|
Let's see how long that lasts. Olkiluoto-3 has been down for like 5 of the 9 months since it began trial production. Coming back on the 15th! For sure this time! Not like all the other times... Grey Area fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Mar 9, 2023 |
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:Serious question with no snark: do those numbers change with a standardized vs bespoke design? If you’re able to just throw down a proven design for the 5th/50th/500th reactor, do you come out better because you’re not constantly reworking it? The numbers absolutely change with better plant designs. The bulk of CO2 emissions in nuclear plant construction are in production of the materials required for the plant. The massive amounts of concrete and rebar for the containment structure, for example. If you build reactors that don’t need those things, those emissions go away. This is another example of painting “nuclear power” with the brush we made for 70-year-old reactor designs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
Zlodo posted:There are strikes all over the country to protest retirement age increase, including at EDF. lmao well that's just too 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:If you build reactors that don’t need those things, those emissions go away. This is another example of painting “nuclear power” with the brush we made for 70-year-old reactor designs. Question, new gen plants coming under construction now don't use these amounts of concrete and rebar?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Question, new gen plants coming under construction now don't use these amounts of concrete and rebar? "New" gen plants coming under construction now are Generation III designs that date to the 1980s, so they're only "new" in comparison to Gen II designs and are basically enhanced-safety versions of Gen II or Gen I designs. APR1000 is basically a System 80, and system 80s were going online in the mid-80s. If you want to ditch the enormously huge and thick containment dome, you're looking at Gen IV designs like gas-cooled reactors, molten salt reactors, fast reactors, or (the exception to my first sentence there above) small modular reactors. (Or, well, you could just use BWRs, which don't have them either.) Phanatic fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Mar 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Ah thanks! Is any of those gen IV designs ready for commercial time right now? edit: Is something like this a good starter for them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor Dante80 fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Mar 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
The BBC are reporting this as part of today's UK budget announcement:quote:Nuclear energy to be classed as environmentally sustainable for investment purposes, with promise of more public funding Source
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 16:27
|
|
|
BEHOLD  IT'S HAPPENING   (OL-3 finally went to final test phase after some pump valves were changed, it's one month away from being complete *if nothing else goes wonky*)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
This has happened before and it will happen again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 14:15
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's not so much that they care about the environment, it's just that they hate people and want them to die: "Dozens" lmao perfect opening word
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Interesting article on using boreholes to permanently store nuclear waste. Since it's using off the shelf oil&gas technology, it's cheaper and we know it works. Looks like they're staring a test with no actual waste: quote:But it will do all that without any actual nuclear waste: “This site, to be clear, will never be used for radioactive waste disposal,” said Liz Muller, CEO of Deep Isolation and chair of the Deep Borehole Demonstration Center’s board. https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/company-launches-nuclear-waste-disposal-testing-collaboration Nenonen posted:BEHOLD Should be enough to like halve the grid carbon intensity? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
400,000 gallons of radioactive water leaked from a nuclear plant in Minnesota Minnesota regulators said Thursday they’re monitoring the cleanup of a leak of 400,000 gallons of radioactive water from Xcel Energy’s Monticello nuclear power plant, and the company said there’s no danger to the public. “Xcel Energy took swift action to contain the leak to the plant site, which poses no health and safety risk to the local community or the environment,” the Minneapolis-based utility said in a statement. While Xcel reported the leak of water containing tritium to state and federal authorities in late November, the spill had not been made public before Thursday. State officials said they waited to get more information before going public with it. (...)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The numbers absolutely change with better plant designs. The bulk of CO2 emissions in nuclear plant construction are in production of the materials required for the plant. The massive amounts of concrete and rebar for the containment structure, for example. If you build reactors that don’t need those things, those emissions go away. This is another example of painting “nuclear power” with the brush we made for 70-year-old reactor designs. Does anyone actually have studies that have actually calculated the quantity of CO2 released as a result of the production of materials required to build a nuclear power plant? Because the linked articles so far seem to just make assumptions/generalities about costs, but don't provide any numbers. And there are a lot of ways to significantly offset the cost of concrete (such as on-site batching plants that essentially halves the amount of delivery truck usage). Honestly I'm not even sure rebar usage would constitute a significant impact, given it typically makes up about 1% or less of the total volume of concrete installed for structures such as these.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Does anyone actually have studies that have actually calculated the quantity of CO2 released as a result of the production of materials required to build a nuclear power plant?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:It's also worth noting that the most common pressurized water reactors need much larger containment buildings than most other designs, so in the event of an accident, the high-pressure steam has a bigger area to expand. That obviously increases concrete use by a lot. Yeah, I'm still just skeptical that concrete and rebar have significant economic impacts to the project relative to other project items. When it comes to carbon footprint, cement does have a significant impact globally, no doubt, but someone would have to do a lifecycle analysis to estimate the full overall impact relative to the plant's beneficial impact, plus what the full lifecycle analysis of the alternatives are. That's why I'm skeptical, but definitely open to learning more since it'd be interesting to see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
"Modern nuclear reactors need less than 40 metric tons of steel and 190 cubic meters of concrete per megawatt of average capacity" https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2007/07/constructing-lot-of-nuclear-power.html For comparison, coal power uses 160 cubic meters of concrete per megawatt of average capacity https://www.freeingenergy.com/math/coal-plant-weight-steel-concrete-pound-decomission-mwh-gwh-m149/ They're really not that different. Meanwhile, current-gen wind turbines need the same volume of concrete as coal power: 160 cubic meters per megawatt (402000 kg/MW divided by 2500 kg/m^3). That's installed capacity, of course, not actual generation https://www.freeingenergy.com/math/wind-turbine-weight-pound-mwh-gwh-m148/ In terms of emissions, would still rather have nuclear power than coal power, and would usually rather have nuclear power than wind power (in most regions) QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Mar 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
skeptical enough to post, not skeptical enough to google, the hallmark abitrage of the just asking questions guy anyway  src i'm gonna go with "20"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
Those are different nuclear designs right? How does that compare with coal or natural gas?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 15:02
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:skeptical enough to post, not skeptical enough to google, the hallmark abitrage of the just asking questions guy  Raenir Salazar posted:Those are different nuclear designs right? How does that compare with coal or natural gas?  UNECE 2020:  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources) No matter how you cut it, the emissions of nuclear are far lower than fossil fuels or even solar. In the first chart, wind is slightly less than nuclear, but not significantly. In the second, it has less. I'm guessing the variance of lifecycle emissions between nuclear plants or between wind installations overwhelms any of the small signal of their true average difference. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
lol including CCS. Might as well include offsets from magic fairies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:No matter how you cut it, the emissions of nuclear are far lower than fossil fuels or even solar. In the first chart, wind is slightly less than nuclear, but not significantly. In the second, it has less. I'm guessing the variance of lifecycle emissions between nuclear plants or between wind installations overwhelms any of the small signal of their true average difference. Based on this 2021 life cycle analysis, nuclear outperforms wind: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
CCS?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Based on this 2021 life cycle analysis, nuclear outperforms wind: All those comparisons between the low emissions group are within the margin of error. You can easily add or remove some subtle thing and change the ordering. The only real sensible conclusion is that fossil fuels suck under all circumstances. For example that article suggests that the primary driver for Wind Co2 impact is the construction of the tower itself. Which is an item that could be made reusable once rates of decommission catch up to rates of construction. Also, just look at this: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
I believe that's "carbon capture and storage"
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
CCS is conventionally when you burn fossil fuels then attempt to tell the public that you're totally capturing & sequestering more than a small fraction of the emotions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
I don't think wind towers are reusable are they? Isn't the point of their lifecycle that they need replacement due to decades of strain (along with turbine replacement) Mod note (Inferior Third Season): I'm really sorry, but I messed up with my new mod buttons, and edited your post, when I meant to be quoting it. A part of what you had seems to be lost now. 
Somebody fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Mar 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Pander posted:I don't think wind towers are reusable are they? Isn't the point of their lifecycle that they need replacement due to decades of strain (along with turbine replacement) It makes more sense then CCS, which was included in the comparisons. More seriously, I don't think we actually know for sure, because there haven't been that many windmills being replaced. In part because technology is still improving so fast that new ones are differently designed, and reuse is impossible for that reason. Which also means that we might eventually build reusable or more carbon emission efficient ones. Though nobody really cares because those emissions are negligible when compared to the ones made by fossil fuels, or even badly designed solar installations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
My favorite recurring CCS PR story is when a startup has a super great atmospheric co2 capture process*, and its economically feasible**, too! It just needs to scale up!*** * Gross capture, in like single-ton quantities (like a single car’s yearly output.) ** Because they sell it to petroleum companies to extract more crude oil from permeable rock formations. *** would require the entire worlds power generation
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
An issue with some wind is the difference in lifetime impact of aluminum vs composite blades. Whenever composite blades are installed to generate more power, the company still gets all the same green credits, despite the huge difference in recyclability and long term environmental impact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
Pander posted:I don't think wind towers are reusable are they? Isn't the point of their lifecycle that they need replacement due to decades of strain (along with turbine replacement) Lifetime extension has been the new hotness for existing farms recently, as it has been shown that the current batch of turbines has several good years in them still. New turbines are getting certified with 25 to 35 years lifetime right off the bat. Manufacturers are also getting more aggressive with cost-out measures in the towers and foundations to reduce material costs, so we'll have to wait 15 or 20 years to see if tower buckling becomes more common as these less-overengineered turbines start accumulating significant fatigue damage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
yea its amazing to think about the math that as we get to the 20 and 30 year marks on real scale/size solar and wind we're going to start to realize that these things have full ~quarter longer lifetimes than originally financed at, and further engineering can push future farms out to a third easy. like the core tech barely has to evolve from here for things to still get substantially cheaper as the industry/finance/insurance math simply has enough decades in the rear view mirror to dial in the numbers for the next few decades. the "we don't know yet, lets hedge our bets and see how the first generation goes" cushion going away will be huge all on its own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 01:52
|
|
|
Complete Crock of poo poo The only scalable way to capture and store carbon from the atmosphere is to not release it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Complete Crock of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Does anyone think CCS and flue gas capture is a reasonable approach for the concrete or steelmaking (or some other process that can't be electrified) industries?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Does anyone think CCS and flue gas capture is a reasonable approach for the concrete or steelmaking (or some other process that can't be electrified) industries?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 19:47
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Does anyone think CCS and flue gas capture is a reasonable approach for the concrete or steelmaking (or some other process that can't be electrified) industries? There isn't a way to make cement without also generating lot of CO2, so they need either to figure out how to capture it or find a different basis for construction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 19:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:There isn't a way to make cement without also generating lot of CO2, so they need either to figure out how to capture it or find a different basis for construction. Portland cement is made from mostly limestone. This needs to be heated in a kiln to around 1450C to undergo calcination, making "clinkers." This obviously takes a lot of energy, which usually means big CO2 emissions - but not if the energy comes from nuclear or renewables. Separately, the calcination process splits off CO2, releasing additional CO2, regardless of the energy source for the heat. However, this latter emission is ameriolated during curing: the curing process absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, ultimately mostly negating the releases of the calcination process, over a period of years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Not necessarily. Most of the CO2 from standard concrete comes from the production of portland cement: Concrete sets through hydration, not absorption of CO2. It absorbs some CO2 over time, but not a lot. It doesn't come close to offsetting the CO2 released when calcining the limestone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Maybe? The better approach is to find alternative approaches. Thyssenkrupp Krupp for example is working on producing steel with hydrogen instead of coke. How does this work? There's no carbon in hydrogen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
Most of the CO2 emissions from steelmaking are due to reducing the iron oxide to iron (smelting). Carbon can grab the oxygen off the iron, and hydrogen can also do that. Making steel usually starts with iron at like 4-5% carbon, and then you remove most of it to get mild steel. Alternatively, you could smelt it the way you smelt aluminum - by electricity. But that's actually tougher to do for iron for several reasons, like needing higher temperatures, and the chemistry being more complicated. And you could reduce the iron with aluminum or zinc, or some similar chemical process, but then you're wasting huge amounts of energy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2023 00:18
|
|
