Do you realize how many Muslims live in France?
And that has what to do with this how, exactly?
Mini Nuclear Reactors for a more distributed power grid!!!!
- Thread starter Meredith
- Start date
And that has what to do with this how, exactly?
If I understand right, a gas turbine engine is basically a jet engine that has been modified for shipboard propulsion.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I came across this:
In fact you know what, this should spell the end of power company's as we currently know them. The UK is split up into boroughs and each borough is controlled by the local borough council, every borough in the UK could be supplied with these mini reactors and they could be controlled by these local councils, instead of people paying an electric bill as they do now they could pay extra money on top of their monthly council tax bills.
Why are these things not being built beneath houses?
In fact you know what, this should spell the end of power company's as we currently know them. The UK is split up into boroughs and each borough is controlled by the local borough council, every borough in the UK could be supplied with these mini reactors and they could be controlled by these local councils, instead of people paying an electric bill as they do now they could pay extra money on top of their monthly council tax bills.
Well, having a wide grid allows you to share power, which reduces the amount that is wasted. (Instead of storing it)I came across this:
Why are these things not being built beneath houses?
In fact you know what, this should spell the end of power company's as we currently know them. The UK is split up into boroughs and each borough is controlled by the local borough council, every borough in the UK could be supplied with these mini reactors and they could be controlled by these local councils, instead of people paying an electric bill as they do now they could pay extra money on top of their monthly council tax bills.
I came across this:
Why are these things not being built beneath houses?
Because at some point they'll have to be dug up and replaced. Can't very well do that when it's under someone's house.
Besides, on reactor provides power for many homes, or didn't you catch that part?Yeah. It's an internal combustion engine, whereas a steam turbine is an external combustion engine where the fuel burns in a separate boiler.
But if a nuke is to be used instead of a burner, then both systems will have to have an external element removed and replaced by the reactor. The gas turbine loses the external fuel tank and the air trunkage, while the steam turbine loses the external boiler and its (usually more modest) air trunkage.
What I'm wondering is, which of these replacement operations would be more practical? A steam turbine heated by a nuke would probably have to be different from a steam turbine heated by an oil boiler: different pressures, temperatures, so forth. Would a gas turbine still be the easier swap?
Timo Saloniemi
Plecostomus
Commodore
Nuclear reactors are less efficient than combustion plants because there is no practical way to truly superheat the steam. The hotter the steam the more "work" it can do in the turbine stages. Look up the steam cycle in an engineering text-book to fully understand what I mean.
There are direct-cycle gas-phase nuclear reactors that run at high temps. The superheated gas is discharged from the core to the turbine where it does work then the cooled gas is returned to the core. They aren't practical yet.
Notice that's different than the British gas-cooled reactor, they circulate the gas as an exchange medium and generate steam.
Nuclear's big advantage in shipboard operation is despite lower efficiency... you don't need enormous fuel bunkers. The fuel is self-contained in a pressure-vessel and it lasts for a few years even at full power.
There are direct-cycle gas-phase nuclear reactors that run at high temps. The superheated gas is discharged from the core to the turbine where it does work then the cooled gas is returned to the core. They aren't practical yet.
Notice that's different than the British gas-cooled reactor, they circulate the gas as an exchange medium and generate steam.
Nuclear's big advantage in shipboard operation is despite lower efficiency... you don't need enormous fuel bunkers. The fuel is self-contained in a pressure-vessel and it lasts for a few years even at full power.
Plecostomus
Commodore
I never understood this. The typical reactor plant for a ship is much less powerful than any given civilian plant. A couple hundred megawatts at most. Typical power-plant ashore generates over a thousand megawatts... Honestly I don't think the Nimitz-style reactor setup could generate THAT much power.
Still a neat idea though.
Are you seriously painting all Muslins with the ugly brush it appears you are?Do you realize how many Muslims live in France?
Everyone hates France, Muslims and is scared of Teh Nuclear. It's only logical to bring this up at this time. I mean, CLEARLY no good could ever come of French Muslims and their Standardized Nuclear Program.
The invasion begins Tuesday. We'll teach them that oil is the ONLY acceptable power-source! Says so in the Bible! LONG LIVE HYDROCARBON JESUS!
(sarcastic mode = off
)
Maybe not in BWRs, but CANDUs get up to a couple hundred Celsius.
Maybe they were only talking about downtown San Francisco, in the middle of the night in the winter?
Plecostomus
Commodore
CANDU reactors are a form of PWR which is what American reactors mostly are. PWRs (CANDU included) have a steam-exit temp much lower than a typical coal fired plant.
Oh don't get me wrong, it's one of those "engineering things" that really doesn't effect the end result: electricity is made. The lower efficiency per unit of fuel "consumed" is one of the reasons it's hard to make nuclear power competitive against combustion plants.
It's a complex issue, I'm glad I switched majors.
Oh don't get me wrong, it's one of those "engineering things" that really doesn't effect the end result: electricity is made. The lower efficiency per unit of fuel "consumed" is one of the reasons it's hard to make nuclear power competitive against combustion plants.
It's a complex issue, I'm glad I switched majors.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I came across this:
Why are these things not being built beneath houses?
Because at some point they'll have to be dug up and replaced. Can't very well do that when it's under someone's house.
Wow, toucy touchy.
What you're not getting is that with a reactor like this we could build new homes that are completely automated in everything, we wouldn't need to worry about saving on power because each house or 2 houses has their own reactor that generates more than enough power to run every electrical appliance and MORE. Imagine your sofa under the floor and at the touch of a button it's brought up, no more energy saving lightbulbs, no more gas central heating is required only electric heating, our dependancy on gas would be none existant overnight.
Now as for your 'it needs to be buried' dilemma, under each house you could have a basement/vault and within this basement/vault there is a small elevator shaft going down into the Earths surface, the reactors could be placed onto this elevator and sent down into the Earth and then sealed at the top and have a 'tamper sensor' fitted for added security. When the reactor runs out of fuel somebody comes out, unlocks the seal and brings the reactor back to the surface and refuels it, they then send it back down.
But you're forgetting the main point of these Toshiba reactors, their reactors for one building (likely an apartment block) would not need refuelling for 40 years! now imagine just how long it would last just for a house! probably 100 years or more!
I came across this:
Why are these things not being built beneath houses?
Because at some point they'll have to be dug up and replaced. Can't very well do that when it's under someone's house.
Wow, toucy touchy.
What you're not getting is that with a reactor like this we could build new homes that are completely automated in everything, we wouldn't need to worry about saving on power because each house or 2 houses has their own reactor that generates more than enough power to run every electrical appliance and MORE. Imagine your sofa under the floor and at the touch of a button it's brought up, no more energy saving lightbulbs, no more gas central heating is required only electric heating, our dependancy on gas would be none existant overnight.
Now as for your 'it needs to be buried' dilemma, under each house you could have a basement/vault and within this basement/vault there is a small elevator shaft going down into the Earths surface, the reactors could be placed onto this elevator and sent down into the Earth and then sealed at the top and have a 'tamper sensor' fitted for added security. When the reactor runs out of fuel somebody comes out, unlocks the seal and brings the reactor back to the surface and refuels it, they then send it back down.
But you're forgetting the main point of these Toshiba reactors, their reactors for one building (likely an apartment block) would not need refuelling for 40 years! now imagine just how long it would last just for a house! probably 100 years or more!
The cost for what you propose is so prohibitive that I won't even delve into how ludicrous the rest of you post is.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Please delve, until you delve your opinion matters not.
Okay, I'll admit that I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the temperatures in coal plants and move on.CANDU reactors are a form of PWR which is what American reactors mostly are. PWRs (CANDU included) have a steam-exit temp much lower than a typical coal fired plant.
Oh don't get me wrong, it's one of those "engineering things" that really doesn't effect the end result: electricity is made. The lower efficiency per unit of fuel "consumed" is one of the reasons it's hard to make nuclear power competitive against combustion plants.
It's a complex issue, I'm glad I switched majors.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. The "elevator shaft" concept you propose, in itself, would cost many times more to build than the price of the house.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
No it wouldn't.
Well, that depends on how deep you want it to go. I'd imagine it would be comparable to shafts for geothermal heating, which are still a bit too expensive to be cost-competitive for new houses, though there are plenty of environmentalists who will shell out extra. (The reactor would be very heavy, so you'd need pretty hard-core elevator cables, not to mention the cost of the reactor itself.) But if you just wanted it to go a few metres deep, that should be doable.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. The "elevator shaft" concept you propose, in itself, would cost many times more to build than the price of the house.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Though, I don't really see the purpose of the elevator shaft in the first place.
Plecostomus
Commodore
Okay, I'll admit that I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the temperatures in coal plants and move on.CANDU reactors are a form of PWR which is what American reactors mostly are. PWRs (CANDU included) have a steam-exit temp much lower than a typical coal fired plant.
Oh don't get me wrong, it's one of those "engineering things" that really doesn't effect the end result: electricity is made. The lower efficiency per unit of fuel "consumed" is one of the reasons it's hard to make nuclear power competitive against combustion plants.
It's a complex issue, I'm glad I switched majors.
Yes, please do. I have over two dozen manuals, text-books and reference works at my disposal here and that's just within reach. The rest of the books are across the room.
I may have switched majors but steam-power is a major MAJOR hobby of mine. One that I enjoy more than ever thanks to two semesters of engineer-babble.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I'm not talking about a skyscraper sized elevator here, just a level that goes up and down that can bring the reactor to the surface for refuelling and then drop it back down into a thick concrete walled chamber that can then be sealed over with a vault door of some kind.
How hard or expensive can that possibly be. I could build an elevator like that myself, hell with the concrete at my disposal I could build the concrete chamber myself aswell.
How hard or expensive can that possibly be. I could build an elevator like that myself, hell with the concrete at my disposal I could build the concrete chamber myself aswell.
Last edited:
