1. If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

  2. Dismiss Notice

Northern Pass Dead

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by C. Stockwell, Jul 19, 2019.

  1. xjma99

    xjma99 NES Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,905
    Likes Received:
    2,899
    Location:
    WMU K, NH
    It’s not from nuke, it’s all hydro up and down CT river and into canadia (which isn’t great but it’s existing and works). They’re all still functioning, just less of that power is going to Greater Boston area.
     
    M1911 likes this.

  2. SpaceCritter

    SpaceCritter NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,119
    Likes Received:
    4,461
    Location:
    In Orbit
    Well, wait - I'm not talking about nukes, I'm talking specifically about the advisability of the Northern Pass project. That thread-derailment was courtesy of others.

    Do we know WHY they decommissioned those DC converters? I know nothing about the history of that particular project. (Commentary was purely speculative on my part, and I apologize for not making that clear.)
     
  3. xjma99

    xjma99 NES Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,905
    Likes Received:
    2,899
    Location:
    WMU K, NH
    Ok, got acronyms wrong, thought you were referring to nuclear power with NP, my bad! I have no idea why t was decommissioned either, I just worked on the project on the Monroe NH end. Sad to disassemble a millions of dollar perfectly good converter station, but obviously above my pay grade.
     
  4. Asaltweapon

    Asaltweapon NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    11,385
    Likes Received:
    4,182
    Location:
    Northern Mass
    Not total thread derailment on my part. They’ve missed with 2 states and are now working on a third. I’ve also heard there is an existing corridor thru NY that could be used. I do not know if this is fact.

    I’d be happy just getting the information out there for others to come to their own conclusions.
     
    xjma99 likes this.
  5. ThePreBanMan

    ThePreBanMan

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    7,140
    Likes Received:
    2,411
    Location:
    A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
    "


    90,000 tons is trivial? Spread all over the country? Seriously... The stuff will be toxic, essentially, forever.

    Key Issues: Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste

    Yea, I disagree...."The United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total at about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades. However, there is still no disposal site in the United States. After spending decades and billions of dollars to research potential sites for a permanent disposal site, including at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that has a license application pending to authorize construction of a nuclear waste repository, the future prospects for permanent disposal remain unclear."

    Please tell me, what underground storage solutions are you talking about that "make you happy" Because .gov has no such facilities.

    I"n 2010, DOE terminated its licensing efforts at Yucca Mountain, stating that a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain is not a workable option."
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2019
  6. namedpipes

    namedpipes

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    30,153
    Likes Received:
    12,212
    Location:
    PREM
    Perhaps you did not know that the recycling of nuclear waste was outlawed over 40 years ago and THAT is the reason it is stored in casks on site at the nuclear plants.
     
    Prepper and xjma99 like this.
  7. fshalor

    fshalor NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,340
    Likes Received:
    1,052
    Location:
    Portland, ME
    No idea how that got all screwed up.

    AC = electricity troll turns a spindle on the end of two ropes. One on each hand. Troll can only pull. Take a rope off and the spindle stops.

    DC = electricity troll grabs the rope and runs. Rope is infinitely long, but if troll is too far away, rope starts dragging on the ground. Doesn't work as well.

    DC is inherently more dangerous in my eyes. Works great in small devices and electronics, but the safety of the alternating pull is worth it to me for anything between welding 1" plate and powering a flashlight.
     
  8. Asaltweapon

    Asaltweapon NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    11,385
    Likes Received:
    4,182
    Location:
    Northern Mass
    Did you by any chance protest at Seabrook? Maybe you know a friend of mine named Frank who was there too.
    Imagine the horror of no melt down.... at the plant at least.
     
  9. Dench

    Dench

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,622
    Likes Received:
    4,279
    Using your number and dividing the number of open US nuclear plants (98), yes, trivial. Actually, beyond trivial. 90,000/98= 918 metric ton per plant. And most of these plants have been going for 30+ years. So yep, sticking with trivial. Fuel rods vary in size from 250ish KG to 700ish. So it's not a lot of waste, especially when you look at how long these plants have been running and regularly refueling.

    The waste "issue" is nothing more than partisan politics, the boogyman and NIMBYs in places where no one even lives in places that have virtually zero risk of being disturbed.

    But whatever, people can keep telling me how the world is ending due to climate change yet they are more afraid of nuclear power. Jesus Christ.

    Theres a mineral mine in Northern Canada that is more dangerous than any nuclear site on the planet. Next to no ones ever heard of it. It has enough shit in it that would and could it escape every single person on the Earth would be trying to sue the US Navy for mesothelioma claims. Canada just used a heat pump system and froze the entire friggen mine in a giant ass block of ice. Done.
     
    drgrant, namedpipes and xjma99 like this.
  10. ThePreBanMan

    ThePreBanMan

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    7,140
    Likes Received:
    2,411
    Location:
    A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
    They're not "my" numbers. Those numbers are right from the GAO. And a ton is not an insignificant amount of material. Nevermind 90,000 tons.... And that amount never goes down because this stuff is the textbook definition of forever.
    There is no known possible way to encase the waste in any kind of structure that will guarantee it will never be a problem for future generations. The technology to build a container that would also last forever does not exist. As time passes even more waste = more problems.
    This is not a legacy I want to leave future generations of Americans. We can do better. Nuclear fission is yesterday's solution that is causing us problems today. I'm all set with piling on.
    And we haven't even talked about three Mile island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima.
     
  11. namedpipes

    namedpipes

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    30,153
    Likes Received:
    12,212
    Location:
    PREM
    The reason it is stored is because it is illegal to do anything else with it.

    If your crowd succeeds in stamping out progress then the nuclear legacy WILL be 90k tons of toxic waste.

    But if you'll put away the superstitions for a while maybe that legacy could be clean power.
     
  12. Prepper

    Prepper NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    17,457
    Likes Received:
    5,442
    Location:
    NH
    Yup that idiot Jimmy Carter is the one who made it illegal to reprocess the waste. All he did was increase the need to strip mine uranium and cause further environmental destruction from that process. Oh, and more nuclear waste to worry about. Thanks Jimmy!

    What we're doing with the waste is actually the second most stupid thing you could possibly do it (just store it). The first most stupid, of course, would be to just dump it back directly into the environment.

    You can reprocess the stuff. You can stop adding to it with thorium plants that make very little. You can cook it off in another reactor and generate more heat. There's probably even more that can be done with it but this isn't my day job.
     
    xjma99 likes this.
  13. Spanz

    Spanz NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    27,693
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    i have not been keeping up with current events, but a FUSION reactor does seem to be the way to go. Water is the waste product, and at the end of the power plant's long life, all you have to get rid of is a twenty ton radioactive tokomak ring.
     
  14. Dench

    Dench

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,622
    Likes Received:
    4,279
    If you think the new plants are creating the same waste as the ones we built 30 years ago with 1950's/1960's tech this conversation is premature for you to be having.

    Not to mention the waste being a "problem" is an intentional thing done by the same people who have been trying to shut the plants down. None of this is going on by accident or due to oversights.
     
    Prepper and xjma99 like this.
  15. PennyPincher

    PennyPincher NES Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    10,439
    Likes Received:
    2,924
    Location:
    Texas
    Gen IV nuclear generation plants need to be fast tracked and tested and run full power and then given the "all clear" for full usage around the country. Other countries are starting to build them and they will have reduced energy, clean, and safe, for decades before the US will ever get off it's ass and do what's best "for the people."
     
    xjma99 likes this.
  16. ThePreBanMan

    ThePreBanMan

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    7,140
    Likes Received:
    2,411
    Location:
    A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
    The technology does not exist. The only way to sustain a FUSION reaction is to generate the kinds of heat and pressure that exist in places like the center of our sun. There is no way of constructing a containment vessle that can contend with that kind of force. People have been trying for decades.

    You solve that problem and you solve the world's energy crisis and would be able to wipe your ass with Jeff Bezos's net worth each time you drop a deuce.
     
  17. ThePreBanMan

    ThePreBanMan

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    7,140
    Likes Received:
    2,411
    Location:
    A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
    Jimmy Carter didn't make any laws. Congress did. Jimmy signed them though so he played a part. And in reviewing the decision making process I can see why at the time it seemed like a good idea. Proliferation and loss of nuclear material is something there can be zero tollerance for. Even today they would be "operational loss" of material and that's a problem.

    I would love to see us clean up all this waste though. And the concerns about proliferation and loss of material are things I think we should be able to handle. It may not be cheap, but if it can be done, we owe it to future generations to leave the planet better than we inherited it.
     
  18. Prepper

    Prepper NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    17,457
    Likes Received:
    5,442
    Location:
    NH
    What loss of material are you talking about? The NRC requires very strict control over every speck of nuclear material. You have to know exactly what is in your active fuel rods and every spent fuel rod. If the rods are removed, you have to know exactly where they are. If they got reprocessed, there are well defined formulas for calculating exactly what you end up with. Any deviation discovered and the NRC goes ape shit on your plant and heads roll.
     
  19. Prepper

    Prepper NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    17,457
    Likes Received:
    5,442
    Location:
    NH
    You are mostly correct about fusion. We don't know for sure it can't be done, but it doesn't look good so far. We are always "50 years away" from having something. In 1980, we were 50 years away. Today, we are 50 years away. That is a good indicator we have no idea what we are doing and don't really have a plan to make this work. Maybe someday it can be done, but that doesn't help us now though.

    Regardless, a liquid fluoride thorium reactor meets most of the claimed benefits of nonexistent future fusion technology. And, we know how to do it today (actually we knew in 1960).

    We could also do a hybrid fusion fission reactor. That does not require more energy from fusion than it takes for the fusion reaction. You use the output of the fusion to help along a fission reaction. Search for "LIFE reactor" for details. However, this is very complex and unnecessary, and inferior to thorium. Thus, rather pointless.
     
  20. ThePreBanMan

    ThePreBanMan

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    7,140
    Likes Received:
    2,411
    Location:
    A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
    The research I did into the justification for the ban on reprocessing was that there would be inevitable "operational loss" where some loss of material was considered inevitable. Put it in the catagory of "shit happens" I guess. But - I don't know that I buy that today. Reprocessing may be expensive. But if it reduces the waste and generates more electricity at the same time than I would support it. That just seems like win-win.

    Carter and Congress - at the time - thought burying it would make the problem go away. They were wrong. We need to right that wrong now. I get the nonproliferation goals. But burying the problem and pretending it doesn't exist is akin to burying your head in the sand. I would be fine even with UN inspections to insure we're not turning the waste into weapons. Seems to be working in France and the UK.

    That said - when it comes to building NEW reactors... until such time that we have a zero net gain when it comes to waste - I wouldn't be on board.
     
  21. Prepper

    Prepper NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    17,457
    Likes Received:
    5,442
    Location:
    NH
    Zero net gain for waste? You really should think about that for a bit to figure out why that is an unreasonable (ie impossible) goal. I will wait. Pause here.

    OK, continued... Here is the answer... There is no energy producing means in existence that does not result in what you might call "waste". Name it, and I will tell you the nasty stuff that results from it. All engineering options have benefits and trade offs. It is a matter of looking at them honestly (no emotions and politics) and deciding which makes the most sense.

    And I don't recommend referring to everything as "waste". By calling it that, you are giving it a value judgment. What I would call it is outputs. Your processes have inputs and outputs, and there are various characteristics of these inputs and outputs. Sure, getting irradiated is bad. But just because your output has that characteristic, doesn't mean it is useless and must be destroyed. One person's waste is another person's nuclear fuel or cancer treatment or medical test.
     
    drgrant likes this.
  22. Dench

    Dench

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,622
    Likes Received:
    4,279
    Oh so what you're looking for is magic. At least your stance and opinion on nuclear energy is consistent.
     
    xjma99, namedpipes and Prepper like this.
  23. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    65,649
    Likes Received:
    21,275
    Yes, f*** them, because frankly if people can't figure out in 20,000 years how to manage a tiny proportion of nuclear waste, then yeah, they pretty much deserve to die. You could have a 100 year supply of nuke waste and the facility to store it safely wouldn't even be that large, and you're also forgoing the fact that waste can be reprocessed and newer style reactors would produce a lot less of it.

    Also in 20,000 years the human race (assuming it survived that long) would have far bigger problems to deal with than a pile of radioactive doo-doo that would still easily fit within the confines of like a tenth of delaware. [laugh]

    The problem is math always wins- and Nuclear power is ultimately the only thing that scales. Good luck with all that other crap, unless you want to start killing off a bunch of people on an annual basis to reduce the energy demands. Or unless someone can come up with a cheap way to do something like harness tidal energy or whatever, or magically increase the efficiency of solar panels by a factor of 10...

    On a side note I think tech for transmitting energy long distances would probably help, but that's a whole other issue altogether, but it would help redistribute power from low demand to higher demand areas.

    Efficiency is great if there's no downside to it, but there usually is always something, especially when it's forced by government waving a gun around and not just consumer preference. (Efficiency by desire/demand vs force/coercion. ) Also the reason this becomes commie is because this shit is a "wag the dog" diversion thing. Yes, "Use less energy and be more efficient so that we can charge you more for less product down the road, while we avoid dealing with the actual underlying problem" Making things more efficient is great as a generality, but after a point it will all hit a law of diminishing returns, and most of this eco-nazi stuff generally is just a distraction to keep people from paying attention to the elephant in the room which is the supply side of the equation not increasing nearly as much as it needs to. The other problem with "Efficiency" is that term is often used by commies to couch something retarded in it. Look at what happened with f***ing consumer CFL bulbs for example. Those things were f***ing garbage, "more efficient" yes, but they (generally) looked and performed like shit. It took well over a decade before something that wasn't total shit came along. It's pretty obvious that CFLs being pushed was done in such a way that the people doing it didn't care about the side costs. For anyone with a brain that dealt with those, it was pretty obvious the juice was not worth the squeeze.

    "Efficiency" these days in terms of energy discussions is sometimes almost as bad as "Liberal". It usually doesn't mean what it used to anymore.

    -Mike
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2019
    xjma99 and Dench like this.
  24. namedpipes

    namedpipes

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    30,153
    Likes Received:
    12,212
    Location:
    PREM
    If there were actually any alternatives that didn't amount to mass extinction then I might agree. Probably not but I might.

    Our current technologies for generating power also generate waste, negatively impacts the environment or both. Those are the facts. The two that exist and can sustain our civilization are fossil fuels and nuclear. Both have world class problems at present. Pick which one you're happy with. I've made my choice. Not that either of us has the chance of a snowball in hell of affecting the situation.
     
    xjma99 and Prepper like this.
  25. ThePreBanMan

    ThePreBanMan

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    7,140
    Likes Received:
    2,411
    Location:
    A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
    Hydro, wind, geothermal, solar, tidal, they all generate zero net gain in terms of nuclear waste that will be a headache literally - forever. Do they have their impacts, yes? Will that impacts still be felt 100 generations down the road and beyond - no.

    There is no "perfect" solution. No one can argue that. But when we talk about "storage" and whatnot, I'm not willing to just tell future generations to "deal with it". That's what people in the 70's did to us and look at it now.... It's a problem. I care too much about humanity to just expect them to deal with it. I do not consider that an acceptable solution just because I won't be around. That's not how an enlightened species conducts itself. That's not how we should treat each other and our descendants. I am not willing to eff our future to fulfill the needs of the present.

    The main problem I have with the "storage" solutions as well is that there is absolutely no way to make it a "forever" solution. Short of removing it from the planet which is not cost-effective or safe.

    As far as renewables not being scalable enough to provide our required power - I have to dispute that as well. Consider the origional reason for this post. Running power lines from Canada to MA so we could buy hydro generated power from them. So in that case Canada is producing enough power to fulfill their own needs and has enough spare capacity that they can sell to us in the states as well. That's robust.
     
  26. Prepper

    Prepper NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    17,457
    Likes Received:
    5,442
    Location:
    NH
    And if you do pick fossil fuels, in a generation or two you run out and are back to picking nuclear. I prefer to be ahead of the curve and just pick nuclear first.
     
    xjma99 and namedpipes like this.
  27. namedpipes

    namedpipes

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    30,153
    Likes Received:
    12,212
    Location:
    PREM
    It not only is NOT scalable, it isn't even POSSIBLE.

    We're buying hydro from Canada because new hydro in the US is less viable than nuclear [laugh]

    The environazis will block any hydro cuz fish. And they have a point, unlike the luddites that are afraid of nuclear. If they did NOT block new hydro projects, there are only so many rivers we can dam. It. Does. Not. Scale.

    We can't manufacture enough solar cells to cover our needs because there is not enough raw material on the PLANET to make enough panels to meet our energy demands.

    We could build enough windmills but there's only so much wind. If the birds aren't reason enough for you, eventually the global warming idiots will say we're slowing down the wind, causing climate change.

    Stay with fossil fuels and EVENTUALLY they will run out. Before then we'll be choked on smog like Beijing and Hong Kong. And the climate nuts will have kittens.

    There is LITERALLY no choice but nuclear.
     
    Prepper and xjma99 like this.
  28. Dench

    Dench

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,622
    Likes Received:
    4,279
    Locate geologically inactive location. Make sure water and other miscellaneous shit isnt able to get into location. Dig huge hole. Put shit in hole. Close hole. Leave sign saying "if you dig this up bend over, hold ankles and kiss ass goodbye."

    /problem.


    The Human race is probably going to have it's 1st taste of doomsday risks in the next 100 years or so. Except it's not from radiation. Probably nano tech.

    I'll be to busy being processed into gray goo by rouge nanotech while the pile of doom buried in the middle of no where is keeping the ground warm for Satan.
     
    drgrant and Prepper like this.
  29. xjma99

    xjma99 NES Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,905
    Likes Received:
    2,899
    Location:
    WMU K, NH
    Bloom box.

    That will save the world. Run your whole house off a little natural gas. Oh wait, we can’t have that either....
     
  30. Dench

    Dench

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,622
    Likes Received:
    4,279
    Hydro isnt a "green" source of energy. Renewable? Yes. Green? Not a chance in hell. The damage done both up and down stream from the location of the dam is probably going to be there till the next ice age when some glacial comes and scrapes everything back down to bed rock.

    The dam craze in the US is well over with, and thank Christ. Dams are a nightmare when they age and there is a metric shit ton of dams in the US built ~90-70 years ago that need to go due to age. And good F'ing luck. Each one is usually a complete nightmare to remove and correct the effects on the river it was on. Even after all the physical aspects are dealt with the ecosystem doesn't exactly rebound.

    Theres only one dam in the US that is larger than a large nuclear station, and that SOB has already done more damage than all the nuclear power plants in the US combined, TMI included.
     
    xjma99 likes this.

Share This Page