Sign up | Login with →

Comments by Paul O Subscribe

On Energy Finance: German Solar Four Times Higher Than Finnish Nuclear Energy

The proof is in the pudding. Nuclear power has been churning out insane amounts of electricity and heat energy for the benefit of  our country for multiple decades now. And we can do even better with more modern nuclear power designs.

I hope I am wrong, but you seem to be almost hoping/praying for some overwhelming disaster in a US nuclear power plant, fact is that we haven't seen a major disaster of the type you hope for in the US, and this is not by luck. 

We do know how to design nuclear power plants which cannot melt down, period. We also know how to design nuclear power plants which are Walk away safe. That means that if we abandon the plant completely, it will coast down  to a stop on its own with out any danger or radiation release.

The fact is, that if we are trully interested in a replacement technology for FF power, something that can actually close down/displace both Coal and Natural gas, the answer is in nuclear technology, and since we know how to build modern walk away safe nuclear plants we should not allow unfounded fear and bias to prevent us from availing this powerful technology to the benefit of mankind.

If the goal is to offer the world a power source that is carbon free, safe, reliable/dependable, and able to be used as a direct One to One replacement for Coal/Natural gas/Other FF power plants, the answer almost surely lies with new, reliable, walk awy safe, nuclear power plants.

May 21, 2013    View Comment    

On Wind Energy Growing Faster than Coal in China: False Math

"....conveniently forgetting to add "for one hour on the sunniest day of the year". 

I don't mean to be bad, but I almost fell over laughing. This is why I call them Renewables Enthusiasts.  What is trully tragic is that whatever meager funds we have available to secure FF and Carbon free energy may be squandered away by politicians who are slurping up the dis-information.

May 21, 2013    View Comment    

On Energy Finance: German Solar Four Times Higher Than Finnish Nuclear Energy

So in the end, you do want to keep FFs and CO2 pumping into the atmosphere ?

What I am saying is that any hard look at Nuclear power will note that it produces almost no CO2, and Very few deaths/illnesses when compared with other sources of power.

I do conceed that current commercial nuclear technology is by no means ideal to my thinking. We know how to build nuclear plants that are Walk away safe and It is stupid that we have not done so.

I do blame paranoia generated by anti-nuclear forces for helping stunt the development of the very Carbon Free kind of power that they say that we need.

I favor nuclear power because is  it is a source that we ourselves control (not farmed from Mother Nature), and we may situate it  wherever we see fit (even off the planet on Mars for example) and we can increase its output, day or night, and in any season of the year as per our needs. Lastly,  It is also a direct replacement (and displacement) for FF based power, both Thermal and Electrical.

I also think Nuclear waste problem is really a red herring. What we call waste is actually fuel for MSR's like LFTRs. I definitely don't want to see Nuclear waste buried, it would be a horrible waste of a valuable resource.

May 20, 2013    View Comment    

On Energy Finance: German Solar Four Times Higher Than Finnish Nuclear Energy

Eric, 

Please tell us How Nexolon plans to power those 70000 homes at night and during cloudy days. Thanks for your prompt reply.

May 20, 2013    View Comment    

On Climate Change: Looking at 400 ppm and Beyond

Most renewables enthusiasts, refuse to acknowledge that Solar Panels fade over time and eventually die.  Worse, solar panels cease to be of  much practical use long before they completely die, hence the need to continually replace dead and dud panels..

Enthusiasts also refuse to acknowledge that solar panels need to be cleaned regularly, and  they produce no power at all at night and very little at dusk or dawn (capacity factor woes). The most horrible myopia of enthusiasts is that we have no good and affordable way to store sunlight. I certainly hope for better Lithium technologies in batteries, but seriously, do we even have enough Lithium mines to cover what we'll need? Are we going to recycle the toxic metals/chemicals involved in such massive battery making? I would think that Aluminium Air batteries are better for the task at hand,

Lest solar enthusiasts unleash their wrath at me for stating the obvious (above), I want to state that in a recent debate with you (IK), I was persuaded by you of  possibility of a practical Global Solar grid as a solution.

I've said it before and will repeat it here. We need to look very well at technologies for remediating AGW by geo-engineering. We also need to learn to adapt to the unpleasant effects of GW, we are not going to avoid GW any time soon, so we have to be able to adapt to it or ameliorate it.

Finally if the Earth does end up melting away, The Anti-Nuclear Renewables and GW Enthusiasts will share a large blame for it, because by their irrational opposition to nuclear power, they are practically hobbling us in our effectiveness inm trying to replace FFs.

May 20, 2013    View Comment    

On Energy Finance: German Solar Four Times Higher Than Finnish Nuclear Energy

AGW will proceed unabaited and CO2 level will go up way past the recent 400ppm level because so called Anti-Global warming Renewables Activists are going to get us trapped in a position where we'll spend ourselves to oblivion and still not have the carbon free/ low carbon energy that we need to displace FFs.

Thanks to their otherworldly faith in renewables (without storage) and irrationally blind hatred of nuclear power.

May 18, 2013    View Comment    

On Energy Finance: German Solar Four Times Higher Than Finnish Nuclear Energy

Ah! a Nuclear Hater..I see!

May 18, 2013    View Comment    

On Fracking and Your Electric Bill: How the Natural Gas ‘Boom’ Affects What You Pay?

Wow, somehow this just doesn't feel like a TEC post.

May 15, 2013    View Comment    

On Will PG&E Be the First Utility To Fall To Solar Energy?

Read This please: This is what the planet needs, Insane amounts of energy that is not at the mercy of mother Nature. This is the type of nuclear power we should have had all along. Whether using Uranium or Thorium it is far better than any other source of Thermal and Electrical power.


We don't need to be beggars subsiting at the edge of mother nature's providence.

 

Teenager Designs Safer Nuclear Power Plants

Do nuclear power plants need a redesign? Critics of nuclear energyseem to think so, and so does nuclear energy advocate, Taylor Wilson. A physics wunderkind, Wilson became the youngest person to ever create fusion at age 14. And since graduating from high school last year, he's devoted himself to finding innovative solutions to the world's biggest problems.

The now nineteen-year-old Wilson recently spoke to a TED audience about his design for a small, modular fission reactor that is both less expensive and much safer to operate than today's nuclear reactors.

Its assembly-line construction, 30-year fuel life and low usage cost make Wilson's reactor an ideal source of electricity for both developing nations and space explorers, according to the young scientist.

 

To get an idea of how today's nuclear reactors work, Wilson first explained to his listeners at TED how electricity is produced using a steam turbine. In a steam turbine system, water boils and turns to steam, which turns the turbine and creates electricity.

Nuclear fission, Wilson said, is really just a fancy tool for getting the water in a steam turbine system to boil quickly and steadily.

Today's nuclear power plants produce steam for their turbines using pressurized-water reactors — or big pots of water under high pressure — which are heated up with help from uranium dioxide fuel rods encased in zirconium. These rods control and maintain the nuclear fission reaction.

When nuclear power was first used to heat water in a turbine system, it was a big advancement in existing technology. But Wilson said his idea for a redesign stemmed from the suspicion that it wasn't really the best way to do it.

"Is fission kind of played out, or is there something left to innovate here?" Wilson said he asked himself. "And I realized that I had hit upon something that I think has this huge potential to change the world."

Instead of finding a new way to boil water, Wilson's compact, molten salt reactor found a way to heat up gas. That is, really heat it up.

Wilson's fission reactor operates at 600 to 700 degrees Celsius. And because the laws of thermodynamics say that high temperatures lead to high efficiencies, this reactor is 45 to 50 percent efficient.

Traditional steam turbine systems are only 30 to 35 percent efficient because their reactors run at low temperatures of about 200 to 300 degrees Celsius.

And Wilson's reactor isn't just hot, it's also powerful. Despite its small size, the reactor generates between 50 and 100 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power anywhere from 25,000 to 100,000 homes, according to Wilson.

Another innovative component of Wilson's take on nuclear fission is its source of fuel. The molten salt reactor runs off of "down-blended weapons pits." In other words, all the highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium collecting dust since the Cold War could be put to use for peaceful purposes.

And unlike traditional nuclear power plants, Wilson's miniature power plants would be buried below ground, making them a boon for security advocates.

According to Wilson, his reactor only needs to be refueled every 30 years, compared to the 18-month fuel cycle of most power plants. This means they can be sealed up underground for a long time, decreasing the risk of proliferation.

Wilson's reactor is also less prone to proliferation because it doesn't operate at high pressure like today's pressurized-water reactors or use ceramic control rods, which release hydrogen when heated and lead to explosions during nuclear power plant accidents, like the one at Fukushima in 2011.

In the event of an accident in one of Wilson's reactors, the fuel from the core would drain into a "sub-critical" setting- or tank- underneath the reactor, which neutralizes the reaction. The worst that could happen, according to Wilson, is that the reactor is destroyed.

"But we're not going to contaminate large quantities of land," said Wilson. "So I really think that in the, say, 20 years it's going to take us to get fusion and make fusion a reality, this could be the source of energy that provides carbon-free electricity."

Wilson said his idea could help combat climate change, bring affordable power to the developing world and power rockets to explore space.

"There's something really poetic about using nuclear power to propel us to the stars," Wilson said, "Because the stars are giant fusion reactors. They're giant nuclear cauldrons in the sky ... there's something poetic about perfecting nuclear fission and using it as a future source of innovative energy."

This story was provided by TechNewsDaily, a sister site to LiveScience. Emailasklizzyp@gmail.com or follow her @techEpalermo. Follow us @TechNewsDaily, on Facebook or on Google+.

May 15, 2013    View Comment    

On Will PG&E Be the First Utility To Fall To Solar Energy?

Here is where you lost me: " nuclear power is a threat to human existence both in the present and in the future with the waste created."

Are you serious, do you  really think Nuclear Scientists and its  proponents are are that stupid or uncaring about our mutual planet, or are you simply being  a religiously fanatical RE evangelist and Nuclear Hater?

May 13, 2013    View Comment    

On How Is Expanding Oil and Gas Production Consistent with Addressing Climate Change?

The more reason to hurry up and develop and build those new 4th Gen Nuclear Plants, else by the time we start buying them from China, it may be too late.

May 12, 2013    View Comment    

On How Is Expanding Oil and Gas Production Consistent with Addressing Climate Change?

Nathan, Kindly allow me to repost myself in agreement with you: 

http://theenergycollective.com/roger-pielke-jr/220836/europe-s-climate-fail#comment-59361

 

Roger,

Thank you for a timely and eye opening exposition. There is indeed a wide gulf between reality and hope. I have maintained that decarbonization is more dependent on the availability of practical alternatives to carbon, than anything else. If we don't have something that works well and is affordable, with which to replace carbon as a fuel, we will be doomed to continue using carbon till the end of time.

In my opinion, legislation will have to be brought to bear on the decarbonization problem.

1) We could for instance legislate the end of any new coal plants without Sequestration, and we could  legislate retroactive sequestration of carbon from existing coal plants.

2) We could direct Darpa and DOE to come up with a working 4th Gen. Nuclear design, preferably modular,  which once tested and approved, should be given priority in the ability to cheaply reproduce the design wherever it's needed.

3) We could Legislatively forbid the construction of more coal plants once step2 above is ready, while using natural gas for the sole purpose of balancing Wind and Solar fluctions.

Thanks again for the post.

 
May 12, 2013    View Comment