GP: RE: Decentralizing power

["Weststeijn, Andries" <Andries.Weststeijn@essent.nl>]

Assuming that both a nuclear and coal plant are state of the art -and of the
same generating capacity- I would compare them as follows:

-ratio of operating and core maintenance personnel: 
   3 or 4 -to-1 (not 6 or 10 -to-1)
-need for car wash next to a fossil plant? 
   Not for an up-to-date plant 
-80% of revenue sent to fuel supplier? 
   Perhaps for a (cheap) natl gas plant but not for a coal plant
-and what percentage of nuke revenue will go to the bank instead of the fuel
supplier?
   (being about 3 times as high an investment)

Distributed power will sure make inroads and will be increasingly important,
and rightfully so.
But centralized power will not go away either (there being just too much
elec.power demand).

When comparing advanced forms of elec.power generation -including
distributed and sustainables like biomass, wind and solar- I would prefer to
compare them with advanced forms of centralized power generation.
(where would you place the PBMR, Rod?)

As I see it from a centralized power point of view, distributed power will
not be held back by the existing capacity level of centralized power.
Perhaps the rate of centralized power will decline as distributed power
picks up, but it will be quite a challenge for distributed power just to
cover the increase in elec. power demand. Let alone cut into the present
centralized power capacity base.

regards,
Andries Weststeijn
   
-----Original Message-----
From: AtomicRod@aol.com [mailto:AtomicRod@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 12:50 AM
To: kirk@3rivers.net; green-power@crest.org
Subject: GP: Decentralizing power



In a message dated 10/11/02 11:18:09 PM, kirk@3rivers.net writes:

>Nukes have another crippling flaw. They are high tech centralized power.
>That is the reason they are built, they fit in the centralized power
>paradigm which is a huge cash cow to a select few. Any analysis of
>centralized power should not restrict its scope to just CO2 and soot.
>Excluding evaluating the fragility of centralized systems in the light
>of
>terrorists, war, earthquake, civil unrest etc. etc. ignores potentially
>devastating consequences to society in general. I suppose we won't accept
>them as real until we experience a tragedy in the US.

Kirk:

I actually agree in general with your assessment of centralized power. 
Interestingly enough, the smallest nuclear power system I have seen is the 
size of a AA battery. It was designed to power a pacemaker for at least a 
decade with about 1/10th of an ounce of a decaying isotope. Beat the hell
out 
of going back under the knife to replace chemical batteries or having to
plug 
into a hole in your chest.

Nuclear fission can be done in tiny packages that could be distributed as 
readily as home air conditioners. They could be designed to supply reliable,

controllable, abundant power for decades without new fuel and without any 
connections to a grid. The owner of such a plant would truly be independent 
of centrally generated power or centrally produced and distributed fuels.

As a matter of fact, all of my personal experience with nuclear generation
is 
with plants that had no connection to any grid and which supplied lots of 
power with tiny amounts of fuel.

Interestingly enough, I would have a very difficult time naming any 
individuals that made a lot of money on nuclear energy. Instead, I can tell 
you that a typical nuclear plant employs about 600-1000 people in decent, 
well paying jobs and that communities that host nuclear plants are generally

clean and prosperous and have great school and recreation systems with low 
property taxes on most residents. In contrast, a typical oil or gas fired 
central power plant employs less than 100 people at the plant, has an on
site 
car wash freely available to employees, and sends more than 80% of its 
revenue to the fuel supplier.

Paradigms are indeed hard to break.

Rod Adams

____________________________________________________________________________
This discussion group is sponsored in part by: 
  * Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology,
http://www.crest.org
  * Global Environmental Options, http://www.geonetwork.org
Archives and related documents can be found at at:
http://www.green-power.com	


____________________________________________________________________________
This discussion group is sponsored in part by: 
  * Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology, http://www.crest.org
  * Global Environmental Options, http://www.geonetwork.org
Archives and related documents can be found at at: http://www.green-power.com