Interesting calculation. Now subtract out the amount of energy, not sure what percentage from the grid vs co-generation, expended by refineries to refine that 143B gallons of gas. Power used pumping oil and gasoline through long distance pipelines might also be significant.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Interesting calculation. Now subtract out the amount of energy, not sure what percentage from the grid vs co-generation, expended by refineries to refine that 143B gallons of gas. Power used pumping oil and gasoline through long distance pipelines might also be significant.
kkillebrew
Banned
mspohr
Well-Known Member
True. And my point is that there are additional energy savings on the grid by the elimination of the process of going ‘from well through refinery’. It further reinforces the thought that there is plenty of grid capacity for more EVs without negatively affecting the grid.
Electric Power Monthly!
November edition, for capacity changes and generation September 2019.
Only a small change in coal capacity of -100MW in September 2019. Planned capacity reductions haven't changed much. Last month the 12 month net capacity change forecast was -9,466.9MW This month the forecast decreased by 20MW to --9,386.9MW.
Coal's rolling 12 month share has dropped another 0.27% to 24.71%. Coal was 48.21% of generation in 2008. It has almost dropped by half.
Nuclear capacity reduced by -802.8MW, and there were no new planned reductions, so planned 12 month capacity changes rose to -1,018.5MW.
Despite the capacity reduction, nuclear generation was up compared to last year.
Coal:
Capacity (MW):
Generation (GWh):
Nuclear:
Capacity (MW):
Generation (GWh):
November edition, for capacity changes and generation September 2019.
Only a small change in coal capacity of -100MW in September 2019. Planned capacity reductions haven't changed much. Last month the 12 month net capacity change forecast was -9,466.9MW This month the forecast decreased by 20MW to --9,386.9MW.
Coal's rolling 12 month share has dropped another 0.27% to 24.71%. Coal was 48.21% of generation in 2008. It has almost dropped by half.
Nuclear capacity reduced by -802.8MW, and there were no new planned reductions, so planned 12 month capacity changes rose to -1,018.5MW.
Despite the capacity reduction, nuclear generation was up compared to last year.
Coal:
Capacity (MW):
| Period | Prior | Change | New | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | 235,112.7 | -100.0 | 235,012.7 | -0.04% |
| YTD | 242,785.6 | -7,772.9 | 235,012.7 | -3.20% |
| Rolling | 245,113.4 | -10,100.7 | 235,012.7 | -4.12% |
| Plan +12mo | -9,466.9 | -20.0 | -9,386.9 | . |
Generation (GWh):
| Year | Month | YTD | Rolling | Month % | YTD% | Rolling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 96,544 | 869,087 | 1,156,394 | 26.90% | 27.06% | 27.52% |
| 2019 | 85,918 | 751,249 | 1,028,125 | 23.70% | 23.70% | 24.71% |
| Difference | -10,626 | -117,838 | -128,269 | -3.20% | -3.36% | -2.82% |
Nuclear:
Capacity (MW):
| Period | Prior | Change | New | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | 98,908.9 | -802.8 | 98,106.1 | -0.81% |
| YTD | 99,432.9 | -1,326.8 | 98,106.1 | -1.33% |
| Rolling | 99,277.9 | -1,171.8 | 98,106.1 | -1.18% |
| Plan +12mo | -1,821.3 | 0.0 | -1,018.5 | . |
Generation (GWh):
| Year | Month | YTD | Rolling | Month % | YTD% | Rolling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 64,725 | 612,076 | 818,388 | 18.03% | 19.06% | 19.48% |
| 2019 | 65,892 | 610,006 | 805,015 | 18.18% | 19.25% | 19.34% |
| Difference | 1,167 | -2,070 | -13,373 | 0.14% | 0.19% | -0.13% |
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Germany is closing all its nuclear power plants. Now it must find a place to bury the deadly waste for 1 million years - CNN
Where do you safely bury more than 28,000 cubic meters -- roughly six Big Ben clock towers -- of deadly radioactive waste for the next million years?
Where do you safely bury more than 28,000 cubic meters -- roughly six Big Ben clock towers -- of deadly radioactive waste for the next million years?
Easy: Australia, just a giant rock full of criminals. Besides, the whole mutated zombie kangaroo fear is just not warranted. Never actually been proven that zombies mutate, just hypothesized, much less can zombie kangaroos mutate? I might be more concerned about millions of criminal zombie mutants breeding. If that does happen again, we just point them at New Zealand just like we did the last bunch.
I like the idea of encasing it in glass and dropping it into a subduction zone in the ocean. Not a threat to the environment, as a dirty bomb or curious future humans.
Lol. Glad to hear you mention that.
I’ve been wondering why no one seems to have pursued the subduction zone option, figured there was some good reason that I was not aware of.
Yeah... people would freak when they read the headline 'Radioactive waste being dumped in the ocean' and they won't bother to look into why it won't hurt anything and it's a terrific idea.
Not a threat??? Ever hear of the Glomar Explorer?
You are aware that subduction zones move at the same rate as the continents, right? Around 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) per year. About the same time the radiation levels are safe they will become pretty out of reach.
I think the better option is to just not make such highly radioactive stuff in the first place. Germany agrees, that's why they are shutting down their nukes.
It doesn't matter much what most of us think about nuclear. The cost is getting too high for nuclear to compete with renewables. In fact, the cost of new wind and solar power has become competitive with not only new construction of fossil fuel plants, but with existing fossil fuel plants. Meanwhile nuclear is going in the other direction with each new plant becoming more expensive, more cost overruns and more schedule delays. There are three locations that are installing new French designs and each one is massively over budget and years late. Facilities like this are built to make a profit and the pay off keeps dropping with each passing year of budget overruns and delays. It is getting to the point that companies will only invest in nuclear if the government provides various guarantees on prices they can charge. They also often get loan guarantees or even direct government loans. Clearly nuclear is a bad idea who's time has passed.
The seafloor needs to subduct ~3km before it begins to melt. At a rate of 2.5cm/yr that's 3000m / 2.5cm = 1.2M years. All radioactive nuclides would have decayed to nothing.
But yes... cost is the issue. Waste is not. Which is why I hate articles like this. They feed into the narrative of nuclear promoters that nuclear is failing not because it's impossibly expensive but because of public ignorance. For one; ~90% of the 28,000 cubic meters is U238 which is basically dirt. There's probably >1g of U238 in your backyard. It's a heavy metal hazard but not a radiological hazard. <1% of that volume actually needs to be secured and of that <1% ~half could be exported as fuel to France.
Last edited:
I don't follow your reasoning. How does the fact that ~90% of waste is U238 rather than other highly radioactive nucleotides? It all has to be disposed of since it can't be practically separated. Am I missing something?
Or, and hear me out here, shipped to Australia in kegs labelled beer. Problem solved right? The kangaroos and criminals would fight about who got the first swig- just leave the kegs in the middle of the outback. The koala's are just going to have to make sure they are high up in the tree tops, I mean we all love koalas and they'll be safe if they just don't go down to the Zombie/Mutants levels.
My son just brought up one unforeseen issue: would the kangaroos bother to read the label to the criminals? Well, I can't say and that's a good questions. One can hope, the kangaroos are non too smart (of course much smarter than 99.99% of the aussie who descended from humans).
Just give it some thought.
Personally I think it a much safer option for humanity than risking mutant Kraken attacking our favorite nude beaches in Spain and France.
It can be separated. It's just a matter of cost. Is it cheaper to isolate 28,000m^3 of mixed waste or separate and dispose of 280m^3 of highly radioactive waste? Most of that is stored in large concrete encased dry casks. IIRC they're close to developing a glass that can be poured into the fuel matrix. If you were to drop that 30 ton cask into a trench there's ~0 chance of it ever hurting anyone. No terrorist group is going to retrieve it for a dirty bomb. 1) We can monitor the area via satellite... you can't hide a ship like the Glomar Explorer. 2) If someone had that ability there's already several nuclear reactors on the sea floor they could salvage that would be easier to get.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The Real Energy Return of Crude Oil: Smaller than you Would have Imagined - Resilience
A simple but important study by Luciano Celi shows what is the real energy return that oil companies manage to attain. Much smaller than you would have believed, in several cases it is today well below 10.
A simple but important study by Luciano Celi shows what is the real energy return that oil companies manage to attain. Much smaller than you would have believed, in several cases it is today well below 10.
Your reasoning is far from sound. If it were economical to separate the highly radioactive material from radioactive waste we would be doing that.
There are few more corrosive environments on earth than in the sea. The dry storage casks you mention are just that, "dry" storage, not "at the bottom of the ocean" storage.
You can "monitor" the area all you want. You can't do anything about ships in international waters.
The main problem is that if there were easy solutions, we would be using them. You might as well have suggested that we shoot the waste into the sun.
The good news is that we will be making less and less nuclear waste as the reactors are shut down. In 30 years there will be very few commercial reactors remaining in operation in the US anyway. The costs don't permit it even when you don't count the cost of dealing with the waste. Renewable energy has already crossed the threshold of being cheaper to use than existing installations of fossil fuel. Since nuclear tends to be more expensive than even fossil fuel electrical generation, why would anyone want to build new ones. Every current nuclear project in the US is well behind schedule and well above cost. The three new installations in the EU are horribly so. Funny that nuclear advocates point to France who has something like 80% of their electricity generated by nuclear. It is the French who are designing and putting in these new facilities that are going so horribly wrong.
Similar threads
