Climate continues to change.

[icanhelp1]

^Bingo.

Anyone who doesn't at least acknowledge that nuclear needs to be in the mix cannot be taken seriously as an environmentalist.

The biggest challenge with nuclear is figuring out what to do with the excess capacity during off-peak hours. Hear what we do is we pump water uphill and then we have hydroelectric during the day during peak hours.

There's also a technique using cranes where you lift giant concrete blocks into the air and then let them back out when you need the power.

Solar and wind are good for on-peak generation. Having a nuke nearby with plenty of excess capacity when the solar is done for the night is a nice pairing.

The same idiots that are championing the idea that solar like everything else in life is getting better cheaper faster don't fully appreciate the limitations of getting that last potential efficiency out of a solar panel. We're pretty close to what realistically can be done. We're nowhere near close to what can be done with nuclear. We don't even really know very much about it yet.

I agree 100% Nuclear power plants have reliable capacity and very controllably output. Using fuels with substantially less half lifes, strategic placement and more durable structures is key. However Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl disasters
has environmentalist fighting it tooth and nail. They want their cake and eat it too. Nobody is explaining to americans people how safe they are. We have them on ships why not on solid ground? I know there is a problem with expended fuel and its storage and how to repurpose it. Got to be some ideas out there.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The biggest challenge with nuclear is figuring out what to do with the excess capacity during off-peak hours. Hear what we do is we pump water uphill and then we have hydroelectric during the day during peak hours.

There's also a technique using cranes where you lift giant concrete blocks into the air and then let them back out when you need the power.

Solar and wind are good for on-peak generation. Having a nuke nearby with plenty of excess capacity when the solar is done for the night is a nice pairing.

I agree 100% Nuclear power plants have reliable capacity and very controllably output. Using fuels with substantially less half lifes, strategic placement and more durable structures is key. However Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl disasters
has environmentalist fighting it tooth and nail. They want their cake and eat it too. Nobody is explaining to americans people how safe they are. We have them on ships why not on solid ground? I know there is a problem with expended fuel and its storage and how to repurpose it. Got to be some ideas out there.

Hey we could use some of von BS's rockets and shoot the spent fuel into the sun!

Lift the laws requiring the spent fuel to be kept with the site and perhaps we could find USES for some of it or at least reprocess it into something more manageable. (that was Peanut Boy's fault)

Que, as far as the off peak capacity, couple thoughts.

Crack hydrogen from water for use as a fuel. Might not be a good idea to bring back dirigibles, but it can be compressed and used to run trucks or cars.

They could also sell off peak electricity at drastically reduced rates, which would encourage industry to develop products that use electricity at night. Perhaps by super heating or cooling a liquid for HVAC through the next day. Or charging your car overnight. Or... Point being if the off peak power is cheap, we'll find a way to leverage it.

 

[trysail]

Renewables And Grid Reliability

by "Planning Engineer"

"The costs of major grid outages are staggering and recovery from such outages is challenging; therefore the North American grids are planned and operated to ensure high levels of reliability.

Despite changing conditions and various threats, it is widely expected that that current levels of reliability will be maintained or improved upon. The grid is impacted by multiple electro-mechanical effects that planners have learned to model and plan for over time and through experience. The rapid deployment of any new technology will present both modelling and operational challenges to maintaining high levels of grid reliability.

With the increased focus on reducing fossil fuel generation the question frequently comes up as to, “How much solar and wind can be integrated with the grid without unduly impacting system reliability?” The increase in renewables relative to conventional generation is often referred to as “penetration”. The US grids have sufficient robustness such that small penetration levels do not pose excessive risk, however high levels of penetration raise serious reliability concerns. This post will argue that there is not a single answer and that the answers are not easy, therefore estimates will involve considerable uncertainty. Casual readers may want to read the “Key Points” and then skip to the “Conclusions” or specific topics of interest. Those seeking a more optimistic assessment may want to read Volume 4 of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Renewables Electricity Futures Report.

Key Points

-There has been a high value placed on having an extremely reliable bulk grid as the costs and consequences of bulk grid outages are severe
-The bulk grid supports and is supported by conventional rotating generators (Coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, biomass) which provide “Essential Reliability Services” (ERSs)
-Wind and solar provide increased reliability risks because they are new changing technologies, they are intermittent and they do not as readily provide ERSs
-Current high levels of reliability depend upon experience gained over time through the gradual adoption of new technologies
-Wind and solar can be made to provide approximations of ERSs, but that requires significant increased costs and reduced generation output
-Because of the complexity of impacting factors and the high level of reliability maintained for the US grids, systemic degradation of the reliability of the grid is hard to detect and measure
-The amount of renewable penetration that can be accommodated will vary from area to area and power system to power system – There is not a single answer

-Because conventional resources produce an abundance of ERSs, accommodation of low levels of renewables may be accomplished with negligible risks
-Because current renewables do not provide adequate ERSs high penetration levels provide significant risks
-Between the above two levels there is a gap of (wicked?) uncertainty.​

-For assessing grid reliability, the maximum penetration of wind and solar during times of stress is the key number not the “average” contribution of wind and solar
-Increased penetration of such asynchronous resources, all else equal, will likely adversely impact bulk grid reliability
-As the penetration level of asynchronous generation increases this will either increase cost, limit operational flexibility, degrade reliability or most likely result in a combination of all three factors​

The above statements have the following important caveats

-In some situations renewable resources may have some practical benefits and better support reliability in some limited applications For example:
-Air quality standards often prohibit the location of new generation resources in congested areas. If renewable resources are allowed to be located close to load centers –the system may see benefits
-Electronic emulation of ERSs in some cases will not be as good as actual synchronous machines, but with proper controls it may also be better in some cases
-Given time the reliability risk associated with new technology can be reduced as more experience is gained so that penetration levels can be increased...​

​

(much) more...

​

​

 

[Que]

I agree 100% Nuclear power plants have reliable capacity and very controllably output. Using fuels with substantially less half lifes, strategic placement and more durable structures is key. However Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl disasters
has environmentalist fighting it tooth and nail. They want their cake and eat it too. Nobody is explaining to americans people how safe they are. We have them on ships why not on solid ground? I know there is a problem with expended fuel and its storage and how to repurpose it. Got to be some ideas out there.

There is not nearly the waste and storage problem that it is portrayed as. The biggest problem is making them financially viable with all the hoops you've got to jump through to get a plant approved and built and maintained.

 

[trysail]

"Consensus"?

Not.


http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/dhm1353056/Kerry_01_zpsgdfkz0oa.png



​

 

[von_Bismarck]

Nuclear reactors are the answer.

You could have made a decent case for nuclear 10 years ago, and indeed I would have been among the proponents of some nuclear capacity. But times change.

The best use case for nuclear these days are niche cases.

 

[heathergives]

https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/15/15-time-ice-age-global-warming-covers.w710.h473.jpg

 

[gunthernehmen]

You could have made a decent case for nuclear 10 years ago, and indeed I would have been among the proponents of some nuclear capacity. But times change.

The best use case for nuclear these days are niche cases.

You just blew it. You're as nutty as Alexandria.

MABA (Make Alexandria Bartend Again)

 

[gunthernehmen]

There is not nearly the waste and storage problem that it is portrayed as. The biggest problem is making them financially viable with all the hoops you've got to jump through to get a plant approved and built and maintained.

The issue is not the feasibility of managing nuclear waste, it's the legality. Due to Peanut Boy's (J Carter) moratorium on handling the waste, it is stored locally at/near each reactor in pools. There is no central / permanent disposal site for nuclear waste in the US. At least for power plants.

The hoops are due to the environmentalists (emphasis on mental).

That would be the same group of nuts that von BS will have to deal with in his bid to launch all of Phro's solar panels into orbit.

All it will take is one talking head on CNN to wonder what happens when TWENTY BILLION solar panels eventually deorbit and start crashing into cities. It doesn't even matter that it isn't really a risk. That people THINK it could be is enough. And I guarantee you somebody will pay for a PR campaign against the idea.

 

[von_Bismarck]

You just blew it. You're as nutty as Alexandria.

MABA (Make Alexandria Bartend Again)

It's almost like you don't understand the flow of conversations, and take any opportunity you can seize to insult.

 

[icanhelp1]

Hey we could use some of von BS's rockets and shoot the spent fuel into the sun!

Lift the laws requiring the spent fuel to be kept with the site and perhaps we could find USES for some of it or at least reprocess it into something more manageable. (that was Peanut Boy's fault)

Que, as far as the off peak capacity, couple thoughts.

Crack hydrogen from water for use as a fuel. Might not be a good idea to bring back dirigibles, but it can be compressed and used to run trucks or cars.

They could also sell off peak electricity at drastically reduced rates, which would encourage industry to develop products that use electricity at night. Perhaps by super heating or cooling a liquid for HVAC through the next day. Or charging your car overnight. Or... Point being if the off peak power is cheap, we'll find a way to leverage it.

I already brought up using hydrogen as energy.

 

[icanhelp1]

There is not nearly the waste and storage problem that it is portrayed as. The biggest problem is making them financially viable with all the hoops you've got to jump through to get a plant approved and built and maintained.

I saw a documentary on waste nuclear fuel and the dangers of storage. Big issue when I saw that piece back in 2004.

 

[von_Bismarck]

As far as hydrogen fuel cell technology goes for the transportation sector, it's a mostly dead end. It would require massive new infrastructure at prohibitive cost. The fuel cells themselves are more expensive than batteries.

Be on the lookout for vehicle batteries that provide 1,000+ mile range in the next 3-5 years.

 

[gunthernehmen]

It's almost like you don't understand the flow of conversations, and take any opportunity you can seize to insult.

If you go back over the past pages you're see some good discussion between various people, including civil conversation between me and others that can talk civilly. You, however, along with Phro and a racist kid named Dan, waffle between posting decent info (and some silliness that I'm pretty sure you believe in) and insults of your own.

I would be quite surprised if you can find an example where I was insulting to someone that wasn't insulting to me first. It may have happened, but generally I don't initiate that. An exception might be if someone new posted something SO over the top idiotic that it just can't be ignored.

Your ideas aren't THAT idiotic. You're just so blinded by your own brilliance that you can't quite cope with the real world in a socially acceptable way. That's not bad, I'm sure you're a nice enough guy in a lot of ways. Just awkward.

 

[von_Bismarck]

If you go back over the past pages you're see some good discussion between various people, including civil conversation between me and others that can talk civilly. You, however, along with Phro and a racist kid named Dan, waffle between posting decent info (and some silliness that I'm pretty sure you believe in) and insults of your own.

I would be quite surprised if you can find an example where I was insulting to someone that wasn't insulting to me first. It may have happened, but generally I don't initiate that. An exception might be if someone new posted something SO over the top idiotic that it just can't be ignored.

Your ideas aren't THAT idiotic. You're just so blinded by your own brilliance that you can't quite cope with the real world in a socially acceptable way. That's not bad, I'm sure you're a nice enough guy in a lot of ways. Just awkward.

"Blinded by my own brilliance?" Are you certain we live in the same universe?

In any case, we've already established that you initially engaged me with insults and uncharitable interpretations. And you continue to do so, even when unprompted. Might want to reflect on your own behavior, champ.

 

[gunthernehmen]

As far as hydrogen fuel cell technology goes for the transportation sector, it's a mostly dead end. It would require massive new infrastructure at prohibitive cost. The fuel cells themselves are more expensive than batteries.

Be on the lookout for vehicle batteries that provide 1,000+ mile range in the next 3-5 years.

Ok, don't completely agree, but another way to "store" energy for peak period is to generate that hydrogen but store it there and burn it during peak times to augment the reactor. (A second set of turbines and generators but operating on the hydrogen). Perhaps that could allow us to downsize the reactor slightly.

 

[gunthernehmen]

"Blinded by my own brilliance?" Are you certain we live in the same universe?

In any case, we've already established that you initially engaged me with insults and uncharitable interpretations. And you continue to do so, even when unprompted. Might want to reflect on your own behavior, champ.

You've initially established that, not me, and I'm not invested enough to go back and look.

Basically, your attitude reminds me of some particularly odious individuals in my past. Totally impressed with their education, but completely ignorant of any social manners and the real world in general. But they "know what's good for everyone" and could never quite understand why everybody didn't bow to their superior knowledge. In at least one case there was some real world tragedy caused by their behavior.

So perhaps you are paying the price for their transgressions.

Reflect on your behavior, shape up and as I begin to trust you, I'm sure our relationship will improve.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I already brought up using hydrogen as energy.

I saw a documentary on waste nuclear fuel and the dangers of storage. Big issue when I saw that piece back in 2004.

Sorry. I didn't mean to express it as my original idea!

Nuclear waste is a serious issue but if the laws were changed to allow us to do something about it, it's manageable.

 

[Luk]

I'm just glad that not very many young people are science deniers.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Any chance Gunny and bitter Klinger are actually Que alts? Gunny especially is too concerned with the inner workings of other posters' heads.

 

[Luk]

Kilnger is Koalabear reincarnated.

 

[von_Bismarck]

That's bad news for Klinger.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Any chance Gunny and bitter Klinger are actually Que alts? Gunny especially is too concerned with the inner workings of other posters' heads.

Or possibly, YOU are MY Alt and I'm squabbling with myself as a distraction to the others.

First I put up an absurd idea like launching 20 billion solar panels into orbit and turning the Earth into a giant microwave oven and then I point out the ovious flaws in the plan using my sane(r) identity.

Clever...

 

[von_Bismarck]

Yap on, little feller.

 

[Luk]

NASA study: Human influence on global droughts goes back 100 years