Valve Technology

AAAch <sputter> (chokes on tea)

$25 million! That's about what was paid for each single large wind turbine tower.

It DOES sound too good to be true (is this just the fuel?). Can you supply references please.

Oh right. Well I think we will leave the other countries to trial and verify this new design before we consider renouncing our "nuclear free" policy.

OK - want to buy some ethanol?

Nah, I am still working my way thru a bottle of 10 year old Tequila at the moment and at the rate I am drinking it it will last for another 90 years.

Oh, you mean power generation. No thanks we have plenty of natural gas and wind down here. Yes I also am referring to power generation.

Jack,

You have the rate of consumption of the Tequila about right - I guess you won't need the ethanol after all.

Wouldn't you rather make fertilizer and plastics out of your natural gas?

Wouldn't you rather have your natural landscape than the "bottom of a blender"?

Wouldn't you rather have all the power you need, when you need it and with zero environmental impact?

Dave

You have the rate of consumption of the Tequila about right - I guess you won't need the ethanol after all.

I also have a bottle of 30 year old gin in reserve.

We are already utilising methane gas power generation from landfills (I should know I worked on the biggest one in New Zealand). Currently I am working on a very special wind farm project that will put as top of the pile yet again in the area of renewable energy.

Nuclear free LMAO ... not with all that french testing in ya backyard my friend I am sure you got some free samples in the fish... (yeap u can thank the french)

No we are clean of radiation in our food (fortunately). The only major problems we have had were when we tried to stop them peacefully, which they in turn implemented their own recreation of "Pearl Harbour".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

Caught by a local neighbourhood watch group, that alone should have prevented them getting their medals. Still that's the past and their have been no further attacks by the French.

Moving on.

That would be great to extract the tar sands. No need to burn gas to produce the steam and is located far from major centers.

Mining Tar Sands is even more disruptive then Coal. Vast landscapes are disturbed just to harvest a little asphalt-like scum!

Oh, and the pollution generated.

I would rather have one of these than a hot tub or a wood stove. The wood stoves are belching an incredible amount of pollution into the air. The ashes have a high concentration of heavy metals, which won't be disposed of in any kind of safe manner - probably dumped in the landfill.

What is the objection to a clean, safe, cheap, self-contained power source?

What is the objection to a clean, safe, cheap, self-contained power source?

The ten percent rule. What is not understood is feared.

Brad

The introduction of the device was also flawed. It should have had a water tank for "fuel" and a vent pipe that "emitted" CO2. This would move it into the realm of well understood devices.

Those would have sold out by now and people would be happily burning water for fuel and sequestering the CO2 from the vent.

The term "nuclear" seems to be the problem. Since the sun is fusion and this is fission, how about "sub-solar"

It is surprising how much the public is swayed by marketing/propaganda and will create a conviction counter to logic and facts.

Vote for me and I will do all these things!

4 years later with minimal doing and

Vote for me and I will do all these things!

Did they learn? No! Three and four terms later they are still being elected with few if any of the things that were needed done.

I'm still trying to figure which is worse the self serving public masters government or the apathetic couch potato public.

_{quitely steps down, folds up soapbox and fades away}

There are at least three companies promoting mini-nuclear power- Toshiba (working on a plant to install in Alaska), Hyperion, and Adams. All of them face the same issue- licensing...

Yes, sounds great. I've found a little more of this following from my "nuclear battery" thread last year and have been in touch with more than one of the potential manufacturers.

The $25mil is for a steam source with an estimated $10mil extra to convert to electricity. They have not yet provided any estimate of the "re-fueling" cost each five years and there are some other technical questions that have not been clarified.

When asked about the level of "security" required at the site there has also been no feedback.

They don't seem to have a "life cycle" plan available for manning or site plans to nominate perimeters and other similar expectations.

Like all specialist, it seems (my perception from current experience) that they have got their specialty area (the reactor) planned and feasibility checked, but haven't got the social/environmental interface ready.

Where do I signup $40/month for electrical can't be beat.

LG Dave asked: "What is the objection to a clean, safe, cheap, self-contained power source?"

I'm wondering if he's asking this about nuclear power?

In Canada (and elsewhere that CANDU technology has been distributed - not so familiar with other reactor technologies, but have heard and read simmilar things I'm about to share) the technology is neither clean (routine tritium and high concentrations of heavy metals are released through out regular operation, plus the effects of uranium mining which has left some real blights on parts of Canada and other parts of the world), safe (the Pickering nuke plant - the plant with the most population density surrounding it in at least North America if not the world - had to be shut down because the containment building stopped working, and the pipes had corroded to the point of regularly leaking waste into Lake Ontario. There's a cancer cluster arround the plant. Also the tech is the reason that India, Pakistan, the US and other countries have been able to build nuclear bombs, adding to global risk), cheap (the CANDU program is the one of the most heavily subsudised industry in Canada and the cost over runs in plant construction in Ontario alone have rusluted in nearly $40 billion in debt to be passed onto the consumers as a tax on energy bills) nor self contained (see points about mining and emmissions / leaks durring regular operations and consider the nuclear waste we are gifting to our grandkids).

I find that nuclear is positioned by some engineers as a magic bullet while ignoring the actual unsubsudized costs and issues both now and into the future. Any thoughts on why that is?

I find that nuclear is positioned by some engineers as a magic bullet while ignoring the actual unsubsudized costs and issues both now and into the future. Any thoughts on why that is?

That's funny, I find that existing silicon solar power is positioned by some as a magic bullet while ignoring the actual unsubsudized costs and issues both now and into the future.

As for nuclear power it has had a bad rap. It has its faults, but for all the scary stories and negative hype it is actually quite cheap, clean and safe now. Yes it still suffers from hazardous waste but what power generation doesn't, look at coal and other carbon producing sources of fuel. Even hydro suffers from environmental damage due reservoir and river rerouting.

Nuclear power providing our base load power requirements may be our only hope for a safe, clean future. Not as obvious a contradiction as it first seems.

Jack of all trades - you're right, on one side nuke proponents say they've got the answer and on the other side renewable proponents say they have all the answers. I tend to be skeptical of both!

But I'm unclear on how you define "cheap". The industry does not seem to exist except through purchases by centralized governments who guarantee to cover cost over runs, and purchase energy at a minimum rate. In Canada, insurers are protected by limited liability legislation, so the plants don't have to carry insurance to cover for the full risks associated with the technology.

Carbon emissions are not nearly as deadly as radiation emissions, the later being a

persistent mutanagen, the formed being an element that the biosphere can eventually reabsorb. Re-routed rivers do destroy habitat and alter the landscape - again not in a way that has long term effects that are on the level of releasing radio active pollution, some of which has a half life that may be longer than the amount of time humans have been in existence, let alone the 100 or so years we've been aware of the potential risk and rewards of nuclear energy.

The best hope for baseload power requirements is massive efficiency gains in all areas of our economy. Avoided energy is less expensive than that which is generated.

The use of the expression "Cheap" is just a figurative term used to indicate that a nuclear plant doesn't have to cost enormous amounts of money due to the fact that its fuel is more dangerous than other fuels such as coal and natural gas and has to have lots of expensive safeguards and tons of lead shielding as it did in the old days when it was a developing technology. This only takes into account the engineering cost in a broad sense, additional costs will vary depending on local government and environmental groups.

The best hope for baseload power requirements is massive efficiency gains in all areas of our economy. Avoided energy is less expensive than that which is generated.

Agreed.

It is significant that with all the concern about nuclear waste, it is being contained.

Every bit of it. Even the gloves and gowns.

None of the waste from burning is being contained. We suspect that it is causing global warming but we don't understand it well enough to be sure, much less how to control it.

We do understand nuclear power very well. Well enough that the mistakes of the past won't be repeated.

What is the alternative? Can wind or solar provide even 1% of our needs in the forseeable future?

Nuclear waste containment is not 100% foolproof.

Many times, it has leaked, and over and above that there are "acceptable risk standards" for ongoing routine release of nuclear radiation in doses which were deemed to be safe mostly by American Scientists attempting to justify the continuation of above ground nuclear arms testing decades ago (according to work of Rosalie Bertell, and common sense when you look at how safety standards are typically set). Frankly, I have much suspicion about 1) the knowledge base these scientists were working from, 2) the methodology of the experiment (mostly looked at capacity for short burst high exposure levels as opposed to long term low level exposure), 3) the intention and motivation of the "higher ups" in the military who controlled the results shared with policy makers and the public.

As for the issue of climate change - it is something to be concerned about, but keep in perspective - reproductive cells can survive variation in temperature far better than exposure to types of radiation coming from nuclear materials.

There is a big difference between radiation from a nuclear storage facility leaking into the surrounding atmosphere (or water table) and routine release of radiation from a nuclear device (bomb) test explosion (weather it be above ground or not). Everything in moderation, don't forget that we are surrounded by low levels of naturally occurring background radiation.

The fact of the matter is nuclear waste transport can be done safely and cheaply there are plenty of places to store nuclear waste safely (and cheaply) where it will cause minimal impact to the environment and not be anywhere near concentrations of humans or animals. The Australian outback is one of them (the same country where uranium ore is being mined).

It may not be an ideal solution but when we start to "run out of power" in the near future (greatly increased demand (not just in China) + alternatives not eventuating fast enough + greatly reduced dirty "Carbon" coal production = not enough power) it is nice to know that we have a fall-back plan in carbon-free nuclear power IF we need it.

Nuclear power must be seriously considered as an alternative and relatively environmentally clean base load energy provider.

Most hospitals have nuclear medicine facilities. They treat many diseases with nuclear medicine. The effect of nuclear radiation on the body is quite well understood.

In case of a leak, there is no need to wallow in a toxic environment for weeks or years while waiting for lab tests. You can find the contamination instantly with a $50 geiger counter.

The human body will function nicely over a wide range of temperatures. That is not the concern with climate change. Our infrastructure changes rapidly with a small change in temperature. When the ice caps melt and flood coastal cities, when temperate zones become tropical or arctic, that is a lot bigger concern than absorbing the amount of radiation you would get in a chest x-ray or a flight at 30,000 feet.

There is a parallel discussion running concurrently to this one on CR4 entitled "would you live next door to a nuclear plant" or something in that neighbourhood...Curious that ...There is a renewal of the thorium-fluoride mini reactor notion which still makes sense..from 2 aspects...portable/manufactureable in a scalable manner both of which will generate serious employment for installation/maintenance/manufacturing/security etc...As well when power is needed in quantity again(no doubt draws on all the stressed grids is down now due to idleing of steel plants etc...)these sorts of reactors could provide sufficient power density to avoid brown outs etc.....Curious as to why these types of reactors were stopped from development in the USA in 1976....Regards Marty Wolf

I question the cost? Does it include the cost to transmit into the existing grid. If it does I think that it is a great idea as long as it is properly controlled. I slept over a nuc station for most of a 2 year period and I have not grow antellers yet; The ship is still operating (40 years later) and it will provide potential employment for retired nuc sub and aircraft carrier officers and tecs.

Key may be selecting locations to deploy. My yard if they want to pay a premium for the property!! So says the Air Dr.