interesting map of electricity costs in the USA

[goprog]

I still wonder about the advantage of the breeder reactor
(or fast breeder reactor?) I know nothing other than what
has been said above. Is there something else it does besides
generate more plutonium??? Why would we want to generate more
plutonium? If it generates more plutonium, does it generate
less of the other byproducts? Is that good for some reason?
My understanding is plutonium is one of the worst things we
can have around...???

 

[goprog]

I never ever tought about discussing such an important topic (at least to me) in a forum dedicated to washing machines I'm as happy as I can be!!!

Robert may need a nuclear reactor to run Super Unimatic 3.0.

 

[tomturbomatic]

What is the situation with the nitric acid after processing the spent fuel? Does it become a storage/disposal nightmare? Why, if this solid spent fuel encased in glass is of such low radioactivity (my understanding, might be incorrect) and I guess fairly well sealed, is storage of this such a dangerous undertaking? It's not like toxic sludge eating through steel canisters and washing into aquifers, is it? Thanks to all who are sharing their knowledge on this topic. It is one of those third rail subjects that is usually discussed in tones of a sales pitch or a total disaster.

 

[dj-gabriele]

Breeder reactor:
A breeder reactor doesn't actually create new fuel but it converts urqanium 238 in plutonium 239. The first one is not fissionable by itself, you can pack as much as you want, it will never sustain a chain reaction. Bombarding the thing with fast neutrons can produce plutonium 239 that is fissile. When you have enough of it, it starts generating enough neutrons that it sustain a chain reaction, thus producing energy (see A-bomb too) that can be harvested for useful purposes.
The same could happen with thorium 232 in uranium 233. Uranium 233 is said to be fertile, it doesn't fission like plutonium 239 but it can be easly transmutated in U238 and then P239.
With a breeder reactor you start with a batch of "standard" fuel and then create the others in the reactor. (remind that low enriched uranium is 97% isotope 238 and only 2-3% isotope 235.

Second: the slugs remaining after the recycling processes are quite radioactive, being encased in glass makes them inert (no chemical reactivity) then to shield people from the radiaction they are encased in concrete and iron casks (dry cask storage) and kept there till radiaction levels have diminimished. (even 1000 years - that's why i like transmutation and reprocessing!)
The cask are extremely strudy! The walls can be up to 2 metres thick (6.5 feet) and because the fuel is a solidified glass it doesn't leak nor interact.
The organic solvents used in the recovery processes are cleaned and recycled in the cycle, also the nitric acid. Nothing is left in the enviroment. If something like that would happen it would be a pollution disaster. Not a nuclear one!

Ohhh, I forgot you still never saw my face! So here I am. Inside the RB-3 reactor at ENEA in Bologna!!!
(yes, that thing I'm in is the empty vessel)

 

[neptunebob]

Dj is that a new reactor vessel/power station? If it was used, I would think there would be radiation coming from the steel walls. Or is it possible to "clean off" radiation? I heard that when they decomissisioned the Shippingport Atomic Power Station (Americas first commercial nuclear reactor, built by Westinghouse outside of Pittsburgh) that they used Tide to clean the radioactive parts.

 

[toggleswitch]

I still say have the government give everyone a new roof with new photovoltiac solar panels on them, and have the panels feed clean electricity into the grid. (Have the gov't replace both every 20 years in 20-year continuing cycle.) Electronic controls are now becoming cheap enough to synchronize and modulate the A/C current that would be fed back into the grid. With net metering (meter spins forward when you consume more than you produce, and backward when you produce more than you consume) we'd all probably see much lower electrical costs.

Perhaps the biggest benefit would be greatly reducing the need for foreign oil and other fuels, which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

With affordable eletricity from this source we'd also be able to burn less fuel for heat in wintertime by using electrically powered heat-pumps to move heat, rather than by permanently releasing heat into the atmosphere by way of oil and gas combustion.

Personally, I have no objection to sending less money to most of the tradtional oil-producing reigions of the world.

 

[tolivac]

If the Gov't supplied the photovoltaic cell roofs-who is going to pay for them? the gov't won't-UP GOES our taxes.In some areas the roofs won't work-like at my home-I have trees.will these have to be cut down?Would rather have the trees.photocells aren't all "Green" as we may beleive-remember the semiconductor industries are among the worst polluters.But we won't do without our semiconductor using appliances and devices-course not.and some photocell users boast how big a battery bank they have to back up their cells.this is enviorementally irresponsible--battery banks are dangerous in untrained hands-and the release of the battery contents in a fire or disaster.and the disposal or recycling of spent batteries.would rather use fossil fuels in these cases.The renewable fuels are good for smaller uses.Yes we have abundant sunlight hitting our planet-but equipment is still too inefficient to make economical use of the sunlight energy on large scale.

 

[dj-gabriele]

That reactor... it was on for 30 years! Unlukly it was definitely shut down in 1992 following the referendum abolishing nuclear power in Italy, how sad!
It isn't radioactive at all, the walls didn't activate because of the low power involved and the extremely good quality of the materials that make it up.
Of course we carried personal dosimeters but they stayed zero all the time, if there was risk involved I wouldn't ever gone there!

About solar power collectors... Italian government is founding the 75% to buy a new plant. You "only" have to pay around 10.000€ (ten tousands) for a 3kWh 230V assembly. Plus you have net metering (with two separate meters one in and one out) and the government gives you 0,50€ per net kWh produced and put in the grid. Still to have a complete return of investiment it takes anywhere from 6 to 10 years. (the panels are guaranteed 20 years)

I personally prefer micro-wind turbines. They're considerably cheaper and can produce up to 3kWh with moderate winds and blades that are no longer than 3 metres. They're silent too.
Unluckly these aren't supported for discounts from the government.

Ohhh, btw in May I visited a plant where they make I.C. and solar collectors (same technology actually) and I didn't find anything so terribly polluting as Tolivac said. Waste goes all in special containers and evetually recycled or stored, nothing goes in the enviroment.

 

[tolivac]

Interesting-10grand for a 230V 3Kw solar system.Too me and most Americans-Interesting but uneconomical.The information on nuclear reactors by DJ-Gabriele is very informative and shows that nuke power isn't so dangerous as many like to picture it.Also with the breeders-please remember the nuclear fuel involved here is REACTOR grade material not weapons grade.It is not suitable for weapons manufacture.It would have to be reprocessed.Yes,some semiconductor manufactueres are careful,some are not.Many toxic chemicals and materials are required to make semiconductor products.Toxic spills at these factories occasionally happen-and if it doesn't what to do with the spent chemicals.For renewable power I too think the wind turbines are a better choice.the electro mechanical generators on them are more efficient and less expensive than solar photocell systems-and take up LESS space."Winchargers" as they used to be called-were common on farms in the US before rural electrification was used from commercial power.The farm used one or more "windchargers" to charge batteries to power the farm equipment.There are folks who collect abandoned Winchargers and put them back to work.Wndmills also pumpted water for livestock and irrigation on farms in the older days.Some are still in use.The wind powered pumps are great for areas of the farm where its just too expensive to run electric power lines.

 

[goprog]

I think Gabrielle was saying 10,000 Euros which translates to
about $13,700. And the Italian government was paying .5 Euros
($.68) a KWh for excess energy production. As of April 2007,
the highest average European electrical rates (according to
the NUS Consulting Group) were in Denmark at $.2289/KWh. Italy
was $.1574. Germany was third at $.1316. These were rates for
large users (450 MW/month) and did not include VAT so not sure
what the actual residential rate is. (US rate it said was
$.0928.)

3 KW peak power wind generators are about $6,000. But trying
to compare wind production - when is the wind blowing and when
not - with solar electric production - when is the sun shining
and when not - is pretty difficult. The wind resource info I
found suggested one got 1/4 or less the potential output from
a wind generator over the period of a month. A wind resource
map suggests most of the SE USA and portions of SW USA are
less than marginally useful for wind power.

There is also the question of maintenance. Solar panels
should generally be maintenance free (20-year guarantee) vs.
wind generators which contain moving parts/bearings/etc.
It appears most of them have 5-yr guarantees.

The advantage of locally generated solar and wind (besides
the ecological implications) is a reduction on the reliance
of massive, central generating plants and possibly a lighter
load on the electrical grid itself (which we know has not been
well-maintained in the US.) One final advantage - perhaps
getting out beneath the thumb of the Enrons, oil, and coal
companies.

Trade-offs left and right. Space, visibility, noise, cost,
efficiency, maintenance... Don't ask me the answer.

 

[dj-gabriele]

Goprog!?
Where did you get the data for electricity prices?
For Italy at least is completely wrong! I pay 0,23 €/kWh that is around 0,32$. The amount you stated is ridiculously low! If it was like that then now I'd be running my (dream buy) electric Candy combo 5+5 kg istead of line drying!
My father too pays (industrial user of 400V-3phase line) about the same with only a little -varying- discount to run the machines in his laundry (yes, wet and dry cleaning).
All because we buy (10% at day 25% at night) nuclear produced electricity from France!

 

[goprog]

Gabrielle,

As I said, from NUS Consulting Group. I don't know what
taxes get added to it. It seems to be a reputable company.

"NUS Consulting Group is the world’s leading utility cost management consulting firm. We specialize in providing audit, rate optimization, procurement, conservation, on-line utility data management services and market pricing research to reduce and better manage electricity, gas, water/wastewater, petroleum and telecommunications expenses."

I have just linked the 2007 survey, but it has surveys for
earlier years at its website, too.

http://www.nusinc.com/downloads/2007ElectricitySurvey.pdf

 

[dj-gabriele]

Thanks for the link to the survey, it's unbeliavable how misleading that could be!
And please! Gabriele with a single L, that's all the difference between female and male (me)

 

[goprog]

Gabriele

Oops - sorry...

 

[goprog]

I questioned the information, too, but as I had said earlier.
Large (industrial) users usually get better rates than small
users - and I have no idea what the VAT/taxes/fees are that
get added on.

 

[goprog]

After more searching, the only site I found that had electrical
rates for Europe was a government site in UK. But reading the
chart's description, it got its data from NUS also so the numbers
look the same.

Sure seems there should be someplace that provides what seems to
be simple information.