Grid Power Question

[Monte Milanuk]

If you look at the generator in most power plants, they run in a vacuum.

Weird. None of the ones I have ever worked with have vacuum. Matter of fact, that would be a major detriment to the whole cooling process for the windings.

The civilian nuke plant I worked at used hydrogen (literally, hydrogen gas) for cooling - more efficient heat transfer coefficient. That one creeped me out - a BWR, for starters, and an 800MW generator with *hydrogen* in side. Yikes. (yes, I understand the physics behind the BWR, as well as the whole HEL/LEL aspect... still made my skin crawl.)

All the hydro generators I've worked with have some form of forced air cooling - either dedicated fan motors (that particular model actually operates at 14 psi *above* ambient atmo pressure to reach its design load ratings). The others all have some sort of fan blading built into the rotor frame to move air.

There are a few units that operate as synchronous condensers, where they intentionally pump out the water and run them at a vacuum (to reduce any air resistance, aka 'windmilling') but those units are, AFAIK, the exception not the rule. Several of our generators used to be like that... 30 years ago.

[Bill George]

You can charge an EV off of a 120 volt, 15 amp circuit. Just takes longer.

Having an EV in a disaster area is not a lot different than having an ICE vehicle. Assuming you had the EV charged, just as you'd assume you had gas in the ICE vehicle, you're going to be careful in the use of the vehicle until you're sure you can fill it up again. In the meanwhile, many EVs have a 120 volt outlet that you can use to run your refrigerator.

If you have a generator and have gas for it, you can use it to recharge your EV, even if you use a 120 volt outlet to do it.

Mike

[You can recharge an EV using almost any outlet, and either 120 volts or 240 volts. You can set the vehicle to take power at any reasonable amperage, up to 80% of the circuit rating. You don't need 40 amps, for example. The lower the voltage and amperage, the longer it takes to charge the EV.]

Talk to those people with the power out for weeks and see what they have to say. How do you go get your gas can filled with no vehicle? How long do you tie up your generator charging your EV at 120 volts at 20 amps?
Simple, gas powered cars… just go fill up the tank. Banning the sale of ICE vehicles is foolish.

[Doug Garson]

Talk to those people with the power out for weeks and see what they have to say. How do you go get your gas can filled with no vehicle? How long do you tie up your generator charging your EV at 120 volts at 20 amps?
Simple, gas powered cars… just go fill up the tank. Banning the sale of ICE vehicles is foolish.

How does the gas station pump gas with no electricity, most don't have back up generators.

[Monte Milanuk]

Similarly... the infrastructure for ICEs didn't pop up over night. Gas stations had to be built, fuel delivery schedules had to be worked out. It's a process, and it'll take time - and probably have a few hiccups along the way. Such is life.

It's just the attempts to bootstrap the process by way of government mandate that chaps my a$$.

[Doug Garson]

Assuming you agree we need to reduce carbon emissions by cutting fossil fuel use, I don't think we can get there with just voluntary action. Just like we wouldn't have catalytic converters on cars or scrubbers on coal fired power plants to reduce NOx and SO2 emissions without regulations.

[Michael Schuch]

IMHO solar, wind, EV storage, pumped water storage, etc. are all just diversions from real solutions to our future energy needs. The only long term answer for sustained power without frying the earth is nuclear. Nuclear fusion is still very unproven but there are nuclear fission technologies out there that are much better than our current nuclear fission plants.

Thorium reactors have MANY advantages over our current nuclear technologies.

Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia


en.wikipedia.org



The biggest issue with our current nuclear reactors is the waste.
"Thorium reactors produce less nuclear waste. There is much less nuclear waste when thorium is used as a fuel in a liquid fluoride thorium reactor—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[1] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[19]: 13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[28] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[29] However, the production of activation products and fission products is broadly similar between thorium and uranium based fuel cycles."

The reason we have Uranium reactors today is due to the huge R&D dollars put into Uranium reactors by the military for weapons and other military purposes (nuclear powered subs / ships). Our current Uranium nuclear power plants are direct descendants of the nuclear power plant in the Nautilus which, of course, came out of the Manhattan project. If a fraction of those R&D dollars were put into developing commercial Thorium reactors we would have a very viable long term power source while we are waiting for the development of commercial nuclear fusion plants (several centuries?) and not kill the planet we live on in the mean time! Solar and wind power are just diversions from a REAL long term power solution!!!

Thorium reactor benefits

• Abundance. Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[22]​ The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[23]​[22]​ "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining", notes Evans-Pritchard.[24]​ Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
• Less suitable for bombs. It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's by-products, allowing governments to potentially pursue further nuclear power without worsening nuclear arms proliferation. Thorium is not fissile like uranium, so packed thorium nuclei will not begin to split apart and explode. However the uranium-233 used in the cycle is fissile and hence can be used to create a nuclear weapon- though plutonium production is reduced. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[19]​: 11 ​[25]​ Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser isotope separation techniques could facilitate that process.[26]​[27]​
• Less nuclear waste. There is much less nuclear waste when thorium is used as a fuel in a liquid fluoride thorium reactor—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[1]​ eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[19]​: 13 ​ "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[28]​ The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[29]​ However, the production of activation products and fission products is broadly similar between thorium and uranium based fuel cycles.
• Fewer reaction startup ingredients. According to Moir and Teller, "once started up [, a breeding reactor] needs no other fuel except thorium because [a breeding reactor] makes most or all of its own fuel."[1]​ Breeding reactors produce at least as much fissile material as they consume. Non-breeding reactors, on the other hand, require additional fissile material, such as uranium-235 or plutonium to sustain the reaction.[23]​
• Harvesting weapons-grade plutonium. The thorium fuel cycle is a potential way to produce long term nuclear energy with low radio-toxicity waste. In addition, the transition to thorium could be done through the incineration of weapons grade plutonium (WPu) or civilian plutonium.[30]​
• No enrichment necessary. Since all natural thorium can be used as fuel, no expensive fuel enrichment is needed.[29]​ However the same is true for U-238, as fertile fuel in the uranium-plutonium cycle.
• Efficiency. Comparing the amount of thorium needed with coal, Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia of CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research), estimates that 1 ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal.[24]​
• Failsafe measures. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A fusible plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[31]​
• Mining. Mining thorium is safer and more efficient than mining uranium. Thorium's ore, monazite, generally contains higher concentrations of thorium than the percentage of uranium found in its respective ore. This makes thorium a more cost efficient and less environmentally damaging fuel source. Thorium mining is also easier and less dangerous than uranium mining, as the mine is an open pit—which requires no ventilation, unlike underground uranium mines, where radon levels can be potentially harmful.[32]​

Summarizing some of the potential benefits, Martin offers his general opinion: "Thorium could provide a clean and effectively limitless source of power while allaying all public concern—weapons proliferation, radioactive pollution, toxic waste, and fuel that is both costly and complicated to process."[19]​: 13 ​ Moir and Teller estimated in 2004 that the cost for their recommended prototype would be "well under $1 billion with operation costs likely on the order of $100 million per year", and as a result a "large-scale nuclear power plan" usable by many countries could be set up within a decade.[1]