Interesting concept.

Gordy

They would like to implement a similar infrastructure for the Hoover Dam. To the tune of 3.8 billion.
I think it’s a waste of dollars to use solar, and wind to power pumps to recharge the battery (resivoir) Lake Mead.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/24/business/energy-environment/hoover-dam-renewable-energy.html
Interesting discussion in the comments.

Pump HP for over 1300 psi head, flow rate unknown.

hot_rod

I visited the pumped storage on Raccoon Mt a few years back, and there are others in the US and Europe. But they need water, and if drought years continue??

Spend $$ on a border wall or energy storage?

https://thinkprogress.org/the-inside-story-of-the-worlds-biggest-battery-and-the-future-of-renewable-energy-8984e81283c/

Ironman

Smith mountain lake, about 2 hours south of me, operates on the same principle: a dam was built on the Roanoke river which caused the lake to form. Generators on the lower end become pumps at night moving water back into the lake at off peak time. The generators went online in the 1960's

Here's an article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Mountain_Dam

Lord willing, I'll be down on the lake at the end of the month discovering what the word "vacation" means.

Gordy

I can’t see using solar, and wind power to run pumps to charge the lake mead battery. That power could be used else wher no?

I sense this Is more about the quandary of the level lake mead is at. I also see an issue with reclamation in taking down stream discharge of the Colorado river to put it back into lake mead. The Colorado supplies about 25 million users.

To the tune of 3.8 billion dollars. Save the dam, dam.......

Lake mead is at the level not seen since it was commissioning hoover dam.

The heck with the wall. Nuke plants is where it’s at.

Gordy

The one in Spain recirculates back up 900 meters, or about 3000 feet. Converted to head that’s 1300 psi in head not counting friction loss for an unknown flow rate. That’s some serious pumps, and juice. While achievable where is the savings?

GBart

Gordy said:

I can’t see using solar, and wind power to run pumps to charge the lake mead battery. That power could be used else wear no?

I sense this Is more about the quandary of the level lake mead is at. I also see an issue with reclamation in taking down stream discharge of the Colorado river to put it back into lake mead. The Colorado supplies about 25 million users.

To the tune of 3.8 billion dollars. Save the dam, dam.......

Lake mead is at the level not seen since it was commissioning hoover dam.

The heck with the wall. Nuke plants is where it’s at.

Nukes are not where it's at, I worked one and had RadWorkerTraining, nuke plants are 10% efficient, 10%!!!!!!!!!!

You take a uranium rod when new, it's at 100%, it has to make superheated steam on the hot side to make enough super heated steam on the clean side through a heat X, when they use 10% they are no longer hot enough and are called Spent Fuel which is hardly spent, it will be radioactive for 300-1000 years and thanks to republicans and the energy corporations you and I the Taxpayers have to baby sit them not the corporations who profited off them.

GBart

An intelligent society that didn't put corporate profits first would use everything green possible to produce energy and then use your dirty and radioactive plants for back up.

We are not an intelligent society that doesn't put corporate profits first.

Zman

Or they could just turn down the lights and AC in Vegas
Using reservoirs as batteries is not a new idea. They are only about 70%-80% efficient which is a pretty sizable storage fee.

Jamie Hall

@Gordy nailed it. Using Hoover dam as a pumped storage facility itself isn't such a wacked out idea, but... a pumped storage facility has to have a reliable lower pool as well as the upper pool. And that lower pool is the Colorado River -- which is already seriously overcommitted to LA and Las Vegas and other heavily populated, high urban water use areas which really shouldn't even be there...

CLamb

Here's a company with a similar way to store energy but by moving trains instead of water. https://www.aresnorthamerica.com/

ScottSecor

I agree the concept has some merits, however I'm not sure the energy saving projections are all that accurate.

Maybe we can convince Vegas, Atlantic City, NYC and every other town that is lit up like a Christmas tree every night of the year to maybe use LED bulbs? Maybe even consider turning out the lights once in a while (even for an hour a day)? Ok, let's get realistic, if some of our family members turned the lights off in an unoccupied room at home things would get a little better...right???

Harvey Ramer

What if we were able to trap radiant energy in crystals for reuse at a later date?

So far scientists have been able to trap light for 1 minute in a crystal.

I am not a huge fan of the idea pumping water up for reuse. I wouldn't be surprised if storing electricity in L-I batteries has a much higher efficiency rate.

hot_rod

The nuclear option still hinges on the waste disposal concerns. Lawmakers once again tried to get some movement on the Yucca Mt. project last week.

ScottSecor

Like most people on HH, I try to avoid getting into political discussions. I recently saw a show that appeared to be as unbiased as possible with regard to our energy future. I gather nuclear is nearly the perfect way to make energy, except for those darn spent rods that seem to not want to go away.

We have a small place on a lagoon that adjoins the Oyster Creek in Waretown, NJ, our house is on the outlet side of the reactor. The Oyster Creek Nuclear station (technically in Forked River) is the oldest active nuclear generating stations in the US. The plant is scheduled to shut down permanently next month. I gather the spent rods are to be shipped to New Mexico in the near future, I'm sure there not so happy to be getting nuclear waste. I gather these units will be stored for who knows how long before they figure out what to do with them.

You'd be amazed at the size of the blue claw crabs people get from our lagoon and the creek itself. Many species of fish can be caught year round, especially when you get closer to the nuke plant. I can only imagine the size of the pumps that move all that water across the heat exchanger(s), especially on a day like today with the plant running at or near full capacity. For the record, the lagoon temperature was 91 degrees this past Sunday, we've seen it as high as 94 degrees. Btw, I don't eat fish that swim or crawl (especially from our area).

I am curious how the Barnegat Bay and the surrounding area will fare when the entire ecosystem will be changed forever once the plant shuts down. Oddly, I saw my first ever bald eagle two weeks ago, I was about a mile from the power plant and sitting in a boat on the Oyster Creek. Something to think about...

Leonard

Rail storage is an interesting concept fundamentally similar to pumping water uphill. But sounds like it tops out at only 500 megwatts. Most nuke plants are 1000 megwatts each.

Don;t think nuke is the answer, we only use ~ 0.75 % of it's energy (not 10%) before it produces less energy unless it's reprocessed/recycled , and we call it spent. Besides there's the radioactive waste problem we haven't found a PERMANENT solution for, ~ 250,00 years before safe.

Yaca mountain is a volcanic area, it's littered with old volcanic cinder cones , not my first choice for a deadly product storage. Think only reason it;s being considered is it's on gov owned land right next to where they made and tested first nukes (trinity site) So it's already contaminated. Location of least public resistance.

hot_rod

Lots of hazardous waste in Utah also. All the old leaking Weteyes nerve agent bombs from Rocky Mt arsenal we hauled and buried near Dugway, Ut when I lived in that area.

There are so many small disposal sites across the US, many in bad shape. I think the concept with Yucca or other sites is to gather disposal from all the small sites and contain it in one "safe" area. If such an area even exisits? No state wants the waste or the attention.

Gordy

GBart said:

Gordy said:

I can’t see using solar, and wind power to run pumps to charge the lake mead battery. That power could be used else wear no?

I sense this Is more about the quandary of the level lake mead is at. I also see an issue with reclamation in taking down stream discharge of the Colorado river to put it back into lake mead. The Colorado supplies about 25 million users.

To the tune of 3.8 billion dollars. Save the dam, dam.......

Lake mead is at the level not seen since it was commissioning hoover dam.

The heck with the wall. Nuke plants is where it’s at.

Nukes are not where it's at, I worked one and had RadWorkerTraining, nuke plants are 10% efficient, 10%!!!!!!!!!!

You take a uranium rod when new, it's at 100%, it has to make superheated steam on the hot side to make enough super heated steam on the clean side through a heat X, when they use 10% they are no longer hot enough and are called Spent Fuel which is hardly spent, it will be radioactive for 300-1000 years and thanks to republicans and the energy corporations you and I the Taxpayers have to baby sit them not the corporations who profited off them.

That 10% efficiency claim is total B.S.

The Byron facility has all the spent rods on site. In dry storage casks. Those casks are 18’ high by 12’ in diameter. The casks are lead lined, and 2’ thick concrete. All purged with nitrogen. This is where they end up after being in the cooling pool.

In that large cask is enough pellets to fill both hands cupped together.

When a reactor is refueled only 1/3 of the pellets are replace every 18 months on average. During refueling (outage) other routine maintenance is done.

So with the Byron facility which is a PWR. The spent fuel since both reactors became operational in 1985 is onsite. The area those casks cover is only about an area of 50’x100’. That’s not much waste for 33 years of making power with zero carbon emissions at the fire. By the way I’m working about 200’ from those toxic casks........fear mongering is what has crippled the nuclear industry.

Gordy

Gordy

Convert the coal,fuel oil, and natural gas into btus. I did it’s an eye opener from one little pellet. Then take into account 18months of operation how many tons of fossil fuel was used. How many tons of carbon released into the atmosphere. We receive more radiation from back ground radiation daily than the plant gives off.

Gordy

Back to the battery. I totally understand the concept when it is implemented as part of the initial design. It was meant to be run in such a manner. During off peak hours the battery is replenished by pumping water back into the lake, pool, etc. that’s a lot of pump energy no? At least to do any meaningful replenishing to the battery.

Now the Hoover dam was never by design suppose to be that way from an operational concept. What has happened which was probably never thought to be possible is everyone taking up residence in the proximity of the dam, and draining the battery by using water in ways that defy comprehension in the arid southwest. Like golf courses, emaculant lawns, population explosion.

Does it make sense to take solar, and wind power to run pumps to replenish the battery when they could just supplement demand? NO! Clearly this is a quandary as to lake meads dire situation, and a land mark achievement of the times in the building of the Hoover dam.

Gordy

What amazes me is this. If no one ever used nuclear fission in a destructive manner no one would have ever been afraid of it.

Yet we are “more” okay with pipe lines, tankers,and oil wells dumping millions of gallons of oil into the ground, oceans, rivers, and aquifers probably doing more destruction to wild life, humans than any amount of nuclear fission ever has intentionally used destructively.

Gordy

Sooo ponder this.

With one refueling of one reactor.

3,242,245 tons of coal saved
Or
291,021 tons of oil saved
Or
22,851,972 tons of NG saved

Gordy

if anyone cares to convert the above tons of fuel to tons of co2 by all means go ahead. I can tell you some warm uranium pellets stored onsite is a huge amount of co2 saved for the life of the plant.........

Gordy

The pellet cycle

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/introduction/nuclear-fuel-cycle-overview.aspx

ChrisJ

Gordy needs to invent Mr Fusion. It's at least 3 years over due.

Gordy

I just think when nuclear power is talked about the back drop in people’s minds is Chernobyl , three mile island, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Two events that were accidents, and two intentional destruction.

Yet we throw around fossil fuels all day long in discussion, and the back drop isn’t death from oil spills, explosions, fires, contamination, co poisoning etc.

Those events out weigh nuclear by 10s of thousands of times over since fossil fuels have been used.


As far as efficiency no one is questioning the suns efficiency. Because it’s free........

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

I just think when nuclear power is talked about the back drop in people’s minds is Chernobyl , three mile island, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Two events that were accidents, and two intentional destruction.

Yet we throw around fossil fuels all day long in discussion, and the back drop isn’t death from oil spills, explosions, fires, contamination, co poisoning etc.

Those events out weigh nuclear by 10s of thousands of times over since fossil fuels have been used.


As far as efficiency no one is questioning the suns efficiency. Because it’s free........

Yes, the chances of something going wrong are small.
But if they do go wrong the possibilities are unimaginable.


I like Nuclear power, but what happened at Three Mile Island is an embarrassment.

Solid_Fuel_Man

Agreed. You can still buy a brand new Delorean for about $35k to install it on!

Leonard

Reprocessing ........they conveniently neglect to talk about places like La Hague in France where radioactive reprocessing wastes are dumped to the sea in a several mile under sea pipe line. And radioactive gaseous wastes are dump to the air in tall stacks. Beachs in that area have plutonium concentrations ~ 10 times the legal limit and cancer rates are much higher than average.

Bit surprising, I looked on Wikipedia and seems there are 29 reprocessing sites . End of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing


When it goes wrong the down side is enormous....... they are still working at Fukushima with no idea what the final solution will be. Chernobyl has made miles of land off limits for few hundred years at least.

Gordy

Yeah because nothing else industrialized countries do have a fraction of that effect.

Gordy

The Hoover dam scam.....

https://nyti.ms/2mBEPGm

1Matthias

Gordy said:

I just think when nuclear power is talked about the back drop in people’s minds is Chernobyl , three mile island, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Two events that were accidents, and two intentional destruction.

Yet we throw around fossil fuels all day long in discussion, and the back drop isn’t death from oil spills, explosions, fires, contamination, co poisoning etc.

Those events out weigh nuclear by 10s of thousands of times over since fossil fuels have been used.


As far as efficiency no one is questioning the suns efficiency. Because it’s free........

And both of those accidents were almost completely preventable, Chernobyl much more so. (Graphite moderated reactors are an atrocious idea to begin with, and Chernobyl's design was rubbish...)

ChrisJ

> @1Matthias said:
> I just think when nuclear power is talked about the back drop in people’s minds is Chernobyl , three mile island, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Two events that were accidents, and two intentional destruction.
>
> Yet we throw around fossil fuels all day long in discussion, and the back drop isn’t death from oil spills, explosions, fires, contamination, co poisoning etc.
>
> Those events out weigh nuclear by 10s of thousands of times over since fossil fuels have been used.
>
>
> As far as efficiency no one is questioning the suns efficiency. Because it’s free........
>
>
> And both of those accidents were almost completely preventable, Chernobyl much more so. (Graphite moderated reactors are an atrocious idea to begin with, and Chernobyl's design was rubbish...)

Sure, but considering they will all go with they lowest bidder on everything, guess what?

Gordy

If you take the two worst nuclear incidents. Chernobyl, and Fukushima. It still doesn’t come close to fossil fuels contribution to death, destruction,pollution, and sickness. Not even close. Let alone all the other chemicals not even related to fossil fuels.

Look at the deep horizon incident in the gulf. Oh but that’s not as bad. Heck in the early years of oil they use to throw gasoline away because they didn’t know what to do with it. I’m sure it was disposed of per EPA standards of the time...........

Now we have new pipelines bursting, leaking, and exploding. That’s minor.............

Gordy

Yah, the lowest bidder. There are still standards, and specs to adhere to. The lowest bidder usually gets kicked off, or doesn’t finish the work, and someone else finishes it for a project of that magnitude.

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

Yah, the lowest bidder. There are still standards, and specs to adhere to. The lowest bidder usually gets kicked off, or doesn’t finish the work, and someone else finishes it for a project of that magnitude.

Yeah.....
Standards and specs to adhere to.

That's why no one at Three Mile Island knew what they were doing...…………

Gordy

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

If you read in detail about the incident. It was component failure ( pressure relief valve) coupled with some system design flaws that caused the incident.

This does not constitute a lowest bidder scenario of poor craftsmanship, or inability to follow plans, and cut corners to achieve profit.

Designs are approved by other parties involved in the plants design, and construction. Technology always has a learning curve. The stuck relief valve created a chain reaction of incidents that contributed to the event.

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

If you read in detail about the incident. It was component failure ( pressure relief valve) coupled with some system design flaws that caused the incident.

This does not constitute a lowest bidder scenario of poor craftsmanship, or inability to follow plans, and cut corners to achieve profit.

Designs are approved by other parties involved in the plants design, and construction. Technology always has a learning curve. The stuck relief valve created a chain reaction of incidents that contributed to the event.

So much for all of the human errors that took place, eh? There were many working there that had no idea what they were doing.

Now, in response to your comment, even if it was as simple as "The stuck relief valve created a chain reaction of incidents that contributed to the event."

That's COMPLETELY unacceptable. Three Mile Island could have easily ended up devastating. It was damn close.


Care to move this into PM? I don't want to sidetrack the thread too much, but I do enjoy talking about this.

Gordy

Ping me.

To finish up though. Can human error be the cause from the lack of instrumentation that no one for seen the need for in design?

Harold

Actually nuclear has excellent possibilities. The problem is we are doing it wrong.
There are a number of alternate designs and alternate fuels. Some can actually burn the waste fuel we are stockpiling. We could get power and eliminate the semi-eternal storage.

Some designs use a different element (Thorium I believe) for fuel. It produces no nasty ashes. The material is easily obtainable. There is more of it than Uranium.

Some designs are for small modular systems that can be used as a small town power station. They can be buried and left there. They don't need operators.

There are a lot of alternatives. Stop building monstrously huge, expensive, and complex power plants. Get the government moving on alternative and safe designs. Many, if not most, newer designs include passive shutdowns without blowing up or spreading radiation. And none of them produce weapons materials.

If you are interested in any of the alternatives have Google look for advanced technology reactors and variants.

Gordy

sooo old discussion, but this is what happens to the Colorado river by the time it reaches Mexico.......



https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/327735014469868/