It's a great way to make tea, though. Nearly indispensable.
(trying to lighten the mood here).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Nuclear power
- Thread starter eledille
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
(trying to lighten the mood here).
They're still quite different.
Using electricity to electrolyze water while the power plant down the street is burning natural gas is insanely inefficient. I shake my head whenever some enviro-nut tries to do this. Put your clean electricity on the grid while you steam reform methane, and the environment and your bank account will both be much better off than if you try to use electrolysis to split water.
So fuel cells run on natural gas (with an off-vehicle factory adding energy to remove the C from the CH4), and they currently emit as much CO2 per mile as a Prius. You can improve efficiency a few % here or a few % there, but most of the processes are already over 50% efficient: there's no way you'll get a factor of 3 improvement in miles per CO2 no matter how hard you try.
On the other hand,
Uranium is dying to give you Carbon free heat. All you have to do is get enough of it together, and voila: power. The inefficiency of boiling water isn't a problem since a $10000 of uranium gives you a lot of much energy.
Of course, that's the engineering challenge, also: how do you safely get the right amount of power without everything going boom? and even if you have a could find a good way to do that, you'd need to spend a fortune convincing everyone that you could remain safe after an earthquake and a terror attack.
So, other than the reality that neither technology is practical, I think fuel cells are pretty different from nuclear plants.
Any source of energy could be useful if you can figure out how to harness it at the right price.
Some forms of energy storage are strictly inferior to other forms of energy storage, and therefore aren't worth further consideration.
brucet999
Active Member
Nuclear submarines don't need to surface except to take on food. They make water and oxygen. 6,000 miles is not a long tour. 12,000+ mi in WWII was not unusual.
Nuclear is the only propulsion system available that permits high sustained speeds while submerged. It's a horsepower thingy.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Using PV arrays or wind turbines to make hydrogen is insanity. This is not high school. That is the way politicians who took Nutrition or Geology to satisfy their science requirement think.
Today, using solar or wind to make hydrogen DOES increase atmospheric CO2. Why? Because if you hook the damn things into the grid, less hydrocarbons need to be burned to provide electricity to the nation.
Today, using solar or wind to make hydrogen DOES increase atmospheric CO2. Why? Because if you hook the damn things into the grid, less hydrocarbons need to be burned to provide electricity to the nation.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Curtailment.
We can idle turbines and panels due to lack of demand or we can use that energy that would have been wasted to split water.
It's gonna happen again tonight. I expect SPP to 'throw away' a few GWh of perfectly clean electricity because there isn't anywhere for it to go
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Westinghouse to declare bankruptcy March 31st. My bet is that Vogtle 3 & 4 will be abandoned sticking tax payers with a $6.5B bill and costing Georgia rate payers billions more. 50/50 that Summer will proceed....
Time to stop wasting public money on using nuclear power to generate electricity.
Time to stop wasting public money on using nuclear power to generate electricity.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Correction... $8.3B!
This madness must stop!!We keep building these boondoggles and expect something different. It's literally insane.
Zapped
Model S - PURE EV
Not much when you consider the US spends $500+ billion and China spends 140+ billion on military each yearCorrection... $8.3B!
We keep building these boondoggles and expect something different. It's literally insane.
What are we fighting over ? Ludicrous
Last edited:
but there are CO2 emissions. not from the wind farm, but from the natural gas plant down the road. Energy generation and energy usage are rather independent activities. My solar cells don't power my car: my solar cells power the grid, and the grid powers my car. My solar cells have more annual energy production than my car has energy consumption, but every mile I drive my Tesla causes more CO2 emission that would not have happened if I hadn't used that energy.
Using electrolysis to generate free Hydrogen causes far more CO2 emissions than using natural gas to generate Hydrogen. It doesn't matter if the owner of the electrolysis plant also happens to be the owner of a wind turbine. Put the clean electricity on the grid where it belongs, and use natural gas to create Hydrogen somewhat efficiently, and everyone is better off.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Nope... Keep reading...
Curtailment.
We can idle turbines and panels due to lack of demand or we can use that energy that would have been wasted to split water.
It's gonna happen again tonight. I expect SPP to 'throw away' a few GWh of perfectly clean electricity because there isn't anywhere for it to go
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Westinghouse files for bankruptcy:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-toshiba-nuclear-bankruptcy.html
"Now, it is unclear whether the company will be able to complete any of its projects, which in the United States are about 3 years late and billions over budget"
"Stan Wise, chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, said the utilities developing the Alvin W. Vogtle generating station in the state would have to evaluate whether it made sense to continue."
"To shepherd its case through Chapter 11, Westinghouse has hired a number of advisers, including the investment bank PJT Partners, the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges, and the consulting firm AlixPartners."
The guys with the $1,000 suits are now onboard. Time to give the construction workers a "short break" while the billions needed to complete the construction can be sorted out (or not). A lot of lawyers children are going to get free college educations paid for by someone.
It will be interesting to see who ends up footing the bill for this, even if it ends up getting finished. The ratepayers, or the U.S. Government. Maybe one possible outcome is that if the ratepayers get saddled with the cost, and power prices go up, then rooftop solar panels will start looking more attractive (barring them not being outlawed).
RT
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-toshiba-nuclear-bankruptcy.html
"Now, it is unclear whether the company will be able to complete any of its projects, which in the United States are about 3 years late and billions over budget"
"Stan Wise, chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, said the utilities developing the Alvin W. Vogtle generating station in the state would have to evaluate whether it made sense to continue."
"To shepherd its case through Chapter 11, Westinghouse has hired a number of advisers, including the investment bank PJT Partners, the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges, and the consulting firm AlixPartners."
The guys with the $1,000 suits are now onboard. Time to give the construction workers a "short break" while the billions needed to complete the construction can be sorted out (or not). A lot of lawyers children are going to get free college educations paid for by someone.
It will be interesting to see who ends up footing the bill for this, even if it ends up getting finished. The ratepayers, or the U.S. Government. Maybe one possible outcome is that if the ratepayers get saddled with the cost, and power prices go up, then rooftop solar panels will start looking more attractive (barring them not being outlawed).
RT
Scana (South Carolia Summer nuclear plants) begins 30 day evaluation of whether to continue with plant construction...
Scana to evaluate Summer options
Scana will evaluate various options during the coming 30 days, these include:
1. continuing with the construction of both new units;
2. focusing on the construction of one unit, and delaying the construction of the other;
3. continuing with the construction of one and abandoning the other;
4. abandoning both units.
Should an option involving abandonment of one or both units turn out to be the best option, he said, Scana will seek recovery under the provisions of South Carolina's Base Load Review Act.
RT
Scana to evaluate Summer options
Scana will evaluate various options during the coming 30 days, these include:
1. continuing with the construction of both new units;
2. focusing on the construction of one unit, and delaying the construction of the other;
3. continuing with the construction of one and abandoning the other;
4. abandoning both units.
Should an option involving abandonment of one or both units turn out to be the best option, he said, Scana will seek recovery under the provisions of South Carolina's Base Load Review Act.
RT
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
To reiterate my current viewpoint, there is nothing wrong with nuclear. It's natural, and arguably sustainable. If you can forgive the insult, humans just aren't smart enough to use it right now. I don't mean not smart enough to support building existing nuclear. I mean, not smart enough to design, sight, build and operate it with sufficient proficiency. The companies involved over the last few decades have failed in spectacular fashion.
Take Fukushima as an example. It should have been designed better. It should have been sighted better. It should have been operated better. The disaster it experienced should have been handled better. It's cleanup should be going better. Everything about it reeks of failure.
The good news is wind and solar are looking better each year. The only technical obstacle seemed to be storage and balancing, but Mr. Musk seems to be tackling this deficiency in his usual heroic fashion with Tesla Energy.
So while in theory I am not against nuclear, and in general I don't support closing nuclear ahead of fossil fuel plants, I am 100% behind building a 90%+ renewable energy future utilizing wind, solar, and mostly EVs. Public and industry support is still lacking from where it needs to be, but the right pieces are in place for that renewables future, largely due to the efforts of Tesla.
Honestly, while I wouldn't under normal circumstances support being fanatical over a person or company, I can't really fault it with Elon and Tesla. Whether the future turns out good or bad may very well rest with the success or failure of Tesla. Most people don't see it that way, but most people are wrong, and that's part of what makes Elon and Tesla so heroic.
Not to say we shouldn't critique shortfallings in their products. I might complain about this or that regarding one of their products or services, but I'll also give them my left you know what if they need it, because they are holding the brighter end of our potential futures in their hands right now. And no, that brighter future doesn't include commercial nuclear power.
I'm curious if James Hansen's viewpoint has changed any. In the beginning, I mirrored his own support for nuclear energy, but that was when Tesla was just a baby and we didn't know what would come of it yet, and the nuclear industry hasn't exactly presented a good impression of late.
Take Fukushima as an example. It should have been designed better. It should have been sighted better. It should have been operated better. The disaster it experienced should have been handled better. It's cleanup should be going better. Everything about it reeks of failure.
The good news is wind and solar are looking better each year. The only technical obstacle seemed to be storage and balancing, but Mr. Musk seems to be tackling this deficiency in his usual heroic fashion with Tesla Energy.
So while in theory I am not against nuclear, and in general I don't support closing nuclear ahead of fossil fuel plants, I am 100% behind building a 90%+ renewable energy future utilizing wind, solar, and mostly EVs. Public and industry support is still lacking from where it needs to be, but the right pieces are in place for that renewables future, largely due to the efforts of Tesla.
Honestly, while I wouldn't under normal circumstances support being fanatical over a person or company, I can't really fault it with Elon and Tesla. Whether the future turns out good or bad may very well rest with the success or failure of Tesla. Most people don't see it that way, but most people are wrong, and that's part of what makes Elon and Tesla so heroic.
Not to say we shouldn't critique shortfallings in their products. I might complain about this or that regarding one of their products or services, but I'll also give them my left you know what if they need it, because they are holding the brighter end of our potential futures in their hands right now. And no, that brighter future doesn't include commercial nuclear power.
I'm curious if James Hansen's viewpoint has changed any. In the beginning, I mirrored his own support for nuclear energy, but that was when Tesla was just a baby and we didn't know what would come of it yet, and the nuclear industry hasn't exactly presented a good impression of late.
I might quibble with details, but I think I agree with the gist of this - Nuclear can be practical, but with the innovations in renewables and storage technology, it's a risk we don't need to take except for specialized circumstances - and the renewables will be cheaper, too.
Similar threads
