(09-17-2013 12:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:01 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This should be a market driven issue....period. When and if solar technology becomes efficient enough to merit this...people will choose to add this to their homes. In some places this is already possible. Here in NC...not so much. There is not enough sunlight or panel efficiency yet to merit this.

Not enough sunlight or are the panels still just too expensive to justify installation?

Coefficient of efficiency. You are correct. It can be both.

(09-17-2013 03:16 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:01 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This should be a market driven issue....period. When and if solar technology becomes efficient enough to merit this...people will choose to add this to their homes. In some places this is already possible. Here in NC...not so much. There is not enough sunlight or panel efficiency yet to merit this.

Not enough sunlight or are the panels still just too expensive to justify installation?

There is plenty of sunlight in NC.

NC's power rates are fairly low though, so it does increase the ROI period. Eastern NC is a different story though. Many homes out east are serviced by municipal owned utility companies and they pay rates on par with the northeast, but anyone serviced by Duke is paying around 10 cents per kilowatt hour.

North Carolina has become one of the most popular areas for utility scale solar installations because of the amount of sunlight that we get and the low cost of land acquisition. We also have an attractive state tax credit, but as installation costs continue to decline, that is becoming less and less of a factor.

Germany has had several days now where they have had 50% of their daytime power supplied by solar energy and they get a fraction of the sun that NC does.

The last time I checked the NC State solar site and checked my location it was a horrible deal to add solar at this time. If the efficiency or as stated above the price goes down that would for sure change.

(09-17-2013 02:58 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Again, partial information is very dangerous.

1 - You get a very small amount of plutonium from an assembly... and create a mess to get it. No longer are your fuel pellets nearly contained in their rods. Not worth the hassle and risks IMO. If some of those loose pellets make it back into the reactor water (not hard), you risk destroying your fuel assemblies into a pile of rubble.

Also worth noting is the dangers involved with shipping weapons grade plutonium from Russia to the USA. And while I'm thinking about it, why wouldn't Russia use their own Plutonium?

The danger of shipping it is probably less than the danger of leaving it with the Russians to handle properly - especially since these agreements date to the collapse of the Soviet Union. From their perspective, they're probably much happier getting the money and not having to worry about the materials. But I think the risk of shipping is pretty manageable as long as you make the worst that can happen being that a concrete cask sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

(09-17-2013 02:58 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  2 - The boron clause you wrote is half right. I found new blends of fuel rod in 2006 that extended the life of the fuel rods by about 40% that AREVA now uses, so your data is out of date. Boron doesn't cause the rods to "wear out" in 5 years, but it does cause corrosion. Each fuel cycle is designed for 2 years. At the end of the 2 years, you discard 1/3 of your assemblies and shuffle the rest to the outside of the core. Your new 1/3 (about 75 fuel assemblies) fuel goes into the middle for a symmetrical distribution to keep the pressure from blowing your reactor dome off.

I'll defer to you on this.

(09-17-2013 02:58 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  The radiation naturally decays in those 6 years, and reduces irradiation to the point where it is not effective enough to run the reactor... has nothing to do with the boron. What damages fuel is debris in your cooling water, as it enters as exits the reactor at a very high speed. Commercial fuel is 6% enriched, and it is only 1-2% enriched at the end of use.

So where your article says 3%, it means 50%... which is still partial to fiction.

I don't know what you mean by "the radiation naturally decays" or "reduces irradiation".

But, the amount of enrichment is not the same as the energy that can be utilized from the fuel's fission. I believe that some of these reactors rely not just on the fission of U-235, but also on subsequent fission of by-products in the lifecycle. Note that the Travelling Wave reactor specifically indicates that it uses depleted uranium - what would otherwise be used as tank ammunition. n% enriched is only significant because it helps reach criticality, not because only that n% of the uranium is useful as fuel.

I'll also note that those are the corporate websites that I linked to ... the Travelling Wave reactor is backed by Bill Gates while the Transatomic site is a company founded from MIT post-graduate and staff that came up with the concept. Go to the front-page of the Transatomic site and watch the TedX presentation. I was looking for a graphic on the full fuel cycle starting with U235, but either can't remember where it is or I saw it in a video presentation, so can't link it here.

Some of the articles about Transatomic questioned whether they could get a yield of 98% from the fuel cycle, but they didn't question that current reactors only utilize a small percentage of the energy that can be utilized.

A Pair of MIT Scientists Try to Transform Nuclear Power - Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/pikeresearch...ear-power/ Wrote:Molten salt reactors (MSRs) can achieve much higher burn-up factors than conventional uranium reactors.  In other words, while conventional reactors harness only around 3% of the available energy in a given volume of uranium, MSRs can capture much higher percentages – up to 98%, according to Transatomic (I should note that the nuclear experts I consulted for SuperFuel believe that burn-up factors of 50% are more realistic).  Beyond that, the company is not releasing details of its patented reactor technology.

(09-17-2013 03:56 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 03:16 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:01 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This should be a market driven issue....period. When and if solar technology becomes efficient enough to merit this...people will choose to add this to their homes. In some places this is already possible. Here in NC...not so much. There is not enough sunlight or panel efficiency yet to merit this.

Not enough sunlight or are the panels still just too expensive to justify installation?

There is plenty of sunlight in NC.

NC's power rates are fairly low though, so it does increase the ROI period. Eastern NC is a different story though. Many homes out east are serviced by municipal owned utility companies and they pay rates on par with the northeast, but anyone serviced by Duke is paying around 10 cents per kilowatt hour.

North Carolina has become one of the most popular areas for utility scale solar installations because of the amount of sunlight that we get and the low cost of land acquisition. We also have an attractive state tax credit, but as installation costs continue to decline, that is becoming less and less of a factor.

Germany has had several days now where they have had 50% of their daytime power supplied by solar energy and they get a fraction of the sun that NC does.

Thanks. I was being a little sarcastic with the "sunlight" comment. I grew up in eastern NC, so I keep up with the news there. One particular eastern county has the highest electric rates in the state as a result of poor decisions made in years past.

I live 45 miles from the coast. I pay $113 per month electric bill (I have mine averaged) for a 2100 sq ft home. I did recently add a new HVAC plant in 2011 that has made a huge difference. The new heat pumps are awesome. I put $5500 in a new unit that instantly saved me 45% on my bill. I was actually shocked..and pleased.

I relay this info to those that have a HVAC system over 10 years old. The payback for adding a new system is well worth the investment.

KB one of the low end builders. You better believe the installation is poor and the quality of panels poor. I looked at a KB home just for grins, they were trying to heat and cool 2750 sq. ft. with a 2 ton heat pump. I told the realtor NFW, if they added a second unit post construction (it was a completed home) a lot of the hardware would have to be exposed on the exterior of the home. Bought same size home from custom builder who used 1.5 and 2.5 ton units to heat and cool the same sq. ft.

(09-17-2013 07:01 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  KB one of the low end builders. You better believe the installation is poor and the quality of panels poor. I looked at a KB home just for grins, they were trying to heat and cool 2750 sq. ft. with a 2 ton heat pump. I told the realtor NFW, if they added a second unit post construction (it was a completed home) a lot of the hardware would have to be exposed on the exterior of the home. Bought same size home from custom builder who used 1.5 and 2.5 ton units to heat and cool the same sq. ft.

IMO..Putting the money into R value and adding super high efficiency HVAC is a far better today than solar panels as far as ROI.

I read about thin foil photovoltaics that one day may be incorporated into exterior walls and surfaces. There is even research being done on paints that could produce current. All of this could one day change the paradigm drastically.

(09-17-2013 07:14 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 07:01 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  KB one of the low end builders. You better believe the installation is poor and the quality of panels poor. I looked at a KB home just for grins, they were trying to heat and cool 2750 sq. ft. with a 2 ton heat pump. I told the realtor NFW, if they added a second unit post construction (it was a completed home) a lot of the hardware would have to be exposed on the exterior of the home. Bought same size home from custom builder who used 1.5 and 2.5 ton units to heat and cool the same sq. ft.

IMO..Putting the money into R value and adding super high efficiency HVAC is a far better today than solar panels as far as ROI.

I read about thin foil photovoltaics that one day may be incorporated into exterior walls and surfaces. There is even research being done on paints that could produce current. All of this could one day change the paradigm drastically.

3rd floor of my new house is only partially finished I'm going to try the Blue Foam insulation when I complete it. It's supposed to keep insulate so well you "almost" don't need a heat a cooling system.

(09-17-2013 07:20 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 07:14 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 07:01 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  KB one of the low end builders. You better believe the installation is poor and the quality of panels poor. I looked at a KB home just for grins, they were trying to heat and cool 2750 sq. ft. with a 2 ton heat pump. I told the realtor NFW, if they added a second unit post construction (it was a completed home) a lot of the hardware would have to be exposed on the exterior of the home. Bought same size home from custom builder who used 1.5 and 2.5 ton units to heat and cool the same sq. ft.

IMO..Putting the money into R value and adding super high efficiency HVAC is a far better today than solar panels as far as ROI.

I read about thin foil photovoltaics that one day may be incorporated into exterior walls and surfaces. There is even research being done on paints that could produce current. All of this could one day change the paradigm drastically.

3rd floor of my new house is only partially finished I'm going to try the Blue Foam insulation when I complete it. It's supposed to keep insulate so well you "almost" don't need a heat a cooling system.

cool...This may be what you are talking about.... I have a friend that added a room to his house that has a vaulted ceiling. He used 5" thick styrofoam panels in the ceiling. You can stand on a ladder and touch the ceiling and feel no heat even on the hottest day. Schit works damn well.

I45owl Wrote:But, the amount of enrichment is not the same as the energy that can be utilized from the fuel's fission. I believe that some of these reactors rely not just on the fission of U-235, but also on subsequent fission of by-products in the lifecycle. Note that the Travelling Wave reactor specifically indicates that it uses depleted uranium - what would otherwise be used as tank ammunition. n% enriched is only significant because it helps reach criticality, not because only that n% of the uranium is useful as fuel.

Quote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/pikeresearch...ear-power/ Wrote:
Molten salt reactors (MSRs) can achieve much higher burn-up factors than conventional uranium reactors. In other words, while conventional reactors harness only around 3% of the available energy in a given volume of uranium, MSRs can capture much higher percentages – up to 98%, according to Transatomic (I should note that the nuclear experts I consulted for SuperFuel believe that burn-up factors of 50% are more realistic). Beyond that, the company is not releasing details of its patented reactor technology.

Why does commercial 6% enriched last 6 years, and naval 95% enriched last 25 years with smaller mass? The enrichment is the percentage of U-237 vs. U-235. U-237 is what makes magic happen, and U-235 what is predominately found in the ground. U-235 is an inert rock, harmless to humans and what the Norfolk media is trying to say will kill locals thru water supplies if minded in VA (propaganda). Centrifuges separate the small amounts of U-237 from the mined rock. The enrichment most certainly is the amount of power you will extract.

MSR's are a great idea IMO, but the devil is in the details. It's one of those easier said than done things, from what I know.

The Gestapo will eventually tell us what to do in todays Obama's World.
Imagine a lot of useless or less than stellar homegrown Obama green ideas will come down from
on high in the next three years.