|
|
Post by wilful on May 28, 2012 11:09:48 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on May 28, 2012 11:44:24 GMT 9.5
Well, lets start by looking at where the sites will be: www.ska.gov.au/anzska/Documents/Aus-NZ_map_array_5500.pdfThe majority of the sites are in and around Murchison, WA. It's quite far away from significant sources of cooling water and electricity transmission infrastructure. The big question is, what is the power consumption of these arrays? That will decide what the options should be: - Build power lines (preferably HVDC to eliminate low-frequency AC hum) from planned power stations on the coast or existing ones. There's sites that surround Murchison, but none in the area itself:
www.horizonpower.com.au/projects.html#!servicemap/0/
You could upgrade existing gas plants or even build something like one or two NuScale SMRs on the coast and feed it to the SKA sites in Murchison. This is the heavy electricity consumption option.
- Build combined solar/battery storage/diesel generator stations. This might be able to save on diesel fuel costs compared to diesel alone, especially given that the diesel would have to be trucked in. The power draw of the arrays should be fairly constant, so controlling the system mightn't be as hard as you think it would be.
- Plain old diesel generators. This is the budget option and probably the most likely one to be picked. The project is about radio astronomy, not renewable energy, so money in the budget diverted to overly complicated energy supply solutions is money not spent on building a world-class radio telescope array.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 28, 2012 11:50:36 GMT 9.5
Good find wilful. Unfortunately they don't say how much power (or energy) they are going to require - do you know if this is reported anywhere? I agree a SMR or two sounds ideal.
It's silly really that they don't include nuclear in their list of options already - from an engineering-science viewpoint, it is crazy not to, and they are physicists running it!
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 28, 2012 12:18:12 GMT 9.5
An SMR would be the best option for remote power (assuming there is one available to actually buy and the political crap is dealt with). Non-availability of suitable reactors probably does have a lot to do with the option not being listed.
Of course receive only radio telescopes shouldn't require too much power (though the equipment used probably wouldn't be the most energy efficient given that they'll be optimising for performance) so unless they get into active SETI renewables with battery backup or just plain old diesel generators wherever they can't connect to the grid could probably do the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on May 28, 2012 12:25:29 GMT 9.5
Barry, the closest thing I can find for power consumption is this page on one of the precursor projects, the Murchison Widefield Array: The MWA is planned to be a 128-tile system, so the power consumption of the site could theoretically be 140kW. I don't know how big the SKA_Low array will be, but the power consumption for the whole of the Murchison area could be on the order of 5 MW perhaps, including communications backhaul. I haven't read through it all yet, but here's a siting report from the SKA website: www.skatelescope.org/uploaded/59278_120520_SOWG.Report.pdfSeems to indicate that SKA_Low will draw about 3.7MW. That's probably too little power to justify nuclear power given the area involved. I'm a great believer in appropriate solutions, and solar PV backed up by diesel generators and batteries is probably the best option given the scale. |
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 28, 2012 13:20:00 GMT 9.5
LancedDendrite, agreed, if this is the scale. I think the smallest feasible size for an SMR would be about 40-50 MWe (although a 10 MW version of the 4S nuclear battery is proposed, and when you take account accommodation etc. it might be feasible).
Regarding their context statement - I guess one person's definition of 'a lot of power' is different to another's!
|
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on May 28, 2012 13:36:35 GMT 9.5
LancedDendrite, agreed, if this is the scale. I think the smallest feasible size for an SMR would be about 40-50 MWe (although a 10 MW version of the 4S nuclear battery is proposed, and when you take account accommodation etc. it might be feasible). A Toshiba 4S might be fine if you built on the coast and used a long HVDC link to get the power to the site - 10MW would account for any transmission losses easily. Probably quite expensive and absolute overkill though. As for accomodation, I think the facilities are going to be pretty much remotely operated except for maintenance visits. Well, it's a lot of power for such a remote area. |
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 28, 2012 13:52:21 GMT 9.5
I think the 4S is proposed to be air-cooled, much as the EBR-II reactor was - in the desert out at Arco, Idaho. But I agree, it seems to be overkill, unless they start marketing sub-megawatt nuclear batteries.
|
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on May 29, 2012 2:11:54 GMT 9.5
I think the 4S is proposed to be air-cooled, much as the EBR-II reactor was - in the desert out at Arco, Idaho. But I agree, it seems to be overkill, unless they start marketing sub-megawatt nuclear batteries. I would argue that large mines like Olympic Dam would be much better opportunities for remotely-sited SMRs. The potential for using electrified mining methods similar to open-cut coal mining ones used at coal-fired power stations could be quite profitable if cheap power without a massive logistical tail can be utilised (unlike diesel). |
|
fre
Quark
Posts: 2
|
Post by fre on Jul 20, 2012 15:31:57 GMT 9.5
I think the 4S is proposed to be air-cooled, much as the EBR-II reactor was - in the desert out at Arco, Idaho. But I agree, it seems to be overkill, unless they start marketing sub-megawatt nuclear batteries. I would argue that large mines like Olympic Dam would be much better opportunities for remotely-sited SMRs. The potential for using electrified mining methods similar to open-cut coal mining ones used at coal-fired power stations could be quite profitable if cheap power without a massive logistical tail can be utilised (unlike diesel). The article recommended using fast reactors so that natural uranium, depleted uranium, and existing nuclear waste could be used as fuel. However, fast reactors have so far been sufficiently problematic that implementing them has been discouraged. Author Richard Martin, in his book "Super Fuel..." has much to say about that; he feels that the problems associated with fast reactors are of such magnitude that they are unlikely to be implemented on a significant scale. He greatly favors the liquid fluoride thorium reactor instead. |
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on Jul 20, 2012 18:30:07 GMT 9.5
Plentiful Energy explains why there were so many cul-de-sacs that Fast Breeder Reactor designs encountered. In short, the key design features required for an LMFBR to work economically are metal fuel and a sodium pool (as opposed to a loop) for coolant. No commercial LMFBR built has had these features. Pretty much only the EBR-II which was used for the IFR project had both. These features when combined make the design simpler, safer and allow for the use of pyroprocessing as a reprocessing technique, thus closing the fuel cycle. LMFBRs can scale down quite well, as the Toshiba 4S design demonstrates. The GE-Hitachi S-PRISM design is a 311 MWe reactor, a size well-suited for First World power grids. LMFBRs are roughly as economical and scalable as LFTRs when it comes to stationary power generation. Where LFTRs have an advantage is if closed Brayton Cycle turbines are used (substantially reducing cooling water requirements) and a slight proliferation resistance advantage due to the unsuitability of U233 that has been laced with U232 for nuclear warheads. The real niche I can see Molten Salt Reactors (The Denatured MSR in particular but also LFTR) doing well in is electrical power supply for commercial shipping and navies, in addition to off-grid power supply which is often talked about by Kirk Sorenson of Flibe Energy. I haven't read SuperFuel, but based on the following reviews: overscope.cynistar.net/archives/311-Review-SuperFuel-by-Richard-Martin.htmlatomicinsights.com/2012/06/identifying-antinuclear-slants-in-richard-martins-superfuel.htmlyesvy.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/superfuel-book-i-wanted-to-love.htmlatomicpowerreview.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/review-super-fuel-thorium-green-energy.htmlIt's a bit shoddy. It focuses a lot on denigrating the existing nuclear industry, LWRs and LMFBRs instead of talking about the real competition - cheap, dirty coal.
|
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 2, 2012 11:04:24 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on Sept 2, 2012 19:15:50 GMT 9.5
|
|
