Where does Nuclear Power stand as an energy alternative?

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl


As for my freshwater usage comment here's one source.


I don't believe that link confirms what you've stated, it claims:
Quote
While electricity accounted for only 3.3% of U.S. freshwater consumption in 2013, it has accounted for as high as roughly 40% of all freshwater withdrawals dating back to 2000


Note the huge rift between withdrawl and consumption. That's because the vast majority of that water is returned to where it came from, and those figures include all other thermal sources.


My understanding is that nuclear vents approx one-half of the water it consumes. I'll have to locate that source (IIRC it was a study done by the Australian govt).


That's why I made the difference in a previous post...you didn't get it.

People who create those figures of 40% count run of river and coastal stations as "extracting" the water, but don't credit the returning of the water to the environment, albeith 15F warmer...makes for a great statistic when you claim that a power station is USING 20,000l/s of water from the name this river or lake...but those schemese return ALL of it.

The extractive ones use cooling towers, and DO evaporate considerable water.

Problem with agendas, is that the truth goes missing to make a falacious point, that is then repeated until it becomes the truth in people's mind...I would love to expand on my personal interations, but that's something I can't do.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
In the US. Coal plants produce ash and gypsum. Limestone is used to remove sulphur/mercury via the scrubbers and the end product is gypsum but because it contains mercury it has little use. In the US, coal waste was typically stored on site in ponds along river banks.


FGD is a very small part of the total, and as you say it's for pollution control, taking the gaseous sulfur emissions and storing them in solid form...it CAN be used.

As for ash...it's extensively used in concrete and construction...it's a $9B market in the US, that is hampered by contiinual pressure (from the usual suspects) to have it labelled hazardous waste.

It's use in cement reduces the amont of limestone that has to be mined and calcined...a win/win, and better, more durable concrete to boot (look at Roman, as based concrete...will be around longer than our cities.


Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
BTW..Solar doesn't need to load follow.

Why not ?

If slow movement (and ther eIS movement) of a nuke is an issue, why doesn't solar need it ?

Renewables have broken the Australian Frequency control, and by displacing thermal have lead to lack of inertia in the grid, nt to mention power factor correction.

New solar and wind, are being forced to provide these services, or not connect. They are having to install synchronous condensers, synthetic inertia, and provide some limited ramp rate, but curtailing a part of their generation to relase over peaks.

The much vaunted batteries aren't storing wind to meet the peaks, but are sniping at the FCAS market, where their bulk power isn't being used.

There's WAY more to a grid than just pushing MW into it.


Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
What's needed is better distribution system.


I'm not sure how better moving a midday glut of electricity hels, when there's 16 hours of the day that there's no solar to move.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL

Yes, basically. Because every single grid that has managed low emissions without nuclear has used hydro, it has become a point of contention. VRE advocates claim decarbonization success with wind/solar, but these accolades always rest on top of a firm base of hydro-electric. This is now viewed as an obstacle to VRE penetration desires by those championing it as the ATE, and so hydro has become a target and its classification as "renewable" questioned.

Nuclear is technically also renewable with a breeder or seawater uranium extraction, but that doesn't fit the VRE plugger narrative.

Got it..txðŸ‘

 

[Alfred_B]

So what's up with the nuclear power plant leak in North Carolina?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Alfred_B
So what's up with the nuclear power plant leak in North Carolina?


Got a link? I haven't seen anything about a "leak".

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by Shannow

Newsflash....those who wish to stand in the way of everything no longer support hydro as "renewable"...

I'm not sure I understand??? How is hydro not renewable? Are you talking about extreme tree huggers saying the dam is bad for the river but they sure do enjoy having some of the lowest kWh rates in the country??.



Pretty much so...I doubt that there's any new dams going to be built in Oz, even 'though in the '70s, there were 100 years of plans...there's a huge fight in upgrading the wall at Warragamba at the moment (tiny hydro, but most of Sydney's drinking water).

Also, there's studies that if the job is done cheap and nasty, that the rotting vegetation is about as Carbon intense as an exquivalently sized coal facility.

For e.g.....
https://www.researchgate.net/public...m_Hydroelectric_Dams_in_Tropical_Forests

But in my mind it's ludicrous that we'd build a dam and not harvest the biomass before filling.

I'm NOT of the hydro is bad mindset, just informing that people with infulence are pushing it out as well.

 

[PimTac]

Great discussion. Thanks Overkill and Shannow.

Regarding water usage in nuclear plants, would the term borrowing be better? It seems to me that the water is either returned to the main source or evaporated and dispensed as steam which would eventually condense and return to the earth somewhere. This applies to pretty much any water utilization whether it's drinking, flushing toilets or whatever.

Here in the PNW a number of reservoirs were created by dams flooding valleys. They left the trees in which does seem wasteful but I wonder if that was for erosion protection? They make for frustrating fishing and even boating as submerged trees get closer to the surface during dry spells or drawdowns.

 

[4WD]

They did that here and the submerged trees seem to remain forever … they sure got the bass prediction wrong too.
As for "borrowing" … our N-plant keeps an oversized pond topped up with river water a few miles before it heads to sea. Several dams and city reservoirs north of there … in fact one major city gets both the water and the electricity …

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by 4WD
They did that here and the submerged trees seem to remain forever … they sure got the bass prediction wrong too.

Without/low disdolved O2 sunken trees can last (preserved a better word?) for literally hundreds of years I believe. (it (old growth) also happens to be premium lumber where a single log can be worth thou$and$)

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by 4WD
They did that here and the submerged trees seem to remain forever … they sure got the bass prediction wrong too.
As for "borrowing" … our N-plant keeps an oversized pond topped up with river water a few miles before it heads to sea. Several dams and city reservoirs north of there … in fact one major city gets both the water and the electricity …




Is that to cool the water back to normal before it gets into its natural flow?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
HERE.


That's GOLD...it's so much wrong...it mixes units and arguments...will dissect it after sauna and dinner....

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl


As for my freshwater usage comment here's one source.


I don't believe that link confirms what you've stated, it claims:
Quote
While electricity accounted for only 3.3% of U.S. freshwater consumption in 2013, it has accounted for as high as roughly 40% of all freshwater withdrawals dating back to 2000


Note the huge rift between withdrawl and consumption. That's because the vast majority of that water is returned to where it came from, and those figures include all other thermal sources.


My understanding is that nuclear vents approx one-half of the water it consumes. I'll have to locate that source (IIRC it was a study done by the Australian govt).


That's why I made the difference in a previous post...you didn't get it.

People who create those figures of 40% count run of river and coastal stations as "extracting" the water, but don't credit the returning of the water to the environment, albeith 15F warmer...makes for a great statistic when you claim that a power station is USING 20,000l/s of water from the name this river or lake...but those schemese return ALL of it.

The extractive ones use cooling towers, and DO evaporate considerable water.

Problem with agendas, is that the truth goes missing to make a falacious point, that is then repeated until it becomes the truth in people's mind...I would love to expand on my personal interations, but that's something I can't do.


No I got it. I just didn't use the word "uses" in place of "consumes". I mean to say nuclear consumes, via evaporation, about one half of the water it uses. Feel better now?

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted by PimTac

As for "borrowing" … our N-plant keeps an oversized pond topped up with river water a few miles before it heads to sea. Several dams and city reservoirs north of there … in fact one major city gets both the water and the electricity …



Is that to cool the water back to normal before it gets into its natural flow?[/quote]

They built the reservoir big enough to not need cooling towers …
Pumping in river water keeps up with evaporation, etc …

 

[4WD]

Yep … that's the one that has passed up our nearby plant where 7k of 12k acres is the reservoir
(Westinghouse units)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station

 

[PimTac]

Thanks. I hadn't thought of it that way.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Originally Posted by Alfred_B
With clean coal, who needs nuclear? Too expensive to build without government subsidies and too dangerous when something happens. Also, what do you do with spent fuel...

With clean coal, you have cheap, healthy electricity.

There is no such thing as "clean coal." The generating facility where I worked on Colorado's west slope used very good coal(as coal goes as a boiler fuel) mined a mile away. When we went on line, this coal burning plant was the cleanest coal fired power plant in the US with the best available technology. We were getting 95% of fly ash and more SO2 and SO3 as required by federal and state guidelines. In the early 2000s, Sierra Club lawsuits forced the company to spend over a hundred million dollars to replace electrostatic precipitators with bag houses. I remember that improved dry fly ash removal by and additional one to two percent. My contacts tell me it is only getting harder. The company has agreed to take one unit off line in 2022. 420 MW of generation will have to come from some other source. The load isn't going away. Workforce reduction may be necessary. Many of the good paying UMW jobs have gone away and the community has a real concern for what the future may bring. Things sure have changed in forty years. Glad old Hosteen here pushed the retirement button when he did.

 

[mk378]

Even if there were no regulations at all on the mining and burning of coal, fracked natural gas would still be cheaper btu for btu.

 

[RayCJ]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
So what's up with the nuclear power plant leak in North Carolina?


Got a link? I haven't seen anything about a "leak".


Here you go...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...e-scientists-claim/ar-AAF4nOd?li=BBnbfcL

EDIT: My apologies: This is not about a North Carolina issue, it's about the recently published conclusions about the Russian incident in 2017.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by RayCJ
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
So what's up with the nuclear power plant leak in North Carolina?


Got a link? I haven't seen anything about a "leak".


Here you go...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...e-scientists-claim/ar-AAF4nOd?li=BBnbfcL

EDIT: My apologies: This is not about a North Carolina issue, it's about the recently published conclusions about the Russian incident in 2017.


Ahhh OK, lol.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
As for my freshwater usage comment here's one source.

Check your source again. Withdrawals are not the the same as consumption, as OVERKILL has pointed out.

I'm still not seeing why load following is an issue with nuclear, at least with any modern plants, much less future plants.