Good News - Alternative Energies

by Amazing 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  mustang

  I recently ran a Capstone MicroTurbine through my string of Motor-Generator Sets on an evaluation basis. I run, install and maintain about a dozen various units, totaling about a megawatt of power.

  (Why do I use electric motors to drive electrical generators? That is an older UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) technology, but the Frequency Changer Sets are an effective way to get 50/400 Hz from 60 Hz. The 60/60's are the mysterious ones. We use them like gigantic light dimmers. It's next to impossible to get Variacs over 50 KVA & the solid-state stuff doesn't like or fit the dynamic range and nasty loads we require. We make the solid-state stuff, now. So, we use the old M-G Sets for 75-300 KVA Zero-Power Generator 'light dimmer' style controllers.)

  The Capstone will run on gaseous or liquid fuel. This is the basic decision you make: gaseous or liquid. That selects the injectors. After that, the computer adjusts the combustion for any fuel you feed it. It will burn high-sulfur fuels, really contaminated gaseous stuff and sludgy petro products. In the oil fields, these things will run on UN-REFINED crude oil!!! It meets or exceeds clean-air standards. I'm not sure I trust that on those previously mentioned worst-case fuels, but they designed it to really clean up the exhaust products.

  The unit starts on battery and has UPS type output. It has to, with the peculiarities of the turbine. It takes about 2 minutes to start up, so it has to 'go on battery' for covering a line drop. It also has to 'go on battery' for 'step loads'; notice the RPM range: the turbine idles at 45,000 RPM and runs at about 90,000 RPM, 'full tilt'.

  I used the 60 KW/100 KVA model, with 480 Volt 3-Phase output. We ran it on methane, using the 'six-pack' of industrial/welding type gas cylinders caged together. We were sent a hydrogen/methane gas regulator, but changed to a specific methane regulator. I recall that this model cost about 52K$, less than 1$/Watt!! The unit ran nicely, smooth power & quiet.

  Well, the super interesting application is that in north LA, there is a sanitary landfill that has 50 of these units (30 kW models, I believe) running off the METHANE that evolves from the dumpsite!!! For whatever reason, it doesn't run continuously. But when it does, that is 1.5 megawatts on FREE FUEL!!! And the exhaust is claimed to be CLEANER than the gas that evolved!!!

  That's the closest thing to free energy that I have seen. This deserves to go on your list.

  Mustang
  hi-tech, lo-tech, no-tech, we've got it all Class
• 

  Outaservice

  Amazing,

  You almost forgot 'perpetual motion'! (Example: A cow drinking milk.)

  And Mideastern people have been cooking their food with 'cattle dung'!
  Gives a distinct flavor to the food!

  Outaservice (But still countin my time)
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Simon: Okay, thanks for the Sellafield info. You made some additional comments that deserve some extra attention:

  You noted, "I guess I was trying to say that while the theory of nuclear energy is safe the practice, particularly if something goes wrong, can be dreadful."

  Yes, in the cases of Chernobyl and TMI it was bad ... though as I stated above, TMI an American design, was not a particular hazard to the public. Chernobyl was a criminal act.

  You continued, "Sellafield is constantly in the news in the UK for safety fears. There have been numerous studies relating to the high ratio of lukemia in the nearby communities and the much higher than normal levels of radiation that the government says is "naturally occuring" (yeah, right... we trust you Mr Grinning Baffoon Blair)"

  There are two issues here, safety and radiation emmissions. First, I know nothing of Sellafield, so I cannot address safety issues raised. But, at every nuclear plant I worked at the anti-nuclear groups made all sorts of dastardly claims about safety, of which 99% were total fabrications, and the rest were minor issues blown out of proportion.

  Second, the lukemia rates are interesting to note. At American nuclear plants there is a Zero Tolerance policy where NO radiation is allowed to escape, except in short off-gas emissions such as that at TMI. So during normal operations, where no accident is in progress, no American plant emits radiation. If they do, they are immediately and automatically shut down.

  I think that lukemia rates deserve closer study, because for years people claimed that High Power transmission lines (not necessarily associated with nuclear power plants, but from and electrical generating station, caused high rates of lukemia. All such were investigated by several non-partisan sources, including the AMA, and there is absolutely NO evidence that high voltage transmission line cause lukemia. So, unless Sellafield is being permitted to release radiation, which I cannot imagine the British government being more lax than the USA, I have to believe that the source of the lukemia may be from other sources.

  EXAMPLE: In Denver, Colorado, they have two significant sources, 1. Huge deposits of natural unranium which is mined for nuclear fuel, and 2. they are located 1 mile high, thus exposing them to less atmospheric shielding, increasing cosmic levels of gamma, ultra-violet, and x-ray. And the cancer rate in Denver is no worse than other parts of the country. So, I suspect that elevated lukemia rates near a nuclear station require serious study to isolate other possible causal factors.

  You said, "The final straw was a fuel reprocessing plant which it seemed had hit upon the idea of faking test and safety results instead of actually being safe as a good way to do business. The government have given them a license to operate anyway."

  Professional crime and government inefficiency and weakness can be a problem. But, again, what are the facts and did the media sensationalize or exploit the issue. But, I do admit that fuel reprocessing is more of a problem than the actual nuclear power generating station.

  In the USA when test results are forged, and things get sloppy, people go to jail and are financially destoryed. There are a few Vice President's of Nuclear in jail to this day because of monkey business. The utilities and the Executive were separately fined each more than $100,000 ... and the plants were forced to close until fixes were implemented. So, nowadays, in the last 10 or 15 years USA plants tend to operate by the letter of the law.

  IF they are well run, then they are safe. The utilities have more incentive to be safe because they are operating an expensive asset, and one that they want to last and properly meet power demands. The reason some executive do stupid things is that they get caught between trying to run a plant, and save money, and forget their first responsibility -- but I can say these are very few, and today, are extremely few. And the utility itself does not tolerate such executives. - Amazing

  PS: As for safety issues -- again -- what the media says and what the issue is factually can, and often are, very different, with the cause for concern being seriously blown out of proportion.
• 

  VM44

  what about Thermonuclear Fusion Power Reactors?

  They use Deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen.

  There is enough deuterium in the world's oceans to last
  practically forever.

  Of course, a practical fusion reactor has to be designed first.

  --VM44
• 

  Stephanus

  Here is an interesting pro-nuclear site:
  http://www.saveguard.co.nz/proceedings/atomic/
  the website of the THE ATOMIC ENERGY ADVOCACY COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND (hey, you've got to admire their balls!)

  I couldn't find any Sellafield specific stuff, but I'll email Philip Ross (an old chum of mine) and see what he has to say about it...

  "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Groucho Marx
• 

  larc

  An improvement in mass transit in the US would help reduce energy useage. In the Midwest, where I live, a modern, high speed train system would be a valued resource. It has been talked about and studied, but an implimentation is years away, if not decades.
• 

  Philip Ross

  The arguments against nuclear power are nothing new but they are misconceptions despite being popular ones.

  Disposal of the waste is not a technical problem and never has been one. Yes, the solution is to bury it, once the initial high levels of radioactivity have dwindled. Contrary to popular opinion, this happens quickly. Three hours after being removed from the core, spent fuel has only half the energy output that it had when first removed. After 5 years, the output has dropped 99.96%. This is because short-lived radioisotopes are most the intense, but these decay extremely quickly. If the waste is buried, after 500 years it is no more radioactive than the ore bodies from which the uranium that comprised the original fuel was mined. The fact is that the ground beneath us is inherently radioactive due in the main to uranium, thorium, potassium (K-40, present to the extent of 0.0118% in all potassium is a radioactive isotope), rubidium and carbon-14.

  People like to claim that buried radioactive waste poses some particular hazard, but in reality this is not true. If some of the sequestered waste was to be extracted from the ground in 500 years time, it would only be hazardous if ingested which is somewhat improbable since it is a hard, refractory and insoluble ceramic material. Long lived radioisoptopes, far from posing any hazard, are benign and we are surrounded by them in any case. Because they are long lived they decay very slowly and emit very little radiation.

  As to the three sites mentioned:

  1. Chernobyl. In essence this blew up because of a combination of design failings. These were well known in the west, and in 1976 the UK Atomic Energy Authority published a list of seven design deficiencies which would prevent the RBMK series reactor being licensed in the west. Such reactors exist only in Lithuania, the Ukraine and Russia. The Chernobyl explosion, which took place on 26 April 1986, occurred because:
  (a) The power levels were run down during a foolhardy experiment;
  (b) The RBMK reactor is inherently unstable below 20% output power, that is, around 700 MWt;
  (c) At one stage, the reactor was running at just 30 MWt;
  (d) Emergency cooling weas disconnected by the operators.This is not possible in a western reactor;
  (e) The reactor featured water cooling in conjunction with graphite moderation -- moderation slows "fast" neutrons emerging from nuclear fission so that they are "thermal" and thermal neutrons are far more efficient at generating further fission, so the more moderation, the faster the reaction runs. This led to a situation where the nett effect of the water was to absorb neutrons, which had the implication that as water was boiled off, the reaction would run hotter. This is termed a positive void coefficient, and is dangerous because the reactor runs faster and faster as the coolant boils away. It is not allowed in the west. By contrast, the light water PWR and BWR reactors, and the heavy water Candu reactor have self-levelling operation as when coolant is boiled off, the reaction slows down;
  (f) When it was desired to shut down the reactor, the neutron absorbing control rods had displacer blocks composed of graphite attached to them, and these sat 1.25 metres above the base of the channels. This meant that in the event of a scram an emergency shut down) the effect would be an actual increase in reactivity low in teh channels when the desired effect was entirely the opposite. it is a bit like fighting a fire by throwing gasoline over it;
  (g) The scram procedure was very slow;
  (h) There was no secondary containment. In a Candu reactor an explosion, even one as powerful as the Chernobyl explosion, would have been entirely contained within the secondary containment;
  (i) The combination of graphite moderation in conjunction with water cooling led to the formation of explosive water gas -- hydrogen plus carbon monoxide, and it was this that caused the second explosion that breached the reactor vessel and released radioactive material offsite;
  (j) Civil defence was inadequate and very slow, meaning that many nearby populations were needlessly exposed and not treated for contamination by iodine-131 when they could have been;
  (k) The controlling computer, Scala, was inaccurate and too slow;
  (l) Instead of admitting that there had been a problem, the authorities responded to the incindent with obfuscation and denials.
  In the end there were 31 deaths, and there have been predictions of further deaths from late-occurring cancers etc, amounting to up to 6,942 people in total. Many exaggerated and unproven claims of widespread birth deformities and cancer deaths have been made, and people have even blamed bad backs and other quite unrelated ailments on the disaster. However, the fact is that the endemic chemical pollution and other problems in the area are almost certainly responsible for many of these things and Chernobyl is merely a convenient scapegoat -- not that any of this in any way excuses the event.
  Anything else anyone wants to know about Chernobyl?

  2. Three Mile Island
  On 26 March 1979, owing to equipment malfunction and operator error, a partial core melt occurred, but a trifling 20 curies of radioactive material was released offsite, there were no deaths or injuries and the secondary containment worked as intended. A comprehensive review of ewuipment and procedures resulted in improvements to other PWR reactors to ensure the likelihood of a similar incident in the future was greatly reduced. A great deal of hysteria and anti-nuclear agitation followed, but most of this was extremely shallow on technical rigour and long on hype. A lawsuit brought against the utility was dismissed when the defendant applied for and was granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs; a sure sign that there was absolutely no merit in their claims.

  3. Sellafield
  There are several issues that may potentially be raised under this head. I am assuming that we are discussing the most recent issues, which are claims of leukemia clusters associated with the nuclear facilities there, and the claims that radioactive materials are dumped into the Irish Sea.
  The leukemia clusters have now been proven to have no association or correlation with nuclear activities. It has been shown that these are apparently randomly distributed throughout various communities in the UK and there is no connection with nuclear activities whatsoever. The latest theory is that a virus is responsible.
  The cliams of radioactive materials being dumped into the Irish Sea are false. It must always be remembered that there is a natural background radiation dose and that this varies depending on place, altitude and various other circumstances.

  I trust this shed some light on this subject. As far as I am concerned, nuclear power is a valuable, useful, and environmentally-friendly method for the generation of baseload electricity and it ought to make up more of the world's generation mix.

  Philip Ross
  Chairman
  NZ Atomic Energy Advocacy Council
  http://www.saveguard.co.nz/atomic
  Note: this is slightly different to the reference given by an earlier contributor.
• 

  fodeja

  Amazing,

  I imagine there are other I have not mentioned. BUT --- We Can do it!!!

  I'm sure it CAN be done (as but one example, the EU has *significantly* lower per capita CO2 output, yet pretty much the same standard of living), but I'm afraid it'll have to hurt. Nobody's going to switch from oil to alternative energy unless either petroleum gets too expensive or alternative sources get *significantly* cheaper (when?).

  Now, which US politician will have the balls to stick out his neck and propose massive taxation (or possibly import restrictions) on petroleum products? I'm not holding my breath.

  f.
• 

  ISP

  Careful Amazing.....we can't have things working out and folks living happily ever after....it will delay Armageddon.

  ISP
• 

  Stephanus

  I trust this shed some light on this subject. As far as I am concerned, nuclear power is a valuable, useful, and environmentally-friendly method for the generation of baseload electricity and it ought to make up more of the world's generation mix.

  Any questions? LOL