tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.comments2023-04-07T05:19:44.951-04:00Yes Vermont YankeeMeredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comBlogger2769125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-15637975254178290372022-01-12T22:41:07.665-05:002022-01-12T22:41:07.665-05:00Thanks Miss VT Yankee and it is Painful to see th...Thanks Miss VT Yankee and it is Painful to see the Useless destruction of this Industrial Cathedral. We need to keep this vandalism current and not forgotten.briancamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07302169618416744993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-10662517994078486932021-08-23T23:32:08.577-04:002021-08-23T23:32:08.577-04:00All of his books are still in print and available ...All of his books are still in print and available in paper and Kindle from Amazon.<br /><br />You might also be interested in the Nevil Shute Foundation. Formerly the Nevil Shute Society.<br /><br />Www.nevilshute.org<br /><br />Always nice to see fellow Norwegians.<br /><br />John henryJohn henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13529920006532904660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-11721662530301903442019-04-22T16:12:22.025-04:002019-04-22T16:12:22.025-04:00Bill McKibben, I'm like you for being a person...Bill McKibben, I'm like you for being a person I'm confident shares so much values with me. But there is one thing of technical concern to me, you wrote:<br /><br />"I believe Vt. is completely capable of replacing (and far more) its power output with renewables, which is why my roof is covered with solar panels."<br /><br />What concerns me is that with this accounting, by replacing nuclear instead of coal and gas, we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions as nuclear is also a low-carbon source of energy.<br /><br />For the sake of the world, I really hope we manage to clearly aim to become 100% fossil free as fast as possible before something else. I hope you can relate to this.Erik Sundellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04935903804848777932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-64256984097318059462018-10-29T21:00:55.403-04:002018-10-29T21:00:55.403-04:00AS I recall the polls at the end of the fight over...AS I recall the polls at the end of the fight over Vermont Yankee were about 42% for, 46% against - in other words neck and neck in the margin of error. But those for were mostly silent and those against had co-opted the Legislature and political process.<br /><br />Howard ShafferHoward Shaffernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-59179982752593465942018-10-07T23:37:51.737-04:002018-10-07T23:37:51.737-04:00Always remeber: http://tinyurl.com/4xqwzjc (Mull...Always remeber: http://tinyurl.com/4xqwzjc (Muller's lie)DrAlexChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06554390453957084910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-10817361697594499842018-10-05T14:49:24.286-04:002018-10-05T14:49:24.286-04:00It occurs to me that for a mere physicist to expre...It occurs to me that for a mere physicist to express opinions on what a cell will do is less convincing unless he or she can show some actual acquaintance with cell repair mechanisms.AuldLochinvarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442624757865656195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-5534878768517422312018-10-03T14:14:11.358-04:002018-10-03T14:14:11.358-04:00The first of Brenner's comments needs confirma...The first of Brenner's comments needs confirmatory evidence. Which biological study supports that particular viewpoint? Certainly after all these years he must be able to rattle off 10-20 studies supporting the hypothesis that repair mechanisms effectiveness have a linear response to the amount of radiation. <br /><br />The second of Brenner's comments seems to suggest that studies on exposed fetuses would show effects more clearly. In support of Meredith's comment, He needs to show studies showing the immune system does not mature, or grow less effective, from just after conception to late middle age. <br /><br />McClellan's comments about ALARA I think are wrong. There is a very well known legal responsibility to reduce doses as per LNT. NPP are shut down in preference for coal plants. What if coal plants were managed to produce the same level of expected harm from in-house/off-site emissions as a nuclear plant. i.e. ALARA for particulate, acid gases, etc. Ken Chaplinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-14411050281129086252018-09-28T17:57:16.388-04:002018-09-28T17:57:16.388-04:00Looking forward to seeing everyone! - JimLooking forward to seeing everyone! - JimJim Concahttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-33438702055567669602018-07-06T11:34:20.932-04:002018-07-06T11:34:20.932-04:00I'd think the capital cost of a transmission l...I'd think the capital cost of a transmission line is proportionate to its peak use. So sharing costs proportionate to peak use seems reasonable.<br /><br />As Meredith point out, battery-assisted peak-sharving is a zero-zum game for utilities. They just battle as to whose customer pay. And they buy batteries and pass the costs on to the customers, too.Robert Hargraveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06846491141058940965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-5482209768507533572018-07-06T09:14:06.672-04:002018-07-06T09:14:06.672-04:00Thanks for sharing few if any key energy leaders u...Thanks for sharing few if any key energy leaders understand the utility markets mindset. Thanks for sharing. Do you have a way to show your on cost shifting concept in a graphic? Mark LewisM A Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03049517310282179466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-81061176069681254532018-07-05T17:15:22.816-04:002018-07-05T17:15:22.816-04:00Nice explanation, Meredith! - Jim ConcaNice explanation, Meredith! - Jim ConcaJim Concanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-28896946406690074502018-07-05T16:51:39.327-04:002018-07-05T16:51:39.327-04:00Ike,
Seems like a good idea to me. Thanks for sh...Ike, <br />Seems like a good idea to me. Thanks for sharing it.<br />MeredithMeredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-31759976117884871872018-07-05T16:17:24.646-04:002018-07-05T16:17:24.646-04:00I can appreciate the reason for charging for peak ...I can appreciate the reason for charging for peak transmission usage is that there's a peak power transmission limit. But misusing this charging scheme isn't fair either. Would it not be possible to base a proportion of Tx usage on average usage? Ike Bottemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10681160329849216716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-79442449305434740492018-03-30T23:21:57.264-04:002018-03-30T23:21:57.264-04:00The more I think about it, the more I believe that...The more I think about it, the more I believe that we need to work on the tribal leaders, those that are at the top of the food chain of groups that don’t accept nuclear energy as a viable or necessary (or save, or inexpensive, or...) source of power. I recently saw a short Twitter thread by @Drvox that I agreed with, which stated that even in the face of convincing facts, or other pressures, if the leadership of a tribe sticks to a certain position, the rest of the tribe will, also. Which is perhaps just another way of saying what you’ve said here.<br /><br />So, iI think we need to ID some very specific tribe leaders and figure out how to reach them, and get them to change their thinking, and then work with them to share those changes with their tribe. Tall order, I know. This shouldn’t take the place of all of us sharing and convincing our own communities, families, etc., but the big transformations are not gonna happen easily without some changes at the top.<br /><br />Thanks, as always, for a wonderful, thoughtful post. I’m especially energy-depressed today from the news of First Energy and Belgium shutting down all their nukes. Egads..<br /><br />AlanAlan Medskernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-44270026689232526892018-03-30T18:39:19.926-04:002018-03-30T18:39:19.926-04:00Also needed: Advocates who will oppose the Radiati...Also needed: Advocates who will oppose the Radiation Scare Story - "Any <br />Amount of Radiation is Dangerous." How do we account for the tenacity of this wrong idea? I believe that there are some people who are susceptible to scare stories, particularly when there is a basis to careful of large amounts of radiation.<br />What do we do? Prove they are wrong!!Howard Shaffernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-19147760658838563322018-03-19T13:42:44.195-04:002018-03-19T13:42:44.195-04:00The whole idea of an Entergy reactor being shut do...The whole idea of an Entergy reactor being shut down, and the absurdity of Vermonters, especially a presumable fellow-socialist like Bernie Sanders, preferring hundreds of giant windnills to one single reactor turns my stomach.AuldLochinvarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442624757865656195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-92003460043937399142018-03-17T07:47:50.122-04:002018-03-17T07:47:50.122-04:00One of the big factors that I like to emphasize in...One of the big factors that I like to emphasize in favoring nuclear is energy density. You get a lot more energy and a lot less waste on a per unit fuel basis (e.g., grams of fuel input) from "burning" uranium (or thorium, or plutonium) than you do an equivalent amount of carbon-based fuels. You also save on the extraction and transport steps. True, you need to enrich the natural material, but you must also process fossil fuels in some ways prior to combustion. So on the input side we sometimes have coal trains that are miles long feeding fuel to our power plant, compared to the amount of uranium that produces the same quantity of energy, which would fit into a typical ambassador bag. On the waste stream side, you've got some fuel assemblies cooling off in a storage pool, all packaged and contained, managed and monitored, contrasted with a sludge pond hundreds of acres in areal extent, open to the environment, ready to leak or collapse (as has happened).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-45118746760329521722018-03-14T21:26:27.331-04:002018-03-14T21:26:27.331-04:00Walt,
Walt,
Thank you for your comments.
This i...Walt,<br /><br />Walt,<br /><br />Thank you for your comments.<br /><br />This is a guest post and I do not know precisely what the author intended. However, I don't think he was deliberately "spinning" things to look bad for non-nuclear plants. He may have just looked up capacity factors for various types of plants in EIA or Wikipedia and done the comparison.<br /><br /> Indeed, gas-fired plants are often load following plants. However, there is no reason that a coal plant or a combined cycle gas plant should be load-following, as I see it. Why doesn't this type of plant run as baseload with the same capacity factor as nuclear? These are steam cycle plants, after all, as nuclear is. <br /><br />Why don't these types of steam plants run as 90% capacity factor baseload? Perhaps because they are more expensive or less reliable than nuclear? I think that teasing out dispatch % from intrinsic availability % is not an easy call, especially for non-nuclear steam plants.<br /><br />While we are at it, I get annoyed when hydro plants are called baseload. Hydro plants, overall, have less than 50% capacity factors. Many have capacity factors down around 25%. They are eminently dispatchable and very useful and very low carbon but...they are not baseload! (Walt, you didn't say hydro was baseload. This is not about your comment! I am just sounding off about one of my pet peeves.)<br /><br />And, I totally agree with you that nuclear plants are the best at managing their waste streams! Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-35882385783547305332018-03-14T20:32:10.030-04:002018-03-14T20:32:10.030-04:00Hi Meredith,
First, I am a huge supporter of nucle...Hi Meredith,<br />First, I am a huge supporter of nuclear and I agree with everything you said. But to John's point, the way the capacity factors were presented seemed a bit deceptive. I am a big fan of full disclosure and as soon as I see someone appearing to "spin" something, everything that say becomes suspect to me. On the other hand, had the post clarified the percentages given were somewhat overstated because of that coal and gas were sometimes intentionally throttled back to follow demand, it would have been more accurate and made me, at least, think wow, this guy's really trying to present an accurate and balanced picture. <br /><br />OTOH, if he had simply compared nuclear to the abysmal CF's for wind and solar, we could have avoided the problem altogether.<br /><br />BTW, the best thing about nuclear for me wasn't even mentioned. And that's it's lack of emissions, especially carbon. <br /><br />I also like that its waste stream is completely contained, tracked, audited, and inexpensively managed. Unlike ALL other forms of energy generation including wind and solar.<br /><br />Cheers<br />Walt Heenanhttp://www.utimz2.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-36799367055082109302018-03-14T10:18:41.998-04:002018-03-14T10:18:41.998-04:00John,
You are correct. Part of it is load follow...John,<br /><br /> You are correct. Part of it is load following. But part of the lower capacity factor is "organic" to the type of plant. <br /><br />When we visited a coal plant, ("All Around the Coal Boiler" posst on this blog) we learned that they use a lot of coal (no surprise) but it is impossible to do real quality control input on that amount of coal. So sometimes the coal had the wrong kind of slag and the boiler was messed up for several days. In the early days of nuclear, it didn't have such a good capacity factor, but people were: "all right! we are doing better than the coal plants!" They didn't realize how well nuclear can do.<br /><br />And the problems of getting gas in the winter in the Northeast are well known. <br /><br />So, only part of the difference is load following.Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-12623967278066232902018-03-14T09:47:35.642-04:002018-03-14T09:47:35.642-04:00Nuclear plants produce power over 92% of the time....<i> Nuclear plants produce power over 92% of the time. Coal approximately 57% of the time, and natural gas only 53% of the time. </i><br /><br />Is this referring to capacity factor?<br /><br />In which case don't the rather low figures for coal and gas reflect the fact that these plants are typically load-following whereas nuclear (in the US and most other places) runs flat out. Although in France where they have such a high proportion of nuclear that they have to load-follow, I think they get a capacity factor of around 77%.John Stumbleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04019330196397041999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-60723790920553553592018-03-08T14:38:48.468-05:002018-03-08T14:38:48.468-05:00Here are my five.
1. Clean. In addition to no CO2 ...Here are my five.<br />1. Clean. In addition to no CO2 and NOx emmisions, by carefully monitoring all aspects of production already it is the most ecologically sound form of energy. In the future the so called "waste" will be recycled.<br /><br />2. Adaptable. In addition to electricity, it can be used to desalinate water, for industrial heat, to power ships, and for remote communities. Reactors can be built large or small depending on the economics of the situation.<br /><br />3. Dense. High energy output per fuel unit. Small physical footprint.<br /><br />4. Scaleable. Nuclear can actually accomplish zero worldwide CO2 emmisions by 2050, by building reactors on assembly lines at 1-2 per day(1Gw).<br /><br />5. Inexhaustible. Besides terrestrial deposits of uranium and thorium, the ocean produces enough uranium per year to be extracted to power a large civilization virtually forever.Phil Weyenbergnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-72611708576695917182018-03-08T12:27:10.810-05:002018-03-08T12:27:10.810-05:00As the two most surprising things about nuclear, I...As the two most surprising things about nuclear, I'd say:<br /><br />1) In study after study, people and animals exposed to low levels of radiation have lived LONGER than the control groups exposed to none at all! (This is called the "Radiation Hormesis" effect.) That shouldn't be surprising since the human body adapted to radiation as we evolved in a world flooded with radiation. In fact, the world had much higher levels of background radiation in the past than it does now.<br /><br />2) Nuclear power is a SUSTAINABLE energy source. There is enough uranium dissolved in the world's oceans to operate more than twice as many nuclear plants as are in the world today for 100,000 years. And, after that time, there would be just as much uranium in the oceans as there is today! The reason... The oceans are constantly being replenished by rivers carrying the naturally-occurring uranium that has been washed out of the land.<br />Jeff palmernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-81979513920438918002018-03-07T10:55:46.355-05:002018-03-07T10:55:46.355-05:00Thank you to everyone for your comments!
The blog...Thank you to everyone for your comments!<br /><br />The blogspot platform doesn't automatically link to links that are inserted into the comments, which is annoying. Here the link that Ike Bottema attempted insert, which is his blog post that answers the Jaworowski question. <br /><br /><a href="https://ikemeisterwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/input-on-the-most-interesting-facts-about-nuclear-memo-to-suzanne-jaworowski-doe/" rel="nofollow">Most Interesting Facts</a><br /><br />Shockingly, I was unaware that Bottema has a blog! He does, and I have added it to my blog role. <a href="https://ikemeisterwordpresscom.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">Bright Side Energy Viewpoints</a>Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-38174753899894527572018-03-07T04:28:06.856-05:002018-03-07T04:28:06.856-05:00Meredith is correct: reactor #4 had the disastrous...Meredith is correct: reactor #4 had the disastrous accident but there were 3 other reactors on the site which were unaffected. John Stumbleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04019330196397041999noreply@blogger.com