61–70 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be desperately angling for somebody to say that the evil reactor management orders one of the workers to be sacrificed by going into the highly radioactive reactor vessel. Why?
Just trying to get answers to simple questions. If there aren't any good answers, that is an answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would take until well after 2050 to build those, and they would cost many, many times as much as renewables + storage, and produce zero kWh in the meantime. Again, no, if nuclear power plant construction was carried out at the same rate as it was in the 1960s and 70s it'd be completed on time. You might be doubtful that we'd be able to manage that pace of construction in the 21st century, but at least there's pr…
You may continue posting falsehoods, and I will continue pointing them out. We don't need "something" to make storage cheap. Storage is cheap, and is getting cheaper . Again , we are not building storage out yet because we don't have enough renewables to charge it from yet . Instead, we are right now building out factories to make it. E.g., the factories to make iron-air batteries, $20/kWh, are under construction rig…
All we know is that France has cheap electricity (nuclear) and Germany majestically fucked up by shutting down nuclear, wanting to build renewables, and in turn ended up addicted to Russian carbon drugs.
A molten salt reactor is, first and foremost, a distraction . By the time any production molten-salt reactor design could get proved out and the first commercial one built, renewables + storage will be providing all our power for much less money than it ever could. But we can waste a lot of $billions on it that could instead go to build out a hell of a lot of panels and wind turbines.
I am personally not willing to put all the eggs into one basket, because I don't share your certainty about future course of things. We have some lessons from the Energiewende in Germany, which turned out much more expensive than promised. German Green minister Jürgen Trittin assured the German public in 2004 that support for renewable energies is going to cost them "one ice cream scoop per month" [0]. Which was so w…
The actual statement was that the "EEG Umlage" (=surcharge on the electricity bill) would cost about that much in 2004. And that was perfectly true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may continue posting falsehoods, and I will continue pointing them out. We don't need "something" to make storage cheap. Storage is cheap, and is getting cheaper . Again , we are not building storage out yet because we don't have enough renewables to charge it from yet . Instead, we are right now building out factories to make it. E.g., the factories to make iron-air batteries, $20/kWh, are under construction rig…
It would also be amazing if you posted any sources, or examples. All we know is that France has cheap electricity (nuclear) and Germany majestically fucked up by shutting down nuclear, wanting to build renewables, and in turn ended up addicted to Russian carbon drugs.
Germany was always dependent on fossil fuels. They have been adding wind turbines at a breakneck pace, getting incrementally less dependent. Fixing those ramshackle old contraptions would have cost much more per unit power out. They have already built out more wind generating capacity (averaged) than the reactors shut down produced. Germans, anyway, know this.
France is not building new nukes, nor even patching up old ones, because it is extremely expensive, and not getting any cheaper.
When people have to lie to try to make nukes look good, what are they really telling us?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would take until well after 2050 to build those, and they would cost many, many times as much as renewables + storage, and produce zero kWh in the meantime. Again, no, if nuclear power plant construction was carried out at the same rate as it was in the 1960s and 70s it'd be completed on time. You might be doubtful that we'd be able to manage that pace of construction in the 21st century, but at least there's pr…
You may continue posting falsehoods, and I will continue pointing them out. We don't need "something" to make storage cheap. Storage is cheap, and is getting cheaper . Again , we are not building storage out yet because we don't have enough renewables to charge it from yet . Instead, we are right now building out factories to make it. E.g., the factories to make iron-air batteries, $20/kWh, are under construction rig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am personally not willing to put all the eggs into one basket, because I don't share your certainty about future course of things. We have some lessons from the Energiewende in Germany, which turned out much more expensive than promised. German Green minister Jürgen Trittin assured the German public in 2004 that support for renewable energies is going to cost them "one ice cream scoop per month" [0]. Which was so w…
Storage cost is falling even faster than wind or solar did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Storage cost is falling even faster than wind or solar did.
What kind of storage? I wouldn’t bank on chemical storage technologies, at least if we want the type of reliable electrical grid that’s allowed us to develop as advanced industrial nations. Generally, reducing storage cost runs into the type of physical limits that software and silicon haven’t really encountered (yet). I wouldn’t bet against human ingenuity in the long term, but it’s not clear how the storage problem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would also be amazing if you posted any sources, or examples. All we know is that France has cheap electricity (nuclear) and Germany majestically fucked up by shutting down nuclear, wanting to build renewables, and in turn ended up addicted to Russian carbon drugs.
That is a favorite trope of nuke boosters, but is false . Everyone repeating it knows this: Germany was always dependent on fossil fuels. They have been adding wind turbines at a breakneck pace, getting incrementally less dependent. Fixing those ramshackle old contraptions would have cost much more per unit power out. They have already built out more wind generating capacity (averaged) than the reactors shut down pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been working on molten salt reactor claddings for a few years now. MSRs are very safe. First, there are two main groups of molten salt systems. One group uses generic salt to transport heat. This usually provides efficiency gains over water based systems. These are the systems that might leak sodium and it's no big deal. The 2nd kind of system uses a salt with the fissile material dissolved in it. This is what t…
If you find "materials the storage vessel is made of" in the salt, do you shut it down and abandon it? Alternative would be to drain it into a holding tank and, what, send somebody in to fix it? Who?