Death From Nuclear Power Plants

[2lumpy]

The Russian bombing near the nuclear power plant in the Ukraine is no small concern. Certainly a nuclear radiation release during a war is no where near the degree of risk as an accident like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl nor the earth quake and flooding Fukushima, however I thought it might be interesting to share some reality…… to put a little perspective to not only the stupidity of the Russians this week in Ukraine but the future of nuclear power, as the need for long term energy is growing exponentially. Energy after all has a tremendous part to play in current day world conflict.

I’ll share a brief experience I had two weeks ago.

I was having lunch with some ole boys, one of which was a recently retire manage of a very large coal mine. He’s managed the mine for nearly thirty years and I won’t mention his name but he was a highly respected coal miner executive in the US coal mine industry.

The subject of conversation has loosing the electrical production from the Glen Canyon Dam at Page, Az because of the drought and the lack of water level in Lake Powell. And the question of the future of electricity came up, as to the present and future needs for electricity continues to exceed demand.

The coal miner said, “nuclear power is the answer.” All heads turned to him in, thinking that has a little unusual, coming from him.

He said, “you know, all this hype over the dangers of nuclear power energy is just hype, and nothing more, don’t you. It was and is being hyped and sold to the public by the coal mining conpanies. I know, because I was involved in doing it, with the rest of the industry.” (He wasn’t boasting, he was disgusted.)

Jaws dropped a little. But, we’re all old man and not much comes as a shock these days, whether it’s the behavior of big business or big government. Both are equally manipulating and driven by money, sex, and control.

However his most profound comment was this: “you know how many people died from the three largest nuclear power plant disasters, don’t you………. 32, total. World wide 32!”

I left lunch perplexed!

Last night, with the reports of the nuclear plant in Ukraine, and the news reports of potential European danger. I decided to “fact check his comment”. So for what it’s worth, I copied and pasted this section of a much longer discussion along with the full article.

https://mobile.engineering.com/amp/21308.html

 

[OutdoorWriter]

The Russian bombing near the nuclear power plant in the Ukraine is no small concern. Certainly a nuclear radiation release during a war is no where near the degree of risk as an accident like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl nor the earth quake and flooding Fukushima, however I thought it might be interesting to share some reality…… to put a little perspective to not only the stupidity of the Russians this week in Ukraine but the future of nuclear power, as the need for long term energy is growing exponentially. Energy after all has a tremendous part to play in current day world conflict.

I’ll share a brief experience I had two weeks ago.

I was having lunch with some ole boys, one of which was a recently retire manage of a very large coal mine. He’s managed the mine for nearly thirty years and I won’t mention his name but he was a highly respected coal miner executive in the US coal mine industry.

The subject of conversation has loosing the electrical production from the Glen Canyon Dam at Page, Az because of the drought and the lack of water level in Lake Powell. And the question of the future of electricity came up, as to the present and future needs for electricity continues to exceed demand.

The coal miner said, “nuclear power is the answer.” All heads turned to him in, thinking that has a little unusual, coming from him.

He said, “you know, all this hype over the dangers of nuclear power energy is just hype, and nothing more, don’t you. It was and is being hyped and sold to the public by the coal mining conpanies. I know, because I was involved in doing it, with the rest of the industry.” (He wasn’t boasting, he was disgusted.)

Jaws dropped a little. But, we’re all old man and not much comes as a shock these days, whether it’s the behavior of big business or big government. Both are equally manipulating and driven by money, sex, and control.

However his most profound comment was this: “you know how many people died from the three largest nuclear power plant disasters, don’t you………. 32, total. World wide 32!”

I left lunch perplexed!

Last night, with the reports of the nuclear plant in Ukraine, and the news reports of potential European danger. I decided to “fact check his comment”. So for what it’s worth, I copied and pasted this section of a much longer discussion along with the full article.

https://mobile.engineering.com/amp/21308.html

View attachment 69918

My buddy from MD & I fished for smallmouths in the Susquehanna River in the mid-1980s. We stayed in his friend's trailer on an island that was within sight & a stone's throw from 3MI. Although the site/area was supposedly still radioactive, we both survived. That said, I think my sex life improved with some 'growth.'

I live about 40 miles east of the Palo Verde site here in AZ.

 

[Blank]

With a 50 year history and employment record in nuclear power, It's nice to see more and more people start to realize it is a safe, clean, viable option for the world supply of electrical energy. I have operated military submarine reactors, done maintenance on them and land based ones, worked 40 years on one of the worlds safest ones (IFR) here in Idaho, and spent several years on the one in Matagorda Texas. For the last 10 years of my career before retirement, I helped play an active role in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) trying to find ways to turn waste back into energy. I hope that I get to see the successful testing of these new Generation-3 and Get-4 Modular reactors. We are supposed to have approved working model for testing by 2030.

As for Russia and Chernobyl, this never was about the reactor (s) or waste, or getting nuclear fuel. It was simply a brilliant military move to be able stage the military and to go from Belarus, directly into the Ukraine (and a pretty much empty landscape) with a direct short distance major highway, directly into Kiev!!!

 

[bullskin]

Earth's climate has always been subject to warming and cooling. The Sun's energy output varies over millions of years; volcanoes release carbon dioxide; the oceans, soil, and living things absorb or release carbon dioxide as conditions change. At times, such fluctuations have proven catastrophic, eliminating most of the species on the planet.

During the most recent geologic time period, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have repeatedly fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm, resulting in periods of warming followed by global glaciation. At the beginning of the Carboniferous, Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration was eight time greater than it is today. Over the course of sixty million years, most of this carbon was sequestered underground as coal, oil and natural gas. The impact of releasing this CO2 through the combustion of fossil fuels is enormous and irreversible within any time frame we are likely to experience. We have, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, already watched CO2 levels climb to over 400 ppm--some 40+ percent higher than the peaks existing during the warmest periods of the past million years.

Some argue that there is little mankind can do--after all, recent volcanic eruptions and forest fires are (arguably) beyond our control and contribute significantly. What is the point of attacking this problem if there will be other, natural releases of carbon dioxide? Of course, the problem is not with natural sources. In at least the past million years, these have never resulted in greater than 300 ppm. The problem lies in the fact that we contribute additional CO2 to that which naturally exists.

So how best to avoid making this problem worse? Shall we embrace nuclear energy, or are the consequences of an accidental release of radiation even worse than the certain damage resulting from continued combustion of fossils fuels? I guess that depends on chance, whether or not one lives near a nuclear facility, and how far into that future this comparison is carried.

But the fact remains that these are not our only options. Renewables such as solar may contribute a much greater share of our energy if we choose to purchase them. Expensive? Perhaps. But just as the price of nuclear energy does not accurately measure the cost of that energy if it results in a radiation leak, the prices of fossil fuels similarly understate their costs considering that prices ignore the cost of their environmental impact. In any event, is it "cheaper" to invest in renewables now, or, first burn all of our fossil fuels and then bite that bullet? Barring nuclear fusion or other undeveloped technology, we will eventually have no choice but to turn to renewables. Do we shoulder that burden today, or do we kick it farther down the road, onto the shoulders of our children, along with the trashed environment we leave behind? In my opinion, that outcome is no different than running up the national debt and leaving our children to pay our bills.

 

[2lumpy]

Earth's climate has always been subject to warming and cooling. The Sun's energy output varies over millions of years; volcanoes release carbon dioxide; the oceans, soil, and living things absorb or release carbon dioxide as conditions change. At times, such fluctuations have proven catastrophic, eliminating most of the species on the planet.

During the most recent geologic time period, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have repeatedly fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm, resulting in periods of warming followed by global glaciation. At the beginning of the Carboniferous, Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration was eight time greater than it is today. Over the course of sixty million years, most of this carbon was sequestered underground as coal, oil and natural gas. The impact of releasing this CO2 through the combustion of fossil fuels is enormous and irreversible within any time frame we are likely to experience. We have, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, already watched CO2 levels climb to over 400 ppm--some 40+ percent higher than the peaks existing during the warmest periods of the past million years.

Some argue that there is little mankind can do--after all, recent volcanic eruptions and forest fires are (arguably) beyond our control and contribute significantly. What is the point of attacking this problem if there will be other, natural releases of carbon dioxide? Of course, the problem is not with natural sources. In at least the past million years, these have never resulted in greater than 300 ppm. The problem lies in the fact that we contribute additional CO2 to that which naturally exists.

So how best to avoid making this problem worse? Shall we embrace nuclear energy, or are the consequences of an accidental release of radiation even worse than the certain damage resulting from continued combustion of fossils fuels? I guess that depends on chance, whether or not one lives near a nuclear facility, and how far into that future this comparison is carried.

But the fact remains that these are not our only options. Renewables such as solar may contribute a much greater share of our energy if we choose to purchase them. Expensive? Perhaps. But just as the price of nuclear energy does not accurately measure the cost of that energy if it results in a radiation leak, the prices of fossil fuels similarly understate their costs considering that prices ignore the cost of their environmental impact. In any event, is it "cheaper" to invest in renewables now, or, first burn all of our fossil fuels and then bite that bullet? Barring nuclear fusion or other undeveloped technology, we will eventually have no choice but to turn to renewables. Do we shoulder that burden today, or do we kick it farther down the road, onto the shoulders of our children, along with the trashed environment we leave behind? In my opinion, that outcome is no different than running up the national debt and leaving our children to pay our bills.

I’m not smart enough to know if your right or not but I like the part about eventually having to return to renewables, because of the finite amount of fossil fuels.

When I worked for Shell Oil, back in the early 1970s oil engineers/geologists, from all major oil producers, were predicting we would be out of petroleum within 25 years. Now the folks are saying we won’t be out for another 100 years. Based on previous performance, none of these so called experts know crap, then or now, one way or the other, but regardless of the errors made by the previous generations, the current generation always believe the pervious generation was stupid and ignorant, as compared to the absolute brilliance of the current one.

The trash pile of ingenuity and technology is piled high with what once was genius and growing larger by the day. I suspect that will continue at a exponential rate and I think that’s a good thing and the greatest difference between humans and the animal kingdom.

I am all for renewable energy, in fact I love the idea and hope to see it become individualized to the degree that every human can have all he/she wants without dependency on government or free enterprise. In the mean time, what pisses me off is being forced, by one or the other or both, to choose between the choices. I say bring on the renewables but let us naturally evolve into their use by superior efficiency and by a natural cost to benefit ratio and not by have them jammed down our throats before they justify their place in the system. Humans respond like water does to a slope, and when anyone attempts to shove them uphill……. you’ve got a mess.

Seems like we have a mess at the moment.

 

[Bluehair]

Earth's climate has always been subject to warming and cooling. The Sun's energy output varies over millions of years; volcanoes release carbon dioxide; the oceans, soil, and living things absorb or release carbon dioxide as conditions change. At times, such fluctuations have proven catastrophic, eliminating most of the species on the planet.

During the most recent geologic time period, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have repeatedly fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm, resulting in periods of warming followed by global glaciation. At the beginning of the Carboniferous, Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration was eight time greater than it is today. Over the course of sixty million years, most of this carbon was sequestered underground as coal, oil and natural gas. The impact of releasing this CO2 through the combustion of fossil fuels is enormous and irreversible within any time frame we are likely to experience. We have, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, already watched CO2 levels climb to over 400 ppm--some 40+ percent higher than the peaks existing during the warmest periods of the past million years.

Some argue that there is little mankind can do--after all, recent volcanic eruptions and forest fires are (arguably) beyond our control and contribute significantly. What is the point of attacking this problem if there will be other, natural releases of carbon dioxide? Of course, the problem is not with natural sources. In at least the past million years, these have never resulted in greater than 300 ppm. The problem lies in the fact that we contribute additional CO2 to that which naturally exists.

So how best to avoid making this problem worse? Shall we embrace nuclear energy, or are the consequences of an accidental release of radiation even worse than the certain damage resulting from continued combustion of fossils fuels? I guess that depends on chance, whether or not one lives near a nuclear facility, and how far into that future this comparison is carried.

But the fact remains that these are not our only options. Renewables such as solar may contribute a much greater share of our energy if we choose to purchase them. Expensive? Perhaps. But just as the price of nuclear energy does not accurately measure the cost of that energy if it results in a radiation leak, the prices of fossil fuels similarly understate their costs considering that prices ignore the cost of their environmental impact. In any event, is it "cheaper" to invest in renewables now, or, first burn all of our fossil fuels and then bite that bullet? Barring nuclear fusion or other undeveloped technology, we will eventually have no choice but to turn to renewables. Do we shoulder that burden today, or do we kick it farther down the road, onto the shoulders of our children, along with the trashed environment we leave behind? In my opinion, that outcome is no different than running up the national debt and leaving our children to pay our bills.

Isn’t one of the knocks against green energy that the true costs aren’t being included, as in your nukular example?

Work has taken me to pretty much every UMTRA site (although Rocky Flats was the spookiest) in the west. No thanks

 

[roadrunner]

There are not enough rare earth metals to provide the battery storage required for the massive "campaign" for solar and wind, those materials are even more finite.

More small-scale nuclear and municple size natural gas generation is the answer.

 

[Blank]

Green energy is great, when it works. But if it's cloudy and raining kiss solar goodbye. If the wind isn't blowing that day, no wind power. Hydro is great but with droughts and empty lakes, that hasn't worked well either. Everything in life is a cost benefit crap shoot. Nuclear works every day, 24-7, 365. Use it within reasonable controls!!

People don't give a **** about safety. They still smoke or vape, drink and drive, go 100 mph in a car maintained by a kid that couldn't finish high school! Why is every food genetically modified or chemicals added. How come every person in the US is 20% overweight? Who GAF about lithium for batteries and rare earth metals for electronics? Just give me my phone and lap top so I can post on social media!!

Blue, you don't like UMTRA but in their defense from 1956 to 1984 they didn't know any better and we were fighting a Cold War we had to win. They've dug up 11 million tons of waste, out of a 16 million ton goal and are making amazing headway. We don't do that anymore. No one in Moab gave a crap, they just wanted all their money while it lasted. Only became a problem when it became a yuppie playground!

I'll keep rooting for science, advanced reactors, better batteries and power storage systems. You can watch them cover half of the South west with solar panels and windmills. I've got enough of them here in Idaho and my bill hasn't dropped one cent!!!

 

[roadrunner]

How come every person in the US is 20% overweight?

Because of the gentic modifications and chemicals added you mention.

 

[Bluehair]

Green energy is great, when it works. But if it's cloudy and raining kiss solar goodbye. If the wind isn't blowing that day, no wind power. Hydro is great but with droughts and empty lakes, that hasn't worked well either. Everything in life is a cost benefit crap shoot. Nuclear works every day, 24-7, 365. Use it within reasonable controls!!

People don't give a **** about safety. They still smoke or vape, drink and drive, go 100 mph in a car maintained by a kid that couldn't finish high school! Why is every food genetically modified or chemicals added. How come every person in the US is 20% overweight? Who GAF about lithium for batteries and rare earth metals for electronics? Just give me my phone and lap top so I can post on social media!!

Blue, you don't like UMTRA but in their defense from 1956 to 1984 they didn't know any better and we were fighting a Cold War we had to win. They've dug up 11 million tons of waste, out of a 16 million ton goal and are making amazing headway. We don't do that anymore. No one in Moab gave a crap, they just wanted all their money while it lasted. Only became a problem when it became a yuppie playground!

I'll keep rooting for science, advanced reactors, better batteries and power storage systems. You can watch them cover half of the South west with solar panels and windmills. I've got enough of them here in Idaho and my bill hasn't dropped one cent!!!

There are a bunch of UMTRA sites scattered around here (tailings were used for road fill in Durango and the tribal heavy equipment training program was conducted on the tails pile in Shiprock NM, for example). One of the reasons I was able to make a life and retire here, and got to eat a truckload of Navajo Taco’s at Mexican Hat. Never said I don’t like the UMTRA program.

But as mentioned, if you include the costs to clean up the mess and manage it into perpetuity it doesn’t seem quite so cheap. And there’s no argument from me that it isn’t cheaper. We just can’t fool ourselves about the true costs.

There is no denying the ecological and human damage resulting from uranium mining and milling. And then there’s the bomb, and the whole half life thing.

But the real problem with enriched uranium is that humans lack the intelligence and emotional maturity to use it safely, making that advanced medical equipment sorta paradoxical.

Did I ever tell the one about the tech who left his dosimeter on his nukular density machine? We’re probably still filing NRC paperwork over that one.

 

[Bluehair]

There are not enough rare earth metals to provide the battery storage required for the massive "campaign" for solar and wind, those materials are even more finite.

More small-scale nuclear and municple size natural gas generation is the answer.

There are not enough developed sources of rare earths. There are widespread deposits.

 

[2lumpy]

Green energy is great, when it works. But if it's cloudy and raining kiss solar goodbye. If the wind isn't blowing that day, no wind power. Hydro is great but with droughts and empty lakes, that hasn't worked well either. Everything in life is a cost benefit crap shoot. Nuclear works every day, 24-7, 365. Use it within reasonable controls!!

People don't give a **** about safety. They still smoke or vape, drink and drive, go 100 mph in a car maintained by a kid that couldn't finish high school! Why is every food genetically modified or chemicals added. How come every person in the US is 20% overweight? Who GAF about lithium for batteries and rare earth metals for electronics? Just give me my phone and lap top so I can post on social media!!

Blue, you don't like UMTRA but in their defense from 1956 to 1984 they didn't know any better and we were fighting a Cold War we had to win. They've dug up 11 million tons of waste, out of a 16 million ton goal and are making amazing headway. We don't do that anymore. No one in Moab gave a crap, they just wanted all their money while it lasted. Only became a problem when it became a yuppie playground!

I'll keep rooting for science, advanced reactors, better batteries and power storage systems. You can watch them cover half of the South west with solar panels and windmills. I've got enough of them here in Idaho and my bill hasn't dropped one cent!!!

Annnnnnnd, current nuclear power is not likely the last renewable energy solution, as science digests and enhances nuclear “type” of energy. One day, sooner or later, another genius will be born…… with a century of nuclear power technology science experience behind us, he/she will figure out something, safer, cheaper, more efficient, less depend on resources etc. etc. The present isn’t as good as it can be.

Based on our past 400,000 years, we’ve demonstrated we can do better……brick upon brick, knowledge upon knowledge.

The trick to developing more and better technology is surviving human vices long enough to get there. According to anthropologists and archeologists there as been more than one “Noah” type experience, for the human race, in the last 400,000 years. Natural disasters, such a meteorites, volcanoes, disease, etc have reduced human populations exponentially. A human induced “start over” isn’t going to work as well as it has after previous natural resets in the pass.

If we’ve used up all the consumable resources, the next group of left over humans will have a much harder time, going from living in caves while hunting and gathering their food, to putting men on the moon. There won’t be the natural resources available, this time, to create a time bridge to facilitate the time to relearn it all.

Onward and upward boys!

 

[wetmule]

 

[2lumpy]

Blue, the Navajo Tacos at the San Juan Inn in Mexican Hat were a spiritual expericence in the 1990s.

I hauled a load of good ole boys down there are couple years ago and preached a three hour sermon to them about the San Juan Inn’s tacos. Big mistake. Times have changed over the last 25 years.

Imagine that!

 

[eelgrass]

California is getting rid of our nuclear power plants and our dams. We're all in on wind and solar. Stay tuned.

 

[2lumpy]

California is getting rid of our nuclear power plants and our dams. We're all in on wind and solar. Stay tuned.

I hear those solar farms are no fly zones.

 

[elkantlers]

Coal is still the backbone of the electric grid. Even more so with gas prices shooting higher that one of Musk's rockets

 

[2lumpy]

Yup, as it should be until there is a better alternative but….. as I attempted to say…….. it’s okay to move on to a better way, when there is a better way.

Tractors plow better than horses, petroleum was better than steam, highways are better than rivers, bows were better than spears, penicillin was better than leaches, calculators were better than slide rulers, word processors were better than typewriters.

As far as I’m concerned I’m happy to keep coal, even grateful, until it’s no longer the best solution and when it’s not, I won’t miss it anymore than I miss plowing with horses.

I hope we never stop looking for “a better way”.

 

[bullskin]

There are not enough rare earth metals to provide the battery storage required for the massive "campaign" for solar and wind, those materials are even more finite.

More small-scale nuclear and municple size natural gas generation is the answer.

As Bluehair suggests, the problem is not a lack of rare earth elements, but rather the inadequate capacity to extract and refine them. US politicians were insane to have allowed market forces to drive domestic suppliers out of the industry. Now that we rely on Russia, and the only thing that keeps us in rare earths is the fact that they need our chips for military applications. The US must reopen its mines asap. In any event, rare earths, once mined, may be recycled. Uranium and fossil fuels cannot, and so the renewables appear more promising over the long run.

As for solar placement, everyone I know lives under a roof. There are millions of acres of structure surfaces available for that purpose that would allow energy production exactly where it is needed--and without the need for transmission across rural, fire-prone real estate. The lack of storage capacity is not a critical failure. Our goal should be to maximize solar production and thereby minimize our reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear. I do not believe anyone expects that nonrenewables will become completely unnecessary. Rather, they will remain a viable, though less used, backup to renewable systems.

Finally, on the topic of energy storage, there are systems that do not require batteries such as hydrogen storage, or pumping water back up into reservoirs in order to release it as necessary when other renewables are not available. As lumpy suggests, the problem is not one of technology, but rather of will. And no one says it will be cheap, but neither are fossil fuels or nuclear when the damage they create is also figured into the equation.

 

[Blank]

www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

I'll take my chances that we find the right combination, before we run out!!!

 

[DeerMadness]

With a 50 year history and employment record in nuclear power, It's nice to see more and more people start to realize it is a safe, clean, viable option for the world supply of electrical energy. I have operated military submarine reactors, done maintenance on them and land based ones, worked 40 years on one of the worlds safest ones (IFR) here in Idaho, and spent several years on the one in Matagorda Texas. For the last 10 years of my career before retirement, I helped play an active role in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) trying to find ways to turn waste back into energy. I hope that I get to see the successful testing of these new Generation-3 and Get-4 Modular reactors. We are supposed to have approved working model for testing by 2030.

As for Russia and Chernobyl, this never was about the reactor (s) or waste, or getting nuclear fuel. It was simply a brilliant military move to be able stage the military and to go from Belarus, directly into the Ukraine (and a pretty much empty landscape) with a direct short distance major highway, directly into Kiev!!!

I'm at 25 years now. Gen IV reactors are the safest yet. We need them ..

 

[roadrunner]

As Bluehair suggests, the problem is not a lack of rare earth elements, but rather the inadequate capacity to extract and refine them. US politicians were insane to have allowed market forces to drive domestic suppliers out of the industry. Now that we rely on Russia, and the only thing that keeps us in rare earths is the fact that they need our chips for military applications. The US must reopen its mines asap. In any event, rare earths, once mined, may be recycled. Uranium and fossil fuels cannot, and so the renewables appear more promising over the long run.

As for solar placement, everyone I know lives under a roof. There are millions of acres of structure surfaces available for that purpose that would allow energy production exactly where it is needed--and without the need for transmission across rural, fire-prone real estate. The lack of storage capacity is not a critical failure. Our goal should be to maximize solar production and thereby minimize our reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear. I do not believe anyone expects that nonrenewables will become completely unnecessary. Rather, they will remain a viable, though less used, backup to renewable systems.

Finally, on the topic of energy storage, there are systems that do not require batteries such as hydrogen storage, or pumping water back up into reservoirs in order to release it as necessary when other renewables are not available. As lumpy suggests, the problem is not one of technology, but rather of will. And no one says it will be cheap, but neither are fossil fuels or nuclear when the damage they create is also figured into the equation.

There aren't enough rare earth's to support a complete renewable source because it doesn't stop with just living under a roof, we're talking millions of self supporting structures and transportation. The issue today is the most effective batteries are also the most high risk for explosion and fire.

The energy requirement for the recycling/refinement of these metals is costly, further draining the overall availability. This loss is the heat output requirement. Extraction is the other issue. All output must exceed the input, otherwise the loss in inefficiency is too costly. The combustion of fossil fuels is the lowest of the sunk costs today for most every production output operation. The ROR to generate the heat input to recycle and refine rare earths at a localized level would be long term while increasing the cost of the products they are used in. The price point now is based on the cheap sunk cost of fossil fuels.

Hydrogen storage sounds good, but there is a cost associated with that as well. You need an energy source to first initiate the process and that source has to be independent. In order for pump back storage to be viable, there needs to be a net positive, so the output has to exceed the input, otherwise you have a closed circuit with no gain. Hydrogen storage, unless you have an independent, reliable, and replenishing source, is finite in its own right, especially in arid climates.

A natural gas generator for a private residence with low emissions and cycle demand, up to and including small scale carbon capture, is a better use of that resource. The residence will consume less energy than what the grid is currently supporting.

A balanced portfolio of energy is the most responsible and reasonable scenario.

 

[eelgrass]

Why a California city is trying to build the state's last fossil-fueled power plant​

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[eelgrass]

Why a California city is trying to build the state's last fossil-fueled power plant​

MSN

www.msn.com

All due to the climate crisis, which is a total hoax.

There Is No Climate Crisis | Real Climate Science

realclimatescience.com

 

[OutdoorWriter]

The discussion on nuclear power & other sophisticated options are beyond my pay grade, but one comment I read made me wonder.

It concerned pumping water back into reservoir to recycle it for power generation. That seems like a zero-gain effort unless one uses a hand-pumping system.

So maybe someone explain what I'm missing???

 

[2lumpy]

I’ve been told it’s pumped up during low demand/low charge rates and allowed to fall back through the generators/turbines during higher demand periods of the day, when the rates are higher.

Day time down, night time up.

However that’s rumor on my part…… best fact check it.

 

[Blank]

Several friends are nukes and work for Duke Energy, and TVA. There are several back East. It is an interesting concept, and has it's own specific uses. Peaking power uses mostly, a lot like gas turbine peaking plants in Texas that CP&L runs. Here's some info on it.

Pumped-Storage Plants - Hydro Energy - Duke Energy

Discover the difference between hydroelectric generators and pumped-storage plants. Duke Energy has the resources you need to learn about hydro energy.

www.duke-energy.com

One of the most difficult obstacles to overcome out here is water rights and irrigation requirements, and they don't work well on river systems either.

 

[BLooDTRaCKeR]

The discussion on nuclear power & other sophisticated options are beyond my pay grade, but one comment I read made me wonder.

It concerned pumping water back into reservoir to recycle it for power generation. That seems like a zero-gain effort unless one uses a hand-pumping system.

So maybe someone explain what I'm missing???

View attachment 70011​

OW, I’ll attempt to explain this concept. It doesn’t work with man-made pumps for obvious reasons. So, you drill two holes deep enough into the earth. One for water to flow into and the other for water to return from. One on downhill side of dam, one on uphill side of lake. The pressure from beneath the earths surface forces the water to return on the uphill side of lake, which then refills your reservoir and starts the hydrogenation process over again. Sounds simple enough right? You have to make sure the return hole is smaller in diameter than the feed hole. You have to use the Pythagorean theory to find the missing side of the triangle, which is the distance needed to return water to the reservoir. Once length is known, pressure must be determined by depth of hole and then size/diameter can then be calculated to determine how fast the water returns to the surface.

If this all sounds like B.S. you may be onto something. If it sounds like the truth, you also may be onto something. Isn’t the internet great for viable sources of information?

 

[OutdoorWriter]

I’ve been told it’s pumped up during low demand/low charge rates and allowed to fall back through the generators/turbines during higher demand periods of the day, when the rates are higher.

Day time down, night time up.

However that’s rumor on my part…… best fact check it.

That's a monetary/cost/profit gain, though, right? What about the power aspect itself?

 

[OutdoorWriter]

OW, I’ll attempt to explain this concept. It doesn’t work with man-made pumps for obvious reasons. So, you drill two holes deep enough into the earth. One for water to flow into and the other for water to return from. One on downhill side of dam, one on uphill side of lake. The pressure from beneath the earths surface forces the water to return on the uphill side of lake, which then refills your reservoir and starts the hydrogenation process over again. Sounds simple enough right? You have to make sure the return hole is smaller in diameter than the feed hole. You have to use the Pythagorean theory to find the missing side of the triangle, which is the distance needed to return water to the reservoir. Once length is known, pressure must be determined by depth of hole and then size/diameter can then be calculated to determine how fast the water returns to the surface.

If this all sounds like B.S. you may be onto something. If it sounds like the truth, you also may be onto something. Isn’t the internet great for viable sources of information?

So now I don't know whether you're funning me or not, i.e. B.S. in, B.S. out!

I'm picturing a dam like Glen Canyon where water from Lake Powell drives the turbines & then flows into the Colorado River. So 'plain how the 2-hole theory works to get that river water back up to the lake??

 

[2lumpy]

That's a monetary/profit gain, though, right? What about the power aspect itself?

Yes it is. I would have to think there may actually be a net loss in power. Maybe quite small but I can’t see how you could make more power by dropping it and it takes to cycle it back up………… unless there could some kind of weird physics that I don’t understand that could create a natural siphon system. Maybe that’s what Bloodtracker is describing. He lost me at “ “you dig two hole”.

 

[tailchasers]

Our power grid has excess power during the day due to renewable. Pumped Storage uses electricity during the surplus day time hours and release water turning a turbine when renewable cannot meet demand. The pump storage is a battery. Closed loop system. Permitting is a minimum 10 years for FERC permit, not including water rights +court, construction, and ACOE or other federal and local agency permits. It does work but requires a lot of head to make the megawatts.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Yes it is. I would have to think there may actually be a net loose in power. Maybe quite small but I can’t see how you could make more power by dropping it and it takes to cycle it back up………… unless there could some kind of weird physics that I don’t understand that could create a natural siphon system. Maybe that’s what Bloodtracker is describing. He lost me at “ “you dig two hole”.

That's the conundrum for me, as well. When the water comes out of the dam's turbines, it's already way below the lakebed level, so it would have a big climb without any help.

Color me blonde on this one...

 

[2lumpy]

That's the conundrum for me, as well. When the water comes out of the dam's turbines, it's already way below the lakebed level, so it would have a big climb without any help.

Color me blonde on this one...



View attachment 70026

I believe “what we have here….. is a failure to communicate”. Without the head beater!

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Our power grid has excess power during the day due to renewable. Pumped Storage uses electricity during the surplus day time hours and release water turning a turbine when renewable cannot meet demand. The pump storage is a battery. Closed loop system. Permitting is a minimum 10 years for FERC permit, not including water rights +court, construction, and ACOE or other federal and local agency permits. It does work but requires a lot of head to make the megawatts.

So that sounds like it's not something that is feasible for dams such as Glen Canyon, Hoover, etc.? Is there a net gain in POWER -- not revenue -- from a pump-back system like that?

 

[roadrunner]

I’ve been told it’s pumped up during low demand/low charge rates and allowed to fall back through the generators/turbines during higher demand periods of the day, when the rates are higher.

Day time down, night time up.

However that’s rumor on my part…… best fact check it.

It will take more energy to pump all the water back up than it did in free-fall mode for generation, your net is a loss. You're also losing a certain amount to natural losses, so it isn't all replenished.

The least energy cost is an Archimedies Screw, but, you will not return the same water up as you use to turn the generator, again, a net loss.

 

[tailchasers]

Actually a net loss of electricity production. But does offer efficiencies for speeding up and slowing coal power turbines and balancing out the power grid. There is also considered a measurable reduction in climate changing emissions, if you believe in that stuff.

 

[2lumpy]

Both make sense TC and RR.

 

[2lumpy]

Our local irrigation company owns a nice reservoir on the mountain above our town. The reservoir is at about 9,000 ft the fields are 5,300 ft.

The irrigation water flows down a small creek to reach the valley fields. They claim, due to evaporation and ground seepage, they are only getting 10-15% of the water to field. I’ve asked the President if they’ve considered piping it down. He thinks it’s too expensive. I suggested they put a couple turbines in the line, and sell the power, us the revenue from selling the electrify to pay for the cost of the pipeline.

Crickets.

Would that be practical?

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Actually a net loss of electricity production. But does offer efficiencies for speeding up and slowing coal power turbines and balancing out the power grid. There is also considered a measurable reduction in climate changing emissions, if you believe in that stuff.

Thank you.

I guess I'm not as blonde as I thought.

 

[roadrunner]

Actually a net loss of electricity production. But does offer efficiencies for speeding up and slowing coal power turbines and balancing out the power grid. There is also considered a measurable reduction in climate changing emissions, if you believe in that stuff.

Yes, there is a delay in coal fired. Coal is best used for base load. All the others are better suited for peak, save a naturally aspirated natural gas turbine/generator which fits both base and peak.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Our local irrigation company owns a nice reservoir on the mountain above our town. The reservoir is at about 9,000 ft the fields are 5,300 ft.

The irrigation water flows down a small creek to reach the valley fields. They claim, due to evaporation and ground seepage, they are only getting 10-15% of the water to field. I’ve asked the President if they’ve considered piping it down. He thinks it’s too expensive. I suggested they put a couple turbines in the line, and sell the power, us the revenue from selling the electrify to pay for the cost of the pipeline.

Crickets.

Would that be practical?

Might work...as soon as the turbines gets paid for.

 

[2lumpy]

Might work...as soon as the turbines gets paid for.

I was thinking if you put a turbine at 8,000 ft and another one at 7,000 ft, you would still have 1,700 feet of fall to push the water out into the sprinkler lines. So you could be irrigating at the same time you were paying for the electrical system. No?

 

[OutdoorWriter]

I was thinking if you put a turbine at 8,000 ft and another one at 7,000 ft, you would still have 1,700 feet of fall to push the water out into the sprinkler lines. So you could be irrigating at the same time you were paying for the electrical system. No?

So you're saying they should install & amortize the cost of both the turbines & the pipeline at the same time then?

 

[2lumpy]

So you're saying they should install & amortize the cost of both the turbines & the pipeline at the same time then?

Yup. All kinds of Federal help when it comes to more efficient use of water and energy production. Just seems like a perfect fit for a lot of things……… but you may NOT be blonde but I definitely am, that’s way I ask all these dumb questions.?

 

[Bluehair]

Our local irrigation company owns a nice reservoir on the mountain above our town. The reservoir is at about 9,000 ft the fields are 5,300 ft.

The irrigation water flows down a small creek to reach the valley fields. They claim, due to evaporation and ground seepage, they are only getting 10-15% of the water to field. I’ve asked the President if they’ve considered piping it down. He thinks it’s too expensive. I suggested they put a couple turbines in the line, and sell the power, us the revenue from selling the electrify to pay for the cost of the pipeline.

Crickets.

Would that be practical?

Our local irritation sytem has a turbine in the canal (we built it), with another on the drawing board. Meanwhile, one of the large local farms is installing “micro hydro” in some of their laterals theoretically to power the pivots.

The economic viability of these is unknown by me (but I’m catching up fast), but likely depends on who is paying for how much of what.

There are 2 pumped storage projects on the books locally (and one down in RR country) as well, although those seem like a pipe dream to me that I won’t live to see. I’m far more likely to live to see the place covered with solar panels like the 1400 (260kw) we installed at our local office.

This is beginning to sound like a meeting at work. Where do I send my invoice?

Planning a Microhydropower System

Interested in a microhydropower system? To see if a microhydropower system would work for you, determine the vertical distance (head) available and...

www.energy.gov

 

[2lumpy]

Our local irritation sytem has a turbine in the canal (we built it), with another on the drawing board. Meanwhile, one of the large local farms is installing “micro hydro” in some of their laterals.

The economic viability of these is unknown by me (but I’m catching up fast), but likely depends on who is paying for how much of what.

There are 2 pumped storage projects on the books locally (and one down in RR country) as well, although those seem like a pipe dream to me that I won’t live to see. I’m far more likely to live to see the place covered with solar panels like the 1400 we installed at our local office.

This is beginning to sound like a meeting at work. Where do I send my invoice?

Planning a Microhydropower System

Interested in a microhydropower system? To see if a microhydropower system would work for you, determine the vertical distance (head) available and...

www.energy.gov

Your welcome to send it to me blue, so long as you understand you’ll never get paid. Oops I should have held off sharing that……… until this meetings is over.?

 

[2lumpy]

Our local irritation sytem has a turbine in the canal (we built it), with another on the drawing board. Meanwhile, one of the large local farms is installing “micro hydro” in some of their laterals.

The economic viability of these is unknown by me (but I’m catching up fast), but likely depends on who is paying for how much of what.

There are 2 pumped storage projects on the books locally (and one down in RR country) as well, although those seem like a pipe dream to me that I won’t live to see. I’m far more likely to live to see the place covered with solar panels like the 1400 we installed at our local office.

This is beginning to sound like a meeting at work. Where do I send my invoice?

Planning a Microhydropower System

Interested in a microhydropower system? To see if a microhydropower system would work for you, determine the vertical distance (head) available and...

www.energy.gov

Can you post an audio version blue. You know the deal on this end.

 

[eelgrass]

I'm waiting for Amazon to offer a Personal Home Nuclear Power Plant. Made in China, of course. Free delivery with Amazon Prime.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

So last night while lying in my quasi hospital bed in front of my stereo TV set-up, I got to thinking about this discussion of pump-back systems. Some thoughts...

First let's lay out some hypothetical figures to use. Let's say 1 gal. of water passing thru a dam's turbine produces 10 watts of electricity.

Now, the first time 100 gals of water go thru the turbine, it results in 1,000 watts of power at basically no cost. If pumped back into the reservoir, it would duplicate that result the 2nd run, for a total output of 2,000 watts.

Now is where it was a bit harder for me to take this hypothetical, other than to conclude if the power needed to return the 100 gals to the reservoir amounts to less than 2,000 watts, it's a net gain.

So tell me why I should have watched the TV programing instead of wasting my brain power on this?

 

[BLooDTRaCKeR]

Well OW, you ever siphoned fuel out of a gas tank? Forget the pythagorean theorem and come up with a way to siphon water from discharge of the dam back up to the top. You would need to pull a hell of a vacuum initially…and possibly periodically with an energy source but then you would have your continuous loop of renewable energy.

You would have to use Bernoullies equation to estimate the siphon’s maximum lift, factoring in the atmospheric pressure at your given altitude.

The siphon effect may not be enough to return water to the dam, but it may cut energy costs needed to pump the siphoned water back to dam by ability to use smaller inline pumps with siphon technology.

Keep going…we may be millionaires by the end of this conversation?

 

[2lumpy]

Well OW, you ever siphoned fuel out of a gas tank? Forget the pythagorean theorem and come up with a way to siphon water from discharge of the dam back up to the top. You would need to pull a hell of a vacuum initially…and possibly periodically with an energy source but then you would have your continuous loop of renewable energy.

You would have to use Bernoullies equation to estimate the siphon’s maximum lift, factoring in the atmospheric pressure at your given altitude.

The siphon effect may not be enough to return water to the dam, but it may cut energy costs needed to pump the siphoned water back to dam by ability to use smaller inline pumps with siphon technology.

Keep going…we may be millionaires by the end of this conversation?

It takes a community to raise water……. a MM community.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Well OW, you ever siphoned fuel out of a gas tank? Forget the pythagorean theorem and come up with a way to siphon water from discharge of the dam back up to the top. You would need to pull a hell of a vacuum initially…and possibly periodically with an energy source but then you would have your continuous loop of renewable energy.

You would have to use Bernoullies equation to estimate the siphon’s maximum lift, factoring in the atmospheric pressure at your given altitude.

The siphon effect may not be enough to return water to the dam, but it may cut energy costs needed to pump the siphoned water back to dam by ability to use smaller inline pumps with siphon technology.

Keep going…we may be millionaires by the end of this conversation?

Yes, and it left a terrible taste in my mouth. I think I understand your siphon idea. However, my 'theory' was based on using electrical power for the pump back, not a garden hose.

The question: will that power be less than the 2-time generation produces? And yes, I realize that could vary, given the distance to pump it & machinery used to do it.

 

[Bluehair]

Tony, as mentioned earlier pumpback is performed off-peak and releases are performed during peak demands.

The lake is a battery.

 

[tailchasers]

The type of lift required for a siphon isn't possible without outside energy to push it back up hill. Then the rate to return is deminisioned. No matter how the physics play out an outside energy source is required to generate megawatts.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Tony, as mentioned earlier pumpback is performed off-peak and releases are performed during peak demands.

The lake is a battery.

That has nothing to do with my theory of a net power gain or loss. I'm talking about the amount, not the value of the power. A watt is a watt, is a watt, regardless of the time of day, no?

 

[Bluehair]

That has nothing to do with my theory of a net power gain or loss. I'm talking about the amount, .not the value of the power. A watt is a watt, is a watt, regardless of the time of day, no?

I’m not going down that rabbit hole with ya, but it’s a net power loss. It’s not about efficiency, its about timing.

Calculate it for a Tesla and let us know.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

The type of lift required for a siphon isn't possible without outside energy to push it back up hill. Then the rate to return is deminisioned. No matter how the physics play out an outside energy source is required to generate megawatts.

That's exactly my thoughts. Still, if the required uphill energy is less than the double downhill energy produced by the same amount of water, it seems it would be a feasible idea.

Now, I think I have solved this about as much as possible without having my own dam to test it.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

I’m not going down that rabbit hole with ya, but it’s a net power loss. It’s not about efficiency, its about timing.

Calculate it for a Tesla and let us know.

Okay, if you're positive it's a net loss, then that means the power for the pump back exceeds the power that same amount of water originally produced & the power it produces a 2nd time.

Or are you saying it's a loss just for the pump back/2nd generation aspect?

 

[Bluehair]

Okay, if you're positive it's a net loss, then that means the power for the pump back exceeds the power that same amount of water originally produced & the power it produces a 2nd time.

This. You should be able to dig up this efficiency loss pretty easily, although each facility will be a little different.

Again, the pumpback happens when there is “excess” power in the grid. Release (generation) happens when there are demand spikes.

As rr or someone said, natural gas generators are frequently used for this because they are “instant on”. You don’t just throw a switch in a coal plant. They’re called “peakers”.

Peaking power plant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tailchasers]

OW the system is about 75% return effiency at its best. 25% operating loss on the best of days.

BTW I have a dam, hydroelectric generator, and progressing on constructing another dam that includes pump back feasibly. Like with a water reservoir its simply retiming as bluehair states.

 

[2lumpy]

Okay, if you're positive it's a net loss, then that means the power for the pump back exceeds the power that same amount of water originally produced & the power it produces a 2nd time.

Or are you saying it's a loss just for the pump back/2nd generation aspect?

How about figuring out a way to use sun light and evaporate it back………. Only half joking.

 

[roadrunner]

How about figuring out a way to use sun light and evaporate it back………. Only half joking.

Or, you can use all the potatoes to make power sources since the vodka market is taking a tumble...

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Again, the pumpback happens when there is “excess” power in the grid. Release (generation) happens when there are demand spikes.

I think I'm understanding this part more. It's kind of like using up the water coming out of a hose that would otherwise run onto the ground, eh? So rather than wasting that excess power, they do the pump back deal.

Of course, that brings up the question: what happens to that excess electricity in the grid if no one using it? Would my meter still run if I turned off every electrical drain in the house??

 

[Bluehair]

Now you’re making my head hurt, so let me throw this out there. My solar panels produce power continuously (when the sun is out), but the charge controller stops the power from getting to the batteries when they are fully charged.

I have searched all over the charge controller for the overflow drain. There ain’t even a wire or nothin that I can find.?

Production cost stopped being the primary consideration in the energy market a while ago.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Now you’re making my head hurt, so let me throw this out there. My solar panels produce power continuously (when the sun is out), but the charge controller stops the power from getting to the batteries when they are fully charged.

I have searched all over the charge controller for the overflow drain. There ain’t even a wire or nothin that I can find.?

Production cost stopped being the primary consideration in the energy market a while ago.

Did you check under the bed among the dust bunnies for the drain valve?

 

[BLooDTRaCKeR]

Yes, and it left a terrible taste in my mouth. I think I understand your siphon idea. However, my 'theory' was based on using electrical power for the pump back, not a garden hose.

The question: will that power be less than the 2-time generation produces? And yes, I realize that could vary, given the distance to pump it & machinery used to do it.

What if we used two garden hoses?

 

[eelgrass]

Run the water through the turbine into water trucks, then drive the water trucks up and dump it in the lake. Note: do not use battery powered/electric trucks.

Living on a bay my entire life I always thought harnessing tidal flow would be good, but I guess not.

 

[2lumpy]

Run the water through the turbine into water trucks, then drive the water trucks up and dump it in the lake. Note: do not use battery powered/electric trucks.

Living on a bay my entire life I always thought harnessing tidal flow would be good, but I guess not.

Using tide water……..? Heavy duty water flow, two directions, rain or shine, 4.5 billion years, 365 days, 24 hours, perpetual, as reliable as the moon…..but, there’s only 94,471 miles of US shore line so that could never work.

 

[tailchasers]

Tide water is there BUT the enviroS hate it and beach dwellers do to because of NIMBY. Yet wind turbines can fill the land scape. Still scratching my head. Regulate ourselves out of existence.

 

[Blank]

Maybe if you over-use tidal power, then gravity will quit working, the moon will fall down, and we will all float off the surface of the planet??

 

[2lumpy]

Maybe if you over-use tidal power, then gravity will quit working, the moon will fall down, and we will all float off the surface of the planet??

Are saying we’ll be completely out of tide water by 2043, due to turbine friction abuse? Damn, send a notice to the New Times so it can be leaked to Congress.

 

[Blank]

With all the talk of Global Warming and Droughts, I'm starting to get worried that they will start rationing water, and there won't be enough to make whiskey or beer!!

 

[BLooDTRaCKeR]

Are saying we’ll be completely out of tide water by 2043, due to turbine friction abuse? Damn, send a notice to the New Times so it can be leaked to Congress.

Speaking of tide…I gotta remind the wife to pick up some more at the grocery store.

 

[elkassassin]

Comes a Time when You're PISSIN in The Wind!

 

[Bluehair]

Comes a Time when You're PISSIN in The Wind!

The windmills are going to suck all the wind out of the air. We’ll still just be pissin on our boots.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

The windmills are going to suck all the wind out of the air. We’ll still just be pissin on our boots.

Maybe we can come up with some really big fans to create wind so the windmills can operate, eh? Let me sleep on it.

 

[eelgrass]

Use tide water movement or wind/swell to rotate the big windmill blades. Time and the tide wait for no man.

 

[BLooDTRaCKeR]

Probably should start over by Asia so that we deplete their supply of tide and wind…save our tide and wind for when we need it?

 

[Blank]

Everybody knows that Wyoming sucks, so if we build all the wind farms in Oregon (where the Greenies want them anyway) we will steal the air from China on it's way to Cheyenne. That will give me air conditioning here in Idaho, for free!!

 

[bullskin]

The discussion on nuclear power & other sophisticated options are beyond my pay grade, but one comment I read made me wonder.

It concerned pumping water back into reservoir to recycle it for power generation. That seems like a zero-gain effort unless one uses a hand-pumping system.

So maybe someone explain what I'm missing???

View attachment 70011​

The suggestion that water could be pumped back up into a reservoir was not intended to mean that energy could be generated in that fashion. Rather, it could be stored in that manner. But, as with any energy transformation (ie. charging any battery), there is an energy loss in that process. The only "gain" achieved would relate to timing of energy inputs and outputs, but not the amount of energy itself.

As for siphoning, Bernoulli effect, etc., those systems would still require an energy source. Thanks to friction loss, there is simply no way to bring water back to its original elevation once released without the application of outside energy.

 

[Bigfoot 1]

The Russian bombing near the nuclear power plant in the Ukraine is no small concern. Certainly a nuclear radiation release during a war is no where near the degree of risk as an accident like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl nor the earth quake and flooding Fukushima, however I thought it might be interesting to share some reality…… to put a little perspective to not only the stupidity of the Russians this week in Ukraine but the future of nuclear power, as the need for long term energy is growing exponentially. Energy after all has a tremendous part to play in current day world conflict.

I’ll share a brief experience I had two weeks ago.

I was having lunch with some ole boys, one of which was a recently retire manage of a very large coal mine. He’s managed the mine for nearly thirty years and I won’t mention his name but he was a highly respected coal miner executive in the US coal mine industry.

The subject of conversation has loosing the electrical production from the Glen Canyon Dam at Page, Az because of the drought and the lack of water level in Lake Powell. And the question of the future of electricity came up, as to the present and future needs for electricity continues to exceed demand.

The coal miner said, “nuclear power is the answer.” All heads turned to him in, thinking that has a little unusual, coming from him.

He said, “you know, all this hype over the dangers of nuclear power energy is just hype, and nothing more, don’t you. It was and is being hyped and sold to the public by the coal mining conpanies. I know, because I was involved in doing it, with the rest of the industry.” (He wasn’t boasting, he was disgusted.)

Jaws dropped a little. But, we’re all old man and not much comes as a shock these days, whether it’s the behavior of big business or big government. Both are equally manipulating and driven by money, sex, and control.

However his most profound comment was this: “you know how many people died from the three largest nuclear power plant disasters, don’t you………. 32, total. World wide 32!”

I left lunch perplexed!

Last night, with the reports of the nuclear plant in Ukraine, and the news reports of potential European danger. I decided to “fact check his comment”. So for what it’s worth, I copied and pasted this section of a much longer discussion along with the full article.

https://mobile.engineering.com/amp/21308.html

View attachment 69918

I seriously doubt RUSSIA let the World know the exact number of deaths caused by Chernobyl. The nuclear fallout alone on the families who lived in Chernobyl and the surrounding area no doubt caused thousands to die eventually from thyroid cancer.
Arkansas has 2 Nuclear Power Plants. Most people don’t realize that.

 

[roadrunner]

I seriously doubt RUSSIA let the World know the exact number of deaths caused by Chernobyl. The nuclear fallout alone on the families who lived in Chernobyl and the surrounding area no doubt caused thousands to die eventually from thyroid cancer.
Arkansas has 2 Nuclear Power Plants. Most people don’t realize that.

The issue with Chernobyl was the Soviet/Communist lack of innovation and technological advancement. They've stolen most everything they have to date.

 

[Bluehair]

Chernobyl is an excellent show on HBO. It showed the cause to be defective decision making inherent to an inferior system of government.

There was enough truth to it to piss off the russians.

 

[elkchaserreturns]

The suggestion that water could be pumped back up into a reservoir was not intended to mean that energy could be generated in that fashion. Rather, it could be stored in that manner. But, as with any energy transformation (ie. charging any battery), there is an energy loss in that process. The only "gain" achieved would relate to timing of energy inputs and outputs, but not the amount of energy itself.

As for siphoning, Bernoulli effect, etc., those systems would still require an energy source. Thanks to friction loss, there is simply no way to bring water back to its original elevation once released without the application of outside energy.

One of the local power companies here in Phoenix (SRP) uses the "Pump Back" system to generate power during peak use times in the summer. I'm not sure how long they have been doing it, but I know for a fact that they have been doing it since 1977.
We learned about it the hard way when we beached our ski boat for the night while camped out on Saguaro Lake. Saguaro is the last of a chain of lakes on the Salt River and the lake rises 3-4 feet in the late afternoon/evening in the summer. Then they pump that water back to the lakes upstream during the night. Imagine coming out of your tent in the morning to find your 17 ft boat sitting in the sand with just the outdrive still in the water? Seems that SRP figured out how to supply lots of extra power to the valley during the summer afternoons & evenings by running more water through the generators of the upstream dams, holding it at the last lake in the chain, and then pump it back upstream during the night.
Pretty clever actually but it pays to know about it if you are going to beach your boat overnight!

 

[easy_money]

I checked the address bar. I backed out and came back into this thread. Hell, I even restarted my computer. I'll be goddammed. An intelligent thread on MM about energy. Founder you may have been hacked.

Thank you bullskin, Blank, lumpy and a few others.

 

[2lumpy]

I checked the address bar. I backed out and came back into this thread. Hell, I even restarted my computer. I'll be goddammed. An intelligent thread on MM about energy. Founder you may have been hacked.

Thank you bullskin, Blank, lumpy and a few others.

The rational for asking these kinds of questions on MM is because there are a whole lot of very well educated people on here. They not only love the hunting life style, which creates a common bond but many of them are willing to share there/their/there’re knowledge. Most are common sense types, that speak in a language we all can understand and can articulate complex questions. The owner, to a fairly broad degree allows us to go just about anywhere. Most everyone on here knows where they can step and where they can’t. Some get sent to their bedrooms for a time out, once in a while.

Personally, I love the outdoor life style and enjoy discussions about it, but there are other things in our lives that matter a great deal too, and this is an excellent place to pick some amazing brains.

Let’s face it, none of us, that frequent this forum “very often” are normal. If you spend much time on here, you have to accept the fact that you’re all quirky as hell. That’s not all bad but it is like herding cats most days.

Thanks for checking in.

 

[bullskin]

I checked the address bar. I backed out and came back into this thread. Hell, I even restarted my computer. I'll be goddammed. An intelligent thread on MM about energy. Founder you may have been hacked.

Thank you bullskin, Blank, lumpy and a few others.

Good thinking. I was out in the driveway trying to push start mine...

 

[OutdoorWriter]

The windmills are going to suck all the wind out of the air. We’ll still just be pissin on our boots.

Speaking of windmills... an unfortunate event from Dec.

 

[2lumpy]

Speaking of windmills... an unfortunate event from Dec.

View attachment 70422

Sorrrrrry.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Sorrrrrry.

It's a good thing my Easter bunny doesn't fly. I'm not sure about the Tooth Fairy, however.

 

[Blank]

Utah has "Tards, but we have North Idaho!!!

 

[BrowningRage]

Nobody wants to hear about your clean, never-ending energy that is affordable to everyone...

This is literally what "climate activists" are saying.

 

[Blank]

If it starts getting too hot from Global Warming.........

 

[Beendare]

Think about a car from the mid 70’s to the cars of today. Nuclear has come a long ways technology and safety wise. Heck they have Small Nuclear reactors now that dont melt down, can be mass produced and shipped on a flatbed semi …and can be clustered and networked together.

OP, heres a screen shot of safety comparisons;

 

[huntnut]

My buddy from MD & I fished for smallmouths in the Susquehanna River in the mid-1980s. We stayed in his friend's trailer on an island that was within sight & a stone's throw from 3MI. Although the site/area was supposedly still radioactive, we both survived. That said, I think my sex life improved with some 'growth.'

I live about 40 miles east of the Palo Verde site here in AZ.

Saw a bumper sticker one time: More people died at Chappaquiddick than 3 Mile Island.

 

[Bluehair]

When I was a pup and working in Phx, one of the recycling places accidentally ran the “fuel” from some xray equipment through the system. The result was tons and tons of radioactive rebar that disrupted supplies in the sw for months.

Later in life, we made a fortune cleaning up after the nukular industry. And we didn’t even clean it up - we contained it.

The radioactivity is kinda a bummer. All the other civilian applications are wonderful.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Saw a bumper sticker one time: More people died at Chappaquiddick than 3 Mile Island.

Yeah, but you shoulda seen the size of the smallmouth bass in the river. One towed us upstream against the strong current.

 

[eelgrass]

If it starts getting too hot from Global Warming.........

View attachment 70711

Maybe solar powered wind farms are the answer.

 

[Beendare]

I'm scratching my head on all of these wind farms going up.

The one in the very windy Altamont area of CA near to where we live has gone bankrupt a couple of times.

There was a study done by one of the think tanks on the wind farm on the Hawaiian islands...one of the windiest spots on earth. It kicks ass right? Nope, It went belly up after a few years.

WTF, why is that? It turns out the maintenance on these wind turbines is a lot of work and very expensive to keep them going....among other negatives.

There are Small nuclear reactors, made in a factory and shipped out on a semi truck...that not only provide EXPONENTIALLY more power than wind turbines, but they don't melt down, can be clustered together....and they integrate perfectly with renewable power sources.

Its time we started making good quality long term decisions in this country. The John Kerry's running the show are so far up the butt of the Renewable Companies [and he has raked in significant $,$$$,$$$ from them. [see the Axios website]
We need decisions for the people...not to line politicians pockets.