularly-expected soap opera episode, and in the break, "twelve-million kettles would be switched on" to make tea.

From what I remember, one can switch gas-powered generation quicker than coal, but hydro and pumped storage are the fastest-responding.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Here's what I was responding to:

Do you really mean to say that something with a half-life of billions of years is more harmful than something with a half-life of decades?

Quite often, yes. In this case, something that decays slowly enough that we feel okay releasing tons of it into the atmosphere is far more harmful than something which is clearly dangerous but can be stored safely in containers which will outlive the danger. The uranium dust will still be circulating through the environment long after the buried waste is rendered inert.

 

[jimbob]

of course, something with a half life of tens of thousands of years is active enough to be a problem and long lived enough to be a problem for longer than civilisation has existed.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

of course, something with a half life of tens of thousands of years is active enough to be a problem and long lived enough to be a problem for longer than civilisation has existed.

Without a doubt, but iirc it was only the first generation of reactors which made those products. Nowadays they're fed back in the system.

 

[jimbob]

I must admit that I like the idea of isotopic transmutation to deal with the issue of long lived waste.

As an aside, people have used* transmutation in my industry to dope silicon ingots.


*I can't be bothered to see if it is still a current technique.

 

[catsmate]

It has been mentioned here that Germany utilizes coal and imports electrical energy at peak hours, while it also dumps electrical power at off hours when their alternative sources produce more than the grid needs.

In light of that, why is this reverse hydropower not utilized to a significantly larger degree?

I think I know why - it's too expensive to be worth it. Coal is cheaper

McHrozni

Principally construction costs, the requirement for suitable terrain and the fact that they're purely offset/load balancing systems with no net contribution to the grid.

 

[marplots]

Quite often, yes. In this case, something that decays slowly enough that we feel okay releasing tons of it into the atmosphere is far more harmful than something which is clearly dangerous but can be stored safely in containers which will outlive the danger. The uranium dust will still be circulating through the environment long after the buried waste is rendered inert.

The fact that it is clearly dangerous and therefore handled with more care means it is less harmful? Isn't the reason we handle it with more care because it is more harmful?

of course, something with a half life of tens of thousands of years is active enough to be a problem and long lived enough to be a problem for longer than civilisation has existed.

Yes. No one is saying that "less harmful" means "harmless."

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The fact that it is clearly dangerous and therefore handled with more care means it is less harmful? Isn't the reason we handle it with more care because it is more harmful?

And because we handle it with care, it does less harm - therefore less harmful - than the thing we cannot and do not handle with care, but inject into the atmosphere willy-nilly.

 

[marplots]

And because we handle it with care, it does less harm - therefore less harmful - than the thing we cannot and do not handle with care, but inject into the atmosphere willy-nilly.

That's the part I missed. The part that we should rate substances, not on the basis of some inherent property - such as lethality - but by how they are handled to offset the danger. Which is why Ebola is less dangerous than E.coli.

 

[Mikemcc]

They have different roles. The UK has had pumped storage for 50-years, and according to wiki was initially planned to help use Nuclear generational capacity, which can't change output quickly.

The example given in the 1980s was that there used to be a surge in demand after an the Queen's Speech on Christmas Day, or after a particularly-expected soap opera episode, and in the break, "twelve-million kettles would be switched on" to make tea.

From what I remember, one can switch gas-powered generation quicker than coal, but hydro and pumped storage are the fastest-responding.

I visited the Cruachan power station, they were saying that from a standstill they can get to full production in twenty minutes. But if they are running as a 'running reserve' they can reach full production inside two minutes. Each turbine has a motor that can keep them running at some speed even when the water isn't flowing so that they can just open up the valves quickly.

 

[McHrozni]

Principally construction costs, the requirement for suitable terrain and the fact that they're purely offset/load balancing systems with no net contribution to the grid.

That's what I thought - this is just a different way of saying it is too expensive to be worth it.

McHrozni

 

[mike3]

Quite often, yes. In this case, something that decays slowly enough that we feel okay releasing tons of it into the atmosphere is far more harmful than something which is clearly dangerous but can be stored safely in containers which will outlive the danger. The uranium dust will still be circulating through the environment long after the buried waste is rendered inert.

I'm curious, though: does the extra safety measures required to achieve that increase the cost of this form of energy too much to make it viable as a complete replacement for fossil fuel over a short-enough timescale to avert serious climate change? If so, how much can you "skimp a little" on safety before it becomes more dangerous than what we're releasing right now? By "skimp a little" I mean, how vital is it that repositories be kept absolutely or near-absolutely stable over multi-millennial time scales, or could some "seepage" be tolerated when you compare to what has been released with coal? That might open up more disposal sites or making finding them cheaper, if it were possible.

 

[jimbob]

What does looking after waste do for the energy budget/carbon footprint of nuclear reactors?

 

[fishbob]

Thank you. I don't see in your linked source any figure for radiation induced deaths attributable to coal.

Besides the radiation, many of the radioactive elements are chemically toxic. Their dilute and easily soluble presence in coal ash should be a toxicity concern.

 

[macdoc]

What does looking after waste do for the energy budget/carbon footprint of nuclear reactors?

If I'm reading this correctly - any carbon footprint of construction and decommissioning is a rounding error - the figure is so low against output over 60 years,.
It is a major point of cost as reactors - unlike coal are forced to account for complete life cycle costs - commissioning and decommisioning.

Coal kills, big time....and is Enemy #1 in terms of both carbon in the atmosphere and human health.
Were that to be accounted for .....coal would never be a viable fuel source.

http://www.chgeharvard.org/resource/full-cost-accounting-life-cycle-coal

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/External_costs_of_coal

and

2009 National Research Council Report on External Costs
In 2009 the National Research Council released a report on the “external costs of coal" caused by various energy sources over their entire life cycle, from extraction to production to use and emissions, effects not factored into the market cost of the fuels.
The report Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use was released in October 2009. Requested by Congress, the report was sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies.

Putting together a diverse committee of experts including scientists, economists, and geologists, the committee estimated the use of fossil fuels had a hidden cost to the U.S. public of $120 billion in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation. The estimate was derived from monetizing the damage of major air pollutants -- sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and particulate matter – on human health, grain crops and timber yields, buildings, and recreation.

The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize.

The committee also separately derived a range of values for damages from climate change, and found that each ton of carbon dioxide emissions will be far worse in 2030 than now: “even if the total amount of annual emissions remains steady, the damages caused by each ton would increase 50 percent to 80 percent.”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/External_costs_of_coal

the report
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12794

 

[Craig B]

Besides the radiation, many of the radioactive elements are chemically toxic. Their dilute and easily soluble presence in coal ash should be a toxicity concern.

Thank you. Can you answer my question about the low level of background radiation in the metal obtained from the scuttled German High Seas Fleet?

 

[steenkh]

Could somebody please correct the spelling error in the title of this thread? Or is it "Lockneed" a clever pun that I have missed?