The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[steve_bank]

There is no doubt that in daily operation a nuke is the best for the environment. The only environmental issue I heard of is increasing temperature of river water used for cooling that may have had some effect on fish.

I am not pro nukes as a first choice for all the reasons in my posts, but you can not argue the comparison to fossil fuels in operation.

When they build a new nuke put trees around the plant structures. Build a public garden and a playground for kids...if it is so safe why not? Nukes also add to tax revenues in a community.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not heavy industry, there is no pollution, there are no heavy trucks or trains bringing in coal, there is no danger of a natural gas explosion, and there is no noise. There is no worker traffic burden.

So we just need to make a nuke plant aesthetically pleasing.

I think we should put a large array of nukes in north Canada where it is always cold, makes colling easier.

Anything dealing with gigawatts of power, no matter what the form, is heavy industry in my book.

There's also the security zone around it. It's better to separate areas that warrant armed guards and explosive defenses from areas frequented by kids.

Those defences are absurd. Nuclear plants in sane countries are lightly defended, as they are poor targets for any kind of attack. A high fence to stop kids from getting close to high voltage switchgear is necessary; and sufficient.

They're worried about the poor man's dirty bomb--suicide bomb against the cooling pools or the like.

There is no doubt that in daily operation a nuke is the best for the environment. The only environmental issue I heard of is increasing temperature of river water used for cooling that may have had some effect on fish.

All fossil fuel plants do this also, although nuke makes a bit more because the plants aren't run quite as close to the edge.

 

[bilby]

Those defences are absurd. Nuclear plants in sane countries are lightly defended, as they are poor targets for any kind of attack. A high fence to stop kids from getting close to high voltage switchgear is necessary; and sufficient.

They're worried about the poor man's dirty bomb--suicide bomb against the cooling pools or the like.

I know. And it's absurd to worry about such a non-issue. The only likely casualty of a suicide bombing of a spent fuel pool would be the bomber.

There is no doubt that in daily operation a nuke is the best for the environment. The only environmental issue I heard of is increasing temperature of river water used for cooling that may have had some effect on fish.

All fossil fuel plants do this also, although nuke makes a bit more because the plants aren't run quite as close to the edge.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know. And it's absurd to worry about such a non-issue. The only likely casualty of a suicide bombing of a spent fuel pool would be the bomber.

Get the rods at the right time and you have a hell of a mess to clean up.

 

[steve_bank]

American nukes are tested for infiltration and attack. I have no idea what internal security looks like inside a plant and how hard it is to get to the core and controls. Explosives inside on the cooling system can release contaminated water. If air pressurte reaces a threshold in the containment vessel it will be vented, that has happened.



Before the terror era containment vessels were designed to withstand a commercial jet crash.



I believe fuel rods are withdrawn vertically as a fail safe, they will drop if all power fails.

If a knowledgeable armed group got inside they could cause radioactive release, maybe even a meltdown. Unlikely they could ever get away with fuel rods. The military would be on it fast.

 

[bilby]

I know. And it's absurd to worry about such a non-issue. The only likely casualty of a suicide bombing of a spent fuel pool would be the bomber.

Get the rods at the right time and you have a hell of a mess to clean up.

Really? How practical is it to achieve this, and how much of a mess, compared with (for example) simply walking into the middle of the crowd queuing for the security screeners at a major airport; or the platform of a crowded railway station, on a busy day, and blowing yourself up?

There's a reason why no terrorists other than Greenpeace have bothered to attack a nuclear power plant; And the total ineffectiveness of Greenpeace's efforts in disrupting any plant points to that reason.

A nuclear power plant (including its spent fuel storage) is a really hard target - radiation shielding is seriously tough stuff. And the consequences for a terrorist of an attempt almost certainly include zero civilian casualties, and a very high risk of capture or death for the perpetrators. As almost nobody has visited a nuclear plant, there's also very little 'it could have been me!' fear generated, which is a terrorist's primary objective.

Terrorists attack easy targets in dense population centres and popular visitor attractions, that have a high chance of large numbers of civilian casualties. Nuclear plants don't qualify on any count.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Before the terror era containment vessels were designed to withstand a commercial jet crash.

No. That was the original plan but it simply didn't prove practical.

If a knowledgeable armed group got inside they could cause radioactive release, maybe even a meltdown. Unlikely they could ever get away with fuel rods. The military would be on it fast.

Yeah, causing a release is about the worst they could actually accomplish. The explosives were more about a last ditch defense to keep vehicles out or in--blow the road, perhaps with the bad guys on top of the charge.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know. And it's absurd to worry about such a non-issue. The only likely casualty of a suicide bombing of a spent fuel pool would be the bomber.

Get the rods at the right time and you have a hell of a mess to clean up.

Really? How practical is it to achieve this, and how much of a mess, compared with (for example) simply walking into the middle of the crowd queuing for the security screeners at a major airport; or the platform of a crowded railway station, on a busy day, and blowing yourself up?

There's a reason why no terrorists other than Greenpeace have bothered to attack a nuclear power plant; And the total ineffectiveness of Greenpeace's efforts in disrupting any plant points to that reason.

A nuclear power plant (including its spent fuel storage) is a really hard target - radiation shielding is seriously tough stuff. And the consequences for a terrorist of an attempt almost certainly include zero civilian casualties, and a very high risk of capture or death for the perpetrators. As almost nobody has visited a nuclear plant, there's also very little 'it could have been me!' fear generated, which is a terrorist's primary objective.

Terrorists attack easy targets in dense population centres and popular visitor attractions, that have a high chance of large numbers of civilian casualties. Nuclear plants don't qualify on any count.

Outright casualties, no, but with enough explosives you could make quite a mess out of the spent fuel--and note the panic evacuations: Fukishima. Pulling off something like that would be a major score for terrorists, especially as only the bomb truck driver needs to know it's a suicide mission. (And perhaps even not him--the mission is to drive the truck to point X, light the fuse and jump in a comrade's vehicle. The planner knows there can't be delay on the bomb if the mission is to work and the fuse is actually the very quick burning type.)

 

[bilby]

Really? How practical is it to achieve this, and how much of a mess, compared with (for example) simply walking into the middle of the crowd queuing for the security screeners at a major airport; or the platform of a crowded railway station, on a busy day, and blowing yourself up?

There's a reason why no terrorists other than Greenpeace have bothered to attack a nuclear power plant; And the total ineffectiveness of Greenpeace's efforts in disrupting any plant points to that reason.

A nuclear power plant (including its spent fuel storage) is a really hard target - radiation shielding is seriously tough stuff. And the consequences for a terrorist of an attempt almost certainly include zero civilian casualties, and a very high risk of capture or death for the perpetrators. As almost nobody has visited a nuclear plant, there's also very little 'it could have been me!' fear generated, which is a terrorist's primary objective.

Terrorists attack easy targets in dense population centres and popular visitor attractions, that have a high chance of large numbers of civilian casualties. Nuclear plants don't qualify on any count.

Outright casualties, no, but with enough explosives you could make quite a mess out of the spent fuel--and note the panic evacuations: Fukishima. Pulling off something like that would be a major score for terrorists, especially as only the bomb truck driver needs to know it's a suicide mission. (And perhaps even not him--the mission is to drive the truck to point X, light the fuse and jump in a comrade's vehicle. The planner knows there can't be delay on the bomb if the mission is to work and the fuse is actually the very quick burning type.)

You have a very fertile imagination; But it doesn't have a very strong connection to reality. Life is not really very much like a Tom Clancy novel.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No. That was the original plan but it simply didn't prove practical.

Some more recent designs are reinforced against aircraft impact.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

 

[Worldtraveller]

Really? How practical is it to achieve this, and how much of a mess, compared with (for example) simply walking into the middle of the crowd queuing for the security screeners at a major airport; or the platform of a crowded railway station, on a busy day, and blowing yourself up?

There's a reason why no terrorists other than Greenpeace have bothered to attack a nuclear power plant; And the total ineffectiveness of Greenpeace's efforts in disrupting any plant points to that reason.

A nuclear power plant (including its spent fuel storage) is a really hard target - radiation shielding is seriously tough stuff. And the consequences for a terrorist of an attempt almost certainly include zero civilian casualties, and a very high risk of capture or death for the perpetrators. As almost nobody has visited a nuclear plant, there's also very little 'it could have been me!' fear generated, which is a terrorist's primary objective.

Terrorists attack easy targets in dense population centres and popular visitor attractions, that have a high chance of large numbers of civilian casualties. Nuclear plants don't qualify on any count.

Outright casualties, no, but with enough explosives you could make quite a mess out of the spent fuel--and note the panic evacuations: Fukishima. Pulling off something like that would be a major score for terrorists, especially as only the bomb truck driver needs to know it's a suicide mission. (And perhaps even not him--the mission is to drive the truck to point X, light the fuse and jump in a comrade's vehicle. The planner knows there can't be delay on the bomb if the mission is to work and the fuse is actually the very quick burning type.)

You have a very fertile imagination; But it doesn't have a very strong connection to reality. Life is not really very much like a Tom Clancy novel.

It's not?

I am disappoint.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/...ng-to-deliver-reactors-that-run-on-spent-fuel

Transatomic Power, an MIT spinout that drew wide attention and millions in funding, is shutting down almost two years after the firm backtracked on bold claims for its design of a molten-salt reactor. From a report: The company, founded in 2011, plans to announce later today that it's winding down. Transatomic had claimed its technology could generate electricity 75 times more efficiently than conventional light-water reactors, and run on their spent nuclear fuel. But in a white paper published in late 2016, it backed off the latter claim entirely and revised the 75 times figure to "more than twice," a development first reported by MIT Technology Review. Those downgrades forced the company to redesign its system. That delayed plans to develop a demonstration reactor, pushing the company behind rival upstarts like TerraPower and Terrestrial Energy, says Leslie Dewan, the company's cofounder and chief executive. The longer timeline and reduced performance advantage made it harder to raise the necessary additional funding, which was around $15 million. "We weren't able to scale up the company rapidly enough to build a reactor in a reasonable time frame," Dewan says.

----

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower

TerraPower has chosen TWRs as its primary technology. The major benefit of such reactors is high fuel utilization in a manner that does not require reprocessing and could eventually eliminate the need to enrich uranium.^[4] TWRs are designed to convert typically non-fissile fertile nuclides such as U-238 into fissile nuclides like Pu-239 in-situ and then shift the power from the highly burned region to the freshly bred region, as an integrated breeder reactor. This allows the benefits of a closed fuel cycle without the expense and proliferation-risk of enrichment and reprocessing plants typically required to get them. Enough fuel for between 40 and 60 years of operation could be in the reactor from the beginning. The reactor could be buried below ground, where it could run for an estimated 100 years.^[5] TerraPower described the concept of its main reactor design as a "Generation IV, liquid sodium-cooled fast reactor".^[6]

 

[steve_bank]

The research and development costs are high and it takes time to develop and test a new design.

There was a design I read about a ways back using spherical fuel components. It was said to be intrinsically safe, no danger of runaway and meltdown.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

Pebble bed reactors.

 

[lpetrich]

Solar Emerges As Top New Microgrid Energy Source | CleanTechnica -- US ones, at least.

Mark Your Calendars: 2035 Will Be Renewable Energy Tipping Point | CleanTechnica

How will we know the tipping point has arrived? Wood Mackenzie’s analysts say the global energy transition will be complete when the new technologies achieve a 20% market share or account for 50% of new development or sales activity, according to PV Magazine.

This means all energy, including for transport. The authors expect electric cars to become dominant. I'd have to read the report to see if they say anything about synfuels.

Trump Admin. Toots Offshore Wind Horn, Blows Hot Air At Coal | CleanTechnica notes Trump Administration Delivers Historic Progress on Offshore Wind | U.S. Department of the Interior "Continues to fulfill promise of a secure energy future for Americans"

It mentions three projects, an auction of some 390,000 acres off the Massachusetts shore, an environmental review for an offshore-wind project in Rhode Island, and a Call for Information and Nominations for offshore wind-energy development for California. Cape Wind, an earlier Massachusetts offshore-wind effort, was obstructed into nonexistence by the Kennedy family and a Koch brother (what a coalition!), but California has the problem of deep offshore water. However, floating wind turbines have been developed for deep-water duty.

There go pResident Trump's campaign promises about bringing back coal.

Life In A City Without Cars | CleanTechnica -- about success in banishing cars from the city center of Pontevedra, Spain.

Onshore Wind To See "Years Of Growth" In Eastern Europe | CleanTechnica

World's Second Floating Offshore Wind Farm Takes Next Big Step Forward | CleanTechnica -- off the coast of north Portugal.

The project will be located 20 kilometers off the coast in waters between 85 to 100 meters deep, highlighting the benefits that floating offshore wind can provide. Being able to be positioned further out from the coast not only puts them further away from people’s line of sight, but it also places them into more consistently stronger winds. To replicate this with a traditional offshore wind turbine built into the seafloor would need much larger foundations and require construction crews to work in much more dangerous conditions — increasing the price exorbitantly. Further, much of the construction, installation, and operation and maintenance for floating offshore wind turbines can be done in port, rather than in situ, again reducing traditional costs.

The project is set to only be the world’s second floating offshore wind farm after the completion of the 30 MW Hywind Scotland in late 2017. Developed by Statoil (now Equinor), Hywind Scotland quickly began outperforming expectations as it operated at levels consistently above that of more traditional offshore turbines.

 

[Tigers!]

There was 1 month between posts of this thread.
I was beginning to think that The-Remarkable-Progress-of-Renewable-Energy was slowing down.

 

[bilby]

4 Charts Expose Abominable Inadequacy Of Europe’s Wind Energy …”Power Collapses Within Minutes”

To illustrate wind’s inadequacy, using it is like hiring a worker who shows up for work only one day a week, and nobody can say on which day and which shift.

 

[Tigers!]

4 Charts Expose Abominable Inadequacy Of Europe’s Wind Energy …”Power Collapses Within Minutes”

To illustrate wind’s inadequacy, using it is like hiring a worker who shows up for work only one day a week, and nobody can say on which day and which shift.

Blasphemy! You are not supposed to talk about such things.

 

[lpetrich]

The Intermittency of Wind and Solar: Is It Only Intermittently a Problem? | CleanTechnica -- (2013) claims that it isn't:

Can we make the “intermittency problem” more or less vanish? Or, rather, does it even exist? Over 200 studies have shown that there will be no major costs or technical problems for the grid until the percentage of renewables has gone beyond 30% of the energy mix. Many of those studies indicate that the actual threshold is far higher. Meanwhile, in real life, by 2010, 4 states in Germany were already relying on wind power for 43 to 52% of their electric power needs without having to face any major crises, while a recent study showed that the supergrid in Europe will able to handle up to a 70% share of electrical energy from wind in spite of its minute-by-minute intermittency. So why all the fuss, then?

Something that may help is using wind energy over a wide area, so that if some turbines are becalmed, then others may still have wind and be active.

Fossil-fuel and nuclear power have intermittency from maintenance:

As a result of all this downtime, nuclear plants only generate electricity 83% of the time; combined cycle natural gas plants, 86% of the time; and coal plants, 88%. Nuclear plants are even more unsound and unreliable since many of them have to be shut down prematurely and since, during their active life span, more than a quarter of them have to close down for repairs for at least a year or more at a time.

... All in all, renewable baseload is more reliable than conventional baseload during its life cycle. On average, far less downtime is required in order to do planned or unplanned maintenance and repairs on renewable baseload power plants. For instance, solar thermal plants are up and running 98% of the time; hydroelectric dams, 95% of the time; and geothermal plants, 91%.

No mention of photovoltaic-cell arrays, but their uptime is likely equally good.