http://www.physorg.com/news8956.html
Sounds like a Tom Swift invention to me.
Sorry, any rosy article that says there is no danger sets of alarm bells as a sell job. What if oxygen gets in, or the pebbles crack in the heat exposing their carbon, etc? What about the security issue of storing radioactive waste on site, or burying it? What if there is a hydrogen explosion?
you can"t just say "yeah, it"s completely safe." You need to go through all the possibilities.
Such the technology is always safe, just the peoples are dangerous.... 
zephir, I suggest you do a little homework yourself and you'd see that they have indeed gone through all these scenarios. Also, it's helium that is used for cooling not hydrogen, so there is not risk of hydrogen explosion inside the reactor at all. The design of the pebbles prevents a critical mass forming that would cause a nuclear explosion, and the equilibrium temperature of the pebble system is a thousand degrees or so below the melting point of the graphite casings.
One thing the article doesn't point out is that the environment around the PBR housing itself is significantly less radioactive than a traditional fuel rod reactor because the graphite absorbs most of the neutrons before they reach the reactor housing.
One thing the article doesn't point out is that the environment around the PBR housing itself is significantly less radioactive than a traditional fuel rod reactor because the graphite absorbs most of the neutrons before they reach the reactor housing.
Nuclear power is not being shunned. If it were, that would be very odd. The potential for more Chernobyls does not exist, and never existed outside the former Soviet Union, because in 1950 Dr. Edward Teller foresaw in perfect detail how such a reactor might fail, and made sure from then on no such thing could be licensed in the west. When the US submarine San Francisco rammed a seamount at, I guess, 50 miles per hour a submariner died and many were injured, but the reactor suffered no harm, did none, and got all the survivors home.
Philip Dunn probably thinks he wrote a favorable article on the pebble-bed reactor, but seems not to be aware how much "general knowledge" about conventional reactors, stuff he thinks must be in some textbook somewhere, is actually civil servants' rationalization of their profits from fossil fuels that they cannot hope to make from 100-times-cheaper uranium. Lies, in short.
Contradicting every such display of credulity, as I did above for those in his first paragraph, would take too long.
Many potential faults for the PBMR have, of course, been analysed. Oxygen might get in some considerable time after the pressurized helium had all got out, and so was no longer exerting pressure to block inward leakage of any kind, but dense graphite burns slowly, and there are silicon carbide layers that burn more slowly still (they self-protect with SiO2).
--- Graham Cowan, former Ontario, Canada hydrogen fan
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Philip Dunn probably thinks he wrote a favorable article on the pebble-bed reactor, but seems not to be aware how much "general knowledge" about conventional reactors, stuff he thinks must be in some textbook somewhere, is actually civil servants' rationalization of their profits from fossil fuels that they cannot hope to make from 100-times-cheaper uranium. Lies, in short.
Contradicting every such display of credulity, as I did above for those in his first paragraph, would take too long.
Many potential faults for the PBMR have, of course, been analysed. Oxygen might get in some considerable time after the pressurized helium had all got out, and so was no longer exerting pressure to block inward leakage of any kind, but dense graphite burns slowly, and there are silicon carbide layers that burn more slowly still (they self-protect with SiO2).
--- Graham Cowan, former Ontario, Canada hydrogen fan
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
There is an error in the following sentence in the article
"On the plus side, it can use unenriched uranium – about .07% uranium 235. Regular plants require between 2% and 7% uranium 235 in reactor fuel to run properly"
It is probably a typo! Natural uranium contains0.7% uranium 235 and not 0.007%
K.S.Parthasarathy
While I’m a longtime nuclear energy worker myself, I can’t say that I’m sure what the future of nuclear energy should be (really). This is especially true in less developed countries, but also in the West - particularly the US, due to public fears.
I’ve come to realize that the real world of nuclear power is unknown to the general public, which has had far more access to the workings of the Starship Enterprise than to the nuke plant down the street. This does not help things, as the best decisions about our energy future will be made if we first understand our energy present.
In response to the need for public education, I’ve written an insider’s account of the American nuclear power industry, called “Rad Decision”. The book is available, at no cost to readers, at RadDecision.blogspot.com.
Tech icon and Whole Earth Catalog founder Stewart Brand has endorsed the book, stating: “I’d like to see RAD DECISION widely read.”
Designed for the lay reader, but filled with details for the technologically saavy, this unique peek beyond the security fence is in the form of a thriller novel. Rad Decision covers nuclear plant operation, events such as Chernobyl and TMI, and ends with how an accident might be handled today. It also includes, for the first time, an insider perspective on the politics and human relations that greatly impact how nuclear units in the U.S. are operated.
At RadDecision.blogspot.com the book is presented as a series of Episodes (15 minutes reading time each) and also provided as a PDF file. This is an independent, non-profit project with no advertising. All sides of the nuclear power debate will find items to like, and dislike, within Rad Decision.
I hope you’ll take the opportunity to take a look at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com
James Aach
I’ve come to realize that the real world of nuclear power is unknown to the general public, which has had far more access to the workings of the Starship Enterprise than to the nuke plant down the street. This does not help things, as the best decisions about our energy future will be made if we first understand our energy present.
In response to the need for public education, I’ve written an insider’s account of the American nuclear power industry, called “Rad Decision”. The book is available, at no cost to readers, at RadDecision.blogspot.com.
Tech icon and Whole Earth Catalog founder Stewart Brand has endorsed the book, stating: “I’d like to see RAD DECISION widely read.”
Designed for the lay reader, but filled with details for the technologically saavy, this unique peek beyond the security fence is in the form of a thriller novel. Rad Decision covers nuclear plant operation, events such as Chernobyl and TMI, and ends with how an accident might be handled today. It also includes, for the first time, an insider perspective on the politics and human relations that greatly impact how nuclear units in the U.S. are operated.
At RadDecision.blogspot.com the book is presented as a series of Episodes (15 minutes reading time each) and also provided as a PDF file. This is an independent, non-profit project with no advertising. All sides of the nuclear power debate will find items to like, and dislike, within Rad Decision.
I hope you’ll take the opportunity to take a look at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com
James Aach
How come no plutonium produced? 
I think radio-active waste is dangerous more than 10,000 years as the author states, but even 10,000 years is a mindbending concept. I don't want to even think about pockets of this stuff being stored or dumped in the ocean, and believe me there are people in the world stupid enough to do this, all over the world, in every city. These pebble coatings havn't been proven to last 10,000 or more years. If we do this without really solving the waste problem, future generations will look back with hatred at us for our selfishness and short-sightedness.
Nuclear Power and Economy of Scale.
Electricity generated by nuclear power must be considered in the equation as an alternative to fossil based energy sources. Currently there are approximately 110 nuclear power reactors in operation in the United States.
Question: Why do we design and build huge nuclear power plants for generating electricity when there is a safe and economical solution represented by fission reactors now in operation on navy ships with a fifty-year safety record?
Large nuclear facilities have all of the following problems:
1. Non-standardization in plant design – While the physics (fission) is the same; mechanically, very few commercial reactors have anything in common from one plant to another.
2. Licensing, Inspection and Certification – Non-standardization has added huge delays and additional construction cost to meet certification requirements.
3. Personnel Training – Non-standardization has made it difficult for operation and safety personnel to move between reactors locations without undergoing extensive, on-the-job familiarization. A nuclear qualified sailor in the U.S. navy can go from one nuclear ship to another and operate that system with very little additional training.
4. Security – Non-standardization has made it difficult to develop uniform security measures and procedures for use by security personnel that historically have been among the lowest wage earners in our society.
5. Modification and retrofitting – Non-standardization of existing nuclear facilities necessitates the complete loss of generating capacity for extended periods of time when modifications and retrofitting are mandated, all at an increase cost to the rate payer.
6. Decommission of a Nuclear Power Plant – Decommission cost are larger than construction cost when the value of a dollar is compared to its start-up date and shutdown date.
Why would the following solution based on navy nuclear reactor design not work for civilian nuclear facilities?
Why not a nuclear generating farm with multiple reactors/generators, each on a railroad car with electrical output connected to a central grid.
A facility of this type would offer the following attributes:
1. Reactors/Generators built on railroad cars deployed from a manufacturer’s plant insure that uniformity and quality control with nuclear regulatory oversight can be strictly enforced during the assembly phase.
2. Mass production of reactors/generators would mean a quick replacement of fossil fuel steam generation systems and their polluting emissions.
3. When maintenance, modification, retrofitting or nuclear fueling are required, the railroad car is moved to a maintenance facility adjacent to the farm equipped with remote manipulating devices to ensure personnel/personal safety requirements.
4. Smallness of scale means that it will be much easier and safer to the surrounding community to contain a reactor that enters into a failure mode.
5. A replacement reactor/generator can be moved into position while the original reactor is undergoing repairs without detriment to the total output of the generating farm.
6. A grid design with a safety area around each reactor/generator would probably not require any more land area than the existing safety area now in force around a large reactor system.
7. Security personnel could be quickly and easily trained to recognize critical parts of the total system and how best to minimized threats to the system and the surrounding community.
8. It would be difficult for terrorists to create a situation that would have catastrophic results to a community as would the results of a strike on a large nuclear reactor.
9. Combined training facilities for military and civilian personnel all working on the same reactor design would be a huge cost savings for both the military and those of us that have to pay huge electrical bills.
Because the nuclear power industry and the regulatory agencies are empowered by the nuclear reactor manufacturers, I see little chance that the above suggestions will be considered, but they should be.
In the late 1960s, I observed a pair of tandem locomotives, each on a parallel set of tracks move a Titan IIIC launch vehicle perched vertically on railroad cars to the solid motor assembly building and then onto the launch pad at Cape Canaveral. If it can work for launch vehicles, why can it not work for small, reliable nuclear reactors?
Electricity generated by nuclear power must be considered in the equation as an alternative to fossil based energy sources. Currently there are approximately 110 nuclear power reactors in operation in the United States.
Question: Why do we design and build huge nuclear power plants for generating electricity when there is a safe and economical solution represented by fission reactors now in operation on navy ships with a fifty-year safety record?
Large nuclear facilities have all of the following problems:
1. Non-standardization in plant design – While the physics (fission) is the same; mechanically, very few commercial reactors have anything in common from one plant to another.
2. Licensing, Inspection and Certification – Non-standardization has added huge delays and additional construction cost to meet certification requirements.
3. Personnel Training – Non-standardization has made it difficult for operation and safety personnel to move between reactors locations without undergoing extensive, on-the-job familiarization. A nuclear qualified sailor in the U.S. navy can go from one nuclear ship to another and operate that system with very little additional training.
4. Security – Non-standardization has made it difficult to develop uniform security measures and procedures for use by security personnel that historically have been among the lowest wage earners in our society.
5. Modification and retrofitting – Non-standardization of existing nuclear facilities necessitates the complete loss of generating capacity for extended periods of time when modifications and retrofitting are mandated, all at an increase cost to the rate payer.
6. Decommission of a Nuclear Power Plant – Decommission cost are larger than construction cost when the value of a dollar is compared to its start-up date and shutdown date.
Why would the following solution based on navy nuclear reactor design not work for civilian nuclear facilities?
Why not a nuclear generating farm with multiple reactors/generators, each on a railroad car with electrical output connected to a central grid.
A facility of this type would offer the following attributes:
1. Reactors/Generators built on railroad cars deployed from a manufacturer’s plant insure that uniformity and quality control with nuclear regulatory oversight can be strictly enforced during the assembly phase.
2. Mass production of reactors/generators would mean a quick replacement of fossil fuel steam generation systems and their polluting emissions.
3. When maintenance, modification, retrofitting or nuclear fueling are required, the railroad car is moved to a maintenance facility adjacent to the farm equipped with remote manipulating devices to ensure personnel/personal safety requirements.
4. Smallness of scale means that it will be much easier and safer to the surrounding community to contain a reactor that enters into a failure mode.
5. A replacement reactor/generator can be moved into position while the original reactor is undergoing repairs without detriment to the total output of the generating farm.
6. A grid design with a safety area around each reactor/generator would probably not require any more land area than the existing safety area now in force around a large reactor system.
7. Security personnel could be quickly and easily trained to recognize critical parts of the total system and how best to minimized threats to the system and the surrounding community.
8. It would be difficult for terrorists to create a situation that would have catastrophic results to a community as would the results of a strike on a large nuclear reactor.
9. Combined training facilities for military and civilian personnel all working on the same reactor design would be a huge cost savings for both the military and those of us that have to pay huge electrical bills.
Because the nuclear power industry and the regulatory agencies are empowered by the nuclear reactor manufacturers, I see little chance that the above suggestions will be considered, but they should be.
In the late 1960s, I observed a pair of tandem locomotives, each on a parallel set of tracks move a Titan IIIC launch vehicle perched vertically on railroad cars to the solid motor assembly building and then onto the launch pad at Cape Canaveral. If it can work for launch vehicles, why can it not work for small, reliable nuclear reactors?
Not a bad idea, but I'd rethink the moving the fueled reactors around on railroad cars.
Servicing them on site is not that big of a deal and you avoid a lot of issues about movement of nuclear material.
If the reactors are smaller than loss of one during refueling is not a biggy, as the electricity can be purchased off the grid for the shortfall during the duration, probably no more expensive than sending your reactor off site and getting another up and running.
Don't know much about Navy reactors, are they reasonable designs for commercial electrical generation?
Considering that our existing plants have an excellent up time record and generally run at full power, would there be actual savings NOW? Or is this more an idea of what we SHOULD have done, as there are many similarities in your general proposal to what was done in France, except moving them of course.
Arthur
Servicing them on site is not that big of a deal and you avoid a lot of issues about movement of nuclear material.
If the reactors are smaller than loss of one during refueling is not a biggy, as the electricity can be purchased off the grid for the shortfall during the duration, probably no more expensive than sending your reactor off site and getting another up and running.
Don't know much about Navy reactors, are they reasonable designs for commercial electrical generation?
Considering that our existing plants have an excellent up time record and generally run at full power, would there be actual savings NOW? Or is this more an idea of what we SHOULD have done, as there are many similarities in your general proposal to what was done in France, except moving them of course.
Arthur
QUOTE (Confused2+Dec 12 2005, 02:35 PM)
How come no plutonium produced?
The PBMR will produce plutonium. Much of it will be burned in place, but some will remain in the spent pebbles. In that respect it's not much different from the CANDU or any reactor that burns mixed 238-U and 235-U. Suggesting (but not stating) such a difference is another of the several errors in the article, in addition to the ones in the first paragraph.
High-level nuclear waste isn't actually very high-level any more after 300 years' cooling, according to Per Peterson's Repository.pdf, and certainly even if it were just cooled 5 years, dumping it in the ocean could not materially alter the ocean's radioactivity.Not for the amounts likely to be produced this century, anyway. It might still be stupid for other reasons
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
boron: how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
The PBMR will produce plutonium. Much of it will be burned in place, but some will remain in the spent pebbles. In that respect it's not much different from the CANDU or any reactor that burns mixed 238-U and 235-U. Suggesting (but not stating) such a difference is another of the several errors in the article, in addition to the ones in the first paragraph.
High-level nuclear waste isn't actually very high-level any more after 300 years' cooling, according to Per Peterson's Repository.pdf, and certainly even if it were just cooled 5 years, dumping it in the ocean could not materially alter the ocean's radioactivity.Not for the amounts likely to be produced this century, anyway. It might still be stupid for other reasons
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
boron: how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
I first read of pebble bed reactors in, I think, the early 1970s, a few years after I got out of nuclear propulsion studies.
It seems to me that it was a design originated by German scientists and engineers and I believe that at least one has been built. As a matter of fact, I just performed a Google search and found the following posting. Go check it for yourself.
"What's Wrong With the Modular Pebble Bed Reactor?
"The pebble bed reactor is being touted as nearly "accident proof." It is being hailed as the savior of the nuclear industry. Three Mile Island Alert opposes this reactor design because of its inherent dangerous safety defects.
1. It has no containment building.
2. It uses flammable graphite as a moderator.
3. It produces more high level nuclear wastes than current nuclear reactor designs.
4. It relies heavily on nearly perfect fuel pebbles.
5. It relies heavily upon fuel handling as the pebbles are cycled through the reactor.
6. There's already been an accident at a pebble bed reactor in Germany due to fuel handling problems."
So is it as great as the new citation claims?
It seems to me that it was a design originated by German scientists and engineers and I believe that at least one has been built. As a matter of fact, I just performed a Google search and found the following posting. Go check it for yourself.
"What's Wrong With the Modular Pebble Bed Reactor?
"The pebble bed reactor is being touted as nearly "accident proof." It is being hailed as the savior of the nuclear industry. Three Mile Island Alert opposes this reactor design because of its inherent dangerous safety defects.
1. It has no containment building.
2. It uses flammable graphite as a moderator.
3. It produces more high level nuclear wastes than current nuclear reactor designs.
4. It relies heavily on nearly perfect fuel pebbles.
5. It relies heavily upon fuel handling as the pebbles are cycled through the reactor.
6. There's already been an accident at a pebble bed reactor in Germany due to fuel handling problems."
So is it as great as the new citation claims?
blazes, there is nothing Tom Swift about it. I happen to be a nuclear engineer, among several other kinds of engineer, and the PBR design has been around for over a decade now. What China's Tsinghua University has done is to actually build one. The US Navy does have a PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) design that uses natural circulation which shuts down on a severe/complete loss of coolant accident (SLOCA/CLOCA scenario) but I don't expect to see that in civilian hands as it uses nearly pure (bomb-grade) U-235.
The PBR is dead easy to maintain, totally idiot proof in that you can literally walk away from it and nothing bad will happen, and every accident scenario I've ever studied is either impossible or results in no radioactive release. The only fly in the ointment is that the fast neutron capture by the U-238 produces Pu-239, i.e. it's a breeder reactor. There are ways of "burning" the Pu-239 in certain conditions while producing power in a safe manner but I wouldn't do that. Pu-239 is also extremely useful for nuclear batteries which are used in the space program but are also useful in other scenarios as well.
The PBR is dead easy to maintain, totally idiot proof in that you can literally walk away from it and nothing bad will happen, and every accident scenario I've ever studied is either impossible or results in no radioactive release. The only fly in the ointment is that the fast neutron capture by the U-238 produces Pu-239, i.e. it's a breeder reactor. There are ways of "burning" the Pu-239 in certain conditions while producing power in a safe manner but I wouldn't do that. Pu-239 is also extremely useful for nuclear batteries which are used in the space program but are also useful in other scenarios as well.
Trucker, the reason we can get away with it in the US Navy is that we have an ocean to use as our cooling tower. That won't work with your scenario unless the railroad cars have pipeline connections to some serious heat sink. The other problem is that it is awfully hard to take over a ship or submarine (you would have had to go through someone like me first and I be mean!) and go anywhere with it. US Navy designs, as I mention in a prior reply, use bomb-grade U-235. You don't want to wandering about the country, thank you. Not in this day and age.
There are other reasons you wouldn't want to do this but I can't discuss them. Sorry. Let me just say, you have a very bad idea there.
There are other reasons you wouldn't want to do this but I can't discuss them. Sorry. Let me just say, you have a very bad idea there.
PBR seem like it has pratically no bad points (except for being a breeder reactor). Why arnt we seeing thousands of these plants popping up everywhere?
Nuclear power supplies 17% of the world's electricity, not its energy, 90% of which comes from fossil fuels. It supplies 6% of the world's primary energy, but only
2-1/2% as usable electrical energy. To supply the world's energy by nuclear power would require the production of 6 million tonnes of uranium per annum (from reserves totalling 3 million tonnes) if you take into account the inefficiency in using hydrogen and the annual exponential rise in energy demand.
See http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear.htm
Uranium supplies are inadequate to keep the world's current fleet of reactors in fuel, so the push to expand the sector is just an evasion of coming realities.
2-1/2% as usable electrical energy. To supply the world's energy by nuclear power would require the production of 6 million tonnes of uranium per annum (from reserves totalling 3 million tonnes) if you take into account the inefficiency in using hydrogen and the annual exponential rise in energy demand.
See http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear.htm
Uranium supplies are inadequate to keep the world's current fleet of reactors in fuel, so the push to expand the sector is just an evasion of coming realities.
I think that the reason that you don't see PBR popping up everywhere is because people and financial interests are frightened of the liability issues.
The problem of safe and effective disposal of nuclear reactor wastes still haven't been solved even after over fifty years of trying to address the problem.
Yucca Flats, anyone?
The problem of safe and effective disposal of nuclear reactor wastes still haven't been solved even after over fifty years of trying to address the problem.
Yucca Flats, anyone?
Nuclear Power or Hydrogen Power: Yes or No?
Our congressional representatives have sat on their keisters since the oil crisis of 1972.
1. Do we have representatives in Congress without any technical knowledge and strong ties to the fossil fuel industry?
2. Is it time to demand that our government start implementing alternative energy solutions on a grand scale?
3. Are those of us with so many different ideas on how to solve our energy problems no more than pawns of the fossil fuel industry?
4. Is it their game plan for this debate to continue indefinitely?
5. Is it possible for technophiles to form a conscience regarding new technologies to meet our energy needs and agree on the best possible solution for our health, our environment, and our wallets?
6. Do technophiles dare gather together to force change?
7. What are our alternatives?
A solution does not exist for the massive amounts of nuclear waste generated if we switch to fission on the scale needed to meet our energy needs. No one wants the radioactive waste buried in his or her back yard; or the waste transported through his or her community; or the waste falling into the hands of Mr. and Mrs. Terrorist.
Hydrogen production and storage containment technologies are not as efficient as the technical community believes they can be, but let us begin implementing those solutions we now have. New processes and new containments will replace less efficient technologies as they become available.
There are many sources available to generate the required energy needed to distill hydrogen. We can harness wind power when the wind blows. We can harness solar power while the sun shines. We can harness tidal flow. We can harness the Gulf Stream while it still flows.
We can give huge tax advantages to those energy technologies that break our dependence on fossil fuels. Lets stop with the rhetoric and start building to accomplish these goals.
Because high-quality hydrogen containment is still not available for transportation, it might be advisable to begin using hydrogen at our power plants thereby reducing the harmful emissions generated by oil, coal and gas. It’s where we should have started thirty-three years ago.
Our congressional representatives have sat on their keisters since the oil crisis of 1972.
1. Do we have representatives in Congress without any technical knowledge and strong ties to the fossil fuel industry?
2. Is it time to demand that our government start implementing alternative energy solutions on a grand scale?
3. Are those of us with so many different ideas on how to solve our energy problems no more than pawns of the fossil fuel industry?
4. Is it their game plan for this debate to continue indefinitely?
5. Is it possible for technophiles to form a conscience regarding new technologies to meet our energy needs and agree on the best possible solution for our health, our environment, and our wallets?
6. Do technophiles dare gather together to force change?
7. What are our alternatives?
A solution does not exist for the massive amounts of nuclear waste generated if we switch to fission on the scale needed to meet our energy needs. No one wants the radioactive waste buried in his or her back yard; or the waste transported through his or her community; or the waste falling into the hands of Mr. and Mrs. Terrorist.
Hydrogen production and storage containment technologies are not as efficient as the technical community believes they can be, but let us begin implementing those solutions we now have. New processes and new containments will replace less efficient technologies as they become available.
There are many sources available to generate the required energy needed to distill hydrogen. We can harness wind power when the wind blows. We can harness solar power while the sun shines. We can harness tidal flow. We can harness the Gulf Stream while it still flows.
We can give huge tax advantages to those energy technologies that break our dependence on fossil fuels. Lets stop with the rhetoric and start building to accomplish these goals.
Because high-quality hydrogen containment is still not available for transportation, it might be advisable to begin using hydrogen at our power plants thereby reducing the harmful emissions generated by oil, coal and gas. It’s where we should have started thirty-three years ago.
A couple of questions for the learned posters on this topic. What would happen to this nuclear power plant if a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with explosives or a nuclear bomb up to the reactor and ignited the bomb? Also what would happen to the nuclear power plant if it was struck by a depleted uranium projectile from the barrel of a tank? Thanks.
Here's another source of electrical power:
Brooklyn Eagle July 10, 1932
Nikola Tesla states: I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor. I have hopes of building my motor on a large scale, but circumstances have not been favorable to carrying out my plan.
Device to Harness Cosmic Energy Claimed by Tesla: New York American November 1st, 1933
"This new power for the driving of the world's machinery will be derived from the energy which operates the universe, the cosmic energy, whose central source for the earth is the sun and which is everywhere present in unlimited quantities."
Tesla's free-energy concept was patented in 1901 as an "Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy." The patent refers to "the sun, as well as other sources of radiant energy, like cosmic rays," that the device works at night is explained in terms of the nighttime availability of cosmic rays. Tesla also refers to the ground as "a vast reservoir of negative electricity."
Tesla was fascinated by radiant energy and its free-energy possibilities. He called the Crooke's radiometer, a device which has vanes that spin in a vacuum when exposed to radiant energy "a beautiful invention." He believed that it would become possible to harness energy directly by "connecting to the very wheel-work of nature." On his 76th birthday at his yearly ritual press conference, Tesla announced a "cosmic-ray motor" when asked if it was more powerful than the Crooke's radiometer, he answered, "thousands of times more powerful."
The Earth's Electrostatic Charge
Tesla's intent was to condense the energy trapped between the earth and its upper atmosphere and to transform it into an electric current. He pictured the sun as an immense ball of electricity, positively charged with a potential of some 200 billion volts. The earth, on the other hand, is charged with negative electricity. The tremendous electrical force between these two bodies constituted, at least in part, what he called cosmic energy. It varied from night to day and from season to season but it is always present.
The positive particles are stopped at the ionosphere and between it and the negative charges in the ground, a distance of 60 miles, there is a large difference of voltage - something on the order of 360,000 volts. With the gases of the atmosphere acting as an insulator between these two opposite stores of electrical charges, the region between the ground and the edge of space traps a great deal of energy. Despite the large size of the planet, it is electrically like a capacitor which keeps positive and negative charges apart by using the air as a non-conducting material as an insulator.
Philadelphia Public Ledger November 2, 1933:
Tesla 'Harnesses' Cosmic Energy
Inventor announces discovery to displace fuel in driving machinery. Calls Sun main source. A principle by which power for driving machinery of the world may be developed from the cosmic energy which operates the universe, has been discovered by Nikola Tesla, noted physicist and inventor of scientific devices, he announced today. This principle, which taps a source of power described as "everywhere present in unlimited quantities" and which may be transmitted by wire or wireless from central plants to any part of the globe, will eliminate the need of coal, oil, gas or any other of the common fuels, he said.
Dr. Tesla in a statement today at his hotel indicated the time was not far distant when the principle would be ready for practical commercial development. Asked whether the sudden introduction of his principle would upset the present economic system, Dr. Tesla replied, "It is badly upset already." He added that now as never before was the time ripe for the development of new resources. While in its present form, the theory calls for the development of energy in central plants requiring vast machinery. Dr. Tesla said he might be able to work out a plan for its use by individuals. The central source of cosmic energy for the earth is the Sun, Dr. Tesla said, but "night will not interrupt the flow of new power supply."
Clearly Tesla is not talking about an atomic reactor. He is directly converting ionized particles generated by radiant matter. It is not nuclear energy as we know it today. Radiant Energy is directly converted to electrical power! Tesla believed that the Sun generates highly charged particles and that radiant matter is a re-transmitter of energy, it is this transfer of energy that could be used for practical purposes.
Here's another source of electrical power:
Brooklyn Eagle July 10, 1932
Nikola Tesla states: I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor. I have hopes of building my motor on a large scale, but circumstances have not been favorable to carrying out my plan.
Device to Harness Cosmic Energy Claimed by Tesla: New York American November 1st, 1933
"This new power for the driving of the world's machinery will be derived from the energy which operates the universe, the cosmic energy, whose central source for the earth is the sun and which is everywhere present in unlimited quantities."
Tesla's free-energy concept was patented in 1901 as an "Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy." The patent refers to "the sun, as well as other sources of radiant energy, like cosmic rays," that the device works at night is explained in terms of the nighttime availability of cosmic rays. Tesla also refers to the ground as "a vast reservoir of negative electricity."
Tesla was fascinated by radiant energy and its free-energy possibilities. He called the Crooke's radiometer, a device which has vanes that spin in a vacuum when exposed to radiant energy "a beautiful invention." He believed that it would become possible to harness energy directly by "connecting to the very wheel-work of nature." On his 76th birthday at his yearly ritual press conference, Tesla announced a "cosmic-ray motor" when asked if it was more powerful than the Crooke's radiometer, he answered, "thousands of times more powerful."
The Earth's Electrostatic Charge
Tesla's intent was to condense the energy trapped between the earth and its upper atmosphere and to transform it into an electric current. He pictured the sun as an immense ball of electricity, positively charged with a potential of some 200 billion volts. The earth, on the other hand, is charged with negative electricity. The tremendous electrical force between these two bodies constituted, at least in part, what he called cosmic energy. It varied from night to day and from season to season but it is always present.
The positive particles are stopped at the ionosphere and between it and the negative charges in the ground, a distance of 60 miles, there is a large difference of voltage - something on the order of 360,000 volts. With the gases of the atmosphere acting as an insulator between these two opposite stores of electrical charges, the region between the ground and the edge of space traps a great deal of energy. Despite the large size of the planet, it is electrically like a capacitor which keeps positive and negative charges apart by using the air as a non-conducting material as an insulator.
Philadelphia Public Ledger November 2, 1933:
Tesla 'Harnesses' Cosmic Energy
Inventor announces discovery to displace fuel in driving machinery. Calls Sun main source. A principle by which power for driving machinery of the world may be developed from the cosmic energy which operates the universe, has been discovered by Nikola Tesla, noted physicist and inventor of scientific devices, he announced today. This principle, which taps a source of power described as "everywhere present in unlimited quantities" and which may be transmitted by wire or wireless from central plants to any part of the globe, will eliminate the need of coal, oil, gas or any other of the common fuels, he said.
Dr. Tesla in a statement today at his hotel indicated the time was not far distant when the principle would be ready for practical commercial development. Asked whether the sudden introduction of his principle would upset the present economic system, Dr. Tesla replied, "It is badly upset already." He added that now as never before was the time ripe for the development of new resources. While in its present form, the theory calls for the development of energy in central plants requiring vast machinery. Dr. Tesla said he might be able to work out a plan for its use by individuals. The central source of cosmic energy for the earth is the Sun, Dr. Tesla said, but "night will not interrupt the flow of new power supply."
Clearly Tesla is not talking about an atomic reactor. He is directly converting ionized particles generated by radiant matter. It is not nuclear energy as we know it today. Radiant Energy is directly converted to electrical power! Tesla believed that the Sun generates highly charged particles and that radiant matter is a re-transmitter of energy, it is this transfer of energy that could be used for practical purposes.
QUOTE (The Unabageler+Dec 11 2005, 09:47 PM)
zephir, I suggest you do a little homework yourself and you'd see that they have indeed gone through all these scenarios. Also, it's helium that is used for cooling not hydrogen, so there is not risk of hydrogen explosion inside the reactor at all. The design of the pebbles prevents a critical mass forming that would cause a nuclear explosion, and the equilibrium temperature of the pebble system is a thousand degrees or so below the melting point of the graphite casings.
One thing the article doesn't point out is that the environment around the PBR housing itself is significantly less radioactive than a traditional fuel rod reactor because the graphite absorbs most of the neutrons before they reach the reactor housing.
An earthquake or a jetliner deliberately crashed into the reactor building could break open the helium cooling system exposing the graphite balls to air and they will catch fire. If sprinklers are present in the reactor building the graphite balls will get wet and thermal decomposition of the water into hydrogen and oxygen will take place. After the graphite shells are bunered off the cores will roll closer to each other increasing the fisson rate causing an increasein reator temperature resulting in release of vaporized uranium or the fuel balls might go critical and a nuclear explosion might take place. Proponents of this concept are wrong.
One thing the article doesn't point out is that the environment around the PBR housing itself is significantly less radioactive than a traditional fuel rod reactor because the graphite absorbs most of the neutrons before they reach the reactor housing.
An earthquake or a jetliner deliberately crashed into the reactor building could break open the helium cooling system exposing the graphite balls to air and they will catch fire. If sprinklers are present in the reactor building the graphite balls will get wet and thermal decomposition of the water into hydrogen and oxygen will take place. After the graphite shells are bunered off the cores will roll closer to each other increasing the fisson rate causing an increasein reator temperature resulting in release of vaporized uranium or the fuel balls might go critical and a nuclear explosion might take place. Proponents of this concept are wrong.
The reason why they haven't popped up all over the place is that, as with any project that attempts to take theory to real-world engineering, there are kinks to work out as, apparently, the Germans found out. The accident free record of the US Navy wasn't an accident (pun intended!). It was a direct result of hard-core examination of everything that can go wrong and creating procedures, techniques, and especially research into materials and process engineering to prevent them from ever occurring in the first place. Looking back, some of those designs were more than a bit of overkill but I've extended those same kind of practices even into my computer hardware and software engineering practice (serious overkill and don't trust anything!) with good results. When lives depend on your work you have to get it right the first time. So far the results seem to match the theory but only full scale testing over an extended period of time and re-engineering as necessary to prevent failures and accidents will prove the systems in my book.
Can anyone explain how a mass of these pebbles could go from producing (say) 200MW down to (say) 50KW in the amount of time available in a catastrophic loss of coolant situation?
If nuclear power is so dirt cheap, why isnt the market producing it?
Its a complex question, but the simple version is that Nukes tend to take a long time and a lot of money to build vs a slightly lower operating cost.
Depending on the cost of the upfront funds to build it and how long it takes to construct it will take a long time before the unit pays off the debt and starts being cheaper than conventional. Even then its "return" isn't phenomenal, so from an INVESTOR point of view, Nukes aren't that desirable, hence the cost of funds tends to be higher (for privately built units like in the US).
In countries, like France, which has a National energy plan, the financing wasn't an issue, and though the initial cost was high, by standardizing the plants they kept costs reasonable and simplified staffing/maint. Since France has zip fuel of their own, it is a good plan, from a trade balance perspective. They spent Francs to keep Francs in France.
The other issue is that a lot of extra capacity is needed for peak loads, and this is not a good choice for Nukes, their optimum is to run full bore from fueling cycle to fueling cycle, so power companies need to have other sources which can be brought on when needed. Hydro and Gas are the best choices here.
The other issue is 'spinning reserves', in order to keep line voltages constant the power producer has to allow for any of its large units to do an emergency shutdown, and thus needs reserves that it can immediately replace them with. Again, Hydro is the best (and this is why most Hydro plants operate at reduced capacity most of the time), gas is second.
Although Coal and Nukes can be throttled, both take a day to days from start up to full power (nukes a tad longer), gas can go from zip to full immediately as can hydro.
Then there is incremental growth. Nukes are most economical in BIG plants, 1000+ MW, so they are a planned activity, like big stair steps and again, only when a power company is certain that their BASE LOAD capacity requires this large of an addition to their generating capacity. Coal is usually also big, and so is similar to Nukes, but they are cheaper to build and so one can run them at less than full capacity while waiting for base load to grow. One good thing about this approach is Coal can ramp up from say 75% to 100% power pretty quickly (its the start up from cold that takes awhile), Nukes can as well, but since they have the cheapest fuel (except hydro) it doesn't make sense to run them anything but full out. (most in the US run over 100% rated capacity). The other advantage of gas is they are pretty much equally efficient regardless of size, thus 50 and 100 MW units can be added, and because they are small, they also offer the opportunity to site next to/near major incremental users, cutting line and distribution costs. Thus Gas again is the fuel of choice for incremental growth, for several reasons, the primary ones being size flexibility and least cost per MW for construction, the bad news is the recent price hikes for gas is making this option less and less attractive.
Arthur
Depending on the cost of the upfront funds to build it and how long it takes to construct it will take a long time before the unit pays off the debt and starts being cheaper than conventional. Even then its "return" isn't phenomenal, so from an INVESTOR point of view, Nukes aren't that desirable, hence the cost of funds tends to be higher (for privately built units like in the US).
In countries, like France, which has a National energy plan, the financing wasn't an issue, and though the initial cost was high, by standardizing the plants they kept costs reasonable and simplified staffing/maint. Since France has zip fuel of their own, it is a good plan, from a trade balance perspective. They spent Francs to keep Francs in France.
The other issue is that a lot of extra capacity is needed for peak loads, and this is not a good choice for Nukes, their optimum is to run full bore from fueling cycle to fueling cycle, so power companies need to have other sources which can be brought on when needed. Hydro and Gas are the best choices here.
The other issue is 'spinning reserves', in order to keep line voltages constant the power producer has to allow for any of its large units to do an emergency shutdown, and thus needs reserves that it can immediately replace them with. Again, Hydro is the best (and this is why most Hydro plants operate at reduced capacity most of the time), gas is second.
Although Coal and Nukes can be throttled, both take a day to days from start up to full power (nukes a tad longer), gas can go from zip to full immediately as can hydro.
Then there is incremental growth. Nukes are most economical in BIG plants, 1000+ MW, so they are a planned activity, like big stair steps and again, only when a power company is certain that their BASE LOAD capacity requires this large of an addition to their generating capacity. Coal is usually also big, and so is similar to Nukes, but they are cheaper to build and so one can run them at less than full capacity while waiting for base load to grow. One good thing about this approach is Coal can ramp up from say 75% to 100% power pretty quickly (its the start up from cold that takes awhile), Nukes can as well, but since they have the cheapest fuel (except hydro) it doesn't make sense to run them anything but full out. (most in the US run over 100% rated capacity). The other advantage of gas is they are pretty much equally efficient regardless of size, thus 50 and 100 MW units can be added, and because they are small, they also offer the opportunity to site next to/near major incremental users, cutting line and distribution costs. Thus Gas again is the fuel of choice for incremental growth, for several reasons, the primary ones being size flexibility and least cost per MW for construction, the bad news is the recent price hikes for gas is making this option less and less attractive.
Arthur
QUOTE
The high-temperature gas design also has a silver lining – it can produce hydrogen.
Where does the hydrogen come from?
[B]ADoucette[B/], you neglect to mention the millions the French make selling us electricity here in UK. We dither, with waves battering our shores and gales blasting our moors, as every government hopes the blackouts don't start on their watch.
QUOTE (Moseley+Dec 20 2005, 03:31 AM)
[B]ADoucette[B/], you neglect to mention the millions the French make selling us electricity here in UK. We dither, with waves battering our shores and gales blasting our moors, as every government hopes the blackouts don't start on their watch.
France also imports electricity.
Has to do with where its produced and where its needed and the distances in between.
England imports about 10 billion KW, exports zip
France imports about 5 billion KW, France exports about 70 Billion KW.
To put it in perspective,
Germany imports 50 billion KW and exports about 40 Billion.
Italy imports about 30 Billion KW, zip exports
Nederland imports 20 Billion Kw, exports 4 Billion
Spain imports 7 Billion, exports 4 Billion
For these amounts it is often cheaper to buy then produce.
Arthur
France also imports electricity.
Has to do with where its produced and where its needed and the distances in between.
England imports about 10 billion KW, exports zip
France imports about 5 billion KW, France exports about 70 Billion KW.
To put it in perspective,
Germany imports 50 billion KW and exports about 40 Billion.
Italy imports about 30 Billion KW, zip exports
Nederland imports 20 Billion Kw, exports 4 Billion
Spain imports 7 Billion, exports 4 Billion
For these amounts it is often cheaper to buy then produce.
Arthur
What is not discussed at all is the precence of underground nuclear reactors in Southern Oregon (specifically the Rogue Valley). Without question the highly sensitive work done underground in the Rogue Valley, essentially downloading and archiving information from GPS uplinks for continuation of government/society protocols, requires a significant degree of secrecy. However, at the core of my problems with the clandestine facility is the use, testing and application of subliminal RF and EM pulse weaponry upon non-consensual (and unwitting) U.S. citizens. These Poor Souls, who have been implanted with brain microchips, are condemned to a life of perpetual psychic and physical pain as the scientists, operating with gov't grants, pound subliminal bilge into their skulls day after day. These remotely generated insults to the Human Mind are supplemented by the covert insinuation of various psycho-toxins to enhance the impact of the aforementioned weaponry. The result is total Mind, Life and Body control. I consider these motivations and methods an egregious affront to the most basic concepts of Human Rights and Civil Liberties. What Dignity hath a Man when others can steal his Soul? Something needs to be done about Grants Pass, Oregon and this demonic scientism.
What citations can you provide which would validate your extremely wild-sounding claims?
u guys are alll really ugly, can u please shut your fat faces for 2 seconds!
Dylan,
REMEMBER to take your medications EVERY DAY.
Arthur
REMEMBER to take your medications EVERY DAY.
Arthur
Dylan,
If you don't like what people have to say, why are you bothering to read this forum?
Self punishment should be done silently, if that's your problem.
If you don't like what people have to say, why are you bothering to read this forum?
Self punishment should be done silently, if that's your problem.
QUOTE (blazes+Dec 11 2005, 09:03 PM)
http://www.physorg.com/news8956.html
Sounds like a Tom Swift invention to me.
Sorry, any rosy article that says there is no danger sets of alarm bells as a sell job. What if oxygen gets in, or the pebbles crack in the heat exposing their carbon, etc? What about the security issue of storing radioactive waste on site, or burying it? What if there is a hydrogen explosion?
you can"t just say "yeah, it"s completely safe." You need to go through all the possibilities.
Arrant nonsense:
Generation of hydrogen has been the biggest stumbling block to it adoption as a clean fuel. Hydrogen, found primarily in water, is expensive to extract as a gas. While the technical problems of handling, storage and use as fuel are largely solved, the high energy cost to produce hydrogen has made it an energy transport medium, not a source.
These new reactors run at high temperatures which are perfect for cracking abundant water or helium gas into hydrogen which can then be used as a green fuel – burning hydrogen just produces water vapor.
If the hydrogen they are talking about is the stuff produced from helium, then it is quite literally costing a bomb to make it.
Not only that but helium is much more expensive to get hold of than most other gasses. Some was available from US oil wells prior to WW II, the USA was loath to export it due to its rarity value. And that ended the era of lighter than air powered flight.
The article states that the hydrogen that is produced is a fuel. What they mean is that it is an expensive run-off that costs money to filter out. While it is in the machine, it is cutting down the efficiency of the helium by diluting it. Otherwise why not just use hydrogen as the heat carrier?
Which brings us to the use for hydrogen. It is very expensive to compress or freeze hydrogen to produce a liquid. That is the reason it isn't widely used as a fuel. If it were easily liquefied, it would be in use in cars and lorries already.
I am not necessarily anti nuclear power but I would like to know where this sudden spate of need for more and better nuclear power plants came from. It sounds to me like the PR was already in place before there was even an issue raised.
What did I miss? I am usually boned up on science news. How come I missed all the important stuff? The last I heard was we were condemning Iran now there is no more oil and we must have these reactors and nothing else will do?
Whaaaaatt?????
It was only a few years back that the US and Israel managed to quite easily blow up a nuclear plant. Now we have safe ones? Can't terrorists build bunker bursting bombs all of a sudden? We have seen the terrorists designs have we?
More like some monkey showed them his.
Sounds like a Tom Swift invention to me.
Sorry, any rosy article that says there is no danger sets of alarm bells as a sell job. What if oxygen gets in, or the pebbles crack in the heat exposing their carbon, etc? What about the security issue of storing radioactive waste on site, or burying it? What if there is a hydrogen explosion?
you can"t just say "yeah, it"s completely safe." You need to go through all the possibilities.
Arrant nonsense:
Generation of hydrogen has been the biggest stumbling block to it adoption as a clean fuel. Hydrogen, found primarily in water, is expensive to extract as a gas. While the technical problems of handling, storage and use as fuel are largely solved, the high energy cost to produce hydrogen has made it an energy transport medium, not a source.
These new reactors run at high temperatures which are perfect for cracking abundant water or helium gas into hydrogen which can then be used as a green fuel – burning hydrogen just produces water vapor.
If the hydrogen they are talking about is the stuff produced from helium, then it is quite literally costing a bomb to make it.
Not only that but helium is much more expensive to get hold of than most other gasses. Some was available from US oil wells prior to WW II, the USA was loath to export it due to its rarity value. And that ended the era of lighter than air powered flight.
The article states that the hydrogen that is produced is a fuel. What they mean is that it is an expensive run-off that costs money to filter out. While it is in the machine, it is cutting down the efficiency of the helium by diluting it. Otherwise why not just use hydrogen as the heat carrier?
Which brings us to the use for hydrogen. It is very expensive to compress or freeze hydrogen to produce a liquid. That is the reason it isn't widely used as a fuel. If it were easily liquefied, it would be in use in cars and lorries already.
I am not necessarily anti nuclear power but I would like to know where this sudden spate of need for more and better nuclear power plants came from. It sounds to me like the PR was already in place before there was even an issue raised.
What did I miss? I am usually boned up on science news. How come I missed all the important stuff? The last I heard was we were condemning Iran now there is no more oil and we must have these reactors and nothing else will do?
Whaaaaatt?????
It was only a few years back that the US and Israel managed to quite easily blow up a nuclear plant. Now we have safe ones? Can't terrorists build bunker bursting bombs all of a sudden? We have seen the terrorists designs have we?
More like some monkey showed them his.
QUOTE
These new reactors run at high temperatures which are perfect for cracking abundant water or helium gas into hydrogen which can then be used as a green fuel – burning hydrogen just produces water vapor.
I'm pretty sure that should have been:
These new reactors run at high temperatures which are perfect for cracking abundant water or NATURAL gas into hydrogen which can then be used as a green fuel – burning hydrogen just produces water vapor.
You can't "crack" helium and come up with hydrogen.
The increasing push for Nuclear is because of the hype around Global Warming.
Arthur
OOPS.
Double post edited out.
Well I thought the idea was a little daft. If the helium was unstable what would prevent the hydrogen burning the carbon or converting it to CH4 and interfering with anything else for that matter.
I should have realised that fision or fusion outside the fuel was an obviuos error. So what would they be wanting to crack the petroleum products for?
Double post edited out.
Well I thought the idea was a little daft. If the helium was unstable what would prevent the hydrogen burning the carbon or converting it to CH4 and interfering with anything else for that matter.
I should have realised that fision or fusion outside the fuel was an obviuos error. So what would they be wanting to crack the petroleum products for?
QUOTE (CactusCritter+Dec 22 2005, 03:10 AM)
What citations can you provide which would validate your extremely wild-sounding claims?
Shame on an advanced member not being able to ignore a troll.
Shame on an advanced member not being able to ignore a troll.
Call me dense if you want but I have a few questions and comments on this.
Nuclear waste still produces energy does it not? and the reason we don't use it is that it isn't concentrated enough to really make finding a use for it worthwhile?
There is bound to be many types of energy that we just don't think of using because we aren't desperate enough to come up with solutions as well as the fact that we don't want a study or experiment to take more than a few months so that we can have "instant" results and get our money back from the investment. Remember that when we use petroleum that we are taking the work generated by gravity as well as a few other processes and converting it back into it's elementary parts.
There is no cheap energy as far as I am concerned because it has all been created at quite a price: time. In our modern world we don't factor time into the price unless it is to see how much we are getting paid or how much we are paying. But I am going to make sure that I don't jump on the soap box or start to much of a speech.
Nuclear waste still produces energy does it not? and the reason we don't use it is that it isn't concentrated enough to really make finding a use for it worthwhile?
There is bound to be many types of energy that we just don't think of using because we aren't desperate enough to come up with solutions as well as the fact that we don't want a study or experiment to take more than a few months so that we can have "instant" results and get our money back from the investment. Remember that when we use petroleum that we are taking the work generated by gravity as well as a few other processes and converting it back into it's elementary parts.
There is no cheap energy as far as I am concerned because it has all been created at quite a price: time. In our modern world we don't factor time into the price unless it is to see how much we are getting paid or how much we are paying. But I am going to make sure that I don't jump on the soap box or start to much of a speech.
QUOTE (WEatherlawyer+)
I should have realised that fision or fusion outside the fuel was an obviuos error. So what would they be wanting to crack the petroleum products for?
First, remember I'm guessing that it was Natural Gas that should replace Helium in the sentence. I could be wrong.
Why would they? Well fuel cells are expensive (run on methane as fuel) and this would allow the H2 to be created and the C dealt with outside of the normal cumbustion process.
I'm not saying I think this is a practical use for Natural Gas however.
Arthur
First, remember I'm guessing that it was Natural Gas that should replace Helium in the sentence. I could be wrong.
Why would they? Well fuel cells are expensive (run on methane as fuel) and this would allow the H2 to be created and the C dealt with outside of the normal cumbustion process.
I'm not saying I think this is a practical use for Natural Gas however.
Arthur
i would like to point out that the reactors are safe [ish] because they operate with a negative temperature coefficient - the hotter they get eg from a coolant system failure, the less efficient the nuclear fission reaction. And graphite is great at moderating neutrons by slowing them down and thus absorbing their energy and in so doing converting it to usable heat, but is not so good at actually absorbing the neutrons themselves and so reducing their number; this is good. Graphite is also used as a reflector material surrounding the core. And cracking natural gas [methane] or water for that matter to produce hydrogen involves separating the hydrogen from the other products at cracking conditions... so no recombination reaction occurs. Ah, petroleum, an energy gift from nature. It helps to think of hydrogen as just like a battery - it is a convenient way to store fuel temporarily, but we have to make every little bit of it from other forms of energy. Petroleum we just mine.
May i point out that while cosmic rays are indeed of high energy, luckily they are reasonably rare, and because of atmospheric interactions only their products generally reach the earth's surface. Otherwise we would not be here. PBR's are useful for cracking water or methane to hydrogen because of the high temperature, circa 650 deg C, at which they operate..
Hydrogen can only be liquified by cooling it, to -253 deg C, or just -240 deg C at critical pressure of 13 atm..... No amount of confining pressure alone will do it. So as a fuel it is less convenient than you think - unused liquid hydrogen in your tank will just boil away overnight. And hydrogen gas as a fuel? i think you would need some special tank to hold enough gas at a sufficient pressure to give you enough hydrogen mass to go crossing the continent. Or even intercity. Do the sums using the Gas equation, and then involve the oxidisation energy content of H... Oil companies may have acted to stifle development of alternative fuels or energy systems, but you must admit they hold the ace. Waht an ace it is. We should not squander it.
Hydrogen can only be liquified by cooling it, to -253 deg C, or just -240 deg C at critical pressure of 13 atm..... No amount of confining pressure alone will do it. So as a fuel it is less convenient than you think - unused liquid hydrogen in your tank will just boil away overnight. And hydrogen gas as a fuel? i think you would need some special tank to hold enough gas at a sufficient pressure to give you enough hydrogen mass to go crossing the continent. Or even intercity. Do the sums using the Gas equation, and then involve the oxidisation energy content of H... Oil companies may have acted to stifle development of alternative fuels or energy systems, but you must admit they hold the ace. Waht an ace it is. We should not squander it.
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 13 2005, 08:51 AM)
PBR seem like it has pratically no bad points (except for being a breeder reactor). Why arnt we seeing thousands of these plants popping up everywhere?
PBRs may not be perfectly safe but, based on what I've read, they are amazingly safe and that is exactly why we should be using them. Some people will simply never be happy but, unless they have a better idea for solving the power needs of the future, they can just take a flying leap.
PBRs may not be perfectly safe but, based on what I've read, they are amazingly safe and that is exactly why we should be using them. Some people will simply never be happy but, unless they have a better idea for solving the power needs of the future, they can just take a flying leap.
I was listening to a program that stated that wind is still much cheaper than nuclear, but lacks predictability.
However, it still seems to be a good way to augment all of our electricity. Is nuclear power production variable? I'd think so, so shouldn't the production of nuclear power be set on a scale based on demand and current wind flow?
However, it still seems to be a good way to augment all of our electricity. Is nuclear power production variable? I'd think so, so shouldn't the production of nuclear power be set on a scale based on demand and current wind flow?
I think I'd be waiting a while to see how we deal with successfully decommissioning the existing older reactors, unless anyone thinks that the closest we've come - Chernobyl, could be called successful.
A little perspective here, if things go bad with a reactor they tend to go very bad for a long, long, long time.
The cost of Chernobyl to the Belarus economy should sober even the most ardent fan, that's the economic cost, obviously you aren't even considering that it could easily be your children with thyroid cancer.
I wonder if the nuclear energy fans aren't more inclined to think short term and may be more interested in exploiting children, than having them and protecting them.
I suppose if you want to have plenty of money and live a short life without a conscience it makes good sense, but go live in Chernobyl for a few months and then you'll be qualified to at least have an opinion, however stupid it might be.
This is one issue where real cost is totally ignored so I am left to conclude it's just ego's and vested interests at play or you've all been lobotomised. Surely if you're all that smart you can come up with something better.
A little perspective here, if things go bad with a reactor they tend to go very bad for a long, long, long time.
The cost of Chernobyl to the Belarus economy should sober even the most ardent fan, that's the economic cost, obviously you aren't even considering that it could easily be your children with thyroid cancer.
I wonder if the nuclear energy fans aren't more inclined to think short term and may be more interested in exploiting children, than having them and protecting them.
I suppose if you want to have plenty of money and live a short life without a conscience it makes good sense, but go live in Chernobyl for a few months and then you'll be qualified to at least have an opinion, however stupid it might be.
This is one issue where real cost is totally ignored so I am left to conclude it's just ego's and vested interests at play or you've all been lobotomised. Surely if you're all that smart you can come up with something better.
MAN-with-2-BRAINS, comparing western tech and construction standards, not to mention High Tech construction on items such as reactors is not going to be something anyone can compare any time soon, ever been to Russia? ever wonder where all the sky scrapers are in Russia? ever wonder why they dont build skyscrapers like in western or Asian nations? you ever seen Russian construction? at times they even use green (as in NOT dried lumber) to build buildings, it makes for floors like you have never seen in your life, ever heard of Russian buildings (like schools, apt buildings and so on) collapsing? Comparing western methods and standards to eastern methods and standards is almost ludicrous.
The standards are apples and nothing..
The standards are apples and nothing..
QUOTE
think I'd be waiting a while to see how we deal with successfully decommissioning the existing older reactors, unless anyone thinks that the closest we've come - Chernobyl, could be called successful.
Untrue.
Decommissioning costs are built into the rate base and set aside over the life of a reactor (by law in the US). We have decommissioned a number of reactors in the US. Including TMI.
Also, consider that most electricity in the world is generated from burning Coal. The amount of RADIATION given off by doing so DWARFS the amount released by the reactors of the world. Of course then there is the Soot, SO2, NOx etc.
Reactors CAN be designed so a Chernobl type disaster is impossible. Western designs ARE that way, but Russia had a MILITARY requirement for its reactors and thus the use of an INHERENTLY UNSAFE design.
Arthur
hi
adoucette Posted on Jun 8 2006, 09:30 AM the statement:
"Reactors CAN be designed so a Chernobl type disaster is impossible. Western designs ARE that way, but Russia had a MILITARY requirement for its reactors and thus the use of an INHERENTLY UNSAFE design."
I wasn't aware of the military requirement, Arthur, but I have no reason to doubt your statement.
However, I think that everyone should keep in mind that the Chernobyl meltdown was the result of one or more plant managers who didn't know their asses from their elbows about nuclear reactors deciding to run a coolant-off experiment.
In other words, it was errant stupidity that led to the Chernobyl meltdown. The technology used in the ractor guarateed the melt-down.
Did anyone else see the photos made by the gutsy physicists who went into the basement of the ractor building and took photos of the taffy-like reactor core in the basement?
I think that I saw them on slash-dot.
"Reactors CAN be designed so a Chernobl type disaster is impossible. Western designs ARE that way, but Russia had a MILITARY requirement for its reactors and thus the use of an INHERENTLY UNSAFE design."
I wasn't aware of the military requirement, Arthur, but I have no reason to doubt your statement.
However, I think that everyone should keep in mind that the Chernobyl meltdown was the result of one or more plant managers who didn't know their asses from their elbows about nuclear reactors deciding to run a coolant-off experiment.
In other words, it was errant stupidity that led to the Chernobyl meltdown. The technology used in the ractor guarateed the melt-down.
Did anyone else see the photos made by the gutsy physicists who went into the basement of the ractor building and took photos of the taffy-like reactor core in the basement?
I think that I saw them on slash-dot.
See http://www.thebulletin.org/pdf/042_007_017.pdf
The reactor is fueled with uranium enriched to 2 percent uranium 235 (compared with about 3 percent for light-water reactors). A large refueling machine (component 3 in the diagram) can be positioned over any single fuel channel, removing and replacing the fuel in that channel while the reactor remains on line. This capability, shared by some other reactor types but not light-water reactors, allows the RBMK to be readily used for producing weapon-grade plutonium, which is made by exposing the fuel to low burnup (a short period in the core).
Which is also why it did not have your typical containment building either, since you needed to get these low burn up rods in and out if you wanted to make a lot of Plutonium.
Arthur
The reactor is fueled with uranium enriched to 2 percent uranium 235 (compared with about 3 percent for light-water reactors). A large refueling machine (component 3 in the diagram) can be positioned over any single fuel channel, removing and replacing the fuel in that channel while the reactor remains on line. This capability, shared by some other reactor types but not light-water reactors, allows the RBMK to be readily used for producing weapon-grade plutonium, which is made by exposing the fuel to low burnup (a short period in the core).
Which is also why it did not have your typical containment building either, since you needed to get these low burn up rods in and out if you wanted to make a lot of Plutonium.
Arthur
QUOTE (Trucker+Dec 12 2005, 06:53 PM)
Nuclear Power and Economy of Scale.
Electricity generated by nuclear power must be considered in the equation as an alternative to fossil based energy sources. Currently there are approximately 110 nuclear power reactors in operation in the United States.
Question: Why do we design and build huge nuclear power plants for generating electricity when there is a safe and economical solution represented by fission reactors now in operation on navy ships with a fifty-year safety record?
Large nuclear facilities have all of the following problems:
1. Non-standardization in plant design – While the physics (fission) is the same; mechanically, very few commercial reactors have anything in common from one plant to another.
2. Licensing, Inspection and Certification – Non-standardization has added huge delays and additional construction cost to meet certification requirements.
3. Personnel Training – Non-standardization has made it difficult for operation and safety personnel to move between reactors locations without undergoing extensive, on-the-job familiarization. A nuclear qualified sailor in the U.S. navy can go from one nuclear ship to another and operate that system with very little additional training.
4. Security – Non-standardization has made it difficult to develop uniform security measures and procedures for use by security personnel that historically have been among the lowest wage earners in our society.
5. Modification and retrofitting – Non-standardization of existing nuclear facilities necessitates the complete loss of generating capacity for extended periods of time when modifications and retrofitting are mandated, all at an increase cost to the rate payer.
6. Decommission of a Nuclear Power Plant – Decommission cost are larger than construction cost when the value of a dollar is compared to its start-up date and shutdown date.
Why would the following solution based on navy nuclear reactor design not work for civilian nuclear facilities?
Why not a nuclear generating farm with multiple reactors/generators, each on a railroad car with electrical output connected to a central grid.
A facility of this type would offer the following attributes:
1. Reactors/Generators built on railroad cars deployed from a manufacturer’s plant insure that uniformity and quality control with nuclear regulatory oversight can be strictly enforced during the assembly phase.
2. Mass production of reactors/generators would mean a quick replacement of fossil fuel steam generation systems and their polluting emissions.
3. When maintenance, modification, retrofitting or nuclear fueling are required, the railroad car is moved to a maintenance facility adjacent to the farm equipped with remote manipulating devices to ensure personnel/personal safety requirements.
4. Smallness of scale means that it will be much easier and safer to the surrounding community to contain a reactor that enters into a failure mode.
5. A replacement reactor/generator can be moved into position while the original reactor is undergoing repairs without detriment to the total output of the generating farm.
6. A grid design with a safety area around each reactor/generator would probably not require any more land area than the existing safety area now in force around a large reactor system.
7. Security personnel could be quickly and easily trained to recognize critical parts of the total system and how best to minimized threats to the system and the surrounding community.
8. It would be difficult for terrorists to create a situation that would have catastrophic results to a community as would the results of a strike on a large nuclear reactor.
9. Combined training facilities for military and civilian personnel all working on the same reactor design would be a huge cost savings for both the military and those of us that have to pay huge electrical bills.
Because the nuclear power industry and the regulatory agencies are empowered by the nuclear reactor manufacturers, I see little chance that the above suggestions will be considered, but they should be.
In the late 1960s, I observed a pair of tandem locomotives, each on a parallel set of tracks move a Titan IIIC launch vehicle perched vertically on railroad cars to the solid motor assembly building and then onto the launch pad at Cape Canaveral. If it can work for launch vehicles, why can it not work for small, reliable nuclear reactors?
I have often wondered the same thing. In the early and mid eighties, I worked first at PaloVerde Power Station, in AZ. and then in Clinton, Ill. at the Power Station there. As a Welding Inspector for two HVAC subcontractors, during the construction phases.
The design of both stations being differant, where Palo Verde, was originally a five unit semi-circular layout with watercooling towers, only three units were built. And at Clinton, it was designed for two units, of which only one unit was built (?) with lake water cooling, (a man made lake was created along the Salt creek at the site.) These were smaller Units (950,000 Kilowatts) only one was built.
Palo Verde used fuel rods, Clinton used U-Dioxide Pellets, in it's GE reactor, design temp. 575 degrees, and GE Turbine-Generator 1800 rpm, at 1250 psi.
Both of these designs, had very large piping, whereas the Naval unit reactors being smaller had smaller piping. And I would think had better safety, and down time factors.
And I felt would be a better solution for Cities and towns, than larger regional units, on the Grid. While the Naval reactor size, could be transported on railcars, many towns don't have tracks, but towns on rivers and along the coast, could have floating units ( off shore drill platforms, floating cofferdam) pre built, and sunk at each towns powersite. Where each floating units systems were 98% done, multi-story (deck) interiors, the lower for cooling, middle containment and waterline for maintenance, upper levels for Control, Security, living quarters. A causeway/pier with transmission lines/substation would provide electric power during hook-up and down time. An above high water level with docks for boat haven slips, pier fishing, Harbor Master office/dock, or Coast Guard dock. And could even provide desalination, freshwater or sewage treatment.
Exsisting Shipyards could build the superstructure decks, or covert the whole mid-section of a ship to a civilian power application, or design. And be towable to any City port, or be built on site, to applicable standards and NRC, QA/QC regulations. Now if we can just get the Engineering departments of Colleges and Universities to come up with a smart design, in a Atomic Energy Contest deadline 2008.
I can come out of retirement and inspect some welds !
Electricity generated by nuclear power must be considered in the equation as an alternative to fossil based energy sources. Currently there are approximately 110 nuclear power reactors in operation in the United States.
Question: Why do we design and build huge nuclear power plants for generating electricity when there is a safe and economical solution represented by fission reactors now in operation on navy ships with a fifty-year safety record?
Large nuclear facilities have all of the following problems:
1. Non-standardization in plant design – While the physics (fission) is the same; mechanically, very few commercial reactors have anything in common from one plant to another.
2. Licensing, Inspection and Certification – Non-standardization has added huge delays and additional construction cost to meet certification requirements.
3. Personnel Training – Non-standardization has made it difficult for operation and safety personnel to move between reactors locations without undergoing extensive, on-the-job familiarization. A nuclear qualified sailor in the U.S. navy can go from one nuclear ship to another and operate that system with very little additional training.
4. Security – Non-standardization has made it difficult to develop uniform security measures and procedures for use by security personnel that historically have been among the lowest wage earners in our society.
5. Modification and retrofitting – Non-standardization of existing nuclear facilities necessitates the complete loss of generating capacity for extended periods of time when modifications and retrofitting are mandated, all at an increase cost to the rate payer.
6. Decommission of a Nuclear Power Plant – Decommission cost are larger than construction cost when the value of a dollar is compared to its start-up date and shutdown date.
Why would the following solution based on navy nuclear reactor design not work for civilian nuclear facilities?
Why not a nuclear generating farm with multiple reactors/generators, each on a railroad car with electrical output connected to a central grid.
A facility of this type would offer the following attributes:
1. Reactors/Generators built on railroad cars deployed from a manufacturer’s plant insure that uniformity and quality control with nuclear regulatory oversight can be strictly enforced during the assembly phase.
2. Mass production of reactors/generators would mean a quick replacement of fossil fuel steam generation systems and their polluting emissions.
3. When maintenance, modification, retrofitting or nuclear fueling are required, the railroad car is moved to a maintenance facility adjacent to the farm equipped with remote manipulating devices to ensure personnel/personal safety requirements.
4. Smallness of scale means that it will be much easier and safer to the surrounding community to contain a reactor that enters into a failure mode.
5. A replacement reactor/generator can be moved into position while the original reactor is undergoing repairs without detriment to the total output of the generating farm.
6. A grid design with a safety area around each reactor/generator would probably not require any more land area than the existing safety area now in force around a large reactor system.
7. Security personnel could be quickly and easily trained to recognize critical parts of the total system and how best to minimized threats to the system and the surrounding community.
8. It would be difficult for terrorists to create a situation that would have catastrophic results to a community as would the results of a strike on a large nuclear reactor.
9. Combined training facilities for military and civilian personnel all working on the same reactor design would be a huge cost savings for both the military and those of us that have to pay huge electrical bills.
Because the nuclear power industry and the regulatory agencies are empowered by the nuclear reactor manufacturers, I see little chance that the above suggestions will be considered, but they should be.
In the late 1960s, I observed a pair of tandem locomotives, each on a parallel set of tracks move a Titan IIIC launch vehicle perched vertically on railroad cars to the solid motor assembly building and then onto the launch pad at Cape Canaveral. If it can work for launch vehicles, why can it not work for small, reliable nuclear reactors?
I have often wondered the same thing. In the early and mid eighties, I worked first at PaloVerde Power Station, in AZ. and then in Clinton, Ill. at the Power Station there. As a Welding Inspector for two HVAC subcontractors, during the construction phases.
The design of both stations being differant, where Palo Verde, was originally a five unit semi-circular layout with watercooling towers, only three units were built. And at Clinton, it was designed for two units, of which only one unit was built (?) with lake water cooling, (a man made lake was created along the Salt creek at the site.) These were smaller Units (950,000 Kilowatts) only one was built.
Palo Verde used fuel rods, Clinton used U-Dioxide Pellets, in it's GE reactor, design temp. 575 degrees, and GE Turbine-Generator 1800 rpm, at 1250 psi.
Both of these designs, had very large piping, whereas the Naval unit reactors being smaller had smaller piping. And I would think had better safety, and down time factors.
And I felt would be a better solution for Cities and towns, than larger regional units, on the Grid. While the Naval reactor size, could be transported on railcars, many towns don't have tracks, but towns on rivers and along the coast, could have floating units ( off shore drill platforms, floating cofferdam) pre built, and sunk at each towns powersite. Where each floating units systems were 98% done, multi-story (deck) interiors, the lower for cooling, middle containment and waterline for maintenance, upper levels for Control, Security, living quarters. A causeway/pier with transmission lines/substation would provide electric power during hook-up and down time. An above high water level with docks for boat haven slips, pier fishing, Harbor Master office/dock, or Coast Guard dock. And could even provide desalination, freshwater or sewage treatment.
Exsisting Shipyards could build the superstructure decks, or covert the whole mid-section of a ship to a civilian power application, or design. And be towable to any City port, or be built on site, to applicable standards and NRC, QA/QC regulations. Now if we can just get the Engineering departments of Colleges and Universities to come up with a smart design, in a Atomic Energy Contest deadline 2008.
I can come out of retirement and inspect some welds !
QUOTE (me+Jul 7 2006, 01:45 PM)
hi 
yo
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.