Score one for small-scale distributed power

[Frank Wimberly]

Some comments which may be kind of relevant:

With new masters degree in hand (in pure math) in 1966 I accepted a position
at Westinghouse Atomic Power Division (that's what they called it then),
where they were developing pressurized water and sodium cooled fast-breeder
reactors for large scale electric power generation.  I used to ask the
engineers I worked with about solar and other alternatives.  Their attitude,
paraphrased, was "People can talk all they want to about fusion, solar,
wind, tides, etc. but if we don't quickly deploy nuclear power plants there
will be energy riots in the next century.  People will freeze in the winter,
among other things."  They obviously had their bias but it might be a good
idea to buy real estate in the tropics--if you can stand the heat.

In 1997 nuclear power was responsible for 22 percent of the electric power
generated in the U.S.  It represented 14 percent of the capacity to generate
electric power.  A couple of years ago, when there was a power crisis in
California, U.S. Navy ships with nuclear reactors were connected to the grid
to help out.

Last night there was an energy analyst from the Cato Institute on CNBC.  He
said that given a finite amount of money you can spend it on wires or on
generating stations.  He further said that various people claim to know what
the correct allocation is.  He said that he doesn't know and he doesn't know
how they think they know.

Frank

[Owen Densmore]

Isn't there a problem now w/ nukes in that manufactures are not allowed
to build the most efficient designs due to their turning out materials
that can be turned into bombs?

It always seemed to me that nukes were a reasonable trade-off in terms
of terrible waste products vs efficient energy but not if we were
disallowed to build the most effective designs.

I believe europe has a large percentage of their electrical generation
by nuke.

Owen

On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 06:57  PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> Some comments which may be kind of relevant:
>
> With new masters degree in hand (in pure math) in 1966 I accepted a
> position
> at Westinghouse Atomic Power Division (that's what they called it
> then),
> where they were developing pressurized water and sodium cooled
> fast-breeder
> reactors for large scale electric power generation.  I used to ask the
> engineers I worked with about solar and other alternatives.  Their
> attitude,
> paraphrased, was "People can talk all they want to about fusion, solar,
> wind, tides, etc. but if we don't quickly deploy nuclear power plants
> there
> will be energy riots in the next century.  People will freeze in the
> winter,
> among other things."  They obviously had their bias but it might be a
> good
> idea to buy real estate in the tropics--if you can stand the heat.
>
> In 1997 nuclear power was responsible for 22 percent of the electric
> power
> generated in the U.S.  It represented 14 percent of the capacity to
> generate
> electric power.  A couple of years ago, when there was a power crisis
> in
> California, U.S. Navy ships with nuclear reactors were connected to
> the grid
> to help out.
>
> Last night there was an energy analyst from the Cato Institute on
> CNBC.  He
> said that given a finite amount of money you can spend it on wires or
> on
> generating stations.  He further said that various people claim to
> know what
> the correct allocation is.  He said that he doesn't know and he
> doesn't know
> how they think they know.
>
> Frank
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.redfish.com/friam
>

Owen Densmore           451 Camino Don Miguel     Santa Fe, NM 87505
Work: 505-983-6305      Cell: 505-570-0168        Home: 505-988-3787
[hidden email] http://complexityworkshop.com http://backspaces.net

[Frank Wimberly]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Belinda.

I think what you mean by "the most efficient designs" are fast breeder
reactors.  You put U-238 (cheap and plentiful) in the core and it get
converted to plutonium(!) which can also be used as fuel--and in bombs.

My job was to apply "codes" (i.e. programs) which computed accident
dynamics.  It turns out that the worst accident for a pressurized water
reactor was the "water hammer" where a rupture in the coolant pipes causes
superheated water to turn to steam--very quickly.  For the fast breeder
reactor the worst accident was a sodium fire.  The nuclear "explosion"
potential in both cases was nil.  As soon as it starts it fizzles out.  The
containment vessels could easily handle all accidents, the "China Syndrome"
notwithstanding.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]>
To: "The Friday Morning Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Score one for small-scale distributed power

> Isn't there a problem now w/ nukes in that manufactures are not allowed
> to build the most efficient designs due to their turning out materials
> that can be turned into bombs?
>
> It always seemed to me that nukes were a reasonable trade-off in terms
> of terrible waste products vs efficient energy but not if we were
> disallowed to build the most effective designs.
>
> I believe europe has a large percentage of their electrical generation
> by nuke.
>
> Owen
>
> On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 06:57  PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>
> > Some comments which may be kind of relevant:
> >
> > With new masters degree in hand (in pure math) in 1966 I accepted a
> > position
> > at Westinghouse Atomic Power Division (that's what they called it
> > then),
> > where they were developing pressurized water and sodium cooled
> > fast-breeder
> > reactors for large scale electric power generation.  I used to ask the
> > engineers I worked with about solar and other alternatives.  Their
> > attitude,
> > paraphrased, was "People can talk all they want to about fusion, solar,
> > wind, tides, etc. but if we don't quickly deploy nuclear power plants
> > there
> > will be energy riots in the next century.  People will freeze in the
> > winter,
> > among other things."  They obviously had their bias but it might be a
> > good
> > idea to buy real estate in the tropics--if you can stand the heat.
> >
> > In 1997 nuclear power was responsible for 22 percent of the electric
> > power
> > generated in the U.S.  It represented 14 percent of the capacity to
> > generate
> > electric power.  A couple of years ago, when there was a power crisis
> > in
> > California, U.S. Navy ships with nuclear reactors were connected to
> > the grid
> > to help out.
> >
> > Last night there was an energy analyst from the Cato Institute on
> > CNBC.  He
> > said that given a finite amount of money you can spend it on wires or
> > on
> > generating stations.  He further said that various people claim to
> > know what
> > the correct allocation is.  He said that he doesn't know and he
> > doesn't know
> > how they think they know.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> > http://www.redfish.com/friam
> >
>
> Owen Densmore           451 Camino Don Miguel     Santa Fe, NM 87505
> Work: 505-983-6305      Cell: 505-570-0168        Home: 505-988-3787
> [hidden email] http://complexityworkshop.com http://backspaces.net
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.redfish.com/friam