|
QuarkJets posted:possibly even nationalization of the transmission grid. Which one?
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Pander posted:That read like a C+ screed from your 100 level Environmental Engineering for Homeopaths ("How Energy Makes You Feel") class, co7ote. O&M is included in real nuclear power proposals, which is why they don't get built. Meanwhile, goons shake their first as the safety requirements and claim, with no evidence, that nuclear can be cheaper and still just as safe if we deregulate the industry a bit. People handwave the energy and carbon cost of nuclear fuel production all the time in this thread by saying "breeders" or "thorium" as if changing our nuclear fuel cycle is nbd. We have a least one gas power plant in the US that solely exists to power the decommissioning of a nuclear plant. So yeah, this thread does tend to dismiss lifecycle concerns for nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:My first Energy Trumper! Congrats - would you care to share the science behind your claim? Do people actually advocate that? Wow. Anyway, coyo7e, you're assuming a hostile audience when there really isn't one. Relax, we're all friends here. I think. Nuclear is popular with this thread because it provides a huge amount of power, no greenhouse gas emissions (important bit here), and is not nearly as location dependent as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal and wave. There's also been a lot of talk about how new reactor designs would reduce waste to a considerable degree by recycling it, but you know, it takes decades to build these designs for various reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:So yeah I wanna get that out way in front, because I'm seeing a lot of :sperger: level nuclear math Please self-reflect on your own nonsense and get back when you can write something coherent, dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:O&M is included in real nuclear power proposals, which is why they don't get built. Meanwhile, goons shake their first as the safety requirements and claim, with no evidence, that nuclear can be cheaper and still just as safe if we deregulate the industry a bit. A Study was commissioned into the full lifecycle CO2 emissions of a pretty standard Generation 3 Westinghouse PWR (In this case, Sizewell B, which is pretty similar to a couple of SNUPPS stations from the late 80s/early 90s in the US). Including construction, fuel mining, fabrication, and disposal, the total emissions came out at 6g CO2eq/kWh. Siemens claim 5g CO2eq/kWh for their wind turbines. So, the handwaving of the carbon cost of nuclear fuel production is justified.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Concordat posted:There's also been a lot of talk about how new reactor designs would reduce waste to a considerable degree by recycling it, but you know, it takes decades to build these designs for various reasons. Sure the initial planning for a large scale nuclear rollout would be long, but with a standerdized reactor design there is no reason at all for the building of a power plant to be decades unless you mean because of regulation delays and poo poo? The actual construction really isn't anything that crazy. I mean the large hadron collider took only 30 years to build (and only about 5 billion US dollars in cost), and that project is wayyyy more ambitious than a nuclear power plant, the technology of which we are very well acquainted in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:O&M is included in real nuclear power proposals, which is why they don't get built. Meanwhile, goons shake their first as the safety requirements and claim, with no evidence, that nuclear can be cheaper and still just as safe if we deregulate the industry a bit. I don't think pro-nuclear people want to deregulate safety requirements on reactors, they want to eliminate the batshit restrictions in the US that make it unreasonable to upgrade old reactors to safer, modern specs. So its more like, hey get rid of this dumb restrictions so we _can_ have safe nuclear not "get rid of restrictions and let the market take care of it and then we'll have nuclear because then the cost of investment is lower!" like weirdo libertarians do with other poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
RDevz posted:A Study was commissioned into the full lifecycle CO2 emissions of a pretty standard Generation 3 Westinghouse PWR (In this case, Sizewell B, which is pretty similar to a couple of SNUPPS stations from the late 80s/early 90s in the US). Including construction, fuel mining, fabrication, and disposal, the total emissions came out at 6g CO2eq/kWh. Siemens claim 5g CO2eq/kWh for their wind turbines. So, the handwaving of the carbon cost of nuclear fuel production is justified. So even by your own studies it shows Nuclear has an LCA co2eq higher than wind, so why should we handwave it away instead of discuss it? A discussion over the relative ways to lower those lifecycle emissions, or the like seems vastly more enjoyable to me than just saying "the fuel cycle isn't a worthwhile topic of discussion because the facts aren't clearly pro-nuke." I like Nuclear personally, but I recognize that the reasons they aren't getting built at the rate boosters want isn't because of PR or environmentalists but because power companies don't really want to build them. Feral Integral posted:I don't think pro-nuclear people want to deregulate safety requirements on reactors, they want to eliminate the batshit restrictions in the US that make it unreasonable to upgrade old reactors to safer, modern specs. So its more like, hey get rid of this dumb restrictions so we _can_ have safe nuclear not "get rid of restrictions and let the market take care of it and then we'll have nuclear because then the cost of investment is lower!" like weirdo libertarians do with other poo poo. I have heard about this as much. Which generation stations do people want to upgrade to be safer but can't because of regulations? Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Nov 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
I think the issue is nimbyism rather then regulation. Pretty sure I've never advocated deregulating anything in my life, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So even by your own studies it shows Nuclear has an LCA co2eq higher than wind, so why should we handwave it away instead of discuss it? Why handwave? Because coal and gas are a couple of orders of magnitude higher. The difference between the two is one eighthundredth of the overall emissions of a coal power station.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Trabi, where you see slightly higher CO2, I see roughly equal CO2. That's important given the scale of power available from nuclear and it's capacity to operate independent of local weather conditions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So even by your own studies it shows Nuclear has an LCA co2eq higher than wind, so why should we handwave it away instead of discuss it? Because wind is more or less universally acknowledged as 'green' or 'clean' energy. Nuclear's lifetime CO2 emissions being within 20% strikes me as plenty of reason to consider nuclear clean as well. Trabisnikof posted:I like Nuclear personally, but I recognize that the reasons they aren't getting built at the rate boosters want isn't because of PR or environmentalists but because power companies don't really want to build them. Who cares what power companies want? Power companies make financial decisions, and nuclear plants are the perfect storm of being hard to justify to private investors. The costs are enormously up-front, the projects are massive and indivisible (wind for example also has its costs front-loaded, but projects can be done in phases, with generation starting on some turbines while others are still going up), and the worst case scenario means there's always a very expensive risk (or very expensive insurance) hanging over the project. Building nuclear plants is as simple as having the federal government borrowing some cheap, cheap money and building them itself. No organization in the world is better equipped to take a long-term view and shoulder this risk than the US government. As a bonus, it's one of the few organizations training nuclear engineers in appreciable numbers! If we are serious about reducing carbon emissions, this is the most direct (read: not a combination of disparate generation, transmission, and storage mechanisms) and well-understood way to transition baseline generation to clean energy. Of course none of this is going to happen in the current political environment, but surely throwing your hands up because investments in nuclear look poorly on some company's quarterly results is not the best approach. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Nov 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:O&M is included in real nuclear power proposals, which is why they don't get built. Because they're not included in other power proposals. If coal plants had to pay for the safe disposal of plant waste, it wouldn't have such a cost advantage over nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I've only gotten through uhh, 12 pages of the thread so far however it seem to have (at least begun with) a strongly libertarian, pro-nuclear slant, so I want to be full and upfront about my angle before someone starts throwing talking points at me, etc. This thread has improved a lot. You shouldn't judge the contents of the entire thread based on the first 12 pages. The OP of the thread is filled with a bunch of misinformation and pro-nuclear propaganda, and like the first half of this thread is filled with internet science nerds throwing tantrums about environmentalists and about how the government doesn't understand that nuclear energy is a slam-dunk technology. That aspect of the thread has definitely been tempered and people are way more level-headed and less delusional now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Concordat posted:Nuclear is popular with this thread because it provides a huge amount of power, no greenhouse gas emissions (important bit here), and is not nearly as location dependent as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal and wave. Naaaaah. I mean, no one cares about the costs, it's all the hype. (Especially no one caring about the greenhouse gas stuff.) But you know the real thing, the fun thing, about nuclear power? Per joule, or kilowatt hour, or BTU, or whatever, it kills less people. I mean, if you exist on a coal-powered grid, and run a heater in winter, or air conditioner in summer, you know people have died to produce that energy, right? Coal mines collapse, kids live near the power plants and get asthma and maybe get attacks and no epipen. I live with the knowledge that some dude right now is suffocating while still receiving 100% oxygen, that dude is dying, from lung cancer, right now, because the electricity I use to type this comes from lignite (the worst coal). Like, every second I am able to type, and transmit internet messages to California, it translates to real human suffering. There are huge health issues with every form of power generation. Even solar and wind. Wasn't there some massive leak from a rare-earths refinery in Malasia a couple of decades ago? Not quite a Bhopal level thing but it was bad. You write it off as a few K. They were only refining metals for cell phones, and maybe a bit for solar panels too. But one nuclear disaster that merely kills several dozen? Everyone goes nuts! Nations begin phasing out their own nukes, spiking energy prices, causing more elderly people to die of cold because they can't pay energy bills than those who died during the initial meltdown. Taints the entire concept of nuclear power. Doesn't matter that coal releases more radioactive particles in to the atmosphere. Doesn't matter that oil contributes more to proliferation and international terrorism (does ISIS still control any refineries? because all you need is a refinery and any semi-competent engineer and you have unlimited explosives). Doesn't matter that solar panel installation kills more people in a year than nuclear power has in its entire lifetime. Doesn't matter that wind is basically owned by China and their rare earths mining corporations, and you know, kudos to them (I'll send my resume  ). People just hate nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:O&M is included in real nuclear power proposals, which is why they don't get built. Meanwhile, goons shake their first as the safety requirements and claim, with no evidence, that nuclear can be cheaper and still just as safe if we deregulate the industry a bit. No, goons shake their fist because of the double standard. The double standard can be fixed by internalizing all of the costs of carbon power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:O&M is included in real nuclear power proposals, which is why they don't get built. Meanwhile, goons shake their first as the safety requirements and claim, with no evidence, that nuclear can be cheaper and still just as safe if we deregulate the industry a bit. I do research in nuclear safety. The current regulations are full of unnecessary conservatism where we could reduce engineering efforts and still have plants that meet the current standards of risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Istvun posted:I do research in nuclear safety. What have we overengineered / over-regulated?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:What have we overengineered / over-regulated? Off the top of my head ALARA is poo poo and yearly limits should be increased for rad workers, with strict short term limits instead. Avoid acute dosage, but allow more over longer periods. That'd give more operational freedom for plants, less avoidance of routine work due to yearly/lifetime limits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Pander posted:Off the top of my head ALARA is poo poo and yearly limits should be increased for rad workers, with strict short term limits instead. Avoid acute dosage, but allow more over longer periods. That'd give more operational freedom for plants, less avoidance of routine work due to yearly/lifetime limits. I certainly agree that there are regulations we can loosen and safety might not be impacted, I just am not convinced that would make a meaningful difference in cost to operate nuclear plants for power companies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
China has a plan for some of their coal plants - convert them to pebble bed nuclear plants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Bates posted:China has a plan for some of their coal plants - convert them to pebble bed nuclear plants. A  plan I can get behind. Really, once you're outside of containment, things like generators do not have to be super special just because the heat they operate on comes from ~atomz~ rather than from fire, so if you can fit and shield a reactor in a hollowed-out coal plant why not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 23:13
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:A Nuclear Engineers: those creepy wasps that kill things and lay their eggs inside the corpse. I dig it, using existing infrastructure as part of nuke plants to cut costs is really cool
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
The Swiss are having a referendum to ban nuclear power because "Fukushima". It's currently 40% of their energy  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38120559
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The Swiss are having a referendum to ban nuclear power because "Fukushima". It's currently 40% of their energy Ah yes, the ever-present danger of mountain tsunamis. I predict they will vote to ban it because there'll be a ton of outraged pseudo-environmentalists and suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So even by your own studies it shows Nuclear has an LCA co2eq higher than wind, so why should we handwave it away instead of discuss it? The co2 figure for wind power doesn't include the co2 costs of constructing an energy storage facility which would need to exist for a kw/hr of wind power to be equivalent to a kw/hr of nuclear power. Given the inefficiencies of energy storage, and construction costs of such facilities, that's... uh... a huge amount of co2 emissions being written off of wind power in this comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Ah yes, the ever-present danger of mountain tsunamis. I predict they will vote to ban it because there'll be a ton of outraged pseudo-environmentalists and Hmm, looks like I'll probably end up being wrong (currently 56% against the overly rushed nuclear exit).
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Hmm, looks like I'll probably end up being wrong (currently 56% against the overly rushed nuclear exit). quote:Although many Swiss do worry about the safety of their elderly nuclear plants, fears that a rapid shut down could cause energy shortages and even blackouts proved stronger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
No, the Swiss referendum system only does dumb regressive things if it's unlikely to harm the economy, such as banning minarets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Quorum posted:No, the Swiss referendum system only does dumb regressive things if it's unlikely to harm the economy, such as banning minarets. Yeah I was about to say something about the Swiss electorate being smart and reasonable but then I remembered they, too, are often dumb fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Fukushima cost estimates approach $200 billion:quote:Yesterday, the Nikkei news service reported that the Japanese government is expecting the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns to cost nearly double its earlier estimates. Citing government sources, the report says the total expenses will run at least $176 billion and are likely to rise even further in the future. I'm not sure how much can be generalized from this, aside from the obvious that Fukushima is a mess and building nuclear reactors near sea level isn't super smart. However it certainly provides more ammunition against wider adoption of nuclear power in western nations, which is unfortunate for climate change mitigation efforts. It's also worth emphasizing that the Japanese state is effectively supporting TEPCO and subsidizing the cleanup at this point. Is it fair to say that private sector nuclear power is effectively cheaper than it should be as corporations implicitly or explicitly plan on not paying the full cost of a disaster? Either the state steps in to help pay cleanup costs or the company can always just file for bankruptcy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
It should be used as an example of why upgrading/replacing your old-rear end nuclear power plants is a necessary thing. Instead it will be used to justify the shutdown of entire nuclear power programs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
They use the sea as a heat sink, essentially all power plants that use steam boilers need a heat sink of some sort. Lakes rivers also work but powerplants can raise the temperature of rivers to ecological disastrous degrees. Basically all that fukushima needed was its backup generators protected from the wave, elevated or such. Coal is horribly subsidized by government already (healthcare). And large industrial disasters often get government support. Including dams failing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:They use the sea as a heat sink, essentially all power plants that use steam boilers need a heat sink of some sort. Lakes rivers also work but powerplants can raise the temperature of rivers to ecological disastrous degrees. Also note that the like 10 and more years newer reactors at the Daiichi site (where the meltdowns happened) and the Daiini site (where none did) were perfectly fine, simply because of minor improvements to the architecture and backup system design. And also note that the two reactors that had serious issues at Daiichi had been scheduled to be permanently shut down in 2012 and 2013 with replacements for them on site intended to be ready by now. If the quake had struck like a year later, the one that broke down the worst would already be in permanent shutdown and removal process, and without that having explosions and poo poo the other one that had issues might have been just fine after the tsunami, albeit they'd have to move up the permanent shutdown schedule on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
So now that we're living in Trump's America, how does the future of solar and wind look?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So now that we're living in Trump's America, how does the future of solar and wind look? The dude hasnt taken office yet and has had exactly zero chance to enact any bullshit regressive mindfart policies. Its looking pretty grim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So now that we're living in Trump's America, how does the future of solar and wind look? Frankly the subsidies for wind should be phased out - it's already hands down the cheapest source of electricity. Solar is close to beating coal and natgas too and since price reductions in solar is largely driven by production expansion in China, prices will continue to drop over the next decade or so regardless of US policies. Thing is, the cat is out of the bag - wind and solar is now cheap. It's not cost that's holding it back, it's the added cost when you go over a certain level of penetration and start having to build energy storage, long distance HVDC lines, load balancing etc. Those are the things that need to get cheaper and direct subsidies on solar/wind may not be the most efficient way to do that. Trump can do a lot of stuff I guess but if he wants to stop solar and wind he basically has to take it up with the free market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Edit: what he said ^ Year's been real good for solar and wind power, not very good for fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Bates posted:Frankly the subsidies for wind should be phased out - it's already hands down the cheapest source of electricity. If you ignore baseload. Which you probably shouldn't. Concordat posted:Year's been real good for solar and wind power, not very good for fossil fuels. What? I mean, I guess falling to #3 in oil production behind China and Russia after being #1 in 2015 might be "not very good," but the US is #1 in the world for natgas production in 2016. Fracking is amazing. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:If you ignore baseload. Which you probably shouldn't. US natural gas companies would describe 2016 as a bad year. Same for oil. And that's not even getting into coal's terminal decline. Also the power electronics in new wind can provide ancillary grid services like a thermal plant without needing the ramp up/ramp down like traditionally required. We are already seeing renewables curtailed because old thermal plants can't handle turning off when their electricity isn't needed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 05:37
|
|