Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
User avatar
subcritical71
90
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:04 pm
Location: USA-Florida

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 4:15 pm
Need to build LFTR reactors.
Or any reactor technology for that matter. In fact, to ease the minds of those still stuck on the waste storage debate, get rid of the low enrichment requirements required for current reactor designs -> minimize waste.

Zynerji
Zynerji
78
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

subcritical71 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 7:21 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 4:15 pm
Need to build LFTR reactors.
Or any reactor technology for that matter. In fact, to ease the minds of those still stuck on the waste storage debate, get rid of the low enrichment requirements required for current reactor designs -> minimize waste.
I often wonder why coastal cities don't convert decommissioned nuclear submarines to power plants, and scuttle them off their coastlines and run them remotely using Digital Feedwater.

User avatar
subcritical71
90
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:04 pm
Location: USA-Florida

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 8:26 pm
subcritical71 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 7:21 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 4:15 pm
Need to build LFTR reactors.
Or any reactor technology for that matter. In fact, to ease the minds of those still stuck on the waste storage debate, get rid of the low enrichment requirements required for current reactor designs -> minimize waste.
I often wonder why coastal cities don't convert decommissioned nuclear submarines to power plants, and scuttle them off their coastlines and run them remotely using Digital Feedwater.
Nuclear submarines would not give that much power to the grid. The vast majority of the reactor power went towards propulsion and the remaining to the ships electrical system. Additionally, most submarines are only decommissioned after the core is end of lifed.

I had to look up digital feed water.... Interesting development and probably one of the many ways the new plants are orders of magnitude safer than the older plants. Oh the stories I could tell from tradition feed water systems! But hey, when I first starting operating we were still using vacuum tubes in the control system :oops:

Zynerji
Zynerji
78
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

subcritical71 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 9:46 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 8:26 pm
subcritical71 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 7:21 pm


Or any reactor technology for that matter. In fact, to ease the minds of those still stuck on the waste storage debate, get rid of the low enrichment requirements required for current reactor designs -> minimize waste.
I often wonder why coastal cities don't convert decommissioned nuclear submarines to power plants, and scuttle them off their coastlines and run them remotely using Digital Feedwater.
Nuclear submarines would not give that much power to the grid. The vast majority of the reactor power went towards propulsion and the remaining to the ships electrical system. Additionally, most submarines are only decommissioned after the core is end of lifed.

I had to look up digital feed water.... Interesting development and probably one of the many ways the new plants are orders of magnitude safer than the older plants. Oh the stories I could tell from tradition feed water systems! But hey, when I first starting operating we were still using vacuum tubes in the control system :oops:
My father-in-law did 22 years underwater, and builds simulators to train control room operators currently. He did enormous amounts of DFW work for Excelon for about 15 years, that's the only reason that I know about it.

Also, I did not mean to infer that the nuke sub propulsion would become the main reactor, I was more thinking about removing the 28 missile tubes (well, 12 main tubes) in the Virginia-ish class submarine and using that enormous space to build a power reactor.

The only real fear are torpedos, but if we are at that point, power probably isn't our biggest problem.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
533
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

the UK's own Mad Moo (May - the resigning Prime Minister) is to announce tomorrow her ultimate legacy/vanity project....

whereby the UK will have by 2050 net zero carbon emissions from all sources
plucky little Britain again showing the rest of the world what they should do !

this involves a 2000% increase in renewable electricity production and expanded delivery capacity
including replacing all fossil fuel heating etc with electrical heating
and replacing food-producing land with forest (please send us WW2 style food parcels again, USA, Canada, Australia !)
and replacing all our housing to reduce the heating requirement (we'll live in boxes clustered around waste heat sources)

even Hammond our Chancellor (finance minister) has just said that this will cost trillions and so is 'unwise' (crazy)

will China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia etc pay for this total rebuild of our country ?
while they do nothing to 'save the world'
and we're now told their economies will grow fourfold

EDIT
it's now tomorrow ....
my lovely BBC TV tells me all this above - now
this which I've been telling my TV for 20 years - and which (by implication) 'they' have always denied

the stinking Liberal Democrat (party) - who abhor nuclear power - must have some magic beans
because they are telling the above events are a vindication - so we should all vote LD - and this will fix everything

Brake Horse Power
Brake Horse Power
14
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:36 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:34 pm

plucky little Britain again showing the rest of the world what they should do !
Funny.. I would bet they say this in a lot of countries. Also here in the Netherlands. It almost makes me wonder if there are a lot of ambitious countries and actually a change can be made.

I think in general renewable energy is quite cheap and possibly cheaper than fossil fuels. I think countries making the transition will only increase in wealth, in multiple ways.

Greg Locock
Greg Locock
179
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Funny to think that if the USA, Australia, Canada, and the UK all went zero emissions tomorrow, in ten years the rest of the world would have made up for it (eyeballed from a graph).

User avatar
Andres125sx
343
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Greg Locock wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:39 am
Funny to think that if the USA, Australia, Canada, and the UK all went zero emissions tomorrow, in ten years the rest of the world would have made up for it (eyeballed from a graph).
I think none said that. But if the richer countries in the world do not do it, what´s the message for the rest of the world?

Hey guys, I won´t reduce my emissions, but you should #-o

roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

*If the richer people in the world don't do it, what's the message for the other people?*

Similar logic. The "can/can't be a globetrotting environmentalist" arguments.

Leading by example v do as I say, not as I do.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
533
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Andres125sx wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:51 am
.... Hey guys, I won´t reduce my emissions, but you should
the UK has already greatly reduced its emissions eg has a high proportion of renewables electricity and near-zero coal
and now its law demands zero emissions by 2050
that's not zero emissions electrical energy - it's zero emissions everything

most housing stock will need replacing
we'll need a twentyfold expansion of wind turbines and solar farms and nuclear generation capacity

2 days ago they found onshore at West Newton about 500 billion cu ft of gas
useable at Drax (combined cycle) generation at 60% efficiency (or 50% with CO2 sequestration for zero carbon)
and handy for heating until we have the twentyfold expansion of renewables
but the green gangsters say we mustn't touch it

User avatar
Andres125sx
343
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:30 am
Andres125sx wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:51 am
.... Hey guys, I won´t reduce my emissions, but you should
the UK has already greatly reduced its emissions eg has a high proportion of renewables electricity and near-zero coal
and now its law demands zero emissions by 2050
that's not zero emissions electrical energy - it's zero emissions everything

most housing stock will need replacing
we'll need a twentyfold expansion of wind turbines and solar farms and nuclear generation capacity

2 days ago they found onshore at West Newton about 500 billion cu ft of gas
useable at Drax (combined cycle) generation at 60% efficiency (or 50% with CO2 sequestration for zero carbon)
and handy for heating until we have the twentyfold expansion of renewables
but the green gangsters say we mustn't touch it
I know. My comment was a reference to USA and Trump specifically, the richer countries in the world telling the poorest they have to reduce emissions when the richer country does not :!:

If I was a president of one of those poorest countries that´s how I see it, and I´m not sure if I´d be laughing or really angry.

I agree with your point, but that´s the opposite to what I was refering to. Instead of rejecting to reduce emissions, UK (and many others) are doing populist claims to earn some votes... nothing new I´m afraid, just politics. But at least they´re trying, the switch will take a lot more than they´re claiming, period, but that´s secondary, if every country in the world do the same pollution would be reduced drastically wich is the point.

Even if, as you say, a big percentage of current emissions need to be kept for some more decades, only a 20-30% reduction in emission would probably have a huge impact on every current problem caused by pollution (respiratory diseases, global warming, vegetal and animal species becoming extinct in thousands...). Obviously that´s not the utopia they´re selling, but will be a good step forward