# What do you think of the new Micro Nuclear?



## PulpFaction (Jul 23, 2009)

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

If I had some kind of business that was sucking a lot of energy, I can see it being an awesome alternative to things like solar, hyrdo and wind, which in some settings just don't make a lot of sense or are at least NOT year-round solutions. 

I can also see it making sense for small communities, or an extended family living in the same area...

I hope they continue to work on these products so someday I can have one that fulfills the needs of an individual household and would be within the budget of that household.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

............................ yipee I guess. We need an answer to diminishing fossil fuels. I don't hate nukes but it's be easier on my mind to see solar and wind spin us our needs.


----------



## greif (May 31, 2009)

stupid stupid


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

Anyone else notice the date on the article?

Old news, but I do think they are a viable solution for some.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Tough call. I prefer solar.But may have a use,just sounds horribly dangerous to me.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090813/NEWS08/908130349&template=printart

Interesting article showing transmission infrastructure must also be expanded to allow for large scale wind and solar generation.

Small scale nuclear plants have been used on ships for what, 30 years now. How many households could the nuclear generators from a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier supply?


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Ken Scharabok said:


> http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090813/NEWS08/908130349&template=printart
> 
> Small scale nuclear plants have been used on ships for what, 30 years now. How many households could the nuclear generators from a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier supply?


190 MW from a Nimitz class Carrier.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

my problem with micro nukes is the same problem I have with large scale nukes .
what do you do with the spent fuel


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

"190 MW from a Nimitz class Carrier."

According to their website the nearby TVA New Johnsonville (TN) coal plant produces 550 MW which can support 400,000 households. Using that ratio 190 MW would support some 130,000 households.


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

Old article eh? Well I did read about them before and again last year but didn't remember Toshiba being associated with them. Sure works for me. Now if I just win the lottery-----------

I generally use between 9 and 10 KWH per day. At my use rate even the Toshiba unit would power a lot of homes.

This sounds promising and could be used in south windows.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10235480-54.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1


----------



## kendall j (Mar 30, 2007)

I agree solar and wind would produce no waste. Nuclear is nice however that there are no emissions and the output is high. I still can't figure out why we aren't doing more to recycle the spent fuel. It works in France, the spent fuel is recycled and 90-95% of it can be reused to produce more power. Eventually, it all ends up as waste, but at that rate it would take longer because less is being used.

Kendall


----------



## benevolance (Aug 10, 2008)

the real problem with nuke waste are the waste that remain radioactive for thousands of years... what do you do with that stuff? 

America stores them underground and in cement bunkers... but this is a problem that will not go away


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

benevolance said:


> the real problem with nuke waste are the waste that remain radioactive for thousands of years... what do you do with that stuff?
> 
> America stores them underground and in cement bunkers... but this is a problem that will not go away


 As has been proven over and over again, renewable energy DOES work, DOES work well, and DOES work in a way that does not poison the next thousand generations of our own decendants. The clean, pollution-free energy we need is available, all we need to do is be smart enough to harvest it. (millions of people already are)
Despite what some in the nuclear industry would have us believe, nukes are NOT a 'clean and green' source of power. Any consideration of nukes must include the costs to the enviornment and human health posed by uranium mining,as well as the long term costs and effects of nuclear waste disposal. We owe it to future generations to NOT litter the countryside with radioactive waste products.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

greif said:


> stupid stupid


There's an intelligent argument.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

kendall j said:


> I agree solar and wind would produce no waste. Nuclear is nice however that there are no emissions and the output is high. I still can't figure out why we aren't doing more to recycle the spent fuel. It works in France, the spent fuel is recycled and 90-95% of it can be reused to produce more power. Eventually, it all ends up as waste, but at that rate it would take longer because less is being used.
> 
> Kendall


We do not recycle Nuclear waste because of an Executive Order created by Jimmy Carter. I think the main reason this came about is because you end up with a lot of weapons grade Plutonium.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

greg273 said:


> As has been proven over and over again, renewable energy DOES work, DOES work well, and DOES work in a way that does not poison the next thousand generations of our own decendants. The clean, pollution-free energy we need is available, all we need to do is be smart enough to harvest it. (millions of people already are)
> Despite what some in the nuclear industry would have us believe, nukes are NOT a 'clean and green' source of power. Any consideration of nukes must include the costs to the enviornment and human health posed by uranium mining,as well as the long term costs and effects of nuclear waste disposal. We owe it to future generations to NOT litter the countryside with radioactive waste products.


Renewable energy has not been proven that it can meet all of our energy needs. I'm all for renewable energy, but we are a long way from replacing all of our coal and nuclear power plants.

There is no such thing as "pollution free" harvest. There is alot of pollution associated with manufacturing solar cells. Solar cells have an expected life, when they are dead they must be disposed of. Any use of biomass has the costs of harvest, it takes equipment which burns fuel to go out and get it. Then there is transportation.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

BooBoo <-----"It'll NEVER Work"


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Keep it friendly folks.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

Here's an interesting article on recycling nuclear fuel:
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1108


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

benevolance said:


> the real problem with nuke waste are the waste that remain radioactive for thousands of years... what do you do with that stuff?
> 
> *America stores them underground and in cement bunkers... *but this is a problem that will not go away


That's simply not true. Most waste is stored on site at the plant


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Wasn't there a storage facility being built into a mountain? Short of lifting it into space the waste storage is one ugly problem. That said we're already commited to finding a solution with the waste we have now that nuclear should have a future. I don't suppose we can get the navy to run these micro nukes huh? Guess they have better things to do.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

Enviormentalist don't want us to find a solution to the problem because then they have no argument against it.

There already is a solution that will eliminate 95% of the waste. It's called reprocessing and you only end up with weapons grade if that's what you reprocess it to. 

Both the Enviros and the mining industry doesn't want reprocessing. Enviros for the reason above and the mines because it will mean a loss of sales. Reprocessing would be a big win for the general public so the enviros and the mining companies wish to keep the public as misinformed as possible. And many of the comments in this thread show that!


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

wy_white_wolf said:


> Enviormentalist don't want us to find a solution to the problem because then they have no argument against it.


Other than the fact that nuclear is costs way to much


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

Deacon Mike said:


> Other than the fact that nuclear is costs way to much


The only way to produce electricity cheaper is hydro.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

wy_white_wolf said:


> The only way to produce electricity cheaper is hydro.


Not if your looking at full life cycle costs. Nukes are pretty cheap to run. They are obscenely expensive to build


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Deacon Mike said:


> Not if your looking at full life cycle costs. Nukes are pretty cheap to run. They are obscenely expensive to build


Decommission doesnt come cheap either.After what,their 30 year or so lifespan?

And didnt construction costs destroy several utilities bottom lines back in nukes heyday with 300% cost over runs?

Oh,and name me a mechanical device that HASNT failed......Maybe thats why they had to legally cap damages in event of failure?

No thank you,only nuke I trust is Gods nuke,the sun.I dont need power that can kill 100's of thousands if some moron fouls it up,or a gauge fails or...........pick your failure.

BooBoo <------"Chernobyl"


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

"Decommission doesnt come cheap either.After what,their 30 year or so lifespan?"

That's one aspect I like about small 'city' sized nuclear reactors. As I understand it when a U.S. Navy nuclear-powered ship is scrapped the reactors are defueled and cut out for entombment somewhere in the western desert area.

An aircraft carrier size nuclear want might take up a city block on shore.

Nuclear plants do require a water source, but fortunately many U.S. cities were built close to one.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

mightybooboo said:


> Decommission doesnt come cheap either.After what,their 30 year or so lifespan?
> <------"Chernobyl"


"Lifespan" depends on how you define it. If you are going by the life of the Pressure Vessel then yes 30 years is about right. A Nuclear power plant can have an indefinate life with renovations and upgrades. Many plants are being renovated to add 25-30 years to their life.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

The issue on Nuclear waste is important, and I don't want to sound like I'm trivializing it; but it has been overblown. Most power plants generate about 20 tons of waste a year. If we were to recycle the U235 and Pu239 this would be even lower. Most plants store their own waste.

The vast majority of Nuclear waste comes not from Nuclear Power but from Medicine, Education, Science, and Weapons.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

I dont know George,I still dont like the poison laying around in any form.

Just think its a bad idea and Im glad there is opposition to it.Think we can do better and safer.And certainly nothing we do on energy will ever be a free lunch.

IMO of course.


----------



## PulpFaction (Jul 23, 2009)

greg273 said:


> As has been proven over and over again, renewable energy DOES work, DOES work well, and DOES work in a way that does not poison the next thousand generations of our own decendants. The clean, pollution-free energy we need is available, all we need to do is be smart enough to harvest it. (millions of people already are)
> Despite what some in the nuclear industry would have us believe, nukes are NOT a 'clean and green' source of power. Any consideration of nukes must include the costs to the enviornment and human health posed by uranium mining,as well as the long term costs and effects of nuclear waste disposal. We owe it to future generations to NOT litter the countryside with radioactive waste products.


I think we also owe it to future generations to not dam up our rivers, killing off fish runs and causing other side-effects, littering our waste systems with massive banks of dead batteries, and interfering with flight patterns in migratory birds as well as killing out entire populations of bats that keep harmful insect populations in check.

These are the very real side-effects of the so-called "good" kinds of renewable energy. And to top it off, most are not viable everywhere, and in some locations, NONE are really a good solution.

That being said, I'm still a fan of all of them and hope continuing research is able to solve some of these problems, but I feel the same way about nuclear power generation.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

georgec said:


> Renewable energy has not been proven that it can meet all of our energy needs. I'm all for renewable energy, but we are a long way from replacing all of our coal and nuclear power plants.
> 
> There is no such thing as "pollution free" harvest. There is alot of pollution associated with manufacturing solar cells. Solar cells have an expected life, when they are dead they must be disposed of. Any use of biomass has the costs of harvest, it takes equipment which burns fuel to go out and get it. Then there is transportation.


 You think producing solar cells generates more pollution than the nuclear fuel cycle? I highly doubt it. I do know for a fact that the 'embodied energy' in a modern photovoltaic cell equals about 2 years of said cells energy production. Meaning the energy it took to build it is repaid after 2 years. After that, it goes on producing electricity for another 30+ years. No one really knows how long a PV module will produce electricity, the first ones built are still producing power. The main components of PV cells are glass, aluminum, silica, and tiny amounts of rare earth elements. All highly recyclable and not prone to end up in the waste stream.
So we recylce and reprocess nuclear waste and end up with what, plutonium? Hardly an innocuous substance there. In fact, it is the most poisonuous substance on earth.
I know 'renewable energy' is not going to fully power the needs of modern America. Not anytime soon.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

wy_white_wolf said:


> The only way to produce electricity cheaper is hydro.


 I've seen a study that actually claims wind power is cheaper per megawatt than nuclear. I'l try to find a link...


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

greg273 said:


> You think producing solar cells generates more pollution than the nuclear fuel cycle? I highly doubt it.


I don't think I said that, I just said that solar is not polution free. Of all the aternative energy systems, Solar is the least likely to be commercially viable on a large scale (>25% of all electic needs). Solar only works when the sun shines; and you can't store AC electricity (not efficiently anyways). Not only that, Solar energy requires huge parcels of land. If you think about it, that itself is a form of polution, you are covering large area of the earth. How does that effect the environment?

Wind generators also have their issues. The biggest one right now being we don't have the infrastructer to support them. Where the wind blows the best, we don't have power lines. Wind also suffers from unsteady supply. The wind doesn't always blow. I do think that wind has the potential to be a big player; but you have to have some big plants (coal or Nuclear) to back them up when the wind isn't blowing.

Nuclear Power is a proven technology. They don't need major infrastructure upgrades. If the US made it a priority we could double the Nuke capacity in 10 years. France gets the majority of their power from Nuclear, there is not reason we couldn't do the same.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

mightybooboo said:


> I dont know George,I still dont like the poison laying around in any form.
> 
> Just think its a bad idea and Im glad there is opposition to it.Think we can do better and safer.And certainly nothing we do on energy will ever be a free lunch.
> 
> IMO of course.


I never said that Nuclear Power is perfect; but at this point in time it is the least offensive to the environment of all the large scale systems (coal, hydro, nuke, and gas).


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

I thought France got 100% of its electricity from nuclear plants.

Coal? Well, TVA is going to spend a couple of billion cleaning up the coal ash spill in Kingston, TN. There is extremely limited use for coal fly ash. It has been used for road fill and in concrete, but I suspect now in VERY limited amounts. Contains concerning amounts of arsenic (sp?) and such. Either site storage or a landfill somewhere.

Primary problem with long-term storage of nuclear waste is no one wants it in their backyard.

Natural gas is a relative clean alternative but has finite availability. Supply and demand would indicate home heat cost and increased industrial cost would go up if used in greater quantities by the electricity production industry.

Hydro. Within the past week there has been an accident at a hydro plant in Siberia which killed some 68 workers. As noted, there are both upstream and down stream problems created.

As noted, you get wind power when the wind blows. You get solar power when the sun shines. There has to be some reliable sources to make up the demand difference.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Solar requires 'huge parcels of land'?? How about all the rooftops of America? Take a look around....see all those black rooftops, baking in the sun day in and day out? Put PV modules on them, lets REDUCE the number of mountains that need to be blown up, lets REDUCE the amount of nuclear waste that needs to be stored for thousands of years.
There is no need to 'store' the energy. The energy produced during the day can be used, directly offsetting an equivalent amount fossil fuels. Then, at night, spool up the fossil fueled generators. It is not an either/or situation. Solar can OFFSET power generated by conventional sources. It is an highly underused resource. And there is NOTHING stopping millions of us from utilizing the FREE power raining down upon the earth every second the sun is shining.
And solar IS indeed pollution free, once the initial debt of producing the panels is paid back, which as i have stated, equals TWO years of the panels generating capacity. What other form of energy production can claim that? Coal?? Nope. Nuclear?? Nope, still gotta mine the uranium and dispose of the waste. What waste is there with solar?


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Was watching some TV program on Israel. It said the high majority of households had a solar water tank on the roof. Simply a black painted tank. Incoming water supply for hot water went through it to faucets. I don't recall if there was an internal tank/hot water heater, but perhaps not given their climate.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

greg273 said:


> Solar requires 'huge parcels of land'?? How about all the rooftops of America? Take a look around....see all those black rooftops, baking in the sun day in and day out? Put PV modules on them, lets REDUCE the number of mountains that need to be blown up, lets REDUCE the amount of nuclear waste that needs to be stored for thousands of years.
> There is no need to 'store' the energy. The energy produced during the day can be used, directly offsetting an equivalent amount fossil fuels. Then, at night, spool up the fossil fueled generators. It is not an either/or situation. Solar can OFFSET power generated by conventional sources. It is an highly underused resource. And there is NOTHING stopping millions of us from utilizing the FREE power raining down upon the earth every second the sun is shining.
> And solar IS indeed pollution free, once the initial debt of producing the panels is paid back, which as i have stated, equals TWO years of the panels generating capacity. What other form of energy production can claim that? Coal?? Nope. Nuclear?? Nope, still gotta mine the uranium and dispose of the waste. What waste is there with solar?


Putting PV panels on roofs is not practical for the majority of the population. 
Who is going to maintain these panels? PV panels need to be cleaned on a reqular basis (if you want them to be as efficient as possible). Roofs are rarely pitched for optimum sun exposure. What about the millions of people that live in apartments?

Solar power has a very low energy density. There are about 300 watts from one square meter. So if we could get 50% efficiency, you could get 150 watts per square meter. So to replace one 1000MW Nuke or Coal Plant you would need 6.7 million square meters of PV cells. Don't know about you, but I would call that a significant amount of space.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

You're probably right in your arguement but the reality is our society is changing and technology is too. We'll all use/need less power and solar cells will keep on getting better. I'm not sure we'll ever not need nukes, we will always have waste to deal with now anyhow so why make life difficult? One of the more promising solar collection ideas is to build huge collectors in space and transmit the power back to earth via microwaves. Not sure how that will work without cooking birds ..... maybe at the N+S poles? Exciting times we live in, and there's money to be made looking for solutions!


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Home design is in itself an underlooked energy source.Ive been in houses designed around 1900 that are cool in summer and warm in winter based on solar sighting and mass and shading.All not considered at all once we we went to mass produced stick homes.

Problem comes in with the inability to think either outside your comfortable box or inability to grasp there is more to the world than the status quo.

Yep,there is zero reason every new home cant have a solar water heater.It doesnt have to be hot out to work,just needs light.Everybody has lots of light.Not all the time but it would offset huge amts of fossil fuel over its lifetime. 

Too many batteries???? How many millions of cars do we deal with,but battery use would overwhelm us.I doubt it.

Bottom line? Billions of sheep consumers,a handful of energy producers.Who do you think gets the propaganda and political clout to further their means? The elite and the fortunes behind them.

While the worker bee's complain we must have fossil fuels,the independent thinkers among us are managing to move beyond them on our own.

BooBoo <-----"It'll NEVER Work" and it wont just so long as you tell yourself that.Yet Im making my own electricity right now,and running it AT NIGHT and guess what,If I can do it so can ANYONE else.NOT brain surgery,not rocket science,elementary mechanics and nothing more.

Me,Im not a sheep or a slave to the power elite.I just buy solar cells.WOW! WHAT A CONCEPT!

Going to pick up 200 watts and 4 more batts this week.Yep,IT'LL NEVER WORK........ right?


----------



## PulpFaction (Jul 23, 2009)

mightybooboo said:


> Me,Im not a sheep or a slave to the power elite.I just buy solar cells.WOW! WHAT A CONCEPT!
> 
> Going to pick up 200 watts and 4 more batts this week.Yep,IT'LL NEVER WORK........ right?


In the dead of winter here in Southcentral AK we get maybe 3.5-4 hours (usually heavily overcast) daylight hours per day before the sun drops behind the mountain ridge. The intermittent Chinook winds make wind power not an option, they have done studies and found there is currently no wind turbine that could withstand those gusts. Micro hydro is great in the summer as we have plenty of water, but that water stops moving in the winter.

And still, I am working closely with the University of Alaska to try to get a research facility for Renewable Energy set up here to try to overcome some of these issues making year-round "green" renewable energy basically impossible at this point.

We're even considering in-stream hydro technologies in the Turnagain Arm which features some of the greatest tidal power action in the world, but will have to contend with ice flows in the winter and the "Beluga blender" effect in the summer.

At the price we pay for power, there is no group probably anywhere in the country that wants affordable, environmentally friendly power more than us. (To top it off, we're basically a bunch of hippies in this valley.) But so far...it's not really possible.

A small nuke set up at the mouth of the valley would be able to provide us with year-round affordable and renewable power generation, and is currently the only renewable energy source that would be able to do that.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

Don't get me wrong. I am all for alternative energy; but while we are waiting for these technologies we are pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Nuclear power is ready now, it's not perfect, but it works. Nuclear waste is a problem. CO2 is a far more immediate concern.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

Back to the OP. I think the Micro-Nuclear reactors are an awesome technology. You could open up so many frontiers with these (OK that might be a bad thing). If I had 25 million dollars laying around I would buy one. My family and I would have an ulimited source of power for the rest of our lives.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

> Nuclear power is ready now, it's not perfect, but it works. Nuclear waste is a problem. CO2 is a far more immediate concern.


 I agree nukes work and we already have to find a million year solution so (with care) lets use it until we find something else. The number one answer is conservation but with electric cars coming the electrical demand is going to soar!


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

I don't think so. The U.S. simply isn't an electric car friendly county. Take France where those who live in cities work in cities. Those who live in the suburgs/country largely live in the suburgs/country. Not much commuting or running around for groceries and such. Perhaps the only long driving they do is for their summer vacation.

Case in point. The Malibu is Chevy's best selling vehicle. Gas model gets 22/33 mpg. Their 2009 Hybird model gets 26/34. MSRP for the hybrid is $25,555. I can't find what the gas model goes for but I suspect it is considerable less expensive. Are you going to pay say $5K more for an increase of 4/1 mpg?

It remains to be seen how the electric car/hybrids hold up on resale value.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

I like wind and solar energy, but nuclear is definitely a good option. Here are some things to consider:

1. The nuclear fuel was radioactive when it came out of the ground. Spent fuel can very safely be reprocessed and the waste stored underground.

2. Spent fuel frm gas, oil, and coal is either discharged into the atmosphere or stored above ground.

3. Dozens of nuclear power plants are routinely operated in our coastal cities in a very small area with no problems. Any city with a large naval presence has a large number of reactors safely operating on a regular basis.

4. Mechanical devices do fail, but nuclear plants are designed with numerous redundancies, back-up systems, and emergency procedures. The three-mile island incident happened because the procedures were not followed after a mechanical failure.

5. A large percentage of the costs associated with nuclear power is due to the excessive red tape associated with getting approval. This could easily be reduced.

We should be developing wind, solar, and even tidal energy sources, but it is foolish to continue ignoring nuclear as an option.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

georgec said:


> Nuclear Power is a proven technology. They don't need major infrastructure upgrades. If the US made it a priority we could double the Nuke capacity in 10 years. France gets the majority of their power from Nuclear, there is not reason we couldn't do the same.


At a cost of trillions. The US is 5 times the size of France and uses nearly twice the electricity per captia. It never ceases to amaze me that some people (not saying you) scoff at the costs of renewables and then turn around and suggest nukes.



Ken Scharabok said:


> Natural gas is a relative clean alternative but has finite availability.


There's plenty of shale gas in the US. Natural gas is a fossil fuel that produces CO2, but when used instead of coal, it's a winner for the climate. It's also why the US should be able to meet the Waxman Markley targets easily.












Ross said:


> One of the more promising solar collection ideas is to build huge collectors in space and transmit the power back to earth via microwaves.


I've seen that, too. I think it's currently ridiculous, but you never know



mightybooboo said:


> Home design is in itself an underlooked energy source.Ive been in houses designed around 1900 that are cool in summer and warm in winter based on solar sighting and mass and shading.All not considered at all once we we went to mass produced stick homes.


Building design is an as yet untapped gold mine of energy savings. Wooden boxes on a quarter acre are energy vampires. This goes back to Ross's comment on space based solar. Americans seem to be obsessed be the next whiz-bang do-dad, and not the easy simple stuff, that's more effective and MUCH cheaper.





deaconjim said:


> 5. A large percentage of the costs associated with nuclear power is due to the excessive red tape associated with getting approval. This could easily be reduced.


Urban legand. Nuke plants on average have an overnight cost of about $4 billion dollars. But you can't build one 'overnight', it takes about 8 years. Therefore a huge component of costs are capital cost (interest). During the TARP discussion, there were several arguments about privitizing profit and publicly subsudizing failure. No industry benefits from this to the extent that the nuclear industry does.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

Deacon Mike said:


> Urban legand. Nuke plants on average have an overnight cost of about $4 billion dollars. But you can't build one 'overnight', it takes about 8 years. Therefore a huge component of costs are capital cost (interest). During the TARP discussion, there were several arguments about privitizing profit and publicly subsudizing failure. No industry benefits from this to the extent that the nuclear industry does.


This would depend on how you define "red tape". If you define red tape as years of environmental studies, and years begging govt. officials for permission to build one, then I don't think you can call that an urban legend.

Also any components that go into a Nuclear Reactor cost about 10 times more than it would any where else. Every piece of metal in that reactor you can trace back to the mine where the ore came from.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Nuke waste storage doesnt bug me nearly as much as nuke plant failure which is catastrophic,can happen and has happened and will happen again.I dont want to see a large part of my state devastated for like a bazillion years like Chernobyl,at that point an apology just wont cut it.

Thats just too much risk,I would take ANY other power source first,even lung destroying coal plants,at least it can be cleaned up if there is a failure.

There is no turning back the clock when a nuke fails catastrophically.

And I dont want a nuclear fallout cloud coming over me for a failure on the other side of the world either.

That trash is international,doesnt respect borders.So what the hey,you die a few years down the line from a nice cancer.Because Boris fouled up,or Dimitri was paid to look the other way while the plant is deteriorating,not like that doesnt happen in other instances in all fields all over the world.

No thank you.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

On other post


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Ross said:


> I agree nukes work and we already have to find a million year solution so (with care) lets use it until we find something else. The number one answer is conservation but with electric cars coming the electrical demand is going to soar!


And conservation gets such a bad rap,like you are giving up something.Not at all,its getting MODERN tech into the game,like with refrigeration.A freezer no longer weighs 700 lbs and dims the lights when it turns on.

We can cut consumption a lot and it beats producing dirty power instead.

I just bought a TV.The power use for the size ranged from 100 watts on the newest LED backlit LCD big screens out this year,to 200-300 or much more watt LCDs to 600 watt plasma's.Then the power use ranged widely among the same tech depending on brand.I got a plasma using 200 watts,but could have got same size using 550!

All about efficiency in energy use,and we do have options,and improvements continue to show daily.Im optomistic about power and the future of it.Tech will lead us into a better world as long as we demand it and support it.

NEW tech,not your fathers Oldsmobile,that status quo has to be put out to pasture,including nukes.Think future,not past.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> Nuke waste storage doesnt bug me nearly as much as nuke plant failure which is catastrophic,can happen and has happened and will happen again.I dont want to see a large part of my state devastated for like a bazillion years like Chernobyl,at that point an apology just wont cut it.
> 
> Thats just too much risk,I would take ANY other power source first,even lung destroying coal plants,at least it can be cleaned up if there is a failure.
> 
> ...


Can you please describe what catastrophic failures you are concerned about? And when have they happened in the past?


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

> This goes back to Ross's comment on space based solar. Americans seem to be obsessed be the next whiz-bang do-dad, and not the easy simple stuff, that's more effective and MUCH cheaper.


 Thats because the USA is the best source of most whiz bang great ideas. 

Boo I do agree an exploding nuke is forever too. Graphite core reators are by nature somewhat more scary. They rely on machinery to extract the fuel from the moderator to stop the reation. Heavy water reators simply drain off the heavy water to stop the reation. Are there other types?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Ross said:


> Thats because the USA is the best source of most whiz bang great ideas.
> 
> Boo I do agree an exploding nuke is forever too. Graphite core reators are by nature somewhat more scary. They rely on machinery to extract the fuel from the moderator to stop the reation. Heavy water reators simply drain off the heavy water to stop the reation. Are there other types?


I haven't kept up with the technology so I don't know what they are using now, but the plants I operated were pressurized water reactors. The were very safe, and I wouldn't hesitate to have one in my back yard.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

In the US all commercial reactors are Pressurized water reactors. Some have a seperate steam generator some the reactor is the steam generator.

You can no judge our reactors by what happened with Chernoble. Chernoble used a graphite ring around the reactor as a moderator (a moderator is what slows down the nuetrons so that they can be absorbed by the U235). When you want to increase the number of reactions you lower the graphite ring. To decrease you raise it. This is a very simple and cheap design; that is why the Russians use it. It is also not a very safe design, which is why we don't use it.

The reactors in the US use water as a moderator (it is also the coolant). The beauty of water is that it is self regulating. As the temperature rises it moderates less, so there are less reactions so the temperature drops, it finds an equilibrium. We also control the reactors with Control Rods that are made of hafnium. Hafnium absorbs the neutrons before the U235, thus slowing the number of reactions.

The chances of a devistating accident in the US are very slim. We learned a lot from Three Mile Island. As bad as TMI was, there was never a reactor breach. The worst thing was a hydrogen bubble that formed at the top of the reactor. That bubble was bled to the atmosphere taking with it a small amount of ditirium and tridium (H2 and H3).

DeaconJim > where you a RO, EO, or MO? I was an RO (Reactor Operator).


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

The US Navy has been running hundreds of Nuclear Reactors for over 40 years with never a major accident. They are run for the most part by kids ages 19 to 25. I qualified as a Nuclear Reactor Operator at the age of 22, after 2.5 years of school and a year on a Sub.

I know from first hand experience that Nuclear Power is safe. I would much rather live next door to a Nuke than a coal burning plant.

The big myth here is that if you are pro-Nuke then you are anti-environment. That is far from the truth. I am all for conservation. The beauty of conservation is that you are saving money while you are conserving. I am all for alternative energy. I am looking forward to putting up a wind generator on this windy Oklahoma property.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

georgec said:


> DeaconJim > where you a RO, EO, or MO? I was an RO (Reactor Operator).


I was an EO, sub service.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

So long as God stops fires,earthquakes and bombs and pipe ruptures and computer failures and radiation...... yep,then they are safe.

Glad one never exposed you.How about these folks?

Go visit Chernobyl.Nobody knows how many people were killed or are now/then cancer victims.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,411285,00.html
"Just after midnight on April 26, 1986 -- almost exactly 20 years ago -- reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, located on the Prypiat River some 130 kilometers north of Kiev, exploded. The meltdown and ensuing fire spewed vast quantities of deadly radiation into the atmosphere -- and it spread swiftly. Nearby forests quickly died, fields and orchards became unusable as the soil sucked up radiation, particularly beneath the numerous spring showers that fell from irradiated clouds that day. *The invisible cloud of radiation eventually spread across the Soviet Union, Central Europe, Scandinavia and beyond."
*

Oops,sorry.Cant happen.

Well it did,and it can.NOTHING is foolproof,period.NOTHING.

I dont want to see any FOOLPROOF results like that in San Diego.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#Lists_of_accidents

Serious accidents
Main articles: List of civilian nuclear accidents, List of civilian radiation accidents, List of military nuclear accidents, and List of crimes involving radioactive substances

The worst nuclear accident in history is the Chernobyl disaster. Other serious nuclear and radiation accidents include the Mayak disaster, Soviet submarine K-431 accident, Soviet submarine K-19 accident, Three Mile Island accident, Costa Rica radiotherapy accident, Zaragoza radiotherapy accident, Goiania accident, Windscale fire, Church Rock Uranium Mill Spill and the SL-1 accident.
------------------------------------
Too many to list of military nuclear accidents....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

Couple of my favorites,this classified gem....

1986 â The U.S. government declassifies 19,000 pages of documents indicating that between 1946 and 1986, the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington, released thousands of US gallons (several mÂ³) of radioactive liquids. Of 270,000 people living in the affected area, most received low doses of radiation from 131I.

October 1988 â At the nuclear trigger assembly facility at Rocky Flats in Colorado, two employees and a D.O.E. inspector inhale radioactive particles, causing closure of the plant. Several safety violations were cited,* including uncalibrated monitors, inadequate fire equipment, and groundwater contaminated with radioactivity.*

February 2003: Oak Ridge, Tennessee Y-12 facility. During the final testing of a new saltless uranium processing method, there was a small explosion followed by a fire. The explosion occurred in an unvented vessel containing unreacted calcium, water and depleted uranium. An exothermic reaction among these articles generated enough steam to burst the container. This small explosion breached its glovebox, allowing air to enter and ignite some loose uranium powder. Three employees were contaminated. BWXT, a partnership of BWX Technologies and Bechtel National, was fined $82,500 for the accident.[47]

What remains classified,oh Im sure nothing.
Safe? Yeah ,right. 

*Its soooo safe Congress had to put monetary limits on radiation damages.Otherwise it was too risky for the power companies.Gotta love it!*

BooBoo <-----" I see DEAD people...."


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> So long as God stops fires,earthquakes and bombs and pipe ruptures and computer failures and radiation...... yep,then they are safe.
> 
> Glad one never exposed you.How about these folks?
> 
> ...


Chernobyl isn't a consideration here because that type of reactor isn't used because it isn't safe enough. TMI, inspite of everything that went wrong, did not result in a reactor breach. People still live and work in Harrisburg Pennsyvalnia with no problems. There was no "catastrophic failure" there. The SL-1 incident was also on a different type of reactor, and occured during the infancy of the nuclear industry when technology was much less sophisticated. 

The incident does however, illustrate the inherant safety of a pressurized water reactor. In that event, the reactor went critical in a very short period of time. The only three men at the site were in the reactor compartment at the time, one of them actually standing on the reactor vessel. All three were killed, leaving no one at the site to control the plant. With no operators present, and despite the fact that the plant did suffer a meltdown, the design of the plant resulted in the plant shutting itself down with no nuclear explosion.

Life is not without risk.There are dangers associated with any type of power plant. Having spent quite a lot of time working in the nuclear industry, I am well aware of the risks associated with nuclear power, and I would not hesitate to live near a plant. I woud much rather live near a nuke plant than either a coal or oil burning plant.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

georgec said:


> Putting PV panels on roofs is not practical for the majority of the population.
> Who is going to maintain these panels? PV panels need to be cleaned on a reqular basis (if you want them to be as efficient as possible). Roofs are rarely pitched for optimum sun exposure. What about the millions of people that live in apartments?
> 
> Solar power has a very low energy density. There are about 300 watts from one square meter. So if we could get 50% efficiency, you could get 150 watts per square meter. So to replace one 1000MW Nuke or Coal Plant you would need 6.7 million square meters of PV cells. Don't know about you, but I would call that a significant amount of space.


 You claim 'putting PV panels on roofs is not practical for the majority of the population', yet somehow think that mining uranium, building nuclear plants, and disposing of high-level nuclear waste is somehow 'practical'? Guess we have differing definitions of what is practical and what is not.
And we all better be thankful that solar energy is 'very low density'. It'd be hazardous living on this planet if the energy intensity was much more than it is. Hmm, seems to me that naturally occuring uranium ore is pretty low in energy density also. Seems to take a lot of processing and concentrating to make it a worthwhile power source.
Your calculations about the inherent energy of sunlight pretty much prove my points, that most of the household energy we need can be had by simply collecting the energy that falls freely from the sun daily. By your own calculations, you have shown that enough energy falls on the average rooftop to supply a large portion of the energy needs of that household. 
And there is very very little 'maintenance' for a PV panel. In fact, they approach ZERO maintenence. In all but the most arid and dusty enviornments, the rain will wash the panel. And there are no moving parts to wear out or break. And you ask 'what about those millions of apartment dwellers'? Uh, do they not have roofs over their heads?
Your figure of '6.7million square meters of PV panels' equals about 20,000 rooftops.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

You don't see a problem with 20,000 rooftops? No maintenance? Any time you put something on a roof there are going to be problems. Have you heard of something called "children"; they are always throwing stuff up onto roofs. The energy density I quoted was under ideal conditions, so that number would actually be closer to 80,000. On a roof the panels will be stationary so they will be at the optimal anger for only a couple hours a day (during certain times of year they will never be at the optimal angle). Cloudy days there is very little power generated.

My question to you again, is where does the power come from when the sun is not shining? That power must come from "STABLE" sources. You have 2 alternatives, fossil fuel plants or Nuclear Plants. All fossil fuel plants dump CO2 into the air. You can't count on Hydro anymore, you get a few years of low rainfall and capacity drops way off. In Washington State your buddies are trying to breach the Columbia and Snake River dams.

Solar is a non-starter for large scale commercial power. It only works when the sun shines. There is no way you can get around that. Your aruments are meaningless until you describe how you can get power 24x7x265 out of Solar power.

I don't know who said it but someone said it only takes 2 years to get the manufacturing energy back out of a solar panel. Here's an article that says that number is actually 20 years.
http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Energy_density

I think solar power is great for individuals that want to live off the grid, and for companies that want to produce some of their own power.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

georgec said:


> I don't know who said it but someone said it only takes 2 years to get the manufacturing energy back out of a solar panel. Here's an article that says that number is actually 20 years.
> http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Energy_density


The US DOE says your link is ridiculous, and so does common sense

Cell Technology Energy Payback Time 
Single-crystal silicon 2.7 
Non-ribbon multicrystalline silicon 2.2 
Ribbon multicrystalline silicon 1.7 
Cadmium telluride 1.0


Also, we 'theorically' produce all the nation's electricity from solar PV using and area roughly 100 miles square.


----------



## georgec (Jul 9, 2007)

Deacon Mike said:


> Also, we 'theorically' produce all the nation's electricity from solar PV using and area roughly 100 miles square.


What theory has the sun shining 24 hours a day over the US?

That is the hurdle that you can't get over.


----------



## totustuus (Jul 3, 2009)

I've been reading this thread with great interest. Personally, I'm all for renewable energy, i.e. wind, solar etc. Unfortunately the sun doesn't shine all the time and the wind doesn't blow. Baseload generation is required to keep the grid going 24/7/365. The only baseload generation sources that don't use fossil fuels are hydro and nuclear.
We can only dam up so many large rivers, so that leaves nuclear as a necessary part of our generation mix in this country!
The nuclear industry has been very maligned over the years, but has quietly been going about making cheap, reliable power for this country.
The waste issue is not a technical issue at all, but more a political one. Yucca mountain is the most studied geological area of the country in our history and is a safe place to store the high level waste. We need to be reprocessing our fuel like France and Japan and keep the politicians out of it!


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Just got my solar panel collection up to 3000 watts.While I cant use it all *on this house* as I live in a forest and cant cut trees,I do now have enough to power all my needs and then some with my current usage,including a lot of waste.

And I wont kill a few hundred thousand people when it fails,and it wont have a history of unreported nuclear venting discharges either.And it wont remain poison for an eternity,sitting in pits at nuke sites.They still have it onsight,right,or am I mistaken on that?

Free power for life (yeah yeah,batteries every ten years),buying used panels in excellent shape at 2 dollars a watt.

Funny thing,it CAN be done.

Cant deny it either.Any argument is easily disputed by those who CHOOSE to get away from poison power,as many of us right here have done and are doing.

Yes,some of you cant due to weather,trees,blah blah blah....But a heck of a lot can without putting up poison power plants of many flavors.Including Chernobyl which PROVED idiots can overcome designs,and that mechanical devices eventually fail no matter what.You tell me what nuke will survive that 8 earthquake that *SURPRISE!* was never expected?We are sooooo sorry,TMI and Chernobyl.

No thank you,I have clean quiet safe power that a terrorist cant destroy and kill a million people with a pocket nuke or computer attack or bomb in a control room or whatever evil the human mind can conceive.Im sure NOBODY views these sites as a ripe target,eh?

Fortunately nuclear is NOT going to built here anymore if the last 20 years is an indication and I say good riddance to the incredible destructive force that even Congress agreed would be beyond anyones ability to pay for the damages of,hence the limiting of litigated amounts.

They did that for a reason,ya think?

Address that please........want to hear that one!

Solar.What a concept!
Clean power for life,gotta love it!


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

combined thread


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Deacon Mike said:


> The US DOE says your link is ridiculous, and so does common sense
> 
> Cell Technology Energy Payback Time
> Single-crystal silicon 2.7
> ...





georgec said:


> What theory has the sun shining 24 hours a day over the US?
> 
> That is the hurdle that you can't get over.


Really????? Guess my offgrid friends on solar live in the Dark,LOL!!!!
-----------------------------------------------
20 year energy payback,that too was amusing George and totally inaccurate too BTW.

And even crazier (no disrespect there Mike,I get your point) is you dont use PV for solar plants (not cheaply at present anyhow),but solar reflection/concentration,ie mirrors and reflective troughs to heat a fluid to steam,just like a gas/coal plant does,producing a lot of clean power when most needed and which is MUCH cheaper than PV to boot.Plus,get this,they also have natgas backup for steam production right on site,what a concept!

Works like a charm,I know,I live by em,and windfarms too.That DO work at night when demand is sooooo much less,nice mix indeed.
I'd much rather have natgas turbines for backup power when 
needed,they fire up fast!Spinning jet turbines.You know,like we have now,use the alternates as a LARGE part of the mix.
----------------------------------------
From wikipedia....
Peaking power plants, also known as peaker plants, are power plants that generally run only when there is a high demand, known as peak demand, for electricity[1][2].

In the United States, this often occurs in the afternoon, especially during the summer months when the air conditioning load is high. The peak power load generally occurs between 4pm and 5pm when people return home from work, start cooking dinner, and turn up the air conditioning. During this time many workplaces are additionally still open and consuming power.

The time that a peaker plant operates may be many hours a day or as little as a few hours per year, depending on the condition of the region's electrical grid. It is expensive to build an efficient power plant, so if a peaker plant is only going to be run for a short or highly variable time, it does not make economic sense to make it as efficient as a base load power plant. In addition, the equipment and fuels used in base load plants are often unsuitable for use in peaker plants because the fluctuating conditions would severely strain the equipment. For these reasons, nuclear, geothermal, waste-to-energy, coal, biomass and electrochemical energy storage systems are rarely, if ever, operated as peaker plants.

Peaker plants are generally gas turbines that burn natural gas. A few burn petroleum-derived liquids, such as diesel oil and jet fuel, but they are usually more expensive than natural gas, so their use is limited. However, many peaker plants are able to use petroleum as a backup fuel. The thermodynamic efficiency of single-cycle gas turbine power plants ranges from 20 to 42%, with between 30 to 42% being average for a new plant.

For greater efficiency, a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) is added at the exhaust. This is known as a combined cycle plant. Cogeneration uses waste exhaust heat for process or other heating uses. Both of these options are used only in plants that are intended to be operated for longer periods than usual. Reciprocating engines are sometimes used for smaller peaker plants
---------------------------------------------

And not a nuclear poison in any way,shape or form.That by the way DOESNT lend itself to changing demands in power.

Drive through the desert and see how much space can be utilized that is currently a baking wasteland,politics aside.More than enough to produce copious amts of power when demand is at its peak.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Originally Posted by georgec View Post
Putting PV panels on roofs is not practical for the majority of the population.
Who is going to maintain these panels? PV panels need to be cleaned on a reqular basis (if you want them to be as efficient as possible). Roofs are rarely pitched for optimum sun exposure. What about the millions of people that live in apartments?
------------------------------------

What maintanance? Squirt it off with a hose,and check your wires are tight.Grid tied systems,SCE can build and maintain em,create good jobs too.Yep,jobs,what a concept.

Nope,thats beyond me to do simple mechanics.Like aim a hose and fill a battery with water monthly.

What about apartments? What about stores and warehouses,eh? LOT of space there if your so wound up on the non existing space issue.

And even if roof pitch isnt ideal my panels have put out FULL power several hours a day sitting on the roof of my Motorhome.FLAT! So lets say angle isnt perfect and you get 20% less gain,so what?Get 20 % more panels.Not a deal breaker or a hurdle that cant be overcome.

Bad roof? Ever heard of mounting them OFF THE ROOF.Oddly enough,every offgrider I personally know DOES NOT have panels on the roof BTW.

Another tech hurdle overcome,WOW!

Ah yeah,the real world experience of living with solar.

Ive had real world nuke experience too,and they fail,period.I dont care if its ours or theirs either,when radioactive fallout respects borders get back to me.

Cannot be denied,it happened,and it is NOT FOOLPROOF,to say so is ludicrous (Congressionally limited litigation damages,right?).

And its poison,no matter what.


----------



## totustuus (Jul 3, 2009)

Booboo-

You claim you have some real nuclear experience? What is it?

Do you understand that a Chernobyl style plant that has no containment structure or reactor vessel CANNOT be licensed or built in the western world?

I'd like to here about ANY western designed reactor (Europe or US) that has ever released significant radiation to the environment. It hasn't happened.

Truth is that the nuclear industry has safely been producing power in this country for 40 years and will continue to do so. 

Yes, they ARE complicated machines and sometimes have to shutdown for repairs. Name ANY machine that doesn't need to fixed sometimes?

But that doesn't mean that they don't work very very reliably for the most part.

Most people CAN'T afford to be off the grid (yet). And home systems ALSO require significant maintenance like any system or machine.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Chernobyl,TMI.Lived right thru them.

Working reliably 'for the most part' doesnt cut it. 

Fool me once,Chernobyl,shame on you.

Fool me twice,TMI,shame on me.

Im not giving them a third try.

*Why is liability limited by law?* Nobody will address that it seems,Why?

Chernobyl failed from OPERATOR error BTW,not by design.That CANT happen again,yeah,right,I believe it.Gauges cant fail,oh wait,THEY DO and HAVE BTW,saw that happened recently on my links I posted.Earthquakes cant collapse buildings,rip out water systems,uh,OK,I believe that too.Computers cant crash,and they surely cant get infected with malicious code,cant happen.Etc etc etc......

I see ,so the bottom line is cheap,dam the consequences?

Wont cut it for me.My state,land and fellow Americans arent to be served up for 'working reliably for the most part'

Got a question,was TMI ever restarted,or ever cleaned up for that matter,I dont know,Im asking.If NOT,why is that?Too dangerous,not worth the risk,economically unfeasible,not ABLE to do so???? Yep,thats a safe system all right,and let me guess,it was bleeding edge tech too,eh?Just like the FOOLPROOF FAIL SAFE systems you want me to NOW embrace,sorry,I dont buy it,especially when It ISNT a necessity by any stretch.

I'll fight em til I die,good luck getting them approved.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> Chernobyl,TMI.Lived right thru them.
> 
> Working reliably 'for the most part' doesnt cut it.
> 
> ...


You've been watching too many Jane Fonda movies, but that is up to you. Go ahead and fight them, it will give you something to do I suppose.

There have been and currently are new nuclear plants being built and operated here in the U.S. as we speak. I don't think you will be very effective at stopping them.

People get so worked up about the "dangers" of nuclear power, and pretend oil and coal are safe. They ignore the dangers associated with mining coal, trucking it over the roads, drilling and refining oil, storing massive amounts of fuel oil near populated areas, and the effects of the emissions from those plants. 

I'm not saying those plants aren't safe enough to run, but I am saying that nuclear is at least as safe if not safer than coal and oil.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> There have been and currently are new nuclear plants being built and operated here in the U.S. as we speak. I don't think you will be very effective at stopping them.


While there are several plants on the drawing board, so to speak, I don't believe any are currently being built.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

georgec said:


> You don't see a problem with 20,000 rooftops? No maintenance? Any time you put something on a roof there are going to be problems. Have you heard of something called "children"; they are always throwing stuff up onto roofs. The energy density I quoted was under ideal conditions, so that number would actually be closer to 80,000. On a roof the panels will be stationary so they will be at the optimal anger for only a couple hours a day (during certain times of year they will never be at the optimal angle). Cloudy days there is very little power generated.
> 
> My question to you again, is where does the power come from when the sun is not shining? That power must come from "STABLE" sources. You have 2 alternatives, fossil fuel plants or Nuclear Plants. All fossil fuel plants dump CO2 into the air. You can't count on Hydro anymore, you get a few years of low rainfall and capacity drops way off. In Washington State your buddies are trying to breach the Columbia and Snake River dams.
> 
> ...


 No one claimed the sun shined 24 hours a day. Thats not the point. THe point is to harvest that energy when it IS available, and turn to other sources when it is not. 
The entire nuclear fuel cycle is no more carbon-neutral than burning natural gas. The energy associated with mining, transportation, disposal, MUST be included in discussions. Not to mention the obvious and very real hazards of radiation.
And your link about the energy payback of solar cells is highly suspect, poorly written, and completey mistaken. Not sure where that author got his info, but he seems very poorly informed. 2 years is the energy payback period for PV cells, and although the author 'doubts' they will last 20 years, he is once again mistaken. He compares solar panels to asphalt shingles?? Sorry, but that guy has no clue.
I am not advocating PV as the solution to all our problems, but it has the potential to displace much of our fossil fuel generated electricity.


----------



## totustuus (Jul 3, 2009)

*Average Costs of a Home Solar-Electric System**


*System Type**2 kW
(small/average)*
*5 kW
(average/big)*
*10 kW
(gigantic)*​Off-grid$20,800
$52,000
$104,000​Grid-intertied$16,000
$40,000
$80,000​On-grid with battery backup$19,200
$48,000
$96,000​
* Professional installation costs before incentives​â Linda Pinkham, former managing editor of _Home Power_ magazine


----------



## PulpFaction (Jul 23, 2009)

totustuus said:


> *Average Costs of a Home Solar-Electric System**
> 
> 
> *System Type**2 kW
> ...


What I wonder is...do any of these various solar system providers also offer financing? Seems like if they believed in their product, they would. If they offered financing at a rate that might be comparable to an average monthly electric bill with an option to pay more to pay it off sooner, I would do it.

Otherwise, I'm right there with ya--my pocket's just aren't deep enough for the lump sum.


----------



## totustuus (Jul 3, 2009)

I hear you Rachel. Lets say you pick the medium size system for off the grid.

It costs (on average) about $52k.

Assuming your average utility bill is about $200 per month, it would take over 21.6 years to recoup your investment! That's a LONG time.

And that doesn't include maintenance costs either (batteries, inverters, blah, blah)

Its a nice concept, but currently not real practical for the average Joe (or Jill).

:stars:


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

No one has said solar can't work on a small scale. However, ramping it up becomes rather costly.

I am single, live in a 19-year-old single wide, central A/C (set on 82), central electric heat (set on 72) and electic hot water, which only runs two hours a day. My average daily usage is just under 40 kwh. It would take a 4K system, running at full efficiency, ten hours a day just to meet my AVERAGE usage.

Yeah, I could turn off the A/C and use fans. But I rather like that creature comfort. Yeah, I could put in a wood burning stove, but then I have the time and effort and cost of putting up a couple of cords of wood a year or buying it in. I guess I could shut off the hwh and just heat up enough water for a sponge bath on the electric stove.

How do you access solar cells on a two-store house with a steep roof?


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

totustuus said:


> ...Assuming your average utility bill is about $200 per month, it would take over 21.6 years to recoup your investment! That's a LONG time....



And it only goes downhill from there.

a 5KW system only produces an average of 600Kwh a month (5k*4hr*30days) and 300Kwh in the winter in the contental US. For off-grid systems @30% is lost due to system ineffeciencies. That would put you at about 450Kwh average or close to what I use. I only pay $50-60 a monthe for electricity.

The only way to break even with solar PV is to get others to pay for the majority of your system.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Ken Scharabok said:


> I am single, live in a 19-year-old single wide, central A/C (set on 82), central electric heat (set on 72) and electic hot water, which only runs two hours a day. My average daily usage is just under 40 kwh. It would take a 4K system, running at full efficiency, ten hours a day just to meet my AVERAGE usage.


Off Topic, but you use a jack load of power


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

totustuus said:


> Booboo-
> 
> Most people CAN'T afford to be off the grid (yet). And home systems ALSO require significant maintenance like any system or machine.


Wrong,most people CAN afford solar and wind power,produced by utilities and distributed on the grid.

And what is this significant maintenance home solar requires???


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> You've been watching too many Jane Fonda movies, but that is up to you. Go ahead and fight them, it will give you something to do I suppose.
> 
> There have been and currently are new nuclear plants being built and operated here in the U.S. as we speak. I don't think you will be very effective at stopping them.
> 
> ...


Youre the Nuke expert,tell me what plants are being constructed right now? Tell me about the clean up at TMI.Tell me about limited liability and WHY that is so?????


----------



## totustuus (Jul 3, 2009)

mightybooboo said:


> Wrong,most people CAN afford solar and wind power,produced by utilities and distributed on the grid.
> 
> And what is this significant maintenance home solar requires???




Oh, you're right! My toaster doesn't really care where the electrons come from.
However, most utilities are businesses. And businesses like to make some profit. The return on investment from solar and wind in a competitive marketplace just isn't there.

As far as maintenance of a home system? Battery replacement.....inverter replacement......that stuff does not last forever....its a machine, remember? Like those lousy, complicated nukes that we don't need.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Darn,I keep double posting instead of editing


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

totustuus said:


> I hear you Rachel. Lets say you pick the medium size system for off the grid.
> 
> It costs (on average) about $52k.
> 
> ...


Get a grip on reality,Ive got 3000 watts and barring the inverter and a couple disconnects have 7000 invested,not 52,000.

21 YEARS to recoup,I suppose so,at that price just so long as grid prices dont increase,Lord knows they *never do that* over 20 years.But my costs are pretty much set and paid for upfront.

And will have fairly FREE power for the rest of my days on this planet,and thats REAL numbers,not some internet numbers youve come up with.

Learn to shop.Look at Craigslist and see what real world prices can be had right now instead of saying IT CANT BE DONE. Im DOING it.Right now,REAL WORLD.Get educated about costs and DIY and save tons.It STILL isnt rocket science or brain surgery,and if you need an electrician to tie it all in to the grid or your system it still wont kill you in costs.Whats a days wages for him?YOU can plug in the rest with very little mechanical inclination and have a pro certify its done correctly and do the final tie in.

And yes,grid power is cheaper than home PV for Joe Sixpack.For now.In a home DESIGNED for Cheap Grid power (dont add in the hidden costs of fossil fuels either...(Cough Cough,Tax Tax, Dead Soldiers)

And explain that massive maintenance again....its hosing off panels and watering batteries...IF you use lead acid vrs sealed,and every few months cleaning off corrosion on cables,or yearly more like it.?Dang,I must spend minutes a month hosing panels off.I spend zero minutes on those sealed batteries,no water,no corroded cables.I suppose I may have to change out an inverter every 10-20 years,wow,an hour right there.My 10 year charger circuit is dead on mine,the inverter still powers,BIL is over 15 years,buds is going on 20.Change out the batteries in ten years,suppose I could spend a day on that.

And Ken,news flash,you dont heat water or heat air with PV power,PV also includes changing your appliances to fit the system to your mode of generation,you waste a heck of a lot of electricity.

You dont just add PV to your Reddy Kilowatt all electric Medallion Home,its a SYSTEM approach,not a single change to PV and expect it to power the worlds most energy wasteful home going,yours.

Go back to page one,the BIGGEST bang for your buck is efficient appliances/systems.

Try solar hot water,solar gain heat,gas heat.All what anybody going offgrid with PV solar would do without any loss of comfort.Resistance heating with PV is the biggest nono going.

As for those costs,when I replace items that wear out,the new one wears its Energy Star badge proudly.Doesnt ding me a bit to do so either....but I shop around and EDUCATE myself on whats out there.Using todays best most energy efficient/COST efficient appliances in my home,not the bleeding edge hyper expensive fighter jet tech either,just the latest mainstream items.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

"Off Topic, but you use a jack load of power."

I live in a tin/aluminum box built in 1991. Leaks like a sleave from numerous points. Now I could go out and spend $30K for a new, more energy efficient one. Say my utility bill went down to an average of $60 month from an average of $140. $80 a month, $960 year, divided into $30K. I don't think so.

What I can do is to get one of those combination heat and A/C wall units for the master bedroom and I'm seriously considering it. Shut off the rest of the unit at night and rely on it.

Some folks have problem in relating to what it is like elsewhere in the country. Southern California isn't OR, WA, ID, WY, MT, MN, WI, OH, PA and the Northest. It either rains a lot or gets quite cold in states like those.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

"Wrong,most people CAN afford solar and wind power,produced by utilities and distributed on the grid."

So you are just swapping one form of utility provided power for another. When the grid goes down, the grid goes down.

I doubt utility companies are married to nuclear, coal or oil. If alternative energy was financially practical they would be doing it already.


----------



## totustuus (Jul 3, 2009)

mightybooboo said:


> Get a grip on reality,Ive got 3000 watts and barring the inverter and a couple disconnects have 7000 invested,not 52,000.
> 
> 21 YEARS to recoup,I suppose so,at that price just so long as grid prices dont increase,Lord knows they *never do that* over 20 years.But my costs are pretty much set and paid for upfront."
> 
> ...


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

totustuus said:


> Oh, you're right! My toaster doesn't really care where the electrons come from.
> However, most utilities are businesses. And businesses like to make some profit. The return on investment from solar and wind in a competitive marketplace just isn't there.
> 
> As far as maintenance of a home system? Battery replacement.....inverter replacement......that stuff does not last forever....its a machine, remember? Like those lousy, complicated nukes that we don't need.


Really?SCE LOSES money on solar and wind.Really?You want to back that ridiculous claim up with some facts?Another nonsensical claim based on absolutely nothing.Thats really reaching.

Last energy scam our solar and wind was far cheaper than any other source of electric.

And Im paying 13 cents a Kw/hr total all included,including nuclear decommissioning fees monthly.

WOW,I can never afford that.But I do,and so does everybody else here and we get along just fine too.And we get wind and solar too,safe,dependable power with reasonable fixed costs.

Nope cant be done,we just are DOING it is all.Our solar plants BTW have the HIGHEST reliability of any energy producer in SCE's portfolio.

And how can we ever recycle a battery? Ummm,maybe like we do now?

And those batterys and inverters dont leave toxic waste for 100,000 years,or send toxic clouds over continents.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

I neglected to add my $140 average monthly electric bill includes my commercial blacksmith shop and a yard security light. Light is $6.50 something a month. I don't know what the shop draws as it isn't on a separate meter.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

totustuus said:


> mightybooboo said:
> 
> 
> > Get a grip on reality,Ive got 3000 watts and barring the inverter and a couple disconnects have 7000 invested,not 52,000.
> ...


----------



## PulpFaction (Jul 23, 2009)

It's starting to feel hotter than a micro nuclear power plant melt down in here. Why's everyone so defensive?


----------



## totustuus (Jul 3, 2009)

Tables tt { font-family: courier; } td { font-family: helvetica, sans-serif; } caption { font-family: helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; text-align: left; } *U.S. Electricity Production Costs and Components* *1995 - 2008, In 2008 cents per kilowatt-hour* Total Production Costs Operations & Maintenance Costs Fuel Costs Year Coal Gas Nuclear Petroleum Coal Gas Nuclear Petroleum Coal Gas Nuclear Petroleum 1995 2.57 3.74 2.70 5.85 0.61 0.71 1.89 1.64 1.96 3.03 0.81 4.21 1996 2.42 4.57 2.53 5.95 0.54 0.70 1.80 1.36 1.88 3.87 0.73 4.59 1997 2.34 4.64 2.64 5.35 0.52 0.67 1.93 1.16 1.81 3.96 0.71 4.19 1998 2.29 4.08 2.46 3.76 0.55 0.61 1.76 0.73 1.74 3.47 0.70 3.03 1999 2.21 4.39 2.22 4.52 0.52 0.51 1.58 1.03 1.68 3.88 0.64 3.49 2000 2.15 7.28 2.17 6.51 0.52 0.57 1.57 0.81 1.63 6.70 0.61 5.71 2001 2.21 7.36 2.05 6.02 0.55 0.64 1.49 0.83 1.66 6.72 0.56 5.19 2002 2.19 4.70 2.03 5.76 0.56 0.66 1.50 0.93 1.63 4.05 0.53 4.83 2003 2.16 6.42 1.99 6.88 0.55 0.67 1.45 1.10 1.61 5.75 0.53 5.78 2004 2.24 6.42 1.95 6.54 0.57 0.56 1.42 0.99 1.67 5.87 0.53 5.56 2005 2.43 8.00 1.87 8.96 0.57 0.53 1.38 0.97 1.86 7.47 0.49 7.99 2006 2.53 6.95 1.89 10.28 0.59 0.54 1.39 1.32 1.94 6.41 0.49 8.96 2007 2.57 6.69 1.85 10.83 0.60 0.50 1.36 1.47 1.97 6.19 0.50 9.36 2008 2.75 8.09 1.87 17.26 0.55 0.55 1.37 1.69 2.19 7.54 0.49 15.56 Production Costs = Operations and Maintenance Costs + Fuel Costs. Production costs do not include indirect costs and are based on FERC Form 1 filings submitted by regulated utilities. Production costs are modeled for utilities that are not regulated. Source: Ventyx Velocity Suite Updated: 5/09 


Looks like of the large base load options, nuclear has the cheapest costs? Go figure. Wind and solar aren't in there cause they represent a fraction of the country's generation.

So we can recycle batteries and not nuclear fuel? Why is that booboo?
Last I knew, it was possible to recycle both. We're just not doing the later at this point because of the politics.
So, nuclear is cheapest and cleanest of the above choices. 
Want to talk about the realities of Chernobyl? I'd be glad to. I think you're a bit misinformed, but hey you're entitled to believe that US reactors can spew radiation over the countryside if you like. Doesn't make it true however.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Ken Scharabok said:


> I neglected to add my $140 average monthly electric bill includes my commercial blacksmith shop and a yard security light. Light is $6.50 something a month. I don't know what the shop draws as it isn't on a separate meter.


But your house usage,man,you can do better for sure.I had electric heat and water in Portland but electric there was dirt cheap 25-30 years ago.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

PulpFaction said:


> It's starting to feel hotter than a micro nuclear power plant melt down in here. Why's everyone so defensive?


Defensive,not at all,different opinions,you better believe it.

And debunking myths,seems there are a lot of em.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

totustuus said:


> Tables tt { font-family: courier; }
> Looks like of the large base load options, nuclear has the cheapest costs? Go figure. Wind and solar aren't in there cause they represent a fraction of the country's generation.
> 
> So we can recycle batteries and not nuclear fuel? Why is that booboo?
> ...


Why batteries and not nuclear fuel,because on is acid and lead,the other is radioactive toxins.One stays poisonous for eons,one doesnt.One irradiates continents,one doesnt.

Nuke is NOT the cleanest,BECAUSE THE WASTE STILL REMAINS.Tell that to the dead and irradiated in Euro?Yep,and TMI,all cleaned up,right?Because its so cheap and safe,right?

Now Im to believe it can NEVER happen again,HOGWASH.I watch the most tech advanced planes fall out of the sky all the time r/t mechanical failure,but not a nuke,never has happened,and never will again,oh puleeze!

Yep,wind and solar arent there yet,but they are coming on strong,wind is the fastest growing source of power right now.

Guess when you are PROTECTED,like nukes were,a lot got built,eh?
*Those liability limits again,why???If its so safe? Because it isnt,and its realized a failure is catastrophic*.Right,isnt THAT the reason? Deny away.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Btw,where are we now building nukes here?Nowhere,and Im darn glad for it.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> Btw,where are we now building nukes here?Nowhere,and Im darn glad for it.


Everytime the U.S. Navy orders a submarine or aircraft carrier, at least one new nuclear power plant is built, and I'm darn glad of it.


----------



## totustuus (Jul 3, 2009)

mightybooboo said:


> Why batteries and not nuclear fuel,because on is acid and lead,the other is radioactive toxins.One stays poisonous for eons,one doesnt.One irradiates continents,one doesnt.
> 
> Nuke is NOT the cleanest,BECAUSE THE WASTE STILL REMAINS.Tell that to the dead and irradiated in Euro?Yep,and TMI,all cleaned up,right?Because its so cheap and safe,right?
> 
> ...


I don't deny nuclear stations produce some nasty waste. But it can be dealt with. We can reprocess and reduce the volume to a mere fraction of what it was and get a lot of the energy back.
Nothing is perfect boo boo. Not nuclear, not coal, not solar, not natural gas or wind power either. People have car accidents but continue to drive. Air liner crash with horrific loss of life, but people still fly. The point is that everyone accepts some risk in their life, even if it is a small one.
The nuclear industry has "matured" a lot in the past forty years. Its safer than ever, reliable and the cheapest baseload generation out there (except hydro). Other countries are embracing it more and more because its clean, proven and it works. Look at China and France and Japan and Taiwan. They're all going forward with new plants. I would think the Japanese would have the greatest fear of the atom, but they don't.
You talked about earth quakes....plants are seismically designed to handle them and tornados and hurricanes and just about any natural disaster you can imagine!
You like to talk about an accident in a communist nation that built a design that would never be built in the US or Western Europe (Chernobyl). That is not the only catastrophic event in Soviet history BTW..... 
TMI was a tremendous waste of a good plant. However, it also proved that the defense in depth design REQUIRED by the NRC for ALL reactors works to protect the safety of the public. Nobody died in that accident and somehow people still are living in Harrisburg PA. Heck the other TMI unit has been humming along making electricity very reliably for the last 30 years!
Oh, you've been asking whether the TMI plant has been cleaned up? Yes it has. The damaged core has been removed and the building has been deconned. No it will never operate again. I suppose you would say "good riddens".
Many plants in this country have received life extension licenses meaning they can operate beyond their original license period of 40 years for another 20 years. So, the approximately 100 operating stations in the US will be producing power for quite awhile yet. 

Maybe we'll see commercial fusion reactors some day? I hope so.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Locally TVA gets about 30% of their power from nuclear plants and is aggressively pressing forward to expand that capacity through additional plants. TVA views themselves as a multi-source provider to include coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear. They also have some limited programs supporting alternative energy usage on a residential scale.


----------

