New Nuclear Power Truimphic Record Surpasses all Renewables

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
9,311
Reaction score
1,353
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
Yes, another blow to Wind Power and Solar Power. The year 2016 has just seen the largest source of New Electrical Power Output produced by one single nuclear power plant.

Watts Bar 2, is now our first new nuclear power plant in decades. It is so powerful, it is providing more energy than all renewable sources combined!

Watts Bar 2, First New US Nuclear Plant Since 1996, Is Now Commercial!
watts.jpg

Watts Bar 2, First New US Nuclear Plant Since 1996, Is Now Commercial!

Bill Johnson, TVA’s CEO, stated that the completion of Watts Bar 2 will assist TVA in fulfilling its mission “to make life better in the Valley by providing reliable, low-cost energy, protecting our area’s natural resources and working to attract business and growth.”


He went on to say that “Watts Bar Unit 2 is a key part of our commitment to produce cleaner energy without sacrificing the reliability and low cost that draws both industry and residents to our area.”



Completion of the first new operating nuclear power plant in the United States since 1996 is a big deal and a good news story.



“Nuclear power remains the only source of carbon-free energy that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” said Joe Grimes, TVA executive vice president of generation and chief nuclear officer. “TVA believes that Watts Bar Unit 2, and other nuclear units like it across the Valley and the nation, represents a vital investment in our clean energy future.”


 

The Great Goose

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
13,958
Reaction score
1,230
Points
290
It's the way forward. Let's face it. If only we could shoot the waste into space. We could get it there if we let the Chinese build their space elevator.
 
OP
elektra

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
9,311
Reaction score
1,353
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
It's the way forward. Let's face it. If only we could shoot the waste into space. We could get it there if we let the Chinese build their space elevator.
There is so little waste it is ridiculous. Thus far, all the Nuclear waste created will barely fill the area of one football field. To protect one from the radiation all you need to do is cover it with water. Water being made of Hydrogen and Oxygen, Hydrogen is a natural neutron absorber. But, we could recycle the waste and use it as fuel in a reactor. Areva of France builds a reactor that recycles its waste and uses it again. And there are new designs that use more than 95% of the fuel leaving very little waste. Currently our designs of the middle of the last century use only about 3% of the energy in a fuel rod? If I am wrong it is not by much.
 
OP
elektra

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
9,311
Reaction score
1,353
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
Why is this a blow to wind and solar energy?
Is energy an either/or question?
Because it is cheap, reliable, and shows Wind and Solar to be a complete waste of money. Calling wind and solar "energy", is a real stretch of the imagination.
 

idb

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
14,203
Reaction score
2,003
Points
265
Why is this a blow to wind and solar energy?
Is energy an either/or question?
Because it is cheap, reliable, and shows Wind and Solar to be a complete waste of money. Calling wind and solar "energy", is a real stretch of the imagination.
You don't accept that there's energy coming directly from the sun and present in air movement?
Interesting point of view.
If you're right then I can only agree with you that it's a complete waste of money.
 

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
10,113
Reaction score
4,639
Points
400
Location
Pittsburgh
(1) Hooray for Nuke. Shame on he sierra club for going against their original support and spreading bullshit about the dangers of nuclear power.

(2) Commercial nuclear power industry was born in 1953. NOT A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED FATALITY IN THE HISTORY OF U.S. NUCLEAR POWER.

(3) U.S. nuclear power workers have a lower incidence of cancer than the general population.

(4) Spent nuclear fuel is fully recyclable, but President CARTER decided many years ago that he did not want this technology because it could also be used to make weapons-grade material, and he didn't want it to go into the wrong hands. (I wonder how he feels about allowing Iran to maintain thousands of centrifuges - which do exactly that: make weapons-grade material).

(5) the future of nuclear power is SMR's (Small Modular Reactors), which can be ganged-up to generate as much power as needed. the only obstacle to this technology going forward is stupid, unscientific fear mongers, such as the "Greens" who managed to scuttle nuclear power in Germany.

(6) As a practical matter, natural gas has made nuclear power economically unfeasible in the U.S. It would take substantial government support to move the industry forward in any significant way.

(7) the Westinghouse AP2000 PWR would have naturally powered down without incident, even with no power coming from the grid, had it been in place in Japan during Fukushima.
 
OP
elektra

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
9,311
Reaction score
1,353
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
Why is this a blow to wind and solar energy?
Is energy an either/or question?
Because it is cheap, reliable, and shows Wind and Solar to be a complete waste of money. Calling wind and solar "energy", is a real stretch of the imagination.
It's good for off grid, boats caravan etc. So we need it too.
Solar or Wind as a personal product the public buys I have no problem with it. But as an industry created by government that they sell to save the World from Global Warming or as a way to save Oil, that everybody should fight against. 1st and foremost, Solar and Wind energy has cost over a $trillion dollars? Who even knows. What we do know is they are proposing to spend another $44 trillion. That is a huge waste of money and more importantly, it is a huge waste of Oil which will be used in the manufacturing process.
 

The Great Goose

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
13,958
Reaction score
1,230
Points
290
Why is this a blow to wind and solar energy?
Is energy an either/or question?
Because it is cheap, reliable, and shows Wind and Solar to be a complete waste of money. Calling wind and solar "energy", is a real stretch of the imagination.
It's good for off grid, boats caravan etc. So we need it too.
Solar or Wind as a personal product the public buys I have no problem with it. But as an industry created by government that they sell to save the World from Global Warming or as a way to save Oil, that everybody should fight against. 1st and foremost, Solar and Wind energy has cost over a $trillion dollars? Who even knows. What we do know is they are proposing to spend another $44 trillion. That is a huge waste of money and more importantly, it is a huge waste of Oil which will be used in the manufacturing process.
It's just a shame because it improves the technology, affectiveness and lowers the cost of solar energy.

In a perfect world, we'd all have our own solar panels on our livable sheds.
 
OP
elektra

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
9,311
Reaction score
1,353
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
(1) Hooray for Nuke. Shame on he sierra club for going against their original support and spreading bullshit about the dangers of nuclear power.

(2) Commercial nuclear power industry was born in 1953. NOT A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED FATALITY IN THE HISTORY OF U.S. NUCLEAR POWER.

(3) U.S. nuclear power workers have a lower incidence of cancer than the general population.

(4) Spent nuclear fuel is fully recyclable, but President CARTER decided many years ago that he did not want this technology because it could also be used to make weapons-grade material, and he didn't want it to go into the wrong hands. (I wonder how he feels about allowing Iran to maintain thousands of centrifuges - which do exactly that: make weapons-grade material).

(5) the future of nuclear power is SMR's (Small Modular Reactors), which can be ganged-up to generate as much power as needed. the only obstacle to this technology going forward is stupid, unscientific fear mongers, such as the "Greens" who managed to scuttle nuclear power in Germany.

(6) As a practical matter, natural gas has made nuclear power economically unfeasible in the U.S. It would take substantial government support to move the industry forward in any significant way.

(7) the Westinghouse AP2000 PWR would have naturally powered down without incident, even with no power coming from the grid, had it been in place in Japan during Fukushima.
The Westinghouse AP1000 pwr is what you meant to type. We operate the same types of Nuclear plants as were designed and built in Fukushima. That would be the GE Mark I. It is a very old design that is very reliable. Had Japan simply built back-up power that could not be flooded by water there never would of been a problem. We shout ours down when the river levels get so high. But, there is really no need to, if back up power is on high ground.
 
OP
elektra

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
9,311
Reaction score
1,353
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
It's just a shame because it improves the technology, affectiveness and lowers the cost of solar energy.

In a perfect world, we'd all have our own solar panels on our livable sheds.
Solar and Wind are very old technologies. In a perfect World, only those who live very far from a city would have Solar or Wind. There is such a thing of Economy of Scale. Meaning it is much cheaper and better for the environment to build one power plant to supply millions of people, instead of building millions upon millions of tiny power plants to supply thousands of people with power.
 
OP
elektra

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
9,311
Reaction score
1,353
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
You don't accept that there's energy coming directly from the sun and present in air movement?
Interesting point of view.
If you're right then I can only agree with you that it's a complete waste of money.
It is not a matter of what I accept. It is a matter of how much of that power can effectively be used. The fact of that matter is we have proven that it is impossible to utilize the Wind or Sun to power our nation. If you read enough, you learn that the amount of energy from the sun has been over-estimated. We learn that the bigger you build the wind farm, the more disrupted the wind becomes, resulting in less energy. It is a strange thing, we always wants to go around things, wind takes the path of least resistance. We have also found that you can never supply heavy industry with power from Solar and Wind, hence Solar and Wind are always reliant on other forms of power, in the manufacture of Solar panels and components for Wind power.

Solar Plants require lots of Sun, Deserts seemed like a good spot. We have found out though, that the initial construction requires millions of gallons of water. Water that is pumped with power generated from anything but Solar Power. Millions of gallons of water in a Desert, during drought years? Certainly a huge waste of a natural resource.

Covering thousands of square miles with Solar Panels, literally raises the temperature. They create heat islands. They destroy habitat for animals, plants, they kill birds.

We must destroy the World to save the World.

Solar and Wind, on the industrial scale we have been building them, are complete failures.
 

idb

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
14,203
Reaction score
2,003
Points
265
You don't accept that there's energy coming directly from the sun and present in air movement?
Interesting point of view.
If you're right then I can only agree with you that it's a complete waste of money.
It is not a matter of what I accept. It is a matter of how much of that power can effectively be used. The fact of that matter is we have proven that it is impossible to utilize the Wind or Sun to power our nation. If you read enough, you learn that the amount of energy from the sun has been over-estimated. We learn that the bigger you build the wind farm, the more disrupted the wind becomes, resulting in less energy. It is a strange thing, we always wants to go around things, wind takes the path of least resistance. We have also found that you can never supply heavy industry with power from Solar and Wind, hence Solar and Wind are always reliant on other forms of power, in the manufacture of Solar panels and components for Wind power.

Solar Plants require lots of Sun, Deserts seemed like a good spot. We have found out though, that the initial construction requires millions of gallons of water. Water that is pumped with power generated from anything but Solar Power. Millions of gallons of water in a Desert, during drought years? Certainly a huge waste of a natural resource.

Covering thousands of square miles with Solar Panels, literally raises the temperature. They create heat islands. They destroy habitat for animals, plants, they kill birds.

We must destroy the World to save the World.

Solar and Wind, on the industrial scale we have been building them, are complete failures.
Not worth researching then?
I don't think nuclear power stations are perfect yet either.
 
OP
elektra

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
9,311
Reaction score
1,353
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
Not worth researching then?
I don't think nuclear power stations are perfect yet either.
We have researched them, we have studied them, we have all the information we need to make an intelligent decision, to abandon them. What did all our research tell us, as far as wind goes, the technological advance is not an advance at all, it was to build more and to build them bigger. Yet, the bigger they are the harder they fall, as in they fall with a tremendous thud. Over a 1,000 tons of each, using hundreds of gallons of oil each year, and you think they need more research? The research tells us the answer, it will cost over $44 trillion dollars to build Solar Plants and Wind Turbines, and at that they will always be a failure, producing just a tiny amount of energy.

Everything we learn about Wind and Solar simply reveals lie after lie. No amount of research will change that.
 

idb

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
14,203
Reaction score
2,003
Points
265
Not worth researching then?
I don't think nuclear power stations are perfect yet either.
We have researched them, we have studied them, we have all the information we need to make an intelligent decision, to abandon them. What did all our research tell us, as far as wind goes, the technological advance is not an advance at all, it was to build more and to build them bigger. Yet, the bigger they are the harder they fall, as in they fall with a tremendous thud. Over a 1,000 tons of each, using hundreds of gallons of oil each year, and you think they need more research? The research tells us the answer, it will cost over $44 trillion dollars to build Solar Plants and Wind Turbines, and at that they will always be a failure, producing just a tiny amount of energy.

Everything we learn about Wind and Solar simply reveals lie after lie. No amount of research will change that.
Right.
They aren't already perfect in your eyes so there's no point researching and developing any further.

Tell me...why are nuclear power stations still being researched and improved?
Going by your logic if they aren't perfect already there's no point spending the money.
 
OP
elektra

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
9,311
Reaction score
1,353
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
Right.
They aren't already perfect in your eyes so there's no point researching and developing any further.

Tell me...why are nuclear power stations still being researched and improved?
Going by your logic if they aren't perfect already there's no point spending the money.
That is a strawman arugment on your part. Wind Turbines have reached the limits of physics. There is nothing more you can do to advance a Wind Turbine. The only advancements of the last 20 years are they are made bigger, and you make more of them.

Can Economies of Scale be made with Solar Technology? Maybe, to a certain degree. But the cost has proven to be in the trillions of dollars. A huge waste of money.

And lets not forget, that for every advancement in Solar Technology (wind has peaked, sorry) there are technological advancements in Nuclear, Coal, and Natural Gas.

Further, Solar is so weak, so tiny in comparison, it is obvious that Solar can never equal any traditional power source. Solar starts so far in last place, it is a joke to think or suggest they will ever compete.

Yes, you can make this about me, that is your only argument. If you stick to the technical details and the science you lose.

Why are Nuclear Power plants researched? I guess you have not been around for the last 30 years. Research has largely dropped and been diverted from Nuclear to Solar and Wind. Sure, there is research, but not on the same scale devoted to Wind, Solar, and Global Warming. Talk about a huge waste and parasite on our standard of living.

Our whole country is suffering while we build Solar and Wind. It is really depressing. Solar and Wind will never in anyone's lifetime supply energy to Industry, never. At best, Solar and Wind are parasites on society. Nothing more. That is not opinion, that is fact.

You want to devote years of your life paying for Solar and Wind, that should be your prerogative, it should not be forced upon me. But, you do force me to labor for your ideals, I am a slave of tyranny, the tyranny of Renewable Power.
 

idb

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
14,203
Reaction score
2,003
Points
265
Right.
They aren't already perfect in your eyes so there's no point researching and developing any further.

Tell me...why are nuclear power stations still being researched and improved?
Going by your logic if they aren't perfect already there's no point spending the money.
That is a strawman arugment on your part. Wind Turbines have reached the limits of physics. There is nothing more you can do to advance a Wind Turbine. The only advancements of the last 20 years are they are made bigger, and you make more of them.

Can Economies of Scale be made with Solar Technology? Maybe, to a certain degree. But the cost has proven to be in the trillions of dollars. A huge waste of money.

And lets not forget, that for every advancement in Solar Technology (wind has peaked, sorry) there are technological advancements in Nuclear, Coal, and Natural Gas.

Further, Solar is so weak, so tiny in comparison, it is obvious that Solar can never equal any traditional power source. Solar starts so far in last place, it is a joke to think or suggest they will ever compete.

Yes, you can make this about me, that is your only argument. If you stick to the technical details and the science you lose.

Why are Nuclear Power plants researched? I guess you have not been around for the last 30 years. Research has largely dropped and been diverted from Nuclear to Solar and Wind. Sure, there is research, but not on the same scale devoted to Wind, Solar, and Global Warming. Talk about a huge waste and parasite on our standard of living.

Our whole country is suffering while we build Solar and Wind. It is really depressing. Solar and Wind will never in anyone's lifetime supply energy to Industry, never. At best, Solar and Wind are parasites on society. Nothing more. That is not opinion, that is fact.

You want to devote years of your life paying for Solar and Wind, that should be your prerogative, it should not be forced upon me. But, you do force me to labor for your ideals, I am a slave of tyranny, the tyranny of Renewable Power.
"The Tyranny Of Renewable Power".
I'll just let that sit there.
 

idb

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
14,203
Reaction score
2,003
Points
265
You don't accept that there's energy coming directly from the sun and present in air movement?
Interesting point of view.
If you're right then I can only agree with you that it's a complete waste of money.
It is not a matter of what I accept. It is a matter of how much of that power can effectively be used. The fact of that matter is we have proven that it is impossible to utilize the Wind or Sun to power our nation. If you read enough, you learn that the amount of energy from the sun has been over-estimated. We learn that the bigger you build the wind farm, the more disrupted the wind becomes, resulting in less energy. It is a strange thing, we always wants to go around things, wind takes the path of least resistance. We have also found that you can never supply heavy industry with power from Solar and Wind, hence Solar and Wind are always reliant on other forms of power, in the manufacture of Solar panels and components for Wind power.

Solar Plants require lots of Sun, Deserts seemed like a good spot. We have found out though, that the initial construction requires millions of gallons of water. Water that is pumped with power generated from anything but Solar Power. Millions of gallons of water in a Desert, during drought years? Certainly a huge waste of a natural resource.

Covering thousands of square miles with Solar Panels, literally raises the temperature. They create heat islands. They destroy habitat for animals, plants, they kill birds.

We must destroy the World to save the World.

Solar and Wind, on the industrial scale we have been building them, are complete failures.
The efficiency of solar panels is increasing all the time as research improves the technology and manufacturing techniques.
You're talking rubbish.

Solar Research Innovation Breaking Promising Efficiency Ground


While solar incumbents such as monocrystalline manufacturer SunPower Corporation and thin film manufacturer First Solar and startups such as V3Solar push the commercial boundaries for solar PV efficiency, researchers are likewise pushing solar’s overall efficiencies into new realms.


For example, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory has achieved 44 percent efficiency. They did so by multiplying the power of the sun by almost 1000 and focusing it on multi-junction solar cells. A Princeton research team hopes to vault past 44 percent en route to potentially crossing the 50-percent efficiency threshold. Their technology uses a 30-nanometer-thick gold mesh that reduces the amount of light that is reflected and lost, thus acquiring more light in total.


The Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark has produced one of the most recent research breakthroughs in solar efficiency. Their work with nanowires—and uncovering some of the unique ways nanowires interact with incoming sunlight—promise to raise the ceiling, not just of commercial and research solar efficiency, but of solar’s theoretical maximum limit. Researchers at Stanford University have accomplished a similar potential breakthrough, though by vastly different means. They’ve developed the equivalent of a solar turbocharger, a way to harvest both light and heat and turn both into electricity, thus overcoming the heat-equals-solar-degradation problem plaguing much of conventional solar PV.

As Solar PV Efficiency Climbs, Costs Likely To Drop
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,427
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Po' miserable Ms. Electra, the slave. LOL There are spent rod ponds in the US that have five times the amount of spent rods that they were designed for. And that is a disaster waiting to happen.

Safer Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

What are spent fuel pools?
When fuel rods in a nuclear reactor are “spent,” or no longer usable, they are removed from the reactor core and replaced with fresh fuel rods. The spent fuel rods are still highly radioactive and continue to generate significant heat for decades. The fuel assemblies, which consist of dozens to hundreds of fuel rods each, are moved to pools of water to cool. They are kept on racks in the pool, submerged in more than twenty feet of water, and water is continuously circulated to draw heat away from the rods and keep them at a safe temperature.

Because no permanent repository for spent fuel exists in the United States, reactor owners have kept spent fuel at the reactor sites. As the amount of spent fuel has increased, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized many power plant owners to increase the amount in their storage pools to as much as five times what they were designed to hold. As a result, virtually all U.S. spent fuel pools have been “re-racked” to hold spent fuel assemblies at densities that approach those in reactor cores. In order to prevent the spent fuel from going critical, the spent fuel assemblies are placed in metal boxes whose walls contain neutron-absorbing boron.

Note that the neutron absorber is boron, not hydrogen. You are certainly one dumb ass, Ms. Elektra.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top