Posted on 10/09/2006 9:52:33 AM PDT by thackney
SURRY, Va. — One of two nuclear reactors at Surry Power Station remained shut down Sunday after two electrical transformers that provide backup power to the plant quit working.
Unit Two was shut down around 6 p.m. Saturday after steam blew out some sheet metal, which landed on a power line that serves one of the backup transformers, said Richard Zher, a spokesman for Dominion Resources Inc., the Richmond-based power company that owns the plant. Officials weren't sure what caused the second transformer to shut down, Zher said.
That first reserve electrical transformer was repaired, and Dominion was working on the second, Zher said Sunday. A third transformer was not affected.
Backup diesel generators kicked in when the two transformers shut down, Zher said.
Zher said Dominion was investigating what caused steam to blow out the siding in a building where cold water is turned into steam, which powers a turbine that creates electricity through a generator.
"Once we have made that determination and resolved any problems, we will restart" the reactor, Zher said.
The plant issued an alert, as required by federal guidelines, he said.
"No one was injured and it didn't cause any threat to public health or safety," Zher said.
Surry's two nuclear units at Surry each produce 799 megawatts of electricity and provide 15 percent of the electricity in Dominion's service area.
Dominion, headquartered in Richmond, is one of the nation's largest producers of energy.
Sure. As an electrical generation source, they will never make up more than a few precent of demand and will always be more expensive than other sources. But they will make concerned people feel better. See Energy Density to understand why.
How many are a few, I think nukes only account for 10 percent in this country. Also are you talking about this country only?
By the way how is energy density a problem for wind power?
How much land area are you willing to give up?
The land is not "given up" so what is your point and how does it hurt wind power? I'm also hoping you'll commit to some percentage that we will never reach in this or any country.
The 100 Nuclear plants in the US account for about 12% of US's installed nameplate capacity but with its high capacity factor and low generating costs, nuclear plants actually generate over 20% of the megawatts consumed in the US. As of now, wind and solar combined generate less than 1%.
Figure 1. Net Generation Shares by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), Year-to-Date through July, 2006
Source: US DOE Energy Information Administration
Yes, but give me a number that wind will never amount to more than. Can we say "a few percent" = 5 percent?
You also didn't answer the density question. I'm starting to think that you don't really have a good reason to dislike wind power.
The vast majority of SROs are ex Navy Nukes, so if you want to blame anyone you can start there.
The most rosey predictions from the wind industry put it at around 6% of demand by 2020. That seems to be very optimistic when you consider that the some of the highest demand growth is in areas that are not good for wind (the South East especially) and the fact that proponents do not seem to factor the major expenses ($1 million + per mile) and significant regulatory/environmental/NIMBY hurdles in constructing tie lines to those ideal wind generation locations. I'd bet that by 2020, wind will be less than 2% of our total generation (if the tax breaks continue). Get back to me in 2020, and we'll see who's right. ;~))
Again. I have nothing against generating MW with wind. It's great. But it is not a good source for the grid. It would be ideal for use in batch production processes where they can deal with the natural fluctuations and adjust production as necessary. But grid operators must deal with meeting demand 24 hours a day, seven days a week, not just when the wind is blowing.
Wind power is almost useless? Um, would YOU quantify that? What percentage of the power used in Iowa could wind provide and still be considered useless?
What are you talking about? :p
The heat wave last July in CA is a compelling case. During that period of peak demand, you had CA wind capacity coming in with a CF of 5% or so. During that same period, we had Diablo Canyon 1 at 100% CF, Diablo Canyon 2 at 100% CF, SONGS-2 at 99%, and SONGS-3 at 99.9% CF. Based on those numbers, wind just can't carry the load, but the nukes can.
2 percent by 2020. Well thanks for giving me a number. Wind is currently at 1 percent given 12gw = 30 twhr/yr and we use 3000 twhr/yr. We are currently adding 3 gw/year of wind so at that rate we will be at 2 percent in 4 years. However, the rate of increase for wind power construction has held steady at about 25 to 30 percent per year.
OK what percentage of of Iowa's power is ALWAYS provided by wind power?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.