Anon has a power fantasy
Anon has a power fantasy
No.250341473
>fantasy setting has magic and flying creatures
>still using horses as main transportation
No.250341651
>>250341473 (OP) #
>setting has nuclear energy
>still using coal as main energy source
You're viewing a single thread.
Both of these can be explained with the same reasoning.
Capitalism!
Didn't know that capitalism made people blow the miniscule dangers of nuclear power out of proportion and create irrational fear
The by now miniscule risk of meltdown is not the only downside to nuclear power compared to renewables.
There's the fact that a nuclear power plant takes a decade or more to build and make operational and we need to replace fossil fuel energy production NOW. In comparison, gigantic solar arrays and wind turbine parks can be ready in a matter of months.
Then there's the nuclear waste. There's been discovered one truly forever safeplace to store it in the world, deep down into a mountain in Finland (afair, could be Norway). Even if we (unreasonably) assume that it can all fit there, transporting all the radioactive waste of a world reliant on nuclear energy to Finland would be an environmentally ruinous nightmare.
Lastly, nuclear reactors need cool water to function efficiently and safely. Global warming, the very thing proponents say they're the best solution for, is making nuclear plants less effective and less safe.
In conclusion, renewables are by far the best solution, not nuclear energy.
a nuclear power plant takes a decade or more to build
That's largely due to waste, not the actual process of safe construction. If there's public will, nuclear projects could be fast-tracked without compromising safety, though the costs would probably go up:
But those were far from the only costs. They cite a worker survey that indicated that about a quarter of the unproductive labor time came because the workers were waiting for either tools or materials to become available. In a lot of other cases, construction procedures were changed in the middle of the build, leading to confusion and delays. Finally, there was the general decrease in performance noted above. All told, problems that reduced the construction efficiency contributed nearly 70 percent to the increased costs.
By contrast, R&D-related expenses, which included both regulatory changes and things like the identification of better materials or designs, accounted for the other third of the increases. Often, a single change met several R&D goals, so assigning the full third to regulatory changes is probably an over-estimate.
So, while safety regulations added to the costs, they were far from the primary factor. And deciding whether they were worthwhile costs would require a detailed analysis of every regulatory change in light of accidents like Three Mile Island and Fukushima.
As for the majority of the cost explosion, the obvious question is whether we can do any better. Here, the researchers' answer is very much a "maybe." They consider things like the possibility of using a central facility to produce high-performance concrete parts for the plant, as we have shifted to doing for projects like bridge construction. But this concrete is often more expensive than materials poured on site, meaning the higher efficiency of the off-site production would have to more than offset that difference. The material's performance in the environment of a nuclear plant hasn't been tested, so it's not clear whether it's even a solution.
The above focuses on costs, but there's also some discussion about time as well (e.g. waiting for tools and materials).
nuclear waste
At least in the US, we have plenty of space for that. Most of Nevada is barren, and isn't likely to be used by people for anything important. There's also research into recycling spent nuclear fuel into new fuel:
Spent nuclear fuel from power plants still has 95% of its potential to produce electricity
I don't know much about water use though, so that could absolutely be an issue in many parts of the world. I am interested in looking into efficient ways to desalinize water, which is important for a whole host of reasons.
In conclusion, renewables are by far the best solution, not nuclear energy.
The best solution is a mixture of both. We need an inexpensive baseline energy production. Solar, wind, etc are bursty by nature, so we'd need a large amount of energy storage in order to go full renewable. Until I see a practical, inexpensive way to store energy, I'm going to push for nuclear since it's a clean, stable energy supply.
As far as the waste goes, China is building molten salt reactors that can use the waste to run. The waste that those reactors produce has much shorter half lives, like days, and can be stored almost anywhere.
That being said, agreed that we would be better off investing in renewables, and getting the planet down to two or three reactors total. We can't go completely renewable, as we need the isotopes we create in nuclear reactors for medical reasons.
As far as the waste goes, China is building molten salt reactors that can use the waste to run. The waste that those reactors produce has much shorter half lives, like days, and can be stored almost anywhere
And I'm building a perpetual motion machine that can run forever on a single scoop of dirty cat litter 🙄
I agree that China says they're doing things that they have no ability to do, but in this case I'm pretty sure they're telling the truth. They're using the designs that the US created 40 years ago. Only reason they were never tested here is the cost and regulations. China can bypass both of those issues.
Yeah I think people don't appreciate how much the cost of renewables has gone down. If we were making a big push on fixing climate change two decodes ago, then nuclear would've been a good route to go. But that didn't happen, and looking at the cost of renewables now and the timelines needed for nuclear, it simply doesn't make sense anymore.
Though what Germany did with shutting down their nuclear plants was stupid. Keep existing nuclear going until all carbon emitting power generation is replaced, then consider replacing existing nuclear with renewables.
Renewables are a solution only in short term. The biggest issue with renewables is the relatively low power output. Our power demands will only grow in the future and eventually we're going to hit a wall with renewables. Long term nuclear is the way to go. Ideally we should be creating solar and wind parks and focus on making thorium reactors viable so we could switch from renewables to thorium.
Nuclear is the future, just not the kind of nuclear we're using right now.
Renewables are a solution only in short term
That's literally the opposite of true. What do you think the word "renewable" means? 🤦
The biggest issue with renewables is the relatively low power output
Which is not a problem when done on a larger scale by now.
Our power demands will only grow in the future and eventually we're going to hit a wall with renewables
Only if we keep doing half measures like now rather than go all in. Wind, solar, thermal and wave energy combined can more than cover the world's energy needs in perpetuity.
Long term nuclear is the way to go.
Nope. Which parts of "already made less effective and safe by climate change that will have become fat worse by the time we build just one nuclear plant, let alone replace all fossil fuel power" did you not understand?
By that time, nuclear power will be rendered all but useless by the necessary conditions no longer existing. Renewables aren't so fragile.
Nuclear is the future
It really is not. By the time the thorium reactors that have been 10 years away for 30 years arrive, it'll be too late. The very problem they were supposed to fix will have rendered them inoperable.
That's literally the opposite of true. What do you think the word "renewable" means? 🤦
Let's say a perpetual motion machine exists and you can create infinite energy from it, but it takes a lot of space and makes very little energy (let's say 400wh) Would it solve the energy question? The answer is not really. Theoretical you have infinite energy, but in practice you're still making a finite amount of energy at any given time. If our energy consumption exceeds what the infinite energy source creates then it doesn't solve the energy question. You can make "infinite" amount of energy from renewables, that's what renewable means. However if the energy throughput generated by renewables is less than our consumption then we still need a different source.
Which is not a problem when done on a larger scale by now.
And what will we do when all the space is used to and we still need more energy?
it takes a lot of space and makes very little energy
That's not true of renewable energy, so your analogy has already fallen apart. It's an untrue stereotype concocted by people trying to hold on to their fossil fuel profits.
if the energy throughput generated by renewables is less than our consumption
It isn't.
then we still need a different source.
And thus we don't.
And what will we do when all the space is used to and we still need more energy?
Well for one thing, most sources of renewable energy can be built places where a huge nuclear power plant can't, such as in the ocean, lakes, on hills or even mountains. In deserts. On a slight incline. Somewhere without a cold stream.
If anything, renewable energy is much MORE space efficient since it doesn't need a huge flat area and the aforementioned rarer and rarer stream.
I had more in comment that got fucked up. But from your comment it's becoming a pretty clear you're in makebelief land when it comes to renewables. Just look up how much energy renewables make in a year and then look up fossil fuels. All renewables combined make less energy than gas, which makes the least energy of all fossil fuels. And half of the renewable energy come from hydropower which means solar and wind make up even less global energy. But somehow renewables can meet our global energy demands and can expand anywhere (while still being cheap to build) all the while everything else is completely unviable.
Absolutely ludicrous.
That's literally the opposite of true. What do you think the word "renewable" means? 🤦
Let's say a perpetual motion machine exists and you can create infinite energy from it, but it takes a lot of space and makes very little energy (let's say 400wh) Would it solve the energy question? The answer is not really. Theoretical you have infinite energy, but in practice you're still making a finite amount of energy at any given time. If our energy consumption exceeds what the infinite energy source creates then it doesn't solve the energy question. You can make "infinite" amount of energy from renewables, that's what renewable means. However if the energy throughput generated by renewables is less than our consumption then we still need a different source.
Which is not a problem when done on a larger scale by now.
And what will we do when all the space is used to and we still need more energy?
Only if we keep doing half measures like now rather than go all in. Wind, solar, thermal and wave energy combined can more than cover the world's energy needs in perpetuity.
We will run out of space. One nuclear reactor will generate more energy than multiple parks combined.
Nope. Which parts of "already made less effective and safe by climate change that will have become fat worse by the time we build just one nuclear plant, let alone replace all fossil fuel power" did you not understand?
By that time, nuclear power will be rendered all but useless by the necessary conditions no longer existing. Renewables aren't so fragile.
Less effective is roughly 1% less effective per 1 degree of ambient temperature rise. We will dead before it's going to have a significant impact.
It really is not. By the time the thorium reactors that have been 10 years away for 30 years arrive, it'll be too late. The very problem they were supposed to fix will have rendered them inoperable.
You're thinking only in terms of the current century, I'm thinking beyond the current century. We most likely need renewables to quickly get away from fossil fuels, but eventually we will also move away from renewables because unless we build a Dyson sphere renewables are not enough to meet our future energy demands.
Edit: I don't know what fucked up my precious edit but I'm not going to fix that on mobile.
I won't comment on what's true worldwide, but at least in Australia, a report from 2014, a decade ago, found that it would be more economical to invest fully in renewables rather than starting up a nuclear industry.
The notable difference between Australia and some other countries like America is that at the moment, we have no nuclear generators. So we have no capacity in terms of expertise in designing, building, operating, and maintaining nuclear generators whatsoever, and would be starting an industry from scratch, which obviously will be more expensive than merely scaling up an existing industry in places that have it.
Yeah, just getting nuclear waste disposal and whatnot started up would be very expensive, despite having a ton of space to put said waste, since there are likely all kinds of regulations around moving such waste between states and territories.
That said, Australia surely needs some electric backbone for overnight use, and the goto solution for renewables is batteries, which are quite expensive at scale. So I'd like to see the numbers here.
So, what you're talking about here is essentially the concept of "baseload power", which is a very common talking point in anti-renewables conversation, including by well-meaning people who have simply come to accept it because of how often it gets mentioned in the media and in online conversations.
But it turns out that we have known for over a decade that a mix of different renewable technologies do not need any base-load power stations to operate reliably.
From your article:
concentrated solar thermal with 15 hours of thermal storage 15-20%; and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids. (Contrary to some claims, concentrated solar with thermal storage does not behave as base-load in winter; however, that doesn’t matter.)
The real challenge is to supply peaks in demand on calm winter evenings following overcast days. That’s when the peak-load power stations, that is, hydro and gas turbines, make vital contributions by filling gaps in wind and solar generation.
So basically the concentrated solar w/ thermal storage acts as a battery. I'm interested to know what the costs look like (is that the salt reactor thing I've heard about). And if you have lots of hydro available, then yeah, you can probably get away with it, and may even be able to pump water so the hydro station can act as a battery. However, hydro isn't practical in many areas, and moving electricity long distances may be too lossy.
I'm interested in the development of nuclear microreactors, which can be transported where they're needed. I think they could potentially replace hydro in areas where it's not available. So as areas transition to more renewables, these could operate as a backup in case simulations don't match reality.
I'd love to go 100% renewable, I just don't think that's feasible at the moment. But I could absolutely be wrong, I may need to read up on the latest energy storage options.
Rubbish dump methane to electricity is cheap and effective. The Canberra mugga lane tip has had a pilot plant~~, not sure if it's still running~~ generating 37 GWh a year
Hydro on the mainland is pretty much just Snowy Hydro. There was a project from a former government to make that pumped hydro. I don't think it has yet been finished. I don't know whether the project has been cancelled
37 GWh, now that's a "random" number
Solar thermal - yes, the leading technology is a field of heliostat mirrors focusing sunlight on a tower, melting and heating salt. That system can easily hold onto the heat in their salt for use at night
CSIRO in 2014 thought it was possible. I trust they did the maths right.
You can extract hydrogen from water with electricity. You can store hydrogen in tanks. Burn hydrogen to produce electricity similar to natural gas, except without any carbon in the equation.
The main problem is storage since hydrogen is so small. But yeah, it's absolutely a great idea as a battery of sorts, I just don't know what the costs look like.
I think mobile applications make more sense though, so things like trucks and forklifts. Those really benefit from quick refuels, so they could fit into places where fossil fuels dominate today.
The main problem is storage since hydrogen is so small.
Yes that is the problem. Maybe there's some chemistry that could help with this? I don't know I'm not a chemical engineer.
I think mobile applications make more sense though, so things like trucks and forklifts.
Also airplanes. Jet engines can run on hydrogen with little to no conversion. Problem there is the low density of hydrogen means airplanes need to be redesigned to have much larger tanks, and cryogenics need to be involved. Airbus has some ideas about this, but it's still very much in the concept phase.
But for transport trucks there's an interesting solution being tested in Germany where overhead wires are run over the highways, similar to overhead wires for trains. Trucks connect to that when on the highway. So the trucks would only need battery for making stops then they're off the highway and would recharge again when back on the highway. Seems like a good solution to me, but it's still being tested.
But hydrogen could replace natural gas for heating and for those who refuse to give up their gas stoves. But as you say, it's small so the gas pipes would need to be upgraded to have tighter seals for that to work.
Hydrogen is too inefficient for homes, the better bet imo is a hard sell for induction cooktops. Hydrogen is just too hard to transfer (doesn't compress nicely), inefficient to produce, and there's going to be leakage issues.
It's much better to produce that hydrogen very close to where it'll be used. I'm imagining areas with lots of factories and whatnot producing hydrogen with excess solar and using it on site. The losses would be worth it because it's probably cheaper than batteries (esp considering time to charge batteries, runtime of equipment, etc).
The other problem Australia has is we have too little need for power. We couldn't build five nuclear plants to allow one at a time to be stopped for maintenance
We could probably use two, but then lose half our baseload supply for maintenance
That 2014 plan was for 100% renewable energy by 2020-something wasn't it?
There are other things you don't know obviously, among them the amount of time it takes to build a power plant, the insane amount of money it costs to build it, and the actual running costs!
A wizard did it.
For the nuclear energy one, i was thinking factorio. Which the reason no nuclear yet is that im just lazy.