| Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 11:34 pm |
"Every power plant has capacitorys to story energy."
"I am not sure if I had misspelled something or if your 'capacitorys' is a mistake."
" Do you dispute that the accident occured during a low power test? "
"Though why you think anything I have to say comes from wiki, I do not know. I am sure that there is great info there about Chernobyl and have used it, though do not need to in this case."
You're proving my point. "wiki" in this case is used in the sense: "you're regurgitating stuff from posts on the internet". By the same token, it was aliens that landed in Roswell; I'm sure there's a link on the net that proves that happened.
"Well, electricity is a very problematic resource (and this is what I LOVE about SC), namely the only ONE, where supply MUST equal demand, or the system crashes. For all intents and purposes, electric power CANNOT be stored (in any meaningful quantity)."
"I believe I said electricity cannot be stored in any *meaningful quantity*, although I am not adverse to admitting I'm wrong, but as soon as you show me a megawatt storage facility, that doesn't take up a city block. "
^ Those were mine
Now, since, by your contention, electricity *can* be stored, and I'm kind of adverse to living without it, could you please point me to a place where I could purchase 15MWh, to store in my house, so when the next black out comes, I will not go without power.
"I guess I should have understood you are too stupid to change between concepts. So I will make it a bit easier for you, I hope. When operating at 100% capacity, the Beaver Vally plant produces 1600MW. When operating at 5% capacity, the Beaver Valley plant produces 100MW. (The 10MW was a mistype earlier, sorry everyone else reading.) So the relative change in power output of 100MW to 1600 MW is 1600%. "
Yes, relative change in power output is 1600%. But, to use the percentiles properly, you *should* and this is NOT a rule, just common sense, set the maximal value as 100%. That way, it doesn't look like your statement says that the power plant has a 1600% production capacity. What I was referring to was simply this:
5% of production is 100 MW
100% of production is 2000 MW (using your 5% as a base, I thought you said it was 1600 MW at 100%)
Now what that says, is that production was ramped down, 95%. See, nowhere there, does the number before the per-cent go above 100, except at the maximal point. I simply stated that:
"I love when people use % like it means something *other* than "/100". Let's please stick to the standard definitions of terms."
I guess I could've written more clearly, and put down, let's at least, be civil and follow some basic guidelines, but, hey, it was quick. What can I do.
"I am so glad you worked at an experimental reactor, or maybe horrified as you do not seem to be showing much of an understanding of them."
I never actually said I was a physicist there, now did I? But, even my small mind could comprehend that for the reaction to continue, ~1.0 out of the 2 - 3 neutrons released from the neutron capture of U-235 (depending on how splits, it will release 2 or 3) HAS to be captured by another U-235, for the process to continue. I'm sure that you won't argue that little tidbit.
The reason I say ~1.0 is due to the large numbers of reactions involved, you can get away with small fluctuations in that value. Vary too much, and it'll either shut down, or run-away. So, for arguements sake, what do you think the +/- would be? 0.1? 0.2? I doubt that the numbers could go that high, but I'm sure that the reactor core could be designed around those parameters. I hope that I'm not saying anything that you're going to disagree with, since, all this, even my simple mind could understand.
Now, taking that for granted, how do you get to 1 from 2 or 3 ? Well, moderator. Control rods as well, but some reactors do not use them, so let's just stay with the moderator. So, the moderators purpose is to slow down neutrons from their post-fission speeds, to speeds where a U235 could capture them. In the process of slowing neutrons down, energy is transferred from the neutrons to the moderator. This moderator is then run through a heat exchanger, on the other side of which, is steam. By increasing the kinetic energy of the steam, you increase the power produced by the turbine, which by spinning, creates electricity.
Again, simple physics, right Dr. Phil?
Now, what I was saying, was that you CANNOT alter the output of the plant. This is WRONG. At least I can admit it.
However, what I meant, was that you CANNOT *meaningfully* alter the power output of the CORE.
In your example, you stated that the plant output goes from 5% to 100%, and you stated it in MW. Which, if we go back to the explanation of the power going through a hypothetical reactor, could be explained by:
1) Heat from the core is unchanged, or varies at most, 20% (I do not believe this, but let's just say so for the sake of arguement)
a. Lower production by x%: All the heat from the heat exchanger, does NOT go into the steam, thereby lowering its kinetic energy, and delivering less power to the turbine blades, resulting in lower production of electricity.
This DOES NOT alter the power coming out of the reactor core. Just what comes out of the plant.
b. Increse prouction by x%: In this case, you'd have to actually increase the kinetic energy of the steam (in industry lingo, I believe it's called "quality of steam" but not too sure), to do this, you'd have to increase reactor heat output. To do THAT, you have to let your reaction carry above 1.0 and hope as hell that it doesn't jump too fast or too high, at which point your reactor shuts down automatically (in SOTA designs, or "computer-aided" automatically via control rods being jammed down, or passive "automatic" via the moderator turning to steam and losing it's "moderator" properties)
" The problem with a country using 100% nuclear power to generate electricity is the economics, not the physics of power generation. "
I never said it was or was not a particular problem. I said:
"So, a country, in principle, will have a huge problem if it is 100% nuclear - that meaning, that at peak usage, all your power comes from nuclear power plants. Which of course, means that at any time that is not peak, you have to "burn" your electricity otherwise it'll "burn" your grid. That is the problem facing france today, they actually sell their electricity at a loss, just so their nuclear plants do not shut down. Hmm... a utility selling anything at a loss, is not a good thing to have. Worse yet, the tab is picked up by the tax payer. And, lets not forget, even France, is far from 100% nuclear."
So you see, Dr. Phil, I was saying it's a problem and a problem involving selling at a loss. You saw what you wanted to see, and put words into my mouth. Problem later on, though, is that I probably took YOU at your word, about what I said, and assumed that you actually read what I wrote.
"The amount of heat generated by the core is reduced, it does not always produce the same amount of heat. Why? Because the speed of the nuclear chain reaction, and hence the heat, is variable, dumbass, and is primarily controlled by the control rods. I know exactly what I am talking about. It is apparent you do not. "
Actually, no. News flash: the speed you're talking about, does not exist. It is a probabilistic determination. And, while that DOES vary, it only has a small operational range, like I've stated above.
Now, obviously, you believe you know something. And, obviously, I'm not going to change your convictions. Hopefully, however, I might get YOU to do a LITTLE more IN-DEPTH study of something. And, while you're "technically" right, so am I.
There will be no further comments, since I've broken it up as far as it needed to be broken up, to show BOTH our points - each valid in it's own way. (Also, to clarify, the generally accepted story is exactly as Archangel1 said, I just don't subscribe to that particular publishing company, and regarding me working at a research reactor, irrespective of a position, I was still spending lots of time with some people that earned their PhD's - not thinking they are a Dr. Phil. - and I guess some of that rubbed off. )
"Anyway, do you know about the molecules they have found on the moon?. When used in a Nuclear Reactor they have been found to be something like 300% more efficient than the molecules used at present and because it is a much less violent reaction, the wall's of the reactor will not need changing as often. "
?!?!?!? The moon, originally was a piece of the earth. As well, molecules in a reactor? I'm assuming that you're not talking about the construction of the reactor, but actual isotopes inside the fuel rods? I think I'm going to have to agree with Zeta: lolisotopes it is.