Hummm... Indian Point had a single guard at a guard post. The NRC inspector had a great deal of difficulty waking him up from his nap. Maybe posting guards in pairs would be safer.
I was moderating the last time this came up so I didn't post anything. But anonymous whiners who are complaining because I am more knowledgeable than them on energy issues so that I disturb their nuclear wet dreams really need to stfu. This whiner hasn't even rtfa. This whiner hasn't even read the headline. What part of 24/7 does the whiner not understand?
$700/55 comes to $12.7/W which is the same as $12700/kW. Not a lot more expensive. But then the plant in Finland isn't finished yet so there will be more cost overruns. And, the 55 MW is a 100% number while the nuclear plant will need to stop to refuel. So the solar power plant is cheaper using your numbers.
In Vermont, where rooftop solar is the appropriate technology, there are no permanent employees per MW. It is only in the desert where people have forgotten to build roofs that we have to resort to heliostats;-)
Heliostat efficiency is strongly affected by clouds so this type of plant is much much better in the desert. Not to worry about storage for solar PV though. Electrification of transportation produces a lot of cast off but still useful batteries. About half a day of our electric energy consumption can be stored in old batteries once transportation is converted.
The average output is 55 MW so that comes to $13/Watt. Estimates for the cost of new Turkey Point nuclear power from a couple years ago were about $8/Watt and assuming about 80% up time that comes to $10/Watt average capacity. With typical nuclear power cost overruns, we'd get about $20/Watt. Given that nuclear power is on a negative learning curve http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/06/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/ it seems as though the cost of the solar plant is pretty good.
So the plant is suppose to produce 480,000 MWh per year which works out to an average capacity of 55 MW. So we get 0.8 permanent employees per MW. http://www.tonopahsolar.com/
At slashdot's favorite nuclear power plant Vermont Yankee, there are more that 650 employees for a plant that does not manage to run at 620 MW all that well. Let's give them 80% up time. That is 1.3 employees per MW.
Nuclear power seems less efficient than solar power by this measure. Maybe nuclear power is just a "make work" type jobs program which actually hurts the economy overall.
Japan has a fairly well developed liquefied natural gas infrastructure. This may prove useful as the Sabatier reaction is used to soak up excess wind energy.
You can get to the whole article from a google search I think. The most interesting thing from the article you linked for me was this:
"According to Tepco, hyrogen produced in the overheating of the reactor core at unit 3 flowed through a gas-treatment line and entered unit No. 4 because of a breakdown of valves. Hydrogen leaked from ducts in the second, third and fourth floors of the reactor building at unit No. 4 and ignited a massive explosion."
"Documents released by Tepco Monday showed the isolation condenser— an emergency cooling system installed on Reactor No. 1 before the quake as a final resort in case of a total loss of power—worked only sporadically, if at all. Tepco officials explained that somebody appears to have manually closed the valves on the condenser soon after the March 11 quake—but before the tsunami hit about an hour later—to control the fluctuating pressure inside the reactor. Reopening the valves required battery power, so those valves likely couldn't be opened because the tsunami damaged the backup batteries.
If the valves hadn't been shut, things might have turned out differently. Temperatures in the reactor climbed faster than initially expected, causing more and faster damage. Tepco admitted this week the problems at Reactor 1 were far worse than originally thought. Its new projection shows fuel may have started melting rapidly only five hours after the March 11 quake. By 6:50 a.m. March 12, the fuel was likely in a heap at the bottom of the vessel. "
President Obama gave a speech in Egypt where all the theory of bin Laden came from. Egypt experiences Arab Spring overturning all that theory. Getting bin Laden was less important than this, but it is a sign of a large difference is competence compared with the former administration.
That is useful. It looks like the 20 km radius evacuation zone area is about right but it needs to be reshaped. Could still have more contamination going forward though.
Nicely said. I thought the discussion would be more about the eventual shape of the exclusion zone and how evacuations might be better handled but your post is very sharp.
Obviously we haven't learned anything if graphite is to the moderator. It seems to me that you are the one who has goalpost problems. I made a simple true statement about thermodynamical efficiency and you bring in a bunch irrelevancies. Thermodynamics has little to do with solar panel efficiency at present yet you raise that red herring as just one example.
No, to get to 83% will take a good deal more research and present panels will likely need to be retired anyway by then. For nuclear power, present obviously inadequate safety margins require keeping the fuel from getting too hot. This limits thermal efficiency. This is the way thermodynamic works. Gen IV is obviously less safe than present reactors and will not be built.
Solar panels are not limited by thermal efficiency yet. They would top out at about 83% if they were. After that you would have to move to a hotter star. But that would be about as stupid as using graphite as a moderator.
Slashdot Mirror
Hummm... Indian Point had a single guard at a guard post. The NRC inspector had a great deal of difficulty waking him up from his nap. Maybe posting guards in pairs would be safer.
I was moderating the last time this came up so I didn't post anything. But anonymous whiners who are complaining because I am more knowledgeable than them on energy issues so that I disturb their nuclear wet dreams really need to stfu. This whiner hasn't even rtfa. This whiner hasn't even read the headline. What part of 24/7 does the whiner not understand?
$700/55 comes to $12.7/W which is the same as $12700/kW. Not a lot more expensive. But then the plant in Finland isn't finished yet so there will be more cost overruns. And, the 55 MW is a 100% number while the nuclear plant will need to stop to refuel. So the solar power plant is cheaper using your numbers.
In Vermont, where rooftop solar is the appropriate technology, there are no permanent employees per MW. It is only in the desert where people have forgotten to build roofs that we have to resort to heliostats ;-)
Recently their up time has been poor and of course you need to count what they did prior to 2003. 80% seems reasonable.
Actually, the plant does not give the impression of running safely even with all those employees. http://www.sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Vermont-Yankee-cooling-tower-collapse-2007.jpg
You should look into the opportunity cost of nuclear power. It is counterproductive. http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library%2FE09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly
Nuclear power is on a negative learning curve so over all, I'd expect the "make work" aspects to increase. http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/06/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/
Heliostat efficiency is strongly affected by clouds so this type of plant is much much better in the desert. Not to worry about storage for solar PV though. Electrification of transportation produces a lot of cast off but still useful batteries. About half a day of our electric energy consumption can be stored in old batteries once transportation is converted.
The average output is 55 MW so that comes to $13/Watt. Estimates for the cost of new Turkey Point nuclear power from a couple years ago were about $8/Watt and assuming about 80% up time that comes to $10/Watt average capacity. With typical nuclear power cost overruns, we'd get about $20/Watt. Given that nuclear power is on a negative learning curve http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/06/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/ it seems as though the cost of the solar plant is pretty good.
So the plant is suppose to produce 480,000 MWh per year which works out to an average capacity of 55 MW. So we get 0.8 permanent employees per MW. http://www.tonopahsolar.com/
At slashdot's favorite nuclear power plant Vermont Yankee, there are more that 650 employees for a plant that does not manage to run at 620 MW all that well. Let's give them 80% up time. That is 1.3 employees per MW.
Nuclear power seems less efficient than solar power by this measure. Maybe nuclear power is just a "make work" type jobs program which actually hurts the economy overall.
Japan has a fairly well developed liquefied natural gas infrastructure. This may prove useful as the Sabatier reaction is used to soak up excess wind energy.
You can get to the whole article from a google search I think. The most interesting thing from the article you linked for me was this:
"According to Tepco, hyrogen produced in the overheating of the reactor core at unit 3 flowed through a gas-treatment line and entered unit No. 4 because of a breakdown of valves. Hydrogen leaked from ducts in the second, third and fourth floors of the reactor building at unit No. 4 and ignited a massive explosion."
Breeders are illegal in the US. Don't be a rude fool.
There is a detailed diary here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330531564264132.html
"Documents released by Tepco Monday showed the isolation condenser— an emergency cooling system installed on Reactor No. 1 before the quake as a final resort in case of a total loss of power—worked only sporadically, if at all. Tepco officials explained that somebody appears to have manually closed the valves on the condenser soon after the March 11 quake—but before the tsunami hit about an hour later—to control the fluctuating pressure inside the reactor. Reopening the valves required battery power, so those valves likely couldn't be opened because the tsunami damaged the backup batteries.
If the valves hadn't been shut, things might have turned out differently. Temperatures in the reactor climbed faster than initially expected, causing more and faster damage. Tepco admitted this week the problems at Reactor 1 were far worse than originally thought. Its new projection shows fuel may have started melting rapidly only five hours after the March 11 quake. By 6:50 a.m. March 12, the fuel was likely in a heap at the bottom of the vessel. "
Battery power was lost apparently.
You mentioned the ones that are supposed to run hot. Might want to get educated on subjects you raise yourself.
President Obama gave a speech in Egypt where all the theory of bin Laden came from. Egypt experiences Arab Spring overturning all that theory. Getting bin Laden was less important than this, but it is a sign of a large difference is competence compared with the former administration.
You brought up Gen IV, not me.
That is an interesting report. Japan has had problems before with earthquakes damaging nuclear power plants in the past.
That is useful. It looks like the 20 km radius evacuation zone area is about right but it needs to be reshaped. Could still have more contamination going forward though.
Nicely said. I thought the discussion would be more about the eventual shape of the exclusion zone and how evacuations might be better handled but your post is very sharp.
Obviously we haven't learned anything if graphite is to the moderator. It seems to me that you are the one who has goalpost problems. I made a simple true statement about thermodynamical efficiency and you bring in a bunch irrelevancies. Thermodynamics has little to do with solar panel efficiency at present yet you raise that red herring as just one example.
No, to get to 83% will take a good deal more research and present panels will likely need to be retired anyway by then. For nuclear power, present obviously inadequate safety margins require keeping the fuel from getting too hot. This limits thermal efficiency. This is the way thermodynamic works. Gen IV is obviously less safe than present reactors and will not be built.
Solar panels are not limited by thermal efficiency yet. They would top out at about 83% if they were. After that you would have to move to a hotter star. But that would be about as stupid as using graphite as a moderator.
You can't do anything to increase the thermal efficiency of an existing plant. I don't know of any gen IV proposals that are not stupid.