Author Topic: Nuclear - The Next Generation (Read 38800 times)

mikemckinley · « **Reply #25 on:** Sep 23, 2003, 08:33 »

DID some research the other night on htgr. didnt find what i want but, did see pres' energy policy and that led me to nei.org. seems some of the idea is to alse gen hydrogen. it was estimated that we woould meed 200 plants to generate enough hydrogen to replace the gas used by the cars in the us. note, this was in whitehouse energy policy, and further, remember that Arnold has mentioned that he would have ca. work with the auto industry to biuld refueling stations for hydrogen. since this capital investment was one of the major impeds to hydrogen auto devpmt, well for what its worth that is what i have found out so far.
now i am wondering how the hydrogen will be generated. i know there are hydrogen recombiners, but that isnt a significant source of hydrogen is it. if i am off the thread please disregard.

HAIRDUDE · « **Reply #26 on:** Sep 24, 2003, 12:14 »

Here's the short and skinny on Nuke Plant Hydrogen Production. It takes a butt-load of electricity to make hydrogen. Power Plants produce butt-loads of electricity. A match made in heeaven.
Floyd

HAIRDUDE · « **Reply #27 on:** Sep 24, 2003, 12:32 »

As global energy needs continue to increase, many believe that electricity will be supplemented with other energy carriers, e.g., hydrogen. A hydrogen based economy could allow expansion of energy production while improving environmental quality. However, this vision of the future relies upon developing hydrogen production methods that are competitive economically and that meet growing environmental concerns. Nuclear-based hydrogen production using advanced reactor technologies may hold the solution. Nuclear energy is particularly advantageous because:

Nuclear technology for hydrogen production is proven,
High temperatures are available,
Nuclear power yields large thermal energy generation for relatively low cost, and
Nuclear power has very low pollution emissions.
Three nuclear-based hydrogen processes currently in development around the world are particularly promising.

Electrolysis
The simplest and cleanest way to produce hydrogen is by electrolysis of water. The actual electrolytic step of splitting water molecules with electricity is very efficient (0 to 90 percent). However, when electricity generation is accounted for, overall thermal efficiency drops to 25 to 45 percent. In general, electrolysis is considered expesive and is only used for small production facilities.

Use of new advances in high-efficiency electrolytic cells may significantly reduce costs, making it a viable hydrogen production method when cheap, off-peak electricity can be used.

When coupled with a nuclear power plant, electrolysis is an extremely clean method of producing hydrogen.

I thought my last reply was a little on the "duh" side so I decided since you were interested enough to ask the question, I should take the time to give a real answer. Sorry if I sounded like I was being short with you before.

Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P.
(B.S. stands for Bachelors of Science......not Bull Sh!t)

greengoo · « **Reply #28 on:** Sep 24, 2003, 06:44 »

I have met several environmental activists in my time. Two words, SEEK HELP. Anyway, enough old business. I was watching car and driver television last saturday, and GM is coming out with a hydrogen/electric/gas powered car in a few years. That is all well and good, but I am not sure if I like the idea of a hydrogen bomb sitting right under my butt. Neither do I like the idea of a gas engine sitting next to a hydrogen fuel cell. Also, I also saw the electric cars when they first came out. They have one small problen, they charge, the get hot, they go BOOM. 'nuff said? In case people are wondering, yes, I am antisocial, and yes, I am paranoid. That is just how I am, however, I will not subject anyone to my hatefull views of certain organizations...after all, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people aren't following me.

DainJer · « **Reply #29 on:** Sep 26, 2003, 08:37 »

I had to do a report on hydrogen economy for college last semester.
5 of the major Automobile manufacturers will start producing hydrogen cars for the U.S. by 2008.
"Norsk Hydro" is a big dealer in all this, Iceland is going totally hydrogen.
With the use of their hydro-power the efficiency increases quite a bit.
UofI circle campus downtown has employee cras that run off hydrogen, BMW is using hydrogen as the power source for everything but but the engine.
The obstacles facing the U.S. are refueling infrastructure and production of hydrogen considering we are already close to brown-outs in many areas.
Lucky for us the major push is Hydrogen/Nuke plants, i will attempt to find the link explaining all this later.

http://ttp://www.bmwgroup.com/e/0_0_www_bmwgroup_com/5_verantwortung/5_4_publikationen/5_4_1_umweltbericht/5_4_1_1_umbeltbericht/5_4_1_1_2_focus/5_4_1_1_2_1_clean.shtml?5_5

SloGlo · « **Reply #30 on:** Sep 26, 2003, 10:56 »

i'm putting this here 'stead of dainjer's new thread, cause i don't wanna corrupt that one. moderators are free to move it,'k?
anyway, how long will it take before the greenies decide that they cannot abide having nuke plants built for any reason and launch a public relations campaign linking nukes and hydrogen bombs? i kin see the tv adz..... tmi with the hindenberg tied off to the cooling tower.

alphadude · « **Reply #31 on:** Sep 26, 2003, 06:57 »

sounds good on the surface-engineers dream- the are draw backs- trasportation being one- which does increase the risk. but no big deal.

the one thing no one mentioned is the need for ultra pure water. any impurity-will result in a brine that can be very nasty- no u cant dump it in the ocean or a lake. this could be a chemical feed stock but i doubt it because cheaper things are already in use. also chlorine and other gases will be evolved- so with water cost now higer than gasoline (he he see how much u pay for dansi vs gasoline)this may be a trade off for luxury. the main byproduct is oxygen sounds good huh? well oxygen is toxic to plants so its ironic to think that the dumping of oxygen is actually pollution. perhaps if it could be converted to ozone and sent to the poles..hmmmmm but ozone is toxic to people and life. ohhhh well! this is not the solution but i do like it because of the balanced energy policy fit.

DainJer · « **Reply #32 on:** Sep 26, 2003, 10:09 »

Quote

sounds good on the surface-engineers dream- the are draw backs- trasportation being one- which does increase the risk. but no big deal.

the one thing no one mentioned is the need for ultra pure water. any impurity-will result in a brine that can be very nasty- no u cant dump it in the ocean or a lake. this could be a chemical feed stock but i doubt it because cheaper things are already in use. also chlorine and other gases will be evolved- so with water cost now higer than gasoline (he he see how much u pay for dansi vs gasoline)this may be a trade off for luxury. the main byproduct is oxygen sounds good huh? well oxygen is toxic to plants so its ironic to think that the dumping of oxygen is actually pollution. perhaps if it could be converted to ozone and sent to the poles..hmmmmm but ozone is toxic to people and life. ohhhh well! this is not the solution but i do like it because of the balanced energy policy fit.

If you go read the links i gave on the "Nuclear/Hydrogen" post, the only byproduct from hydrogen power cells is pure potable water.
The weak link is the amount of electricity it takes to produce hydrogen.

AMU · « **Reply #33 on:** Sep 28, 2003, 01:10 »

In the October 2003 issue of Popular Science, there is a short article about nuclear power plant resurgence being funded by government to test a new plant design Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR). The online version of the article is:

http:// http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,477255,00.html

SloGlo · « **Reply #34 on:** Sep 29, 2003, 06:58 »

Quote

well oxygen is toxic to plants so its ironic to think that the dumping of oxygen is actually pollution

i'm perplexed... iffen o2 is toxic to plants, 'n plants produce o2 via photosynthesis, why aren't the plants killing themselves? why doesn't grass 'n the lower elevation plants kill the trees? how many heavy breathing mammals gotta be present to counteract that o2 poison? 'n how did kudzu ever get a start in this country with all the 02 pollution that wuz hear? 'n do greenhouse workers gotta use ignition source permits to keep frum blowing themselves 'n the plants off the planet?

alphadude · « **Reply #35 on:** Sep 29, 2003, 06:30 »

i see apples and oranges- the ideal byproduct from pure water production of hydrogen is o2 and h2- now how do ya get pure water??? distilation and ion exchange - distilation produces still bottoms and ion exchange produces spent resins- its nice to read nuclear news and stuff but those egg heads work in colleges and gave us the "too cheap to meter" sales pitch on nuclear power.. caviat emptor besides most of ya will be too old to benefit- the rule of 20s always applies- 20 years from dream to production.

alphadude · « **Reply #36 on:** Sep 29, 2003, 06:46 »

surely slo go u jest?

rlbinc · « **Reply #37 on:** Sep 30, 2003, 03:49 »

It will be a consortium, either U.N. sponsored, funded by the World Bank or World Trade Organization. I'm not talking New World Order stuff. The need is that dire and the technological decisions of large-population developing nations can affect the quality of life on the whole planet.

Advances in the standard of living are accompanied by the consumption of energy. We could burn candles and heat the old cave with a small pile of wood and consume less energy, but that lifestyle is a tough sell.

As technological advancement spreads through globalized trade, third world economies are emerging and require additional energy to support their advancement.

There are a billion people in China alone, requiring electrical power.

We simply cannot afford the consequences of the stack emissions of fossil power in that application. A large US city has 20 million people. This is the equivalent of 50 such cities and the associated power requirement in China.

There is a large fossil plant in Monroe Michigan. It produces 1800 Mwe and consumes 150 - 50 ton coal cars every 24 hours of operation. 7500 tons of coal or 1.5 million pounds of coal a day. A high school chemistry student can tell you that 12 grams of Carbon combines with 32 grams of Oxygen to make 48 grams of CO2.
That 1.5 million pounds of coal per day becomes 6 million pounds of CO2 per day when shot through the boiler. (This all assumes 100% combustion - which never seems to happen.)

If 1 billion people each need 1 kilowatt of power, that's
1 million Megawatts, a thousand new nuke plants. Just to avoid building 550 of Monroe fossil plants and attempting to live with the attendant 3.3 billion pounds of CO2 per day.

I'm not a firm believer in Global Warming, but if there is proof, it would become painfully evident in the above scenario.

Nuclear power isn't just a good idea, it's a survival strategy for a global civilization. The Nuclear Generated Hydrogen initiative will also ensure that car emissions are harmless water vapor. Another consideration for weaning off of fossil and petroleum energy sources.

SloGlo · « **Reply #38 on:** Sep 30, 2003, 07:15 »

alphalphaboy... eye joust knot in jest, eye ingest bye jowl. howz bout ewe?

alphadude · « **Reply #39 on:** Sep 30, 2003, 07:02 »

so i guess u all gonna vote out the oil barrons in the white house-since his deddy took nuclear out of the energy policy back when deddy was in office- if u dont get him out dont count on many changes- so far lip service is all thats come out of the white house for nukes- we are so desperate that we will settle for any thing on the nuclear plate-

SloGlo · « **Reply #40 on:** Oct 01, 2003, 04:29 »

nah.... we need alla fossil burners we kin git so's dat we kin keep our vegatative co-inhabitors alive via da co2 emissions. 'sides, once we burn up alla fossil remains, den we gotz ta split atoms to maintain the electric demand that well bee in place at dat time.... see rblinc previous entry on dis thread.

ageoldtech · « **Reply #41 on:** Oct 01, 2003, 06:28 »

The Old USA must get off it's butt and not worrry about the oil boys. The general pubic is misinformed of the current situation. Blackouts ocurr at an alarming rate. With the current population growth we will have rolling blackouts to most of the the USA in the next decade, unless congress decides that nukes is the gig!

alphadude · « **Reply #42 on:** Oct 02, 2003, 06:34 »

but the oil boys are in the white house and are the party leaders- hmmm something aint right.

alphadude · « **Reply #43 on:** Oct 02, 2003, 06:39 »

binc ya preachin to he choir... no one here will admit that the administation needs to change... the leaders that made the statement that coal is our best hope... did ya mention the mercury discharge from fossil plants too??? Global warming is in the fossil record and is part of history.. it happens often and will always happen.. somethings just bring it about faster.. oh if u lived on the gulf u would know about global warming-the ocean is rising folks.. no matter what u believe its a fact.

Rain Man · « **Reply #44 on:** Oct 03, 2003, 05:08 »

It will all be driven by Moe-Nay. If the money leans towards fossil burners that is what will be developed. If it leans toward nukes it will go there. The US energy policy will follow the same trend that many programs follow. The USG will pay it lip service and throw token funds at it until something catastrophic happens (Nero fiddles while Rome burns??). It's a little hard to tie the horse up in the barn after the barn has burned down. As far a global warming, there is evidence from "experts" that it might or might not be happening. The problem is that once definitive proof is found we have passed the point of no return. The world may have passed that point already.

SloGlo · « **Reply #45 on:** Oct 03, 2003, 10:13 »

Quote

oh if u lived on the gulf u would know about global warming-the ocean is rising folks..

duz dis meen oui ar gittin rida ca?

SloGlo · « **Reply #46 on:** Oct 03, 2003, 10:18 »

hmmmm.. last time i checked the big boyz in oil had verry sizeable nuclear holdings... hmmmm, think they might know sumthing? hmmmmm :-? :-?

Poll

Who will build and operate the next generation of nuclear?

Author Topic: Nuclear - The Next Generation (Read 38800 times)

mikemckinley

HAIRDUDE

HAIRDUDE

greengoo

DainJer

alphadude

DainJer

alphadude

alphadude

rlbinc

alphadude

ageoldtech

alphadude

alphadude