|
The Dipshit posted:But that'd be like premodern farming levels this would be more like 3/5
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
The Dipshit posted:Round-trip pumped hydro has a ballpark 40% round-trip efficiency, and plays merry hell with the local watershed unless you are working off the Great Lakes or something. If that's their storage tech, then OK, but uh... round-trip EROEI is close to the 4:1 cliff of death. If you're willing to dedicate 20% of your entire society to being in the energy production business, then I guess maybe? But that'd be like premodern farming levels of people dispersed across the continent pursuing energy generation as a career. I'm not entirely sure where all the water's supposed to come from, like the pumped hydro part of the study has this nice google maps screenshot with the gaps between mountains filled in, which I guess is all you can do when the extent of your research seems to be looking at a topographical map and counting up all the hills with other hills next to them It's a little more complicated than that
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
i thought this was going to be a documentary for some reason but its very good so far and weird seeing jared harris play a character who isn't a villain. at least so far
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
how fast would the radiation burns actually appear? not the sunburn style stuff but the more serious effects. i realise this has probably been answered but i skipped 700 posts
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
Poisoning: Depends on the dose but people who got the worse of it started feeling nauseous within 30 min to a couple hours and were dead within 2 weeks Burns: apparently minutes to appear as that sunburn and gets worse over a few hours and starts to resemble a third degree fire burn ethanol fucked around with this message at 15:04 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
The ones that looked into the reactor, and the ones that opened the coolant pipes (not the ones in the diving suits) were dead within days. At the doses they were getting effects are immediate.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
poverty goat posted:this would be more like 3/5 Oops, I thought it was 20-30% of a society that engaged in farming for premodern farming. Got a link?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Solutions to the energy problem are never going to be a silver bullet; both from an economic and technical perspective. Renewables are a part of the solution. Nuclear is a part of the solution. I think renewable energy (specifically wind) has a lot of potential. However I also think it is going to be realistically limited on how much of the required grid capacity it can provide. That number may be 30%, it may be 50%, it may be 70%. Whatever the number is, other hard sources will be required to maintain grid stability. Additionally as that number increases, so do required transmission investments. Traditional load flow assumptions are also being upended. The industry is dealing with it with the innovations in (digital) technology, but that also brings with it more uncertainties. Mis-calculating load flow when renewables are 5-10% of capacity is forgivable. Messing something up at 50% plus probably isn't. Having a nuclear backbone has a lot of benefits on the distribution side. I get frustrated with people who just wave their hands with the argument of "renewables," completely dismiss other power sources due to them not being perfect, and then dismiss arguments of the technical concerns with renewables as "we'll figure it out when we get there".
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Solutions to the energy problem are never going to be a silver bullet; both from an economic and technical perspective. Renewables are a part of the solution. Nuclear is a part of the solution. I agree with this post.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
The Dipshit posted:Oops, I thought it was 20-30% of a society that engaged in farming for premodern farming. Got a link? I read a thing on ars I'm pretty sure about how for most of human history the farmer:other ratio was around 1.5:1, and about how now over the last 100 years it's shot up to something like 1:500 and this is how we're all able to shitpost on the internet all day without starving. but I can't find it now poverty goat fucked around with this message at 16:11 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
I thought it was a slavery joke
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:a) don't call me a loving liberal, you oval office. a) it's called ~classical liberal~, my man  b) the 100% renewable energy grid plans tend to make, uh, heroic assumptions about the price trends and scalability of grid components which don't really exist other than as concepts or small scale prototypes (eg storage and transmission stuff). All this stuff is physically possible, but the optimism underlying the assumption that enough of it will actually happen on budget and on time to make an all renewable grid reality is at the same level as people predicting nuclear power too cheap to meter and commercial fusion power in 20 years. c) loving rad
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 16:35
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Is the supply of uranium restricted in any meaningful way? The nuclear side of the nuclear vs. renewable debate likes to bring up the fact that switching to full renewable would require a ton of scaling-up of manufacturing and that the massive amount of panels, windmills, and/or dams required would have a huge ecological impact. If we were to build enough nuke plants to power the entire Earth, how much would uranium mining and processing have to be expanded? Or is it just a non-issue because you get so much bang for your buck per unit of fuel?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
^ Good question. I do not know the answer but will add that nuclear fuel is rather recyclable. There are reactor types that can use waste from other reactors.
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
feelix posted:Is the supply of uranium restricted in any meaningful way? The nuclear side of the nuclear vs. renewable debate likes to bring up the fact that switching to full renewable would require a ton of scaling-up of manufacturing and that the massive amount of panels, windmills, and/or dams required would have a huge ecological impact. If we were to build enough nuke plants to power the entire Earth, how much would uranium mining and processing have to be expanded? Or is it just a non-issue because you get so much bang for your buck per unit of fuel? In raw numbers: MJ/kg (megajoule per kilogram) Sugar: 19 Coal: 24 Gasoline: 46 Uranium: 76,000,000 There are also thorium designs that recycle a lot, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
DelphiAegis posted:MJ/kg (megajoule per kilogram) I loving love science! Anyone have an answer that is actually relevant?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
feelix posted:I loving love science! You're the one with the PHD, figure it out. Or was math not part of your doctorate? Stop being such a dick already.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
feelix posted:I loving love science! Congratulations on your one man effort to make the thread unreadable.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
feelix posted:Is the supply of uranium restricted in any meaningful way? No. The two things you have to keep in mind are that uranium has an energy density orders of magnitude higher than chemical fuels, and that the fuel cost is basically a rounding error in the cost per kilowatt-hour of nuclear energy, it's utterly dominated by capital cost and other operating costs. If your house is powered by nuclear energy and you look at your bill, about jack-squat of that number is for fuel. That means that the cost for uranium can increase significantly without having much impact on the cost of nuclear energy. Back when the promised nuclear era was a thing, a whole lot of exploration took place and a lot of people went out of business when the demand failed to materialize. If the cost goes up, all those resources become exploitable again. If you're thinking truly long-term, then there are 4.5 billion tons of uranium the oceans, with 160 million tons available just in the parts shallower than 100 meters. Recovering this isn't economically feasible right now, with the spot price of mined uranium so low. But if that price increased by a factor of four (and again, that wouldn't raise the cost of nuclear power very much, you're talking pennies per kW*hr.) then it would become economical, and that supply is effectively limitless, because thousands of tons more each year are put back into the ocean by rivers and weathering. If you built breeder reactors, you'd be using uranium 1000 times as efficiently as we are now. You can also reprocess fuel, or build reactors that burn most of the actinides that we call "waste" as fuel, or build reactors based on a thorium fuel cycle, and thorium is three times as abundant as uranium. Here're figures from a 1983 article: https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.13440 Spot price for uranium in 1983 was $40/lb, and at that price it was contributing 0.2 cents per kilowatt-hour to the price of electricity. If you used breeder reactors, then uranium at $1000/lb would contribute only 0.03 cents per kilowatt hour; this is an energy cost corresponding to gasoline costing half a cent per gallon. Extracting uranium from seawater, today, is estimated to cost around $400-1000/kg, and the spot price of uranium is still under $100/lb. 4.5 billion tons of uranium in the oceans, with rivers bringing 3.2E4 tons in each year, is enough for literally millions of years of not just humanity's electricity production, but rather its total energy consumpion. So again to sum up: no. There's plenty of uranium to provide all the power we need until we figure out the storage technologies required for solar to provide baseload or figure out fusion power (which isn't likely, but hey, I'm including it anyway). Phanatic fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
schmug posted:You're the one with the PHD, figure it out. Or was math not part of your doctorate? Stop being such a dick already. I apologize, you're right. I know MATH, so the energy density of processed uranium as a fuel is all I need to figure out everything that needs to be considered regarding uranium mining and processing, and our current capacity to do so, and how it would scale if we were to power the entire world using nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
DelphiAegis posted:In raw numbers:  
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Uranium is fairly abundant so no one is particularly worried about running out within the forseeable future. If the entire world went nuclear then yeah, prices would go up some since lower-grade reserve sites would start getting mined, just like with any other natural resource. Fuel is such a small part of the cost of nuclear energy, though, that even a large increase in ore market price isn't going to translate to much change in $/GWh. Construction, financing for construction, and maintenance are where almost all the cost comes from. In the very long term, there are recycling technologies to greatly increase GWh / ton. We could do it now but don't because it's currently cheaper to just dig up more ore. Now stop being a shithead.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
*kicks down door* I know MATH.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
feelix posted:I apologize, you're right. I know MATH, so the energy density of processed uranium as a fuel is all I need to figure out everything that needs to be considered regarding uranium mining and processing, and our current capacity to do so, and how it would scale if we were to power the entire world using nuclear power. Dude, not even doing the math, it takes a lot to get energy from sugar, coal, and petroleum, it takes almost nothing to get energy from uranium. loving Christ. You're the worst kind of troll. Don't you have some video games or bitcoin to cheer/frown about?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Grape posted:*kicks down door* lol
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
schmug posted:Dude, not even doing the math, it's take a lot to get energy from sugar, coal, and petroleum, it takes almost nothing to get energy from uranium. Processed uranium being 3e6 times more energy dense than coal is a meaningless number if processed uranium is 3e7 times more difficult to obtain than coal. The real world does not run on cool science facts.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
feelix posted:Processed uranium being 3e6 times more energy dense than coal is a meaningless number if processed uranium is 3e7 times more difficult to obtain than coal. The real world does not run on cool science facts. *clicking through this guy's posts itt* "I need 5,000 tonnes of sand and boron as soon as possible"
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
feelix posted:Processed uranium being 3e6 times more energy dense than coal is a meaningless number if processed uranium is 3e7 times more difficult to obtain than coal. The real world does not run on cool science facts. you mean except the part about coal being lovely and almost gone? ahh, yes. Science, how does it work?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
schmug posted:you mean except the part about coal being lovely and almost gone? My bad, you're right, the energy density numbers are meaningless in general, not just in the specific hypothetical case I proposed.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Hey guys, Im Feelix and I got my PHD in, checks notes...*farrrrts loudly*
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
feelix posted:My bad, you're right, the energy density numbers are meaningless in general, not just in the specific hypothetical case I proposed. You're a loving idiot. how is that for hypothetical?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
feelix posted:Is the supply of uranium restricted in any meaningful way? The nuclear side of the nuclear vs. renewable debate likes to bring up the fact that switching to full renewable would require a ton of scaling-up of manufacturing and that the massive amount of panels, windmills, and/or dams required would have a huge ecological impact. If we were to build enough nuke plants to power the entire Earth, how much would uranium mining and processing have to be expanded? Or is it just a non-issue because you get so much bang for your buck per unit of fuel? You can filter it from seawater. We've known this since the 1970s. It is estimated that we could run our entire world on nuclear power for >5,000 years on it (and even then, it'd be easier to have a mix of wind, solar and nuclear). If we can't figure out fusion or space solar power from there, then gently caress it, civilization is over, shut it down, the anprims were demonstrated to be right. Good long answer. The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 17:31 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
Tato posted:What the gently caress did you just loving say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the gently caress out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my loving words. You think you can get away with saying that poo poo to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're loving dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable rear end off the face of the continent, you little poo poo. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your loving tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will poo poo fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're loving dead, kiddo.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
schmug posted:You're a loving idiot. how is that for hypothetical? That is indeed a hypothetical considering I am a highly intelligent holder of a doctorate. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
feelix posted:Processed uranium being 3e6 times more energy dense than coal is a meaningless number if processed uranium is 3e7 times more difficult to obtain than coal. The real world does not run on cool science facts. Yes but you could be mining the uranium on the goddamn moon and it wouldn't be 3e7 times more difficult to get that than coal. Don't be an rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
feelix posted:That is indeed a hypothetical considering I am a highly intelligent holder of a doctorate. As a guy with a doctorate, about half the Phds I've met are kinda dumb outside of their specific domain knowledge, so uh... yeah. You can both have a Phd and be an idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:Yes but you could be mining the uranium on the goddamn moon and it wouldn't be 3e7 times more difficult to get that than coal. Don't be an rear end. Obviously, but arguing using the energy density of fuel-grade uranium, which requires massive processing and is a very small mass fraction of the ore it comes from, compared to the energy density of coal, which requires comparatively very little processing and is a large part of the "ore" (probably not the right term) it comes from, is either stupid or intentionally misleading.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
feelix posted:Obviously, but arguing using the energy density of fuel-grade uranium, which requires massive processing and is a very small mass fraction of the ore it comes from, compared to the energy density of coal, which requires comparatively very little processing and is a large part of the "ore" (probably not the right term) it comes from, is either stupid or intentionally misleading. Or heavy water. The CANDU reactors run off of natural uranium.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Yeah I'm still trying to figure out what to do about areas where the climate doesn't allow bananas to grow Massive greenhouses?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
SeXReX posted:Yeah I'm still trying to figure out what to do about areas where the climate doesn't allow bananas to grow I planted a banana tree in my rear end in a top hat for precisely this reason. The only downside is with the tree in there I can't print replacement phds for feelix anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:55
|
|
