Until nuclear fusion becomes the mainstream, micro fission reactors may be a better solution, especially not having to rely on the main grid (susceptible to natural disaster or terror attack).
Perhaps not as risky as the world coming to an end in
Actually, the Soviet Union used small nuclear plants to heat cities and supply power in remote Siberian locations, which were snowbound for 6 months in a year.
Easier than supplying and handling liquid fuel.
I have not checked in many years, information was sketchy.
It seems that they had the maximum versions of nuclear reactor designs in the less than 100 MW class, which are used for nuclear submarines and naval craft.
So a few extra were built, and used as heat and power sources...
Land based plants have larger capacities.
The focus in many countries should be to restrict fossil fuel to mobility, and use other sources for fixed uses like space heating, street lights, industry, and so on.
It is happening, but each country has a different way of achieving their required end result.
Easier than supplying and handling liquid fuel.
I have not checked in many years, information was sketchy.
It seems that they had the maximum versions of nuclear reactor designs in the less than 100 MW class, which are used for nuclear submarines and naval craft.
So a few extra were built, and used as heat and power sources...
Land based plants have larger capacities.
The focus in many countries should be to restrict fossil fuel to mobility, and use other sources for fixed uses like space heating, street lights, industry, and so on.
It is happening, but each country has a different way of achieving their required end result.
http://www.windatlas.ca/maps-en.php
Most of Canada has wind speeds too low for turbines, it seems.
Waste of money.
Most of Canada has wind speeds too low for turbines, it seems.
Waste of money.
I did say:
"Most of Canada has wind speeds too low for turbines, it seems.
Waste of money."
Ontario? That is what the earlier post was about.
And gusting winds on the coasts have to be considered.
You mentioned a lot of money spent in Ontario, and except for the Great Lakes, wind speeds are low, will need special designs, maybe they will work.
So all the money given to develop it is not useful.
I wonder how the proposal got through without checking for viability.
"Most of Canada has wind speeds too low for turbines, it seems.
Waste of money."
Ontario? That is what the earlier post was about.
And gusting winds on the coasts have to be considered.
You mentioned a lot of money spent in Ontario, and except for the Great Lakes, wind speeds are low, will need special designs, maybe they will work.
So all the money given to develop it is not useful.
I wonder how the proposal got through without checking for viability.
Because it's Ontario...
"Yesterday, the auditor general’s report noted that Ontario pays hundreds of millions of dollars for power that is not used."
"Yesterday, the auditor general’s report noted that Ontario pays hundreds of millions of dollars for power that is not used."
I was an attorney with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NOTE: I do not speak for that agency as a retired Federal employee) until I retired in 2018. My entire career since I started with the NRC in 1981 was in the area of power reactor and administrative laws and rule making. I was one of three persons responsible for developing the updated NRC's regulations and guidance for licensing reactors including the "one step"licensing process of 10 CFR Part 52 (among other major rule makings). I tried to keep up to date on the various fusion and alternative fusion approaches being advocated in the private sector - some with Federal backing. I was part of a joint NRC-DOE task force that developed a report to Congress on ways to facilitate the licensing of advanced technology reactors such as High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors, and pelletized ceramic-coated fuel reactors.
While ultra small (micro) reactors may have technical advantages, there are other technical, nuclear non-proliferation and societal considerations that must be addressed (e.g., overcoming opposition to siting in a dense residential community or industrial area with industries vital to the local or national economy or national defense). In general, a complete life cycle approach should be adopted to develop the overall cumulative risk of any technology. Assuming that the overall risk at any given stage in the life cycle is determined to be substantially lower than that of large power reactors, there needs to be a change in the technical requirements governing the design, construction and operation of these plants in a commercial (not military) setting. Developing the underlying technical bases for that change is not trivial - assuming that one expects the Federal Government to proceed in a manner which is justified scientifically and form an engineering standpoint, aa well a not being arbitrary and capricious from a legal standpoint.
With respect to the point that micro reactors do not need to rely on the grid (for safe operation, I assume is what one means), that depends upon the specific technology and what kind of risk one is willing to accept (e.g., assumptions about ambient temperature, other environmental conditions) and whether one considers security to be part of safety (i.e., protection against destruction resulting in a release of radiation to the general public akin to a "dirty bomb," non-proliferation - for certain reactor fuels).
Finally, I suggest you research the following multi-million and multi-billion financial and/or technical debacles associated with commercial nuclear power in the US: (i) Texas Utilities' poorly-managed construction of Comanche Peak stations west of Dallas, TX;
(ii) botched Crystal River 3 containment repair; (iii)vbankruptcy of Westinghouse Nuclear (then-owned by Toshiba which itself went near-bankrupt); (iv) the fallout of that Westinghouse bankruptcy into the collapse of the 9 billion dollar V.C. Summer units in South Carolina; and the delays in constructing the sister AP1000 plants at Volte Station in Georgia. There are pother examples out there....
The drawbacks of electric wind energy:
_Because winds are intermittent the produced annual power is only 25% of the installed power. (8000 wind turbine in France ).
_There is no way to massively store electricity with a decent efficiency.
_The grid cannot be stable with a mix of more than 30% of intermittent unpredictable energies.
_Because winds are intermittent the produced annual power is only 25% of the installed power. (8000 wind turbine in France ).
_There is no way to massively store electricity with a decent efficiency.
_The grid cannot be stable with a mix of more than 30% of intermittent unpredictable energies.
The Soviets got away with using small reactors in isolated areas, partly due to being a dictatorial state.
Scientists at Lawrence Livermore Labs, one of the best in the world, said they would not allow their children to play outside if the plutonium level was more than 1 milligram per square mile.
I may be slightly off in my figures, but the biggest area of concern in the nuclear power industry is the disposal of spent fuel, and also the contaminated articles like clothing and so on.
Hulahula is spot on in his statements above.
It is an area where the smallest amount of careless work has serious consequences.
Scientists at Lawrence Livermore Labs, one of the best in the world, said they would not allow their children to play outside if the plutonium level was more than 1 milligram per square mile.
I may be slightly off in my figures, but the biggest area of concern in the nuclear power industry is the disposal of spent fuel, and also the contaminated articles like clothing and so on.
Hulahula is spot on in his statements above.
It is an area where the smallest amount of careless work has serious consequences.
The cases of workplace related cancers in workers at the Oak Ridge plant in Tennessee, where the nuclear warheads were fabricated in the 1950s, are very well documented, and will serve as a cautionary source for people who think highly of nuclear energy.
The cancers and their root cause were linked almost 30 years later, as at that time, smoking was considered fashionable, so it was initially thought to be a series of smoking related cancers.
India has also now given contracts for nuclear power plants, and the contractor has to supply the fuel, and dispose of the spent fuel.
Plant is built by contractor as per internationally accepted standards, and independent inspections are mandatory.
This ensures peace of mind for the suppliers that there will be no diversion for weapons making, from the fuel cycle.
So we get power, and the supplier is responsible for the toxic spent fuel
I think my description of spent fuel as toxic is correct.
Moderators, please do not take it as a political post, these are well known cases.
The cancers and their root cause were linked almost 30 years later, as at that time, smoking was considered fashionable, so it was initially thought to be a series of smoking related cancers.
India has also now given contracts for nuclear power plants, and the contractor has to supply the fuel, and dispose of the spent fuel.
Plant is built by contractor as per internationally accepted standards, and independent inspections are mandatory.
This ensures peace of mind for the suppliers that there will be no diversion for weapons making, from the fuel cycle.
So we get power, and the supplier is responsible for the toxic spent fuel
I think my description of spent fuel as toxic is correct.
Moderators, please do not take it as a political post, these are well known cases.
Last edited:
If anybody is curious and knows their subject, a look at small reactors built by the Soviets, and the construction materials used, along with the coolants they used, will make you realize how advanced they were in their field.
For example, all Titanium submarines, using liquid bismuth coolant in the reactors, the fastest subs ever built, and they were in service in the 1970s.
All history now.
For example, all Titanium submarines, using liquid bismuth coolant in the reactors, the fastest subs ever built, and they were in service in the 1970s.
All history now.
With respect to wind energy having a capacity factor of 25% (I assume that is what your first point is attempting to say), the Center of Sustainable Systems at the Univeristy of Michigan (US), states: "On land, capacity factors range from 0.26 to 0.52.11 The average 2019 capacity factor for projects built between 2014 and 2018 was 41%. In the U.S., the fleetwide average capacity factor was 35%." See Wind Energy Factsheet (downloadable from webpage).
With respect to storage of electricity at "decent efficiency," I would consider three technologies to be especially promising: batteries, flywheels and capacitors. Pumped hydro is actually the most efficient alternative, but I consider it to have unacceptable environmental effects and so would not advocate for its use. I would also argue that "storage" is not the real issue; it is efficient, timely, and economical transmission of energy from where it is being produced to where there is demand for it at any given instant. This goes to my rejoinder to your point on the grid.
Finally, it may be true that the current grid in the US (I am not speaking for other countries and areas), may not currently be capable of efficient, timely, and economical transmission of energy from where it is being produced to where there is demand for it at any given instant, but it is not a technically insurmountable problem. In fact, this is well within current technical capabilities. IMO, the issues here are largely, legal, regulatory and economic (vested economic interests, not economic viability). An MIT Report on Managing Large-Scale Penetration of Intermittent Renewables stated:
- Managing intermittent generation on system operations. Transmission, distribution, and storage technology improvements can aid the integration of intermittent renewables. These improvements include geographic aggregation, which smoothes the variability of the intermittency of wind and solar energy over large distances; increasing network intercon- nections to facilitate balancing through electricity imports and exports; and utilization of advanced sensors, control systems, and dispatch algorithms that can monitor and respond to power system changes in real time. Progress is slow because of inadequate mechanisms for exchanging data and setting interface standards, and because system operators under- standably tend to be risk-averse and place a higher premium on reliability than on innova- tion. Improved analytical and modeling tools are needed to optimize operation and regulation of the transmission and distribution system with significant deployment of intermittent generation.
- Intermittent renewable generation policies and regulation. Policies have been adopted around the world to promote deployment of renewable generation. These policies have been successful in increasing the capacity of wind and solar generation in various national systems, but the cost and operating implications of these policies are not fully appreciated. It is clear that policies that regulate investment, operations, and rates will undergo significant change. It is becoming clear that the total costs and consequences of these policies were not fully understood. In order to ensure the goals of reliability and economic efficiency while simultaneously lowering carbon emissions, substantial regulatory changes are needed. This is further complicated by the location of renewable resources, which is often remote from major load centers, which means transmission may cross multiple jurisdictions, greatly complicating siting options and opportunities.
IMO, a properly designed and regulated grid can function as "storage" in the sense that energy is diverted to wherever it is needed. In fact, it already accomplishes this in part through "wheeling." In a country with a large geographical span such as the US, the wind is always blowing somewhere; the sun is shining for most of the 24 hours. In this situation, a well-integrated grid can manage intermittent electricity generation to maximize efficiency. The issue is not, ultimately, a technical one. It is legal and regulatory and economic. Two cases in point: the lack of integration of the Texas grid with the remainder of the US. That lack of integration was not driven by technical factors, it was driven by politics and ideology. If you trust Wikipedia...here is the discussion, but you can find many other sources on the Internet.
Attachments
I do not agree.
Mostly arguments of authority. No doubt MIT can publish various opinions.
When there is no wind over Europe, there is usually no wind wherever. Period ! Proven by weather bureau statistics.
Energy diverted to wherever it is needed is a false argument.
So when there is no wind, we have to supplement with electric plants running on gas. The Ukraine war will have such an impact on this, that it won't stay as hidden as before.
Storing electricity with batteries, flywheels, capacitors is no way able to be of a substantial usefulness.
Pumping water is efficient but like regular hydro electricity, there are not much site left and will stay low in the mix.
The organization I trust is "The shift project" by Jean-Marc Jancovici France.
Mostly arguments of authority. No doubt MIT can publish various opinions.
When there is no wind over Europe, there is usually no wind wherever. Period ! Proven by weather bureau statistics.
Energy diverted to wherever it is needed is a false argument.
So when there is no wind, we have to supplement with electric plants running on gas. The Ukraine war will have such an impact on this, that it won't stay as hidden as before.
Storing electricity with batteries, flywheels, capacitors is no way able to be of a substantial usefulness.
Pumping water is efficient but like regular hydro electricity, there are not much site left and will stay low in the mix.
The organization I trust is "The shift project" by Jean-Marc Jancovici France.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.