|
Kalman posted:Minus the tremendous ecosystem destruction that the reservoirs generally inflict, of course, and that's when you already have a favorable river to work with. 
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
Tasmantor posted:fallacious argumenting
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Tasmantor posted:A good post and the sort of thing this thread should see. I would be most interested in why a new kind of distribution grid or system is infeasible. Italics are snarky nit picks but thank you for the post. Good response. * Anecdotally, it's ridiculous how the response to saying "nuclear good" in a real life conversations correlates with nationality. If the response is "Nucular power? Unthinkable!" or "atoms will kill us all", you're probably a German even at my decidedly non-German uni. If the response is "well I agree" or "no, because safety issues/waste management/other actual problems are too big" you could be from anywhere including Germany, but it's still striking how being terrified by (rather than against) nuclear power seems to be a mostly German thing in Europe. * Offshore wind? I've heard people claim it's bad, other people say it's good, and apparently it's expensive or something (unsurprisingly). I'm inferring based on the problems we face with onshore wind till I can have a more in-depth read about offshore wind since I don't know enough marine ecology to say whether building the things causes ecological problems or not. * On changes in power grid infrastructure (presumably to a decentralised ~*~smart~*~ power grid): I'm no engineer, so I can't go into detail without inevitably saying something dumb. I don't think there's any reason why we couldn't decentralise our power grid if we really wanted to, and obviously engineers agree since otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. However, I view electricity as a basic public good like water and roads, and therefore it should be provided to everyone in a way that is as simple as possible, with as few points of failure as possible, with the ability to overprovide if necessary, and as cheaply as possible while maintaining reliable service. While building power generating structures all over the place may have some economies-of-scale advantages for prices of individual components you need more of, it will not only require rearranging and building new power lines (which must be capable of transmitting the maximum output of an intermittent power source, because otherwise you'll fry them), but I'd expect you'll also need to replicate lots of stuff that's currently centralised and sitting next to a few power plants. In my view, it is perfectly ok to sacrifice a bit of efficiency (if that turns out to be the case) and produce more electricity than strictly necessary as long as that doesn't end up destroying our climate rather than implement Obviously we shouldn't impose Centralisation über Alles where it doesn't make sense, but I don't see why we should actively move away from the current semi-centralised power grid. * Ecologists crying: yeah, you're right, nuclear would make a different subset of ecologists cry. I'll generalise first and say that most ecologists agree that land use is a major cause of environmental damage right after climate change, so to make a consistent argument you need to be against energy sources with a large footprint. However, it should be noted that ecologists come in different varieties, and there are some who argue for land sharing with decentralisation and extensive agriculture and renewable power spread around the landscape, while others argue for land sparing and intensive agriculture to leave larger areas untouched. Curiously, a disproportionate number of German ecologists seem to be strong land sharing proponents. I would argue that land sparing is the way to go in any place where primary ecosystems still exist since all that biodiversity we're worried about originates in non man-built habitats anyway (snark: land sharing is an admission of defeat, it means "everything is completely hosed already, so why bother", though obviously any land sharing proponent will tell me I'm wrong about that). Exceptions apply to places like... Europe, where the land sparing side lost hundreds of years ago when the Roman Empire and every other state with a large population and a navy happened. In that case, we need to make do with what we have, though I'd still argue that in addition we should set aside areas to let them regenerate on their own over the next couple of centuries. That could also be said about large parts of the non-mountainous parts of China, though from what little I've seen there any agricultural area including farming villages in the rear end end of nowhere looks pretty terrible even compared to larger secondary forests. Land sparing implies that centralisation is great, wind is poo poo, hydro should be used in limited circumstances only, and therefore solar thermal or nuclear are the way to go. Land sharing implies that decentralisation is great, people will live dispersed over the countryside, and therefore wind and rooftop solar are great (or small modular nuclear  ).Ecologists/conservationists actively having issues with nuclear power come in several varieties, with serious arguments ranging from opposition based on a percieved incompatibility of nuclear and renewables (goddamn it's not 1970 anymore and load following reactors are a thing, see below), to opposition based on correlational studies which show Chernobyl is totally a black hole of biodiversity sucking all the good out of the rest of Europe (I may be exaggerating slightly). I fundamentally disagree with that - you can find a correlation for everything...  Exhibit A: a spurious correlation, hardly more fantastic and with a better r² than some arguments against nuclear power ...so unless you can show a plausible causal link that does not get completely destroyed by experimental evidence, I'm calling bullshit. Ecosystem scale responses to radiation must be based on a measurable effect on the organisms. In addition, when talking about low level radiation effects, there seems to be a disconnect of orders of magnitude. Studies are trotted out where yearly doses are several Sv because someone took a sample in the hottest zone right next to Chernobyl, which is a very generous interpretation of "low level", and sometimes even the Russian who calculated a million killed by taking all deaths for a few years pre-Chernobyl and comparing them to all post-Chernobyl deaths for a similar time period is cited as a source without the slightest hint of irony. Furthermore, ecologists often still use the linear no threshold model, even though almost every study with data points in the low radiation range (say, below a few hundred mSv) shows a sigmoidal response. Also I have the impression that many ecologists read little about the engineering side or the implementation of different energy sources in general, so even a rough idea of scaling can be lacking (that's how solar roadways can seem awesome) and arguments like "Northern Germany has solar panels, Alaska has similar sunlight to Northern Germany, therefore photovoltaics in Alaska is totally a good idea Q.E.D.  " are seriously made. * Time for some terrible opinionated snark: As a general criticism, ecology It would, of course, be a disservice to imply that ecologists don't do experiments and can't do maths - due to the realities we face, ecologists often need to think really really hard to move the field forward. You can't do experiments on an ecosystem scale as easily as you can do with cell cultures or lab rats, so relying on correlational data is something ecologists are forced to do to a larger extent than other fields while drawing a mechanistic model has perhaps been less common than it should have been (also it is really hard because ecosystems are incredibly complex). With bacteria, plate out more petri dishes and your statistical power becomes Yes. In ecology, a factorial design with two main predictors and 27 samples from field sites may very well be the upper end of what you can get when looking at whole ecosystems, except if you're working in one of the few properly experimental megaprojects. However, the mathematical and analytical ability of ecologists is rather... variable. If you're not aiming for a scientific position, you can be bad at maths and making models of things and still not fail the course. While I agree that physicists encountering a new field for the first time and going "How could you possibly spend 40 years on that, give me two months and I'll come up with a single equation  " are annoying, it is definitely worth listening if they or other experimental scientists say "wait, what you just said can't possibly work".Also many ecologists won't know the molecular biology relevant to radiation very well, since most currently tenured ecologists did their undergrad before the molecular basis of radiation damage and its repair were well-understood. It's hard enough to keep up with the flood of ecology papers, so unless it's in Science or Nature, you won't even hear of that stuff unless you actively look for it, and you can get blank stares when talking about recent low level radiation experiments. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:03
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:* Offshore wind? I've heard people claim it's bad, other people say it's good, and apparently it's expensive or something (unsurprisingly). I'm inferring based on the problems we face with onshore wind till I can have a more in-depth read about offshore wind since I don't know enough marine ecology to say whether building the things causes ecological problems or not. I would imagine that a big part of the problem with offshore wind is that there's very few environments as hostile towards technology than the marine environment. Corrosion is a constant issue and moving parts only makes this worse. Add in the difficulty of maintaining an offshore wind turbine and it just becomes that much worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Ecologists/conservationists actively having issues with nuclear power come in several varieties, with serious arguments ranging from opposition based on a percieved incompatibility of nuclear and renewables (goddamn it's not 1970 anymore and load following reactors are a thing, see below), to opposition based on correlational studies which show Chernobyl is totally a black hole of biodiversity sucking all the good out of the rest of Europe (I may be exaggerating slightly). I fundamentally disagree with that - you can find a correlation for everything... Interesting read related to this. Off-shore ++ More power capability ++ Fewer residential areas to threaten if tower/blades fail ++ Lots of coastline in lots of areas. -- Impedes shipping -- Construction is extremely challenging -- Untested in field vs. hurricanes/squalls -- Transmission infrastructure a challenge -- Inaccessibility greater increases maintenance and installation costs -- Aforementioned corrosion -- Widely derided as eyesores
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Pander posted:Interesting read related to this. Thanks. Moller papers (referred to in the slate article)... are a weird thing. On one hand, his correlational papers did not appear convincing to me at all. On the other hand, he was also involved in hard studies on physiological changes in animals in Chernobyl with interesting conclusions, so I'm reluctant to dismiss him out of hand. He really should go do some work in the other parts of the Chernobyl exclusion zone, since data about the effects of actual low level radiation in the wild is extremely sparse. e: the stuff about mutations being more common in plants and quickly gone in animals is interesting, since it confirms exactly what you'd expect. Selection pressure on nonfunctional animals is incredibly strong, and evolution can act incredibly quickly against strongly deleterious alleles. This effect will be particularly visible in animals suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Mindless group-think combined with lolbertarian narcissism and techno-utopianism. Leads to a lot of "nuclear power is the future, I should know because I just got promoted to assistant manager down at the Geek Squad, plus look at my reddit karma from /r/thoriummakesyourdickbigger"-style Dunning-Kruger. Not to mention the usual conspiracy theory/echo chamber nuttiness about how those who hold different opinions are not just wrong but evil. See, for example, the ranting about those STUPID NAZIS at the UCS who want to KILL YOUR CHILDREN RIGHT NOW because their position is "focus nuclear development on improving existing reactor technologies". you see, groupthink lolbertarian reddit posts form an echo chamber of dunning krugers, and we can burn them for power
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Are you aware that silicon solar cells aren't just a big panels of silicon that magically come into existence? Yes, I am actually pretty knowledgeable about silicon solar cell processing. I am not as familiar with how the sand gets converted into silicon, the purification of the silicon, and then the growth of the silicon crystals. I do know quite a bit about how the silicon crystals get turned into solar cells. QuarkJets posted:The manufacturing of silicon cells results in the production byproducts, including extremely toxic silicon tetrachloride. Silicon cell production also produces sulfur hexafluoride, a greenhouse gas that The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change estimates has an effect that is 25000 times greater than CO2 per molecule. Yes, SiCl4 is a byproduct in the silicon purification process. SF6 is a gas used in silicon etching. I am aware that solar cell manufacturing, like any other manufacturing process, involves chemicals. If you want to make the claim that it is a particularly nasty manufacturing process, you'd have to be more precise than namedropping two different chemicals. QuarkJets posted:Many silicon cells also still have heavy elements like lead in them, simply because that's a result of the manufacturing process. There can be lead in the solder used to wire things together inside the cell panel, but there doesn't have to be. There aren't non-trace concentrations of lead in the silicon itself. If there were non-trace concentrations of lead in the silicon, the silicon cells wouldn't work very well--instead of converting sunlight to electricity, they would convert sunlight immediately into waste heat. This is why a lot of effort in making silicon for solar cells goes into the purification of the silicon. QuarkJets posted:I mean if you're going to accuse the thread of ignoring all of the downsides of nuclear (even if the thread hasn't been doing that), then why are you allowed to ignore the downsides of photovoltaics? I love solar power, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a boundless source of cheap green energy when it's not. If you look through my post history in this thread, you will see that I have never claimed that solar cells are a perfect technology. The only time that I have talked about photovoltaics in this thread is to correct misconceptions regarding the technology. blowfish posted:Look at how hard environmentalist publications are insisting that silicon cells don't cause pollution. Do you actually read your links before you post them, or do you just add blue underlined text to your posts to make them look more informed? Your link doesn't say anything about environmentalist conspiracies. Being in a state of mind of being constantly at battle with imaginary environmentalist foes does explain most of your posts in this thread though. blowfish posted:Oh wait they don't, though maybe I should've said "heavy metals and other pollutants" instead of just "heavy metals". Again, you are misinformed. Solar cells don't have to be loaded with heavy metals and the current ones overwhelmingly aren't unless you really worry about the lead-tin solder in solar panels. If that bothers you, to be consistent, I hope that you are worrying about the the solder in your laptop computer and TV screen as well. I don't know why you are clutching to this point. Based on this interaction with you, I am really doubting that you are the self-fashioned energy expert that you claim that you are. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
The way I understood it, the problem is that to even achieve a moderate goal of solar proliferation (say, 5-10% worldwide) would essentially eat up all the silver reserves in the world. Hell from the article that Quarkjets linked (which whooshed you pretty badly, silence_kit): quote:The point of concern in the manufacture of solar panels is that the silver content used in the module is leftover and is considered a dangerous waste. Producing these panels in high quantities could also lead to the depletion of silver resources. According to scientist G.J.M. Phylipsen's book Environmental Life-cycle Assessment of Multicrystalline Silicon Solar Cell Modules, a PV contribution of five percent of the current world electricity production would require about 50 percent of current silver production.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Pander posted:The way I understood it, the problem is that to even achieve a moderate goal of solar proliferation (say, 5-10% worldwide) would essentially eat up all the silver reserves in the world. Silver is often used as the top electrode for silicon solar cells, but it doesn't have to be. If silver scarcity actually became a problem (I am usually suspicious of scarcity claims--there are a lot of hysterical articles about scarcity of resources), they could switch to aluminum. Aluminum is a common metal used to make electrical contact to silicon in integrated circuits and solar cells. Edit: VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Nevvy Z posted:You shouldn't encourage people to do this if you want to be taken remotely seriously. All you do is make vague generalizations about solar while crying that people like nuclear too much. The flaws with solar have been thorougly explored throughout the thread. Actually, when I talk about solar energy in this thread, it overwhelmingly is to correct misconceptions like "solar cells require scarce elements". That's not a vague generalization about solar energy, that actually reveals a sort of detailed knowledge about photovoltaic technology. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you look through my post history in this thread, you will see that I have never claimed that solar cells are a perfect technology. The only time that I have talked about photovoltaics in this thread is to correct misconceptions regarding the technology. You shouldn't encourage people to do this if you want to be taken remotely seriously. All you do is make vague generalizations about solar while crying that people like nuclear too much. The flaws with solar have been thorougly explored throughout the thread. If I recall the biggest is that it takes a large as gently caress land area relative to power output, poor storage technology making it hard/impossible to provide baseload power from solar, and the fact that many places just aren't suitable for it. Similar to wind except without the hard limit on how much we can even theoretically get from it. Nuclear has drawbacks too, but they are more in the "people need better education" vein than "destroying our world or just isn't enough" Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yes, I am actually pretty knowledgeable about silicon solar cell processing. I am not as familiar with how the sand gets converted into silicon, the purification of the silicon, and then the growth of the silicon crystals. I do know quite a bit about how the silicon crystals get turned into solar cells.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Siemens process/CZ process/occasionally FZ process. These processing techniques are really basic, and if you don't know the basics, why would people assume you know the rest of Si solar cell processing. Okay, out with it, what university did you get kicked out of? You have this weird hard-on for hating on people with advanced degrees. I don't have any firsthand experience with purifying silicon or growing bulk silicon crystals (I have never worked in a silicon purifying plant or silicon wafer plant--have you?) so that's why I say I'm less familiar with it. I've only learned about it briefly in a class. I don't hate people with advanced degrees, but I find it annoying when people, who instead of actually explaining things, namedrop their credentials or terminology and expect others to be impressed. I'm not unique in that regard. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't have any firsthand experience with purifying silicon or growing bulk silicon crystals (I have never worked in a silicon purifying plant or silicon wafer plant--have you?) so that's why I say I'm less familiar with it. I've only learned about it briefly in a class. I don't hate people with advanced degrees, but I find it annoying when people, who instead of actually explaining things, namedrop their credentials or terminology and expect others to be impressed. I'm not unique in that regard. And that somehow keeps you from even discussing the idea of silicon purification to the level of identifying the names of some of the processes? Uh huh. Why should anybody believe you when you say that you done silicon processing for solar cells?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:And that somehow keeps you from even discussing the idea of silicon purification to the level of identifying the names of some of the processes? Uh huh. Why should anybody believe you when you say that you done silicon processing for solar cells? It comes from the UMG-Si fairy, duh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Claverjoe, I understand that you have some sort of personal vendetta against me. It has been a couple of times now you've barged into a thread on these forums just to slander me. I suggest that you let sleeping dogs lie and maybe find something else to do with your free time.
silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Claverjoe, I understand that you have some sort of personal vendetta against me. It has been a couple of times now you've barged into a thread on these forums just to slander me. I suggest that you let sleeping dogs lie and maybe find something else to do with your free time. Oh goodness no, I just don't like it when I see threads I like shitted up by stupidity. I'm not unique in that regard. I mean, If I posted in all of the threads you posted in, I suppose you could make a case, but the I don't post in the online dating thread, the "how do I approach somebody without being a creep", or the "social justice warrior" threads, from a quick glance at your post history. The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
EDIT: never mine
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Mindless group-think combined with lolbertarian narcissism and techno-utopianism. Leads to a lot of "nuclear power is the future, I should know because I just got promoted to assistant manager down at the Geek Squad, plus look at my reddit karma from /r/thoriummakesyourdickbigger"-style Dunning-Kruger. Not to mention the usual conspiracy theory/echo chamber nuttiness about how those who hold different opinions are not just wrong but evil. See, for example, the ranting about those STUPID NAZIS at the UCS who want to KILL YOUR CHILDREN RIGHT NOW because their position is "focus nuclear development on improving existing reactor technologies". Lol who let the google-scraping parked domain robot off of it's leash?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Do you actually read your links before you post them, or do you just add blue underlined text to your posts to make them look more informed? Your link doesn't say anything about environmentalist conspiracies.  Protip: consider whether I may have used the rethorical device of sarcasm when illustrating the point that environmentalists are aware of the fact that solar panel production can also cause problems. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Nuclear has drawbacks Look at this rear end in a top hat. How much is the solar conspiracy paying you to destroy the world? I bet you're just some loving ecologist. If you don't want to immediate conscript everyone in the United States whose name begins with a letter from N-Z and force them to build thorium reactors(A-M will be running the re-education camps to eliminate Incorrect Thought about nuclear power) then you are objectively pro-genocide. Objectively. Pro. Genocide. My qualifications? Uhhh, asshat, did you see how many posts I have in this thread? Why won't you crybaby hippie ecologist n00bs admit that Nuclear Is The Light.  Nevvy Z posted:The flaws with solar have been thorougly explored throughout the thread. the yellow face, it burns us, we hates it (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
I'm probably one of the less pro-nuclear power people in this thread and your argument isn't even convincing me, mate. You might want to dial back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 22:56
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
The Insect Court posted:Why won't you crybaby hippie ecologist n00bs admit that Nuclear Is The Light. Hey look, it's a site that believes that GMOs are Frankenfoods.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Is there a side-by-side flowchart of the regulatory approval process for, let's say a 9H CC gas turbine plant versus an ABWR nuclear plant? Sort of like the insane "legal immigration" flowcharts for when idiots start talking about "getting in line."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hey look, it's a site that believes that GMOs are Frankenfoods. Haha, first comment: quote:What ever happened to Hydrogen fuel cells? It seems that Hydrogen would really be an excellent alternative to fossil and maybe a few of these others, especially to run your automobile. The manufacturing of liquid hydrogen cannot be too complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Tasmantor posted:Unless it's not nuclear power because then it just has all these issues, oh god to many to even consider it just go nuclear. I don't think I have to explain this in detail but the usage of coal and natural gas (even in combined-cycle gas turbine configuration) is not good for the environment and not sustainable. Those things need to be replaced. Our options are nuclear (U-235 fuel in the short run, Th-232 and U-238 precursor fuels in the long run), solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and so on. Not saying you're pro-fossil fuel or pro-renewable or whatever, I'm just trying to explain what's going on here. Nuclear has numerous issues that have all been highlighted already because it's important to pin down why things are the way they are when debating about them. To reiterate, the biggest issues with nuclear right now are the various uncertainties caused by shifting politics and other things leading to delays and cost overruns, especially in construction (http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/aecl-cost-overruns-for-nuclear-plant-repairs-not-unusual-n-b-minister-1.1369135 and http://www.startribune.com/business/231932641.html and http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2014-04-paper-construction-cost-overruns-olkiluoto-reactor-rival-skyscrapers-pyramids-taj-mahal and http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-new-nuclear-plants-are-costing-billions-more-than-expected-2012-7 and etc.). It's no surprise that cost overruns tend to drive future investors away when it can cause increases of 70% in the original estimated cost on a good day (the estimated cost itself being some 2-3 times the overnight cost, before cost overruns): http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionC.htm#darlington. Evidence of politics causing these issues is substantial, with many increases in time and cost in construction, waste management, and decommissioning as a result of political motions in the form of things like excessive regulations already being part of normal cost projections: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html and more recently http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es0725089. Current models are also evolving to incorporate future "poo poo happens" projections in order to help mitigate cost overruns from random political motions. We've seen what three separate accidents (TMI, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima) can do to ongoing plant construction projects and operational nuclear plants in various political regions of the world, and it ranged from reasonable to basically illegal closures (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-German-nuclear-shutdown-unlawful-1401131.html). Based on that information, you get a pretty good idea of why nuclear plants are built in some places and not at all in others, despite those other places already having plants in operation and lots of expertise. Politics are currently treated as such a serious physical issue with nuclear's implementation (http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:11500528) that a majority of new R&D approaches are specifically aimed at making licensing and construction as quick and simple as possible in order to reduce that dangerous time window in which anything can happen. Small modular reactors, standardization, and political initiatives akin to France' Messmer Plan are just a few examples of this new type of political, rather than technological, nuclear R&D approach we're seeing more of in the west. Development of advanced reactor designs that address safety, waste, and proliferation in a definite manner are taking a backseat in all of this. And that's no good for anyone in this debate. Elotana posted:Is there a side-by-side flowchart of the regulatory approval process for, let's say a 9H CC gas turbine plant versus an ABWR nuclear plant? Sort of like the insane "legal immigration" flowcharts for when idiots start talking about "getting in line." I figure it would be very similar to License renewal: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/introduction/orientation.html Except you aren't trying to build a reactor while it's going on, so there's about 5 times less inspection stages and such. Office Thug fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Do you seriously not understand the rather significant difference between social/political problems and problems that involve physics? Oh good you get it. I said that the social and political problems can be over come but the nuke or nothing attitude in this thread is counter productive. There seams to be the idea that I am anti nuke, I am not. What I am is over how single minded this thread is. When talking about the need to get off coal discussion should highlight possible options and then evaluate them. So if people come in and say  oh gee I just read about how good wind generation is doing in South Australia why can't we do that in X?"they get a positive encouraging response, like  Yes wind can be quite good in it's place and certainly better than another coal plant. Sadly it isn't always blowing and this leaves gaps in power supply which need to be filled by some other source.but oh gently caress no not in here that just won't do if hey don't already know that the answer is nuclear then gently caress them the must be some greeny/hick idiot so they get.  No wind is poo poo and for idiot babies only  NUCLEAR can save us.That reads like wind is dumb you are dumb gently caress off. After that good job guys you just turned another person off wanting to do anything. If the coal alternative is only open to something that you are distrustful of then why not just say gently caress it and keep living on coal? If you don't poo poo all over every other option or even  support them! Then people would eventually see that a nuclear base with renewables in the mix is a drat good choice. You are your own worst enemies.blowfish posted:Like a page of good discussion  I'm just going to enjoy that posting stopped this thread from being nigh on worthless. Also I'm pretty sure fearing the atom beast is a common ailment here down under, so not some german peculiarity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
The only time an idea was absolutely poo poo upon was for the roadways, and it wasn't specifically because "We can do nuclear instead", but rather "it sounds like an awful idea for so many reasons". The level of discourse here has generally been pretty good up until the past couple days when two or three people took it upon themselves to poo poo on pro-nuclear people in ways that did not at all advance any argument other than "gently caress you guys!" Case in point: quoting a 3-month old post with the only purpose being to sound smart and insult people. Insect Court has no posts in this thread except ones that poo poo on nuclear power in vague ways, how is that helpful?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
That was a waste of time, noted. Here's the answer in simplicity: It's not Solar or nothing. It's not Wind or nothing. It's not nuclear or nothing. With current technologies there's no practical means for any current level of renewal technology to replace all other types of power generation. That means that if you want to really get rid of the majority of the GHG producers then you're going to have to include nuclear as part of the equation. I don't think any of us have anything against wind or solar generation in general, we just find the idea of it being the cure for all of our power generating ills to be foolish. And the absolute line against nuclear power by those that tend to advocate that to be either foolish, naive, or disingenuous. There's a quote by Clausewitz that sums up these arguments quite succinctly: “The enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan.” There is no perfect solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Tasmantor posted:What I am is over how single minded this thread is. When talking about the need to get off coal discussion should highlight possible options and then evaluate them. So if people come in and say Probably the only unifying theme of the thread thus far has been "the world needs to stop using carbon burning as fast as reasonably possible for energy generation". One or two coal/NG folks aside (I think one was worked in the coal industry). How to achieve it is a matter of speculation incorporating engineering judgment, political considerations, economic factors, and environmental concerns. A second unifying theme in the thread could possibly be "no source is perfect", and the largest differences lie in where people are willing to accept or not accept drawbacks from any specific power source. And there are tons of places where these differences may lie. Capacity factor. Redundancy. Rare earth element usage. Waste processing. NIMBYism. Regulatory risk. Public perception. More people have analyzed these and felt the most beneficial direction to take would be to build more nuclear plants to offset coal/NG baseload than have come to the same conclusion about wind/solar. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a binary choice or that alternatives are poo poo on simply because they're alternatives. quote:
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:http://blog.ucsusa.org/climate-science-nuclear-power-and-a-renewable-energy-future-298  Well, no poo poo, CCS is loving expensive. How about a Nuclear/Renewables scenario? Their other two studies are the usual $/kW reductio ad absurdum. It's especially humorous to me how they can act amazed at how nuclear power is so prone to delays and cost overruns as they cite the "Supplemental Response to Office of Public Counsel’s Third Set of Interrogatories" for the cost recovery figures for Levy, a plant that was at the time proposed to start operating in 6-8 years and where a shovel never hit the dirt before they decided to write the investment off and built a gas turbine. gently caress the doctors, we need tort reform for nuclear reactors. Elotana fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Nuclear has drawbacks too, but they are more in the "people need better education" vein than "destroying our world or just isn't enough" You can't set it and then forget it, like you can for solar or wind; That's pretty important. Likewise, the workforce to maintain and operate a fossil fuel plant is more developed and accessible, especially in developing nations. You can't build a shitload of nuclear plants overnight and have appropriately educated people to staff them. The underdeveloped nuclear plant operator labour pool is a big disadvantage. This means you also need to fund a supporting education program for nuclear physicists; this is a problem in an economic depression and for developing nations. The people maintaining the coal/gas engines/industrial equipment have skills that are applicable in other industries; nuclear plant operators... less so. Elotana posted:Is there a side-by-side flowchart of the regulatory approval process for, let's say a 9H CC gas turbine plant versus an ABWR nuclear plant? Sort of like the insane "legal immigration" flowcharts for when idiots start talking about "getting in line." Are you trying to argue that the ABWR process is overburdened, or that the 9H gas process is underburdened? I'd agree with the latter, but not necessarily the former. Taerkar posted:I don't think any of us have anything against wind or solar generation in general, we just find the idea of it being the cure for all of our power generating ills to be foolish. And the absolute line against nuclear power by those that tend to advocate that to be either foolish, naive, or disingenuous. I don't know if I agree; no one's made an honest attempt to replace a large part of the power generation economy. It could be a practical or logistical challenge, but we don't really know for sure because there hasn't been a nation fully committed to it. I think Iceland is a good source of inspiration, they have a small enough population and significant renewable resources to go fully renewable. If other nations took advantage of their renewable resources, I think we would be pretty far along the road to a zero-carbon economy. Perhaps the last 10-40% will need to be nuclear. We don't even need to bring nuclear into the discussion until we've done most of the renewable work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:You can't set it and then forget it, like you can for solar or wind; That's pretty important. Likewise, the workforce to maintain and operate a fossil fuel plant is more developed and accessible, especially in developing nations. You can't build a shitload of nuclear plants overnight and have appropriately educated people to staff them. Wind and Solar are not 'install and forget' units either, especially not wind turbines. Technology requires maintenance. Technology that moves requires even more maintenance. Not nearly as much as nuclear, yes, but it's non-zero.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Wind and Solar are not 'install and forget' units either, especially not wind turbines. Oh, of course it requires maintenance, support and on-site support (for larger projects). I meant 'set and forget' in the sense that there is more tolerance for failure in a wind/solar deployment. A wind turbine/solar panel/reflector breaking down or falling apart isn't as big of an issue, then say a large coal turbine breaking or a coolant pipe losing pressure. This is an advantage for small renewable deployments in remote regions and developing nations. That doesn't mean that bad things don't happen when a wind turbine collapses, but is not on the same scale when a coal or nuclear plant is on fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:Oh, of course it requires maintenance, support and on-site support (for larger projects). I meant 'set and forget' in the sense that there is more tolerance for failure in a wind/solar deployment. A wind turbine/solar panel/reflector breaking down or falling apart isn't as big of an issue, then say a large coal turbine breaking or a coolant pipe losing pressure. There are absolutely no catastrophic failure modes for 300 foot tall 50,000 lb air foils generating 1-10MVA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
And I guess I'll be out of a job tomorrow since corrosion apparently no longer exists and there's no need for NDT equipment anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
I've frequented the wind farms near me quite a bit (Central/Eastern Illinois). I think they have about 3-5% downtime on the farm on average (availability of turbine, not related to capacity factor). Not too bad. Most downtime is on the order of a week or two. They do require pretty constant maintenance. Not sure what the O&M costs per GWe are for wind, I'd be kinda interested in that. Wasn't allowed to go up to the top of the tower (About 70 meters or so), which is a shame cause it looked fun. So far as I can tell, it's a very marginal environment for wind power. The main reasons I can imagine for installation are pre-existing grid infrastructure Exelon can utilize and subsidies for providing green energy to offset their coal plants. Off-shore wind turbines tend toward higher rates of downtime, 10-15%, which is obviously a kick to the nuts given the inaccessibility. One reason for this is that the larger the wind turbine, the higher the failure frequency. A major benefit of off-shore wind turbines is the ability to construct truly massive turbines, sooo... hobbesmaster posted:There are absolutely no catastrophic failure modes for 300 foot tall 50,000 lb air foils generating 1-10MVA. hobbesmaster posted:And I guess I'll be out of a job tomorrow since corrosion apparently no longer exists and there's no need for NDT equipment anymore. I'd also argue in favor of small modular reactors for this reason. A scram at a 1000 MWe nuclear plant is a tremendous issue, and a dual-unit scram can require a lot of energy importation to make up the difference. They're unpredictable (one occurred years ago at a plant my dad worked at due to seagulls pooping on a transformer enough to cause a loss of off-site power) and due to the physics of nuclear plants there's about a half-hour grace period to get it resolved and restart the plant or else it has to shut down for quite a while longer due to "poisons" in the fuel rods. Small modular reactors, 60 to 240 MWe reactors grouped together, could help bring nuclear power more in line with wind power, where any individual unit shutting down is not as challenging. SMR designs, like ABWRs, have a fixation on passive safety that should also help reduce the high levels of O&M required due to extreme safety-induced redundancy at most Gen II plants in existence. Tokamak posted:I don't know if I agree; no one's made an honest attempt to replace a large part of the power generation economy. It could be a practical or logistical challenge, but we don't really know for sure because there hasn't been a nation fully committed to it. I think Iceland is a good source of inspiration, they have a small enough population and significant renewable resources to go fully renewable. If other nations took advantage of their renewable resources, I think we would be pretty far along the road to a zero-carbon economy. Perhaps the last 10-40% will need to be nuclear. We don't even need to bring nuclear into the discussion until we've done most of the renewable work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Tasmantor posted:I am, not him but GG on the bashing of a solar proponent! In what loving sense? I stated very clearly that all forms of energy generation suck, not just solar, and that I'm a huge proponent of a mix of nuclear and solar. Do you have a disability that prevents you from comprehending more than one sentence at a time? The world consumes a fuckton of energy each year. Solar can not provide enough power to meet this consumption rate without widescale ecological devastation due to enormous land use alone, especially when you account for how many more panels you need just to deal with things like weather patterns. People who advocate for 100% solar don't seem to have a counterargument to this, so apparently everyone agrees that you need a balance of various green energy sources rather than just placing silicon panels everywhere. I don't think that there's a single poster in the last 2 pages of the thread who opposes having some solar, but if they so much as mention nuclear power then you assume that they oppose all other green energy sources. e: Reading the rest of this page, it's become clear that you're some sort of anti-nuclear gimmick account 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:Oh, of course it requires maintenance, support and on-site support (for larger projects). I meant 'set and forget' in the sense that there is more tolerance for failure in a wind/solar deployment. A wind turbine/solar panel/reflector breaking down or falling apart isn't as big of an issue, then say a large coal turbine breaking or a coolant pipe losing pressure. You're right, a nuclear plant shutting down does have greater consequences than a single wind turbine collapsing. But isn't that just an argument to build more of both for redundancy? I don't see how it's an argument for foregoing nuclear altogether. quote:If other nations took advantage of their renewable resources, I think we would be pretty far along the road to a zero-carbon economy. Perhaps the last 10-40% will need to be nuclear. We don't even need to bring nuclear into the discussion until we've done most of the renewable work. Yes, we could try that and then see whether we need nuclear power to replace the rest of our coal and gas plants. Or instead of a "let's wait and see" approach, we could build both and remove the risk of having to run fossil fuel plants for longer than necessary. Do you have a better reason for not wanting to build both than "a collapsing wind turbine is less dangerous than a burning nuclear power plant"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
Tokamak posted:Are you trying to argue that the ABWR process is overburdened, or that the 9H gas process is underburdened? I'd agree with the latter, but not necessarily the former.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 05:11
|
|