for those of you who think going all electric will be Just Fine...

ChrisJ

hot_rod said:

The way I see it is the problem with Nuclear is events like Chernobyl and how they came to be. Peter Principle maybe ?

Don't forget Windscale, Hanford and of course Three Mile Island.

And the 1952 meltdown of the Chalk River plant in Ottawa. Canada called on the US for help, the U.S Navy sent a team into the reactor, each of the 3 teams spent time in the reactor repairing the "plumbing" The Navy team was assembled and lead into the reactor by a 28 year old lieutenant, Jimmy Carter. After 6 decades the plant is decommissioned and cleanup predicted to be done by 2100. The site will then be under institutional control" for an additional 300 years. While safer reactors are being built, still no long term solution for the waste, just keep moving and re-casing it. I suspect that is the hard sell to the public, where and how to store the waste.

Yet we are currently storing the waste from Fossil fuels in the atmosphere and that's ok.  

I get your point but something has to give, no?

SlamDunk

"I suspect that is the hard sell to the public, where and how to store the waste."

Look up nano diamond battery. There is a use for radioactive waste if theory becomes reality. A very good use.

Jamie Hall

I'm not. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were the result of what could charitably be called operator error -- compounded in the case of Chernobyl by a hopelessly obsolete design. Fukushima was a compound of two effects -- one, remarkably poor siting in the first place, and the other a design flaw which allowed the backup generators to flood. Hanford's problems stem from a lack of care, more than anything, in handling waste materials. Windscale I don't know enough about.

Balanced against those, however, the US, UK, and French navies have operated reactors (quite a number of them) for almost 70 years now, quite successfully. Granted that the sailors are better trained and better selected than the average bear, but... that fact remains.

109A_5

An while we are adding up disasters, Fukushima. As @Jamie Hall has some excellent points, I don't think the newer humans have the overall needed competence level to safely run and maintain the current operational Nuclear technology. In a way it is another Dead Man technology. If there are significantly better designs maybe they should be explored.

Folks won't even read a boiler manual to install it correctly (maybe an unfair comparison) but still not instilling confidence. And with the Peter Principle, The Dunning-Kruger Effect seemingly running rampant maybe some technologies should be left alone ?

SlamDunk

I work with people who worked in our nuclear plants and reading manuals is all they did. They tell me it is an intense work environment. They couldnt open or close a valve without reading everything about that valve and filling out pages of paperwork for permission to move that valve. Not a "dumb" cell in their heads.

We have an identical plant to Fukushima in Brunswick NC. I think GE built them..

109A_5

SlamDunk said:

I work with people who worked in our nuclear plants and reading manuals is all they did. They tell me it is an intense work environment. Not a "dumb" cell in their heads.

We have an identical plant to Fukushima in Brunswick NC. I think GE built them..

I've spoke with a retired and then not so retired Nuclear maintenance Engineer, he did not instill confidence in me about the current manpower (so his not so retired status). Hopefully the Brunswick NC. site has Gen-Sets that won't flood. Sometimes 'intense' is another word for 'not qualified'.

HomerJSmith

Nuclear in the '50s' ain't the same as nuclear in the '22s', safety wise. Yes, nuclear belches out s**t, just like every other sys in this universe that has to be dealt with. The half-life of the spent fuel is a hurtle to overcome.

Jamie H, is right. Cost saving measures in design lead to eventual problems. When you live where there is an earthquake every 30 sec., you would think they would design for that, ahhh no. Fukushima was a disaster because of poor foresight. GE made suggestions for their design, but TEMCO ignored them. The generators should have been elevated on 50' towers with the fuel tanks safe from sea water contamination.

As my old martial arts teacher use to say, "Man's capacity for stupidity, is unlimited". As Einstein said, "The most abundant thing in the universe isn't Hydrogen, it's stupidity."

Imagine installing a new boiler and not putting on a Pressure Relief Valve. You can save a few bucks and you may never need it, but what if??? That's Fukushima.

I'm waiting for cold fusion, but I'm not holding my breath.

This Post must hold some kind of record as the longest commented post in Heating Help's history.

SlamDunk

Nah, you got it wrong. These guys I work with are incredibly intelligent. Besides, who has ever talked to an older worker who thought highly of younger workers in any field? Not me.

Brunswick is pretty close to the Atlantic and only 16 ft above sea level. And Shearon Harris is 10 miles from me. No worries.

HomerJSmith

Brunswick which sits on the Pacific rim of fire, hmmm An earthquake and tsunami every 30 sec???

You have to understand the Japanese mentality. Decisions are made by consensus and the first decision is who had authority as opposed to Americans who rush in and get the job done, Uvalde law enforcement being a regrettable exception.

pecmsg

Hot_water_fan said:

That all came crashing to a halt, and now 90 plus percent of the cost of a reactor for commercial power is spent battling every pressure group and their lawyers and their baby brothers for decades, so it isn't worth it.

Ha @Jamie Hall . If 90% of the cost is litigation, that doesn't leave much for profit!

10% is still a good Profit!

Steamhead

HomerJSmith said:

As my old martial arts teacher use to say, "Man's capacity for stupidity, is unlimited". As Einstein said, "The most abundant thing in the universe isn't Hydrogen, it's stupidity."

And you can't fix stupid!

jumper

Chernobyl was not western technology. That sort of thing cannot happen with a Canadian style reactor. Nowadays whacko s obstruct transmission as well as generation.

Jamie Hall said:

JakeCK said:

Jamie Hall said:

As I have said before, as an old codger it makes me very very sad that 70 years ago we -- and the rest of the world -- didn't embrace and advance and improve the technology we had. We could have a nearly completely carbon free energy source and at least as much power as we have now. Instead some people panicked and we have a large scale group of "activists" who are making a fortune off of opposing any form of progress or advocating for pipe dreams which simply can't meet the scale required.

Phooey.

What technology could we have embraced 70 years ago?

Nuclear. That was when the Navy was beginning to play with reactors (they have a pretty good safety record) and not long after was when Northern States Power brought the first power reactor on line in Minnesota. Until a certain movie actress and movie came along, there were many plans to build and operate power reactors, each with better and safer and more sophisticated designs. There was also a good deal of very promising research being done on the safe management of nuclear wastes.

That all came crashing to a halt, and now 90 plus percent of the cost of a reactor for commercial power is spent battling every pressure group and their lawyers and their baby brothers for decades, so it isn't worth it. And the list of perfectly good reactors on perfectly good sites with good safety records which have been shut down is long and lengthening.

Consider Germany, if you don't want to face the US situation. They shut down all of their reactors a few years back. Now guess what. They are burning more and more soft coal just to keep the lights on. This is progress?

Dave Carpentier

There are alot of systems that are run perfectly fine, including as mentioned military reactors. Most "disasters" are a result of multiple events. Typically an engineer or educated worker already knows to guard against a "thing", because the scenario was already thought of by the designers. Typically, it seems to be, those guards are removed by management or politicos in the face of financial or political choices.

GGross

Kind of off the original topic here but since we are on to industrial disasters... The US Chemical safety and hazards investigations board has a youtube channel where they put out some pretty interesting in depth analyses of major accidents that occur in industrial process facilities.
https://www.youtube.com/user/USCSB/videos

ChrisJ

jumper said:

Chernobyl was not western technology. That sort of thing cannot happen with a Canadian style reactor. Nowadays whacko s obstruct transmission as well as generation.

Jamie Hall said:

JakeCK said:

Jamie Hall said:

As I have said before, as an old codger it makes me very very sad that 70 years ago we -- and the rest of the world -- didn't embrace and advance and improve the technology we had. We could have a nearly completely carbon free energy source and at least as much power as we have now. Instead some people panicked and we have a large scale group of "activists" who are making a fortune off of opposing any form of progress or advocating for pipe dreams which simply can't meet the scale required.

Phooey.

What technology could we have embraced 70 years ago?

Nuclear. That was when the Navy was beginning to play with reactors (they have a pretty good safety record) and not long after was when Northern States Power brought the first power reactor on line in Minnesota. Until a certain movie actress and movie came along, there were many plans to build and operate power reactors, each with better and safer and more sophisticated designs. There was also a good deal of very promising research being done on the safe management of nuclear wastes.

That all came crashing to a halt, and now 90 plus percent of the cost of a reactor for commercial power is spent battling every pressure group and their lawyers and their baby brothers for decades, so it isn't worth it. And the list of perfectly good reactors on perfectly good sites with good safety records which have been shut down is long and lengthening.

Consider Germany, if you don't want to face the US situation. They shut down all of their reactors a few years back. Now guess what. They are burning more and more soft coal just to keep the lights on. This is progress?

Are you 100% sure of that?

Three Mile Island had a big hydrogen bubble forming in the containment. If ignored longer than it was, could that have exploded? Would it have damaged the containment?

Jamie Hall

ChrisJ said:

jumper said:

Chernobyl was not western technology. That sort of thing cannot happen with a Canadian style reactor. Nowadays whacko s obstruct transmission as well as generation.

Jamie Hall said:

JakeCK said:

Jamie Hall said:

As I have said before, as an old codger it makes me very very sad that 70 years ago we -- and the rest of the world -- didn't embrace and advance and improve the technology we had. We could have a nearly completely carbon free energy source and at least as much power as we have now. Instead some people panicked and we have a large scale group of "activists" who are making a fortune off of opposing any form of progress or advocating for pipe dreams which simply can't meet the scale required.

Phooey.

What technology could we have embraced 70 years ago?

Nuclear. That was when the Navy was beginning to play with reactors (they have a pretty good safety record) and not long after was when Northern States Power brought the first power reactor on line in Minnesota. Until a certain movie actress and movie came along, there were many plans to build and operate power reactors, each with better and safer and more sophisticated designs. There was also a good deal of very promising research being done on the safe management of nuclear wastes.

That all came crashing to a halt, and now 90 plus percent of the cost of a reactor for commercial power is spent battling every pressure group and their lawyers and their baby brothers for decades, so it isn't worth it. And the list of perfectly good reactors on perfectly good sites with good safety records which have been shut down is long and lengthening.

Consider Germany, if you don't want to face the US situation. They shut down all of their reactors a few years back. Now guess what. They are burning more and more soft coal just to keep the lights on. This is progress?

Are you 100% sure of that?

Three Mile Island had a big hydrogen bubble forming in the containment. If ignored longer than it was, could that have exploded? Would it have damaged the containment?

possibly, but only if someone had forced oxygen (air) to get in against the pressure. And almost certainly not.

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

ChrisJ said:

jumper said:

Chernobyl was not western technology. That sort of thing cannot happen with a Canadian style reactor. Nowadays whacko s obstruct transmission as well as generation.

Jamie Hall said:

JakeCK said:

Jamie Hall said:

As I have said before, as an old codger it makes me very very sad that 70 years ago we -- and the rest of the world -- didn't embrace and advance and improve the technology we had. We could have a nearly completely carbon free energy source and at least as much power as we have now. Instead some people panicked and we have a large scale group of "activists" who are making a fortune off of opposing any form of progress or advocating for pipe dreams which simply can't meet the scale required.

Phooey.

What technology could we have embraced 70 years ago?

Nuclear. That was when the Navy was beginning to play with reactors (they have a pretty good safety record) and not long after was when Northern States Power brought the first power reactor on line in Minnesota. Until a certain movie actress and movie came along, there were many plans to build and operate power reactors, each with better and safer and more sophisticated designs. There was also a good deal of very promising research being done on the safe management of nuclear wastes.

That all came crashing to a halt, and now 90 plus percent of the cost of a reactor for commercial power is spent battling every pressure group and their lawyers and their baby brothers for decades, so it isn't worth it. And the list of perfectly good reactors on perfectly good sites with good safety records which have been shut down is long and lengthening.

Consider Germany, if you don't want to face the US situation. They shut down all of their reactors a few years back. Now guess what. They are burning more and more soft coal just to keep the lights on. This is progress?

Are you 100% sure of that?

Three Mile Island had a big hydrogen bubble forming in the containment. If ignored longer than it was, could that have exploded? Would it have damaged the containment?

possibly, but only if someone had forced oxygen (air) to get in against the pressure. And almost certainly not.

If the containment failed due to pressure O2 would certainly get in.
But I have no idea what "fails due to pressure" means on such a thing.

Jamie Hall

Ah. Well, pressure to failure would probably be a few thousand psi.

Let's suppose, for a moment, that a crack did develop. (Remember, we're working with reinforced concrete here) and the hydrogen began to leak out. It might well ignite -- but without confinement it couldn't explode. Until the pressure in the containment dropped to below atmospheric (and why would it do that?) air couldn't get in. Damaging? Quite likely. Exploding? no.

There are two types of explosion -- or, perhaps more accurately, supersonic flame front combustion processes -- which involve fuels. One is used in fuel/air bombs. Nasty gadgets they are. The fuel (usually LP) is dispersed into a more or less confined space, mixed with air, and set off. A wonderful bang. The resulting shock wave can do a lot of damage. We are familiar with this when gas leaks into a house and blows up. The other is a BLEVEL, which involves heating a liquid fuel in a pressure vessel, As it boils, two things happen: the pressure rises, and the pressure vessel weakens. When the pressure vessel fails, the pressure is released, the remaining liquid fuel promptly boils, and mixes with air, and goes off.

109A_5

Jamie Hall said:

There are two types of explosion

Was the rapid dilapidation of Chernobyl considered an explosion, technically speaking ?

jumper

109A_5 said:

Jamie Hall said:

There are two types of explosion

Was the rapid dilapidation of Chernobyl considered an explosion, technically speaking ?

Speculation is that atomic fuel got so hot that it vaporized.

109A_5

jumper said:

109A_5 said:

Jamie Hall said:

There are two types of explosion

Was the rapid dilapidation of Chernobyl considered an explosion, technically speaking ?

Speculation is that atomic fuel got so hot that it vaporized.

What I heard is steam blew the concrete containment cap off, but I'm not sure that fits the definition of an 'explosion' that @Jamie Hall provided. Not sure atomic fuel can vaporize, interesting.

Jamie Hall

Technically, Chernobyl wasn't an explosion in one sense, although it was in the sense, we often use it here, in that it was a violent release of high pressure steam -- in fact, a boiler explosion. I don't recall seeing that the core material vapourized, or at least not in great quantity, though it did melt down (if anything worse!) -- and lighter fission products most certainly did wind up in the atmosphere as well as smaller particles of core material.

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

Technically, Chernobyl wasn't an explosion in one sense, although it was in the sense, we often use it here, in that it was a violent release of high pressure steam -- in fact, a boiler explosion. I don't recall seeing that the core material vapourized, or at least not in great quantity, though it did melt down (if anything worse!) -- and lighter fission products most certainly did wind up in the atmosphere as well as smaller particles of core material.

From what I recall it had two explosions.
First a steam explosion followed by a hydrogen explosion when air rushed in.

However some speculate the first explosion was a fissled nuclear one and not steam.

Jamie Hall

ChrisJ said:

Jamie Hall said:

Technically, Chernobyl wasn't an explosion in one sense, although it was in the sense, we often use it here, in that it was a violent release of high pressure steam -- in fact, a boiler explosion. I don't recall seeing that the core material vapourized, or at least not in great quantity, though it did melt down (if anything worse!) -- and lighter fission products most certainly did wind up in the atmosphere as well as smaller particles of core material.

From what I recall it had two explosions.
First a steam explosion followed by a hydrogen explosion when air rushed in.

However some speculate the first explosion was a fissled nuclear one and not steam.

Could be. I'd have to look it up. I doubt there was a fission explosion, though -- although technically in some melt down scenarios a low order one could happen, and certainly runaway fission and a lot of heat!

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

Jamie Hall said:

Technically, Chernobyl wasn't an explosion in one sense, although it was in the sense, we often use it here, in that it was a violent release of high pressure steam -- in fact, a boiler explosion. I don't recall seeing that the core material vapourized, or at least not in great quantity, though it did melt down (if anything worse!) -- and lighter fission products most certainly did wind up in the atmosphere as well as smaller particles of core material.

From what I recall it had two explosions.
First a steam explosion followed by a hydrogen explosion when air rushed in.

However some speculate the first explosion was a fissled nuclear one and not steam.

Could be. I'd have to look it up. I doubt there was a fission explosion, though -- although technically in some melt down scenarios a low order one could happen, and certainly runaway fission and a lot of heat!

Fissle wasn't a typo I'm not sure if you thought I meant fission.

But I'm guessing a nuclear explosion is fission by definition.

All of this is way above my pay grade so I can't even have a discussion about it 

Many think steam explosion, others more recently think crappy nuclear explosion is what I get from it.

But the Legasov tapes are worth reading.

Jamie Hall

Whatever it was was a disaster by anyone's definition!

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

Whatever it was was a disaster by anyone's definition!

While I feel there's plenty of mistakes it's worth a watch.. especially this scene

Jamie, have a look.

https://youtu.be/xulAgMNK5Jk

Steamhead

That reactor, known as the model RBMK, was designed to be broken down into various modules and trucked to a site, where it would be reassembled. So there were some compromises because of this.

The RBMK was used throughout the old Soviet Empire. I believe there are a number of these reactors still in use- because these countries have nothing else.

Jamie Hall

If you have access to it, and the time and inclination, the June 25th issue of The Economist has an excellent, non-technical summary of energy considerations. Worth readding.

jumper

Jamie Hall said:

Another path which has been explored (and has some limited applications) is EHV (Extreme High Voltage) DC -- not AC -- interconnects. This gets around phase/frequency problems over wide areas or between different grids. Multigigawatt 460,000 volt sine wave inverters are a bit tricky to design, and are expensive. There are also some interesting problems relating to high intensity magnetic fields along the cable routes; they seem to form very effective barriers to migrating birds, for instance.

As I have said before, as an old codger it makes me very very sad that 70 years ago we -- and the rest of the world -- didn't embrace and advance and improve the technology we had. We could have a nearly completely carbon free energy source and at least as much power as we have now. Instead some people panicked and we have a large scale group of "activists" who are making a fortune off of opposing any form of progress or advocating for pipe dreams which simply can't meet the scale required.

Phooey.

HV DC is just in time squared. Matched load to source absolutely necessary. Another reason why baseload is so necessary. Speaking of seventy years ago several companies were building successful atomic energy in the sixties but now there's a shortage of skilled workmen, welders & millwrights, in US; Japan; and France. Probably elsewhere.

ChrisJ

Larry Weingarten

Hi @Jamie Hall , I read the article in The Economist. Thankyou! What was most interesting to me was the complete lack of any mention of efficiency as one thing that can be done to help with the "problem"... The answers we get depend on the questions asked. We're still not asking good questions.

Yours, Larry

Dayton_Dude

If anybody is looking for a good read the grid by Gretchen Bakke is an interesting book on the state of our decrepit electrical grid. 

jumper

Dayton_Dude said:

If anybody is looking for a good read the grid by Gretchen Bakke is an interesting book on the state of our decrepit electrical grid. 

Interesting that it takes a Professor of Anthropology to inform us. Newspapers regularly tell us the price of oil & NG & wholesale electricity. But nowadays we pay much more to get it delivered. Half the cost of gas & electricity we get is for delivery. Which is less expensive on an energy basis?

President Biden asks big oil companies to reduce price of gasoline but he doesn't explain how. A few years ago oil price went below zero but my gasoline station didn't offer me any money to take away some of its gasoline.

The Steam Whisperer

Larry Weingarten said:

Hi @Jamie Hall , I read the article in The Economist. Thankyou! What was most interesting to me was the complete lack of any mention of efficiency as one thing that can be done to help with the "problem"... The answers we get depend on the questions asked. We're still not asking good questions.

Yours, Larry

I see this pattern all the time too. Constant focus on bigger and bigger supply of energy ( at least in the U. S.), despite the fact that cost wise improved efficiency is typically far more cost effective and will reduce the need for a bigger and bigger supply of energy far into the future. From what I have seen in the field, most structures in Chicago could reduce heating loads at least 30% with measures that use simple conventional technology that have a simple payback of less than 10 years.

Jamie Hall

I think perhaps The Economist was taking a more global view of the energy problem rather than just the US. Efficiency isn't much help when you don't have any energy at all...

WMno57

In for the 200th post on this thread.
I got nothing constructive to add. Maybe later I will start my 1988 Ford. Seat belts for six and no electronics. It has been parked in my corn crib without starting for at least six months. The crib has no electric service. How do those electric cars and expensive batteries do after sitting with no power for six months?

ChrisJ

WMno57 said:

In for the 200th post on this thread. I got nothing constructive to add. Maybe later I will start my 1988 Ford. Seat belts for six and no electronics. It has been parked in my corn crib without starting for at least six months. The crib has no electric service. How do those electric cars and expensive batteries do after sitting with no power for six months?

Maybe I should go out and start the 31 model A using the crank.  How do those lead acid batteries do after sitting for 5 years?  The A will still start so I guess it's better.....


I'm sorry but that was an odd argument on your part.

I don't think it really applies to the vast majority of vehicles being used for daily life and it's really not going to help sculpt the future.


Most modern cars will kill the battery sitting for 6 months.  They aren't really intended to go more than a week or two.

WMno57

My 1988 Ford can be push started.

My 4 year old Ryobi Li-ion batteries and all electric cars to this point are e-waste (when the batteries die).

hot_rod

jumper said:

Dayton_Dude said:

If anybody is looking for a good read the grid by Gretchen Bakke is an interesting book on the state of our decrepit electrical grid. 

Interesting that it takes a Professor of Anthropology to inform us. Newspapers regularly tell us the price of oil & NG & wholesale electricity. But nowadays we pay much more to get it delivered. Half the cost of gas & electricity we get is for delivery. Which is less expensive on an energy basis?

President Biden asks big oil companies to reduce price of gasoline but he doesn't explain how. A few years ago oil price went below zero but my gasoline station didn't offer me any money to take away some of its gasoline.

If the cost of a barrel of oils is dropping, seems odd pump prices don't? They used to move with crude prices for the most part.
I think greed explains some of the high pump prices. Once the oil execs see that consumers will pay the price, consumption not dropping, what motivates them to drop prices? Same for the Saudis.