Earthquake/Tsunami in Japan

[zed]

Except that you'd need something like a half of million (exaggeration) wind turbines to replace that nuclear facility in Japan.

Personally I think nuclear is one of the better options for Japan, Im certainly not advocating wind power for them.
Though solar will be an option in the future (for heating your homes water etc), though it will be standard practically everywhere in the future once they get solar paint sussed

 

[GZ007]

Japan produces 47000 megawatts of nuclear. A 300 MW facility you linked takes up 22 square miles. Scaled up to replace the Japanese nuclear power you'd need 3500 square miles of wind turbines. And you'd still be needing to store power somewhere. And the offshore Wind Turbines are actually substantially more expensive.

The biggest problem of the wind turbines is not the output but the regulation of electricity. Today(a long time ago) all the electricity that is generated is used up in same moment. If u need more or less power a gas/steam turbine can be easyli regulated. You can also connect to the grid new turbines in a short time if needed.

What if the wind is just 70% for the rated output in a hot day when everyone turns on the air conditioning ?
The companies also dont tell you that GWh-s for a whole year from a 300MW wind turbine park and a 300MW gas/steam turbine are completly different. Also gas/steam turbines create heat which is often reused in industry or in housholds some way. Wind turbines alone are completly useless in a grand scale.

Today the only similar accessible energy resource to the nuclear fuel is fosil fuel.

 

[KimB]

The biggest problem of the wind turbines is not the output but the regulation of electricity. Today(a long time ago) all the electricity that is generated is used up in same moment. If u need more or less power a gas/steam turbine can be easyli regulated. You can also connect to the grid new turbines in a short time if needed.

I'm not so sure that's true. The issue here is that most power plants are very, very slow to change the amount of power they generate (as in it can take days or more). So they have to be kept running at a level that is high enough that even with peak use, the grid doesn't exceed the plant's power requirements. Of course, the problem with wind and solar is that the amount of power they generate depends upon the weather, so that things are even worse in that not only is there little control over the amount of power generated, but the power generated is rather intermittent.

Also gas/steam turbines create heat which is often reused in industry or in housholds some way.

Yeah, um, that's how they generate their power, and that heat isn't particularly useful for other things besides power generation when it's located at the plant, not in your home.

Wind turbines alone are completly useless in a grand scale.

What? Why not? They're better in larger scales, because differences in weather average out better, leading to more consistent energy coverage.

Today the only similar accessible energy resource to the nuclear fuel is fosil fuel.

That's not entirely true. Nuclear and fossil fuels are the only energy sources that can be used anywhere. Other energy sources require specific conditions to operate effectively. But they can, indeed, operate effectively given the right conditions.

 

[3dilettante]

1. there are always things that aren't considered. In this case, the temporary storage of cores outside of the reactor in the 'cooling bath' was a nasty surprise, and there are various reasons for why security around that will need to increase (what happens if you dump a plane full of kerosine on that? Surely at the very least the water will evaporate and/or leak away).

From the description, the security of the cooling ponds is pretty close to the security devoted to the reactor cores, at least from external threats. They were both housed within the secondary containment.
It seems part of the post-mortem analysis will be to figure out why the pools were neglected, since the state of the pools apparently should have been a high priority.

I'm not entirely sure a plane-load of kerosene would be enough to compromise them, or at least not the kerosene part. There were thousands of tons of water in those pools. The plane would have a better chance by punching a hole in the tank, or disabling the circulation systems to allow the fuel rods to evaporate away their own water.

 

[GZ007]

I'm not so sure that's true. The issue here is that most power plants are very, very slow to change the amount of power they generate (as in it can take days or more.

What do you think how long it takes for a jet engine to increase or decrease power ? Lets hope the poor pilots dont need days for it.

 

[KimB]

What do you think how long it takes for a jet engine to increase or decrease power ? Lets hope the poor pilots dont need days for it.

Obviously I meant ground-based plants for generating electricity for domestic use, not aircraft engines...

 

[GZ007]

Obviously I meant ground-based plants for generating electricity for domestic use, not aircraft engines...

Both have much in common. Jet engines are gas turbines.

 

[MfA]

From the description, the security of the cooling ponds is pretty close to the security devoted to the reactor cores, at least from external threats. They were both housed within the secondary containment.

The secondary containment is the concrete structure around the reactor ... the pool was under the metal roof, which seems to have been explicitly designed to be the structural weak point in an explosion. Less about containment more about keeping out the rain.

 

[3dilettante]

I must have misunderstood the diagram, or was looking at the wrong diagram.

 

[KimB]

Both have much in common. Jet engines are gas turbines.

But gas turbines only produce trace amounts of the electricity used domestically. The vast, vast majority is coal, with nuclear a distant second.

 

[Grall]

Scaled up to replace the Japanese nuclear power you'd need 3500 square miles of wind turbines.

That's a pittance though compared to total available Japanese shoreline.

And the offshore Wind Turbines are actually substantially more expensive.

Compared to what, are you counting decommissioning and long-term storage of the nuke plant and its fuel waste as well?

And exactly how many of those things do you think would survive a tsunami?

Probably all of them, as tsunami waves only reach significant height near the shore, and the pillars those turbines sit on have a very small cross-section.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

With regards to nuclear power, I was reading recently that they only budget out to 100 years the cost of storage of spent fuel.
That rather seems like passing the issue on to the next generation to be honest. However I have read about the fission reactions that can use nuclear waste to produce small amounts of energy and at the same time changes the wastes into isotopes with vastly shorter half-lifes.

Waste heat from turbines isn't that wasteful. If close enough to a town it can be used for district heating. If not, it is great for greenhouses.

The issue with the intermittent nature of wind and solar is merely a storage and redistribution issue that can be solved with improved technology just the same as nuclear waste issues.
Was reading about a storage that intermittent energy in molten salts stored in a vacuum chamber underground and using the heat stored in the salts to power a steam plant.

Avenues in all directions. I really think it is best to explore all options, expecting one to or two technologies to be a silver bullet is not realistic in my opinion.
Future energy sources are just as likely to be as a mix as from now, if not more so and I am pretty sure Japan will push all techs just the same as everyone else will.

 

[PixResearch]

I have read about the fission reactions that can use nuclear waste to produce small amounts of energy and at the same time changes the wastes into isotopes with vastly shorter half-lifes.

There are proposed reactions around that use nuclear waste to produce vast amounts of energy too. It looks likely that the waste from current gen nuclear fission plants could become the fuel source for a future generation of power plants...

For example a travelling wave reactor:
Innovating to Zero = http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/terrapower-how-the-travelling-wave-nuclear-reactor-works/

Basically bury a big candle of waste with an enriched uranium seed. It burns like a candle producing power for 50-100 years. Budgetting for waste storage for 100 years isn't probably far off - it's likely be an asset within the next 50 years.

 

[Gubbi]

There are proposed reactions around that use nuclear waste to produce vast amounts of energy too. It looks likely that the waste from current gen nuclear fission plants could become the fuel source for a future generation of power plants...

For example a travelling wave reactor:
Innovating to Zero = http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/terrapower-how-the-travelling-wave-nuclear-reactor-works/

Basically bury a big candle of waste with an enriched uranium seed. It burns like a candle producing power for 50-100 years. Budgetting for waste storage for 100 years isn't probably far off - it's likely be an asset within the next 50 years.

Let's clarify.

There is nuclear waste and then there is nuclear waste. Calling depleted uranium, U238, nuclear waste is not the same as calling the fission products nuclear waste.

The TerraPower concept is breed and burn: Transmute uranium-238 to plutonium-239 and then fission the plutonium. It is similar in concept to the thorium cycle: Transmute thorium-232 to uranium-233 and fission the uranium.

This may lower the trans-uranic waste, but it does nothing to the fission products.

I'm skeptical about the Terra Power idea of loading the reactor once with fuel for 60 years. Imagine a Fukushima with 50-100 times the nuclear gunk in it. While it may be technically feasible (and perfectly safe too), finding the political will is going to be hard.

Cheers

 

[AlphaWolf]

That's a pittance though compared to total available Japanese shoreline.

I doubt its a pittance compared to anyone's shoreline. You can't put them just anywhere in the water. You require certain conditions.

Compared to what, are you counting decommissioning and long-term storage of the nuke plant and its fuel waste as well?

Sure why not. Wind power isn't particularly cheap, offshore ones are much more expensive.

Probably all of them, as tsunami waves only reach significant height near the shore, and the pillars those turbines sit on have a very small cross-section.

They need to be somewhat near the shore. And if the blades hit a surge of water, I think you'd have a problem. I'm not an engineer but I certainly expect building one off the coast of Japan would provide substantial challenges (earthquakes/tsunamis/typhoons) versus building them off the coast of england or denmark.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

That's a pittance though compared to total available Japanese shoreline.

Sure if you use the entire Japanese shoreline (of all 3 major islands) and go either 1 mile out to sea or 1 mile inland + some extra. I wouldn't exactly call that a pittance.

And that doesn't even account for situations when it's generating far less than the average due to the varying weather conditions. Or what happens during the rather frequent Typhoons. I'd assume you'd have to shut them down in affected areas during those occasions where you are getting Typhoon (Hurricane) level winds.

Not to mention the effect on shipping and fishing if you were to locate them in coastal waters. And I'd imagine the ecological impact of covering that much real estate (either land or ocean) is going to absolutely huge. I'm sure the coastal communties won't be all that happy either.

And how much is the maintanence going to cost of 3500 square miles of wind turbines which all must have regular maintanence done? The potential cost of that alone boggles the mind.

Regards,
SB

 

[zed]

The companies also dont tell you that GWh-s for a whole year from a 300MW wind turbine park and a 300MW gas/steam turbine are completly different.

They do supply this info from NZ companies

eg the largest power generating company in NZ. Wind was producing power 96.0% of the time (compared to hydro at 91.3%)
I doubt nuclear will match that uptime?

 

[GZ007]

They do supply this info from NZ companies

eg the largest power generating company in NZ. Wind was producing power 96.0% of the time (compared to hydro at 91.3%)
I doubt nuclear will match that uptime?

I did not write uptime. I write GWh per year. Thats the actual electricity generated.

Here is a graph from german inland wind turbines from january :

Thats the problem , not uptime. Steam/Gas turbines would have almost flat line on that graph.

 

[Gubbi]

There is no doubt that an energy store is needed if wind power is to displace more than 35-40% of electricity consumption,

Production is dictated by the weather. This inflexible (and unreliable) supply of electricity is obviously a problem from a supply guarantee point of view. Moreover it skews supply and demand curves for electricity and puts downwards pressure on electricity price.

In the Scandinavian north pool electricity exchange market, wind power is always bid in at a price of 0 (zero!). Then all other suppliers bids in, and an average price is found. Paradoxically this means that revenue falls off sharply once production increases past a certain threshold. Since 2000 there has been 200 hours where wind power electricity was FREE on the north pool because of this market mechanism.

An effective energy store would solve both problems.

On a pure per KWH cost basis wind power is competitive. The first phase of the London array with 175 3.6KW turbines will produce at a cost of 8-8.5 pennies / KWH. The average price of electricity in the UK is 10-11 pennies / KWH.

If the London array had been on-shore, construction cost would be halved, but electricity production would be lower too, so it would still cost 6-6.5 pennies/KWH.

Wind power is halving power production cost every 15 years. Even if the compressed air/adiabatic heat stores don't pan out, in 15 years time it will be economically feasible to produce syn-gas (hydrogen or ammonia), and use that for power generation when it isn't windy.

Cheers

 

[zed]

I write GWh per year. Thats the actual electricity generated.

Here is a graph from german inland wind turbines from january :

you can check this info as well, on land nz wind turbines produce ~3x the amount of GW per MW each year compared to german ones. Wind is pretty constant all year, apart from about now ~autumn (which btw is the best time to come to nz for a holiday)
I was listening on the radio about a community in otago, who are in the process of getting their own wind turbine for ~200 houses, cost ~1500 US per household, Ild jump at the chance (they were projected to make a profit each year, after theyve deducted their own electrity usage).