passatdoc
Well-known member
Yeah, those are the fixed costs of operating the system and you pay those regardless of how much electricity you use.
interesting map of electricity costs in the USA
- Thread starter passatdoc
- Start date
Help Support :
neptunebob
Well-known member
Does anybody here work for Areva, the French nuclear company with the catchy commercials?
Electricity prices in Ireland
Here's the charges for domestic electricity from ESB, the largest power company in Ireland. You can change provider, but the prices are broadly very similar.
Prices in €uro cents.
Day Units (kWh) 14.35¢ (= US¢ 19.51)
Night Units (kWh) 7.05¢ ( = US¢ 9.58)
Here's the charges for domestic electricity from ESB, the largest power company in Ireland. You can change provider, but the prices are broadly very similar.
Prices in €uro cents.
Day Units (kWh) 14.35¢ (= US¢ 19.51)
Night Units (kWh) 7.05¢ ( = US¢ 9.58)
irishwashguy
Well-known member
Nuclear power...........BAD...Solar power, Good......
They closed the only Nuclear power plant in Ranier, Or about ten or so years ago, as far as I can see, it has not changed our rate at all. We have Portland Genral Electric, formerly of ENRON, till their demise, now PGE is independant of anyone.i will say that the Bush administration has been after low electric rates here in the Northwest since it has stolen itw way into the white house.Within the last month, they managed to take away our discount that we had from the Bonnoville Power people, now we get to pay for it. All of the electric utilities in Or and Wash, reguardless of who runs the local electric company. My mother lives in Clark County Washington, and now payes the same increase I do. i was truely shocked---no pun intended of course, to see that they even went to court over this.
PS I am planning to get solar pannels when I move. They are a big investment, about tweny thousand, when you are talking about borrowing 340,000, then, it seems to make sence. That way it will save money over the long run.it is still a though, I just do not know anyone that has one as of yet, i am sure that i will though.
They closed the only Nuclear power plant in Ranier, Or about ten or so years ago, as far as I can see, it has not changed our rate at all. We have Portland Genral Electric, formerly of ENRON, till their demise, now PGE is independant of anyone.i will say that the Bush administration has been after low electric rates here in the Northwest since it has stolen itw way into the white house.Within the last month, they managed to take away our discount that we had from the Bonnoville Power people, now we get to pay for it. All of the electric utilities in Or and Wash, reguardless of who runs the local electric company. My mother lives in Clark County Washington, and now payes the same increase I do. i was truely shocked---no pun intended of course, to see that they even went to court over this.
PS I am planning to get solar pannels when I move. They are a big investment, about tweny thousand, when you are talking about borrowing 340,000, then, it seems to make sence. That way it will save money over the long run.it is still a though, I just do not know anyone that has one as of yet, i am sure that i will though.
Electricity in Cologne
My understanding is the higher electricity charge in Germany
goes directly to encouraging alternative energy vs. into the
pockets of corporations and CEOs... Germany is way ahead of
the US in alternative energy production.
electricity costs in the past
I don't know what it really was, but I was thinking it used
to be $.03 (decades ago). I remember the commercials saying
"Electricity is penny-cheap from NSP" and the Reddy Kilowatt
character.
I suppose I could be convinced otherwise, but having
residential customers paying higher rates than industries
doesn't seem quite right. At least that's the way it was
a number of years ago. Industry gets to negotiate rates,
consumers don't (other than via state regulation - for those
states that still have regulation.)
recycling nuclear waste
Just what does France do to recycle nuclear waste? Seems
if it was possible, everyone would do it. (And converting
it to depleted uranium munitions doesn't count as recycling.)
My understanding is the higher electricity charge in Germany
goes directly to encouraging alternative energy vs. into the
pockets of corporations and CEOs... Germany is way ahead of
the US in alternative energy production.
electricity costs in the past
I don't know what it really was, but I was thinking it used
to be $.03 (decades ago). I remember the commercials saying
"Electricity is penny-cheap from NSP" and the Reddy Kilowatt
character.
I suppose I could be convinced otherwise, but having
residential customers paying higher rates than industries
doesn't seem quite right. At least that's the way it was
a number of years ago. Industry gets to negotiate rates,
consumers don't (other than via state regulation - for those
states that still have regulation.)
recycling nuclear waste
Just what does France do to recycle nuclear waste? Seems
if it was possible, everyone would do it. (And converting
it to depleted uranium munitions doesn't count as recycling.)
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
Recycling nuclear waste
Depleted uranium it not recycling, is a byproduct of the enrichement of natural uranium to make it reactor grade (meaning with at least 2-2,5% of isotope 235 as natural uranium is only 0,7% U235).
MOX fuel is composed from plutonium (taken from used fuel) and uranium and used in normal reactors just like recycled papers is used for newspapers.
Then think about that Canadian CANDU reactors can "burn" used light water reactor fuel without virtually no reprocessing, just changing the pysical shape of the fuel assembly to fit the new type. This just because of the better reaction efficency. The USA never wanted to apply this process. (you can also have a look on wikipedia, just type candu)
This are just the facts. You can find much more by reading any book about the subject. I personally love "Introduction to nuclear engeneering" edited by Prentice Hall and written by A. J. Baratta & J. R. Lamarsh. That's the one of those I used for my exam on nuclear reactor physics.
Depleted uranium it not recycling, is a byproduct of the enrichement of natural uranium to make it reactor grade (meaning with at least 2-2,5% of isotope 235 as natural uranium is only 0,7% U235).
MOX fuel is composed from plutonium (taken from used fuel) and uranium and used in normal reactors just like recycled papers is used for newspapers.
Then think about that Canadian CANDU reactors can "burn" used light water reactor fuel without virtually no reprocessing, just changing the pysical shape of the fuel assembly to fit the new type. This just because of the better reaction efficency. The USA never wanted to apply this process. (you can also have a look on wikipedia, just type candu)
This are just the facts. You can find much more by reading any book about the subject. I personally love "Introduction to nuclear engeneering" edited by Prentice Hall and written by A. J. Baratta & J. R. Lamarsh. That's the one of those I used for my exam on nuclear reactor physics.
Not to be insulting, but HA HA. Me, read a book called
"Introduction to nuclear engineering" and understanding it????
I'd like to think I could, but I only took 6 quarters of physics
in college. Though it certainly sounds interesting - wonder if
it is in my local library (or maybe all such types of books
have been removed in the interest of so-called national
security - maybe anything beyond the level of Bush's
reading level has been removed.)
Not wanting to apply the CANDU process (without reading the
wikipedia article) sounds pretty stupid, but then the US hasn't
been known for intelligence lately.
My question would be what is the byproduct of using the MOX
fuel or the CANDU reactors?
"Introduction to nuclear engineering" and understanding it????
I'd like to think I could, but I only took 6 quarters of physics
in college. Though it certainly sounds interesting - wonder if
it is in my local library (or maybe all such types of books
have been removed in the interest of so-called national
security - maybe anything beyond the level of Bush's
reading level has been removed.)
Not wanting to apply the CANDU process (without reading the
wikipedia article) sounds pretty stupid, but then the US hasn't
been known for intelligence lately.
My question would be what is the byproduct of using the MOX
fuel or the CANDU reactors?
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
My question would be what is the byproduct of using the MOX fuel or the CANDU reactors?
In spent fuel the uranium inventory stays about the same, around 97% is unchanged, you will find less U235 (0,8-0,5%), newly created U236, more plutonium (both can be reprocessed and recovered). Actinides (that can be recovered using the purex process as some of them are useful), reactor poisons (atoms with a "cross section" - their love to catch useful neutrons - so big that they kill any fission reaction) and other fission products. Only these last ones will eventually get stored in "dry cask storage" in situ at the power plant or in centralized storage plants. All the others can be recovered.
Am I being too much off topic? Sorry but the subject simply steals my attention! If I'm distracting/annoying you just tell me and I'll stop.
In spent fuel the uranium inventory stays about the same, around 97% is unchanged, you will find less U235 (0,8-0,5%), newly created U236, more plutonium (both can be reprocessed and recovered). Actinides (that can be recovered using the purex process as some of them are useful), reactor poisons (atoms with a "cross section" - their love to catch useful neutrons - so big that they kill any fission reaction) and other fission products. Only these last ones will eventually get stored in "dry cask storage" in situ at the power plant or in centralized storage plants. All the others can be recovered.
Am I being too much off topic? Sorry but the subject simply steals my attention! If I'm distracting/annoying you just tell me and I'll stop.
What are the properties of the reactor poisons and other
fission products that end up in dry cask storage? Do they
still have thousands of years of half life? Are they as
toxic as the waste generated in the US reactors?
When you say 97% remains unchanged, that means less than
3% ends up in the dry cask storage (or 3% each time it is
recycled?) Not recycling sounds like a waste. Why would
they not recycle it in the US if the fuel still has energy
potential?
fission products that end up in dry cask storage? Do they
still have thousands of years of half life? Are they as
toxic as the waste generated in the US reactors?
When you say 97% remains unchanged, that means less than
3% ends up in the dry cask storage (or 3% each time it is
recycled?) Not recycling sounds like a waste. Why would
they not recycle it in the US if the fuel still has energy
potential?
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
Why would they not recycle it in the US if the fuel still has energy potential?
The USA are concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation.
3% that's the amount of real waste you get from every recycling of the fuel.
You could actually transmute the poisons and the actinides in "less radioactive" and shorter lived elements (agan it is possible in candu and fast reactors) but as today we don't have industrial application of that.
The poitons are elements like Tc-99, Pd-107,Sm-149 that build up during the life of the fuel in the reactor and actually slow down the reaction. Some, like Sm-149 are stable (non radioactive) others like Tc-99 and Pd-107 are radioactive with long half lives. They can be transmuted but they happen in little concentrations and it's easier (and more economic) to just store them.
Btw... did you know that ordinary smoke detectors usually have a source of americium (a fission product) as the sensing element? Or that first generation boeing 747 had depleted uranium counterweights (up to 1500kg)?
About being toxic, the radio-toxicty is the same, it's the fission products that emit the most of the radiactions. Uranium by itself it an alpha-emitter, those particle are stopped by just one centimetre of air and are a danger only if ingested. You could actually touch a fresh fuel assemby with your bare hands without being in danger.
I hope I've been exhaustive enough now, but if you have more question feel free to ask.
I know I'm very pro-nuclear but afer having been INSIDE two reactors, studing the matter all the time and not having had harm of any kind one's of the matter changes
The USA are concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation.
3% that's the amount of real waste you get from every recycling of the fuel.
You could actually transmute the poisons and the actinides in "less radioactive" and shorter lived elements (agan it is possible in candu and fast reactors) but as today we don't have industrial application of that.
The poitons are elements like Tc-99, Pd-107,Sm-149 that build up during the life of the fuel in the reactor and actually slow down the reaction. Some, like Sm-149 are stable (non radioactive) others like Tc-99 and Pd-107 are radioactive with long half lives. They can be transmuted but they happen in little concentrations and it's easier (and more economic) to just store them.
Btw... did you know that ordinary smoke detectors usually have a source of americium (a fission product) as the sensing element? Or that first generation boeing 747 had depleted uranium counterweights (up to 1500kg)?
About being toxic, the radio-toxicty is the same, it's the fission products that emit the most of the radiactions. Uranium by itself it an alpha-emitter, those particle are stopped by just one centimetre of air and are a danger only if ingested. You could actually touch a fresh fuel assemby with your bare hands without being in danger.
I hope I've been exhaustive enough now, but if you have more question feel free to ask.
I know I'm very pro-nuclear but afer having been INSIDE two reactors, studing the matter all the time and not having had harm of any kind one's of the matter changes
neptunebob
Well-known member
Gabriel, let me guess, do you work for Areva?
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
AREVA: I wish I worked for them!
Nope, still, I'm just a miserable student waiting for a decent job! :S
The best I did was a reserch on radon concentration in Emilia-Romagna on my training work at ENEA (Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment, the former National Agency for Atomic Energy).
Nope, still, I'm just a miserable student waiting for a decent job! :S
The best I did was a reserch on radon concentration in Emilia-Romagna on my training work at ENEA (Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment, the former National Agency for Atomic Energy).
DJ, Does this waste have to be a liquid? We herd about the spills after the most recent Japanese earthquake. I read a couple of decades ago about a process whereby the waste could be encased in molten glass so that once the glass hardened the waste would be prety well sealed. What I do not remember is if the waste was liquid in sealed containers before being put into the glass or if it was some solid. If the waste is always liquid, I don't see how a liquid could be added to molten glass without triggering explosions which you would not want with radioactive waste, so there is much I have forgotten, about this specifically and everything else in general. Please keep sharing your knowledge with us.
Tom
Tom
OOPS--FORGOT THIS
Beyond the charges on the map, the PEPCO bills add on the fuel adjustment, transmission costs and administrative costs to bring our rates to 15 cents a KWH. On the other hand, in Elkhart, Indianna, they have a nightime rate that drops to 3 cents a KWH, so if you have things on timers or can be up for part of that period to get things done, you can make out like a bandit.
Electricity has, in most places except those served by the TVA or Bonneville Power, been expensive and had that reputation. I remember parents and grandparents being strict about not leaving lights on when you left the room. Electric ranges had to emphasize their well insulated ovens and economical use of "current" which was the idea behind the deep well cooker. There were different names that various brands used like Thrift Cooker & Economizer. Some had double walled wells with insulation between the walls and some of the kettles had lids an inch thick with insulation in them. Those were the ones that could not be immersed for washing.
Beyond the charges on the map, the PEPCO bills add on the fuel adjustment, transmission costs and administrative costs to bring our rates to 15 cents a KWH. On the other hand, in Elkhart, Indianna, they have a nightime rate that drops to 3 cents a KWH, so if you have things on timers or can be up for part of that period to get things done, you can make out like a bandit.
Electricity has, in most places except those served by the TVA or Bonneville Power, been expensive and had that reputation. I remember parents and grandparents being strict about not leaving lights on when you left the room. Electric ranges had to emphasize their well insulated ovens and economical use of "current" which was the idea behind the deep well cooker. There were different names that various brands used like Thrift Cooker & Economizer. Some had double walled wells with insulation between the walls and some of the kettles had lids an inch thick with insulation in them. Those were the ones that could not be immersed for washing.
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
Oh no, the waste is always solid, it is, as you said, vitrificated to render it inhert and then put on storage, liquid is only an intermediate phase during solvent extraction like in the purex reprocessing method. The "radioactive accident" at the plant in japan is a non accident. A spill of 1,5 litres (less than half gallon) of lightly radioactive water actually is nothing. Press make up alot because it is nuclear!
By "ligthly radioactive" they mean to say that you could actually drink it with no harm. Standard granite used in houses and radon emanating from the underground are 3 orders of magnitude (a factor of 1000) more radioactive than what is considered contaminated radioactive water (or nuclear low level waste).
Think that in the decommissioning of the plant at Latina, near Rome, they had to classify as low level nuclear waste even some of the naturally radioactive soil around the plant (because of thorium and uranium are everywhere) when private houses around there had much higher radiaction dose levels given by the building materials!!! (around 3-5 mSv/y natural while the maximum allowed from complessive artificial sources is 1mSv/y)
The Sievert (Sv) is the unit of measure of the total radiaction dose (energy relased to the body from the radiation = damage) one gets, weighted by the type of radiaction and organ that recives it.
By "ligthly radioactive" they mean to say that you could actually drink it with no harm. Standard granite used in houses and radon emanating from the underground are 3 orders of magnitude (a factor of 1000) more radioactive than what is considered contaminated radioactive water (or nuclear low level waste).
Think that in the decommissioning of the plant at Latina, near Rome, they had to classify as low level nuclear waste even some of the naturally radioactive soil around the plant (because of thorium and uranium are everywhere) when private houses around there had much higher radiaction dose levels given by the building materials!!! (around 3-5 mSv/y natural while the maximum allowed from complessive artificial sources is 1mSv/y)
The Sievert (Sv) is the unit of measure of the total radiaction dose (energy relased to the body from the radiation = damage) one gets, weighted by the type of radiaction and organ that recives it.
neptunebob
Well-known member
Hi Tom, I might know some of the answers as I have been interested in nuclear energy. But if anyone knows better correct me if I am wrong.
The water that escaped from the nuclear stations in Japan may have leaked out of the cooling system, it is possible the water could have escaped from the turbine side of the power plant. The GE boiling water reactor is popular in Japan and that has slightly radioactive water going to the turbines. Hopefully, it wasn't much and won't do much damage. It is likely the reactor "scrammed" itself and shut down. But the utility probably wants to get some of the nuclear power plants going again. Fossil fueled plants are probably damaged and electricity is needed to assist in the recovery efforts.
The barrels that fell over likely had "low level nuclear waste", items such as filters, gloves, protective clothing, boots, wipes, things that are used to maintain the facility. This items should be dry and can be placed back in the barrels. They probably wait until they have enough barrels for a truckload, then take them to a waste facility, whatever they may have. Some lab tests in hospitals use small amounts of radioactive material and this is how they handle such waste.
High level waste is the spent fuel rods that have been unloaded from the reactor after being used for a year or more. In France, for example, this waste, which would be solid, is melted into the glass (vitrification) where it would be unlikely to be released into the environment. In the US, such waste will eventually be taken to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Right now, spent fuel rods are keep in extra-deep "swimming pools" at nuclear power plants to "cool off" and lose some of their intense radiation.
Reprocessing nuclear waste is possible and is practiced by Areva in the Le Hague plant in the north of France. Spent fuel rods, in a sealed chamber, are dissolved in nitric acid and the elements such as the unused uranium and plutonium are filtered out and can be used to fabricate new fuel. Fuel with plutonium is "mixed oxide fuel (MOX)" and can be used in most existing reactors. Becuase of worries of nuclear proliferation (plutonium is the stuff of bombs), President Carter banned reprocessing in the US in 1977 and no President since has been interested enough to even bring up the issue. A lot of nuclear waste has also been created by nuclear weapons programs, this will also go to Yucca Mountain (if Congress approves).
I encourage you to go to the website of the Nuclear Energy Institute - it is pro nuclear but it is very informative.
The water that escaped from the nuclear stations in Japan may have leaked out of the cooling system, it is possible the water could have escaped from the turbine side of the power plant. The GE boiling water reactor is popular in Japan and that has slightly radioactive water going to the turbines. Hopefully, it wasn't much and won't do much damage. It is likely the reactor "scrammed" itself and shut down. But the utility probably wants to get some of the nuclear power plants going again. Fossil fueled plants are probably damaged and electricity is needed to assist in the recovery efforts.
The barrels that fell over likely had "low level nuclear waste", items such as filters, gloves, protective clothing, boots, wipes, things that are used to maintain the facility. This items should be dry and can be placed back in the barrels. They probably wait until they have enough barrels for a truckload, then take them to a waste facility, whatever they may have. Some lab tests in hospitals use small amounts of radioactive material and this is how they handle such waste.
High level waste is the spent fuel rods that have been unloaded from the reactor after being used for a year or more. In France, for example, this waste, which would be solid, is melted into the glass (vitrification) where it would be unlikely to be released into the environment. In the US, such waste will eventually be taken to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Right now, spent fuel rods are keep in extra-deep "swimming pools" at nuclear power plants to "cool off" and lose some of their intense radiation.
Reprocessing nuclear waste is possible and is practiced by Areva in the Le Hague plant in the north of France. Spent fuel rods, in a sealed chamber, are dissolved in nitric acid and the elements such as the unused uranium and plutonium are filtered out and can be used to fabricate new fuel. Fuel with plutonium is "mixed oxide fuel (MOX)" and can be used in most existing reactors. Becuase of worries of nuclear proliferation (plutonium is the stuff of bombs), President Carter banned reprocessing in the US in 1977 and no President since has been interested enough to even bring up the issue. A lot of nuclear waste has also been created by nuclear weapons programs, this will also go to Yucca Mountain (if Congress approves).
I encourage you to go to the website of the Nuclear Energy Institute - it is pro nuclear but it is very informative.
Loading…
www.nei.org
neptunebob
Well-known member
De Gabriele, now it's your turn!
Please to the Areva web site and click on "Careers", they even have opportunities for students. Areva builds the EPR - European Pressurized Reactor in Finland - I guess the people up there have to power their saunas somehow. Oh, and I like their catchy commercials too!
www.areva.com
Please to the Areva web site and click on "Careers", they even have opportunities for students. Areva builds the EPR - European Pressurized Reactor in Finland - I guess the people up there have to power their saunas somehow. Oh, and I like their catchy commercials too!
Orano | Acteur majeur de l'énergie et du combustible nucléaire
Groupe industriel international de référence, Orano propose des produits et services à forte valeur ajoutée sur tout le cycle du combustible nucléaire.
www.areva.com
So the US does not reprocess because then the plutonium stays
in the solid rods along with the uranium and whatever else is
in the rods? If it was reprocessed, dissolved in nitric acid,
then the chemicals can be separated making it easier to smuggle
out just the plutonium? Is that the reasoning?
in the solid rods along with the uranium and whatever else is
in the rods? If it was reprocessed, dissolved in nitric acid,
then the chemicals can be separated making it easier to smuggle
out just the plutonium? Is that the reasoning?
neptunebob
Well-known member
Actually, I'm not sure how the terrorists might get the plutonium but I believe at the time Jimmy Carter thought that the US reprocessing might send the wrong message to the rest of the world, that they might feel the need to reprocess if we did and another country could extract the plutonium. I do know that nuclear proliferation was the fear here. Proliferation fears were also why the breeder reactor was canceled in this country. Breeder reactors, which are cooled by hot sodium (dangerous!) create more plutonium, thus creating more fuel than it uses. But their rods would also have to be reprocessed. Of course, separating the plutonium from nitric acid, as obnoxious as that is, would be easier for government to do than what we had to do in WWII - create plutonium in reactors in Hanford WA. Seems like when it comes to nuclear energy, the US did all the hard work!
Obviously don't know how much fuel (and uranium processing)
it takes to keep a reactor running, and unless there is a
need, seems using breeder reactors isn't what we want to do.
But reprocessing (recycling) certainly seems to be the way
to go. As long as it reduces the amount of radioactive waste
that needs to be stored or disposed of each year.
While I certainly prefer renewable energy (and it just ticks
me off seeing how much money and resources have, are, and will
be wasted by our government of the last 7 years that could
have been allocated to the advancement of alternative sources),
I still believe if we are using nuclear energy, it should be
used as efficiently as possible.
it takes to keep a reactor running, and unless there is a
need, seems using breeder reactors isn't what we want to do.
But reprocessing (recycling) certainly seems to be the way
to go. As long as it reduces the amount of radioactive waste
that needs to be stored or disposed of each year.
While I certainly prefer renewable energy (and it just ticks
me off seeing how much money and resources have, are, and will
be wasted by our government of the last 7 years that could
have been allocated to the advancement of alternative sources),
I still believe if we are using nuclear energy, it should be
used as efficiently as possible.
Similar threads
