Nuclear anyone?

[gsganzer]

If the stated goal is to move toward more electric vehicle, appliances, etc., we should be waiting to decommission any coal until that plant has been replaced with 150-200% output in nuclear. Every state/region should have its own grid that can be manually connected to others in an emergency, but that will limit the impact of grid damage (natural or sabotage).

Even that old tech worked in 1979. It did what it was supposed to do and contained the issue.

Nuclear waste is also mis-imagined by people who watch too many bad movies and think there is some goo involved.

I think in the endgame, the holy grail will be fusion power, which in turn will also generate hydrogen for use in things that require mobility. There's a reason internal combustion engines and portable fuel types are so popular, partly due to their energy density and the adaptability to so many uses. Many of these uses I can't see battery technology ever replacing. Batteries have their place, but they're a huge drain on natural resources, many of which are rare, expensive and labor intensive.

 

[workinonit]

The limitations on load follow capability in the existing nuclear units is just a design choice. Some of the units are designed to quickly ramp up and down from 80% to 100%, some are designed to operate between 50% and 100% but newer units are designed to operate over a much wider range.

It is being suggested that we will develop massive battery storage to make solar and wind more functional, but if we had these unicorn batteries, it would make more sense to expand nuclear since they only need to follow the daily load demand variation, not the seasonal or weather pattern variation in solar and wind production.

I don't doubt the newer technology has a broader range of capability. I just don't think we have any of that technology in the US. At least what I searched I didn't see any newer units. Vogtle is in the process of building 2 new units to commission this year. Other than those I think all the rest that haven't been shutdown are older. After running a list of nukes in the US I discovered I have worked in all of them but 2 as well as all of the ones that have been closed. I also worked in all 5 reactor areas(R,P,C,K and L) at SRP or SRS as it is now. Most of the sites I work at coming out of an outage they like to ramp up to full power and stay there or close to it if they possibly can.

 

[KennyG]

If at all possible the reactors are run at 100 percent but boiling water reactors can typically be ramped between 50 and 100 percent by varying recirculation flow. When ComEd in Illinois started their nuclear program they intended to go almost all nuclear so they mixed PWRs and BWRs to be a able to match generation to demand.

 

[Chewwy]

I know who built them and what they were built for. I worked there for Dupont and WSRC for 20 years. First of all I didn't say NRC built them, I said "they" which was referring to Dupont.

You are correct in that your sentence did say “they.” The previous sentence however was referring to the NRC. Most people people might think the “they” was referring to the NRC.

I also never said they were for power production because I know better.

Glad you know better. Most people might think so though since a great portion of the prior discussion involving reactors involved power reactors.

 

[MossRoad]

I do voltage regulator work on large generators and have worked in most of the nukes in the US and Spain in the past. There is no better or safer source for power. The biggest problem with them is load control. They don't perform very well at partial power so they are not good for control on the grid. But they make awesome base load units. If they keep closing nukes we are going to be in a place we can't recover from. Thank goodness some of the utilities refused to close their nuke sites. But most of the single unit sites in the US have already closed. DC Cook and River Bend in Baton Rouge are 2 that have survived.

Cook has 2 reactors.

 

[newbury]

TVA is also revenue neutral. It is funded by its energy sales. Being revenue neutral also means less congressional oversight.

Also means I get charged about a dime a kW

 

[Chewwy]

Also means I get charged about a dime a kW

A dime for a kW hour is pretty cheap these days.

 

[Chewwy]

I think in the endgame, the holy grail will be fusion power, which in turn will also generate hydrogen for use in things that require mobility.
. . .

Hydrogen could be generated from the energy produced by fusion, however fusion converts hydrogen to helium.

 

[newbury]

A dime for a kW hour is pretty cheap these days.

Yeah, it used to be cheaper, like 9.5 cents.

 

[sd455dan]

I would thing that if the government is pushing something, everyone would be on board because the government is here to help us?

i remember that quote.

































INL is working on it.

The future of nuclear energy will be decided in Idaho

As the venerable Idaho National Laboratory is poised to shepherd new nuclear technologies to market, dozens of companies are expected to visit, and learn.

www.seattletimes.com

please look up the term facetious...

 

[gsganzer]

Hydrogen could be generated from the energy produced by fusion, however fusion converts hydrogen to helium.

Sorry, I was meaning making hydrogen via electrolysis from the electricity.

 

[KennyG]

I always have trouble understanding the push for hydrogen. If you need electricity to produce hydrogen, why not just use electricity. If you think developing an electric car charging network is hard, imagine a liquid hydrogen system. Refueling stations would require massive high pressure tanks. Hydrogen is much harder to turn into a liquid than gases like propane, requiring very cold temperatures. I think the current processes use 30 to 50 % of the hydrogen energy to convert it to a liquid. So a hydrogen fuel cell car is going to be not much more than half as efficient as an electric car.

 

[Chewwy]

I always have trouble understanding the push for hydrogen. If you need electricity to produce hydrogen, why not just use electricity. If you think developing an electric car charging network is hard, imagine a liquid hydrogen system. Refueling stations would require massive high pressure tanks. Hydrogen is much harder to turn into a liquid than gases like propane, requiring very cold temperatures. I think the current processes use 30 to 50 % of the hydrogen energy to convert it to a liquid. So a hydrogen fuel cell car is going to be not much more than half as efficient as an electric car.

All good points. Concentrated hydrogen in the presence of oxygen will also self ignite.

 

[sd455dan]

I always have trouble understanding the push for hydrogen. If you need electricity to produce hydrogen, why not just use electricity. If you think developing an electric car charging network is hard, imagine a liquid hydrogen system. Refueling stations would require massive high pressure tanks. Hydrogen is much harder to turn into a liquid than gases like propane, requiring very cold temperatures. I think the current processes use 30 to 50 % of the hydrogen energy to convert it to a liquid. So a hydrogen fuel cell car is going to be not much more than half as efficient as an electric car.

EXACTLY

The Toyota Mirai is a TOTAL failure cost wise about $160 to fill at a station

Almost $200 to drive 300 miles
I will keep my diesel gas and EV over this thing

 

[gsganzer]

I always have trouble understanding the push for hydrogen. If you need electricity to produce hydrogen, why not just use electricity. If you think developing an electric car charging network is hard, imagine a liquid hydrogen system. Refueling stations would require massive high pressure tanks. Hydrogen is much harder to turn into a liquid than gases like propane, requiring very cold temperatures. I think the current processes use 30 to 50 % of the hydrogen energy to convert it to a liquid. So a hydrogen fuel cell car is going to be not much more than half as efficient as an electric car.

I think the part your missing is the nuclear, especially fusion. If you have a nuclear plant, fission or fusion, those plants are most efficient running at near 100%.

During the off-time, when they produce more than consume, the excess electricity can be used for electrolysis to make hydrogen (or any electric generating process, wind, solar etc. when it has excess power). The hydrogen can then be used for the mobile needs, like cars, tractors, remote needs etc. Or simply stored as stored energy in a compressed tank (like a battery). Part of the difference is that use or wasted hydrogen impacts nothing to the global warming equation, because it's combustion or waste does nothing as a global warming gas.