Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 19, 2017 10:20 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: May 04, 2014 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 4-10-26-28

No mention of what is going to power these California desalination plants excepting one that is solar powered. Seems to me that California is going to trade a water shortage for a power shortage if they fire up all these desalination plants without also building power plants.

A good time to bring up LFTR to Californians, don't you think?

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 04, 2014 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 31, 2011 12:41 am
Posts: 28
Nuclear power + desalination is the future for the American Southwest, including California. Most Californians just don't realize it yet.

California has always been drought-prone, with multi-year droughts the norm, going back centuries. More than 10% of the population of the US now lives in CA, many of these people living in desert or semi-desert environs. Moving water from north to south and from out of state (Colorado River) has made this pattern of development possible. But now, all of CA's water sources are under stress, and the population is still growing. Climate change promises to exacerbate drought in the Southwest. Desal is the future of potable water supply--San Diego will be getting 10% of its supply from desal when the Carlsbad desal plant is completed in a year or so. My little coastal community is trying to get an emergency desal unit up and running by the end of summer, when our groundwater is likely to run dry, literally.

Combined solar-powered, reverse osmosis plants look attractive in that no energy storage is required--just run when the sun is shining.

MSRs + desal could ultimately provide cheaper, green potable water. Reverse osmosis is the technology of the moment, but I expect flash distillation using MSR waste heat would offer better returns.

The anti-nukes will lose out to the inevitable, eventually--probably after multiple out-of-state proof points make the benefits obvious to most people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 04, 2014 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: Alabama
Kurt Sellner wrote:
A good time to bring up LFTR to Californians, don't you think?


Nope.

NickL wrote:
The anti-nukes will lose out to the inevitable, eventually--probably after multiple out-of-state proof points make the benefits obvious to most people.


Not a good bet. This is California we're talking about. If they were learning from other states they wouldn't be in so much trouble.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 04, 2014 11:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2232
A water cooled, waste burning MSR may just click if it burns used fuel and desalinates water. Perhaps the Army should order a floating unit for its water use. The Municipalities may follow up.
Fractional distillation of chlorides may be required as a preliminary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 04, 2014 11:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Kurt Sellner wrote:
A good time to bring up LFTR to Californians, don't you think?


Nope.


Can you give me what would be a better time in your opinion? The whole state can't be a lost cause, can it?

Kirk Sorensen wrote:
NickL wrote:
The anti-nukes will lose out to the inevitable, eventually--probably after multiple out-of-state proof points make the benefits obvious to most people.


Not a good bet. This is California we're talking about. If they were learning from other states they wouldn't be in so much trouble.


Agreed. What boggles my mind is that there are California beaches covered with oil slicks from off shore oil deposits leaking into the water. For some reason this is "good" because it is "natural". No doubt this is a health hazard for people and sea life along those beaches. Something that could be resolved if the state allowed drilling close enough to the shore. Same goes for natural gas leaking up from the sea floor, drill for that and fewer fish suffocate and die. Can't argue about how drilling for this affects the "greenhouse emissions" since the fossil fuels will decompose to CO2 naturally. Only have it decompose in the water means introducing carcinogens into the environment. Collecting it for fuel means the carcinogens are destroyed.

I've read several sources that claim the drought in California is self imposed. Sources of fresh drinking water are off limits because it may disturb the environment of a fish that many believe are worthless. They can only be used for bait. Californians have water but allowing people to drink and eat means killing some stupid fish. Maybe the dead fish can be used as fertilizer.

I could go on. People get the government they deserve.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 05, 2014 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Kurt Sellner wrote:
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Kurt Sellner wrote:
A good time to bring up LFTR to Californians, don't you think?


Nope.


Can you give me what would be a better time in your opinion? The whole state can't be a lost cause, can it?

Kirk Sorensen wrote:
NickL wrote:
The anti-nukes will lose out to the inevitable, eventually--probably after multiple out-of-state proof points make the benefits obvious to most people.


Not a good bet. This is California we're talking about. If they were learning from other states they wouldn't be in so much trouble.


Agreed. What boggles my mind is that there are California beaches covered with oil slicks from off shore oil deposits leaking into the water. For some reason this is "good" because it is "natural". No doubt this is a health hazard for people and sea life along those beaches. Something that could be resolved if the state allowed drilling close enough to the shore. Same goes for natural gas leaking up from the sea floor, drill for that and fewer fish suffocate and die. Can't argue about how drilling for this affects the "greenhouse emissions" since the fossil fuels will decompose to CO2 naturally. Only have it decompose in the water means introducing carcinogens into the environment. Collecting it for fuel means the carcinogens are destroyed.

I've read several sources that claim the drought in California is self imposed. Sources of fresh drinking water are off limits because it may disturb the environment of a fish that many believe are worthless. They can only be used for bait. Californians have water but allowing people to drink and eat means killing some stupid fish. Maybe the dead fish can be used as fertilizer.

I could go on. People get the government they deserve.


The fish is the Delta Smelt. No one gives a damn about it, but its just a tool for certain wing nut groups to block development they don't like. California's immense size and bizarre governmental structure empowers NIMBY groups 100-fold: low voter turn-out; extensive rules-making departments; ballot initiative system etc. California hasn't had any progress on infrastructure in decades. A good time to get things done will be if/when the system blows up, either via court-ordered changes or an outright split up of the state. Southern California & areas of the central valley (e.g. Fresno - Bakersfield) would consider nuclear development, but they don't have control right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 05, 2014 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3072
Cthorm wrote:
The fish is the Delta Smelt. No one gives a damn about it, but its just a tool for certain wing nut groups to block development they don't like. California's immense size and bizarre governmental structure empowers NIMBY groups 100-fold: low voter turn-out; extensive rules-making departments; ballot initiative system etc. California hasn't had any progress on infrastructure in decades. A good time to get things done will be if/when the system blows up, either via court-ordered changes or an outright split up of the state. Southern California & areas of the central valley (e.g. Fresno - Bakersfield) would consider nuclear development, but they don't have control right now.

Right after the power blackouts we built a ton of natural gas power plants with almost no bureaucratic or popular resistance. I expect we will wait until another emergency to do another burst of building - whether the emergency is running out of water, power, or city/state bankruptcy I don't know. We are on the edge with all three. But it seems unlikely that we will plan ahead and build rationally. I kinda hope we get a severe power shortage in LA this summer and that this is still in time to resurrect San Onofre.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 06, 2014 1:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 19, 2011 7:04 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Berkeley, CA
Kurt Sellner wrote:
A good time to bring up LFTR to Californians, don't you think?

Thanks for the link. This guy is trying to help spread the word about the benefits of nukes in general for CA: http://atoms4ca.tumblr.com/

Here's a snippet from the author's "disclaimer" page:
Quote:
The author of this website is an employee of the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (known in day-to-day language as the California Energy Commission, abbreviated CEC). This website reflects the personal opinion of its author; the words, figures, and images published herein do not constitute endorsement or reflect on the policy of the Commission or the State of California.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group