Subtitle: Power Outage Doomed Fukushima - is San Onofre Next?
The nuclear power plant in San Onofre in Southern California, now shut down permanently, today announced it was evacuating non-essential personnel in advance of a wildfire that threatens the plant. see link.
From the article, "The fires do not pose a safety issue at San Onofre at this time, but we continue to coordinate with regional agencies to ensure we remain apprised of evolving conditions." This is code-speak for "these wildfires can get out of hand quickly, with the high temperatures and high winds."
With the San Onofre plant shut down, there are still electrical loads to maintain cooling water pumps in service that keep spent fuel in the cooling pools sufficiently cool. This was a problem at Fukushima, as they had no electrical power after the earthquake and tsunami, and their emergency generators were flooded.
It would not take much for the wildfires to burn near or under the transmission lines that bring power to the San Onofre plant. It is certainly hoped that this does not happen. But, if it were to happen, it is also hoped that the plant management has ample supplies of diesel fuel with which to run the emergency generators to keep the spent fuel properly cooled.
The last thing California needs is a nuclear radiation release from San Onofre, with the resulting evacuation of millions of local residents.
Someone should put in a call to Chevron, or ExxonMobil, or one of the other oil companies, and order up a couple of tank-trucks of diesel fuel to be brought on-site and kept there just in case.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Prosecuting Those Who Force a Scientist to Resign
Subtitle: Is Intimidation Free of Consequences?
Is there, or should there be, a penalty for intimidating or oppressing a scientist merely for joining the advisory board of an organization that is skeptical of the mainstream climate change consensus? We have that very situation today, as a noted scientist, Lennart Bengtsson, publicly resigned from the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation
(GWPF) due to what he wrote is "enormous group pressure from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me." Also, "Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship, etc." Several blogs carried the story, see here, see here, and see here. (JoAnne Nova, WattsUpWithThat, and Climate Etc., respectively)
It is notable that GWPF is a non-profit UK organization. If this occurred in the United States, one remedy would be prosecution of those who applied the pressure for violation of the federal statute Title 18, United States Code, Section 241.
18 U.S.C. 241: (in pertinent part)
Is there, or should there be, a penalty for intimidating or oppressing a scientist merely for joining the advisory board of an organization that is skeptical of the mainstream climate change consensus? We have that very situation today, as a noted scientist, Lennart Bengtsson, publicly resigned from the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation
 |
| Attorney arguing his case |
It is notable that GWPF is a non-profit UK organization. If this occurred in the United States, one remedy would be prosecution of those who applied the pressure for violation of the federal statute Title 18, United States Code, Section 241.
18 U.S.C. 241: (in pertinent part)
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; . . .
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. . . ."
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. . . ."
Being a federal statute, prosecution would be by the US Department of Justice and one of the US Attorneys. Investigation to obtain evidence sufficient to indict would be by one of the federal investigatory agencies, perhaps the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The first question becomes, what evidence is there to support the existence of a conspiracy between two or more persons to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate a scientist to resign a board position?
A second question is, what right or privilege provided by the U.S. Constitution or laws of the Unites States is at issue here?
Evidence can be from testimony of eyewitnesses, documents, electronic communications, and many other forms. Presumably, Dr. Bengtsson has sufficient evidence on which he based his decision to resign. There could be a number of hurdles to obtain the evidence, perhaps claims of privilege, or exemption from discovery, or other obstacles. The judge would rule on the admissibility of the evidence.
The Constitutional right or privilege at issue, again recognizing that GWPF is not in the United States, would be the First Amendment right to freedom of association. The U.S. Supreme Court gave a definition of freedom of association when it stated that
"the Court has recognized a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment - speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion. The Constitution guarantees freedom of association of this kind as an indispensable means of preserving other individual liberties." (Roberts v United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984)) There are many, many other cases on the same issue.
As above, the sentence upon conviction of 18 U.S.C. 241 ranges from a fine to imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both. While it is the wrong jurisdiction for Dr. Bengtsson to seek some redress under this law, perhaps such a U.S. trial, conviction, and sentence would serve as a caution to others who seek to intimidate, oppress, or threaten those who wish to join a society that espouses the skeptical position on man-made global warming. I am not versed in the law of the UK, however, a legal advisor in the UK could provide guidance to Dr. Bengtsson on any similar basis for a criminal or even civil case.
Whether a U.S. Attorney would prosecute the case is a different matter. However, it would require only one such trial and conviction, with the attendant publicity, for most would-be intimidators to back off. Given the current U.S. President's public stance on man-made global warming, it is unlikely that such a prosecution would occur. However, Presidents change every 4 or 8 years, so perhaps a new President in two more years will take a different approach.
Disclosure: my position as a skeptic on the causes of climate change is given in some detail in previous blog posts, (see My Journey, Warmists are Wrong, Chemical Engineer Takes on Warming, Cold Winters, Climate Science is Not Settled, and others)
A related article on SLB discussed criminal prosecution of those who fund research into climate science, and report out as skeptics of the man-made global warming issue. see link for "Are Climate Skeptics Legally Liable for Criminal Negligence."
Mandatory Disclaimer: The above is written to provide an overview of a general area of the law, and is not intended, nor is it to be relied on, as legal advice for a particular set of facts. Anyone seeking legal advice should contact a qualified attorney.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Monday, May 12, 2014
Bad News for Nuclear - Natural Gas from Sludge
Subtitle: Steam Hydrogasification Places Upper Limit on Natural Gas Price
One of the arguments made by nuclear power proponents is that nuclear is very profitable when natural gas prices are high. They maintain that natural gas prices have been high in the past, and although low at the moment, the prices will rise again. On this basis, they maintain that nuclear power plants should be built and operated now.
It is interesting to consider the problem. Natural gas in large quantities causes the price to drop, which is not news but is basic economics of supply and demand. For many decades, natural gas wells produced an adequate supply and the price was low. But,
conventional gas wells began to have production declines and the gas price increased. Then, a fairly new technology was applied, hydraulic fracturing, and more natural gas is available today from shale formations. Natural gas prices is once again very low, at approximately $4 per million Btu - US prices. Overseas prices are somewhat higher.
Recent research conducted by Dr. Chan Park of University of California at Riverside shows promise in producing methane from the sludge from waste treatment plants. See link. I was privileged to hear Dr. Park make a presentation a few months ago to chemical engineers, in which he described the research, the current status, and the encouraging economics and yields. The process was evaluated by the US Department of Energy, DOE, who had this to say:
"The steam hydrogasification reaction, which CERT engineers began developing in 2005, has been found to be 12 percent more efficient, with 18 percent lower capital costs, compared to other mainstream gasification technologies when evaluated by the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy."
Dr. Park has patented the process, which turns any carbonaceous material including waste from yards, wood, food, sewage sludge, into transportation fuels or natural gas (methane). The pilot plant stage is completed, and the demonstration plant is now in process. An agreement with the City of Riverside, California, has been reached in which raw material, sludge, will be provided from the waste treatment plant.
With further development, Dr. Park's SHG process (steam hydrogasification) will produce commercial quantities of methane. The process is renewable, the feedstock is virtually free, and as long as people eat and excrete, the sludge will be available.
The natural gas from the process would be priced at approximately $7 per million Btu, as I recall Dr. Park's presentation. That places an upper limit on natural gas pricing, which effectively eliminates the hopes of the nuclear power advocates for ever being able to compete in the electricity market.
i have no commercial interest in the SHG process, nor any agreement with Dr. Park. I would invite any readers who are interested to contact Dr. Park, especially those who might want to invest. This is a technology that is sound, based on fundamental chemical engineering principals, and has great promise. Contact information can be found at the UCR website: see link.
The greatest benefit, though, is it puts another nail in the nuclear coffin.
See previous article on Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete: (see link)
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
One of the arguments made by nuclear power proponents is that nuclear is very profitable when natural gas prices are high. They maintain that natural gas prices have been high in the past, and although low at the moment, the prices will rise again. On this basis, they maintain that nuclear power plants should be built and operated now.
It is interesting to consider the problem. Natural gas in large quantities causes the price to drop, which is not news but is basic economics of supply and demand. For many decades, natural gas wells produced an adequate supply and the price was low. But,
 |
| Waste Treatment Plant - source: EPA |
Recent research conducted by Dr. Chan Park of University of California at Riverside shows promise in producing methane from the sludge from waste treatment plants. See link. I was privileged to hear Dr. Park make a presentation a few months ago to chemical engineers, in which he described the research, the current status, and the encouraging economics and yields. The process was evaluated by the US Department of Energy, DOE, who had this to say:
"The steam hydrogasification reaction, which CERT engineers began developing in 2005, has been found to be 12 percent more efficient, with 18 percent lower capital costs, compared to other mainstream gasification technologies when evaluated by the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy."
Dr. Park has patented the process, which turns any carbonaceous material including waste from yards, wood, food, sewage sludge, into transportation fuels or natural gas (methane). The pilot plant stage is completed, and the demonstration plant is now in process. An agreement with the City of Riverside, California, has been reached in which raw material, sludge, will be provided from the waste treatment plant.
With further development, Dr. Park's SHG process (steam hydrogasification) will produce commercial quantities of methane. The process is renewable, the feedstock is virtually free, and as long as people eat and excrete, the sludge will be available.
The natural gas from the process would be priced at approximately $7 per million Btu, as I recall Dr. Park's presentation. That places an upper limit on natural gas pricing, which effectively eliminates the hopes of the nuclear power advocates for ever being able to compete in the electricity market.
i have no commercial interest in the SHG process, nor any agreement with Dr. Park. I would invite any readers who are interested to contact Dr. Park, especially those who might want to invest. This is a technology that is sound, based on fundamental chemical engineering principals, and has great promise. Contact information can be found at the UCR website: see link.
The greatest benefit, though, is it puts another nail in the nuclear coffin.
See previous article on Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete: (see link)
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Improved Ethanol Yield by Cellulosic Process
Subtitle: Genetic Engineering Provides 160 Percent Ethanol Yield Increase
A recent paper by Van Acker, R. et al. in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., Volume 111, Issue 2, p.845-850 (2014) see link , describes an improved means to create ethanol from cellulose. The researchers genetically modified the lignin in poplar trees so that more of the cellulose converts to ethanol compared to unmodified trees. The increased yield varied, but some trees showed a 160 percent increase in yield. That is somewhat reduced by the reduction in mass of the trees. Clearly, more research will be needed to sort out the best yielding trees from the worst, and to define the economics.
Poplar trees are fast-growing, approximatelyone foot four to eight feet per year, and grow on marginal land that is not suitable for crops. [see link for USDA information on Poplar trees]
. Ethanol from trees grown on such marginal land has been possible for some time, but not yet economical. The problem, or one of the problems, has been the low ethanol yields from natural lignin. It can be done, but the yields are low and the costs per unit of ethanol are high. Marginal land for ethanol-producing biomass is preferred so that crops can be used for food, not fuel. The food crops price will decrease, since the market will be only food and not food plus fuel. Lower food prices are a good thing, especially if one is poor or on a limited income.
The research showed that it is possible to genetically modify the lignin rather than improve the process on natural lignin. This research may be a watershed moment in science, of which there have been very few in all of history. The ability to grow trees on hillsides, and in poor soils has long been with us. But, having those trees converted economically into ethanol, a transportation fuel that substitutes for gasoline, has been a difficult problem.
From the paper's Abstract: "Lignin is one of the main factors determining recalcitrance to enzymatic processing of lignocellulosic biomass. Poplars (Populus tremula x Populus alba) down-regulated for cinnamoyl-CoA reductase (CCR), the enzyme catalyzing the first step in the monolignol-specific branch of the lignin biosynthetic pathway, were grown in field trials in Belgium and France under short-rotation coppice culture. Wood samples were classified according to the intensity of the red xylem coloration typically associated with CCR down-regulation. Saccharification assays under different pretreatment conditions (none, two alkaline, and one acid pretreatment) and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation assays showed that wood from the most affected transgenic trees had up to 161% increased ethanol yield. Fermentations of combined material from the complete set of 20-mo-old CCR–down-regulated trees, including bark and less efficiently down-regulated trees, still yielded ∼20% more ethanol on a weight basis. However, strong down-regulation of CCR also affected biomass yield. We conclude that CCR down-regulation may become a successful strategy to improve biomass processing if the variability in down-regulation and the yield penalty can be overcome."
This is the type of scientific advance that is worth pursuing for the long-term welfare. The US presently mandates that all gasoline sales include ten percent by volume ethanol, with a 15 percent provision also in some instances. However, the ethanol is currently made from corn fermentation. The gasoline sold in the US is approximately 9 million barrels per day, or 136 billion gallons per year. The ethanol, at 10 percent, is then 13 billion gallons per year. Replacing that ethanol from corn with ethanol from cellulose would reduce corn prices, and the prices of many foods that depend on corn price.
This is a research effort that bears watching.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
A recent paper by Van Acker, R. et al. in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., Volume 111, Issue 2, p.845-850 (2014) see link , describes an improved means to create ethanol from cellulose. The researchers genetically modified the lignin in poplar trees so that more of the cellulose converts to ethanol compared to unmodified trees. The increased yield varied, but some trees showed a 160 percent increase in yield. That is somewhat reduced by the reduction in mass of the trees. Clearly, more research will be needed to sort out the best yielding trees from the worst, and to define the economics.
Poplar trees are fast-growing, approximately
 |
| Poplar trees (Populus alba) - image: USDA |
The research showed that it is possible to genetically modify the lignin rather than improve the process on natural lignin. This research may be a watershed moment in science, of which there have been very few in all of history. The ability to grow trees on hillsides, and in poor soils has long been with us. But, having those trees converted economically into ethanol, a transportation fuel that substitutes for gasoline, has been a difficult problem.
From the paper's Abstract: "Lignin is one of the main factors determining recalcitrance to enzymatic processing of lignocellulosic biomass. Poplars (Populus tremula x Populus alba) down-regulated for cinnamoyl-CoA reductase (CCR), the enzyme catalyzing the first step in the monolignol-specific branch of the lignin biosynthetic pathway, were grown in field trials in Belgium and France under short-rotation coppice culture. Wood samples were classified according to the intensity of the red xylem coloration typically associated with CCR down-regulation. Saccharification assays under different pretreatment conditions (none, two alkaline, and one acid pretreatment) and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation assays showed that wood from the most affected transgenic trees had up to 161% increased ethanol yield. Fermentations of combined material from the complete set of 20-mo-old CCR–down-regulated trees, including bark and less efficiently down-regulated trees, still yielded ∼20% more ethanol on a weight basis. However, strong down-regulation of CCR also affected biomass yield. We conclude that CCR down-regulation may become a successful strategy to improve biomass processing if the variability in down-regulation and the yield penalty can be overcome."
This is the type of scientific advance that is worth pursuing for the long-term welfare. The US presently mandates that all gasoline sales include ten percent by volume ethanol, with a 15 percent provision also in some instances. However, the ethanol is currently made from corn fermentation. The gasoline sold in the US is approximately 9 million barrels per day, or 136 billion gallons per year. The ethanol, at 10 percent, is then 13 billion gallons per year. Replacing that ethanol from corn with ethanol from cellulose would reduce corn prices, and the prices of many foods that depend on corn price.
This is a research effort that bears watching.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Saturday, May 10, 2014
The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 15
Subtitle: Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules
This article begins the second theme of the Truth About Nuclear Power series, with the first theme being nuclear power is uneconomic, the second theme is nuclear power is
unsafe to operate. There are many who will immediately say that nuclear power is safe, and point to various facts to support their position. These next few articles will refute that argument and show that, not only are nuclear plants not safe, they grow more unsafe each year.
For those who have not read the articles on nuclear power being uneconomic, please see this link.
The approximately one dozen articles on nuclear safety will include (1) the relationship between plant operators and the regulatory commission, NRC, and show that safety regulations are routinely relaxed to allow the plants to continue operating without spending the funds to bring them into compliance. (2) Also, the many, many near-misses each year in nuclear power plants will be discussed. (3) The safety issues with short term, and long-term, storage of spent fuel will be a topic. (4) Safety aspects of spent fuel reprocessing will be discussed. (5) The health effects on people and other living things will be discussed. The three major nuclear disasters (to date) will be discussed, (6) Chernobyl, (7) Three Mile Island, and (8) Fukushima. (9) The near-disaster at San Onofre will be discussed, and (10) the looming disaster at St. Lucie. (11) The inherent unsafe characteristics of nuclear power plants required government shielding from liability, or subsidy, for the costs of a nuclear accident via the Price-Anderson Act. (12) Finally, the serious public impacts of evacuation and relocation after a major incident, or "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" in the language used by the Price-Anderson Act, will be the topic of an article.
Safety Rules are Bent
The NRC has been working with nuclear power plant owners to routinely weaken safety regulations, which allows the plants to continue operating, according to a 2011 investigation by AP (Associated Press). see link The plant owners argue that the safety regulations in question are overly-safe and unnecessary. Yet, many of the relaxed regulations are alarming. It is doubtful that the general public is aware of just how dangerous the plants are in the first place, and made even more unsafe by relaxing the regulations.
From the AP investigation: "Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.
This article begins the second theme of the Truth About Nuclear Power series, with the first theme being nuclear power is uneconomic, the second theme is nuclear power is
 |
| Universal sign for nuclear radiation |
For those who have not read the articles on nuclear power being uneconomic, please see this link.
The approximately one dozen articles on nuclear safety will include (1) the relationship between plant operators and the regulatory commission, NRC, and show that safety regulations are routinely relaxed to allow the plants to continue operating without spending the funds to bring them into compliance. (2) Also, the many, many near-misses each year in nuclear power plants will be discussed. (3) The safety issues with short term, and long-term, storage of spent fuel will be a topic. (4) Safety aspects of spent fuel reprocessing will be discussed. (5) The health effects on people and other living things will be discussed. The three major nuclear disasters (to date) will be discussed, (6) Chernobyl, (7) Three Mile Island, and (8) Fukushima. (9) The near-disaster at San Onofre will be discussed, and (10) the looming disaster at St. Lucie. (11) The inherent unsafe characteristics of nuclear power plants required government shielding from liability, or subsidy, for the costs of a nuclear accident via the Price-Anderson Act. (12) Finally, the serious public impacts of evacuation and relocation after a major incident, or "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" in the language used by the Price-Anderson Act, will be the topic of an article.
Safety Rules are Bent
The NRC has been working with nuclear power plant owners to routinely weaken safety regulations, which allows the plants to continue operating, according to a 2011 investigation by AP (Associated Press). see link The plant owners argue that the safety regulations in question are overly-safe and unnecessary. Yet, many of the relaxed regulations are alarming. It is doubtful that the general public is aware of just how dangerous the plants are in the first place, and made even more unsafe by relaxing the regulations.
From the AP investigation: "Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.
Failed
cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented
containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and
thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong
investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an
accident."
The US plants were originally designed for only 40 years operation. Safety margins were used that would allow the plants to run for 40 years, and a bit more as good engineering practice. It is the "bit more" that is at issue. One example is the brittleness of the reactor vessel. That is rather an important item, as the reactor vessel contains the nuclear fuel, plus pressurized water at high temperature. The AP report states the criterion for brittleness was relaxed not once, but twice. Brittle metal in reactor vessel walls are less likely to withstand periodic pressure surges, but instead will crack. Additionally, some plants seek an operating extension beyond the original 40 years, which is a recipe for more frequent failures as the plants age well beyond their design life.
Another quote: "One 2008 NRC report blamed 70 percent of potentially serious
safety problems on "degraded conditions." Some involve human factors,
but many stem from equipment wear, including cracked nozzles, loose paint,
electrical problems, or offline cooling components." A specific instance was burst steam generator tubes at Indian Point in 2000 that released radioactive steam into the air. Another instance cited is cracked nozzles on the reactor vessel head at Davis-Besse.
Finally, many pipes are corroded and leaking liquids into the environment. Valves are also leaking, many at rates that are above the allowable limits.
Conclusion
This, then, is the state of nuclear power plants in the US. The equipment is old, has been run hard, often at 100 percent capacity or slightly more for years on end. How does a plant run at greater than 100 percent capacity? Some equipment gets replaced with larger equipment, in a procedure known as debottlenecking, then the remaining equipment runs at greater than its design of 100 percent. Upsets occur, causing pressure variations or pressure surges. Electrical equipment degrades over time, pipes corrode, valves leak, all of which are normal and expected as process plants age. The fact is, the nuclear power plants are grinding down, quite literally in many cases. The safety factor that was there, once, is no longer there. Nuclear safety is compromised by bending the rules.
Previous articles in the Truth About Nuclear Power series are found at the following links. Additional articles will be linked as they are published.
Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete
Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct
Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water
Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant
Part Six – Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs
Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power
Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules
Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go
Part Thirteen - US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized
Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
Part 15 - this article
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term
Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
Part 15 - this article
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term
Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe
Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things
Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion
Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much
Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants
Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion
Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear
Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants
Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Four by Sixteen Rule for Heat Exchangers
Subtitle: Easy Estimation for Heat Exchanger Area
An earlier post (see link) discussed a quick but accurate way to mentally determine process pipe size. I was asked if there is a similar technique for sizing a process heat exchanger? It turns out, Yes, there is. This post describes the technique.
Estimating Exchanger Size
The design of heat exchangers is quite complex, but a few quick and easy decisions can make the design process suitable for initial design, costing, and economic evaluation. A practicing process engineer frequently needs to assess the process for the benefits and costs of installing a new heat exchanger. This is true for oil refineries, petrochemical plants, chemical plants, water treatment, and other processes where fluids must be heated or cooled. The good engineer will not waste time and computing resources doing a detailed heat exchanger evaluation for each potential application, but can speed things along by a quick but accurate estimation procedure.
This procedure begins with a "Four" and a "Sixteen", just as the pipe-sizing method does. In this case, the "Four" is a four-foot diameter shell for a shell-and-tube heat exchanger. The "Sixteen" is for two elements: the tubes are sixteen feet long, and there are 1600 tubes in the tube bundle. (The area is actually 5,027 square feet).
This configuration, 1600 tubes of length 16 feet, for 3/4 inch OD tubes on triangular pitch with 1/4 inch spacing, provides a heat exchange area of almost exactly 5,000 square feet. The tubes will fit nicely inside a 4-foot diameter shell, with about 23 percent unused area in the tubesheet.
Knowing that 5,000 square feet is an exchanger 4 feet diameter and 16 feet long, one can use the process calculations to determine the required surface area. Then, almost the same rules of pipes and sizing apply to heat exchangers. There are a few caveats. If one has, for example, a required area of 2,500 square feet, or half of the 5,000 in the base case, one can determine the shell size as 4 divided by 1.4, or approximately the square root of 2. Working this backwards, what number can be multiplied by 1.4 to yield 4? The answer is just slightly less than 3, as 3 times 1.4 is 4.2. We can use 34 inches, slightly less than 36 inches, and a quick check shows that 1.4 x 34 is 47.6, close enough to 48 inches. The 2,500 square foot area can be obtained in a 34 inch shell with 16 foot tubes.
But, what if the required area is greater than 5,000 square feet? Perhaps 7,500 square feet is required. Then, a caveat applies. Heat exchangers, in general, are less costly with long tubes and small-diameter shells. However, longer tubes require that the velocity in each tube is rather high, and pressure drop is also higher compared to shorter tubes. If we maintain the 16 foot tube length, the shell diameter is then 4 times 1.22, or 4.88 feet or 58 inches (the 58.6 actual value is rounded down to 58). It might be better to maintain the 4 foot shell, and use 24 foot tubes in this case. How do we know that 24 foot tubes will work? Because, the required area is 50 percent greater (7500 / 5000 is 1.5), and 1.5 times 16 feet long tubes is 24 feet long.
Some caveats: this technique is for shell and tube exchangers, using English units of inches, feet, and square feet. It does not work well for other designs, although a clever engineer can probably develop similar quick estimating procedures. Also, for highly viscous fluids, shorter tubes are desirable to minimize pressure drop. There are also various tube inserts to increase turbulence in low-velocity but shorter tubes.
Some caveats: this technique is for shell and tube exchangers, using English units of inches, feet, and square feet. It does not work well for other designs, although a clever engineer can probably develop similar quick estimating procedures. Also, for highly viscous fluids, shorter tubes are desirable to minimize pressure drop. There are also various tube inserts to increase turbulence in low-velocity but shorter tubes.
In hopes that this article helps the various process engineers, in whose shoes I also once walked.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Monday, May 5, 2014
The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 14
Subtitle: A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
This article discusses a few economic issues including project cancellations due to unfavorable economics, the desperation of reactor vendors, nuclear advocates tout low operating costs and ignore capital costs, nuclear utilities never ask for a rate decrease when building a new nuclear plant, and high nuclear costs are buried in a large customer base. Future articles will discuss nuclear safety, research into new forms of nuclear power, and the driving force behind countries that choose nuclear power in spite of its numerous and serious disadvantages.
Previously, the articles on The Truth About Nuclear Power emphasized the economic aspect by showing that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards, (six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits due to reverse economy of scale, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed, (eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands, and (thirteen) US nuclear plants are heavily subsidized but still cannot compete. Links to previous articles are found at the conclusion of this article.
Cancellations Due To Economics
Several planned projects were cancelled due to unfavorable economics, including the South Texas Nuclear Project expansion. That project was to double the existing plant output by installing two more reactors. A Japanese firm made several cost estimates to the prospective owners, with each estimate higher than the last. At $17 billion, the vendor admitted they had not provided the final figure. The project collapsed. The cities of Austin, and San Antonio were approached as potential owners and customers, however Austin (wisely) said an emphatic NO. San Antonio signed on for a while, but finally said No also after no final project cost was to be had from the vendor.
Desperate Reactor Vendors
Reactor vendors are desperate to sell plants and subsidize new plants in UK, Turkey, and India, perhaps also in China. This was mentioned briefly in Part 11, which discusses the French nuclear industry. A French firm contracted with India to provide a multiple-reactor power complex, but had to agree to only 10 cents per kWh as the sales price (they asked for 16 cents) and had to sweeten the deal by financing the construction at only 4.8 percent interest over 25 years.
[Update - 6/24/2014: Russia's Rusatom also is desperate to sell nuclear plants and signed a sweetheart deal with Hungary to finance two new reactors - 80 percent of the construction cost at approximately 4 percent interest over 21 years, beginning after plant startup. "Hungary will be required to repay its debt in euros -- at variable rates of 3.95-4.95 percent interest -- over a term of 21 years, starting after the new blocks are commissioned." see link --- end update]
Bait and Switch
Nuclear proponents emphasize low operating costs but ignore high capital costs. This is like buying a new car that gets 1,000 miles per gallon. Sure, the operating costs would be fifteen gallons of fuel per year, or roughly $60 in the US at current prices. That is the price of one tank-full for most modern cars. But, the car payments would be ten times what a normal car would cost. Instead of $500 per month, the bank will charge $5,000 each month. Few consumers would choose such a car because they simply cannot afford to pay $5,000 per month for a car. Yet, this is exactly what nuclear proponents are advocating for their nuclear power plants. Even the older, paid-for plants cannot compete in today's and the foreseeable future's market on low operating costs.
Never a Rate Decrease
To the best of my knowledge, no utility has ever asked for a rate decrease to build a nuclear plant. If nuclear power could really be produced for 2 or 3 cents per kWh, one would expect that the customers would see their power bills decrease when the nuclear plants are built. Instead, high power prices are disguised by burying them in a huge customer base. Perhaps that is the reason that, again to my knowledge, nuclear plants are not merchant plants but are owned by the utilities themselves. A merchant plant would need to sell its power on a contract to the utility. That contract would necessarily have the price much higher to recover the capital costs and the operating costs.
Conclusion
The articles thus far have provided at least 20 reasons why nuclear power plants are uneconomic and therefore should not be built nor operated. The main issue is the use of nuclear fuel pellets to provide heat for the water to boil to steam. All else follows from that. The plants are huge to obtain economy of scale, they are more costly to increase safety, they have larger equipment and pipes because more steam flow is required for the same output of electricity, prices must be much higher but are disguised or buried among a huge customer base, they use too much water for cooling, and even France has multiple problems even after massive subsidies for decades, plus many, many other reasons described in the first 13 articles.
Part Thirteen - US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized
Part 14 - this article
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
This article discusses a few economic issues including project cancellations due to unfavorable economics, the desperation of reactor vendors, nuclear advocates tout low operating costs and ignore capital costs, nuclear utilities never ask for a rate decrease when building a new nuclear plant, and high nuclear costs are buried in a large customer base. Future articles will discuss nuclear safety, research into new forms of nuclear power, and the driving force behind countries that choose nuclear power in spite of its numerous and serious disadvantages.
Previously, the articles on The Truth About Nuclear Power emphasized the economic aspect by showing that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards, (six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits due to reverse economy of scale, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed, (eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands, and (thirteen) US nuclear plants are heavily subsidized but still cannot compete. Links to previous articles are found at the conclusion of this article.
Cancellations Due To Economics
Several planned projects were cancelled due to unfavorable economics, including the South Texas Nuclear Project expansion. That project was to double the existing plant output by installing two more reactors. A Japanese firm made several cost estimates to the prospective owners, with each estimate higher than the last. At $17 billion, the vendor admitted they had not provided the final figure. The project collapsed. The cities of Austin, and San Antonio were approached as potential owners and customers, however Austin (wisely) said an emphatic NO. San Antonio signed on for a while, but finally said No also after no final project cost was to be had from the vendor.
Desperate Reactor Vendors
Reactor vendors are desperate to sell plants and subsidize new plants in UK, Turkey, and India, perhaps also in China. This was mentioned briefly in Part 11, which discusses the French nuclear industry. A French firm contracted with India to provide a multiple-reactor power complex, but had to agree to only 10 cents per kWh as the sales price (they asked for 16 cents) and had to sweeten the deal by financing the construction at only 4.8 percent interest over 25 years.
[Update - 6/24/2014: Russia's Rusatom also is desperate to sell nuclear plants and signed a sweetheart deal with Hungary to finance two new reactors - 80 percent of the construction cost at approximately 4 percent interest over 21 years, beginning after plant startup. "Hungary will be required to repay its debt in euros -- at variable rates of 3.95-4.95 percent interest -- over a term of 21 years, starting after the new blocks are commissioned." see link --- end update]
Bait and Switch
Nuclear proponents emphasize low operating costs but ignore high capital costs. This is like buying a new car that gets 1,000 miles per gallon. Sure, the operating costs would be fifteen gallons of fuel per year, or roughly $60 in the US at current prices. That is the price of one tank-full for most modern cars. But, the car payments would be ten times what a normal car would cost. Instead of $500 per month, the bank will charge $5,000 each month. Few consumers would choose such a car because they simply cannot afford to pay $5,000 per month for a car. Yet, this is exactly what nuclear proponents are advocating for their nuclear power plants. Even the older, paid-for plants cannot compete in today's and the foreseeable future's market on low operating costs.
Never a Rate Decrease
To the best of my knowledge, no utility has ever asked for a rate decrease to build a nuclear plant. If nuclear power could really be produced for 2 or 3 cents per kWh, one would expect that the customers would see their power bills decrease when the nuclear plants are built. Instead, high power prices are disguised by burying them in a huge customer base. Perhaps that is the reason that, again to my knowledge, nuclear plants are not merchant plants but are owned by the utilities themselves. A merchant plant would need to sell its power on a contract to the utility. That contract would necessarily have the price much higher to recover the capital costs and the operating costs.
Conclusion
The articles thus far have provided at least 20 reasons why nuclear power plants are uneconomic and therefore should not be built nor operated. The main issue is the use of nuclear fuel pellets to provide heat for the water to boil to steam. All else follows from that. The plants are huge to obtain economy of scale, they are more costly to increase safety, they have larger equipment and pipes because more steam flow is required for the same output of electricity, prices must be much higher but are disguised or buried among a huge customer base, they use too much water for cooling, and even France has multiple problems even after massive subsidies for decades, plus many, many other reasons described in the first 13 articles.
Previous articles in the Truth About Nuclear Power series are found at the following links. Additional articles will be linked as they are published.
Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete
Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct
Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water
Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant
Part Six – Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs
Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power
Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules
Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go
Part 14 - this article
Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term
Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term
Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe
Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things
Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion
Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much
Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants
Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion
Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear
Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants
Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
