Homepage Forums Environmental Forums Policy Integration: Energy, Water, Desalination…etc.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #600

    Starting a new offshoot from this post:

    Aeronaut wrote:

    In depth thread.

    In light of this website post, can we come up with a chart comparing the heat and thermal pollution footprint for different energy production processes?

    Given that

    Almost half of all water withdrawn in the United States each year is for cooling electric power plants.

    It would be nice to add a quantification/estimate of how much less thermal pollution will be generated by FF plants. That seems to be one area where we are still polluting.

    Perhaps this should be a separate thread.

    Whoever originated that statement about cooling water use clearly has some sort of agenda other than stating the simple truth. (And I know you’re just quoting someone, Rezwan) It is so misleading and carefully crafted as to force me to that conclusion.

    The truth:
    Almost half of all water withdrawn in the United States each year is for cooling electric power plants. And the vast majority of that water is simply raised a couple of degrees and returned to the river or lake whence it originated. There have been environmental impact studies ad-nauseum which show that very little if any harm is done to the ecology in the process.

    Notice that the statement is not untrue. You can’t say that about it. But it sure misrepresents reality.

    Jimmy, the article I quoted (not one of it’s sources, who likely does have an agenda), also states that agriculture, industry, and the electric industry are the US’s largest water users in that order. This is a VERY long, multi-faceted article that makes the point that no single industry or resource can be singled out by policy. Rather, water, air, energy, transportation, (just for openers) should be planned in an integrated manner.

    The FF Society has already demonstrated more due diligence than a “flat-worlder” envirocrises monger will ever show. I agree, we need a thread to explore how to minimize our exposure to them, without painting the last 110 years as bad. Hey, they did what they could with what they had.

    #3889
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Hi Aeronaut – I tried to find the article you referred to. Found another one, but it didn’t have your quote. Seems to be part of a series. Do you have the direct link? Also, that pdf was for the Virginia Water Resources center, seemed to be a brochure about the institute, nothing definitive about water issues.

    Jimmy, the article I quoted (not one of it’s sources, who likely does have an agenda), also states that agriculture, industry, and the electric industry are the US’s largest water users in that order. This is a VERY long, multi-faceted article that makes the point that no single industry or resource can be singled out by policy. Rather, water, air, energy, transportation, (just for openers) should be planned in an integrated manner.

    Anyway, we’re starting fresh here. Brand new topic thread.

    #3890
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    Rezwan wrote: Hi Aeronaut – I tried to find the article you referred to. Found another one, but it didn’t have your quote. Seems to be part of a series. Do you have the direct link? Also, that pdf was for the Virginia Water Resources center, seemed to be a brochure about the institute, nothing definitive about water issues.

    Jimmy, the article I quoted (not one of it’s sources, who likely does have an agenda), also states that agriculture, industry, and the electric industry are the US’s largest water users in that order. This is a VERY long, multi-faceted article that makes the point that no single industry or resource can be singled out by policy. Rather, water, air, energy, transportation, (just for openers) should be planned in an integrated manner.

    Anyway, we’re starting fresh here. Brand new topic thread.

    I scanned though the article again yesterday, thinking maybe I’d take a chance with copyright laws and scan it to an attachment, but the sheer number of pages would make it a huge download. I’ll see if they have an online version of the mag that I can link to. Best I could do yesterday was find the link to the organization and person directing the study, including contact information and an idea how they think they see the world.

    “Facts” are a lot easier to find online than Facts. All that’s needed is an existing opinion to bolster and a quick search or few. Hence the flat world that most people operate in. Assuming that the heat exchanger will dump the heat to process heating water (for utility), or to air (convenient), we’ve likely covered >90% of the angles we need to address. My first question is what other heat disposal media would be attractive, and why? This can be expanded to a list of companies already building heat recovery add-ons that we have no intention of competing against. FF is a growth industry for LOTS of companies

    We’ll also need to be on the lookout for unassailable authority-grade reports such as EIA provides, especially the ones whose context and facts take many aspects of modern society into account. As Eric said in the Google Talks, the aluminum and glass industries are unlikely to scale to global energy demand, at least cost-effectively. Attempting to do so would grossly distort global energy demand numbers. That may be one of our foundation stones.

    #3891
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    Here’s the direct link, Rezwan. http://www.legion.org/magazine/2529/power-power-domestic-dilemma . Only problem is that it’s a tease to get subscribers. Here’s the Google search results for Jay Stuller, the author. We can learn a lot from him and maybe get mentioned in the reprint of the book he wrote the article to promote. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=jay+stuller&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=jay+stuller&fp=Li-R6mbKWrc

    #3893
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote:

    Hi Aeronaut – I tried to find the article you referred to. Found another one, but it didn’t have your quote. Seems to be part of a series. Do you have the direct link? Also, that pdf was for the Virginia Water Resources center, seemed to be a brochure about the institute, nothing definitive about water issues.

    Jimmy, the article I quoted (not one of it’s sources, who likely does have an agenda), also states that agriculture, industry, and the electric industry are the US’s largest water users in that order. This is a VERY long, multi-faceted article that makes the point that no single industry or resource can be singled out by policy. Rather, water, air, energy, transportation, (just for openers) should be planned in an integrated manner.

    Anyway, we’re starting fresh here. Brand new topic thread.

    I scanned though the article again yesterday, thinking maybe I’d take a chance with copyright laws and scan it to an attachment, but the sheer number of pages would make it a huge download. I’ll see if they have an online version of the mag that I can link to. Best I could do yesterday was find the link to the organization and person directing the study, including contact information and an idea how they think they see the world.

    “Facts” are a lot easier to find online than Facts. All that’s needed is an existing opinion to bolster and a quick search or few. Hence the flat world that most people operate in. Assuming that the heat exchanger will dump the heat to process heating water (for utility), or to air (convenient), we’ve likely covered >90% of the angles we need to address. My first question is what other heat disposal media would be attractive, and why? This can be expanded to a list of companies already building heat recovery add-ons that we have no intention of competing against. FF is a growth industry for LOTS of companies

    We’ll also need to be on the lookout for unassailable authority-grade reports such as EIA provides, especially the ones whose context and facts take many aspects of modern society into account. As Eric said in the Google Talks, the aluminum and glass industries are unlikely to scale to global energy demand, at least cost-effectively. Attempting to do so would grossly distort global energy demand numbers. That may be one of our foundation stones.

    I think this thread is in reference to water and other resource issues.

    #3901
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    Rezwan,

    http://nrc.gov covers the federal —> state regulations for the u.s. Haven’t checked the international atomic energy commission yet. As Rematog pointed out, the X-ray generator nature is what really exposes us to regulation. Some experience with the higher powered test rig will get us solid data on how long it takes to get a core back to background level radiation, our 2nd “exposure as I see it. Have you looked into IAEC and/or UN regulatory bodies?

    #3903
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote: Rezwan,

    http://nrc.gov covers the federal —> state regulations for the u.s. Haven’t checked the international atomic energy commission yet. As Rematog pointed out, the X-ray generator nature is what really exposes us to regulation. Some experience with the higher powered test rig will get us solid data on how long it takes to get a core back to background level radiation, our 2nd “exposure as I see it. Have you looked into IAEC and/or UN regulatory bodies?

    I believe Eric’s estimate is that it would take about 9 hrs. for the external housing/maintenance space to return to background levels after shut-off. So it would take about a day to turn around each annual or semi-annual servicing.

    #6984
    AvatarJimmyT
    Participant

    This subject of servicing the generator units has bothered me a lot. How to provide uninterrupted power to communities or factories which are widely dispersed?

    Solution 1: Maintain an interconnecting grid to provide power when units are down.
    This strikes me as a terribly inefficient use of resources. Maintaining a grid for use only a few hours each year.

    Solution 2. Have duplicate generator units at each station. Or alternatively place units where power demands dictate the placement of two or more units. Then, service them individually during off-peak hours.
    Again, idle units are a waste of capital, and would be intolerable until the market is virtually saturated.

    Solution 3:Mobile focus fusion unit on service truck. Drive unit to proximity of unit being serviced. Quick connect electricty and cooling. Switch on. Switch off unit being serviced. Wait 9 hours. Service other unit. Restart unit. Switch mobile unit off. Disconnect mobile unit. Drive to next unit scheduled for service. Shielding water could be kept on site, thus needn’t be transported.

    Solution 4: Same as #3 except you drive off with the “hot unit” rather than wait around for it to “cool off”. Only downside to this is that you would be transporting some mildly radioactive material. On the plus side: generators could be serviced at a central location where specialized equipment could be available. Serviced unit could be ready for redeployment the following day.

    Comments? This post probably doesn’t belong here. New thread maybe?

    #6985
    Avatarzapkitty
    Member

    JimmyT wrote: This subject of servicing the generator units has bothered me a lot. How to provide uninterupted power to communities or factories which are widely dispersed?

    Solution 1: Maintain an interconnecting grid to provide power when units are down.
    This strikes me as a terribly inefficient use of resources. Maintaining a grid for use only a few hours each year.

    Solution 2. Have duplicate generator units at each station. Or alternatively place units where power demands dictate the placement of two or more units. Then, service them during off-peak hours.
    Again, idle units are a waste of capital, and would be intolerable until the market is virtually saturated.

    Comments? This post probably doesn’t belong here. New thread maybe?

    The current practical solution would be a combination of 1 and 2.

    Communities and large installations such as factories and hospitals will demand
    backup units… and the low price of DPF units will make that option especially
    attractive.

    And the grid will retain its current extents for the same reason it currently exists…
    shifting power to where it’s needed while buying and selling power produced in
    excess of local needs.

    Another way of thinking of this is that the ready availability of cheap, clean power
    will in no way reduce the current demands for power generation and its transport.

    Will there be changes in the grid structure? Yes. But DPF by itself will not render
    the concept of the grid obsolete.

    #6986
    AvatarJimmyT
    Participant

    zapkitty wrote:

    This subject of servicing the generator units has bothered me a lot. How to provide uninterupted power to communities or factories which are widely dispersed?

    Solution 1: Maintain an interconnecting grid to provide power when units are down.
    This strikes me as a terribly inefficient use of resources. Maintaining a grid for use only a few hours each year.

    Solution 2. Have duplicate generator units at each station. Or alternatively place units where power demands dictate the placement of two or more units. Then, service them during off-peak hours.
    Again, idle units are a waste of capital, and would be intolerable until the market is virtually saturated.

    Comments? This post probably doesn’t belong here. New thread maybe?

    The current practical solution would be a combination of 1 and 2.

    Communities and large installations such as factories and hospitals will demand
    backup units… and the low price of DPF units will make that option especially attractive.

    And the grid will retain its current extents for the same reason it currently exists… shifting
    power to where it’s needed while buying and selling power produced in excess of local needs.

    Another way of thinking of this is that the ready availability of cheap, clean power will
    in no way reduce the current demands for power generation and its transport.

    Will there be changes in the grid structure? Yes. But DPF by itself will not render the
    concept of the grid obsolete.

    I actually think that it might. It may well become cheaper to generate more power where it’s needed then to maintain the infrastructure to transport it.

    I’m no expert in failure analysis, but I have a sense that grids may at some point decrease reliability.

    #6987
    Avatarzapkitty
    Member

    JimmyT wrote:
    I actually think that it might. It may well become cheaper to generate more power where
    it’s needed then to maintain the infrastructure to transport it.

    Then doesn’t that answer your question?

    Existing transmission line maintenance costs are supposed to be a small
    part of the total power bill. It’s the need for building new lines and added
    extras such as underground installation that drives the high prices you see
    quoted for transmission line projects.

    As DPF installations begin propagating the existing lines will do nicely.

    And part of the economic “fuel” for DPF propagation will be the
    selling of excess power over transmission lines.

    As the situation develops the existing lines that are judged to to be no longer
    needed will be allowed to lapse.

    But this need not create a “power bubble”…

    (… unless you allow the oligarchs to make it one… they just loves them some
    bubbles as they don’t pay any real penalty when the bubbles burst…)

    … but this need not create a “power bubble”as DPFs should be built so
    as to supply local power needs plus a certain margin.

    And the Feds will have a distinct (and valid) interest in encouraging the
    maintenance of a basic method of intercity power transport.

    It seems that the fact that anyone who wants to buy or build a DPF will
    usually also want backup power of some kind (even if it’s just a spare
    DPF) makes this a self-resolving issue… not a dilemma 🙂

    #6988
    Avatarzapkitty
    Member

    Hmmm…. glitch in editing my post…please stand by 🙂

    … okay… can’t delete an erroneous post?… lemonade mode activated!…

    In fact the need for extensive desalinization and water-generating plants
    to handle the water scarcity problems in the western half of the U.S.
    would seem like a pretty guaranteed market in and of itself for both spare
    DPF output and transmission line maintenance during the transition to
    fusion power.

    #7031
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    I think it’s likely that limited connectivity between FF “nodes” would suffice for maintenance scheduling. A “free” (uncommitted) node positioned between several operating ones could pick up the load while each was being serviced in staggered sequence. It could also serve as an emergency backup or overload resource. This would amount to a flexible “local” or regional grid, of course. There is a wide range of possible configurations which would be used depending on the population density, etc. I would expect a self-powered manufacturing plant, e.g., would have its own “maintenance and overload” sub-node to permit rotating servicing as convenient.

    #7032
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    The whole issue of the division of demand between new users and replacement of existing plant is very interesting, of course. Here’s one way to approach it: given a budget for continued operation, maintenance and upgrade of existing plant (coal, gas, hydro, whatever), there would often be points at which it would make more sense to deflect those funds into buying and setting up FF replacement sourcing. I think those decision points might just become more and more frequent as time goes on, till the entire network is replaced. After all, any other plant, even continuing with no new capital costs, will be economically uncompetitive with FF, and hence a financial drag on the operator or utility.

    #7048
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    zapkitty wrote:
    And part of the economic “fuel” for DPF propagation will be the
    selling of excess power over transmission lines.
    […]
    As the situation develops the existing lines that are judged to to be no longer
    needed will be allowed to lapse.

    do remember that focus fusion power is entirely dispatchable: there need be no excess power, at all,
    since you can adjust number of pinches/second as demand requires.

    so, really, the question becomes
    whether it is cheaper, or safer, to deliver a fusion generator, and install it, than to distribute power to a needy neighbour over wires.

    returning to the topic,
    a lot of waste heat really should be made a resource rather than be waste, at all.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.