Nuclear & other power source discussions

[Belisarius]

So you're saying in response to my question 2) about renewable energy, that offshore wind power plants could become a realistic alternative in the near future, given a massive investment in same?
How about the other questions, especially 5) on other carbon fuel sources?

 

[T.Neo]

How, exactly, do you propose to "fix" people? Government and religeous leaders have been trying to "fix" people since people existed - and yet our prisons are overflowing with miscreants.

I never said anything about fixing people. I was talking about fixing the system.

Most criminals in South Africa- for example- are not criminals because they are greedy, they are criminals because it's a necessity (couldn't find a job, have to survive, etc).

A lot of people think that humans are intrinsically evil and it's a really annoying opinion. Most people really are genuine people that will do their jobs well if it is advantageous enough to them. It's just that the greedy improper people tend to be more influential- unfortunately.

1) What are the prospects for developing a truly clean nuclear power system which does not create dangerous waste? Are we talking about 20 years or 60 years or longer?

For fission? Highly unlikely. You might be able to do some interesting things to the waste to reduce it, but... fusion is the power 'holy grail' for the next century... As far as I can tell, even a neutron-bombarded fission reactor would end up being less radioactive than fission waste (it'd classify as 'low level waste').

I think by 25 years from now we'll see considerable headway in terms of fusion, but it may be a while after that still, by the time fusion powerplants are actually producing electricity...

2) What are the prospects of developing renewable sources that can provide more than a marginal amount of power? Could wind farms, tidal and solar generation eventually become majority sources of power, or is it just a pipe-dream?

Potentially, but everything has its own problems.

I'm not sure about Artlav's insistance on space solar power, but I think it would be very interesting to delve into the economics of it.

3) What are the prospects of significantly reducing consumption through more efficient designs? Are radical and draconian restrictions in consumption (like capping consumption for domestic and commercial users) called for?

You don't want to plan towards "radical and draconian". You want to plan away from it.

"Radical and draconian" is what you go for once you've messed up badly.

4) Are there any projects that could create completely new sources of power, like the Zero-Point Energy principle? I know some people say it's possible to harness such sources, but they apparently all violate thermodynamic laws. Could some quantum source be created?

Why don't we harness antimatter in Jupiter's radiation belts and use that to produce power?

Ok, so it'd be awesome if it were possible... :facepalm:

5) If we really have to rely on fossil and other carbon fuels, are there any sources which we've overlooked so far? Could recycled biomass become a more significant source?

I think we need to look into recycled biomass, but more from a bio-fuel aspect, for supplanting the need for hydrocarbon fuels in transport and localised systems.

The whole carbon system on Earth has worked through this cycle for billions of years... this is only a human adaptation of it. Of course, the current ecology can only support so much now, but that doesn't mean we couldn't tweak and refine- and develop new ways to use biology to create hydrocarbon fuels in a renewable manner.

But maybe in some situations some electrical power can be produced by biomass... human civilisation produces a good deal of biological waste, that would probably be better off turned to fuel and burnt than left to produce methane in a landfill...

Problem with wind and solar are while total available resources are enormous the best locations usually are somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Tropical deserts for solar and polar regions

Ahem. I live in a country that has large arid areas. We're in need of power. Both Aus and the USA also have large arid areas, and they are developed nations... I wouldn't say that solar is best only in places where nobody lives. Even places in southern Europe are better places for solar power...

300 MW power - compared to a nuclear power plant with 1400 MW, not that much - but did cost only one billion Euro

I'd love to see cost/kWh for such a powerplant over its lifetime...

 

[Wishbone]

Here you go (costs are levelized along the lifetime & used in the Annual Energy Outlook)

 

[Belisarius]

What does capacity factor mean?

 

[Urwumpe]

What does capacity factor mean?

How much power you generate during the year compared to the theoretical maximum (maximum power output for 365.25 days).

The data is still pretty questionable though, if you try to put them into relation with the real data. An advanced 3000 GWh nuclear power plant would for example have to cost less than 4.9 billion USD according to the table, if the lifetime is assumed to be 40 years. And even just 5 billion if calculated for 60 years.

That is a price that we just barely achieved in the past for smaller power plants, and with serious cost saving on the security.

 

[Sky Captain]

Something doesn't add up there. According to that table onshore wind is nearly as cheap as coal. Do those calcualtions of total levelized system cost take into account that wind farm on average will generate ~30 - 40 % of its rated output so you need to install ~3x more wind turbines to compensate?

Thanet Wind Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


300 MW power - compared to a nuclear power plant with 1400 MW, not that much - but did cost only one billion Euro.

300 MW is installed capacity the real output averaged over a year is predicted to be in a range from 75 - 120 MW. To replace a 1400 MW nuclear or coal plant would require to install ~4000 MW of wind turbines. 5 MW wind turbine will cost ~10 million euros so in total it will be ~8 billion euros for turbines alone. If you also include some sort of energy storage then costs will significanly increase. A 1400 MW nuclear reactor costs ~5 billion euros so overall it is cheaper, but require huge initial investment compared to wind farm that can be expanded gradually over the years.

 

[jedidia]

A lot of people think that humans are intrinsically evil and it's a really annoying opinion. Most people really are genuine people that will do their jobs well if it is advantageous enough to them. It's just that the greedy improper people tend to be more influential- unfortunately.

When you work in the humanitairian buisness, you realize pretty fast that the rich are not inherantly more greedy than the poor... They're just more obviously so. History and work expierience gives me quite enough reason to believe that humans are intrinsically bad (let's not call it evil), unless they consciously do something about it, I'm afraid.

A bit OT, though...

 

[Urwumpe]

Some good old gigantomania is still not dead there... I doubt something like that could be build without protesters from half the continent...but technically, it would be feasible and his cost estimates for moving earth even a bit higher than experience values from coal strip mines.

http://www.poppware.de/English/Index.htm

His main plan is on the German version of the homepage only...

http://www.poppware.de/Ringwallspeicher/index.htm

Maybe nothing for the real world, because of the political dimension - but it would look cute in Orbiter.

(In case you ask - yes, he is from my university. But I was not even close to his research.)

 

[Sky Captain]

Are thare any other options? If you lack suitable geography for traditional pumped storage plants and want large scale use of unreliable energy sources then some sort of monster energy storage is pretty much required unless you accept use of fossil fueled backups that kick in when wind is too weak.

 

[Urwumpe]

Are thare any other options? If you lack suitable geography for traditional pumped storage plants and want large scale use of unreliable energy sources then some sort of monster energy storage is pretty much required unless you accept use of fossil fueled backups that kick in when wind is too weak.

Well, if you browse a bit over the homepage, there are also alternative designs, like inverting them and build the reserve into the ocean. The only real problem I just see is it costs as much as a nuclear power plant, produces as much peak electricity as one, and takes as much space as a nuclear power plant (you also can't build much else into the 100 km² surrounding a nuclear power plant in modern laws). Since people already complain about wind power disturbing the landscape, how would people react to a 200m hill with wind power on top?

 

[Sky Captain]

Well, if you browse a bit over the homepage, there are also alternative designs, like inverting them and build the reserve into the ocean. The only real problem I just see is it costs as much as a nuclear power plant, produces as much peak electricity as one, and takes as much space as a nuclear power plant (you also can't build much else into the 100 km² surrounding a nuclear power plant in modern laws).

Since renewable energy sources have very low energy density that is pretty much defined by physics that you will require huge area to collect enough energy and also to store energy produced during periods with surplus capacity. Pumped storage plants also have low energy density per stored MW/h so if you want to have large capacity storage you also need large amount of space where to store all that water you pump uphill.

Since people already complain about wind power disturbing the landscape, how would people react to a 200m hill with wind power on top?

Yeah there are people who will protest against anything wheather it is wind farm, hydro, gas, coal or nuclear plant. Only solar energy hasn't atracted protests, but that probably is because there is very few large solar instalations. That's one advantage of off shore wind power - out of sight out of mind.

 

[jedidia]

how would people react to a 200m hill with wind power on top?

I think you could find ways to win them over. For one, such an installation would be an immediate tourist attractor. Or you can hand out free docking places at the lake for the first five years to people living in the vicinity, and stuff like that...