641–650 of 709 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have good storage tech you can just store surplus renewable energy and don't really need the expensive reactor part though.
Its heat storage, renewables don't generate heat. This would be more like the technology used in CSP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, this is something I'm not clear on: Why can't we just add free-spinning "generators" to the grid to contribute inertia?
Costs money. And, unnecessary.
I think nuclear power plants aren't worth the risk. I often hear arguments such as that modern reactors don't have the issues old ones had etc.. As long as it can't be guaranteed to me that e.g. a terror attack doesn't cause a 1000 km2 area around the plant to be unlivable for 100 years, I most likely won't change my opinion. I think living in the stone age is better than taking the risk.
> terror attack doesn't cause a 1000 km2 area around the plant to be unlivable for 100 years That can't actually happen. And if you believe it can, you are wrong. Please explain the mechanics of how that would happen to me! Ill wait.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heavy metal mines, like uranium? Because what other heavy metals are you imagining?
You missed the part (well, you IGNORED the part...) where I talk about energy density. That's obvious because you don't want to compare the amount of lithium required for billions of cars and grid scale solar to cover 16 hours of energy per day. You ignored it because 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Not only…
And the energy density of uranium is irrelevant even sessile, because it takes hundreds to thousands of times more mass around it to get useful energy out.
I had ignored it so as not to embarrass you further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an open, uncoerced market, anything too expensive does not happen. People opt for cheaper alternatives, or for more value for the same money. Or, somewhere in between.
Of course, and naturally, first-of-a-kind are bloody expensive. Maybe there's a way to make small nuke plants economical, maybe there's not, I dont' know. But it's definitely not ‶impossible″ to humankind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Costs money. And, unnecessary.
It's pretty clearly necessary to solve. And any kind of energy generation costs money. So I don't think that, unqualified, those are good reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed the part (well, you IGNORED the part...) where I talk about energy density. That's obvious because you don't want to compare the amount of lithium required for billions of cars and grid scale solar to cover 16 hours of energy per day. You ignored it because 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Not only…
Energy density is absolutely irrelevant except in a vehicle . Which utility power manifestly ain't. And the energy density of uranium is irrelevant even sessile, because it takes hundreds to thousands of times more mass around it to get useful energy out. I had ignored it so as not to embarrass you further.
While you might not think several orders of magnitude have meaning, fortunately here in reality the fact that it requires far less overall mining to create and supply a uranium power station that it does to create and supply an equivalent (in power output) solar field with batteries has huge meaning.
While I do thank you for looking out for me, I urge you to in the future take time to introspect on yourself and views, so as to save yourself these issues. I know no one tries to be a hypocrite intentionally, so I know these are resolvable problems for the average HN'er. Good luck!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Energy density is absolutely irrelevant except in a vehicle . Which utility power manifestly ain't. And the energy density of uranium is irrelevant even sessile, because it takes hundreds to thousands of times more mass around it to get useful energy out. I had ignored it so as not to embarrass you further.
Lol wow! This feels like one of those situations that Germans have a very long and special word for: When someone tries to spare you a minor embarrassment but in doing so creates a major one for themselves. While you might not think several orders of magnitude have meaning, fortunately here in reality the fact that it requires far less overall mining to create and supply a uranium power station that it does to create…
Unless this magickal energy density results in lower-cost electrical output, in quantity, it is just a load of guff.
What we know is that every use of uranium for civil power generation, ever, delivered only extremely expensive power. There has never been a single reactor, worldwide, that was not heavily subsidized by taxpayers, coerced above-market rates, or both. Nukes get even less competitive with each passing year, as the cost for renewables continues plummeting with no bottom in sight.
So, the compelling evidence is that energy density is of extremely limited value for civil power generation. If it has any practical value at all, its copious orders of magnitude are yet insufficient to overcome its extremely poor cost effectiveness.
And, places in the US where uranium was mined are marked by poisoned groundwater and early death. Those poisoned are not impressed with its magick. Nor am I.
Ok, so another pro-nuclear puff piece. Why do I say that? Because it talks about nuclear waste without ever mentioning the other kind: fuel processing waste. Nuclear fuel needs to be enriched. Enriching is simply upping the percentage of U-235 (the rest is mostly U-238). Civilian reactors tend to have relatively low enrichment rates. So-called weapons grade is enriched to a very high percentage and requires different…
How many years have France been safely operating their Nuclear plants? Germany too? You speak of a Chernobyl exclusion zone, but I don't see anyone living where they've put up large scale solar farms or next to wind turbines. You're right about humans not managing long term consequences well. From lead poisoning 40 years ago to 20 years from now when we have to deal with the waste of solar left behind (perhaps toxic…
then you need to look more carefully:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/krughutt... https://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleWidth/882/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask anyone with an off-grid solar installation how trivial it is. Hint: The storage costs more than the power. Considerably more last time I looked at the numbers.
Off-grid power has no choice but batteries. Utilities have others.
