Re: Irish Electricity II


Michael O'Neill wrote:
kevinmccabe@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Some time ago, I started a topic on irish Electricity and got so much
information on alternate (non-fossil) energy that I was actually able
to bring myself up the educational curve pretty quick. I drew the line
at nuclear power because I needed to do some srious reading about
reactor technology (and basic physics) before I could appreciate
commentary, much less contribute. Mission accomplished (found an idiots
guide). So, at the risk of being hanged, drawn, and quartered by
Greens, here it is:

What do you guys think about nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil
fuels?

At this point, I'm leaning towards supporting its use because my
perception is that its a necessary alternative to avoid wholesale
coal-fired generation.

Ger mentioned that Ireland already receives some nuclear generated
power, sub-rosa, from Britain. Is this a bad thing? Are the risks of
proberly designed reactors greater than the risk of global warming?
What do you guys think?

McCabe

First, why don't you give back to the group by posting some information
on your idiot's guide on nuclear power so we know what level you're at.

Admittedly, low. I had to get advice from Si to get started on the book
(needed a brief re-inro to E = mc squared). The book is "A Case for
Nuclear Generated Electricity" wreitten by Scott Heaberlin. His
credentials include thirty years in the field and Registration as a
Professional Nuclear Engineer in Washington State. My father was an
engineer (surrogate vp of electrical engineering at the Boeing Airplane
Co., at the end of his career). There was general agreement amongst his
colleagues that the Professional Engineer's test was a pretty tough nut
to crack. I can only guess what the Nuclear endorsement add in terms of
grief. At any rate, the guys an advocate (subtitle on the book is "why
I think nuclear power is cool and why it is important that you think so

too)', so I take him with a grain of salt. But, chapters four and five
give a pretty good explanation of nuclear reactor physics and design.
He also gives a good explanation of just what radioactivity actually
means. For example, as a lawyer, I'm given to hyperbole and am easily
drawn to the hyberbolic. So, I naturally buy into the 5000 thousand
year half-life = the end of the world as we know it argument. Wasn't
until I read this guy's book that I understood that a long half-life
means the stuff isn't very hot and a short one means its damn deadly
and that the real worrisome stuff is the mid-length radioactive
material.


Second, you might consider that fuel made from crops is considered
carbon-neutral, because the carbon the burnt fuel puts into the air gets
taken out of the air by the next crop cycle. Wood pellets are the "next
big thing" apparently.

Here, I think its going to be some form of grass and corn. The State
legislature just passed a big bill supporting bio-desiel. The book I
read that I read which got me started on this gig was called "The End
of Oil" (also, coincidentaly, by a Washingtonian). Scared me silly for
a couple of reasons. I hadn't realized that the supplies were so low,
the infrastructure for delivery so tenuous and the real picture in re
geopolitical realities. Put a different way, I always rebelled against
U.S. mid-east policy because of my perception that the war/oil thing
was about greed and lining pockets. while this is true (as is the
critique of the U.S. as over-consumptive) the realities are even worse.
Right now, any minor political event can disrupt deliveries and send
prices soaring. Now, in a way, this is a good thing as it tends to
foster conservation. But, that's today. when India and China start
using petroleum for personal transport, there will be real problems.
Like, no fuel to get food to markets problems. The second problem is
worse. At current rates, we're probably looking at major loss of human
life by the middle of century due to global warming effects. Now, the
criticism that these authors (and, they're light-years apart, The End
of Oil guy was nowhere near endorsing nukes) relates to the costs of
production. It may actually take more petroleum (both for harvesting
and for fertilizing) than you produce in fuel. Add to that the basic
observation that what we're really talking about with bio-diesel is a
gasoline substitute and we wind up with another problem. Coal is just
barely more expensive than dirt, what do we use as a price-efficient
substitute that will generate electricity. Its pretty key. Coal is way
worse than oil, in terms of greenhouse effects and we're poised to go
for it in a big way because we've got a ton of it. Hell, I always
thought that it was Florida that gave Bush the victory, but really, as
The End of Oil guy points out, it was the coal states.


Finally, Hydrogen-Oxygen cycle engines produce water as their product.
Why are there no H/O engines yet?


I don't think the tech is really there yet. Seems to me that one
problem is that the only catalyst they've been able to get to deliver
the goods is platinum and that they don't have cell size down yet.
there might be some other stuff, but its eluding me just now

FWIW

M

Thanks,
McCabe

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
    ... We should be building nuclear power plants at top ... We have the technology to generate 100% of our electricity ... is also mature--the difficulty with fuel cells is not that we don't know ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Lets Call It Done
    ... What fuel would that be? ... nuclear, and that hasn't exactly worked out well for us. ... to make a big dent in our energy needs, plus the wind doesn't ... ways to produce electricity; coal, oil, trash, hydro, and nuclear; and a ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: 113 gallons per hour...
    ... I have two concerns with nuclear. ... We need a better alternative to the fate of spent fuel than ... Plentiful nuke electricity should make electric commuter cars more ... A few will of us will keep gas cars. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: The Observer: At last: lets put that rail crisis behind us
    ... The margin was 4:1, and if the efficiency of burning gas/oil to create electricity, and transmitting it halfway across the country, really is 36%, you've almost closed that gap. ... Other types of power station are less efficient, but only because they consume types of fuel that are hard to use (nuclear and coal). ... And the gas is about to run out. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Russian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Dismantlement and Related Activities: A Critique.
    ... Russian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Dismantlement and Related ... radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. ... This paper analyzes the Strategic Master Plan for Northwest Russia ...
    (sci.military.naval)
Loading