Ultra Safe Nuclear

Post by pfdietz » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 11:49 AM UTC

sparkie wrote: post #373

pfdietz wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's worth it. Losing 10% of the energy in storage is close to trivial, particularly if that energy is otherwise curtailed excess production. It would be worthwhile to use far less efficient storage for long term load leveling, if the capital cost were low enough. Hydrogen with cheap electrolysers and combined cycle turbines might have a round trip efficiency of 33% -- and that would be GREAT as a last comp…

But this is missing the elephant in the living room (this thread), which is nuclear. One of the main issues with nuclear is that it isn't cost effective to turn on/off to meet demand changes in day and night. Nuclear power stations usually only generate energy for the baseload. If we were to cut energy consumption down at night (by increasing costs), the baseload would also drop, and leave an even larger gap to meet…

Post by pfdietz » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 11:52 AM UTC

jabl wrote: post #412

pfdietz wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear waste is not a problem, but not because it can be recycled. Reprocessing is an economic loser compared to just mining fresh uranium. The separated plutonium has negative value, and in thermal reactors much of it can't be destroyed before going into final disposal.

Indeed, reprocessing with PUREX and only using thermal reactors will most likely never make any economic sense. Breeder reactors and more economic and proliferation-resistant reprocessing technologies like pyroprocessing might, however. Too early to tell really, as neither have really been developed to the point where one can make precise economic predictions.

Post by pfdietz » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 12:29 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #435

pfdietz wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burn the hydrogen in combustion turbines, just like natural gas. You repeat an excuse, but nuclear builds have failed, and continue to fail, not because of regulation, but because of the high unforgiving complexity of nuclear power plants. The post mortems at huge cost overruns point to management failures, not new regulations sprung out of nowhere.

>Burn the hydrogen in combustion turbines, just like natural gas. That simple? Anyone in the world actually using hydrogen in this way? You can dissmis nuclear all you want, but doesn't change the fact that renewables (outside of hydro/geothermal for which you need special geography) do not work. There is no nation on this planet that is powered by renewables. There is no nation on this planet that is planning to be…

Post by pfdietz » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 12:40 PM UTC

petertodd wrote: post #375

pfdietz wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The advantage of hydrogen is the extremely low cost per unit of stored energy. That is the cost you want to minimize for a storage case with few charge-discharge cycles, like rainy day or seasonal storage. For diurnal storage, batteries or other more efficient storage technologies would make more sense, since there would be more charge-discharge cycles over which to amortize the cost of the system.

Do you have a source on that low cost?

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 12:42 PM UTC

socialdemocrat wrote: post #446

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are western countries with snow in the winter. Also, countries where the majority of population lives in apartments. Also, how would an average western country power itself at nights, if all it has is 50m2 solar on every roof top?

As I mentioned we got tons of other options besides solar power. EVs are now increasingly beating gasoline cars on cost of ownership and these often have batteries large enough to store the power required for 4 days of a regular western household. I doubt you will be entirely without sunshine for 4 days straight.