Texas power situation

[agesilaus]

5 minutes ago, Barbaraok said:

In some parts of the state it really does blow just about 24/7.   Sort of like Oklahoma - windy every day "And the wind comes sweeping down the plains!"

Looking at the monthly mean wind speed that seems to be true, it peaks in spring and fall but even at the summer low it's still around 10 mph in Ok City. Midlands TX shows an almost constant 11 mpg mean all year. Cheyenne WY runs around 24 mph with the lows aroun 15 mph

This doesn't mean that the wind blows 24X365 it does not. Those figures are averages.

[bigjim]

1 hour ago, agesilaus said:

Green Power politics. The squeaky wheel gets the political money. And republicans obviously fell under the spell too in Texas.

God know there is not now nor has there ever been any any black power (oil coal, gas) politcs right?  And they have never been subsidized right?  (subsidy reads a form of corporate welfare)  A high percentage of my family was  oil field trash so I sure am not totally anti. But just like any resource I believe in using it conservatively. Don't tell anyone I am a conservative in some areas as I don't want to get shunned. I am actively conserving the hell out of my onboard supply of propane as we speak. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by bigjim

[Zulu]

2 hours ago, TXiceman said:

I have been a proponent for nuclear energy for years.  We can build safe and efficient nuclear plants if the greenie folks would  understand a bit about science.

First, enough of the derogatory terminology. Otherwise, we get to call you Bambi Killers.

I'm good with nuclear reactors as soon as we have permanent storage facilities for reactor waste. I think many turn a blind eye to the waste problem or think of it as a landfill issue when in fact some nuclear waste must be stored safely for thousands of years.

[NamMedevac 70]

I invite my friends from my former home state of Texas to follow me to Nevada as I moved here about 8 to 9 years ago.  Our winters are very mild with only short bouts of snow and ice in lower elevations.  Extreme summer heat is of short duration in northern Nevada and cooler higher elevations are only one hour away.  Cheers.

P.S. I no longer read replies from certain members.  It is easy to skip over these types.

Edited February 18, 2021 by NamMedevac 70

[Zulu]

1 hour ago, Chalkie said:

Currently a multi-national effort to build a fusion reactor is underway in Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France. If fusion reactors can be perfected nuclear will definitely be the power source of the future. Here is an article in Scientific American.

Yeah, ITER. Are they still predicting workable fusion in 30 years? (That's an old nuclear fusion joke -- it's always 30 years away.)

Anyway, fusion energy is often touted as waste free. Nope. Though a fusion reactor should produce waste that is less radioactive than a current fission reactor, fusion reactors will produce much more waste than fission reactors.

[Chalkie]

1 hour ago, Barbaraok said:

Charlie, I looked at the list, but nothing started operation in DECADES.  Building it doesn't ensure it will become operational.  Still the problem with no waste since since Yukon Mountain (which is safe) was shut down.

I agree that until 2016 nothing came on line for a number of years. However, you said and I quote:

Quote

and nothing has come on line since 3 Mile Island incident.  

That list shows about 50 reactors that came on line after 3 Mile Island. Yucca (not Yukon) Mountain, which would have provided long term storage for nuclear waste was halted for purely political, not scientific, reasons according to the GAO. It is something we are going to have to reckon with, however, because as existing plants age and need to be decommissioned we will need to store the waste somewhere. Maybe this could be a new Elon Musk project, launch the waste into the sun or something.

[Barbaraok]

33 minutes ago, Chalkie said:

I agree that until 2016 nothing came on line for a number of years. However, you said and I quote:

That list shows about 50 reactors that came on line after 3 Mile Island. Yucca (not Yukon) Mountain, which would have provided long term storage for nuclear waste was halted for purely political, not scientific, reasons according to the GAO. It is something we are going to have to reckon with, however, because as existing plants age and need to be decommissioned we will need to store the waste somewhere. Maybe this could be a new Elon Musk project, launch the waste into the sun or something.

Mea Culpa for forgetting the year of 3 Mile Island and for the Typo.  Nothing in 2 decades has come on line.   

Edited February 18, 2021 by Barbaraok

[agesilaus]

59 minutes ago, Zulu said:

Yeah, ITER. Are they still predicting workable fusion in 30 years? (That's an old nuclear fusion joke -- it's always 30 years away.)

Anyway, fusion energy is often touted as waste free. Nope. Though a fusion reactor should produce waste that is less radioactive than a current fission reactor, fusion reactors will produce much more waste than fission reactors.

First thing to consider: "Fusion is the power source of the future, and always will be"

Yes Fusion plants make lots of neutrons, and neutrons 'activate' many elements. Meaning change them to different elements and isotopes which are often radioactive. CO-60 is an example. Sodium-24 another intensely 'hot' isotope. So a fusion plant would be very radioactive.

This generates lots of interest in Helium-3 fusion which generates lots of energy but not lots of neutrons . The problem is finding enough He-3 to use as fuel. The stuff is rare in nature here on earth but there is a lot of speculation that it may occur in lunar regolith. Aka moon dust.

[Big Rick]

3 hours ago, Barbaraok said:

But they don't freeze in Iowa or Sweden or Denmark or ....

They froze BECAUSE OF TEXAS DEREGULATION.   They could have been weather hardened, same as all of the valves, etc., in other power generating systems, but they weren't because of deregulation and pulling out of the national power grid. This was a Katrine-level event for the bureaucracy in Texas. 

They froze because they used a different type of lubricant ( more expensive) in the traditional cold weather areas. It seems if it is your cause being pushed the government is right and if not the government is wrong.

[Big Rick]

1 hour ago, Barbaraok said:

Mea Culpa for forgetting the year of 3 Mile Island and for the Typo.  Nothing in 2 decades has come on line.   

Too many vocal groups oppose and the politicians are afraid of negative reaction.

[Big Rick]

4 hours ago, bigjim said:

The obvious elephant in the room with nuclear is what to do with the by products. Solve that issue and I will be a big proponent.

bigrick am I correct that turbines on froze in some places but states and countries had no issue with their? At this point as I understand that the turbines where all functioning they are such a small % of the system they could not come close to providing what we need.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another speculation is that a cold enough temps I would guess a lot of oil would have trouble flowing which could cause issues with pump and valves also.

Wind is 28% of Texas energy, they froze along with valves on natural gas, etc

[TXiceman]

13 minutes ago, Big Rick said:

Wind is 28% of Texas energy, they froze along with valves on natural gas, etc

24 percent is wind power.
About 56 percent of Texas' energy comes from natural gas, just under 24 percent comes from wind, 19 percent from coal, and almost 9 percent from nuclear energy.

[Pat & Pete]

Too bad all the hot air that gets spewed isn't being harnessed to produce usable electrical energy .

[bruce t]

If nuclear is 'bad' then who's going to tell the Navy?

 

[agesilaus]

1 hour ago, Big Rick said:

Too many vocal groups oppose and the politicians are afraid of negative reaction.

Anti nuke politics came about long before Three Mile Island, where incidently not one person was injured. But the old anti nuke weapon movement merged with the environmental movement back in the late 1950's and early 60's. The anti weapon bunch carried their dislike of nukes over to nuke power plants. Nothing logical about it, this infected the entire environmental movement.

And using some of their standard tactics they claim they are for nuke plants which are the ultimate green power, only if the waste problem could be solved. Then they fight tooth and nail against nuke waste disposal projects. As I pointed out above a new tech: Thorium Cycle nuke plants can theoretically burn nuke waste in the reactors

Quote

The First Energy Amplifier Test (FEAT), funded by the European Commission, successfully demonstrated the principles of a clean and inherently safe process of energy production, based on widely available thorium. Since then, numerous experiments have demonstrated the feasibility of a large scale-up for industrial use. They also demonstrated that existing long-term (240,000 years or more) nuclear waste can be “burned up” in the thorium reactor to become a much more manageable short-term (less than 500 years) nuclear waste.

Thorium reactor

[Kirk W]

23 minutes ago, bruce t said:

If nuclear is 'bad' then who's going to tell the Navy?

Didn't you ever notice that I glow in the dark, after operating one of those nuc plants for 6 years?   😁

[bruce t]

Kirk I only noticed it when the lights were out! Otherwise you look perfectly fine to me.

[agesilaus]

6 minutes ago, bruce t said:

Kirk I only noticed it when the lights were out! Otherwise you look perfectly fine to me.

Were you a nuke Kirk, which class. I was in 7302

[bruce t]

I'm with agesilaus on this one. The 'left/green' movement is anti. Just for the sake of being anti. They aren't consistent with their arguments.

Way back a decade or two ago I lived in a town by the sea. The town was surrounded by magnificent high cliffs with grand views. Then along came the wind farm. The green/left protested madly about the visual impact. Migratory birds, cows falling over and the noise they made. Now those very same greens want more towers in the same location. Sheeez, never happy. But there is a common link here. Those making the most noise live in the cities drinking lattes while telling folks in the country that it's ok to spoil the very nature they want to protect with even more wind farms and thousands and thousands of solar panels. Often build on good farm land. Then when you ask them about how they will recycle the old towers and solar panels they change the subject. (Look at all the defunct wind towers in southern California).

When they build wind farms in metropolitan areas and cover sports fields with solar panels I will start to listen to them.

It's not all about being 'green' it's more about politics.

[agesilaus]

40 minutes ago, bruce t said:

If nuclear is 'bad' then who's going to tell the Navy?

 

Admiral Rickover made sure that the Navy reactors were like nothing in the civilian world. The navy builds the same reactor over and over, when a problem is found they fix it in every identical plant. I got less radiation in 6 years than I get from a CAT scan now. And I was one of the first people into the reactor compartment when it was shut down to do a radiation survey.

Civilian plants are essentially one off, each one is new and different and each has it's own problems. A bad design decision. The NRC should have forced them to build standardized units. One design for 500 MW units, one for 1000 MW and so on.

Edited February 19, 2021 by agesilaus

[Kirk W]

44 minutes ago, agesilaus said:

I was one of the first people into the reactor compartment when it was shut down to do a radiation survey.

So what was your position? And when were you there?

EDIT: I just noticed your comment/question above. I attended nuke school in Mare Island June through Dec. of 1962 and prototype training in Idaho from Jan. through July of 1963. Made 9 missile patrols as an EO.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Kirk W

[bigjim]

3 hours ago, Big Rick said:

They froze because they used a different type of lubricant ( more expensive) in the traditional cold weather areas.

I can believe you to the most part as I don't know for sure but I would say it may not seem like a such a savings now.

Somewhere today I saw a picture of wind turbines operating in Antarctica.

 

[Dutch_12078]

17 minutes ago, bigjim said:

I can believe you to the most part as I don't know for sure but I would say it may not seem like a such a savings now.

Somewhere today I saw a picture of wind turbines operating in Antarctica.

 

Proper lubricants are just part of the "cold weather package" that's applied to colder climate windmills. Heated turbine parts and ice resistant blades are some of the other parts. The problem comes in when the buyer has to decide whether to spec the equipment for the average climate, 100 year events, 1,000 year events, etc. Obviously the wind farms in Antarctica and the other cold regions are equipped to handle those extremes, and for this unusual polar vortex event, it's obvious some Texas power producers guessed wrong. Then again the natural gas pipeline failures were the bigger issue...

[bigjim]

Agree completely Dutch.

[Big Rick]

3 hours ago, TXiceman said:

24 percent is wind power.
About 56 percent of Texas' energy comes from natural gas, just under 24 percent comes from wind, 19 percent from coal, and almost 9 percent from nuclear energy.

I stand corrected, I have read both numbers depending on which “ expert” they cite in the article