TVA Has Lost $50 Million Cutting Brown's Ferry Output - Tennessee River Too Hot To Cool Plant

[hatrack]

The Tennessee Valley Authority has lost nearly $50 million in power generation from its biggest nuclear plant because the Tennessee River in Alabama is too hot. Unless the summer cools down, TVA could lose millions of dollars more, pushing up fuel costs and consumer electric bills even after seven consecutive monthly increases.

The Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant near Athens, Ala., has operated at only about half power for most of the past month and could remain at reduced power through September, TVA officials said. The three-reactor plant — TVA’s biggest nuclear facility — has been the hardest hit of any of the nation’s 104 nuclear plants by thermal concerns over river water, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute and TVA. “All the radiant heat gets in the river when you have a summer as hot as this has been,” TVA President Tom Kilgore said.

Today is expected to be the 40th day since July 8 that TVA has reduced power production at Browns Ferry because of hot water in the river. Last week, TVA violated its permit with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management when the river temperature topped 90 degrees.

The cutback means TVA is losing 1,500 megawatts of power generation just when it’s needed most. For each day of 50 percent power at Browns Ferry, the utility spends more than $1 million extra to pay for replacement power, officials said.

EDIT

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/aug/23/hot-river-forces-costly-cutback-tva/

[aquart]

1. It sucks but the river matters more.

And if we don't understand that...

[EC]

2. I knew this would happen somewhere eventually

Nuclear requires water to cool the rods...this will end up destroying with bacteria (i.e. Lake Erie now) and evaporating good water supplies...that's why nuclear isn't an answer...we're having problems already providing water in many areas, so why would people believe it's a viable form of energy for our future?

[The Croquist]

7. Don't worry NNadir will respond

That's when the real heat will develop!

[TheWraith]

8. You know that basically all forms of concentrated electricity require some kind of coolant, right?

For instance, the coal and gas plants that nuclear should be replacing. Wind turbines also use coolant, except that they use combustible synthetic oils instead of water.

[EC]

9. In many of those cases a retaining pond is sufficient

don't need a whole lake or river..

[TheWraith]

10. A nuclear plant doesn't need a "whole lake or river" either.

Any more than someone drinking out of a firehose needs the entire hose. It does, however, need proportionally more than a smaller power plant.

[bananas]

12. Nuclear requires more water than coal or gas for the same size plant

And of course wind and PV don't require any water.
From Nuclear Engineering International Magazine:

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2050077

Cooling of plants: a constraint on growth?
02 July 2008

An important economic and environmental consideration that needs to be taken into account when planning for new nuclear plants is their method of cooling. By Steve Kidd

<snip>

Nuclear plants currently being built have about 34-36% thermal efficiency, while one of the new reactor designs boasts up to 39%. In comparison, a typical new coal plant runs at 36%, while some new coal-fired plants approach 40%. In determining the cooling requirement, these distinctions are not insignificant. For example, any power plant running at 33% thermal efficiency must discharge about 14% more heat than one at 36% efficiency. Coal plants have a slight edge over nuclear plants and a correspondingly reduced need for cooling water.

<snip>

Because combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants release much of their heat to the air in the turbine exhaust, they require only about one third as much cooling as normal thermal plants, and this is commonly done through dry cooling. Hence they can achieve thermal efficiencies in the 60-70% range.

<snip>

[TheWraith]

13. When you can show me a solar panel producing 2 gigawatts continuously every second of every day...

Then I'll show you a solar panel that requires water-cooling. And wind turbines DO need coolant, they just use synthetic oils instead of water. That's why when they fail, sometimes they catch fire even though the steel they're made of doesn't burn.

[DrGregory]

21. Correct

First a solar plant will NEVER produce 2 gigawatts continuously;
not without energy storage. For half the 24 hour day the
solar plant doesn't see the sun - so produces ZERO.

2 Gigawatts is a BIG scale up. The largest solar plants built
to date are 2 Megawatts ( 1000X smaller ) and Spain is currently
building a 20 Megawatt plant ( 100X smaller )

Solar is less efficient than Rankine steam cycles. Also the
argument that the solar proponents give that the sunlight falls
there anyway is false.

A typical landscape REFLECTS about 90% of the suns energy. Only
10% is absorbed. A PV plant will absorb 100% of the energy if it
is efficient < black in color >, and will convert about 20% to
electricity and discharge 80% as heat.

So if we take a piece of land with 100 watts of sunlight falling
on it; then if we leave it alone - we will have 10 watts of solar
heating.

If we build a PV plant; then that same area will give us 20 watts,
and we will have 80 watts of heating.

If we built a Rankine steam cycle plant, of 40% efficiency; or
1.5 times as much waste heat as electricity; then for the same
20 watts, we would have 30 watts of waste heat, plus the 10 watts
from the sun or 40 watts of heat total.

That 40 watts is HALF of what a PV plant would discharge.

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

28. That talking point has been thoroughly debunked

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/11/solar-energy-trumps-coal-caldeira-study/

Why solar energy trumps coal power: Exclusive new Caldeira analysis explains “the burning of organic carbon warms the Earth about 100,000 times more from climate effects than it does through the release of chemical energy in combustion.”

November 11, 2009

The color of solar cells — and their short energy payback — are trivial factors when considering the huge climate benefit they provide in avoiding the release of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels.

That was a central point in my first post debunking the error-riddled book Superfreakonomics. By failing to retract the many glaring errors I pointed out in my original post weeks ago — and instead blowing an aerosol smokescreen with false claims that Caldeira did not say the book misrepresented his views (see here) — Levitt brought upon himself the detailed and devastating takedown by Geophysicist Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, which focused on the same exact paragraph in the book that I debunked:

“A lot of the things that people say would be good things probably aren’t,” Myrhvold says. As an example he points to solar power. “The problem with solar cells is that they’re black, because they are designed to absorb light from the sun. But only about 12% gets turned into electricity, and the rest is reradiated as heat — which contributed to global warming.”

In my post, I noted that there were three and a half major howlers in this one tiny paragraph and that California Energy Commissioner Art Rosenfeld called this “patent nonsense” when I read it to him. Within minutes of my posting, a former lead engineer at Princeton Plasma Physics Lab “emailed me to be sure I don’t miss the forest for the trees here in debunking this,” as I wrote at the time. He pointed out that climatologist Ken Caldeira, of all people, had an analysis showing it was trivial:

As Ken Caldeira so grippingly points out (and I tried to make graphically clear in my Stanford talk last year), each molecule of CO2 released thermal energy when it was formed — that’s why we formed it. In the case of electricity generation, about 1/3 of its thermal energy went out a wire as electric power, the rest was released promptly as waste heat. But each molecule of CO2, during its subsequent lifetime in the atmosphere, traps 100,000 times more heat than was released during its formation.

A hundred thousand is a big number. It means that running a handheld electric hairdryer on US grid electricity delivers a planet-warming punch comparable to two Boeing 747s operating at full takeoff power for the same time period. The warming is delivered over time, not promptly, but that don’t matter; the planetary heating is accrued, the accountants would say, the moment you hit the switch.

<snip>

[TheWraith]

29. You can't debunk physics by making things up.

Of course anything is better than coal, but that doesn't mean that just anything can REPLACE coal. A hamster wheel attached to a dynamo is better than coal power, but we're not expecting to power civilization on rodent energy. Solar power despite decades of interest, research, and deployment, has yet to generate more than 0.1% of all energy in the US, and there's no evidence that it's going to top even 1% any time soon.

[AlecBGreen]

34. incorrect

"A typical landscape REFLECTS about 90% of the suns energy."

Of all the incoming solar radiation that reaches the earth, approximately 44% is either scattered or absorbed before reaching the Earth's surface.

Of the 56% of insolation that reaches the ground, approximately 10% is reflected and 90% absorbed. (6/56ths vs 50/56ths)

[AlecBGreen]

35. did some more searching

the highest albedo (reflection of incoming light) is off snow & ice, in which case 80 to 90% is reflected. For more typical landscapes (such as grass or deciduous forest) the rate of reflection was closer to 20%

[bananas]

37. Yup - even a desert only reflects about 30%

http://www.unep.org/geo/gdoutlook/045.asp

The typical desert albedo is 20-35 per cent of solar radiation reflected back to space

"average Saharan albedo = 32%; considering only bare surfaces, the albedo is 36%"

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983smrb.rept...60T

Title: Albedo of the Sahara
Authors: Tetzlaff, G.

Ground and airborne measurements of the albedo of the Sahara desert are summarized. Large sand surfaces show albedo values 40% in airborne measurements, for volcanic, mountainous regions it is 30%. Ground measurements give values between 47% and 49% for sand. Comparison of plant coverage, albedo, and surface type gives average Saharan albedo = 32%; considering only bare surfaces, the albedo is 36%. For the last glaciation period average albedo is estimated at 38%. For the more humid period 5500yr ago, it is 27%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

Sample albedos 

Surface 	Typical albedo
--------------- --------------
Fresh asphalt 	0.04<1>
Worn asphalt 	0.12<1>
Conifer forest
(Summer) 	0.08,<2> 0.09 to 0.15<3>
Deciduous trees 0.15 to 0.18<3>
Bare soil 	0.17<4>
Green grass 	0.25<4>
Desert sand 	0.40<5>
New concrete 	0.55<4>
Ocean Ice 	0.5–0.7<4>
Fresh snow 	0.80–0.90<4>

[DrGregory]

44. you need to go beyond grade-school physics

The reflection aka albedo above is for the direct
reflection of light. However, that's not the
whole story.

ALL objects radiate heat at a rate proportional
to the 4th power of their temperature. This is
called the Stephan-Boltzmann Law. This increases
the amount of radiated energy above that due to
direct reflection.

If objects heated by the sun were to retain 90%
of the energy reaching them, they would shortly
reach thermal equilibrium with their energy source
the sun; and achieve a temperature of 4500 - 6000 K.

Now before someone with a grade school understanding
of physics points out that the temperature of the sun
is greater than 6000 K, and starts wondering what they
teach at MIT; let me preemptively answer that question.

The temperature in the interior of the sun is many millions
of degrees; because that is the temperature required for
the thermonuclear fusion reactions that power the sun.

However, the photons from those reactions don't reach us.
They don't escape the sun. So we don't "see" a million
degree temperature source.

The only photons that escape the sun and reach us are
those born in the "photosphere" of the Sun - the outermost
region, and it's the photosphere that has a temperature
of 4000 - 6000K.

Dr. Greg

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. I don't think you understand the physics at all

No, the Earth would not reach thermal equilibrium with the Sun. This is because it is an object at a significant distance from it, and the energy it receives from the Sun is a small fraction of that the Sun radiates. This is rather similar to what you point out about the temperature at the centre of the Sun being far greater than at the surface; the temperature of any object receiving radiation from the Sun will similarly be far less than the temperature of the photosphere. This accounts, for instance, for why Pluto is far colder than the Earth; or why the Earth is not in thermal equilibrium with the hottest star in the sky. Distance is all-important.

Let's do a calculation assuming the Sun and Earth are both perfect black bodies, ie all incoming radiation is absorbed, and then reradiated, and see what temperature the Earth would be:

Sun: radius ~700,000km, surface area ~6.1e18 square metres (4*pi*r*r)
T = ~6000K
power emitted/sq.m = 5.67e-8 * 6000^4 = 73MW
Power emitted by the Sun = 4.5e26 W

Earth distance from Sun = 150 million km = 1.5e11m
surface area of sphere at this distance = 2.8e23 sq. m
radiation intercepted by an object at this distance = 4.5e26/2.8e23 = 1600W/sq.m

Earth radius = 6400km; area intercepting radiation = pi*r*r = 1.3e14 sq.m
radiation from Sun intercepted by Earth = 2e17 W
average rate of reradiation (from a sphere, surface area = 4*pi*r*r) = 388W/sq.m

temperature for this = (388/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 287K

All the above figures are approximate, so that end result is not meant to be exact. But you can see this is close to reality. Claiming the Earth would be in thermal equilibrium with (ie be at the same temperature as) the Sun is ridiculous.

As far as the actual figures for albedo goes, and the importance of the different wavelengths, here's a university web page on the subject: http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_energy_interact.html . We see that 80% of the Sun's radiation is in the 0.4-1.5 micron range; so the amount reflected or absorbed in the visible wavelengths is highly important. Your figure of '90% reflected' is rubbish. The Bond albedo for the Earth is 0.29; the geometric albedo 0.367. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html . These are defined for all wavelengths.

What's your doctorate in?

[DrGregory]

47. Not quite

What's your doctorate in?
=========================

Nuclear Physics - specifically Boltzmann Transport Theory

I am a computational physicist; I write computer programs
to solve the Boltzmann Transport Equation for photons,
neutrons, charged particles...

My claim was IF NOT for the re-radiation of energy we
would be in thermal equilibrium with the source.

The reason that we would not come into thermal equilibrium
with the Sun does NOT have to do with the fact that we
only receive a small fraction of the Sun's output. That
only means it takes time to heat up to the Sun's temp.

If we had a source and NO SINK due to re-radiation, then
we would keep increasing in temperature due to that source
until we were at the same temperature of the source. Only
then would our net energy influx be zero and temp would
stabilize. If we had NO SINK; it doesn't matter how
small the source is - we would heat up until we were
in thermal equilibrium with it. The size of the source
only determines the time scale - not the final temperature.

NO - the reason we do not come into thermal equilibrium
with the sun is that we have a heat sink - the Earth
radiates heat out.

The point I am making is that the re-radiation of energy
by the Earth is VERY SIGNIFICANT. If it were only a small
portion of our energy balance - then we would heat up to
the temperature of the source.

We have a inflow / outflow balance in energy because the
Earth re-radiates so much energy.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

48. I do understand the physics...

assuming the Sun and Earth are both perfect black bodies, ie all incoming radiation is absorbed, and then reradiated
=============================================

THAT is my whole point - the amount of energy RERADIATED.

Some here attempted to tell me that the amount of heat
re-radiated was small.

They cited the fact that the albedo for light is only
10%. So for them - the Earth received energy from the
sun - reflected 10% of it and the rest goes into heat -
end of story.

I was pointing out that it is NOT the end of story.

As you show - the Earth re-radiates when it heats up.

Therefore, saying that only 10% of the solar influx
is radiated out is WRONG!!!

Here's my quote from the post to which you replied
that I don't understand the physics:

"ALL objects radiate heat at a rate proportional
to the 4th power of their temperature. This is
called the Stephan-Boltzmann Law. This increases
the amount of radiated energy above that due to
direct reflection."

I am saying what you are saying - we have to consider
the re-radiation. The temperature of the Earth is
determined substantially - as you calculate - by
the Stephan-Boltzmann law. Now where is it that
I don't understand physics?

Dr Greg

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. If there was no reradiation, then the earth would heat up an infinite amount

You are now saying "pretend the earth never emits any radiation at all". If that were the case, then there would be heat going into it, but never out; hence the temperature would increase continually. Thermal equilibrium wouldn't come into it.

What you did was try to deflect from your ridiculous claim of 90% of the radiation from Earth being being reflected from a typical landscape, which started off the discussion about absoorption and reflection. You said "A typical landscape REFLECTS about 90% of the suns energy". After that, someone pointed out that the surface of the earth only reflects about 10% of the solar radiation reaching it. Their figure is correct; yours was incorrect. More than one source has been quoted to show you wrong. You pretended they said the heat was 'retained', when they said no such thing. They were just showing that your assertion about reflection was wrong.

I simply do not believe you have a doctorate in a field related to physics. You are making too many basic errors.

[bananas]

51. Yup - too many basic errors

and he won't admit his errors after being shown wrong.

[kristopher]

50. KICK

[bananas]

52. Nope - let me try to explain this as simply as possible

DrGregory, you wrote:

Some here attempted to tell me that the amount of heat
re-radiated was small.

Nope, nobody said that. Here's what happened:

Back in post #21 you wrote: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=256645&mesg_id=256760

Also the
argument that the solar proponents give that the sunlight falls
there anyway is false.

A typical landscape REFLECTS about 90% of the suns energy. Only
10% is absorbed. A PV plant will absorb 100% of the energy if it
is efficient < black in color >, and will convert about 20% to
electricity and discharge 80% as heat.

So if we take a piece of land with 100 watts of sunlight falling
on it; then if we leave it alone - we will have 10 watts of solar
heating.

If we build a PV plant; then that same area will give us 20 watts,
and we will have 80 watts of heating.

You got it wrong.
Here's a corrected version, with the changes in bold:

Also the
argument that the solar proponents give that the sunlight falls
there anyway is true.

A typical landscape REFLECTS about 20% of the suns energy.
About 80% is absorbed and reradiated as heat.
A PV plant will absorb 100% of the energy if it
is efficient < black in color >, and will convert about 20% to
electricity and discharge 80% as heat.

So if we take a piece of land with 100 watts of sunlight falling
on it; then if we leave it alone - we will have 80 watts of solar
heating.

If we build a PV plant; then that same area will give us 20 watts,
and we will have 80 watts of heating.

Everybody makes mistakes, but your inability to understand your mistake has convinced a number of us that you don't know what you're talking about. Especially with all the other errors you've made in other posts.

Hope this helps!

[kristopher]

53. +1

[bananas]

54. kick. nt

[XemaSab]

17. PV requires LOTS of water

:P

[DrGregory]

20. Where did you learn to do arithmetic

Most here don't seem to be able to do arithmetic.

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

27. LOL - "Steve Kidd is Director of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association"

LOL - It's not my math! At the very end of the article:

Author Info:

Steve Kidd is Director of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association, where he has worked since 1995 (when it was the Uranium Institute).

Yup - Nuclear Engineering International Magazine is run by stoopid anti-nukes who can't do math,
and the World Nuclear Association is a group of stoopid anti-nukes who can't do math!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[bananas]

30. 2002 EPRI report: "Water & Sustainability (Volume 3): U.S. Water Consumption for Power Production —

"Water & Sustainability (Volume 3): U.S. Water Consumption for Power Production — The Next Half Century"
pdf at http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/000000000001006786.pdf

page vi:
"It appears that the larger the shift from coal and nuclear to natural gas, the greater the
decrease in water consumption for power generation (possibly as much as a 50% drop
relative to the base case and a 35% drop relative to today’s use)."

Table S–1 on page viii:

Cooling Water Withdrawal and Consumption (Evaporation to the Atmosphere) Rates for
Common Thermal Power Plant and Cooling System Types

Plant and Cooling System Type Water Withdrawal Typical Water Consumption
(gal/MWh) (gal/MWh)

Fossil/biomass/waste-fueled steam,
once-through cooling 20,000 to 50,000 ~300

Fossil/biomass/waste-fueled steam,
pond cooling 300 to 600 300-480

Fossil/biomass/waste-fueled steam,
cooling towers 500 to 600 ~480

Nuclear steam, once-through cooling 25,000 to 60,000 ~400

Nuclear steam, pond cooling 500 to 1100 400-720

Nuclear steam, cooling towers 800 to 1100 ~720

Natural gas/oil combined-cycle,
oncethrough cooling 7500 to 20,000 ~100

Natural gas/oil combined-cycle,
cooling towers ~230 ~180

Natural gas/oil combined-cycle,
dry cooling ~0 ~0

Coal/petroleum residuum–fueled
combined-cycle, cooling towers ~380* ~200

* includes gasification process water

[bananas]

32. Table S–1, fixed-width font

Cooling Water Withdrawal and Consumption (Evaporation to the Atmosphere) Rates for
Common Thermal Power Plant and Cooling System Types

Plant and Cooling System Type        Water Withdrawal    Typical Water Consumption
                                     (gal/MWh)           (gal/MWh)

Fossil/biomass/waste-fueled steam,
once-through cooling                 20,000 to 50,000    ~300

Fossil/biomass/waste-fueled steam,
pond cooling                            300 to 600        300-480

Fossil/biomass/waste-fueled steam,
cooling towers                          500 to 600       ~480

Nuclear steam, once-through cooling  25,000 to 60,000    ~400

Nuclear steam, pond cooling             500 to 1100       400-720

Nuclear steam, cooling towers           800 to 1100      ~720

Natural gas/oil combined-cycle,
oncethrough cooling                    7500 to 20,000    ~100

Natural gas/oil combined-cycle,
cooling towers                            ~230           ~180

Natural gas/oil combined-cycle,
dry cooling                                 ~0             ~0

Coal/petroleum residuum–fueled
combined-cycle, cooling towers            ~380*          ~200

* includes gasification process water

[bananas]

33. The table shows that nuclear plants use much more water, regardless of cooling method.

[DrGregory]

22. Correct arithmetic

Lets say we have two 1000 Mwe power plants.

One is 33% efficient and gives 1000 Mwe
The other is 36% efficient and gives 1000 Mwe.

For the 33% efficient plant the heat source
must be 1000 Mwe / 0.33 = 3030 Mwt

For the 36% efficient plant, the heat source
must be 1000 Mwe / 0.36 = 2778 Mwt

Of the 3030 Mwt of the first; we get 1000 Mwe
and therefore 2030 Mwt of waste heat.

Of the 2778 Mwt of the second, we get 1000 Mwe
and therefore 1778 Mwt of waste heat.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

24. Commonwealth Edison

One can look at what Commonwealth Edison that
serves Chicago and northern Illinois did.

For the Braidwood plant, or the LaSalle plant,
or Dresden... they just built their own lake.

In fact, you can find those plants easily with
Google Earth - just look for the lake.
Cites of Braidwood and Godley nearby.
The cooling lake is square.

About 40 miles SW of Chicago is Braidwood.
Look for the lake on Google, and then zoom in.
The plant with the 2 cylindrical reactor buildings
is on the north shore of the cooling lake.

It's CommEds own lake; so I don't see where people
can get upset with what they do with it. There wouldn't
be a lake if there wasn't the nuclear power plant.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

25. Correct

See my post about Commonwealth Edison below.

The whole water cooling issue is
a lot of nonsense. If the plant
builds its own lake - as CommEd
did - what's the problem?

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

19. sanme old

In this regard, the use of water; a nuclear plant
is no different than a fossil plant.

One merely substitutes a reactor for a boiler
as a heat source for the SAME Rankine steam
cycle.


Dr Greg

[liberal N proud]

3. So the river water is too warm to effectively cool the reactors?

Have the global warming naysayers spoken up on this yet?

[Jackpine Radical]

4. It's local and temporary. On the other hand,

some record cold spells have been reported elsewhere. In the Rockies, maybe...wait, wait, the Himalayas; that's the ticket; the Himalayas.

[DrGregory]

43. NO.,..

First, in a nuclear power plant, the river water
is NOT used to cool the reactor. The water that
cools the reactor is in a sealed loop.

The river water is used to cool the CONDENSERS
of the Rankine steam cycle just like in a
fossil fuel plant.

When the river water temperature goes up, the
efficiency of the Rankine steam cycle goes down.
That's a consequence of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

So, for a given output of electric energy, the reduced
efficiency means the plant has to dump more waste heat
when the river water is warmer. However, we put limits
on how much heat the plants can dump; and so when the
water becomes warmer, the plants back off on their
generation.

If we didn't have the environmental regulations, the
plants could just crank up the flow rate on the condenser
pumps and would have no problem. Only the environment
would have a problem.

Dr. Greg

[NickB79]

5. Have there been any reports from coal-fired plants in the region?

I'd assume that excessively hot water would be a problem for all thermal plants, not just nuclear.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. It only matters with nuclear

That's because ... well, because it's nuclear.

--d!

[madokie]

11. It matters with nuclear power plants because they require a larger supply of coolant

than coal, gas or as someone upthread said, wind turbines. Nuclear power is neither cost effective, clean, (co2 wise) from cradle to grave, so to speak nor a smart way to generate our electrical energy. Its so expensive that without the subsidies from the government there would be no nuclear power plants to be found here.

[TheWraith]

14. Well, pretty much everything you just said is untrue, but feel free to keep believing.

In the meantime, 438 nuclear reactors around the world produce 16% of the world's electricity, day in, day out, and they do so without the smoke, ash, and CO2 that's killing the planet. But hey, it's more important that we be nuclear-free and keep getting our electricity from coal and oil.

[madokie]

16. coal gas and oil is not our only options

104 soon to be 103 is what we have here. btw What part of what I said is untrue? Very energy intensive getting the ore out of the ground and into fuel grade, considering all that nuclear is questionable if it is co2 break even let alone co2 free. A lot of energy needed to keep it away from all things living for a long long time for it to be co2 free after its been used. Hey man you can believe whatever you want to believe but I'm not buying any of the bullshit put out by the nuclear power industry, nor the agency charged with overseeing them. What about the mafia and the disposing of some of the waste from Europe that has suspectedly been going on for years now, the drums washing up on shore of somalia.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madokie]

26. and what medical waste is this you speak of

has it been shown that the mafia was only sinking medical waste? Has it been shown that the barrels washing ashore of somalia was only medical waste? No it has not and what amazes me about you, since we're on tearing each other down rather than discussing the subject, is how you can only see what you want to see, subjectively blind I guess it is.

I know you'd rather we not talk on the E/E forum about either subject I'm mentioned but reality is reality and those are part of it.
If it bothers you so then use the ignore feature that the admins gave us to use

[Dead_Parrot]

36. I'm going by the staments of Francesco Fonti...

The former 'Ndrangheta who blew the whole thing open. I put this here, and since it was your thread I assumed you'd read it, but maybe I need to get all Clockwork Orange on you ;). There another article here which I'll let you translate at your leisure:

Specificò che c'erano fanghi e rifiuti ospedalieri e che si trattava di ossido di uranio, cesio e stronzio,..

If there's a single factual source identifying the waste - on the ships or in Somalia - as coming from the power industry I've not seen it, and I have been looking.

I'd point out (hopefully more tactfully so as not to incur the wrath of the mods again) that "subjectively blind" is a good phrase but one that works both ways: Assuming waste is from the power industry because you want it to be doesn't always help, and doesn't always go unnoticed. Remember the uranium leaching at the Anaconda mine?

[madokie]

38. Since this is something that worries me

and at the very moment I have chores to go do but upon return I'll see what I can find concerning the where of that this waste came from. I found that info at one time but thats been weeks ago so I'll have a look see again. The barrels that washed up on shore of Somalia clearly have the industries logo on them, maybe someone is only playing a joke on me but I sorta doubt that. I don't mean to be contentious I only wish to remind all that the nuclear power industry is not to be trusted, then or now, and I think a quick google search will prove me right on that point. We'll see I guess.

To start with I don't come here trying to out smart everyone else as some here do, I simply can't do that as I'm not there. I simply have my doubts as to the validity of some of the statements that are being made as if they were true when in some cases I know are false. Nothing more I like than to learn something new that lets me rethink what I thought I already knew. :hi:

On the other hand if you have something that needs built I'm here and can do it. I'm pretty good at figuring out how to make things that work.

[Dead_Parrot]

41. Fair enough...

...of course, then we'll be arguing over who's right, but what's new? :hi:

As for trust, I don't trust any of the buggers.

[madokie]

42. What I'm finding is it all goes back to the Ndrangheta turncoat you mentioned

But it is troubling the numbers of suspected cases that the Italian authorities have that they seem to not be able to seriously investigate, from burying nuclear, (toxic) waste in Italy to the barrels that have washed up on shore off Somalia to the number of ships suspected sank.
No more time this morning to look further. So far all the leads seem to run into a roadblock. Could that roadblock be mafia controlled government officials? Who knows.

When there's potentially gobs of money to be made, involved, I trust no one
Peace

[TheWraith]

31. The founder of Greenpeace disagrees with you.

So do most of the qualified scientific minds in the field. The fact of the matter is that you can only claim nuclear power isn't CO2-free by attributing to it all the POTENTIAL greenhouse emissions of mining, refining, deforestation, trucks, etcetera going back ten generations, and extending to ridiculous lengths like all of the military fuel expenditures for securing nuclear weaponry. If you attributed the same criteria to solar or wind power, you'd decide that anyone would have to be insane to support such a dirty, toxic energy source.

And yeah, quoting random internet rumors about the mafia dumping nuclear waste off Africa doesn't bolster your case. Particularly when it's based on a leaked alleged "confession" by one guy in Italy claiming that the mob was attempting to make nuclear bombs. That's the sort of crap evidence that got us into the Iraq War.

[DrGregory]

40. storage is co2 emitting???

Why do you think you have a problem with CO2
in storing nuclear waste?

First, the ideal thing to do is to reprocess /
recycle spent nuclear fuel so that we don't have
to store long-lived waste. All the long-lived
actinides can be recycled as reactor fuel.

Only fission products need to be stored and the
longest lived of those is Cesium-137 with a lifetime
of 30 years.

However, once you put the waste in borosilicate glass
and put it in a repository - then where is there any
additional CO2 release? It doesn't take energy to
keep a borosilicate glass log with nuclear waste buried
in the ground.

Because the nuclear force is one million times more
powerful than the chemical force, nuclear fuel gives
you one million times more energy per pound of fuel
and a chemical fuel.

You expend energy extracting fuel what ever the source.
Because nuclear is pound for pound, one million times
more energy intensive than fossil; you have to extract
less for the same energy output.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

23. WRONG!!

So much is made about nuclear getting "subsidies"

However, have you actually looked at what the anti-nukes
call "subsidies"?

The anti-nukes include all the money the USA spends on
nuclear weapons and submarine reactors as a "subsidy".

If you want to do your accounting that way; then airlines
are subsidized - because look at all the money the Pentagon
spends with Boeing for bombers, fighters, cargo planes...

The airlines wouldn't exist without the Pentagon subsidies.

The old adage applies; "Figures never lie, but liars sure
can figure."

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

39. matters with coal too

All this discussion with cooling water is
about cooling the condensers of the same
Rankine steam cycle regardless if it is
a nuclear, coal, gas.. or whatever plant.

The only thing different with a nuclear
plant is that the reactor produces steam
at somewhat lower temperature than with
fossil boilers. The typical Westinghouse
steam generator produces saturated steam
and not super-heated. The Babcock & Wilcox
steam generator can do some super-heating.

Because fossil boilers are able to super-heat
the steam, they can get a better thermal
efficiency than the Rankine cycle in a nuclear
plant.

However, the differences are marginal.

The nuclear plant doesn't produce CO2;
and that more than makes up for the slightly
lower thermal efficiency when it comes to
being environmentally friendly.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

45. It's not a problem for the plant; only the environment

As I pointed out in another post; the warmer
water is not a problem for the plant.

The warmer water reduces the efficiency of
the Rankine steam cycle. Therefore, for a
given electric output, the plant has to
dump more waste heat.

That isn't a problem for the plant itself.
One just cranks up the condenser coolant pumps.

That's what the coal power plants do - they just
dump more waste heat into the environment. That's
because we don't regulate their waste heat output.

With the nuclear plants, we regulate the waste heat
output, which is why the nuclear plants have to
ramp down on their output.

Without the environmental regulations, the nuclear
plant could do exactly what the fossil plants do,
and just dump more waste heat.

It doesn't hurt the nuclear plant; only the environment.
( But we allow the fossil plants to do it )

Dr. Greg

[pscot]

15. No one could have imagined

anything like this could happen.