Lockneed breakthough in fusion reactors.

[McHrozni]

Hydro/current-generators are good, renewable, base-load power supplies; pumped hydro that used excess solar/wind during their peak cycles (mid-day for solar and sunrise sunset for wind) to pump water up into storage reservoirs which is then released through turbines during the off-peak times to generate steady power and smooth the renewable generation footprint works quite well.

You probably should add:
- on a small scale.

Am I right?

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/23i6mp/til_a_coal_power_station_puts_100_times_more/
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Wh...an_nuclear_waste_and_what_is_the_exact_reason

I suppose I could have linked lmgtfy.

Even purely in terms of radioactivity, coal plants are worse than nuclear plants. Nuclear plants then produce no CO2, SOx, NOx, or coal ash.

I've looked only at your first link. Its author's main area of expertise seems to be gender imbalance induced by population reduction policies, judging by her published work. In her personal website she describes herself as

a founding member of Deca, a writers’ collective formed to produce and market longform dispatches from around the world.

http://www.marahvistendahl.com
Her Scientific American article is worded in a slightly unclear way, comparing various estimates with measured figures, and is linked to this comment

There is also growing concern about the presence of radioactive substances in coal combustion wastes. According to an article in Scientific American, “the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash . . . contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste.” In the story, Mara Hvistendahl notes that [that's a patently absurd statement that I should not have included in the original post] the radioactive elements uranium and thorium occur in trace amounts in coal. When that coal is burned, the uranium and thorium are concentrated by a factor of 10 in the resulting fly ash.

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=227 A comment appended to that article states

Tom Yulsman
Posted December 27, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Permalink
Well, it looks like I violated one of the cardinal rules I tell my students: If it sounds stupid, it most likely is. I just went back and read the Scientific American article, and the comparison to radioactive waste makes no sense whatsoever. But I think the overall point of the story — that coal ash contains thorium and uranium and that it can pose a risk under certain circumstances (perhaps in Tennessee, but I suspect we’ll never find out) — is still valid.

So I apologize for the ridiculous New York Post sensationalism. I’m going to edit my posting. If I can, I will do it with cross-outs so I can leave a record of how I edited it.

This is all rather confusing and disquieting.

Anyway, I repeat my question. If coal ash is so radioactive, why is metal from the scuttled fleet of coal-fired German warships salvaged from Scapa Flow used as low radiation background material? This has lower radiation than materials exposed to the atmosphere during the period of atmospheric nuclear testing. Presumably there's a reason why years of exposure to "coal combustion wastes" has not affected these ships. Do you know what it is?

I'll now look at your other links, for which many thanks.

 

[Ocelot]

You probably should add:
- on a small scale.

Am I right?

McHrozni

no

 

[McHrozni]

no

The work was undertaken by an Alfred McAlpine / Brand / Zschokke consortium.[5] 12,000,000 tonnes (12,000,000 long tons; 13,000,000 short tons) of rock had to be moved from inside the mountain, creating tunnels wide enough for two lorries to pass comfortably, and an enormous cavern 51 metres (167 ft) tall, 180 metres (590 ft) long, and 23 metres (75 ft) wide[6] known as "the concert hall"

Can you repeat that in Germany and be cost-efficient? Given the power output, you'd need about six of them.

I'd wager the answer is no, you can't. Otherwise this wouldn't be an issue at all.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

I'll now look at your other links, for which many thanks.

Your other two links are comments on the first. The third has this attached post.

Rory Doherty · Queen's University Belfast
Here's a link to an old story in Scientific American on the subject, the clear communication of the issues can be as much of a story as the subject itself (look at the amount of comments the article generated)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation Dec 8, 2013

I agree with Mr Doherty on the communication being as much of a story as the subject. Here is the entirety of the article in your third link. No sources are given, but it is quite evidently based on the SA piece.

Why is coal ash more radioactive than nuclear waste and what is the exact reason?

Over the past few decades, a series of studies have called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant — a by-product from burning coal for electricity — carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

You will note my sourced comment on that

that's a patently absurd statement that I should not have included in the original post

But we have it again. As I say, the issue is left unclear by these sources, at least to my mind.

 

[Ocelot]

Can you repeat that in Germany and be cost-efficient?

Yes

 

[McHrozni]

Yes

Hm, you learn something new every day.

So why is this not utilized?

McHrozni

 

[marplots]

Are coal plants "producing" radioactive elements or merely distilling them out of existing material? It seems a bit of a dodge to lump all radioactivity together in that way. I'd take a pound of naturally occurring uranium over plutonium or any of the really dangerous stuff.

It's like saying Ebola might be scary, but hey, you have several pounds of infectious bacteria in your gut right now.

 

[epepke]

I always think it is odd that you aiming to create something as hot as the sun, and then using it to make steam. It seems so... inelegant.

Well, you're not.

Making a fusion reactor like the sun would be pretty useless. Compost heaps get warmer faster than the core of the sun. Takes a bit too long to boil water at that rate. The sun is only as hot as it is because it's big and has had some time to warm up.

 

[McHrozni]

I'd take a pound of naturally occurring uranium over plutonium or any of the really dangerous stuff.

The question is actually "one pound of distilled but naturally occurring uranium in the air, or one pound of plutonium in a shielded building"?

Something being "natural" doesn't mean, or imply it's less harmful than something artificial. What's less dangerous, stream water with high concentrations of naturally occurring arsenic, or an artificially treated water, free of toxins?

McHrozni

 

[marplots]

Something being "natural" doesn't mean, or imply it's less harmful than something artificial.

In the case of radioactive elements, it means exactly that. The reason is simple: half-life. After a few billion years, all the natural stuff is largely degraded while the artificial stuff just got born.

 

[Craig B]

Hm, you learn something new every day.

So why is this not utilized?

McHrozni

It is. There are a couple here in Scotland.

Scotland has two pumped-storage hydro-electric power stations, which pump water back up to a storage reservoir during periods of off-peak demand. Scottish Power's Cruachan Power Station was the first such station in the world when it opened in 1965.
Cruachan Dam Scottish Power 1965
Foyers Scottish and Southern Energy 1974
SSE are currently proposing to build two new pumped storage schemes in the Great Glen, at Balmacaan above Loch Ness, and Coire Glas above Loch Lochy

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Scotland#Pumped-storage_hydro-electric

 

[Beelzebuddy]

In the case of radioactive elements, it means exactly that. The reason is simple: half-life. After a few billion years, all the natural stuff is largely degraded while the artificial stuff just got born.

It's the exact opposite case, actually. Natural products, like the uranium in coal ash, have half-lives in the billions of years (which is why they're still around), while artificial wastes have half-lives in the decades, so lock them up and they'll cool within a century or so.

 

[marplots]

Here's what I was responding to:

Something being "natural" doesn't mean, or imply it's less harmful than something artificial.

It's the exact opposite case, actually. Natural products, like the uranium in coal ash, have half-lives in the billions of years (which is why they're still around), while artificial wastes have half-lives in the decades, so lock them up and they'll cool within a century or so.

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?

 

[macdoc]

It's a hellish sight better than any fossil fueled energy source in terms of environmental safety.

Could you provide sources for that assertion?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

amongst many others..

There are several nuclear threads on the subject in this forum. Inform yourself. Getting tired of dispelling the same knee jerk "nuclear bad" myths over and over. I was quite proud of this forum when support of nuclear power was polled - 83% or so in favour ( and quite a large number answered ) and amongst climate scientists that would likely be higher.

Nukes are expensive and with massive solar plus storage looming it becomes a question of economics - that includes the fusion potential.

That said - there is a large nuclear fleet world wide and growing mainly thanks to China.
I do have some concerns over their rush to build - might be expensive problems down the road but they seem to be taking their time.
26 nukes in the works.

They have to...they are choking on coal and have clamped down with peak coal now predicted for 2016!! and real shocker

Ontario eliminated coal in a decade and we get 40% from nukes....highly popular place to work.
Japan is restarting theirs after a review
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/21/japan-politics-meti-idUSL3N0SG20M20141021
and Finland is ( slowly ) building a big new one plus Sweden is continuing with theirs.
Some common sense in some regions.

France maintains the high proportion of power ( some 80% ) from nukes and a very low carbon footprint per capita.

Fusion would be a brilliant addition to the world's power....be it large scale or small scale. I'm hoping Lockheed is on the correct track for small.

 

[Craig B]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

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

 

[McHrozni]

In the case of radioactive elements, it means exactly that. The reason is simple: half-life. After a few billion years, all the natural stuff is largely degraded while the artificial stuff just got born.

So, um, the uranium currently present in the coal dust is "harmless", because it already degraded?
Do you want to rephrase that?

It is true that a longer half-life means less threat from radiation, but I'm quite sure that not breathing in an alpha-emitter is a pretty good start at not getting killed by it. A lump of evil artificial plutonium is inherently safer than an aerosol of benevolent natural uranium.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

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?

Actually that's true. An equal quantity of something with a short half-life will be much more radioactive (aka hazardous) than something with a long half-life. The latter will be hazardous for longer though. His entire premise - that natural stuff has since degraded - is patently absurd, but by sheer coincidence, his conclusion is partially correct!

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

A lump of evil artificial plutonium is inherently safer than an aerosol of benevolent natural uranium.

So this is wrong, then?

The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions. An unreflected spherical alpha-phase critical mass of Pu-239 weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across.

nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html

 

[Ocelot]

Hm, you learn something new every day.

So why is this not utilized?

McHrozni

In what sense is it not utilized?