|
|
|
October 16, 2005
The Love That Dared Not Speak Its Name
That would be Tony Blair's love for fission power. But he's comfortable enough to hint... Blair has privately disclosed that he is in favour of more nuclear reactors and that he expects the findings of the inquiry to make a case that can be supported by an all-party consensus. His position on nuclear energy has been made clear to The Business by people who have spoken to him directly and believe he wants to send out positive signals to the nuclear industry so that they can start planning now. Randall Parker at Futurepundit points out something positive about nuclear power plants... Nuclear power has one sort of insurance policy advantage: If a huge volcanic eruption or a massive meteor ever blotted out the sun for a few years solar power would become worthless. Nuclear power would keep on ticking. If you want to survive natural disaster scenarios involving reduction of sunlight then nuclear is the best power source. I don't think any reasonable person could look at the aftermath of Katrina and expect that an array of solar panels or wind turbines, no matter how advanced, would successfully have weathered the storm. I might be mistaken about that, but it would be a shame to have your electrical generating capacity blown across three counties just when you needed it most. Of course, if we build our solar arrays on the moon we won't have to worry about the vagaries of terrestrial weather. But what about coronal mass ejections? All things considered, a nice sturdy containment structure looks much more attractive during hurricane season. Randall also points us toward a new technique which might improve reactor safety. Purdue researchers, led by [Alvin] Solomon, have developed a process to mix the uranium oxide with a material called beryllium oxide. Pellets of uranium oxide are processed to be interlaced with beryllium oxide, or BeO, which conducts heat far more readily than the uranium dioxide. As an added bonus, it saves scads of money by "burning" the fuel more efficiently. Unfortunately, it won't be hitting the market tomorrow. There may be hard times ahead, but they won't last forever. The important thing is to keep on plugging... posted by Justin on 10.16.05 at 02:33 PM
Comments
No argument from me; the anti-nuke crowd has had its way far too long, not only blocking development but the level of false and incomplete information they disseminate infects far too much of the public. Here in Gainesville FL the local utility is actually planning to build another *coal* burning plant, after a debate on which fuel to use during which nuclear was conspicuous by its absense. Stewart · October 17, 2005 03:20 AM I'm sure that roof-mounted solar could have survived all but the worst hurricane winds; if shingles could be nailed down well enough to avoid tearing off, I'm sure a PV panel could be bolted down well enough to stay put. The question then becomes how well the panel is protected from impact damage, and how well it resists whatever hits it. Another possibility is to install the panels so they can either be taken down for protection, or covered with plywood for the duration. Engineer-Poet · October 17, 2005 11:22 AM I actually did a calculation once about the reactor containment building I was working on. It was on the Florida Gulf Coast about 10 feet above sea level. Turns out, the containment would float in 30 foot storm surge, if freed of connecting stuff like pipes. The plant was designed for a hurricane that would drown 80% of the utility's customers. As to Earth blackout conditions, that's beyond the licensing design basis but if you could keep the crew feed and the fuel coming (every 18 months), plus cooling water, it would keep on ticking. Whitehall · October 17, 2005 07:30 PM If freed of things like its connections to the diesel generators, could the (still warm) reactor have melted down as it floated away? I like the idea of nukes as generation that will not shut down unless they're cut off from fuel for well over a year. (Try that with a coal plant.) But in the aftermath of a disaster like a hurricane, the transmission lines are down; having a GW on tap doesn't help if you can't get it to the customer. Solar on the roof is immune to transmission outages; it's a form of civil defense. Engineer-Poet · October 18, 2005 11:26 AM Engineer: But solar-on-the-roof is expensive in a way that centralised generation isn't. I, for one, don't want solar panels on my roof just-in-case something happens and I'm out of power for a week or two. (Me, I can live without power for a week. And let's not forget the added expense of grid-isolation hardware, which would be absolutely required for such a use, as well as for general power-worker safety.) The money would probably be better spent on cheap generators and a pile of general emergency supplies (and a separate storage water tank inline with the water lines in each house - an always-fresh 50+ gallons of water is far more useful than some photocells... especially if it's cloudy). I also like the idea of never again building a recator than can melt down if its cooling system fails. AFAIK most if not all of the new designs, like the PBMR, are like that. Sigivald · October 18, 2005 06:11 PM Grid intertie is relatively easy; there are inverters available OTS that do it. The only other thing you'd really need is a grid disconnect switch built into the inverter so that you could also run off-grid. You've got kind of half a point with generators there. Until it's needed, such a generator represents idle capital. The generator will probably not be tested often, so it may not work when needed. Even if it does work, it needs fuel. What happens if you've just had an event like Katrina or Rita and all the gas stations which still have power have empty tanks? Ideally, what you'd have is a system which gets used (and thus tested) every day, so you're assured that it works. It also doesn't need anything that's likely to be cut off in the aftermath of a disaster. There's already one web site showing one guy's test of his Prius as a standby generator. Suppose you do that just a little bit better, and make the car a Prius+ with enough batteries to drive around a bit without needing to run the engine. Hook up some solar to that to keep the batteries charged (only at home, of course), and you've got a 100% off-grid backup system that can not only power the fridge and some lights, but will let you scoot around a bit once the roads have been cleared without having to worry too much about where the next gallon of fuel is coming from. It would be perfectly happy on-grid, too. What could be better for civil defense? Engineer-Poet · October 19, 2005 11:52 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Holiday Blogging
• The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I have long ago had it with the anti-nuclear power crowd. Nuclear power is cleaner, safer, and more efficient by far than coal or other fossil fuels. I have long ago advocated an Energy Independence Manhattan Project to get us off our deadly addiction to Saudi Arabian oil. And if they can make fusion work, I'm for that, too.