451–460 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear is baseload and is the exact opposite of "instantly fired up". Best tech for that is gas or battery.
Cant control rods can be lifted or inserted to meet demand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
grid-scale storage becomes more profitable when your primary energy production is more intermittent. current pv is something like 10× cheaper than nuclear before you factor in intermittency, and that opens up a huge market for grid-scale storage that didn't exist in the 01970s. pumped hydro was replaced by dispatchable gas, but gas is more expensive now, and batteries are cheaper
If, as seems likely, solar and wind come to totally dominate all new energy construction, then it seems like state/provincial and federal governments will need to either legally mandate / highly incentivize the construction of new baseload by utilities, or build those plants themselves. We have the TVA but as much as I hope, I don't think we're getting a bunch more federally owned and operated power companies in the…
what are you going to construct the new baseload from? nothing comes close to the cheapness of pv and wind. grid-scale energy storage, in the form of batteries, is already too cheap for coal and nuclear to compete with it on that basis, and it's just going to get cheaper as we climb down the learning curve
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. One square kilometer of solar panels can theoretically produce the same amount (as 50cm^3 U235) in a day. I'll take this bet. Edit: Tried to edit the edit but somehow deleted the rest of the edit. It was something to the tune of how a big problem with renewables is the fact that peak solar production does not match peak ene…
Can we not overbuild solar and wind such that the troughs are nearly good enough, combined with high voltage cross-regional transmission lines, and limited storage for buffer? Solar panels are absurdly cheap, and the world has a lot of equatorial desert.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. One square kilometer of solar panels can theoretically produce the same amount (as 50cm^3 U235) in a day. Does the US have more 50cm^3 sized blocks of U235, or more square kilometers of land with low land values and high annual insolation? There's an estimated 6 million tonnes of mineable uranium reserves in the world [0]…
>"or more square kilometers of land [...]" Technically you need to factor in the fact that a nuclear plant can be built relatively near the places where its power will be consumed; some mass of solar power in Nevada is highly inefficient for powering New York or Virginia, even if you built HVDC lines to cut down on total line losses, so you'll need to pick land tracts reasonably near battery banks that would in turn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unlike nuclear, which is too expensive when you don't overbuild it, and becomes simply stupidly expensive if you contemplate overbuilding it. > Overbuilding nuclear is so preposterous that nuclear fans just pretend you magically don't need to, to prevent their fragile dream from being crushed by reality, and let them continue to steer at renewables and all the problems they face as every nation on earth builds then…
The grid has wild differences between day and night. Who cares if you can run at 100% when no one wants the power because everyone is asleep?
If I was a betting man, I would put money down that Vogtle 4 is the last nuclear reactor that gets built in the US. Solar and batteries are just too cheap for nuclear to compete. The world will be installing a terawatt of solar capacity per year soon. *excluding research or military reactors of course.
You are probably right, but only in the short term. Long term, there will be the political will for projects that require 10-100x our current power production, and nuclear will look attractive again. Alternatively, the renewables curve may flatten before we are fully decarbonized simply because the maintenance and materials don't scale well. Nuclear is expensive up front, but maintenance requires far fewer (albeit mo…
Nukes might make sense on the moon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found this list which shows "under construction", "planned" and "proposed". It does not look like the US is planning to build a lot of reactors. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...
The US is one of the 22 signatories of the COP28 pledge to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. With the failure of Germany's Energiewende, countries have drastically re-evaluated their nuclear stances. France just did an about-face and cancelled their plans to drastically reduce nuclear capacity or even get out of nuclear entirely. Instead they are now investing into a nuclear renaissance. Poland is getting into nuclear…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but Asia dominates the "building" category overall by a massive margin. It's just true. Pharmaceuticals, medical and gems are off topic. I'm sure there's other small niches the US dominates in. But overall what I said is the objective truth no matter how much you desire it to be not true. If Asia doesn't dominate a niche yet they are aggressively on track to dominate in the near future.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "building"? It's a nebulous term. If you mean building infrastructure, that's true, but also partly because the US invested heavily in the same type of infrastructure a generation or two prior. I would disagree with the pharmaceuticals because that is a manufacturing-intensive industry. Throwing out gems (because that probably isn't a good case, like you said), it still amounts t…
Gemstones therefore are more of a reflection of countries with the ability to purchase the gemstones as an import and less of a reflection of the country actually exporting the gemstones. Right? If a country exports a huge amount of gemstones it means a lot of external countries have an abundance of economic output such that they can purchase frivolous goods that ultimately don't contribute much to the economy. North Korea doesn't purchase gemstones but maybe a rich country would. And the place where diamonds are mined are mostly from some poor countries in Africa.
>Can you elaborate on what you mean by "building"? It's a nebulous term.
Manufacturing and infrastructure I believe are the two words that cover it best off the top of my head but it's unnecessary to specify this to the level of pedantic detail you're going for here. I think those two terms are clear enough.
I think we both know, in general the direction China/Asia is going and where they're completely dominating the US. It's at a general tipping point now. Where one can say they're better than the US overall in the general area of infrastructure/manufacturing. Manufacturing is pretty broad and general and that's the right word to use because broadly and generally Asia is just ahead of the US in this matter.
The problem with these things is that even though it's obvious people still like to debate pedantic details in some vain attempt to use the pedantic details to obscure the obvious truth or even shift the advantage in the favor of the US. Why else would you bring up gemstones and pharmaceuticals?
I don't think I need to elaborate as you requested. You know what I'm talking about and deep down you most likely agree. The trouble here is less about getting at the most accurate truth and more about the inability to accept the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People love to say it, but is there evidence? I've never seen it - which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but that this claim needs it.
Nuclear was much cheaper in the 1970s and early 80s: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overnight-Construction-C... This wasn't just due to regulatory influence, it was also due to economies of scale. But the two are related, more regulation results in fewer builds. Fewer builds reduces economies of scale and thus increases costs. Which results in even fewer nuclear builds, and so on.
This caught my eye: "Prior to Vogtle Unit 3, the last nuclear reactor to start in the United States was Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee. Construction on Watts Bar 2 began in 1973 but was suspended in 1985. Work resumed in 2007, and the reactor came online in 2016." More on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Plant#Unit_2
Heh imagine finally finishing work that your father had started before you're born.