Sign up | Login with →

Comments by David Walters Subscribe

On The Future of Energy: Why Power Density Matters

I suggest peole look at coal2nuclear.com  On this site are various plants to develop Gen IV reactors (IFR, LFTR, PBMR) on former coal plant sites around the United States. The sites already have the permits, rail/barge/heavy road access, grid connections and cooling water access to make this work.

August 20, 2013    View Comment    

On The Future of Energy: Why Power Density Matters

Well...there is only reason not build a *large* nuclear power plant in an urban envirornment: I would never want to subject a population to a 4 to 5 year, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day massive construction site. I'd actually have to protest this if they build such a plant in, say, the west side of Manhatten or in The Loop area of Chicago. Not gonna happen.


But the newer small modular reactors that are walk-away-safe is altogether another matter. The key is modularity where large sections can be trucked or barged in and assembled. The actual footage of the plant(s) tend to be about the size of a small office building, and all the current designs build downward into the ground and bedrock. As former navy nuke Rod Adams noted, they have very small footprints. Think of any medium construction site where they build an office building in a downtown area and there you have it.


Politically, however, it's likely never to happen until one can convince the local population such a project is safe. If there anything 'dilustonal' about R. Adam's comments, it's the belief that such convincing is willy-nilly an easily achievable thing. But then R. Adam's never said it was. R. Adams we trying to show the readership here that it is safe, the building easily accomplished and the decentralized nature of these very dense energy generation stations are an ideal way to go. I agree with him.

August 20, 2013    View Comment    

On The Future of Energy: Why Power Density Matters

Well...there is only reason not build a *large* nuclear power plant in an urban envirornment: I would never want to subject a population to a 4 to 5 year, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day massive construction site. I'd actually have to protest this if they build such a plant in, say, the west side of Manhatten or in The Loop area of Chicago. Not gonna happen.


But the newer small modular reactors that are walk-away-safe is altogether another matter. The key is modularity where large sections can be trucked or barged in and assembled. The actual footage of the plant(s) tend to be about the size of a small office building, and all the current designs build downward into the ground and bedrock. As former navy nuke Rod Adams noted, they have very small footprints. Think of any medium construction site where they build an office building in a downtown area and there you have it.


Politically, however, it's likely never to happen until one can convince the local population such a project is safe. If there anything 'dilustonal' about R. Adam's comments, it's the belief that such convincing is willy-nilly an easily achievable thing. But then R. Adam's never said it was. R. Adams we trying to show the readership here that it is safe, the building easily accomplished and the decentralized nature of these very dense energy generation stations are an ideal way to go. I agree with him.

August 20, 2013    View Comment    

On Saudi Arabia to Unleash Solar by Investing $109 Billion

I suspect most who read this article think that the King is infact wanting make SA the "Kindom of Renewables" or something similiar.

S. Arabia will NEVER export solar energy to Europe. The distance, even with UHVDC is too far. They are building solar for a few, more practical reasons:

1. They want to appear to be for low-carbon energy.

2. They want to use solar to supplement their incredibly fast growing load.

3. They want to do point 2. above so they can sell more fossil fuel. They are quite open about this as they are slowly eating up their fossil fuel they'd like to export to provide energy needs at home.

Secondly, they are investing even MORE than this $100 billion in NUCLEAR ENERGY with the proposal now approved to build 16 reactors for around 20GWs of energy. This, unlike solar, is around the clock power so they can delainate sea water at night when th load goes down a bit (it stays up because of the use of airconditioning on a massive basis).

S. Arabia is quite typical in this regard not putting or investing in only one form of low carbon energy but looking ALL including nuclear. They are joining an ever growing list of developing countries investing massively in new low-carbon energy of all sorts which includes China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Ghana, S. AFrica and so on. This is the future of energy investment.

May 18, 2012    View Comment    

On Is there really any need for baseload power?

My, my...the "we don't need baseload again". Generally I don't like the attacking the credential argument. I think statements should be valued on their own merits and discussed as such...except when two  dialectically opposites come together to synthesize something so incredibly ignorant that it is VERY appropriate to question the credentials...in this case, a lawyer with no technical expertise in a position where he appears as an expert who tries to make a technical argument. Shame on him! Rod was absolutely correct to solve the dialectical contradiction that should be obvious to many but, in this case was, not.

 More importantly, again striking at some important philosophical and methodological flaws, Rod notes that the 'dream' of many renewable advocates is to restrict consumption so as to better make such renewables more attractive...and work. The consumer always determines what the generation is every time they use it. Renewable advocates have to propose something akin to a high tech version of Nigeria, where power is on and off due to the inability of the system to conform to load. Always a bad thing. Never a good thing. But such is gambit that many are advocating with the "smart meter" (we just received ours from PG&E) and *massive* amounts of expensive renewables.

 I vote no on the Chairman's proposal and condemn his ignorance as dangerous.

David Walters

24 years as a power plant control operator

 


March 19, 2010    View Comment    

On India Poised to Launch Far-Reaching National Solar Mission

Also, the TVA electrified the lower Mid-West at a loss. That wasn't the point. It is a long term investment...a social investement, that pays off with brighter and more well educated students, healthier rural populations, etc. It's win-wind. And the State should intervene, like the US did under FDR, to see that it happens. Yes, the load is very small...which allows for smaller grids, but grids nevertheless...reaching out from medium and smaller urban centers as Charles above suggests.
January 20, 2010    View Comment    

On India Poised to Launch Far-Reaching National Solar Mission

Nathan, I must protest your inverted use of 'cynical'. Your "laterns and a few cell phones" is exactly what is NOT needed. It it his western idea that it's "OK to live in energy starvation with a battery and a hand crank...". You don't say this but it's implied. I've seen the laterns used, plugs in that run off of solar cells during the day. I have one word for this: "pathedic". It is exactly what is holding India back from development. The standard, by any one looking to the future is very, very simple: "can it power a light switch?"

Solar as described cannot. It is pathedic. What Indian's want is 24/365 'laterns'...that is, to be able to read, cook, in safe reliable lighting. Not spot lights and LEDs and Christmas lights, but a simply, light bulb that will go on when they need it. They need refrigerators so their food will not spoil and last a few days longer, a cold drink perhaps in India's hot climate. Not a massive Sub-zero SUV of a fridge, but a small, half height, fridge the kind of which sits under your office desk. Not a plasma screen, but a small radio and perhaps a small TV set, on-demand connections to the internet, not broadband, but any connection. And that, Nathan, is the start, and the result, of a grid in development based on baseload power.

 The solar example you cite is the exact opposite India needs to go in. It needs to start deploying it's smaller, sub-700MW nuclear reactors that grids can grown from, provide this sort of abundent energy. Solar simply keeps them...in the dark.

January 19, 2010    View Comment    

On The Dependence of Renewables on Government

Stephen states "...In fact China will end up with more wind and solar than nuclear by 2020..."

More 'what' exactly? Certainly not *power* as measured in GWhours.

I also think you will see, despite the PRC gov'ts proclamations to the contrary, a slowing down of the rate of their electrical load well before 2020.

January 18, 2010    View Comment    

On Nuclear Drive Trumps Safety Risks and High Cost

the difference is that Peter Lang's piece was back up by linked research. If you looked at hte discussion on BNC you would know that. No one was able to seriously dispute anything Peter Lang noted.

DW


January 18, 2010    View Comment    

On Nuclear Drive Trumps Safety Risks and High Cost

This is the most slimiest rhetorical and hyperbole filled bucket of garbage that has ever appeared on the EC. BigGav should be ashamed of himself. This is not the kind of thoughtful, even anti-nuclear, analysis I look for here. I doubt others do either.
January 17, 2010    View Comment    

On Taking distributed energy seriously

Steve, you display a kind of 'vast ingorance' on technology development. The *entire* Indian nuclear development is based on using standard LWRs and PHWR (CANDU type) reactors, fast reactors and advanced HWRs in a 3 phased development. If you were really inquisitive, and now I suspect you are not, you'd look at these.

The Indians are putting big money into deployment of these reactors with the first phase under under way and building of the second face already in the works. These cheaper reactors as in the second phase. It will take some years of study to develop them and then they will be on their way. They are simply not ready for full deployment in India or overseas.

They will deploy them exactly the same way the Koreans employed their cheap APR-1400...after they start building a few then they will export them. 6 years ago I raised this *exact* point about the Koreans and bloggers like Steve said the *exact* same thing: why are not the Koreans exporting them? Now we see they are (I actually thought it would be until they actually put them on line first but the Koreans evidently knew what they were doing better than me).

The antis usually refrain "well they don't exist now, so lets not even talk about them". They love to talk about cheap, large scale thermal storage even if that doesn't exist now. Or wind-into-pump storage/thermal storage and that doesn't exist now. But I can see, because I'm not ideologically disposed not to, the possibility of these technologies being deployed and having an impact. You Steve?

DW


January 17, 2010    View Comment    

On Taking distributed energy seriously

I'm wondering why you'd have to 'guard them' if they are already in secure facilities such as substations? If they are underground they can be easily sealed off of something really bad happens.

The are no 'factory built reactors'. Now. Last year 3 were announced and ready for first mock ups and R&D builds. It is all coming eventually.

I think you statement is better said that renewables could be deployed where nuclear in general will not work. LFTR/MSRs and IFRs will be deployed, I'm convinced. As such we will gravitate over the next 50 years toward a Gen IV economy. See the comments today on this on the EC by HIMADRI BANERJI:

India and not China nor South Korea to Lead the way for low cost nuclear reactors

 


January 16, 2010    View Comment