Return of the Long Knives
Return of the Long Knives
The nuclear power industry is, shall we say, sparing with the truth and less than committed to public safety. NRC Gregory Jaczko by contrast appears to take his job responsibilities seriously. His recommendations for evacuation of American military dependents from Japan and extensive American civilian evacuations from the Fukushima region met with much hostility by the nuclear power industry.
Mr. Jaczko’s actions in the Missouri river threats to nuclear power plants further angered the industry. The many atomic minons have been determined to exact ‘revenge’. Now here they go again.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/14/4122195/nrc-commissioners-chairman-jacz...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-13/jaczko-s-outbursts-undermine-nr...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/12/11/lawmakers-split-over-supporting...
A dispute among members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has moved to Capitol Hill, where four NRC commissioners told a House committee that "bullying and intimidation" by the panel's chairman have damaged the commission's effectiveness.
The four commissioners - two Democrats and two Republicans - said NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko (YAHTS'-koh), a Democrat, is responsible for an increasingly tense and unsettled work environment at the NRC. The four commissioners sent a letter to the White House in October expressing "grave concern" about Jaczko's actions.
Commissioner William Ostendorff, a Republican, told a House oversight committee that the letter was not politically motivated, as some lawmakers have said. Ostendorff said the real issue is Jaczko's "bullying and intimidation," which Ostendorff said "should not and cannot be tolerated."
Deserving ?????
Deserving of common courtesy and professional treatment?
Arguable ... but NOT a given
It is NOT entirely certain, that formal courtesy is due to: liars, cheats, perjurors, bribe-takers, fools, murderers, and/or those who deliberately endanger Life on Earth.
Perhaps the 2X2 (Two Republican & Two Democrat) NRC Commissioners 'deserve' a good deal less than common courtesy, such as: immediate arrest, criminal trial, removal from office, a public execution, life imprisonment and/or time in the stocks.
Courtesy --- Maybe, Maybe Not
Meanwhile in the US of A
...
Apparently, bribery is a bi-partisan activity … Two By Two
Note - (2) Republican and (2) Democrat NRC Commissioners …
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/nuclear-agencies-are-wholly-contro...
1. Four NRC Commissioners attempted to delay and otherwise impede the creation of the
NRC Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima
2. Four NRC Commissioners conspired, with each other and with senior NRC staff, to delay
the release of and alter the NRC Near-Term Task Force report on Fukushima
3. The other NRC Commissioners attempted to slow down or otherwise impede the
adoption of the safety recommendations made by the NRC Near-Term Task Force on
Fukushima
4. NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko kept the other four NRC Commissioners fully informed
regarding the Japanese emergency, despite claims to the contrary made by these
Commissioners.
5. A review of emails and other documents indicates high levels of suspicion and hostility
directed at the Chairman.
6. The consideration of the Fukushima safety upgrades is not the only safety-related issue
that the other NRC Commissioners have opposed.
According to Congressman Edward J. Markey …
http://markey.house.gov/docs/regulatory_meltdown_12.09.11.pdf
http://energy.aol.com/2011/12/15/gregory-jaczko-stands-his-nrc-ground-at...
With the four commissioners (AKA - Suspects) flanking him at the witness table – Kristine Svinicki and William Magwood on his right, George Apostolakis and William Ostendorff on his left – Jaczko insisted he had erred only in being "passionate" about nuclear safety issues. The other four (AKA - Suspects) described him as an abusive manager who screamed at, humiliated and tried to silence senior staff.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/nuclear-agencies-are-wholly-contro...
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/japan-nuclear-safety-commission-br...
EMERGENCY
These Emergencies
A prolonged condition of nuclear emergency began on or about March 11, 2011, with the Great East Japan Earthquake. The resulting tsunami waves reached heights of up to 133 feet in Miyako and travelled up to 6 miles inland, in the Sendai area. The earthquake and tsunami combined with known design flaws, control failures, and inadequate emergency procedures; caused the ongoing level 7 meltdowns at three reactors in the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant complex.
The USA evacuated all military dependents, redeployed ships of the fleet, active duty personnel and recommended (ordered) a 50 mile radius for citizen evacuations. These emergency measures were well considered, but inadequate. Great Britain distributed anti-radiation medications to Subjects of The Empire. The USA had no anti-radiation medication supplies on hand for distribution to military personnel and/or citizens.
Three of the Fukushima Daiichi six nuclear reactors overheated and their fuel melted down. Explosions blew the tops off three reactor buildings, leading to a major leak of radiation at levels not seen since Chernobyl in 1986. Every emergency ventilation system failed at the Fukushima Daiichi generation complex. One ventilation failure caused the total destruction of Unit-4, which was out of service. A vast radionuclide storm contaminated Honshu Island, Northwest Pacific Ocean and the Northern Hemispheric atmosphere. The Unit-4 spent fuel pool is threatening to collapse and set off an even larger global nuclear disaster.
The Japanese and USA governments failed to make use of available data, on the plumes of nuclear fallout, released from the plant, to warn affected population groups. No early measures were taken to preserve food and water safety. No early measures were taken to improve nuclear reactor safety or future nuclear disaster responses in the USA.
What emergency?
4. NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko kept the other four NRC Commissioners fully informed
regarding the Japanese emergency, despite claims to the contrary made by these
Commissioners.
======================
Congressman Markey "thinks" that Chairman Jaczko has some special powers in this incident because he is the Chairman. However, in the case of Fukushima; Congressman Markey is in ERROR
Evidently Congressman Markey suffers from poor reading comprehension because his own document impeaches his point. On page 4, when discussing the legislation providing for emergency powers for the Chairman, Markey's own document says, "...there are hereby transferred to the Chairman all the functions vested in the Commission pertaining to an emergency in a particular facility or materials licensed or regulated by the Commission..."
Fukushima is NOT "...licensed or regulated by the Commission...". The legislation gives the Chairman emergency powers when a US nuclear power plant has an accident. Fukushima is licensed by the Japanese and operates under their regulations, and not ours.
How did this chowderhead Markey get to be a US Congressman with such poor reading comprehension. The law clearly expands the role of the Chairman when a facility licensed by the NRC has an accident, and that is good.
However, that's not what we have here. It's the Japanese authorities that oversee Fukushima. As far as US NRC licensed facilities are concerned; there's no emergency declared in any of these facilities. Therefore, the Chairman doesn't have any extra emergency powers, and is just another voting Commissioner under the present circumstances.
Smoke Signals From Siemens
The system has been unreliable for the last few days.
The web responses have resembled a Siemens Control System with the Stuxnet Virus.
Message Received - Response - Message NOT Recorded as received.
Emergency Response Initiated - no wait - lost
Condition RED - Report Condition GREEN
Smoke signals are more useful than Siemens Control Systems
Say,
There is
There are some Smoke Signals from Tehran (Poof1, Poof2 ... Poof1000
There are 4 big Smoke Signals from Fukushima
Now the Keystone Pipeline SMOKE Signals have started
Now the Alberta Tar Sands Mine is Sending Smoke Signals
Smoke Lovers have Gotta Love those Siemens Control Systems
Jaczko Stands His Ground
Jaczko Stands His Ground
Gregory Jaczko Stands His NRC Ground At Hearings
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko rejected Republican calls for his resignation Wednesday after the other four commission members publicly accused him of threatening NRC's ability to act as the nation's nuclear safety watchdog.
http://energy.aol.com/2011/12/15/gregory-jaczko-stands-his-nrc-ground-at...
Regulation - By Margaret Ryan Published: December 15, 2011
Jaczko repeatedly told the committee that he wanted to talk with the commissioners to better understand the "communication problems" between them, and said he apologized to Daley for the "distraction" of the dispute.
He twice insisted he has no intention of resigning. NRC commissioners are appointed for fixed terms, and Jaczko is in office till June 2013. The president can change which commissioner is chairman at any time, however.
With the four commissioners flanking him at the witness table – Kristine Svinicki and William Magwood on his right, George Apostolakis and William Ostendorff on his left – Jaczko insisted he had erred only in being "passionate" about nuclear safety issues. The other four described him as an abusive manager who screamed at, humiliated and tried to silence senior staff.
passionate about safety
A very passionate person about safety
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jan/09/nrcs-squabbles-hide-serious-...
The grumbling over Jaczko is a convenient smokescreen to draw attention away from the fact that, for the first time in decades, the NRC actually has a chairman who, in his own words, is “a very passionate person about safety” at the country’s 104 operating nuclear reactors. That shows up the other four, who, much of the time, adhere to an old culture of capitulation to the demands of the nuclear power industry, a practice which almost invariably diminishes safety.
The commissioners appear to be using their spat with Jaczko to shroud their own collective inaction despite the lessons that should have been learned from the still unfolding nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan. During the early weeks of the accident, it was Chairman Jaczko who urged Americans in Japan to evacuate to 50 miles away from the Fukushima disaster (although U.S. standards still only require 10 miles, a regulation Jaczko should now push to change.) He also created the Near- and Long-Term Fukushima Task Force to examine the implications for a similar crisis on U.S. soil. That shows a concern for public safety that should be central to the commissioners’ mandate.
Political Theater
Nero fiddles while Rome burns. The only good news is that the for profit nuke industry is imploding and capital for their 'hormisis for all' glow boys is receding into the distance.
Rome burning:
NRC Commissioner on NRC’s own statement: Someone reading this would think every reactor in U.S. is a time bomb waiting to go off — Attempted to prevent release of Fukushima report to public, Congress
AP: Radiation-contaminated groundwater feared moving toward 4th largest river in US — Over 200 miles inland — Posing danger to fish, people
Congressman releases blockbuster report detailing NRC conspiracy in wake of Fukushima
High-level whistleblower: Plutonium may cause explosion at Washington nuclear facility — Design manager warns of ‘dire’ consequences
NRC says strontium-90 found in fish by nuclear plant on Connecticut River is not a conclusive indication of presence of strontium-90
Here is the complete North American list (not all bad for you and me) that the circus would like to distract us all from:
http://enenews.com/category/u-s-canada
Let's see ... Jaczko is
Let's see ... Jaczko is "passionate" about safety ... is not considered to be a member of the so-called "nuclear party" ... and seems to have all the usual industry shills lining up against him.
Wow ... he's the PERFECT man for this job!
Suffering Fools Lightly
;)
Whah - Whah - Whah
USN Admiral Hyman George Rickover was a 'perfectionist - with a temper'.
Errors and sloppy work were unacceptable to Admiral Rickover.
He was called “ruthless,” “tyrant,” and worse
by subordinates and colleagues alike.
A “TOBR Club” developed—“tossed out by Rickover.”
He fought convention and bureaucracy at every turn.
He threw temper tantrums, cursed at what he
considered wrong answers to questions (which were often
ambiguous), and generally intimidated officers and civilians
alike.
;)
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/commission/jaczko.html
"He has championed initiatives to strengthen the safety and security of radioactive materials – including the development and implementation of a comprehensive national source tracking system. "
That Jaczko is forcing the NRC to track this industry's lethal sources that are distributed all over the USA and that are a very real danger to the public is an indication he is at least doing something, the other commissioners in comparison look completely ineffective to me, maybe that is why they are whining.
NRC has always tracked radioactive material
The NRC has been tracking radioactive materials since its inception.
You can NOT transfer any NRC-licensed material to any unlicensed person, and any material that is transfered to a licensed person requires that the license be amended to include the newly transfered material.
As someone involved with radioactive materials, it sounds to me like Jaczko's bio is taking credit for something the NRC has been doing for decades anyway.
Unfortunately, oh yes you can
Unfortunately, oh yes you can transfer, and it is called 'losing the source'.
A nasty recent example from May this year in Miami Florida is given below and is on the NRC website at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2011/20...
By the way, where is that lost 0.2 Ci of Americium-241 in this example now, if it is being 'tracked', as you say?
Is it still in Miami intact, or somewhere in the US, or was it shipped overseas?
If so where exactly was it shipped to?
Has it come back to the US by now in some consumer goods steel maybe?
Is some of it now in someone's kitchen, having been smelted into the metal in their forks or spoons?
Does some unfortunate person stir their coffee everyday with an Americium-241 laced spoon?
Or is that Americium-241 embedded throughout the metal frame of someone's baby stroller perhaps?
Americium-241 is nasty stuff, look it up.
What the h*** is a beverage company, of all things, doing with an incredibly toxic and lethal 0.2 Ci of Americium-241 in the first place?
Even just being near this exposed Category 3 source for a few days could be fatal, the NRC event report itself says so below.
What sort of stupidity is it to allow these materials to be anywhere near the manufacturing of food and drink?
Particularly when so carelessly looked after.
Radioactive 'fill detectors' are not necessary, there are other ways of detecting 'fill'.
Can't 'fill detectors' for beverage manufacture be made without using lethal radioactive materials that get 'lost'?
Whatever happened to common sense?
Some quotes from the NRC event report:
"The fill detectors were stored in a spare room full of scrap metal."
"The room was cleaned out in early May and the scrap sent to Alpha Metal Recycling, 2392 NW 147 Street, Opa-Locka, Florida 33054."
"The recycling plant manager said that the load has already been sent overseas to either China, Pakistan or India."
"Loss of the material was found when the application for license renewal was being filled out."
"The two fill detector sealed sources each contained 100 mCi of Am-241 and were manufactured by Industrial Dynamics (Fil Tech; Model Number FT50; Serial Numbers 1296 and 126)."
"Category 3 sources, if not safely managed or securely protected, could cause permanent injury to a person who handled them, or were otherwise in contact with them, for some hours. It could possibly - although it is unlikely - be fatal to be close to this amount of unshielded radioactive material for a period of days to weeks. "
Agreement State
Event Number: 46920
Rep Org: FLORIDA BUREAU OF RADIATION CONTROL
Licensee: BEVERAGE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL
Region: 1
City: MIAMI State: FL
County:
License #: G0024-1
Agreement: Y
Docket:
NRC Notified By: CHARLES ADAMS
HQ OPS Officer: VINCE KLCO
Notification Date: 06/03/2011
Notification Time: 15:19 [ET]
Event Date: 06/03/2011
Event Time: [EDT]
Last Update Date: 06/03/2011
Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
AGREEMENT STATE
Person (Organization):
RICHARD CONTE (R1DO)
BILL VON TILL (FSME)
Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
AGREEMENT STATE
Person (Organization):
RICHARD CONTE (R1DO)
BILL VON TILL (FSME)
This material event contains a "Category 3" level of radioactive material.
AGREEMENT STATE REPORT - MISSING DEVICES POSSIBLY MIXED WITH SCRAP METAL
The following information was sent by the State of Florida Bureau of Radiation Control via email:
"[The licensee's two] fill detectors were bought in the 1990's and were not in use. The fill detectors were stored in a spare room full of scrap metal. The room was cleaned out in early May and the scrap sent to Alpha Metal Recycling, 2392 NW 147 Street, Opa-Locka, Florida 33054. The recycling plant manager said that the load has already been sent overseas to either China, Pakistan or India. Loss of the material was found when the application for license renewal was being filled out. The licensee will send a written report to Radioactive Materials. Any further action is referred to Radioactive Materials. This office will take no further action on this incident."
The two fill detector sealed sources each contained 100 mCi of Am-241 and were manufactured by Industrial Dynamics (Fil Tech; Model Number FT50; Serial Numbers 1296 and 126).
Florida Incident: FL11-045
THIS MATERIAL EVENT CONTAINS A "CATEGORY 3" LEVEL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL
Category 3 sources, if not safely managed or securely protected, could cause permanent injury to a person who handled them, or were otherwise in contact with them, for some hours. It could possibly - although it is unlikely - be fatal to be close to this amount of unshielded radioactive material for a period of days to weeks. These sources are typically used in practices such as fixed industrial gauges involving high activity sources (for example: level gauges, dredger gauges, conveyor gauges and spinning pipe gauges) and well logging. For additional information go to http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1227_web.pdf
Note: This device is assigned an IAEA Category 3 value based on the actual radioactivity of the source, not on the device type. (Reference IAEA RG-G-1.9)
market demand and cost
Calculating the cost of security for all the those high value targets required to service the aging hodgepodge plants or the off the charts cost of new development leads to several inescapable conclusions, the most important of which is that we can not afford NOT to develop multiple alternative, variable scale energy tech and build them asap. Geothermal has moderate development costs in comparison and is ideally suited to some locations. We need a mix of generation technology with an increasing superconductor backbone managed by a fiber optic powered smart grid. Greater security and lower costs into the future is the road to complete and long term prosperity. All of this is either already deployed or in well into development. Deployment (and accelerated development) of the best appropriate current technology is the idea.
Better utilization and diversification into alternatives is the next step. IT IS THE DICTATE OF CAPITAL.
Either we do it and market it to the world or we buy it. Nukes and petroleum are too expensive now and crushingly so into the future.
25% losses
It is less than candid to state that "Line losses average about 7%" and that "capacitors only help with a small transient problem".
Electrical motors consume the bulk of USA electrical power. The low power factor of these electrical motors during steady state and transient operations, produces power losses in the system on the order of 25%.
Just one more, of many, turbine-generator manufacturer misrepresentations.
You've fallen for the anti-nuke propaganda
Although nuclear power plants have high up-front costs, they cost a lot to build anew; they provide a lot of energy so that on a cost per unit energy basis; nuclear power is the 2nd cheapest - second only to coal. Even there, a lot of the costs of coal are "externalized" and not considered, like the pollution and health effects.
Geothermal is extremely limited in scope. There are very few places that are suitable for geothermal. In addition, most geothermal is not the "dry" variety that you find at the Geyers. Most require bringing hot water to the surface that has a lot of dissolved minerals. When one extracts the energy, the temperature falls, and these minerals fall out of solution, and one has a big toxic disposal problem.
Superconductors for powerlines have been studied, extensively. Line losses average about 7%, and superconductivity eliminates that. However, the cost both in dollars and energy to run the cooling units, because superconductivity occurs only at extremely low temperature, more than overbalances the gains.
Numerous scientific agencies, like the National Academy of Science and Engineering, and the Dept of Energy national labs have studied the energy problem, and have concluded that nuclear power has to be a major component of the mix of energy solutions.
The following is a study done by the DOE national labs, signed by all Lab Directors including Dr. Steven Chu, our Secretary of Energy, who was the Lab Director for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab at the time. ( 3rd line, 1st column ):
A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdffiles/rpt_sustainableenergyfuture_aug2008.pdf
Solutions
Many solutions are not desired. As a result Nicolaus Copernicus kept silence to the grave. Galileo Galilei recanted. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. Still the earth revolves about the sun.
Pierre de Fermat took his last theorem to the grave. Oliver Heaviside published posthumously.
Many impenetrable solutions have been suppressed, discarded or forgotten.
A better balanced, honest and positive perspective.
Let's all read and critique the most current publication on this subject, shall we?
Hopefully a well-framed study, this 'hot off the presses' document is titled 'Energy Roadmap 2050' and can be found here:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/index_en.htm
Finding serious work free of the pond scum that seems to permeate the deterministic propaganda and lie-ridden crap from the DOE as of late ( like the horsefeather-covered tract 'A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy) is sadly far too rare.
From impartial scientists at the DOE labs
lie-ridden crap from the DOE as of late ( like the horsefeather-covered tract 'A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy) is sadly far too rare.
=============
Again the anti-nukes like to slander and name-call concerning a report from the impartial scientists at the DOE national labs. Note that the above poster offered no rebuttal, but just name-called concerning the DOE report.
The DOE report is from impartial non-industry, Government paid scientists on staff at the DOE labs. The report is signed by the Lab Directors of all 10 national labs, including Nobel-Prize-winning physicist Dr. Steven Chu, currently Secretary of Energy, who was then director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
We have 10 top-notch eminent scientists signing this report on behalf of an army of other top-notch scientists that did the study.
Do the anti-nukes have top-notch eminent scientists signing the reports that they cite? I don't think so.
Yet - we have this contemptible out of hand dismissal of a report signed by top-notch eminent scientists as being "lie-ridden crap". If some contemptible scum wants to make that charge; at least they should back-up their contention by pointing to and identifying what they "think" is a lie. But they can't do that - they can just slander.
The denizens of this forum would be well served by actually reading the report that was generated by impartial scientists:
A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdffiles/rpt_sustainableenergyfuture_aug2008.pdf
signed by Nobel-Prize-winning Physicist Dr. Steven Chu.
The anti-nukes don't have Nobel-Prize winning physicists in their corner.
'impartial scientists' = military industrial complex scientists
The problem is a systemic one.
Government has become almost totally a tool of the investment or leisure class which means it is captains of industry, along with THEIR enablers, that frame the problems that our best minds and research resources work on. In the US the military and nuke industry holds amazing sway not seen so strongly in Europe
If we step back from the toxic perspective of GROSSLY WASTEFUL INDUSTRY IS OK and capital in the service to capital many 'problems / opportunities to exploit' change or vanish.
The solution is capital IN SERVICE to people, not capital in service to capital accumulation via the exploitation of people and the environment.
Profit before people is THE problem.
Nuclear Energy (and outcomes) ?
No Thanks
You've fallen for the
You've fallen for the pro-nuke propaganda.
Haven't you heard of wind and solar?
You'd better look them up and start investing now before you get left behind...
Reports from scientists at national lab are just propaganda?
Do you really consider the reports from the scientists at the national labs, and signed by the Lab Directors to be just "pro-nuke propaganda" on par with the material one gets off the anti-nuke websites?
You don't have to be a scientist or have any special credentials to post anti-nuke propaganda on your anti-nuke websites.
But reports from scientists at the national labs, signed by the directors; is not just "made-up" garbage like what one finds on the anti-nuke sites.
We have reports from top-notch scientists that are employed by the Government for the purpose of providing sound science-based advice on issues with scientific content like energy.
The garbage that one finds on anti-nuke websites can be safely ignored.
We ignore the findings and conclusions of our top scientists at out own peril.
Solutions from 'top scientists'
The problem is a systemic one.
Government has become almost totally a tool of the investment or leisure class which means it is captains of industry, along with THEIR enablers, that frame the problems that our best minds and research resources work on.
If we step back from the toxic perspective of capital in the service to capital many 'problems / opportunities to exploit' change or vanish.
The solution is capital IN SERVICE to people, not capital in service to capital accumulation via the exploitation of people and the environment.
You haven't read too many scientific reports
Sorry, but the reports from the scientists don't say anything about
capital serving capital or capital serving people.
The scientific reports tell us about the limits that the Laws of Physics
puts on our energy generation systems, and has nothing to do with
the political concerns that you express.
The scientific reports tell us that we need electric power at night because
we have need for electric power use at night. One of the largest electric
energy users in the average home is the refrigerator, and you need to
run it at night.
The fact that land-based solar installations can not meet this demand,
and will NEVER meet this demand without help from some type of energy
storage technology.
Consider a typical 1 Gw(e) power plant and how much energy it produces
in a day. By definition, full out, it produces 1 Gw-day of energy. ( The product
of a power and a time is, by definition, an energy ) Therefore, that unit can be
converted to any other unit of energy.
If you do the math, you will find that 1 Gw-day is about 20.6 kilotons, or about
the same as the energy of the atomic bomb that devastated Nagasaki. In
order to provide enough storage for solar to supplant a typical coal or nuclear
power plant, you are talking about storing amounts of energy equivalent to
atomic bombs. Do you see the problem now?
capital serving people...
...opportunities explored with public money resulting in patents is held in the public trust.... what a concept....
Of course that would run afoul of the current model of socializing investment and risk while privatizing (more like pirating) profit.
: Thickness Dependence of Critical Current Density in High Temperature Superconductor Film
Authors: X. Wang and J. Z. Wu
Affiliation: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA; E-Mail: xiangw@ku.edu (X.W.)
Abstract: Discovery of High Temperature Superconductor (HTS) has brought great promise to energy related applications such as power transmission cable, power generator and strong magnet. Tremendous amount of energy which is being dissipated in traditional transmission cables will be saved if HTS coated conductor can be successfully commercialized. However, thickness dependence of critical current density (Jc) considerably prevents HTS coated conductor from acquiring large current carrying capability, hence acceptable performance to cost ratio. In this review we consider the possible mechanism behind the thickness dependence of Jc. Methods of weakening or elimination of this thickness dependence are also described and discussed.
It's a 7% savings
Although the above poster didn't give an actual number to back up their contentions, it was presented that the amount of energy dissipated as heat in power lines is "tremendous".
Leaving behind the fact that "tremendous" doesn't have a unique quantitative meaning, the amount of energy dissipated by power lines is about 7% of the energy that is transported by them.
It is true that superconducting power lines will eliminate this dissipation.
However, this has been extensively studied, and the savings are offset by the energy that is needed to run the cooling units since superconductivity occurs only at very low temperatures.
Superconductivity is not a panacea for any problem.
Ooops Less than candid ...
Ooops
Less than candid ... or less than knowlegable on the subject area
On the order of 65% of the USA electrical load is motors.
Low motor power factor produces grid losses on the order of 25%.
Also,
SOME geniuses have overly expanded a few of the (synchronized) North American Reliability Areas.
Miscellaneous LOOPS and Electromagnetic Field Effects have propagated power losses.
These losses are on the order of several nuclear power generation units
OOPS
OOPS - poor reading comprehension
OOPS - poor reading comprehension
The post being commented on above was in reply to a post that stated:
Tremendous amount of energy which is being dissipated in traditional transmission cables will be saved...
The contention was that "tremendous amount of energy" was being dissipated from transmission cables; those wires one sees on top of the big truss-like towers that convey electric power long distances.
The above poster says the reply is in error because of losses in motors. Poor reading comprehension is in evidence again. The question wasn't about all the losses of electric power. One poster contended that tremendous amounts of power were being lost in the transmission lines. This has nothing to do with motors.
The amount of energy that is lost due to transmission lines is about 7% of the power transmitted. One could eliminate that 7% loss by using superconducting transmission lines. The problem is that superconductivity is only in evidence at very low temperatures. This has been studied, and the energy expended in running the cryogenic coolers is at least as much as that saved. It's the old adage of do you spend $1 to save a nickel?
The dream is to have HTS - high temperature superconductivity at something approaching ambient temperatures. Sorrily, we don't have this. Superconductors must be cooled to extremely cold conditions to function; and this requires energy to run the coolers.
OOPS
Poor Comprehension
No,
Actually YOUR comprehension is faulty.
My earlier post, indicates that Low Power Factor in AC electrical motors spawns overall SYSTEM losses, NOT wattage losses in the motors themselves.
I can explain it to you, but cannot understand it for you.
Poor reading comprehension AGAIN
The poster was clearly commenting about losses in transmission lines, and stated as much. YOU are the one that expanded the discussion beyond transmission lines to include losses due to motors.
The 7% loss in transmission lines includes both ohmic and "reactive power" losses.
Poor reading comprehension, and an inability to limit one's discussion to the limited topic at hand is again in evidence.
Kinda difficult to ad lib on
Kinda difficult to ad lib on engineering topics
So you are naturally having difficulty.
Reactive power directly relates to lagging and leading power factors (Imaginary, Y-Axis). Wattage losses relate to Ohmic (real, X-Axis) power losses.
Again, for the more gifted and/or educated reader, low power factor in motors, transformers and conductors create System Losses, which may not show up as heat losses within the particular component.
Crapola AC electrical motors, with low power factors are substantial contributors to Grid Losses, which are above and beyond the heat losses in the particular motor. The sorriest motor design on earth is the Shaded Pole Motor, which should probably be entirely banned from use in these United States. The last time I checked these were still being manufactured and put into new service applications.
Has to show up somewhere..
which may not show up as heat losses within the particular component.
========================
Energy loss has to show up somewhere. You can't lose energy without that energy loss showing up as waste heat somewhere.
NOPE
NOPE, Sorry
Grid Loop Losses and Electromagnetic Effects do not always show up neatly on a meter.
A short illustration is provided for the interested reader.
(As opposed to the rabid-anti-nukes and the industry-shills)
When a synchronous region, such as a reliability council, is too big. Generally the limit is about 800 miles in diameter, for too big.
The region becomes, in some respects, a transmission antenna. A good transmission antenna is about 1/4 wavelength, but at 800 miles diameter, the total wires in the system, begin to approach that good antenna heuristic (rule-of-thumb).
So WHEN the region begins to act as a transmitter, the power is not exactly 'LOST', the power is being transmitted into space (and arround the world) like a really crappy 60 Hertz radio. The harmonics, such as 180 Hz (3rd Harmonic), transmit even better.
Somebody has to pay for all that wasted electrical power. Naturally, if some vendor owns a nuclear or coal fired plant that is a long distance from the customer, they may attempt to pass those loss costs to the consumer. Bribing the right group is the mechanism. Then lying about it follows naturally.
What % is lost this way
Of all the energy that flows down the power lines, what percentage of this energy is lost due to the fact that the power line acts as a big transmitting antenna?
EMF & Loop Losses
Relatively negligible losses, from Electromagnetic Effects and/or LOOP losses, in the SMALL reliability areas, such as: ERCOT/TX and Florida.
Great Lakes Region Substantial Losses were primarily due to Loop Losses, a few years ago, documented in IEEE article, 'Power & Computer' if memory serves. Amounted to about 2 nuclear plants, again, if memory serves.
MAJOR losses, probably on the order of several nuclear power plants, in the North-East, Western and MidWestern Grid Areas.
Part of the difficulty, is that the un-initiated 'feel-like', the entire CanUSAMex continent 'should-be' interconnected and synchronized. The other component, is that generation station manufacturers, who PROFIT by losses, BRIBE public officials, and News Sources.
The underlying problem is a poor technical background, among the general public AND electrical customers in general.
How many Nagasaki atom bombs
How many Nagasaki atom bombs of equivalent energy
is stored right now in all the gas tanks (average half-full)
of all the cars in New York city?
Do the math,
and the answer might surprise you.
People are already using distributed chemical storage (gas tanks)
on a vast scale for personal transportation,
so why not use distributed storage of some form for everything else too?
If you are saying the only reason for not using solar and wind is the storage problem
that sounds like a relatively easy technology problem to solve.
Batteries are a start, but surely something better can be devised.
Nuclear Power is obviously totally finished if it is this easy to replace it.
I've done that calculation..
Actually I've done that calculation, so I'm not surprised. It's not as big as you think. It's about equal to the yield of ONE of our aircraft-dropped gravity bombs.
However, if you have seen the Nova program on energy policy; you will know that Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu states that the storage problem is the real problem that is holding back solar. Dr. Chu also mentions it here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/18/energy-secretary-steven-c_n_110...
He also said energy storage will be key to solar's success, so it can serve as an energy source when the sun isn't shining.
If you've read the reports from the national labs, you would know that they also calculated the amounts of solar energy that we can reasonable store.
However, even with energy storage, capacity factors for solar and wind are not up to what we demand of the energy system.
The National Academy of Science and Engineering has addressed the prospects of getting large portions of our energy from renewables:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=4
However, achieving a predominant (i.e., >50 percent) level of renewable electricity penetration will require new scientific advances (e.g., in solar photovoltaics, other renewable electricity technologies, and storage technologies) and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity.
As the National Academy says, getting the percentage of renewable energy above 50% is going to be a real challenge, contrary to your ill-considered opinion that it will be easy.
But that is exactly the
But that is exactly the point,
instead of wasting time and money and resources on keeping going an aging
and very dangerous steam nuclear fission reactor technology from a bygone and more primitive age,
we should instead invest heavily NOW in the
new challenges of researching and developing
new renewable generation and storage technologies,
and start implementing the dramatic changes you refer to.
These problems are indeed solvable,
and nuclear power is demonstrably not needed in the future.
Nuclear power is now part of the problem,
it has too many weaknesses, limitations, and dangers,
it is not part of the solution,
it is from the past,
it is not the future.
The Sun is already a vast fusion reactor parked on our doorstep,
vastly bigger than any fusion reactor that mankind could possibly build,
93 million safe miles away and continuously beaming prodigious amounts of usable
energy down onto our planet every day,
and it will continue to do so for billions of years to come.
Doesn't it make sense to directly use it for energy production?
Cities do currently store atom bombs worth of energy overnight in a distributed form,
even just considering the private car gas tanks alone,
these are already storing this much energy every single night,
right now.
New technologies can surely improve on that precedent.
This is incorrect
Renewables are not a substitute for the power generating capacity that we have today. In fact, studies by the National Academy of Science and Engineering clearly state that renewables can not deliver electricity in the amount and with the reliability that we currently take for granted. The National Academy states that nuclear power needs to be a part of the mix.
Likewise, the Dept of Energy national labs did a study a few years ago and concluded that nuclear energy was essential. Here is a link to the report that is signed by all the lab directors including Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu who was director of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab at the time:
A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdffiles/rpt_sustainableenergyfuture_aug2008.pdf
instead of carbon credits why not directly invest...
in a serious redeployment of the grid based on distributed generation, storage AND usage ?
That has been looked at.
Wind and solar are intermittent. What do we do at night? Electric energy usage doesn't go to zero at night - lots of refrigerators, and many industries run 24 hours per day. Wind and solar are not "dispatchable" - we can't "count" on them.
Do you send all your employees home on a cloudy, windless day?
The most effecient machine is a human being
With enough humans and rudimentary tools mountains can be moved.
Frame the problem correctly, apply enough intellect and ANY problem can be solved.
There are THREE classes of solution to the demand for continuous high load power demand which can solve ALL requirements.
Storage. Location. Reconfiguration.
Get busy.
Some problems are not solvable
Frame the problem correctly, apply enough intellect and ANY problem can be solved.
==================
The fact that land-based solar power plants go dead at night is NOT a problem
that can be solved with enough intellect.
There are problems that the Laws of Physics tell us can not be solved.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics puts limits on the efficiency of heat engines
that we can NEVER surmount.
Nicolas Carnot told us 150 years ago what the maximum efficiency of our
Rankine steam engines will be. In spite of wanting to improve the efficiency
of our steam engines for a big financial payoff; the truth is we just can't.
Where did you get this idea that ANY problem is solvable. You must not have
studied much science and mathematics, because there are problems we know
can NEVER be solved.
First Step....
Frame the problem correctly.
Isn't energy storage a viable
Isn't energy storage a
viable solution to solar power at night?
Isn't energy storage a viable solution to solar power at night?
Yes. If refrigerators just used better motor start up capacitors this could reduce start up loads in refrigeration, reducing distributed loads at night. As simple as replacing a cheap battery. But if you look at what the rates are for net metering it's easy to see that at night the grid load diminishes greatly.
BALONEY
The startup current only flows for a small period of time.
The problem for the electric system isn't the startup current; it's how to provide the energy to run the refrigerator at night. Evidently you don't know much about electrical engineering, because although the capacitor can help with the peak current demand, it does NOTHING about lessening the energy demand.
ALL the energy stored in the capacitor comes from the electric grid.
So capacitors only help with a small transient problem. It's no solution for the lack of energy at night to run refrigerators.
Boxes
Out of the box solutions.
Don't get 'out of the box' much, I take it.
There are a few useful solutions 'in the box'.
Luckily, the box is growing.
;)
Yes - I stay in a box - one bounded by physical laws
Yes - I stay within a box - the box bounded by the Laws of Physics.
Anti-nukes / renewable proponents like to glibly say that solutions to the renewables problem is just around the corner without any justification given for same.
If anyone points out the problems, they just glibly say that one has "think out of the box".
The problem is there is a box we have to stay in - the box bounded by the Laws of Physics. If you allow me to go out of that box, then I can solve the energy problem by saying we will make energy out of nothing. There, that "solves" the problem if we can turn a vacuum into useful energy.
However, that is silly. We have to have solutions that don't violate the Laws of Physics because Mother Nature won't let us violate those laws. Mother Nature won't let us violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is why my above "solution" of making useful energy out of nothing is a non-starter.
If you really want to solve the problem, you have to stay in the box that is bounded by the Laws of Physics. The anti-nukes / renewables proponents think it is dumb and limiting to stay in such a box. That's their problem. Nothing will come of thinking outside the Laws of Physics.
The anti-nukes / renewables proponents are not bothered by going outside the Laws of Physics because they are not scientists for the most part. Scientists know / accept the need to stay bounded by the Laws of Physics.
Morons
Only a moron equates his present understanding of physics for the complete picture of physical reality. The Box, relates to our present, weak understanding of the physical universe.
Some simple problems are solved 'inside the box'. More extensive challenges require a bigger box.
The old box, at one time included the 'law of conservation of matter' and the separate 'law of conservation of energy'. We presently approach these subjects, with a subsuming 'law of conservation of matter and energy'.