Pulsed helium3 fusion in a magnetic bottle, not lasers or same old tokawhatever...

Dayaks said:
It’s funny because Lake Arrowhead in CA would be great. Only a few miles the elevation drops ~3000 feet.

The lake has 15,640,000,000 gallons of water. 3000 ft of head is 1300PSI.

550 watts per GPM. Could get a couple of gigawatts out of it. ;)
Click to expand...
The problem is where you going to store after you use it to regain energy? You can't simply dump it back into the wild, freshwater is simply too precious in California for that.
 
sfsuphysics said:
The problem is where you going to store after you use it to regain energy? You can't simply dump it back into the wild, freshwater is simply too precious in California for that.
Click to expand...

You pump it back and forth depending on the power at the time. You’d have to make a lake at the bottom.

I am sure the homeowners on Lake Arrowhead with homes costing tens of millions won’t mind not being able to use the lake and the thunderous roar of water. Hah. It’s green, right?
 
THRESHIN said:
I have provided you with many, many sources in the past in related discussions. I remember one in particular was the US environmental protection agency. You simply dismissed them as false without reading them.

In short, I'm quite done playing that game.

Regardless, this still does not address the fact that YouTube is probably one of the most unreliable sources of information there is.
Click to expand...
Here you go. Wind and solar were EU’s top electricity source in 2022. Just barely beat out nuclear. Good day sir.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-an...ectricity-source-in-2022-for-first-time-ever/
 
DukenukemX said:
Here you go. Wind and solar were EU’s top electricity source in 2022. Just barely beat out nuclear. Good day sir.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-an...ectricity-source-in-2022-for-first-time-ever/
Click to expand...

I knew that Europe was going big with renewables, but I do admit that I didn't know they were going this big. Interesting news story.

However, all it really tells us is that they're building a lot of them. We can do that with just about anything.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Polish-universities-launching-courses-ahead-of-rap

So the question remains, are the renewables working? Well.....sort of.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/en...mand-puts-eu-electricity-grid-under-pressure/

In short, they're having a lot of trouble for various reasons. One is with the war in Ukraine backup from gas turbines is no longer a good option. Increased demand due to electric vehicles, heat pumps and further industrial electrification. They're talking "electricity rationing" now.

So build more renewables to meet demand? The intermittent nature of them is more the problem. Doesn't matter how much you have if the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

Ok so I can see your counter argument for this one. Batteries! I'm all for investing in batteries. Problem one is the technology to do this doesn't yet exist. Yes we should fix that. Problem two is the massive numbers involved.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1260553/eu-power-demand-country/

Even with advanced storage capacity, this is just insane.

Although renewables did produce a larger percentage of the grid power this past year in Europe, it's for the wrong reasons. There was less nuclear generation and this lead to more use of fossil fuels increasing overall emissions.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/greenhouse-gas-emission-intensity-of-1

Renewables only edged out nuclear because there was less of it.

In other words, if Europe continues to increase ratio of renewables without a strong base load, there's going to be a lot of problems.

What's the solution? As usual, it probably lies somewhere in between. If we develop strong storage technology, we could use renewables for peaking power which would eliminate the use of natural gas turbines entirely. Prioritize both hydroelectric and nuclear for a constant base load.

On to another related topic. If you're not going to read any of my links, read just this one.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963

Cognitive bias is a very well established branch of human psychology, documented countless times. It's also incredibly interesting because it's a product of our evolution so each and every single one of us suffers from this. It also serves no place in our modern society.

It works like this: if you're old enough to remember the original Nintendo you'll remember how half the time you put a game in, turn it on and it doesn't work. So we all pulled the cartridge out and blew on it and put it back in. This usually helped, so everyone did it. We took an action and saw a desired result therefore making a mental connection through pattern.

Except that blowing on it did nothing. The Nintendo suffered from a faulty connector. All that was happening is giving it another chance to seat properly.

So why am I bringing this up? Because I'd like to have an intelligent discussion on the topic, not a pointless argument. So far that's all it's been.

I'll leave you with one question: what would it take not to change your mind, but to consider information that conflicts with what you believe?
 
Another point to address: how is attacking unguarded power substations equivalent to attacking guarded power plants? Substations just distribute power, they could be getting their power from nuclear, solar, or any other power source. An attack on a substation is in no way equivalent to an attack on a power plant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wat
like this
Tsumi said:
Another point to address: how is attacking unguarded power substations equivalent to attacking guarded power plants? Substations just distribute power, they could be getting their power from nuclear, solar, or any other power source. An attack on a substation is in no way equivalent to an attack on a power plant.
Click to expand...
The difference is how bold the attackers are. Either a group of people started attacking power substations for no reasons or that it was planned. They could go after power plants, and depending on the type of power plant will depend how severe the catastrophe will be. You do have to secure nuclear power plants for this reason because a melt down is not the best thing to have done to the area. You don't want a piece of land to be inhabitable for hundreds of years because a far right group though the moon is made out of cheese.
 
DukenukemX said:
The difference is how bold the attackers are. Either a group of people started attacking power substations for no reasons or that it was planned. They could go after power plants, and depending on the type of power plant will depend how severe the catastrophe will be. You do have to secure nuclear power plants for this reason because a melt down is not the best thing to have done to the area. You don't want a piece of land to be inhabitable for hundreds of years because a far right group though the moon is made out of cheese.
Click to expand...

The level of mental gymnastics and logic twisting is amazing. No power plant, whether it is solar, wind, or nuclear, will be unguarded, and is irrelevant to power substation attacks. In fact, a nuclear power plant is arguably much easier to defend than a sprawling solar or wind power plant. In solar or wind, only the central facility will be secured while the individual arrays or turbines will be monitored by security camera and occassional patrols at best.

Energy storage will need to be heavily guarded as well if peaking power becomes our primary source of power. Not for environmental reasons (though this would definitely be a concern for lithium-ion based storage), but because doing so will be the equivalent of taking down a baseline power plant: brownouts and blackouts. Fusion plants will need to be guarded just like any other power plant too. So once again, bringing up security concerns because of attacks on substations is 100% irrelevant.
 
DukenukemX said:
The difference is how bold the attackers are. Either a group of people started attacking power substations for no reasons or that it was planned. They could go after power plants, and depending on the type of power plant will depend how severe the catastrophe will be. You do have to secure nuclear power plants for this reason because a melt down is not the best thing to have done to the area. You don't want a piece of land to be inhabitable for hundreds of years because a far right group though the moon is made out of cheese.
Click to expand...

In the spirit of learning, yes a terrorist attack is indeed a postulated threat to any nuclear power plant. Can't speak to the finer details of other plants in the world, but I'm quite familiar with ours here in Canada. To my understanding it's not much different elsewhere. It does make a case for strong regulation which is something I'm very much in support of.

If a terrorist were to fly a plane into a reactor building, it actually wouldn't do much. Ours were built to withstand an impact from a 737 - only because a 747 didn't exist then. Either way, damage to containment is not a break in the reactor itself so meltdown isn't a concern here.

Other attacks....I thought about that once. What would it take to cause a meltdown? Keep in mind that all these systems are automatic and don't work on much in the way of electronics. They've electromechanical for reliability with 3 separate channels. 2 of 3 channels indicating a problem will cause a reactor trip.

First thing you'd have to disable two independent shut down systems. This in itself I'm not sure how you'd do as they're designed to fail safe. Loss of a signal would be one of the channels. Power is not required here.

Next you'd have to cut off connection to the grid as well as internal electrical systems as power can be shared between units.

After that the backup generators (all 12) would need to be disabled. Then there's 3 more seismic backup generators.

Even taking out the main shutdown coolers (there are 4) you'd need to disable other emergency cooling systems such as the emergency coolant injection system, seismic water supply, and several others.

Even then, it would be a very slow path to meltdown. Slower than Fukushima as we have some ability for passive cooling that can last for several days without fuel failure - forget meltdown.

Once fuel starts to melt, it's surrounded by water and a lot of it. Again more time.

In the meantime we do have portable diesel pumps and generators that are deployed from the back of a truck. This was a Fukushima response.

I figure best attempt would be to cause a large explosion in seval key locations to disable electrical power. Even then, it would be very difficult if not impossible to get it all. A fast meltdown like Chernobyl isn't possible with the design of the shutdown systems. And those two are just the fast ones, there's more. Add in the xenon poisoning and it becomes just insane.

So all this only once you get enough suicide bombers past security who are military trained and armed with assault rifles. Security is much like going through an airport. They also have armored vehicles at their disposal. The entire plant is surrounded in multiple layers of fences of razor wire with proximity sensors.

So I've never been able to figure out how anyone would pull something like that off. I'd say that conventional power plants and distribution would be far better targets.

The biggest man made threat I can see would be what has been going on in Ukraine right now. Kind of hard to prepare for an artillery strike nd you'd think an opposing army would know better....and would want to capture rather than destroy! Still, even there the nuke plants are doing ok for now even if threatened.

I don't consider that a reason to shy away from nuclear either. That same army can easily drop some nuclear bombs if they want to.
 
DukenukemX said:
400,000 gallons of radioactive water leaked from a nuclear plant in Minnesota

https://apnews.com/article/minnesot...tritium-leak-c7a12ecb1b203179c5f7fef42bd0a3aa
Click to expand...
"Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that occurs naturally in the environment and is a common by-product of nuclear plant operations. It emits a weak form of beta radiation that does not travel very far and cannot penetrate human skin, according to the NRC. A person who drank water from a spill would get only a low dose, the NRC says.

The NRC says tritium spills happen from time to time at nuclear plants, but that it has repeatedly determined that they’ve either remained limited to the plant property or involved such low offsite levels that they didn’t affect public health or safety. Xcel reported a small tritium leak at Monticello in 2009.

Xcel said it has recovered about 25% of the spilled tritium so far, that recovery efforts will continue and that it will install a permanent solution this spring."
 
1_rick said:
"Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that occurs naturally in the environment and is a common by-product of nuclear plant operations. It emits a weak form of beta radiation that does not travel very far and cannot penetrate human skin, according to the NRC. A person who drank water from a spill would get only a low dose, the NRC says.

The NRC says tritium spills happen from time to time at nuclear plants, but that it has repeatedly determined that they’ve either remained limited to the plant property or involved such low offsite levels that they didn’t affect public health or safety. Xcel reported a small tritium leak at Monticello in 2009.

Xcel said it has recovered about 25% of the spilled tritium so far, that recovery efforts will continue and that it will install a permanent solution this spring."
Click to expand...
all nuclear plants have radioactive emissions in the form of airborne and water effulent. that part is never reported on because it is monitored and reported. we only hear about the unmonitored releases, or ones that we figure out how much after the fact. thing is they're usually about the same.
 
chart-minor-gases.jpg
 
Unabomber said:
They do have superconductors that could be cooled with liquid hydrogen, but those are mostly ceramics, which have virtually no ductile qualities. Trying to make a magnet coil out of them would be an absolute nightmare. There's one metallic compound out there, magnesium diboride, that is somewhat ductile and can superconduct at H2 temps, and is used in today's Tokamak designs.

If someone could find a superconductor that can stay superconducting at liquid N2 temperatures, then the helium crisis that's making my head pound on a daily basis would eventually be a non-issue for those of us in the field.
Click to expand...
If I remember the 1 GHz magnet has an elaborate recovery He system to manage boil off which is the technical hurdle to field strength.
 
drutman said:
If I remember the 1 GHz magnet has an elaborate recovery He system to manage boil off which is the technical hurdle to field strength.
Click to expand...

Some 1+ GHz magnets have active refrigeration systems, which keep the liquid helium in a relatively closed circuit, and they really do minimize the boiloff. The maintenance on those refrigerated magnets (Bruker's Ascend Aeon) is very expensive, though, and if my memory serves me correctly, it's about 50K / year for each of the compressor units. The 900+ MHz magnets utilize two such compressor units from what I understand.

The field strength itself, though, is limited by how much current you can store in that superconducting coil. Right now, with today's tech, you're not going to get above 800-850 MHz with standard 4.2 K liquid helium, and that's what limits your conventional superconducting magnets to those field strengths.

A while back, though, some of the magnet engineers found a way to sub-cool liquid helium to 2.2 K temperatures by pumping the liquid helium through a needle valve, and keep a separate chamber of 2.2 K helium for the superconducting coil. At 2.2 K temperatures, there are some wires used in those coils that can hold a lot more current than they could at 4.2 K.

My Bruker Ascend 850 MHz magnet is one of these, and for a magnet of this strength, it's actually about the same size as the older unshielded 600 MHz magnets. This subcooling gives your magnet amazing stability (my drift rate is 1.9 Hz / hour), and I don't foresee having to do a field boost all the way until I retire. It's not a refrigerated magnet, though, and having to put about 200 liters of liquid helium into it every 8 weeks or so gets expensive.

We actually got our helium recovery unit finally installed, so hopefully, we'll be able to reclaim and reliquefy the helium boiloff with about an 85% efficiency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top