commercial nuclear power reactors

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

I see. I'll take your word for it based upon your past posts pertaining to energy in general. I was under the impression that b/c tons C02/kW*hr were higher for NG than nuke (not to mention the whole fracking brouhaha) that they would opt for the latter instead.

Brosephus_Rex

I understand your point. In theory you should be correct. In practice, there is a rabid almost instinctual anti-nuke element to the greenies that basically overrides any kind of practical comparison.

That feel when I should have put a parenthesis around "kW*hr."

In any case, I don't think the greens will be able to stop natty gas. Is that going to work its way into the mainstream transportation infrastructure in the foreseeable future?

Mainstream aka light duty seems unlikely to me in any significant amounts. Refueling infrastructure is a huge barrier and it isn't the same as liquids which more or less can be interchanged with the same refueling infrastructure. With NG you have an additional massive investment in compression just to be able to fast fill at a retail station (which would obviously be essential).

CNG just does not work so well without large investment in compression and even then raises the second major barrier which is space. Consumers just are not so thrilled about losing half the trunk space just to have a CNG tank that still doesn;t give them that much range.

In theory, LNG would work much better because the energy in the same amount of volume is so much greater than CNG. But the cost is way to high for mini-liquefaction to work for light duty at this time.

Return to base medium duty CNG is promising in sectors like waste disposal etc, Westport Cummins has several engine types available and several more in R&D. They are also working feverishly to put out practical solutions for larger engines to enter the heavy duty and short haul markets. This will probably grow to a fairly significant portion of the market for selected fleets (municipal, waste, etc) because they are perfect for RTB operations (meaning you only need the one owner operated station) and because they are typically at >50% discount vs diesel. Capital cost per truck is still pretty high at an incremental $40-60K per truck in the medium duty market, but that should come down,

CNG for long haul basically does not work, due to the lack of refueling stations and the energy to volume content of CNG typically does not allow enough on-board storage to support the distances required without midway refueling. However, there are severalLNG long haul pilots underway which solves the on-board volumetrics/distance issue for certain high traffic corridors. However, the cost of liquefaction is very high, so unless you are leveraging an existing supply of LNG (like from a large existing LNG port terminal) you basically can't make it work on a scale really needed to support trucking (LNG plants need huge volumes to drive down the per unit cost). Basically, more R&D is required on the LNG side.

Good.

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

I understand your point. In theory you should be correct. In practice, there is a rabid almost instinctual anti-nuke element to the greenies that basically overrides any kind of practical comparison.

SUD123456

That feel when I should have put a parenthesis around "kW*hr."

In any case, I don't think the greens will be able to stop natty gas. Is that going to work its way into the mainstream transportation infrastructure in the foreseeable future?

Mainstream aka light duty seems unlikely to me in any significant amounts. Refueling infrastructure is a huge barrier and it isn't the same as liquids which more or less can be interchanged with the same refueling infrastructure. With NG you have an additional massive investment in compression just to be able to fast fill at a retail station (which would obviously be essential).

CNG just does not work so well without large investment in compression and even then raises the second major barrier which is space. Consumers just are not so thrilled about losing half the trunk space just to have a CNG tank that still doesn;t give them that much range.

In theory, LNG would work much better because the energy in the same amount of volume is so much greater than CNG. But the cost is way to high for mini-liquefaction to work for light duty at this time.

Return to base medium duty CNG is promising in sectors like waste disposal etc, Westport Cummins has several engine types available and several more in R&D. They are also working feverishly to put out practical solutions for larger engines to enter the heavy duty and long haul markets. This will probably grow to a fairly significant portion of the market for selected fleets (municipal, waste, etc) because they are perfect for RTB operations (meaning you only need the one owner operated station) and because they are typically at >50% discount vs diesel. Capital cost per truck is still pretty high at an incremental $40-60K per truck in the medium duty market, but that should come down,

CNG for long haul basically does not work, due to the lack of refueling stations and the energy to volume content of CNG typically does not allow enough on-board storage to support the distances required without midway refueling. However, there are severalLNG long haul pilots underway which solves the on-board volumetrics/distance issue for certain high traffic corridors. However, the cost of liquefaction is very high, so unless you are leveraging an existing supply of LNG (like from a large existing LNG port terminal) you basically can't make it work on a scale really needed to support trucking (LNG plants need huge volumes to drive down the per unit cost). Basically, more R&D is required on the LNG side.

Interesting. I have been wondering about this for a while. Thanks for the lengthy reply. I imagine that keeping the stuff liquid through some sort of a cooling system would also add an additional system and be a reliability concern WRT temperature control, tho i really don't know.

So, b/c electric vehicles are probably not going to be viable barring some sort of miraculous breakthrough in battery technology which results in quick charging, high capacity, and fractions the price (don't think will happen), we are still using gasoline-powered ICEs for personal transportation until liquefaction is cheaper for LNG, assuming that it ever will be.

Is North America an energy behemoth in a decade? Thinking that it mightn't be bad to invest in.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

That feel when I should have put a parenthesis around "kW*hr."

In any case, I don't think the greens will be able to stop natty gas. Is that going to work its way into the mainstream transportation infrastructure in the foreseeable future?

Brosephus_Rex

Mainstream aka light duty seems unlikely to me in any significant amounts. Refueling infrastructure is a huge barrier and it isn't the same as liquids which more or less can be interchanged with the same refueling infrastructure. With NG you have an additional massive investment in compression just to be able to fast fill at a retail station (which would obviously be essential).

CNG just does not work so well without large investment in compression and even then raises the second major barrier which is space. Consumers just are not so thrilled about losing half the trunk space just to have a CNG tank that still doesn;t give them that much range.

In theory, LNG would work much better because the energy in the same amount of volume is so much greater than CNG. But the cost is way to high for mini-liquefaction to work for light duty at this time.

Return to base medium duty CNG is promising in sectors like waste disposal etc, Westport Cummins has several engine types available and several more in R&D. They are also working feverishly to put out practical solutions for larger engines to enter the heavy duty and long haul markets. This will probably grow to a fairly significant portion of the market for selected fleets (municipal, waste, etc) because they are perfect for RTB operations (meaning you only need the one owner operated station) and because they are typically at >50% discount vs diesel. Capital cost per truck is still pretty high at an incremental $40-60K per truck in the medium duty market, but that should come down,

CNG for long haul basically does not work, due to the lack of refueling stations and the energy to volume content of CNG typically does not allow enough on-board storage to support the distances required without midway refueling. However, there are severalLNG long haul pilots underway which solves the on-board volumetrics/distance issue for certain high traffic corridors. However, the cost of liquefaction is very high, so unless you are leveraging an existing supply of LNG (like from a large existing LNG port terminal) you basically can't make it work on a scale really needed to support trucking (LNG plants need huge volumes to drive down the per unit cost). Basically, more R&D is required on the LNG side.

Interesting. I have been wondering about this for a while. Thanks for the lengthy reply. I imagine that keeping the stuff liquid through some sort of a cooling system would also add an additional system and be a reliability concern WRT temperature control, tho i really don't know.

So, b/c electric vehicles are probably not going to be viable barring some sort of miraculous breakthrough in battery technology which results in quick charging, high capacity, and fractions the price (don't think will happen), we are still using gasoline-powered ICEs for personal transportation until liquefaction is cheaper for LNG, assuming that it ever will be.

Is North America an energy behemoth in a decade? Thinking that it mightn't be bad to invest in.

I am biased because I am in energy. Having said that 7 yrs ago we were worried about declining volumes of NG from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. We were planning on building LNG terminals for import. Now we are awash in NG with several hundred years supply and we are planning on exporting large volumes of LNG to Asia.

Tommorrow we will make this work cost effectively (NG trapped in ice/water). Between Can/US we will theroretically have 1,000+ yrs of supply at current consumption levels.

And Canada has the 3rd largest proven oil reserves.

We are also in a worldwide trough of economic activity. It is inevitable that the situation will reverse, the only question being how long. When that happens energy will grow disproportionally. And of course, half the world's population does not currently have access to energy...but will sooner or later.

I am biased because I am in energy. Having said that 7 yrs ago we were worried about declining volumes of NG from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. We were planning on building LNG terminals for import. Now we are awash in NG with several hundred years supply and we are planning on exporting large volumes of LNG to Asia.

Tommorrow we will make this work cost effectively (NG trapped in ice/water). Between Can/US we will theroretically have 1,000+ yrs of supply at current consumption levels.

And Canada has the 3rd largest proven oil reserves.

We are also in a worldwide trough of economic activity. It is inevitable that the situation will reverse, the only question being how long. When that happens energy will grow disproportionally. And of course, half the world's population does not currently have access to energy...but will sooner or later.

SUD123456

Awesome. I am going to read into it.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"].. You can safely store that in one location on the planet..BiancaDK

Keep a tight lid on it... especially when the average lifespan of nuclear waste is a couple thousand years and we have nuclear waste bunkers that are designed to last tens of thousands. They just built one in Finland that is expected to last for 100,000 years, well past the time the waste ceases to be radioactive.

Also, the amount of waste that is actually produced by these plants is often inflated in the eyes of the public. The amount of waste produced by the US since the first plant opened Shippingport PA (which I actually live near and my grandfather helped design) would cover a football field about 15 feet deep.

That's not to say this isn't an issue, it certainly is, but what the public believes to be major environmental issues with waste and meltdowns are normally grossly overestimated in scale. I'm more worried about the long term effects of current fossil fuel plants than nuclear plants, and as nice as it would be, renewable energy just isn't practical on the scale we need it to be at to make a full transition.

We could use the moon for target practice.

Also, I thought BiankaDK was smarter than this.

Brosephus_Rex

This is a dumb post.

Long range electrical power transmission has problems, you know. NAMELY LOSS OF POWER.

Brosephus_Rex

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"].. You can safely store that in one location on the planet..BiancaDK

Because fissile material is very dense (thus very heavy on Earth)... 300,000 tons is not a whole lot, and they can simply seal it in a container of inert gas and case it in a radition shield and it is safe for the rest of forever... In a few decades when we have quick, efficient, cheap travel to low orbit, we can even jetison the stuff into space removing the need to store it entirely...

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"].. You can safely store that in one location on the planet..C2N2

Because fissile material is very dense (thus very heavy on Earth)... 300,000 tons is not a whole lot, and they can simply seal it in a container of inert gas and case it in a radition shield and it is safe for the rest of forever... In a few decades when we have quick, efficient, cheap travel to low orbit, we can even jetison the stuff into space removing the need to store it entirely...

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

BiancaDK

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

eggdog1234

Good for now but nuclear fission sucks. Let's be frank here. It gives us a lot of energy output but the result is a lot of radioactive material which just sucks. Now, say in 20 years, we will have Nuclear Fusion. That will be far superior and far better. Why? Well for one thing it doesn't release radioactive material. It releases Helium gas. What does it need? Hydrogen, the single most popular element in the known universe. Additionally, we're looking at 3 - 4 times more energy from Fusion to Fission.

why is that though? i see people arguing for the use of nuclear power with good sound arguments, but so far i haven't seen anyone arguing against the use with any really convincing argumentationBiancaDK

That's because the amount of people on the planet who are against nuclear power and actually have a clue about it can be counted on two hands.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] why is that though? i see people arguing for the use of nuclear power with good sound arguments, but so far i haven't seen anyone arguing against the use with any really convincing argumentationN30F3N1X

That's because the amount of people on the planet who are against nuclear power and actually have a clue about it can be counted on two hands.

Enlighten us then?killa4lyfe

Already have.

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

This is a dumb post.

Long range electrical power transmission has problems, you know. NAMELY LOSS OF POWER.

BiancaDK

It's physics.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

This is a dumb post.

Long range electrical power transmission has problems, you know. NAMELY LOSS OF POWER.

Brosephus_Rex

It's physics.

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] problems which cannot be circumvented, by anyone, everBiancaDK

It's physics.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

It's physics.

Inconsistancy

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] problems which cannot be circumvented, by anyone, everBiancaDK

It's physics.

>keeping a wire stretching across half of the planet incredibly cool good god, just THINK of the costsMannyDelgado

The superconductor with the highest phase transition temperature transitions at 139 K. Maintenance cost aren't irrelevant but they're not unthinkable either.

Great, now we are at imaginary solutions to justify stupid ideas.

Hey I have an idea. If we can magically solve major problems why do we need nuclear power, or wind, or solar at all when magic pixie dust will do?

Or in a much more straightforward manner: carbon sequestration.

What matters is that we can't, and won't be able to for a long time yet if ever.MannyDelgado

But think about the havoc that would be caused by the next ice age. It seems like a vary bad idea to me.thegerg

bad--- i really want every single one shut down. Because of radiation is possible to control and only time can clean it up. Nuclear power should be shut down for commercial use until a 100% solution is created to contain 100% of it if something fails.k2theswiss

With requirements like 100%, you'll never have nuclear.

Besides experimental reactors, in the 54 years of commercial nuclear: 0 deaths, 1 small release of radioactive material. I'd say our nuclear industry has a pretty impressive record.

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] problems which cannot be circumvented, by anyone, everBiancaDK

It's physics.

You are pitiful.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]But think about the havoc that would be caused by the next ice age. It seems like a vary bad idea to me.BiancaDK

It's p. comparable to your own.

Great, now we are at imaginary solutions to justify stupid ideas.

Hey I have an idea. If we can magically solve major problems why do we need nuclear power, or wind, or solar at all when magic pixie dust will do?

Or in a much more straightforward manner: carbon sequestration.

SUD123456

That would be VERY nice.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

It's physics.

Brosephus_Rex

You are pitiful.

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] you're pretty much implying that no civilization, no matter how advanced, will be able to solve this issue and you'd be the guy to know such a thing, isn't that right? :) talk about dumb posts now, huh :pBiancaDK

You are pitiful.

Don't flatter yourself. It means that I'm not going to bother with you. Obstinate stupidity is not worth the effort. You really should know better.

bad--- i really want every single one shut down. Because of radiation is possible to control and only time can clean it up. Nuclear power should be shut down for commercial use until a 100% solution is created to contain 100% of it if something fails.k2theswiss

Why don't you kill yourself and free yourself of the worry? I mean, it's not like you couldn't explode any second from some odd quantum entanglement effect.

What the actual f*ck? Are you really this stupid?

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

we really dont have a choice with the way energy demand is going up.

BiancaDK

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

You are pitiful.

Brosephus_Rex

Don't flatter yourself. It means that I'm not going to bother with you. Obstinate stupidity is not worth the effort. You really should know better.

I'm being no more thick than you. In fact, I'm being less thick. You proposed such a dilemma as a legitimate argument for why we should not use a certain power sorce, I was simply using it as an example to show how silly such an argument is. thegerg

here's my 2 cents on this issue (for tonight that is), anyone who is unwilling to admit that nuclear energy has it's drawbacks is as just an unreliable source of information on the subject as a person who is unwilling to admit that nuclear energy has positive features.

Thinking about this depresses me.juden41

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

BiancaDK

[QUOTE="juden41"]Thinking about this depresses me.BiancaDK

Trying to store nuclear waste is a pain in the ass.

The waste generate has ridiculously long half lives.

Sure, it saves from polluting the air, but then we have all this crud to put somewhere.

It seems like we can't generate energy without something being wasted/affected.

Which may be a good reason to invest more in hydro or tidal. I guess you can't generate tidal unless the tide hits.

Thinking about this depresses me.

juden41

Thorium waste half-lives are 100-300 years.

Also there's only 140m pounds in 54 years of producing it commercially, while each year we use ~1.7 'trillion' pounds of oil (~6.6b barrels/y@~275lbs). Not to mention nuclear waste is very dense, so it's not all that large.

0 US fatalities from commercial nuclear in 54 years of it, 11 deaths in one day at the Deepwater Horizon rig.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

radicalcentrist

Yes we will. We already have all the technologies necessary, except for proper gasification which is just entering the first commercial trials. We simply need to refine and tweak these technologies to drive down their cost. Nuclear is simply one option and it is an astonishingly expensive one with a lot of drawbacks, real and perceived.