<!--quoteo(post=1605826:date=Feb 12 2007, 04:48 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Feb 12 2007, 04:48 PM) [snapback]1605826[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Well for instance, AB-IGCC releases it's exhaust at 50°C Normal Coal plants release the exhaust at 1600°C Nuke plants, I don't know how hot they emit their steam, but I'd imagine it's even higher than that.
Whats also ironic is that nuclear is very sensitive to heat. Nuke plants need to shut down during heatwaves. Global warming ready eh? Actually that will never happen.
First off, firing Nuclear missiles on a routine basis? Yeah, that will go over just great.......
Second off, even normal spaceships explode every while or so. You can't honestly say we should intentionally risk an airborne explosion of nuclear material. Doing that would only magnify the damage of the dirty bomb. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like you said you <i>don't know</i> how much heat a nuclear power plant emits. Base your comment on fact not your imagination.
Nuclear reactors are, in essence, really big steam engines. They burn stuff to make really hot steam, and then generate power by cooling the steam back down. Except they are a lot more efficient than the steam engines of 100 years ago, and capture a lot more of that heat as energy. The hot water (or whatever liquid they use as a coolant, it varies with design) goes through several different heat capture cycles before anything sees the outside world. The actual exhaust vapor is stuff that never got near the reactor to begin with.
So yes, there is some heat output, but not as much as you imagine. The temperature of the exhaust actually turns out to be much less than exhaust from Coal plants, and is much closer to the temperature of your favorite AB-IGCC plant exhaust. I believe its around 100C when using air exhaust, and much less when using water exhaust.
They are specifically designed to allow local wildlife to survive in the temperatures of the exhaust, after all, so it cant be that hot.
Edit: Oh, and nuclear plants don't have to "shut down" during heatwaves. They can operate just fine. The only thing is, since the coolants are hotter, the steam engine part of the reactor is less efficient and captures a smaller percentage of the reactors total power output.
<!--quoteo(post=1605858:date=Feb 12 2007, 01:38 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 12 2007, 01:38 PM) [snapback]1605858[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Nuclear reactors are, in essence, really big steam engines. They burn stuff to make really hot steam, and then generate power by cooling the steam back down. Except they are a lot more efficient than the steam engines of 100 years ago, and capture a lot more of that heat as energy. The hot water (or whatever liquid they use as a coolant, it varies with design) goes through several different heat capture cycles before anything sees the outside world. The actual exhaust vapor is stuff that never got near the reactor to begin with. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought they generated power by using the force of the expanding steam to spin a turbine? After all water inceases 1600% when it turns to steam.
So here I am scrambling around the internet looking for counter arguements.
Lol, how about I just use the counter arguements given by the study <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <a href="http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Rebuttal_WNA.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Rebuttal_WNA.pdf</a>
Hrmm essentially from what I get from this article. <a href="http://www.stormsmith.nl/" target="_blank">http://www.stormsmith.nl/</a> <a href="http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_1.pdf</a> <a href="http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_2.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_2.pdf</a>
It mentions that the CO2 reductions given by Nuke plants are only achievable given high quality uranium ore. As the quality reduces, the CO2 impact increases exponentially.
And that if we shifted entirely to Nuclear, we'd only have 1-2 years worth of power until all the high grade ore is exhausted.
And that the assumption is that Fast Breeder Reactors would magically solve that supply problem is not practical.
Or as <a href="http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/energyfactsheet4_fullreport_2006.pdf" target="_blank">Oxford puts it</a>, don't count on Fast Breeder Reactors till somewhere like near 2030.
_
So pretty much, without FBR, nuclear just doesn't have the capacity to make any dent in global warming.
Well you see, thats why we're looking forward to the next-generation Fusion Reactors, which don't have any of those problems because they burn water. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1606013:date=Feb 13 2007, 04:14 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 13 2007, 04:14 AM) [snapback]1606013[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Well you see, thats why we're looking forward to the next-generation Fusion Reactors, which don't have any of those problems because they burn water. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah yes, the featured those in Spiderman 2. I believe there was some kind of a scientist that made it.
Lets do that <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
You lot do know that livestock methane emissions have a much greater impact on the global warming then all of the cars and powerplants put together? Also the sun itself has been getting gradually hotter the last decade, nothing much we can do about that. I think its a good thing mankind is trying to solve the problem of global warming, but fact is methane >>> cfk in warming up the earth...
<!--quoteo(post=1606080:date=Feb 13 2007, 02:22 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kouji_San @ Feb 13 2007, 02:22 PM) [snapback]1606080[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 1. You lot do know that livestock methane emissions have a much greater impact on the global warming then all of the cars and powerplants put together?
2. Also the sun itself has been getting gradually hotter the last decade, nothing much we can do about that.
3. I think its a good thing mankind is trying to solve the problem of global warming, but fact is methane >>> cfk in warming up the earth... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. Methane also has a very short existance in the upper atmosphere. Could also go blaming evaporated water if thats what your after. Bottom line is Climate Change is human caused. And as far as human caused emmisions go, including all that goes into raising cattle, methane is rather low. <img src="http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7061/methanegh2.png" border="0" alt="IPB Image" /> (<a href="http://www.climatetechnology.gov/stratplan/final/full_report.pdf" target="_blank">Source: US Dept of Energy</a>)
It is however a few percentage points above energy, or transportation. But only a few percentage points above one or the other. (i.e. Transportation is about 14%, where as all the land management etc things associated with raising livestock is about 18%) (Source: <a href="http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm#sum" target="_blank">Livestock's Long Shadow</a>)
2. Actually there's been something called "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=global+dimming" target="_blank">Global Dimming</a>" going on. (i.e. Emmisions actually do some ammount of sun blocking) They've actually experience progressively decreased evaporation rates.
More recently we've been cleaning up the ammount of chunky junk we put into the air. So that effect has reversed itself, effectively stepping on the gas for global warming.
In particular, Sulfur found in Diesel (and Coal) was reduced 10x in 1993. (And again 97% less October 2006) Sulfur actually contributes a to a significant decrease in warming. Issue being it also creates acid rain and other health issues.
Also we'd have warming more in the day than the night if the sun were the cause. <a href="http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1663637.htm" target="_blank">And just the reverse is happening.</a>
"We're not causing it, it's the sun's fault." Can we please cut the bullish already?
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited February 2007
Its not as simple to say the sun is the cause because it is heating up, I'm also not saying that. But it has been heating up over the last few decades and this increased heat or more intense sunlight might also play a part in global warming and its effect on the ozon layer and clouds. With less clouds the earth will heat up during the day.
Another strange thing is, the earth is heating up. Yet over in china there is a Haze of polution, formed over something like the last 50 years. Meaning less sunlight will reach the earth surface, darkening and cooling that part of the planet. On the other side we have less clouds forming at deserts and the desert edges. Heating those parts of the planet.
All in all In some parts of the world C02 is actually cooling down the earth yet due to lack of natural formed clouds in other parts its heating up.
The things currently being researched:
- All of the human releated emissions (their cooling factor and warming factor) - Natural cloud and their effect on our climate - Melting of the north/south poles and their effect on heating up the earth - The increased solar activity and brighter/warmer sun - Radiation from space (super novas) - Lightning and their effect on our armosphere and how they are formed - Volcanos (underwater and surface) - Trilions of tons Methane deposites blowouts in our oceans due to our planet warming up
And my fav: All of the above combined, heating up the earth and continueing to do so. More warmth, more methane blowouts, less ice to reflect sunrays etc...
<b>I think its a good thing we are trying to do something about it</b> - Electric cars - Engines running on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed" target="_blank">rapeseed</a> - Cleaner diesel engines - Solar power. - Denmark and their 100% windturbines power supply goal in a few years. - Sweet/salt water powerplants (in development <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />) - Tidal generators
But the picture is so much bigger then us insignificant humans and our oh so gastly emissions.
Comments
Well for instance, AB-IGCC releases it's exhaust at 50°C
Normal Coal plants release the exhaust at 1600°C
Nuke plants, I don't know how hot they emit their steam, but I'd imagine it's even higher than that.
Whats also ironic is that nuclear is very sensitive to heat.
Nuke plants need to shut down during heatwaves.
Global warming ready eh?
Actually that will never happen.
First off, firing Nuclear missiles on a routine basis? Yeah, that will go over just great.......
Second off, even normal spaceships explode every while or so. You can't honestly say we should intentionally risk an airborne explosion of nuclear material. Doing that would only magnify the damage of the dirty bomb.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like you said you <i>don't know</i> how much heat a nuclear power plant emits. Base your comment on fact not your imagination.
So yes, there is some heat output, but not as much as you imagine. The temperature of the exhaust actually turns out to be much less than exhaust from Coal plants, and is much closer to the temperature of your favorite AB-IGCC plant exhaust. I believe its around 100C when using air exhaust, and much less when using water exhaust.
They are specifically designed to allow local wildlife to survive in the temperatures of the exhaust, after all, so it cant be that hot.
Edit: Oh, and nuclear plants don't have to "shut down" during heatwaves. They can operate just fine. The only thing is, since the coolants are hotter, the steam engine part of the reactor is less efficient and captures a smaller percentage of the reactors total power output.
Nuclear reactors are, in essence, really big steam engines. They burn stuff to make really hot steam, and then generate power by cooling the steam back down. Except they are a lot more efficient than the steam engines of 100 years ago, and capture a lot more of that heat as energy. The hot water (or whatever liquid they use as a coolant, it varies with design) goes through several different heat capture cycles before anything sees the outside world. The actual exhaust vapor is stuff that never got near the reactor to begin with.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought they generated power by using the force of the expanding steam to spin a turbine? After all water inceases 1600% when it turns to steam.
Lol, how about I just use the counter arguements given by the study <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<a href="http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Rebuttal_WNA.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Rebuttal_WNA.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.stormsmith.nl/" target="_blank">http://www.stormsmith.nl/</a>
<a href="http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_1.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_2.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_2.pdf</a>
It mentions that the CO2 reductions given by Nuke plants are only achievable given high quality uranium ore.
As the quality reduces, the CO2 impact increases exponentially.
And that if we shifted entirely to Nuclear, we'd only have 1-2 years worth of power until all the high grade ore is exhausted.
And that the assumption is that Fast Breeder Reactors would magically solve that supply problem is not practical.
Or as <a href="http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/energyfactsheet4_fullreport_2006.pdf" target="_blank">Oxford puts it</a>, don't count on Fast Breeder Reactors till somewhere like near 2030.
_
So pretty much, without FBR, nuclear just doesn't have the capacity to make any dent in global warming.
Primarily because the CO2 reductions are only, at best twice, as bad as Natural gas.
Which is an improvement, but not nearly enough.
Then again, I guess what I really wanted anyways wasn't coal gasification.
It's biomass gasification.
Since that trumps everything in terms of CO2 balance ;D
Well you see, thats why we're looking forward to the next-generation Fusion Reactors, which don't have any of those problems because they burn water. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, the featured those in Spiderman 2.
I believe there was some kind of a scientist that made it.
Lets do that <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
We can use it to power the mission to Mars.
1. You lot do know that livestock methane emissions have a much greater impact on the global warming then all of the cars and powerplants put together?
2. Also the sun itself has been getting gradually hotter the last decade, nothing much we can do about that.
3. I think its a good thing mankind is trying to solve the problem of global warming, but fact is methane >>> cfk in warming up the earth...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Methane also has a very short existance in the upper atmosphere. Could also go blaming evaporated water if thats what your after. Bottom line is Climate Change is human caused. And as far as human caused emmisions go, including all that goes into raising cattle, methane is rather low.
<img src="http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7061/methanegh2.png" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
(<a href="http://www.climatetechnology.gov/stratplan/final/full_report.pdf" target="_blank">Source: US Dept of Energy</a>)
It is however a few percentage points above energy, or transportation. But only a few percentage points above one or the other. (i.e. Transportation is about 14%, where as all the land management etc things associated with raising livestock is about 18%) (Source: <a href="http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm#sum" target="_blank">Livestock's Long Shadow</a>)
2. Actually there's been something called "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=global+dimming" target="_blank">Global Dimming</a>" going on. (i.e. Emmisions actually do some ammount of sun blocking) They've actually experience progressively decreased evaporation rates.
More recently we've been cleaning up the ammount of chunky junk we put into the air.
So that effect has reversed itself, effectively stepping on the gas for global warming.
In particular, Sulfur found in Diesel (and Coal) was reduced 10x in 1993.
(And again 97% less October 2006)
Sulfur actually contributes a to a significant decrease in warming.
Issue being it also creates acid rain and other health issues.
Also we'd have warming more in the day than the night if the sun were the cause.
<a href="http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1663637.htm" target="_blank">And just the reverse is happening.</a>
"We're not causing it, it's the sun's fault."
Can we please cut the bullish already?
Another strange thing is, the earth is heating up. Yet over in china there is a Haze of polution, formed over something like the last 50 years. Meaning less sunlight will reach the earth surface, darkening and cooling that part of the planet. On the other side we have less clouds forming at deserts and the desert edges. Heating those parts of the planet.
All in all In some parts of the world C02 is actually cooling down the earth yet due to lack of natural formed clouds in other parts its heating up.
The things currently being researched:
- All of the human releated emissions (their cooling factor and warming factor)
- Natural cloud and their effect on our climate
- Melting of the north/south poles and their effect on heating up the earth
- The increased solar activity and brighter/warmer sun
- Radiation from space (super novas)
- Lightning and their effect on our armosphere and how they are formed
- Volcanos (underwater and surface)
- Trilions of tons Methane deposites blowouts in our oceans due to our planet warming up
And my fav:
All of the above combined, heating up the earth and continueing to do so. More warmth, more methane blowouts, less ice to reflect sunrays etc...
<b>I think its a good thing we are trying to do something about it</b>
- Electric cars
- Engines running on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed" target="_blank">rapeseed</a>
- Cleaner diesel engines
- Solar power.
- Denmark and their 100% windturbines power supply goal in a few years.
- Sweet/salt water powerplants (in development <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
- Tidal generators
But the picture is so much bigger then us insignificant humans and our oh so gastly emissions.