Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Nuclear Reactors

At 13:44 -0400 04/07/2009, Rick Tarara wrote:

One of the biggest asset of nuclear power during the transition period from
fossil to renewable is HIGH DENSITY. The current energy infrastructure
relies on siting power plants in high population/land use areas.
Coal/gas/nuclear power plants can be sited on a couple square miles of land
and produce 2000 MW of power.

And that has meant that we have not built the smart power grid that we need for the 21st century, whether we do any conversion to renewables or not, and have subjected untold numbers of pwople to the radiation and pollution inherent in coal and nuclear plants, to say nothing of the dangers in storing nuclear waste on plant sites and coal ash in lakes like the one in TN that collapsed recently.

It would take 4000 1.5MW wind generators to
AVERAGE that much (with 33% operational efficiencies--with are typical) and
you'd still have periods of no wind in the region. It will take decades to
build up an infrastructure where HUGE wind/solar farms can produce, STORE,
and TRANSPORT our total energy needs. The North-East (Boston to DC) is
always going to be a problem area.

I could point out that we once had hundreds of thousands of square miles under cultivation to produce hay for the horses that were our primary means of transportation, and 19th century environmentalists were afraid that cities like New York would be buried under and avalanche of horse manure.

Yes, wind parks and solar farms occupy large chunks of land, but they don't have to be dedicated to that use. Farming and cattle grazing can take place on the same land (under wind turbines at least--among solar panels is a bit more problematic). The wind farms east of San Francisco mix power generation and cattle grazing quite nicely, and have for nearly 40 years. And there is enough open parking area in this country to provide a good chunk of our electricity needs by covering them with solar panels (the parking lot surrounding the Pentagon in Washington, could by conservative estimate produce about 3300 MWh/month on a year-round average). In this country, we have between 10 and 13 parking spaces per car. It's time we used them for something more that leaf catchers during the fall. Offshore wind farms are better looking than offshore oil rigs, and can rely on much more predictable and constant wind sources. And while it is true that the wind doesn't blow all the time, so a windmill can typically produce only about 30% of its rated power on average (I note that both coal plants and nuclear plants operate at only about 30% thermal efficiency, and provide between 60% and 90% of rated power, on average), The wind is blowing *somewhere* all the time, and widely separated wind parks can, when interconnected, produce a combined output that is never below about 25% of rated power. (see: Louis Bergeron and Stephanie Kenitzer, "Study finds that Linked Wind Farms can Result in Reliable Power" <http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/december5/windfarm-120507.html>; also Cristina L. Archer and Mark Z. Jacobson, "Supplying Base Load Power and Reducing Transmission Requirements by Interconnecting Wind Farms," Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, Vol 46, November, 2007, pp. 1701-1717) There is enough potential wind energy off our coasts and in the Great Lakes to power the nation at present rates, and the central plains contain at least that much again.

Meanwhile, Both solar PV and Concentrated Solar Thermal power farms are sprouting all over the Southwest, which contains as much potential solar energy as all the wind sources together. In other words, there is more than enough wind and solar energy to meet our needs, and it will occupy only a rather small fraction of our land area, and need not impact on agricultural land. The northeast (Boston to DC) can be powered by offshore wind as soon as we can convince Ted Kennedy to sell his yacht :-).

When my class does their energy project
(supplying U.S. energy 100 years from now without the use of oil or gas) we
don't allow any 'deus ex machina' solutions. We work with proven
technology. It can be done, for 10s of trillions of dollars, and several
hundred thousand square miles of land. But nuclear, 'clean coal', and as
much hydro as possible are part of the program along with hydrogen as a
storage medium and portable fuel. What can be done in the U.S. can be more
difficult elsewhere. Japan for example has land problems. They really need
some high density energy sources.

"Clean Coal"??? And you don't use "deus ex machina" solutions? If there was ever an oxymoron, "clean coal" is it. We have no idea if we can even capture a significant fraction of the CO2 emitted by a coal plant, or what the cost would be, and no one has a clue if any practical form of storage is or ever will be available for the CO2. It will need to be at least as long-term secure as nuclear waste, and there will be a lot more of it. Such a process is at least 20 years away from any possible practicality, and doesn't begin to deal with the severe environmental problems with every form of coal mining, especially the "mountaintopping" variety that is turning West Virginia into an extension of the great plains, without the grass.

If we can learn how to ship electric power halfway and more across our country, the rest of the world can learn how to ship power internationally (we can too--sending power to Canada and purchasing power from Mexico). North Africa can provide all of Europe's needed electricity, and China could supply Japan. I have seen a computer simulation developed by a team of German engineers that shows how Japan could power itself with renewables successfully. The simulation takes into account time of day outputs and local weather conditions. They show that Japan has the potential to produce at least enough to power its current needs, without taking into account any possible efficiency improvements.

The point here, of course, is that if we keep thinking up reasons why something won't work, we will never solve the climate problem. Creative, but level-headed thinking and planning is needed, here and abroad. My sense right now is that much of the rest of the world is well ahead of us in both.
--
Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:hhaskell@mindspring,.com

So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer. Don't let them get away with it!!

Chip Giller, Founder, Grist.org