351–360 of 666 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironic that after Germany shut down some nuclear plants they had, they started importing more energy from France, which has nuclear power plants near the borders with Germany.
Actually Germany is a net exporter of electricity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did nobody notify me that the law of thermodynamics changed? It is not physicially possible to gain weight when you have a caloric deficit. Where would it even come from?
The laws of thermodynamics have not changed, but try examining a really-really-really-really-really high dimensional phase without getting tendrils/'tubes' that appear essentially random w.r.t. prior conditions. How would you know the direction of a volume of phase space with fairly significant perturbation across all the variables that can change? A flippant counter-example: eat only carbohydrates with a 1000 calori…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, nuclear would provide all the base load and it can we ramped up and down some too. Solar is far more limited.
Solar can be ramped down pretty trivially, we just don't currently because we want to use solar in preference to other power sources for environmental reasons and the contractual and communications structures to do it aren't there yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, the batteries are dangerous also, being lithium or sodium. These are potentially city block-size Note 7s, right?
Not when engineered properly. https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-saf... EDIT: Wide swaths of land aren't off limits to humans for decades when a lithium ion substation burns down.
A "transformer substation explosion" scenario is a good base for a comparison, since we have a lot of experience with them, and the scenario (within a city, near other buildings, with high-voltage wiring) is similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 4 new AP1000 reactors under construction in the United States. Unfortunately, they're over budget and behind schedule. UCS is if anything charitable to estimate $8 billion for a new reactor. http://www.enr.com/articles/41134-turnaround-eludes-nuclear-... Last spring, at the Plant Vogtle construction site near Waynesboro, Ga., executives representing Georgia Power, its lead contractors and trades groups gath…
That design seemed so promising. The first plant, in China, was supposed to come on line in 2013. Current date is mid-2017. The original structural design was revised for better earthquake resistance. Then there was some big problem with the coolant pump manufacturer.
Have we lost something? Have tradespeople lost the ability to deliver these massive projects on time and on budget? Their managers? Which layer(s) is/are dropping the ball.
The structural steel fabrication has become increasingly complex. Our workshop has become dependant on robots (a laser cutter and a 20 meter drill-line machine, and a small fleet of button clicking humans to do all the CAD modelling) that a breakdown can bring fabrication to a rapid grinding halt.
It makes me shudder a bit to imagine the technical complexity of the design and fabrication of a modern mega-project.
At least wind turbines are relatively simple in comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion Citation? Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors and it wasn't $1t.
> Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors That's what they said for Chernobyl too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We've got these things you know, batteries." Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective. "Nuclear lost. Its never coming back." There are currently 55 new power reactors under construction and scheduled to be in operation by 2020. China alone has 20 in active construction, with many more planned. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and...
Nuclear is a mess. You either are left with a waste problem that doesn't go away or a proliferation risk. The US government or successors will be subsidizing 20th century waste for hundreds of years. Energy storage is a problem, but a transient problem that can be addressed with a variety of storage techniques and backed up by natural gas.
I would really like to see investment in other types of reactors such as pebblebed, molten salt etc. If we don't build the stations to create nuclear missiles, we can make them much more 'friendly'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both France and Germany are net electricity exporters on an annual basis. But when France sends surplus nuclear electricity to its neighbors that's supposed to be a plus for nuclear technology. When Germany sends surplus renewable electricity to its neighbors that's supposed to be a minus for renewable technology. Both nuclear and renewable generation are rigid in their own ways; neither is as flexible as gas powered…
The point is that Germany is exporting energy when nobody needs it and is thus causing problems for the grid. France exports energy when German solar cells and wind are in a dip. My point is that German exports are peak surpluses that cause problems for the grid and French exports are on-demand because steel mills need to work when wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine. But thank you for proving my point. Although…
French electricity trade with neighboring countries makes a exports make a jagged line. Fossils make a jagged line. Nuclear is the smoothest line of any of them: it does hardly anything on-demand. It does the same thing day after day. That is an advantage in certain ways (no worries about lost production on a windless night) but a disadvantage in others; you cannot save money/resources by stopping a reactor the way you can by stopping a gas turbine.
I am someone interested in post-fossil electricity. 15 years ago that meant I was primarily interested in nuclear power. Much to my surprise, the nuclear industry basically stalled and the renewable industry expanded scale and cut costs much faster than I thought possible. Following the change in the numbers, I am reading more about renewable technology than nuclear technology nowadays. That's where the most rapid improvements are coming from. I'll change my opinion again if the numbers change again and nuclear starts delivering aggressively on scale-up, costs-down. I'm interested only in numbers from real hardware, though. I've seen enough daydreams in the forms of PowerPoint and TED talks (from nuclear dreamers and renewable dreamers alike) to last me a lifetime.