Re: Can Nuclear Power Deliver?

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 05:57:46 +0000 (UTC), rlbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Richard Bell) wrote:

>In article <1138426145.787896.303370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>T.Keating <tkgoogle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 01:15:51 +0000 (UTC), rlbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>(Richard Bell) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1138398907.639699.15530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>T.Keating <tkgoogle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Backup power plants will probably end up being relatively compact
>>>>combined cycle types. Reduced run time == much longer interval
>>>>between major overhauls.
>>
>>Relativity compact CG plants can still be rated in the GW range .
>
>The gas turbine is compact, but, at the Gw range, the steam portion of the
>combined cycle plant is a coal fired plant, less the coal fire. It takes
>time to get the water boiling, so once it gets fired up, you are committed
>to either running it, or losing money.

CG plants are significantly smaller than Coal fired Plant's of
equivalent output.

Steam turbines, boilers, condensers, cooling towers, etc are all
somewhat smaller, since the gas turbine portion generates 2/3rd's of
the plants output.

Coal fired plants need a large reserve of fuel stored on site and a
means of transporting thousands of tons to that site on a daily basis.
(that's a lot of infrastructure )..

>Finally, if the windfarm is only rated
>in megawatts, what do you need a gigawatt combined cycle plant for?

Wind farms can be any size..
Altamont pass had upwards of 6000 wind turbines..

http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/WKA/windfarm/altcal.html

(Down to 3900 as of July 2005)

The smaller ones are being replaced in a 5 to 1 ratio. Replacements
can generate several MW per turbine. However, they do not benefit
from being closely packed together. (They're spread throughout the
valley.)

The efficiency of fossil fuel power plants generally benefits from
increasing scale of economy. (Small gas turbines are not nearly as
efficient as larger ones, etc..)

>>
>>>
>>>But will the backup powerplants be able to pay for themselves, if they are
>>>only run intermittently. The other problem is that most combined cycle units
>>>are fuelled by natural gas. A further problem is that, per watt, small means
>>>expensive, but larger units may not be able to load follow.
>>
>>H2 can fuel the CG plants, additionally..
>> Biomass converted into NG will also work..
>
>You missed the point. The electricity produced by the wind turbines must not
>only pay for the wind turbines, but must also pay for the down time of the
>combined cycle plant. Or do the wind turbines produce the H2 that is burned
>by the thermal plant. If you have enough biomass available to run the thermal,
>why are you wasting money on a windfarm?

No you miss the real point..

Continued large scale burning of fossil fuels will DROWN their
country.(Demark)

Now what's the REAL price of burning fossil fuels??
I place it in the range of 10 to 100x the market current cost!!

As for making H2 from surplus electricity..
It's easy to do. requires little capital, relatively eff..(~94%),
and the facilities to convert back into electricity already exist...

H2 is added to biomass reaction in order to make it a more
efficient process. (I.E.. It's cracking long chain HC's Replacing
C-C bonds with a pair of H-C bonds, the H2 has to come from somewhere.)


Burning biomass directly lacks efficiency and has significant
pollution/shighting issues.

>>
>>H2 and/or NG can be pumped back in to depleted NG wells.
>>
>>Sync can be achieved using a accurate time base and ..
>>
>
>If it is economical to produce H2 with electricity that you could not sell,
>then wind turbines make even less sense, as they will be competing, on price,
>with nuclear power and hydroelectric power. Currently, the only thing that
>competes with those two on price is coal.

As the power generating capacity of RE grows, there will be times
when there will be a surplus of RE power.. (more than the region can
handle, I.E. high winds at night.) Thus making it practical to store
the surplus energy in some other form such as H2 or CH4. That surplus
can be used during times when the wind is clam and/or peak power usage
required.

As for CG plants... efficiency of those plants increases with scale.
same goes for steam.. up to a point.. same goes their cooling and
pollution control systems..

As for digging up and burning Coal.. using it is no bargain and
burning it moves Demark one step closer to submersion.

>
>
>>>The main problem for global warming is that the climate models are not good
>>>enough to predict anything. No model has been good enough to "predict" the
>>>climate from 1995 to 2005, given all of the available data. Even worse, there
>>>is now a vested interest in predicting calamities, as no funding body pays
>>>for negative results.
>>
>>I don't care that they don't have a good model..
>> GW is here now..
>
>How do you know? It used to be warmer, just not recently. Can you prove
>that this variation is abnormal? No, because the models are not good enough
>predict anything.


Hurricanes are a thermally driven phenomenon.

In 2005 GW broke several historical atlantic basin records.. like
the most cyclones (27), the most hurricanes(15), the most cat-5's(3),
the most intense hurricane ever recorded(Wilma) which occurred
unusually late in the hurricane season.

A new aspect started occurring in 2004 with Frances.
Hurricanes with SUPERSIZED eye diameters&walls. Prior to recent
seasons hurricane eyes walls were fairly small, in the range of
8(Andrew), 13(Camile) up to ~20 miles in diameter, but now we're seeing
them with diameters in the 50 to 60 mile range.

2004 had one(1) which fell into that mega eye category (Frances)..
2005 had three(3).. (Katrina, Rita, Wilma.)

2006.. Average winter temps in South Florida are way above normal(5C
higher).. well beyond last years starting point..


As for the cause of GW.

Atmospheric CO2 measurements don't lie.
Historical ice core data confirms CO2 at unprecedented levels.
CO2 is of organic nature(12C/13C isotope ratio) (mankind).
The chemical/optical, IR trapping, characteristics of CO2 is well
known.
Solar energy input & spectra is well known.
Apply Occam's Razor.


========


If anything.. we've probably crossed one or more positive feedback
tripping points, and from this point onwards GW effects will scale
upward in an ever increasing rate.

Humanity threw the dice... and is going to loose.. big time..

>>
>>As for vested interests..
>> It's the GW denial crowd that have all the big dollar interests.
>>
>> More oil.. more gas.. more nukes.. more coal.. more tankers..
>>invasions. exploring.. rebuilding.. keep the stock market from
>>panicking.... etc..
>>
>Wrong vested interests. The researchers have to produce alarming results, or
>people will stop feeling the need to give them funding.

Huh? Are you hiding in hole somewhere??

Here is a through discussion about El-bushie's faith based/corp
driven censorship of our government scientists..

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/28/1816238
"Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him"

>
>BTW, nuclear proponents like global warming. Nuclear reactors do not produce
>green house gases.

Land based nuclear reactors represent an unacceptable hazard to the
earth's limited air/soil boundary layer. (Another huge hidden cost,
similar to fossil fuel's contribution to GW.)

.