|
Son of Rodney posted:Of course it should be about "cheap", it's one of the major factors in energy financing. What else would you base those decisions on? Ideology? Fliiping a coin? Potential for painting racing strips on the cooling tower to make it run faster? Even china is building vastly more renewables in any case. Nuclear is not a bad option, all things concidered, it's just not a good option right now for the issues we are facing *right now*. You can theorize about building nuclear plants fully "unleashed" in as little as 5 to 10 years, but under those conditions you could build wind or solar plants in under a year.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2023 18:14 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 06:21 |
|
cat botherer posted:Yeah, this should not be about "cheap." Nuclear plants can be built fast. We've built them fast in the past, and China is building them fast now. We know it's possible. They’re really not, though. Their current average is only a few years faster than global average for new nuclear.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2023 18:22 |
|
in a well actually posted:They’re really not, though. Their current average is only a few years faster than global average for new nuclear. https://www.statista.com/statistics/712851/construction-time-for-new-reactors/ At any rate, nuclear is still the baseload option that realistically can be deployed the fastest, at wide scale. There's no other option on the horizon - pumped hydro needs dams to be built and relies on sufficient water and favorable topography, and grid battery storage is a Muskian pipedream. Both of those options are much worse than nuclear from an environmental standpoint, as well.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2023 18:31 |
|
cat botherer posted:That's not correct. China builds plants much faster than we do. The median construction time for new reactors in 2021 was 88 months. Worldwide average is only 8 years, tho. “Faster than the US” is more about US industrial incompetence than imagined structural issues.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2023 18:46 |
|
SpeedFreek posted:This argument has always bothered me, we should be doing as much as possible to avoid burning stuff for power. Do both, not the current solution of peaker gas turbines to run all night. The reality as outlined in our remaining optimistic IPCC AR6 carbon pathwaysis that we will need to be sequestered carbon like a motherfucker* by 2060. Whether we historically have or have not run all our generation capacity at full power at all times has no bearing on the fact that we will need to be running all our generation capacity at 100% 24/7/365 to sequester carbon as fast as possible in just a few decades. I don't recall what the AR6 says, but the AR5 spitballed that we'd need something on the length scale of tens of terawatts of excess capacity dedicated to carbon sequestration, and that's after a huge hypothetical Future Tech Will Save Us™ reduction in the energy intensity of carbon sequestration tech over modern capabilities. Tl;dr it will not be a problem if we overbuild nuclear capacity AND renewables to power sequestration. We're going to need absolutely every watt of installed capacity we can wring out of our corrupt, shortsighted leaders. *The IPCC does not actually say "like a motherfucker" Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jun 21, 2023 |
# ? Jun 21, 2023 18:49 |
|
Son of Rodney posted:Nuclear is neither fast nor is building the necessary capacity in any way realistic, and also depends on peaker plants and storage, why do people keep pretending it doesn't Nuclear exists, grid storage at the scale you're describing does not. E: and I still say it's a false dichotomy, nuclear does not compete with renewables. I just wish people would stop pretending that we are only allowed to build renewables QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jun 21, 2023 |
# ? Jun 21, 2023 20:09 |
|
I feel like I recall it being said a long time ago in this thread or another nuclear thread that the USA just flat-out doesn't have the capability to produce big enough steel vessels required for decently large-sized nuclear reactors. It had something to do with the size of the largest hydraulic presses or some other kind of huge industrial machinery that the US doesn't have anymore. It was a really interesting post, I wish I recalled the specifics!
|
# ? Jun 21, 2023 20:20 |
|
DrSunshine posted:I feel like I recall it being said a long time ago in this thread or another nuclear thread that the USA just flat-out doesn't have the capability to produce big enough steel vessels required for decently large-sized nuclear reactors. It had something to do with the size of the largest hydraulic presses or some other kind of huge industrial machinery that the US doesn't have anymore. When someone says "impossible" in this sort of context they mean "someone would have to make investments that take more then 4 years to pay off".
|
# ? Jun 21, 2023 20:57 |
|
Ah, I think I found an article about this: https://www.newequipment.com/plant-operations/article/21921859/us-cedes-capability-for-largest-nuclear-forgings It's a bit but quote:U.S. Cedes Capability for Largest Nuclear Forgings
|
# ? Jun 21, 2023 21:02 |
|
This is replying to discussion bit up thread but wrt geothermal the Volts podcast had an interview 3/31 about it and I thought it was an interesting conversation. Not sure how David Roberts is regarded around here but I think he does good interviews and I learned a lot about current/future anticipated tech limitations and what people in the field are currently doing to ramp up production so figured I'd mention it. Sorry to interrupt nuke chat
|
# ? Jun 21, 2023 21:21 |
|
I would love to hear more about geothermal, anything you personally took away that you'd like to share?
|
# ? Jun 21, 2023 21:28 |
|
VictualSquid posted:When someone says "impossible" in this sort of context they mean "someone would have to make investments that take more then 4 years to pay off". marchantia posted:This is replying to discussion bit up thread but wrt geothermal the Volts podcast had an interview 3/31 about it and I thought it was an interesting conversation. Not sure how David Roberts is regarded around here but I think he does good interviews and I learned a lot about current/future anticipated tech limitations and what people in the field are currently doing to ramp up production so figured I'd mention it. Thanks, something to listen to on my flight.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2023 21:46 |
|
The discussion about energy storage needs a website that lists all the available or possible future methods, and the state of research with them. I have seen so many technologies listed that I can't keep track of them. When posters mention battery storage do they mean Li-Ion batteries, or also flow and liquid metal batteries and what else there are? I suspect that as long as we are limited by our litium battery manufacturing capacity we should prioritize them for EVs and only use minimal amount for grid stability uses. One unusual energy storage is used by Helsinki energy company. They have turned decommissioned oil caves to heat storage, 260 000 m³ caves that can hold 11,6 GWh of hot water. But this is probably only practical in cities with district heating. Smaller version could be hot water tanks in households, might as well heat them to 90°C when electricity is plentiful. Just need a device that mixes it with cold water at the output. Or maybe the output tube could run the height of the tank with temperature controlled openings at regular intervals. Or cool a freezer down to -20°C. Years ago I heard of device that monitors the grid frequency and would turn equipment off if the frequency dropped below nominal. It would probably be a minimal expense if all appliances that can manage with intermitten power were equipped with one, fridges, freezers, water tanks, EV chargers... For grid I think I like cryogenic energy storage best, it doesn't require rare or unusual materials or technology. Any company that has built oil refineries, chemical plants or similar should be able to manufacture them. For example, what is the company that manufactured the Nord Stream 2 pipes doing? In fact, we already have those broken and unusable pipes, let's raise them up, cut to sections, weld endcaps and stand them upright and we'll have whole lot of storage tanks right there, assuming liquid air won't make them too brittle.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2023 22:27 |
|
QuarkJets posted:I would love to hear more about geothermal, anything you personally took away that you'd like to share? To be honest it's been 3 months since I listened so I don't remember fine points well enough to type up anything without having to Google a bunch of facts I've forgotten but here's a link to the transcript if you wanna read/skim without listening.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 01:21 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Nuclear exists, grid storage at the scale you're describing does not. For renewables to work as a baseload sans storage, the infrastructure needs to be massively built out to transfer power around and that is a project that will probably take longer than building nukes in the first place. So sure renewables can be built fast, but does that mean they can actually provide baseload? No. It's a form of dishonesty IMO to gloss that over.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 06:06 |
QuarkJets posted:Nuclear exists, grid storage at the scale you're describing does not. Hydro exists in many countries, as do other technologies that can be used, people seem to conflate grid storage with batteries, which correctly do not exist at the needed size and propably won't in any significant speed. Here in Germany 5% of baseload is already provided by bio-gas, which can be ramped up at least a bit. It both works as storage, baseload and peaker plants. small scale battery systems for homes are also increasing, before I switched to my current job I worked with a company who were planning to use a swarm of these as grid compensation measures. The issue is that there is no one storage catch all, it's gonna be a creative mix of small scale decentralized stuff coupled with larger scale projects. If battery power, molten salt or otherwise, ever reaches a viable scale all the better Also you can build whatever you want, and people will continue building nuclear, it's just not economically or technically viable in the vast majority of use cases. Apart from the basic constraints that are discussed often stuff like not having nearly enough building capacity or personel for a huge push is also a problem. Who's gonna build and man these nuke plants? You'd need to first build the infrastructure and train people, while renewables are already deep into that process and able to do it faster.
|
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 07:10 |
|
Son of Rodney posted:Hydro exists in many countries, as do other technologies that can be used, people seem to conflate grid storage with batteries, which correctly do not exist at the needed size and propably won't in any significant speed. Here in Germany 5% of baseload is already provided by bio-gas, which can be ramped up at least a bit. It both works as storage, baseload and peaker plants. small scale battery systems for homes are also increasing, before I switched to my current job I worked with a company who were planning to use a swarm of these as grid compensation measures. The issue is that there is no one storage catch all, it's gonna be a creative mix of small scale decentralized stuff coupled with larger scale projects. If battery power, molten salt or otherwise, ever reaches a viable scale all the better You are sort trying to imply that storage does exist at the scale required but it is further away from existing at the scale required than nuclear is. Hydro is the only scale storage currently not just hopes and dreams and it is very problematic to scale up that much further for most of the world. Additionally, infrastructure powerlines, etc need a lot more maintenace than I think you realise. It is not just string some wires and job done, opex is still the overall largest cost of a powerline, not the capex (especially when you try and cut a corner and the dusty isolator sets fire to half of Western Australia). In among those hopes and dreams is one I agree one that might work is the electricity to hydrocarbon (biofuel) but that also requires quite a lot of work to get the scale, round trip efficiency and cost (land use, labor, materials) where it needs to be to be more than just a bit of greenwashing on the side/niche use. If it did get to scale at reasonable cost, it would be amazing as it would instantly remove the need for massive battery buildout, BEVs, etc. Again to re-iterate, I am all for continuing the rollout of solar and wind, and excited at the thought of cheap drilling enabling geothermal at reduced cost, but am railing against the concept that renewables as is currently state of the art or with predictable technology has the capacity to completely replace fossil fuels (within the labor hours, materials and land-use budget that exists). Waiting 30 years without some massive breakthrough in battery chemistry or other pipe dream to then decide to start ramping up nuclear is very sub-optimal. E) and nuclear has been kicked down the road for 30 years so far by and large. So, for me the general consensus is that that climate emergency is an emergency but not enough of an emergency to build nuclear. Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Jun 22, 2023 |
# ? Jun 22, 2023 09:16 |
|
Son of Rodney posted:Hydro exists in many countries, as do other technologies that can be used, people seem to conflate grid storage with batteries, which correctly do not exist at the needed size and propably won't in any significant speed. Here in Germany 5% of baseload is already provided by bio-gas, which can be ramped up at least a bit. It both works as storage, baseload and peaker plants. small scale battery systems for homes are also increasing, before I switched to my current job I worked with a company who were planning to use a swarm of these as grid compensation measures. The issue is that there is no one storage catch all, it's gonna be a creative mix of small scale decentralized stuff coupled with larger scale projects. If battery power, molten salt or otherwise, ever reaches a viable scale all the better I guess since grid-scale energy storage doesn't even exist on paper yet there's no need to worry about how it's going to get built or operated, that's true
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 09:24 |
|
DrSunshine posted:Ah, I think I found an article about this: https://www.newequipment.com/plant-operations/article/21921859/us-cedes-capability-for-largest-nuclear-forgings This is interesting, but it's more of a "we don't have the capability because we don't build enough nuclear power for it to be profitable" than it is an actual barrier to making new plants. We would just ship the parts we need from Japan or elsewhere. 600 tons is big, but not so big that we couldn't just throw it on a boat. If anything, a bigger problem would be getting it on site because our rail infrastructure sucks and putting more than a million pounds of steel on a ridiculously huge truck can be done but is a royal pain in the rear end and terrible for the roads.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 09:40 |
|
Things not being profitable enough to invest is a solved problem. Start subsidizing renewables/nuclear, stop subsidizing beef.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 10:20 |
|
Not too shabby, Finland power production, nuclear was up to almost 66% last night and over 60% basically all day. Haven't been following closely lately but our power situation is much improved recently. Next winter will be interesting. Kärnkraft = nuclear
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 12:00 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Nuclear exists, grid storage at the scale you're describing does not. This example is obviously only during a short window but it's not impossible. If the argument is that we could have built more power generation capacity had we directed what was spent on batteries toward more nuclear plants instead, I could buy that as technically true. Assuming the external risks to such projects (permitting etc) were alleviated. QuarkJets posted:E: and I still say it's a false dichotomy, nuclear does not compete with renewables. I just wish people would stop pretending that we are only allowed to build renewables
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 13:29 |
|
spf3million posted:But if there were unlimited funds available (somehow capitalism stops applying to the power generation sector, something I could also get behind) then it's this 100%. "Somehow capitalism stops applying" doesn't mean "unlimited funds." Resources are scarce, regardless of what method you use to allocate them.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:17 |
|
Phanatic posted:"Somehow capitalism stops applying" doesn't mean "unlimited funds." Resources are scarce, regardless of what method you use to allocate them.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:22 |
|
cat botherer posted:We have plenty of capacity in a physical sense to get all of this done fast. Sure. It's not "physical capacity" that has driven up the cost and time required to build a new nuclear plant. How much of what has is Because Capitalism?
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:38 |
|
Phanatic posted:Sure. It's not "physical capacity" that has driven up the cost and time required to build a new nuclear plant. How much of what has is Because Capitalism?
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:41 |
|
cat botherer posted:It is possible to build nuke plants much faster than we do now, but it's not profitable. Do you think the reason we don't build nuke plants much faster than we do now is because it's not profitable?
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:55 |
|
Phanatic posted:Do you think the reason we don't build nuke plants much faster than we do now is because it's not profitable?
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:57 |
|
cat botherer posted:Yes. Profit is a motive for a lot of decisions. We know it's physically possible to build them faster, but would cost more. Public utilities in Australia seem to have a hard time going with nuclear without the shackles of profit (also don't install Electro-Static Precipitators on gas stacks as required by law for private power station operators so it is not an abundance of caution regarding the environment/people's health either). Profit is not the biggest thing holding back nuclear, lack of social acceptance of nuclear tech is the single biggest issue, by far and away.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 16:03 |
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Public utilities in Australia seem to have a hard time going with nuclear without the shackles of profit (also don't install Electro-Static Precipitators on gas stacks as required by law for private power station operators so it is not an abundance of caution regarding the environment/people's health either).
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 16:05 |
|
cat botherer posted:Yes. Profit is a motive for a lot of decisions. We know it's physically possible to build them faster, but would cost more. So, just to be clear, you’re saying that the public opposition to nuclear power, and the fact that many people do not want nuclear power plants built anywhere near them is solely the result of a profit motive, and not an artifact of a democratic political process? Furthermore, your solution to this problem is that if we abandoned the profit motive, that somehow we would be able to completely run roughshod over the over the democratically expressed preferences of such people, and a whole slew of regulations involving site licensing, and environmental impact, could simply be ignored?
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 16:20 |
|
Phanatic posted:So, just to be clear, you’re saying that the public opposition to nuclear power, and the fact that many people do not want nuclear power plants built anywhere near them is solely the result of a profit motive, and not an artifact of a democratic political process? Furthermore, your solution to this problem is that if we abandoned the profit motive, that somehow we would be able to completely run roughshod over the over the democratically expressed preferences of such people, and a whole slew of regulations involving site licensing, and environmental impact, could simply be ignored? Nuclear power is supported by a majority of people in the US. A vocal minority oppose it, as do fossil fuel interests. https://news.gallup.com/poll/474650/americans-support-nuclear-energy-highest-decade.aspx
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 16:29 |
|
cat botherer posted:You can’t separate economics from politics. Opposition to nuclear power results in reduced funding, but there are also a myriad of other economic reasons why building plants quickly is hard. In the US, power plants are usually built by private corporations. In almost every country, nuclear power plants are typically built by private corporations. The program management and the design bureau might be in a government office, but it's not people drawing a government paycheck who are pouring the concrete, tying the rebar, and rolling the steel. There have been some historically-notable exceptions but I don't think those are particularly anything a wise person would want to emulate. quote:Expectations of profit are central to their decision making. I’m not sure how this is controversial. It isn't. What's controversial is your claim that we can't build plants faster *because* of those expectations of profit. Moreover, your assertion that there's just all this unused capital sitting around that could simply be reallocated to big nuclear-certified pressure vessels aside, let's ask how long are these plants we can rapidly build once we get rid of capitalism going to sit idle because there aren't people to operate them? How many trained nuclear engineers do we turn out annually? How are you going to bump those numbers up? quote:Nuclear power is supported by a majority of people in the US. Building more housing is supported by a majority of people in the US, and yet somehow most places in desperate need of housing make it as difficult as possible to build any. Hell, a majority of people in Germany support wind power and yet there's still massive local opposition to building out the transmission lines required to move the wind power from the turbines to the people who want to use it. Nuclear power in the abstract is supported by a majority of people in the US in polls. Revealed preferences, on the other hand, demonstrate that almost nobody in the US wants a nuclear power plant built near them, which is precisely why we've got multiple public comment periods built into the licensing process. And I'm gonna go ahead and say that this opposition has a lot more to do with a number of spectacular high-profile nuclear disasters than with fossil fuel industry propaganda. It wasn't "profit motive" that made Japan close all its plants. It wasn't "profit motive" that made Germany close all its plants. And it's not "profit motive" that explains the political opposition to building nuclear plants that is so visceral that accommodating it is baked into the process.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 17:02 |
|
Phanatic posted:Moreover, your assertion that there's just all this unused capital sitting around that could simply be reallocated to big nuclear-certified pressure vessels aside, let's ask how long are these plants we can rapidly build once we get rid of capitalism going to sit idle because there aren't people to operate them? How many trained nuclear engineers do we turn out annually? How are you going to bump those numbers up? There is infinite money available if it is for something the government actually wants to do. Because the government can just invest the money they print instead of handing it out for free. Like the military or police or even covid. The only time you need to penny pinch is when the government is split. Like with healthcare or infrastructure investments. Moving power generation investments from one pool to the other is only stopped by the lack of political will. For nuclear generations specifically there is the problem that the people who believe in Austerity have historically overlapped with the people who are pro-nuclear, so there is very little support to actually spend money on it. And training nuclear engineers doesn't take longer then building the plants. If you promise jobs and fund college courses, there will be trained engineers. Similar things have been done, even for dumber reasons.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 17:43 |
|
it's amusing that people think that public utilities and infrastructure need to be profit generators.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:05 |
|
VictualSquid posted:There is infinite money available if it is for something the government actually wants to do. Because the government can just invest the money they print instead of handing it out for free. Like the military or police or even covid. Infinite money doesn't turn on the infinite power button, otherwise we wouldn't need nuclear power in the first place. It turns on the crazy inflation button for the power that was always there. When we are talking cost, we are talking labour hours, land use, materials, pollution, etc. The estimated USD value of that labour/land/mateirals/polution is a made up number that is immaterial. It takes more than deciding it is a good idea before the institutional knowledge is there. It is expected to take decades for China to get good at multi carrier ops or for Australia to learn how to operate Nuclear submarines, both with $$$$ budgets being tipped in (~$USD0.3 trillion for Aus I understand) and genuine desire to make happen. China scaled back their nuclear ambitions specifically because they weren't confident they could train and stand up enough regulators with sufficient skills to regulate their original ambition.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:06 |
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:it's amusing that people think that public utilities and infrastructure need to be profit generators.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:13 |
|
cat botherer posted:They don't need to be, but that's the usual unfortunate reality - and one that needs to be changed. Fossil fuel generation would never be profitable if generators had to pay for the negative externalities they create. so what you are saying is that pricing in externalitiies means they wouldn't be profit generators but that's ok because they don't need to be.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:16 |
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Infinite money doesn't turn on the infinite power button, otherwise we wouldn't need nuclear power in the first place. It turns on the crazy inflation button for the power that was always there. It is massively of topic, but why do you think that investing money into power generation will cause massive inflation, while investing the same amount of money into the military, police and banking bailouts does not? I do think that nuclear plants are currently practically impossible to build in large part because your attitude on government spending is historically more common among pro-nuclear people then anti-nuclear people. And it sounds like china failed to train sufficient nuclear experts. And now that they presumable have invested additional resources into training they will have such experts in a few years. And if they had invested such resources earlier they would have more experts earlier.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:19 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 06:21 |
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:so what you are saying is that pricing in externalitiies means they wouldn't be profit generators but that's ok because they don't need to be.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:23 |