Re: Public Trust and Other Dreams

[Paul lavely <lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>]

Eric,



I agree with your percentages.



However -



My experience has been that this number was the first problem I found 

when I told a person opposed to nuclear power the efficiency of a 

power plant (nuclear, gas, oil, coal). I often got the same 

response(s).



1 Well if the nuc plant is no more efficient than the others (or only 

a few percentage points in either direction) then there is NO need 

for nuc plants.



2 Well if we were to use sun and wind the efficiency is 100% because 

this energy is "going to waste" now and any that we capture is 

therefore free (after the installation is built) because the fuel is 

free.



3 Well this shows that we need more research into how to get the 

conversion efficiencies up to something "reasonable" like 50 to 60%. 

Then we would only need half the plants we now have.



You can not use reason to argue that there is no free lunch if the 

people you are debating are the advocates of solar and wind power 

being a free lunch. Want a clear example? That battery powered cars 

are "pollution free." Yes, as we all know they do not emit combustion 

gases; however, the power plant that produced the power the night 

before may have.



That is, you need to first convince folks that solar and wind are not 

free. Then argue the cost of production of a KW. Then remind them 

that all the fossil power plants produce pollution. Etc. Then break 

the news that there is no free lunch. Now you can try and argue that 

all power production has waste byproducts, but that nuclear waste 

(high and low level) are manageable and far more easily than are 

stack emissions from a fossil fuel plant. However, the power industry 

has shied away from this part of the equation.



Kind'a reminds me of the 1950's and 60's "All electric living", 

"Ready kilowatt", and "Electricity, safe, clean, efficient." We in 

the power business did too good a job dismissing the concerns about 

power production related fossil releases and too poor a job on the 

nuclear plant advantages. The anti-nuclear movement has done exactly 

the opposite and been very effective. They have downplayed (until 

recently) the air emissions from fossil fuel and exaggerated the 

problems of nuclear waste disposal and accidents. It is only rather 

recently (last ~10 years) that I have seen groups pushing that all 

power production is bad - unless it is solar, wind, geothermal, etc.



Note - I left hydro out because although it is "free" (due to there 

being no charge for gravity) it is touted as being environmentally 

unfriendly and most of the dams need to come down. Please ignore 

flood control needs.



Paul lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>



>  typical commercial light water nuclear plant is about 30-32% efficient

>(thermal cycle).  That's how you get ~1100 MWe out of a ~3800 MWt plant.

>This is somewhat less than the newer gas-fired power plants, but pretty

>close to steam electric plants powered by coal.  So the discharged (waste)

>heat is around 70% max.  Lots of lost energy but common for all "thermal

>processes."  As Isaac Newton once said "there is no free lunch."  Or

>something like that in a law he once wrote.

>

>Maybe I misunderstood your comment and maybe someone's already responded (I

>get the digest version, delayed).

>

>Eric M. Goldin, CHP  (native of Las Cruces, by the way)

><goldinem@songs.sce.com>

>

>************************************************************************

>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/





-- 

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/