Nuclear power is safe

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-02 17:59:28

For Calliban re #275

There are all sorts of mixed messages going on in #275 .... that may well reflect the complexity of the situation we humans are in.

My impression of the average person is that they are generous and kind if able to live in even modest comfort, which having abundant energy would provide.

The idea that having abundant energy would lead to destruction of the Earth is counter-intuitive to me. There would be no need to destroy the Brazilian rain forest, as just one small example

However, your closing paragraph contains the escape clause, both from the gloom of the post, and the situation faced by humanity.

I am counting on this thread/topic to amount to something, just as I am counting on RobertDyck's Large Ship to pull a rabbit out of the hat at some point.

***
One minor question I do have ... I just published a quote from a source in a topic belonging to Louis ... it gave a greater ratio between fossil fuel and atomic energy than you quoted. My recollection is that the quote gave a ratio of 1:20,000,000, instead of 1:1,000,000 you quoted.

I suppose the difference is on the academic side.

Louis had imagined an iron/air battery might be able to power the ion drive of a large space vessel. i searched for the chemical/atomic energy ratio in an effort to try to show the difference in magnitude.

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-08-02 18:26:38

tahanson43206,

Is that Iron-air battery more energy dense than a liquid cryogenic oxidizer and fuel?

If not, then it won’t be powering that ion drive for more than a few minutes at most, if that long.

Void · 2021-08-02 18:45:35

The battery is heavy. It is not intended for cars or mobile equipment as far as I know. Just stationary grids.

Done.

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-02 19:03:47

For Void re #278
For kbd512 re #277

I was trying to help Louis to understand (to the extent that he may be able to do) the difference in energy between a chemical energy storage system and an atomic one. However, I think both of you did a better job.

Todo(if there's ever time) ...

Compare the energy density of an air/iron battery to an equivalent mass of cryogenic fuel/oxidizer.

If chemical to atomic energy ratio is on the order of 1:1,000,000 to 1:20,000,000, then I would expect the ratio between chemical fuel/oxidizer and the battery would be on the order of 10,000:1 or so.

My point to Louis was that such a battery ought to be ** very ** attractive for deployment on the Moon, where the mass won't matter, and the great simplicity and durability of the battery will enable crew to withstand fourteen Earth days without solar power.

I agree with everyone that such a battery is unlikely to find a place in a traveling space craft.

On the **other** hand, such a battery might be quite attractive for an orbiting station that experiences periods of dark alternating with light.

The ISS itself (or civilian successors) might be good sites for such a battery, since lithium and other chemical batteries are likely to have a much shorter life of service.

Edit at 21:26 local time ...

Louis, in thinking further about your idea ... there ** is ** a way a giant, low density battery could play a significant role in powering an ion drive for an interplanetary vessel .... Such a battery could not be located on the vessel itself, as kbd512 has pointed out. However, it most certainly ** could ** be located on the Moon, where it could deliver energy via laser beam to a vessel in transit to or from Mars.

This topic is about nuclear power. A discussion of a battery technology is a distraction from the purpose of the topic.

Louis, if you want to continue discussion of the iron/air battery, please do so in a more appropriate topic.

Calliban, this is ** your ** topic ... if it goes off track, and I (or any Administrator or Moderator) fails to catch it in a timely manner, please let us know.

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-08-02 19:15:05

tahanson43206,

tahanson43206 wrote:

For all re topic ....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-stud … 03131.html
Facilities like this would be needed to support conversion of the energy economy 100% from fossil fuel.

In the near to mid term, there is no single technology that will replace fossil fuels. That means we will still be using gasoline, diesel, and kerosene by the super tanker load.

tahanson43206 wrote:

While the nuclear industry only has 70 years of history building and operating facilities like this, and that history is studded with massive failures of all kinds, I am hoping that enough lessons have been learned so that a new facility for construction and refurbishment of modular reactors might be imagined, constructed and operated safely for many decades.

The last death associated with radiation from commercial nuclear power in the United States of America occurred in 1964, 16 years before I was born. In half a century, we've killed more people from nuclear medicine isotopes than nuclear power. More maintenance workers have fallen to their death from wind turbines than have died from nuclear power in the US, and that is fact.

tahanson43206 wrote:

On the other hand, the arguments of those who oppose facilities like this one are based upon unfortunate reality.
There may well be facilities that have operated safely for decades without creating invisible liabilities that will come to light in future.

They're arguments based upon fear-porn promulgated by media personalities pushing an agenda because they get paid to do so.

tahanson43206 wrote:

It would be good to know if such facilities exist, because they would surely be models for what is needed in great numbers if the global infrastructure is to be converted from fossil fuels in a reasonable number of years.

All of the nuclear "waste" (mostly cracked fuel rods containing nearly all of their original energy content) from the past 50 years of commercial nuclear power production will fit on a single football field. That's enough energy to provide 100% of the electricity for the US for the next century at least, if not two centuries. The Thorium we buried in the desert out west is enough to provide another couple centuries of electric power. After the brain fog finally clears (lots of people die from no energy), we'll start using it, because the alternative is poverty and death. Until then, there will be endless bad-faith arguments made without any intent to agree to use the most practical and energy-dense substances known to man, after addressing specific concerns or problems. Some people will never be satisfied.

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-02 19:38:57

For kbd512 re 280...

Your estimate of the amount of nuclear waste seems low, but I only have impressions to go on. My understanding is that the caverns in Nevada were dug out with enough room to store all the waste from US activities, or at least that was the goal before the plan was stymied.

My understanding is there are football fields of waste at every defunct reactor site, and every working reactor site.

If you can point to more accurate information it would definitely be helpful.

A plan to consume accumulated waste by burning it in suitable reactors would seem a minimal requirement for a plan to replace fossil fuel with nuclear power.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-08-03 03:12:42

Spent fuel occupies a relatively small volume at nuclear power plants because very little of it is produced. A 1000MWe PWR will have a core fuel load of about 90 tonnes HM. Of this, about one third (30t-HM) will be discharged each year after fuel shuffling, at a fuel burn up of 40,000MW-days/tonne. About 3% of discharged fuel will be fission products, 1% plutonium isotopes, 1% 235U and 95% 238U, with other actinides making up 0.2%. That 29t-HM + fission products that is discharged, is in the form of uranium dioxide fuel pellets which have a density of about 10,000kg/m3. If one assumes a fuel volume fraction of 50%, then the discharged fuel will have volume of about 6m3. If the US has roughly 100 LWRs, then we can estimate that all spent fuel produced in 1 year will occupy a volume of 600m3. That is quite a small volume.

An Olympic swimming pool has volume 3750m3, so the spent fuel from 21 years of operation of the US nuclear fleet, producing 20% of all electricity, would just about fill one Olympic swimming pool. That is for 20% of all US electricity for 21 years. So yes, Kbd512's statement is quite accurate and if anything, conservative, at least in so far as spent fuel is concerned. Low level waste, stuff like contaminated concrete, steel, clothing, etc, has a much greater volume. But still tiny as a total proportion of all human generated waste.

There is no pressing need to do anything with spent fuel, because it occupies such a small volume and is relatively passive after short lived fission products have decayed. We could continue growing inventories of spent fuel for a very long time without its volume presented any problem. The fuel is kept passively safe even at high decay heats, simply by ensuring that pond are topped up above a minimum level. Easy to do. In the UK, rainwater is easily sufficient.

However, the reality is that we are likely to reprocess spent fuel to extract valuable actinides from it. Uranium supplies are not infinite at the ore grades that allow LWRs to operate economically. Eventually, we will need to retrieve the actinides contained in spent fuel in order to fuel fast neutron reactors. As was revealed in previous calculations, we are more likely to discover that we have too little plutonium, rather than too much. Either way, legacy spent fuel is a resource and a gift to future generations, who will not benefit from the abundance of fossil fuels that we have grown accustomed to. The idea that spent fuel is a problem that needs to be buried in the ground is wrong headed in my opinion. Even the fission products themselves would be valuable as radiothermal heat sources. The plutonium (and other actinides) is something that future generations (and probably our own) will desperately need as they fight to maintain viable energy supplies to keep people alive.

Here in the UK, per capita electric power consumption is about 0.5kWe. To provide all of the electric power needs for 1 person for an optimistic 100 year life time, would require about 50 grams of plutonium, with about the same volume as a 1US cent coin. Maybe three of those coins would provide all of the energy needs for one person, transportation, heating, manufacturing...all of it. This provides a good indication as to how compact and energy dense nuclear fuels really are. It also says a lot about how valuable those spent fuel rods really are. The plutonium that they contain is a lot more valuable than gold and platinum in terms of what we can use it to do. In the decades ahead, that spent fuel will be a lifeline for a lot of desperate people.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-08-03 04:07:21)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-03 07:00:35

For Calliban re #282

SearchTerm:Fuel Spent fuel from reactors analysis of
SearchTerm:Nuclear waste analysis of

The potential market that I see is for small modular reactors that can be offered to small business entrepreneurs who are mentally capable of managing a system of about one megawatt for service to a few customers.

The day of huge monster reactors seems to me to be past. I could be wrong, but I just can't see anyone other than a dictator building a large reactor.

If you want to develop a market for nuclear power, it would seem to be helpful to provide a small modular reactor within an infrastructure that can refurbish such a reactor safely. It is in the refurbishment facility that your would collect your technical expertise.

The work force that deploys reactors and then cycles them every ten years would be comparable in skill set to the technicians who install and service cable tv or cable Internet services today. There would be employment opportunities for millions of people and customers would number in the billions if you design such a system.

(th)

NewMarsMember · 2021-08-03 07:54:28

This is for Louis (primarily) but all are welcome to contribute if so inspired ...

At one time Great Britain had control over vast swaths of the surface of the Earth and entire oceans.

While the extent of that influence has lessened in recent years, there may still be a few islands in the Pacific that are suitable for Calliban's modular reactor refurbishing facility.

Such a site needs to be remote from populated areas, easily accessible by sea and by air, and thoroughly in the control of the United Kingdom.

If the UK were to see itself as a corporation competing with other corporations to supply energy to customers around the world, Calliban seems (to me at least) to be on the verge of offering a vision to match the potential opportunity.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-08-03 14:23:25

NewMarsMember wrote:

This is for Louis (primarily) but all are welcome to contribute if so inspired ...
At one time Great Britain had control over vast swaths of the surface of the Earth and entire oceans.
While the extent of that influence has lessened in recent years, there may still be a few islands in the Pacific that are suitable for Calliban's modular reactor refurbishing facility.
Such a site needs to be remote from populated areas, easily accessible by sea and by air, and thoroughly in the control of the United Kingdom.
If the UK were to see itself as a corporation competing with other corporations to supply energy to customers around the world, Calliban seems (to me at least) to be on the verge of offering a vision to match the potential opportunity.
(th)

Somewhere like this perhaps? Or one of the outlying islands with minimal wildlife.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British … _Territory

I suspect that my time and resources would not be up to the task of developing a modular nuclear reactor system. That is the sort of project that requires a team of engineers (and at least $1 billion). I can point out things that are sensible, talk about useful design features, etc and hope that someone listens. But developing something like this beyond basic concept isn't something that any individual can do, no matter how eager.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-08-03 14:28:19)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-03 14:52:00

For Calliban ... re #285

First, my apology for losing track of login's ... I log in as NMM to post the daily email report, and forgot to change ID's before posting to your topic.

Second, thanks for the very interesting link ...

Administration Edit
The British Antarctic Territory is administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). A Commissioner is appointed and is always the Director of the FCO's Overseas Territories Directorate.
The Territory has a full suite of laws and legal and postal administrations. Given the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty System, the Territory does not enforce its laws on foreign nations who maintain scientific bases within the Territory. It is self-financing, with income from the sale of postage stamps and income tax.

While this is encouraging, it may not work for the intended purpose, because of international treaty terms. I'm not able to confirm this at the moment, but last year when I was investigating the winds around Antarctica, I learned that the land of the continent (or at least some parts of the continent) are under very strict environmental controls. I don't know if England/UK is a party to those agreements, but what I remember is that a particular island I thought quite suitable for a permanent wind farm is under control of a nearby nation which actively discourages introduction of any disturbance of the native wildlife.

I was hoping for an island a bit further North. There aren't many uninhabited islands left on Earth (certainly in temperate zones) but there are a few. Whether the UK has any residual claim to any such islands is to be determined.

***
If the time for an idea has come, then it will flow naturally and without a lot of effort.

Founding a trillion (monetary unit) company necessarily starts with one person. In this case, the idea is coming to life in correspondence between two people, which I understand (from anecdotes I've read or heard from interviews) is the natural progression.

It is the ** soundness ** of the idea that will carry the day, although a bit of sales activity can certainly help.

What I'm seeing (at least in my mind's eye) is a global company serving all nations that are part of the free market system, providing 1 Megawatt service in 10 year leases, and managing all aspects of the equipment, distribution, service, insurance, financial flows, security and whatever else is needed.

The customer needs to provide a location that can be secured, and to pay the lease. That means the customer is responsible for managing a small business organized around the steady supply of electrical power and useful heat so that the business pays the lease and makes a profit.

Happily, the Earth has thousands if not millions of entities perfectly capable of doing just that.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-03 17:37:33

For Calliban re possible new industry ...

The "Flying Bun" design for airlift devices might turn out to be ideal for distribution of 1 MW modular reactors.

Reactors could be shipped by sea from a (hypothetical) island factory, and then transported by air to customer sites.

The advantage of the "Flying Bun" design is that it can be made large enough to operate for 10 years with one of the reactors suspended under the lift volume, presumably aft of the control cabin, while the inactive module is carried between the two.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-04 07:50:38

For Calliban re topic ....

Discussion of batteries in other topics provides an opportunity for comparison of atomic vs any other form of power.

If a 1 MW reactor that runs for 10 years can be packaged in the form of a standard midsize shipping container, then comparisons can be made to a variety of alternative battery designs.

Per Google:

Standard containers are 8 feet (2.44 m) wide by 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) high, although the taller "High Cube" or "hi-cube" units measuring 9 feet 6 inches (2.90 m) have become very common in recent years.
Intermodal container - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Intermodal_container
What are the dimensions of a 40 foot shipping container?
What are the dimensions of a shipping container?
What are the internal dimensions of a standard shipping container?
What is the standard size of a 20FT container?
Shipping Container Dimensions - Container Container
www.containercontainer.com › shipping-container-dimensions
Shipping containers and storage containers can come in a range of sizes, 20ft and 40ft shipping containers are the most common container lengths ...

For purposes of comparison, I would imagine a 40 ft container might be sufficient for a 1 MW reactor able to deliver for 10 years, and hope you can confirm that at some point.

It is possible you have already done so in earlier posts.

Update at 12:43 local time .... kbd512 just proposed a 16 GWh battery for personal use. Does that size seem about right as a buffer for a 1 MW reactor that must dump it's power every second of every day for 10 years?

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-04 16:11:42

For Calliban re topic ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-los-a … 00219.html

The board also noted that some of the lab's facilities store radioactive waste without any engineered controls or safeguards beyond the containers.
Hirsch said no one seems to have any idea what to do with waste that's too dangerous to move — not the lab, the Energy Department or the safety board.
Waste with that kind of hair trigger should only be analyzed in a "hot cell," with walls several feet thick, blast-proof glass and robotic arms that a technician operates to handle the materials, Hirsch said.
But the lab would have to find a way to get the waste barrels there, he said.
"The problem never should've been created in the first place," he said. "Now that it's been created, they seem to be throwing their hands up and saying, 'We don't know what to do.' "

If we (humans) are going to master atomic power we need to face up to the challenges of managing the technology.

We have some members who seem to have no clue what the situation is, but who make pronouncements as though they do.

We have the same problem on the other side of the debate.

The article at the link above seems (as I read it) to show how ignorance in the past (within 70 years) has led to present difficulty.

I'm counting on Calliban (and not some far away mysterious company) to design a reactor that can be managed safely throughout its life cycle.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-08 10:41:46

For Calliban re topic ...

Per your suggestion, I've secured a copy of "Beyond Oil and Gas" and begun what I hope will be a methodical review of the work. I am inspired by the example of Professor Olah, who succeeded in leading an effort that resulted in development, construction and continued operation of a methanol production plant in Iceland, using thermal energy as energy input, and CO2 and water as materials input.

This is the model that I think can be replicated with 1 Megawatt containerized reactors to be leased for 10 years and refurbished by the prime vendor.

I understand the wide range of your interests in general, and the comparably wide range of your interests with respect to nuclear power.

My hope is you will be willing to invest occasional blocks of time to developing:

1) Detailed specifications for a 1 MW reactor able to fit in a standard 40 foot container form factor, and ...
2) Outlines of the nature of a prime vendor able to create, distribute, secure, recover and refurbish these reactors.

The Prime Vendor is (most likely) where your strongest interests lie, but the small, ultra-reliable deployable reactor is the key to wide acceptance of the technology, since (I think) it is comprehensible to many thousands of people who are able to imagine themselves securing funds for and operating a franchised energy supply service.

I don't have any information about countries other than the United States, but ** in ** the United States Franchise businesses are successful in many fields.

While they are associated with the food industry, they are certainly not limited to that field, and I see Energy Supply as a potentially highly popular branch of the Franchise concept.

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-08-08 17:32:33

My interest in nuclear power can best be summed up in the following statement:

"At the present time, we have no alternative globally-scalable technologies to supplant the wholesale use of fossil fuels to generate commercial electric power."

There are alternative solutions that work within their niche application, but no other technology can supply the incredible amount of power required, unless basic economics, ultimate sustainability, and practicality are all ruthlessly ignored.

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-09 09:17:20

For kbd512 re #291

I take your quoted text as an endorsement of Calliban's topic !!!!

For Calliban re topic ....

Knowing that there are many demands on your time (as with RobertDyck and OF1939), it is a good day when you can squeeze in a post about nuclear power.

I am specifically interested in two specific directions I'm hoping you can explore from time to time...

The concept of a 1 Megawatt reactor that can be leased to small businesses (or others but I am interested in small businesses) for 10 years is attractive on multiple levels. Design of such a reactor so that is is safe, secure, compact (fits 40 foot container), and can be delivered to customer sites easily is a challenge that a few organizations around the world are attempting, but ** you ** are the only person with the necessary background in this forum, so I hope you will be able to include it in your wide ranging interests.

Beyond the modular reactor must be a gigantic global enterprise, and in the capitalist system, there need to be at least three such entities, competing for customer business. These entities will (if realized) attend to ** all ** the details needed to bring a modular reactor to the market in the quantities needed to address the challenges facing the human race at this time.

Such modular reactors can be compared to automobiles, airplanes, trucks, locomotives or a myriad of "consumer" products that are mass produced on a global scale. Humans have demonstrated the ability to create such industries, and every **single** one of them started with a single individual with a vision.

Plenty of support is needed to move from that ** one **individual to a global enterprise, the the process ** always ** starts with a single individual with vision.

The direction you seem (to me at least) to be looking seems (again, to me at least) worth supporting.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-10 07:22:20

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/nucl … 00986.html

Nuclear energy had been falling further and further out of favor amid falling costs for renewable energy installations. But suggestions of its death have been highly exaggerated. The $1-trillion bipartisan deal that the Senate approved earlier this month envisages $6 billion to support nuclear power. And some utilities are considering mini reactors to support their emission reduction efforts.
There is perhaps no better proof that nuclear power would be needed in the net-zero world than the fact that the infrastructure bill—which runs for 2,700 pages—seeks to support existing nuclear plants that are becoming uneconomical in competition with cheap gas and renewables. Apparently, these projects need to be made economical again in order to secure future electricity supply for an economy that, if plans pan out, will run overwhelmingly on electricity.
The bill also includes financing for new nuclear reactors—small, modular ones. Small modular reactors appear to be growing in popularity as an alternative to the huge and expensive nuclear reactors of the past.
There is just one problem with small nuclear reactors. They have yet to be approved for deployment.

So, Natrium, for one, is comparable to the biggest competitor of nuclear energy. Other nuclear projects may soon become competitive if the clean electricity standard bill recently proposed by a group of Democratic senators becomes a law. This standard would punish emitters and reward low-carbon electricity producers, which would certainly tip the scales in favor of nuclear—small and modular, or otherwise.
By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

Sobering review of the scene facing deployment of small modular reactors.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-11 08:53:49

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/muehleberg … -/45449072

The 47-year-old Mühleberg nuclear power plant, near Bern, was permanently switched off on Friday. This is the first of five Swiss nuclear power reactor to be decommissioned.
This content was published on December 20, 2019 - 12:31 December 20, 2019 - 12:31
Keystone-SDA/sb/ilj
The Mühleberg nuclear power station was officially taken offline at 12.30pm, when the last control rod was removed from between the fuel elements. This stopped the chain reaction and deactivated the reactor. The process took three seconds.
The event was considered so important in Switzerland that viewers could follow the progress live on television. Cameras showed a close-up as the red buttons were switched off. There were a few tense moments as everything was checked. "The reactor is now off," said the manager, Roland Bönzli.

It added that the site had generated enough electricity to cover the energy consumption of Bern for more than 100 years.

Anti-nuclear campaigners said they welcomed the move. Philippe de Rougement, president of the campaign group Sortir du Nucleaire, told Reuters: "We would have loved it to close much earlier".
Switzerland's use of nuclear energy had delayed its development of renewable energy sources, he said.
A parliamentarian from Green Party has already tweeted that the next plant to go should be Beznau.
Anti-nuclear activist group Greenpeace called the shutdown a historic success.
"The decommissioning of the Mühleberg nuclear power plant will make Switzerland a little safer," says Greenpeace’s Florian Kasser. But he warned that there is no safe storage facility for high-level radioactive waste in Switzerland or abroad.

The author of this article seems (to my eye anyway) to have been trying to balance the competing points of view in Switzerland.

The opponents of nuclear power are certainly right to be worried about potential risks.

On the other hand, as nearly as I can tell, the Swiss installations have been flawless in operation over many decades.

From the standpoint of addressing climate change, the anti-nuclear citizens are ** really ** shooting themselves not just in the foot, but in both feet.

The idea that water will continue to arrive as a generous flow from Nature is (to my way of thinking) astonishingly naive.

The nation is already looking at decreased snow fall in the moutains, which are the heart of the character of Switzerland.

A solution that nuclear power could provide is delivery of fresh water from the ocean to whereever it is needed on land. That option is simply NOT available with any other power source.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-11 12:25:43

For Calliban re topic ...

Efficiency is one of your interests (among many, I'll admit) ...

Efficiency seems to come in several flavors, when it comes to nuclear power ....

1 % efficiency in recovery nuclear energy from a sample of fuel would seem more than adequate for a power supply for an Earth customer.

If a system is only one percent efficient in recovering potential nuclear power from a sample of fuel, and the deliverable is 1 megawatt for 10 years, I'm hoping that a numerical analysis would reveal that only an ounce of material (or less) would actually be consumed.

I am more concerned with heat efficiency ... Since we are talking about a heat engine, and since thermal energy not captured and turned into electrical power (or some other form of non-thermal power such as mechanical power for driving a ship's propeller) must go out into the environment, I am wondering if an inefficient atomic fission plant would release thermal energy into the Earth environment at a rate greater than it can be radiated to space.

The Earth is reported (citations are elsewhere in the forum archive) to be out of balance right now ... The Earth is reported to be taking in and generating new thermal energy faster than it is radiating energy to space, so the entire system is building up thermal energy.

Where I am headed with this is to ask if systems designed to provide nuclear power should/must be designed to radiate to space instead of to the Earth, as has been the case until now. ** All ** nuclear reactors ever built and operated on Earth to this point (to the best of my knowledge) have radiated excess heat to either air or water or both.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-14 17:55:51

For Calliban ... the figures on production of Natural Gas from fossil sources quoted below would seem to show the magnitude of the challenge of replacing the fossil fuel supply with nuclear powered CO2/water production. I'd be interested in your adjustment based upon your estimates:

1) of the difference between energy content of Natural Gas and Methanol
2) of the potential efficiency of nuclear power in delivering Methanol at the required level (ie, to match 88.3 BCF of Natural Gas in a year)

tahanson43206 wrote:

Hopefully this post will return the topic to it's original purpose:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/u-na … 00925.html
Among all countries, the U.S. moved into the lead for natural gas production in 2011, and has since substantially grown that lead. In 2020, U.S. production declined by 1.9% in response to the Covid-19 pandemic — which negatively impacted gas prices — but the U.S. retained a commanding 23.7% share of global production.
From table: US 99/3 Billion Cubic Feet per day - Global share 23.7%
To put U.S. production into perspective, the 88.3 billion cubic feet per day (BCF/d) the U.S. produced in 2020 was greater than all Middle East natural gas production (66.3 BCF/d). The Top 10 producers were the same as in 2019, except China leap-frogged Qatar on the back of a substantial 9% increase in its country’s production.
In another topic, I am pursuing the question of what it would take to replace fossil supplies of Natural Gas with output of facilities supplied with nuclear power.
There are one or two members of the forum who may (still) be interested in seeing if the Natural Gas from fossil sources can be supplied by Solar power, or a combination of Solar power and wind.
In either case, it would appear that the production target to reach is (on the order of) 88 billion cubic feet of Natural Gas.
Unless advised otherwise, I assume that the volume quoted is based upon standard pressure and temperature.

Google came up with these figures for energy content of various fuels:

https://world-nuclear.org/information-l … fuels.aspx

Heat value
Methane (CH4) 50-55 MJ/kg
Methanol (CH3OH) 22.7 MJ/kg
Dimethyl ether - DME (CH3OCH3) 29 MJ/kg
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) 46-51 MJ/kg
Natural gas 42-55 MJ/kg
<snip>
Natural uranium, in LWR (normal reactor) 500 GJ/kg
Natural uranium, in LWR with U & Pu recycle 650 GJ/kg
Natural uranium, in FNR 28,000 GJ/kg
Uranium enriched to 3.5%, in LWR 3900 GJ/kg
Uranium figures are based on 45,000 MWd/t burn-up of 3.5% enriched U in LWR
MJ = 106 Joule, GJ = 109 J
MJ to kWh @ 33% efficiency: x 0.0926
One tonne of oil equivalent (toe) is equal to 41.868 GJ

The comparison appears to be based upon weight.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-08-16 02:50:59

1m3 of natural gas = 35.3 cu feet. 1m3 = 36.4MJ. Therefore, 1 cu foot NG = 1.03MJ.

88.3billion cubic feet per day = 91 billion MJ = 25.3TWh per day.

That is equivalent to the continuous heat output of 250 large nuclear reactors. Certainly nothing to be scoffed at.

Calliban · 2021-08-16 02:55:08

Link to book on the integral fast reactor programme in the US.

http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P … Energy.pdf

Cancelled by the Clinton Administration in the mid-90s for 'political reasons'. Had it continued to its logical conclusion of a commercialised large scale energy source, the energy crisis that we now face would have been a surmountable problem and would not be the civilisation ending crisis that the left have now lined us up for. But of course no one would have taken seriously the idea of a 'green energy transition', had such an abundant and sustainable energy source been made available to them. So it had to be destroyed to make way for those obsessed with the idea of solar panels.

The most pertinent lesson of the decline of Western civilisation, is that great civilisations are not conquered from without until they are ruined from within by groups of people that want that outcome. Historians writing the history of our decline and fall will note that it was by no means inevitable and that it was ultimately brought about by the mental sickness and complacency of those living within it.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-08-16 03:08:30)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-16 06:05:25

For Calliban re #298

Thanks for the link!

SearchTerm:Book recommendation (online pdf about integral fast reactor in US)

The humorous thing (from my perspective) is that the view of the ** other ** as insane/mentally ill is exactly reflected by their sincere (supportable) belief that the ** first other ** is insane/mentally ill.

If adroit leadership emerges, and there is no guarantee it will, it will somehow find a way to guide these two groups of equally insane/mentally ill people toward useful decisions that allow the entire collection of insane/mentally ill people to survive and perhaps even thrive.

As I read your words above, I reflected upon the success of entrepreneurs of technology (steam in the UK, steel and cars in the US) in leading the populations of their time toward collective success, despite the almost certain insanity of at least half the population at any given time.

Update 2021/08/19 at 11:32 local time ... The pdf Calliban found and linked contains 406 pages.

The title is: "Plentiful Energy" "The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor"

ISBN 978-1466384606

Excellent! The book is available as a paperback from Amazon!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-19 09:51:05

For Calliban re topic in general and 1 MW reactor in focus...

Thank you (again) for the link to the Plentiful Energy book/pdf ...

While I am likely to order the book later today, when the right equipment is at hand, I suspect it does not address the need I am hoping you will help to consider. The concept I am pursuing is a 1 Megawatt reactor that can be leased by small businesses for a period of 10 years. The potential customer base for a reactor of this size is in the thousands in the US alone, and (I suspect) in the millions world wide.

There would need to be a minimum of three large corporate entities to supply and to maintain such a fleet of small reactors.

You (as a designer) are in the position (metaphorically speaking) of Henry Ford, and he envisioned a "world" filled with Model-T's ...

He organized resources (financial and human) to churn out Model T vehicles for a number of years. He was able to do so at prices that his workers (and many other workers) could afford, AND he did so while paying higher wages than the competion.

If you (and not somebody else) can design a 1 MW reactor that has all the properties you described earlier, ** AND ** it can meet the requirements I have suggested, then you would be in the same position as was Mr. Ford when he developed (through trial and error) his basic car for the masses.

You would (if this alternate future were to come into being) be designing a mass produced energy source able to churn out 1 MW for ten years that can be afforded by many current small businesses and (no doubt) many more which do not currently exist.

Your role then would be to manage one of the three gigantic global scale enterprises that provides the equipment, delivers it to customer sites, manages security for all sites as well as the enterprise facilities, and swaps it out for refurbishing after 10 years.

Update at 14:34 local time:

Order Total: $21.76
Not Yet Shipped
Items Ordered
1 of: Plentiful Energy: The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor: The complex history of a simple reactor
technology, with emphasis on its scientific bases for non-specialists, Till, Charles E.
Price
$14.25
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Condition: New
Shipping Address:

Due date is August 22nd.

Amazon offered related titles for consideration:

Recommendations from Amazon
Nuclear 2.0: Why a Green Future Needs Nuclear Power
$9.95
Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy
$11.19

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2021-08-02 17:59:28

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#277 2021-08-02 18:26:38

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#278 2021-08-02 18:45:35

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#279 2021-08-02 19:03:47

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#280 2021-08-02 19:15:05

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#281 2021-08-02 19:38:57

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#282 2021-08-03 03:12:42

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#283 2021-08-03 07:00:35

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#284 2021-08-03 07:54:28

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#285 2021-08-03 14:23:25

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#286 2021-08-03 14:52:00

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#287 2021-08-03 17:37:33

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#288 2021-08-04 07:50:38

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#289 2021-08-04 16:11:42

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#290 2021-08-08 10:41:46

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#291 2021-08-08 17:32:33

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#292 2021-08-09 09:17:20

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#293 2021-08-10 07:22:20

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#294 2021-08-11 08:53:49

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#295 2021-08-11 12:25:43

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#296 2021-08-14 17:55:51

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#297 2021-08-16 02:50:59

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#298 2021-08-16 02:55:08

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#299 2021-08-16 06:05:25

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#300 2021-08-19 09:51:05

Re: Nuclear power is safe

Board footer