> The two reactors at Torness have a combined electricity output of 1200 MW
If they bumped 1200 MW to 1210 MW they'd have the 1.21 GW they need to operate a Flux Capacitor.
Nothing like this will be built again (2002)
131–140 of 269 posts
Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was very disappointed when I finally learned how a nuclear power plant worked because I assumed there was some really cool way to turn nuclear energy into electricity (apparently this is still challenging to do at power plant scale).
RTGs are even more hilariously stupid simple. They are literally just lump of radioactive material that is slowly decaying by itself and heating a thermocouple, producing electricity. No moving parts, no complicated reactor chambers and systems, no nothing. edit: fissile -> radioactive
Yeah, I was ameliorated when I learned about RTGs, since they're solid state but it's still heat based. I assumed if you knew how to split that atom that somehow magically meant you could also convert it to electron current.
Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact fission is classified as green /might/ impact fusion's future classification, but who knows. I was listening to a podcast and a disillusioned engineer said "environmentalists favorite nuclear power plant is always one that doesn't exist, as soon as it's ready to be built it's ready to be protested". Probably an instance of many groups under one label acting disparately, but I get the sentiment :/
Nuclear reactors are just bigger pains than even the coal plants they might replace. Especially to replace enough fossil fuel one would have to scale up the problems with mining, waste disposal, and risks of accidents or malicious interference. I know this isn't a popular idea here, but there also lots of physicists who don't believe in nuclear fission as a mid-term or near-long-term solution.
France begs to differ. We basically replace fossil fuel with nuclear here (we only have small peaker gas plants, our baseload is all nuclear and some of our variable load is hydro) and there is no particular scale problem, no accidents (incidents yes, but they don't become accidents, the system works), a few pools of waste but whatever, no trouble to procure the fuel...
Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)
#134One thing I've always wondered is, who cleans this things? Is normal, run of the mill cleaning personnel expected to be careful enough to not accidentally toss something out alignment, or is there some kind of Nuclear Plant Grade Cleaning industry I never heard about?
The only real difference is that there's also a decommissioning aspect. Typically any consumables that get used in a nuclear environment get collected, put in a barrel and then sent off to a warehouse for later disposal (generally unspecified...). A lot of "nuclear waste" is lightly contaminated PPE.
Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)
#135On safety - one of the places I had the opportunity to visit had a car park where you were only allowed to reverse in. I'm not sure if it was a holdover from a previous establishment, but I think they kept something on site that was volatile enough (like a lot of gas) that if a swift evacuation was required, they didn't want people futzing around getting out of spaces.
My wife visited Torness (the plant in the article) for a meeting with one of the managers. She went through reception, got her badge, and was on her way up the stairs to the meeting room when the receptionist shouted at her. "Maam! MAAAM!... please hold the handrail".
They're nuts about safety - and a good thing too, speaking as someone who lives relatively close-by.
Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)
#136French power grid agency RTE made a report[0] forecasting 2050 France energy mix, and because of loss of knowledge and increased security measures, even with strong political will, France won't be able to maintain its 70% nuclear power electricity share. Most nuclear-intensive scenario in this report is max 50% nuclear energy. [0] https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2021-12/Futurs-Ene... in french
It’s funny when I read the Foundation novels, it seemed silly to me that people could lose track of technology and fall backwards. Then you read something like this and realize Asimov had a point!
its a bit of an over used trope in fiction to me that if you kill the one person inventing a thing you stop it. think t2 and the chip. most major discoveries i have heard of in important areas had multiple people running neck amd neck.
when it comes to rebuilding a thing, i think whats important to wonder is would you even build it the same way? I remember seeing an article on ars about the engines for the Saturn 5. They took over a thousand hours of weld time at a level of skill and quantity that was built up during that time period. And they got them working via experimentation. Building the now was done differently. They 3d scanned the parts and used modern additive and cnc machining and used way less welds (one can argue additive metal is just cnc welding but I digress). And then simulated it in the computer. I remember a discussion about the baffles in the nozzle to stop pulsing in the combustion, that was figured out in destructive trials of this incredibly difficult machine. You'd do that in simulation now.
I likely got details wrong.
But it's to say that part of "they don't build em like they used to" also means "they learned". Look at bridges, they don't look like Brooklyn or Eads anymore. They used to build them with waaay too much steel.
That said roman concrete is a thing they've been chasing for a while
Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your risk assessment, but I have to say that given the choice between a climate apocalypse and a nuclear power buildout, I would choose the latter.
If only it was a conscious choice... I fear significant climate has happened already, and even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow will continue for a long time to come. Putting up a few km2 of solar in e.g. the Sahara now is surely less effort than decommissioning dozens of nuclear plants in 50 years.
I don't think putting up km2 of solar in the Sahara will solve the problem. You just can't ship electricity that far. We're at the point where we need to build any and all green power supplies as much and as quickly as possible if we want to get past this.
Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)
#138I bet the Fukushima backup power system would have fit this explanation perfectly: > in addition to the grid connection, there are four twelve megawatt diesel generator stations spaced around each corner of the plant -- each with two generators, any one of which is able to provide operating power to keep the reactor's safety systems working. Unfortunately for Fukushima, all generators were flooded by a single Tsunami…
I agree with your risk assessment, but I have to say that given the choice between a climate apocalypse and a nuclear power buildout, I would choose the latter.
No post body was provided.
Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is inconceivable that any such project will ever produce enough value to pay for the absurd level of capital investment and operational costs just to make them operate at all In and of itself that may be correct, but they could provide valuable stepping stones to future systems that are much cheaper, simpler, and more efficient, which could not exist without first creating these large expensive projects. The val…
Prime example of sunk-cost rationalization. When has such a gargantuan expenditure of time and resources ever produced the promised second-order benefits that outweigh the lack of first-order benefits? Neutron fission was discovered in 1938, ten years later we'd flattened two cities with it, and ten years after that we had working, profitable power stations. Theory to useful first-order application to useful second-o…
> When has such a gargantuan expenditure of time and resources ever produced the promised second-order benefits that outweigh the lack of first-order benefits?
Pretty much all space programmes prior to the commercialisation of space. We're only at the start of that, too: today imaging satellites and internet connections, tomorrow potentially heavy industry, solar power generation and mineral extraction. Who knows what else.
If we count the commencement date of that investment from 1960 or so, and assume the start of real returns on that investment hasn't arrived yet, the main second order benefits of space research and the associated feats of engineering will have taken 60+ years to appear. By the time any of the applications I mentioned above are realised, we might be at 80 or even 100 years.
Some things just take a really long time. I haven't studied ITER or any other fusion tech, but long timelines don't mean things aren't worth it. They can deliver things iterative processes might be unable to do.
Lastly, if you're concerned about the money going to the wrong place, it might be better to start with fossil fuel subsidies - diverting these to clean energy production and research would speed the transition immensely.
Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s funny when I read the Foundation novels, it seemed silly to me that people could lose track of technology and fall backwards. Then you read something like this and realize Asimov had a point!
its a bit of an over used trope in fiction to me that if you kill the one person inventing a thing you stop it. think t2 and the chip. most major discoveries i have heard of in important areas had multiple people running neck amd neck. when it comes to rebuilding a thing, i think whats important to wonder is would you even build it the same way? I remember seeing an article on ars about the engines for the Saturn 5.…
If you ever watch the documentary "Connections" by James Burke, you get the impression basically all inventions are caused by the circumstances where two realms of science meet up in a new way to solve a problem, and that the people involved are a detail of passing importance.