Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Sherwood) writes: >(Russ Brown) writes: >As for air conditioning, tsk, tsk. I don’t have it in my house or even >in my Toyota Tercel. Pretty sybaritic lifestyle for one concerned with >energy savings. > Well, that depends. I live in the SF Bay area now and do not have air > conditioning. Not a big deal. I had a similar situation in the Denver > area. On the other hand, I grew up in Miami, FL and Oxford, Miss. Going > without air conditioning either place is a trifle more of a sacrifice than > doing it in a cooler climate (in Miami we averaged about 90F around 6 months > of the year with a humidity of >80%). Our typical regimen was to set the > thermostat at 80F and run ceiling fans. The AC not only dropped the temp, > but the humidity as well. I really don’t think this qualifies as sybaritic. > Geoff Sherwood
In my experience (Iowa, July-August) dehumidification is far more important to comfort than cooling. I would guess that it also uses less energy? I can get used to 95F _dry_ air but 87F moist air kills me. Dan
Response:
(Michael Zika) writes: yodaiken) writes: >Our experience here is not positive. What happens if utilities start >"tagging" corossion spots on sodium pipes ? … > Read the above again — "sodium is non-corrosive". Besides, I think > maintenance procedures have been changed ever so slightly since the > wonderful tagging incident at TMI.
Perhaphs a person without technical education would be startled by the notion "sodium is nocorosive", since it explodes when dumped in water, is part of lye (which will "burn" you) and so on. Sodium is a metal, though, and won’t corrode the metal they make the pipes out of. It sort of bothers me that someone objecting to a design would know so little chemistry as to be able to make the above objection. It’s also sort of sad he didn’t notice the fact in your post. Dan
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >(Michael Zika) writes: >yodaiken) writes: >>Our experience here is not positive. What happens if utilities start >>"tagging" corossion spots on sodium pipes ? … > Read the above again — "sodium is non-corrosive". Besides, I think > maintenance procedures have been changed ever so slightly since the > wonderful tagging incident at TMI. > Perhaphs a person without technical education would be startled by the >notion "sodium is nocorosive", since it explodes when dumped in water, >is part of lye (which will "burn" you) and so on. Sodium is a metal, >though, and won’t corrode the metal they make the pipes out of. > It sort of bothers me that someone objecting to a design would >know so little chemistry as to be able to make the above objection. >It’s also sort of sad he didn’t notice the fact in your post.
Well, I was going to reply to Mike, but since you seem so disturbed it seems like I should take this opportunity to put you at ease. The answer is simple: the sodium is not on both sides of the pipe. BTW, I was not arguing that pipe rust was the weak point of these reactors, I was asking about problems which might arise due to sloppy operation. Despite the post-TMI improvements in standards, we still had an incident just last year in which basic maintainence was ignored at Nine Mile. —
Response:
>>Just what do you mean by "inefficient"? Today’s natural gas-fired gas >turbine combined cycle technology has an efficiency of *at least 50 >percent* (that means 50 percent of the chemical energy of the natural >gas is converted to kWh’s at the busbar). >…and if you burn it in a furnace you convert considerably more than 50% >of your chemical energy into end-use energy. QED.
This betrays an ignorance of the difference between second law and first law efficiency. In fact, one can get *more* than 100% efficiency (measured by BTUs of heat into the house divided by the HHV of the fuel burned) by consuming the fuel in a turbine and using the electricity to drive a heat pump. One can do still better if the waste heat from the turbine is used for district heating (as is done at a gas-fired combined cycle plant in Utrecht). From a second-law point of view, home furnaces are very inefficient devices. Heat is allowed to flow directly "downhill" from high to low temperature, increasing entropy to no useful purpose. Maybe someday we’ll have heat activated heat pumps in our homes, but they aren’t widely available yet. Paul F. Dietz
Response:
yodaiken) writes: >[my bitching about Victors lack of basic chemistry deleted] > Well, I was going to reply to Mike, but since you seem so disturbed it seems > like I should take this opportunity to put you at ease. The answer is > simple: the sodium is not on both sides of the pipe. BTW, I was not > arguing that pipe rust was the weak point of these reactors, I was asking > about problems which might arise due to sloppy operation. Despite the > post-TMI improvements in standards, we still had an incident just last > year in which basic maintainence was ignored at Nine Mile.
I’m even more disturbed; the outside of the pipe is air which isn’t all that corrosive either 
. Perhaphs you could fill in all the background. Why did the pipes at TMI corrode? Hint: the answer is not "improper maintainence", that is why they weren’t fixed.
Dan
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >yodaiken) writes: >>[my bitching about Victors lack of basic chemistry deleted] > Well, I was going to reply to Mike, but since you seem so disturbed it seems > like I should take this opportunity to put you at ease. The answer is > simple: the sodium is not on both sides of the pipe. BTW, I was not > arguing that pipe rust was the weak point of these reactors, I was asking > about problems which might arise due to sloppy operation. Despite the > post-TMI improvements in standards, we still had an incident just last > year in which basic maintainence was ignored at Nine Mile. > I’m even more disturbed; the outside of the pipe is air which isn’t all that >corrosive either . Perhaphs you could fill in all the background. Why did >the pipes at TMI corrode? Hint: the answer is not "improper maintainence", >that is why they weren’t fixed.
Shucks, you seem unwilling to tackle the important question. Perhaps you could take a break from your mission of proving how smart you are to consider the issue of how well we can expect any generation of nuclear reactors to be operated, given the record of US utilities. BTW, I am a little uncertain about the design of this reactor, and have assumed that heat from the sodium pipes was used to heat steam or hot water pipes. Is this false? If not, are the pipes in contact? How easy is it to inspect and repair pipes? —
Response:
>As for air conditioning, tsk, tsk. I don’t have it in my house or even >in my Toyota Tercel. Pretty sybaritic lifestyle for one concerned with >energy savings.
Well, that depends. I live in the SF Bay area now and do not have air conditioning. Not a big deal. I had a similar situation in the Denver area. On the other hand, I grew up in Miami, FL and Oxford, Miss. Going without air conditioning either place is a trifle more of a sacrifice than doing it in a cooler climate (in Miami we averaged about 90F around 6 months of the year with a humidity of >80%). Our typical regimen was to set the thermostat at 80F and run ceiling fans. The AC not only dropped the temp, but the humidity as well. I really don’t think this qualifies as sybaritic. Geoff Sherwood
Response:
>>>>What about EBR-II? >There must have been some studies projecting costs for a full scale plant.
Argonne National Laboratory/East has probably done some cost studies on a larger LMR. Unfortunately, all my contacts are in the Reactor Engineering Division. I’ll have to see if I can pick up some figures next time I’m up there. >>and am skeptical of how well a utility might be able to run it. >Why? Training would be needed to pass along the maintenance of a piping >system that has sodium in it instead of water, but that’s expected. The >maintenance on the primary side is lower (sodium is non-corrosive) and >the maintenance of the secondary side has direct anaolgies to present LWR’s. >Our experience here is not positive. What happens if utilities start >"tagging" corossion spots on sodium pipes ? …
Read the above again — "sodium is non-corrosive". Besides, I think maintenance procedures have been changed ever so slightly since the wonderful tagging incident at TMI. >I’d like to know how applicable the EBR maintainence schedule is to >commericial plants,
One of the "missions" of EBR-II is to provide power to the grid (alright, it’s only 60MW), but they maintenance schedule is written largely with power production in mind — not just research. >what differences migh arise from scaling,
Only the core gets larger. Studies have shown the same passive safety characteristics. The EBR-II pool of sodium is big enough for a 350MWe size fast reactor. >what effects of placing the plant in a grid might be …. Note that >Shippingport gave little indication of what might happen at Browns Ferry.
I’m not sure I understand this… EBR-II _is_ on the grid… >So there has been one real experiment with breeders and it has been a >failure.
And one with a marked success. >Does not mean that one cannot make these things run, but sounds a >note of caution.
Agreed. But I think we’re starting to "caution" the life out of the possibility of building one of these. Nobody is willing to lay their political neck on the line to promote one, with the "let’s be cautious and wait a little longer" attitue.
– | Purdue University | I’m still working on "how?" ! School of Nuclear Engineering |
Response:
>(victor yodaik >en) writes: >>And, what do you have against natural gas? >1) Inefficient for production of electricity, compared to direct heating > applications. Very important, considering… >Just what do you mean by "inefficient"? Today’s natural gas-fired gas >turbine combined cycle technology has an efficiency of *at least 50 >percent* (that means 50 percent of the chemical energy of the natural >gas is converted to kWh’s at the busbar).
…and if you burn it in a furnace you convert considerably more than 50% of your chemical energy into end-use energy. QED. >BTW, electricity can be used for a great many things besides heating. >It is a very flexible and clean mode of energy delivery and end-use.
No one’s debating this. >3) Greenhouse gas. Worse than CO2. >Yes, but we are not talking about venting all natural gas to the >atmosphere, we are talking about combusting it (converting it to CO2). >Sure, some if it will be lost to the atmosphere. But consider that the >energy-specific CO2 emission factor for natural gas is half that of >coal. (Also, as you are probably aware, methane is vented from coal >mines as well).
It’s a greenhouse gas nonetheless. Personally I don’t buy the Global Warming Pseudo-Theory, but if you do, you shouldn’t put natural gas above nuclear (which was my original point). >5) Dangerous. Has been known to blow up and cause death with a frequency > somewhat higher than that of nuclear. >Eh? Just what are you talking about here? Explosions in the home? >Explosions at power plants? Pipeline explosions?
Yes, yes, and yes. >Accepting natural gas as an "environmentally favoured" fuel, even in the short >term until alternatives are found, to displace nuclear fuel, shows hypocrisy >and ignorance. >The simple reply here is just an observation that you are grandstanding. >Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a hypocrite? You are certainly >entitled to your views, but why all the hostility?
Because I’m living in a province that’s flushing itself down the toilet, and the reasons are hypocrisy and ignorance. Jeremy Whitlock "My thoughts are mine, not Mac’s" Dept. Engineering Physics McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Response:
>>>What about EBR-II? This test reactor has an exemplary operating record. >>Good design, _demonstrated_ passive safety features, and an _operable_ >>fuel cycle. I’d call that pretty good experience. >EBR-II sounds good, but I’ve never seen a good analysis of its costs, >It’s a test/research reactor — the cost figures on it would be meaningless. >It’s _not_ meant to be cost effective at the 60MWe size.
There must have been some studies projecting costs for a full scale plant. >and am skeptical of how well a utility might be able to run it. >Why? Training would be needed to pass along the maintenance of a piping >system that has sodium in it instead of water, but that’s expected. The >maintenance on the primary side is lower (sodium is non-corrosive) and >the maintenance of the secondary side has direct anaolgies to present LWR’s.
Our experience here is not positive. What happens if utilities start "tagging" corossion spots on sodium pipes ? … >And, the idea of molten sodium pipes sandwiched between hot water and a >fissioning core makes me a little uneasy. >1) You ought to review your conception of what a steam generator looks like… >2) Ugh !! What more than a demonstrated 27+ years operating experience do you >want!? The _same_ steam generator has been going for that long with NO >steam/sodium interations.
I’d like to know how applicable the EBR maintainence schedule is to commericial plants, what differences migh arise from scaling, what effects of placing the plant in a grid might be …. Note that Shippingport gave little indication of what might happen at Browns Ferry. >>>French experience with breeders has been very poor. >>So all breeder designs are bad? Come on… >The French are usually cited as the examples of a working breeder program. >Has anyone else got a production breeder program on line? >I believe that the Japanese are in the process of designing/building >their first fast reactor. I don’t know what stage it’s in, or if it’s a >metal or oxide core… Anybody ?
So there has been one real experiment with breeders and it has been a failure. Does not mean that one cannot make these things run, but sounds a note of caution. —
Response:
>>>What about EBR-II? This test reactor has an exemplary operating record. >>Good design, _demonstrated_ passive safety features, and an _operable_ >>fuel cycle. I’d call that pretty good experience. >It’s a test/research reactor — the cost figures on it would be meaningless. >[...] a piping >system that has sodium in it instead of water, but that’s expected. The >maintenance on the primary side is lower (sodium is non-corrosive) and >the maintenance of the secondary side has direct anaolgies to present LWR’s.
Another big safety plus is that the coolant is not pressurized (why bother? it’s sodium). You can get the temperatures you need without it. This dramatically reduces the severity of LOCA (Loss-o’-Coolant Accident) type accidents (the big-bad wolf of LWRs). >And, the idea of molten sodium pipes sandwiched between hot water and a >fissioning core makes me a little uneasy.
That’s a (beyond-severe) accident scenario, implying full water ingress into the intermediate coolant line (sodium). Fat chance. If the secondary did have a line break and bleed into the intermediate, the sodium wouldn’t let the water get very far. It would also be rather obvious (plenty of time for protective measures). — Jerry W. Miller # "Opinions? Of course they Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
Response:
>My ‘fridge is an old GE. It sucks an average of 800W/hr.
Come again? Paul F. Dietz
Response:
>>>Then they wash their hands of the deal with the "of course, we didn’t want >>fossils either" line. >This is just plain ignorant. The Union of Concerned Scientists, the >Rocky Mountain Institute, EPRI, and even Greepeace have all published >alternative energy strategies of varying forms which do not rely on either >new fossil or nuclear plants. If you don’t like these plans, critique them. >If you want an address for UCS or the Rocky Mountain Institute, I’d be >happy to send them to you. >Like I said, their actions speak otherwise.
The generality of your conclusions is out of line with the size of your sample space. Please also note that, contrary to some opinion, it is not the responsibility of environmental advocates to chose among the options favored by utilities and governments. —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Um, bit out of touch … the ‘activist’ types (as opposed to the >>’activated’ types? tend to be down on coal rather heavily as well. >>Or have you missed all the ‘green’ hype about greenhouse gases? The >>same folks tend to be found against both coal and nuclear, they tend >>to support both conservation and ‘renewable’ energy. Oh yes, and they >>stongly condemn acid rain as well… >Not necessarily. A lot may pay lip-service to the "I don’t like fossil fuel >either" position, but their actions speak otherwise. Many are intelligent >enough (yes, I’ve seen some 
) to realize that fossils are the *only* option, >at least in the short term, to nuclear power — and yet they will still milk >the anti-nuclear cash cow until a nuke is dropped and a fossil fills the void. >Then they wash their hands of the deal with the "of course, we didn’t want >fossils either" line. >This is just plain ignorant. The Union of Concerned Scientists, the >Rocky Mountain Institute, EPRI, and even Greepeace have all published >alternative energy strategies of varying forms which do not rely on either >new fossil or nuclear plants. If you don’t like these plans, critique them. >If you want an address for UCS or the Rocky Mountain Institute, I’d be >happy to send them to you.
Strategies, plans, hints, whispers, and promises abound. The "alternative energy strategies" (a grand descriptor for a null set), including those of the present set of incompetents in government, have a common characteristic. They do not produce much energy. Beware of junk bond dealers and the like. The level of scrutiny given to the details of these various plans and strategies is inversely proportional to their sociopolitical acceptability. They do sell lots of books and pamphlets and memberships. They do provoke reverence in the unlettered and uncritical. But their proponents don’t have any responsibility for producing energy in the real world. Sort of like the promises of paradise from televangelists. Barnum was right. "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." – Blaise Pascal –
Response:
> — deletions — >>And, what do you have against natural gas? > It’s limited (i.e. fossil). It produces CO2 and CO (not like that really >So is uranium. Nukes with breeders is not known to work.
What about EBR-II? This test reactor has an exemplary operating record. Good design, _demonstrated_ passive safety features, and an _operable_ fuel cycle. I’d call that pretty good experience. >French experience with breeders has been very poor.
So all breeder designs are bad? Come on… >Is SuperPheonix running again? Anyone got a good estimate on its mtbf?
Probably not. When I was there this summer they were still trying to figure out the origin of a $1 dollar "unknown" reactivity insertion. Until the source is tracked down, I doubt that they’ll come up to power again. > limited resource (at least there’s lots of coal) is hardly a long-term > solution to much of anything, although it is definitely more eco-friendly > than coal (what isn’t?). >Environmentalists seem to advocate natural gas as a short-term solution >while renewables are improved.
This does not seem to be an intelligent approach. This is relying on the uncontrollable and unpredictable advances in science. The "well, we can wait for mass-scale superconductivity to make a solar grid efficient and in the meantime we’ll just burn gas" approach doesn’t seem like much of a solution to me. The same people demanding lower emissions of green-house gases (which may or may not be linked to global warming) under the claim of "what if" accept gas because renewables are "right around the corner" Hmmm… Solar: the future of "too cheap to meter"
– | Purdue University | I’m still working on "how?" ! School of Nuclear Engineering |
Response:
>What about EBR-II? This test reactor has an exemplary operating record. >Good design, _demonstrated_ passive safety features, and an _operable_ >fuel cycle. I’d call that pretty good experience.
EBR-II sounds good, but I’ve never seen a good analysis of its costs, and am skeptical of how well a utility might be able to run it. And, the idea of molten sodium pipes sandwiched between hot water and a fissioning core makes me a little uneasy. >French experience with breeders has been very poor. >So all breeder designs are bad? Come on…
The French are usually cited as the examples of a working breeder program. Has anyone else got a production breeder program on line? >This does not seem to be an intelligent approach. This is relying on >the uncontrollable and unpredictable advances in science. The "well, we >can wait for mass-scale superconductivity to make a solar grid efficient >and in the meantime we’ll just burn gas" approach doesn’t seem like much >of a solution to me. The same people demanding lower emissions of green-house
I don’t think that this is the standard environmentalist approach. For example, Lovins and other have already demonstrated housing designs which require near 0 electricity/fossil for heating in cold climates. —
Response:
>Strategies, plans, hints, whispers, and promises abound. The >"alternative energy strategies" (a grand descriptor for a null set), >including those of the present set of incompetents in government, have a >common characteristic. They do not produce much energy. >Beware of junk bond dealers and the like. The level of scrutiny given >to the details of these various plans and strategies is inversely >proportional to their sociopolitical acceptability. >They do sell lots of books and pamphlets and memberships. They do >provoke reverence in the unlettered and uncritical. But their proponents >don’t have any responsibility for producing energy in the real world.
Come on Russ, this is below your usual standard. Something wrong with the EPRI or RMI claims — then point it out. The standard of what is sociopolitically acceptable is not written in stone. And certainly one would have good grounds for believing that Lovins has a better grasp on reality than the managers of the TVA. —
Response:
>Your recent posting on the use of near-zero fossil electrical or fossil >houses (per RMI) is a good example. If one starts to consider all of >the constraints of such a system, and gives it a real (not hypothetical) >test, problems could emerge. >Using body heat, for example, can work if people stay in the house all >the time. But if the house is left empty for a few weeks in the winter, >pipes can freeze and reheating a house from 35 degrees with body heat >would be rather uncomfortable. Heavy insulation and restriction of air >circulation could save energy but result in the accumulation of radon >daughters, not to mention cooking odors, etc. Water heating works fine >if the solar collectors are clear of snow and you don’t get extended >stormy weather. All of these kinds of things are easy to gloss over if >you are selling a concept and tough to deal with if you are the guinea pig.
The RMI house/office in Snowmass is quite concrete not to mention comfortable (I’d like an indoor greenhouse too). It may not be a practical for eveyone to live like that, but most people don’t live where the climate is so bad. Circulation of air can be combined with heat conservation through use of heat exchangers. Simple techniques such as moving the fridge motor to the top of the box can really cut into electricity use. Even in dark new england, there are quite a few people who can get by comfortably with little grip power or fossil/wood though combination of insulation, heat-exchangers, passive solar, … —
Response:
(victor yodaik >en) writes: >And, what do you have against natural gas? >1) Inefficient for production of electricity, compared to direct heating > applications. Very important, considering…
Just what do you mean by "inefficient"? Today’s natural gas-fired gas turbine combined cycle technology has an efficiency of *at least 50 percent* (that means 50 percent of the chemical energy of the natural gas is converted to kWh’s at the busbar). Natural gas is *not* necessarily efficient for what I assume you mean by "direct heating applications" — e.g., natural-gas fired furnaces in people’s homes. You would probably do just as well with individually controlled electric baseboard heaters in properly insulated rooms as you would with a centralized natural gas-fired forced air system that heats the whole house. Just what are you talking about here? BTW, electricity can be used for a great many things besides heating. It is a very flexible and clean mode of energy delivery and end-use. >2) Limited supply. Costs will skyrocket in the early next century.
Yes, this could happen. This is currently the most compelling reason for not developing a dependence on natural gas. >3) Greenhouse gas. Worse than CO2.
Yes, but we are not talking about venting all natural gas to the atmosphere, we are talking about combusting it (converting it to CO2). Sure, some if it will be lost to the atmosphere. But consider that the energy-specific CO2 emission factor for natural gas is half that of coal. (Also, as you are probably aware, methane is vented from coal mines as well). >4) Has other emissions. Better than oil or coal, but worse than nuclear.
The two pollutants of primary concern in natural gas-fired gas turbine systems are CO and NOx. Both of these pollutants can be controlled through a variety of combustion and post-combustion means. Both of these are also local in impact. I would agree that the emissions from natural gas fired systems are "better" than from oil or coal fired systems. However, I don’t see that you have any basis for your comparison with nuclear. To make such a comparison, you would need (for example) to convert the vector of environmental impacts for both into some scalar (i.e. convert a lb of CO or NOx emissions to the atmosphere to a common basis with a lb of radioactive waste or a lb of vented radioactive steam, and so on). I doubt that you, or anyone else for that matter, has really done this. Currently, it is only a matter of your opinion that nuclear is "better" than natural gas. Perhaps you could provide some additional information to support your opinion. >5) Dangerous. Has been known to blow up and cause death with a frequency
somewhat higher than that of nuclear. Eh? Just what are you talking about here? Explosions in the home? Explosions at power plants? Pipeline explosions? Part of this has to do with how we design the fuel cycle and infrastructure. If we generate power from natural gas and deliver the energy as electricity, a number of these failure modes would be eliminated or reduced. Also, the nature of the risks of natural gas and nuclear are different. Whether you like it or not, they are treated differently by the public. If a natural gas-fired plant goes up, the effects are very local. With a nuclear accident, the effects may not be. >Accepting natural gas as an "environmentally favoured" fuel, even in the short >term until alternatives are found, to displace nuclear fuel, shows hypocrisy >and ignorance.
The simple reply here is just an observation that you are grandstanding. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a hypocrite? You are certainly entitled to your views, but why all the hostility? Have a nice day. Chris Frey
Response:
>>What about EBR-II? This test reactor has an exemplary operating record. >Good design, _demonstrated_ passive safety features, and an _operable_ >fuel cycle. I’d call that pretty good experience. >EBR-II sounds good, but I’ve never seen a good analysis of its costs,
It’s a test/research reactor — the cost figures on it would be meaningless. It’s _not_ meant to be cost effective at the 60MWe size. >and am skeptical of how well a utility might be able to run it.
Why? Training would be needed to pass along the maintenance of a piping system that has sodium in it instead of water, but that’s expected. The maintenance on the primary side is lower (sodium is non-corrosive) and the maintenance of the secondary side has direct anaolgies to present LWR’s. Besides, if you want a "practice facility" for the utility to "get used to" operating an LMR, EBR-II could provide excellent experience. >And, the idea of molten sodium pipes sandwiched between hot water and a >fissioning core makes me a little uneasy.
1) You ought to review your conception of what a steam generator looks like… 2) Ugh !! What more than a demonstrated 27+ years operating experience do you want!? The _same_ steam generator has been going for that long with NO steam/sodium interations. >>French experience with breeders has been very poor. >So all breeder designs are bad? Come on… >The French are usually cited as the examples of a working breeder program. >Has anyone else got a production breeder program on line?
I believe that the Japanese are in the process of designing/building their first fast reactor. I don’t know what stage it’s in, or if it’s a metal or oxide core… Anybody ?
– | Purdue University | I’m still working on "how?" ! School of Nuclear Engineering |
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Strategies, plans, hints, whispers, and promises abound. The >"alternative energy strategies" (a grand descriptor for a null set), >including those of the present set of incompetents in government, have a >common characteristic. They do not produce much energy. >Beware of junk bond dealers and the like. The level of scrutiny given >to the details of these various plans and strategies is inversely >proportional to their sociopolitical acceptability. >They do sell lots of books and pamphlets and memberships. They do >provoke reverence in the unlettered and uncritical. But their proponents >don’t have any responsibility for producing energy in the real world. >Come on Russ, this is below your usual standard. Something wrong with the >EPRI or RMI claims — then point it out. The standard of what is >sociopolitically acceptable is not written in stone. And certainly one >would have good grounds for believing that Lovins has a better grasp on >reality than the managers of the TVA.
I have to side with Victor on this one, Russ. You can do better, I’ve seen it. I’m putting in compact fluorescents to reduce my electricity use by an estimated $30/month at NO CHANGE OF LIFESTYLE and a break even cost just on lightbulb replacement costs alone. The electricity is freed for other uses at no net cost (in fact, at a net savings). This is, effectively, the same as building capacity to produce $30/month of electricity with everyone continueing to use incandecent bulbs. In general, I HATE FLUORESCENT LIGHTS, but the new crop of CFBs have removed almost all my objections (instant on, no hum, 2900k temp, good color rendition. They still don’t dim and don’t fit in all fixtures, though). There is plenty of room for conservation to ‘produce’ (use ‘free up’ if you like) electricity for growth elsewhere. My ‘fridge is an old GE. It sucks an average of 800W/hr. Absolutely lousy. I’m going to by a new White/Westinghouse that will cut my annual electric bill for refrigeration from about $700/year to about $80/year with NO CHANGE OF LIFESTYLE. This has a payback period (with the ‘fridge bought at COSTCO) of about 1.25 years. True, the new one won’t have an ice maker or water in the door (two features we don’t use), nor will it have the coils under the fridge (I had to look long and hard to find a big fridge with coils exposed on the back. I HATE the noise the fan makes to blow air over the coils under the GE fridge.) To include the features would have taken annual electric cost to about $100. So I can free up $600/year of electricity and break even in 1.25 years. This is ‘found capacity’. Much easier than building a nuke. This summer I’m going to put a reflective insulative barrier on the rafters in the attic so that we don’t need to use the A/C nearly as much (and re-do the soffits and attic peak vent). Payback period estimated at about 1 year. I painted the house light grey rather than the prior dark color a few years ago. It had to be painted anyway ’cause the paint was peeling. A/C use dropped about 30% for free. (And I didn’t like the old Olive Drab color at all! The light grey is much nicer to look at.) The fruit trees and grape vines planted on the south & west sides of the house were planted for fruit, but also reduced A/C useage, for free. (And made the house more comfortable to boot). Doing things like this (living a little smarter and MORE comfortable with a short term cost and long term profit) will have reduced my total electric useage by about 75% by the end of next year. That is a VERY significant ’source’ of electricity. While I won’t have ‘produced’ a single electron, I’ll have freed up alot of generating plant. This is the true ‘green’ solution, and it doesn’t take anything but individual action to achieve it. Please note: I’m not a green fanatic. I’m doing this totally for the bottom line. The payback in reduced costs to me. I’m a budget minded manager at work and educated as an economist (including linear programming process optimization microeconomic analysis). When I do something for the purpose of playing with a technology, I flag it as such (like my alcohol burning lawn mower). This is being done solely because I will make a profit from it. (I HATE working in the attic!, but I like money more!) You can’t just dispose of conservation as an energy strategy with a wave of the hand and some character assassination. (If you want to show that the quantity of ‘found’ electricity from conservation isn’t significant in the big picture, please do so. But don’t just be dismissive about it…) You are capable of doing a much better job of supporting your side. I’d suggest starting with something like industrial vs residential usage levels and the need for more peak plant vs base load as conservation has an effect. (i.e. my A/C isn’t used on marginal days anymore, but it is still in the summer peak days, so the peak is now more pronounced [since the valley is lower], and my conserving a few Watts on lights at night doesn’t help make aluminum in the daytime. You get the idea.) Go for it! — E. Michael Smith …!sun!apple!ems ‘If you can dream it, you can do it’ Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Um, bit out of touch … the ‘activist’ types (as opposed to the >’activated’ types? tend to be down on coal rather heavily as well. >Or have you missed all the ‘green’ hype about greenhouse gases? The >same folks tend to be found against both coal and nuclear, they tend >to support both conservation and ‘renewable’ energy. Oh yes, and they >stongly condemn acid rain as well… >Not necessarily. A lot may pay lip-service to the "I don’t like fossil fuel >either" position, but their actions speak otherwise. Many are intelligent >enough (yes, I’ve seen some ) to realize that fossils are the *only* option, >at least in the short term, to nuclear power — and yet they will still milk >the anti-nuclear cash cow until a nuke is dropped and a fossil fills the void. >Then they wash their hands of the deal with the "of course, we didn’t want >fossils either" line.
This is just plain ignorant. The Union of Concerned Scientists, the Rocky Mountain Institute, EPRI, and even Greepeace have all published alternative energy strategies of varying forms which do not rely on either new fossil or nuclear plants. If you don’t like these plans, critique them. If you want an address for UCS or the Rocky Mountain Institute, I’d be happy to send them to you. >90% of whom will burn natural gas. David Martin, spokesman for the coalition, >calls natural gas an "environmentally favoured" fuel. "Why spend billions on >revamping the nukes?", he said in the Globe and Mail.
And, what do you have against natural gas? —
Response:
>>The Union of Concerned Scientists, the >Rocky Mountain Institute, EPRI, and even Greepeace have all published >alternative energy strategies of varying forms which do not rely on either >new fossil or nuclear plants. If you don’t like these plans, critique them. > ### > I think the problem now is how to extend current plants so that no one > has to be accountable for building a new fossil or nuke plant. At least > you can say, ‘But it was already _there_. It’s not like we built a _new_
RPI and Greenpeace advocate sharp reductions in current coal use. RPI seems to believe that there are newer and better ways to burn coal. >And, what do you have against natural gas? > It’s limited (i.e. fossil). It produces CO2 and CO (not like that really
So is uranium. Nukes with breeders is not known to work. French experience with breeders has been very poor. Is SuperPheonix running again? Anyone got a good estimate on its mtbf? > limited resource (at least there’s lots of coal) is hardly a long-term > solution to much of anything, although it is definitely more eco-friendly > than coal (what isn’t?).
Environmentalists seem to advocate natural gas as a short-term solution while renewables are improved. —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> [...stuff on 'activist' types opposing fossil fuel as well as nukes...] >Not necessarily. A lot may pay lip-service to the "I don’t like fossil fuel >either" position, but their actions speak otherwise. Many are intelligent >enough (yes, I’ve seen some ) to realize that fossils are the *only* option, >at least in the short term, to nuclear power — and yet they will still milk >the anti-nuclear cash cow until a nuke is dropped and a fossil fills the void. >Then they wash their hands of the deal with the "of course, we didn’t want >fossils either" line. >This is just plain ignorant. The Union of Concerned Scientists, the >Rocky Mountain Institute, EPRI, and even Greepeace have all published >alternative energy strategies of varying forms which do not rely on either >new fossil or nuclear plants. If you don’t like these plans, critique them. >If you want an address for UCS or the Rocky Mountain Institute, I’d be >happy to send them to you.
Like I said, their actions speak otherwise. >90% of whom will burn natural gas. David Martin, spokesman for the coalition, >calls natural gas an "environmentally favoured" fuel. "Why spend billions on >revamping the nukes?", he said in the Globe and Mail. >And, what do you have against natural gas?
1) Inefficient for production of electricity, compared to direct heating applications. Very important, considering… 2) Limited supply. Costs will skyrocket in the early next century. 3) Greenhouse gas. Worse than CO2. 4) Has other emissions. Better than oil or coal, but worse than nuclear. 5) Dangerous. Has been known to blow up and cause death with a frequency somewhat higher than that of nuclear. Accepting natural gas as an "environmentally favoured" fuel, even in the short term until alternatives are found, to displace nuclear fuel, shows hypocrisy and ignorance. Jeremy Whitlock "My thoughts are mine, not Mac’s" Dept. Engineering Physics McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Response:
>Um, bit out of touch … the ‘activist’ types (as opposed to the >’activated’ types? tend to be down on coal rather heavily as well. >Or have you missed all the ‘green’ hype about greenhouse gases? The >same folks tend to be found against both coal and nuclear, they tend >to support both conservation and ‘renewable’ energy. Oh yes, and they >stongly condemn acid rain as well…
Not necessarily. A lot may pay lip-service to the "I don’t like fossil fuel either" position, but their actions speak otherwise. Many are intelligent enough (yes, I’ve seen some ) to realize that fossils are the *only* option, at least in the short term, to nuclear power — and yet they will still milk the anti-nuclear cash cow until a nuke is dropped and a fossil fills the void. Then they wash their hands of the deal with the "of course, we didn’t want fossils either" line. Here in Ontario the anti-nuclear coalition (incl. Greenpeace, F.O.E.) is claiming the recent moratorium on nuclear pre-engineering and the even-more- recent deferral of the nuclear option by Ontario Hydro as a victory. The truth of the matter is that we are now investing large sums of money in the refurbishing of old coal plants so they can last beyond their 40-year design life. We have contracted to buy 1000MW firm power from neighbouring Manitoba, generated by hydraulic power. We are upgrading our cross-border links to the States so we can buy more genocidal coal-fired electricity from the Ohio Valley. We are doubling our expected purchases from non-utility generators, 90% of whom will burn natural gas. David Martin, spokesman for the coalition, calls natural gas an "environmentally favoured" fuel. "Why spend billions on revamping the nukes?", he said in the Globe and Mail. In my experience, which is fairly thorough — at least in this part of the world (one of the world’s largest nuclear regions), the main priority is the stomping on nuclear power. Everything else is small potatoes. Jeremy Whitlock "My thoughts are mine, not Mac’s" Dept. Engineering Physics McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.