The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Trabisnikof posted:

Land requirements for wind and solar are often vastly overblown by "experts" ignoring storage, demand response, etc and just flat calculating insane land use requirements by assuming that we need vastly more generation capacity than we do.

Then the second complication is the varying types of land use. Impacted land use for renewables is pretty high, but disrupted land use is not. So take North Texas where you have wind turbines as far as the eye can see, that all counts as impacted land use. But only the area around the turbine (and the roads etc) are actually disrupted. The rest of the land is still active ag land.

So this isn't just me saying stuff, here's a peer reviewed paper looking at 80% renewables: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.022

So if we exclude the land near wind turbines that is still being used for other purposes the land use impact of non-biopower at 80% renewables is around 13,100 km^2, add together the high end estimate for storage at 19,000 km^2 and you're still under the 49,000km^2 we have in major roads alone.

To the question of storage, well sure we don't have the storage capacity now, but we don't need any new technology. Building more storage isn't a problem for renewables, it is just part of the solution.

Its a good study, but does it cover day-night cycles, windless cycles, energy transport over long distance HVDC? Pure capacity seems likes its missing some of the more obvious capacity issues of renewables that we currently have.

Deteriorata posted:

On the other hand, solving the storage issue for wind and solar is a whole lot cheaper and more straightforward than figuring out how to make the thorium cycle work.

Also, thorium isn't going to be able to replace natural gas for at least 20 years, anyway. Even if the technological problems were solved today, it would be at least a decade before any were built and generating energy.

True. However, MSR doesn't mean specifically thorium, most of the MSR tech itself is well describes already, we just need larger engineering samples versus the 1960s era MSR Experiment at Oak Ridge. It can be done, and I feel like even with red tape, within the 20 years.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Aug 25, 2019

# ? Aug 25, 2019 03:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 8, 2024 08:51

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

CommieGIR posted:

Its a good study, but does it cover day-night cycles, windless cycles, energy transport over long distance HVDC? Pure capacity seems likes its missing some of the more obvious issues of renewables that we currently have.

Well now you're asking about different issues. I can point you to studies looking at 80% penetration that answer those questions. But you mentioned land use and that study shows that land use is often an overblown concern.

But lets figure out the frame here, which of these are closer to your belief:

1. It is impossible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables

2. It is possible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables but it would require technology we don't have

3. It is possible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables but is too costly to achieve

4. It is possible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables but it might be more costly than an 80%+ nuclear alternative

Based the answer there are different ways to take this conversation, since #1 & #2 are easily disproven, #3 obviously depends on the budget for action, and #4 depends on cost comparisons with an alternative that we don't have much data on.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 03:50

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Trabisnikof posted:

Well now you're asking about different issues. I can point you to studies looking at 80% penetration that answer those questions. But you mentioned land use and that study shows that land use is often an overblown concern.

But lets figure out the frame here, which of these are closer to your belief:

1. It is impossible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables

2. It is possible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables but it would require technology we don't have

3. It is possible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables but is too costly to achieve

4. It is possible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables but it might be more costly than an 80%+ nuclear alternative

Based the answer there are different ways to take this conversation, since #1 & #2 are easily disproven, #3 obviously depends on the budget for action, and #4 depends on cost comparisons with an alternative that we don't have much data on.

None of those highlight my beliefs, and I feel like your reading a little too much into them. Renewables are well capable of handling a grid, that's not my issue, and I don't believe they are too costly, because that's a blatant falsehood.

But I still think that baseload will be a thing, and I think nuclear will be critical to that last 20%, as well as make up until we find viable storage solutions, but then comes the trick: Does your plant store, or does it supply to the grid during peak operating hours? Do you split it between storage and grid use?

Don't forget other future unknowns like increase cooling system drain the grid due to rising temperatures/humidity as climate change effects become worse.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Aug 25, 2019

# ? Aug 25, 2019 03:52

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

We've already covered the best locations for wind, the low hanging fruit. Most of the best spots left are relatively inaccessible locations further from population centers, with little transmission infrastructure available to tie into. And capacity factor for wind is low, so if you eliminate baseload you DO have to factor in storage and/or generation oversizing.

When you underestimate the scope of the engineering challenges with renewables to fulfill a political promise, you'll end up burning lignite like Germany.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 04:02

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Pander posted:

We've already covered the best locations for wind, the low hanging fruit. Most of the best spots left are relatively inaccessible locations further from population centers, with little transmission infrastructure available to tie into. And capacity factor for wind is low, so if you eliminate baseload you DO have to factor in storage and/or generation oversizing.

When you underestimate the scope of the engineering challenges with renewables to fulfill a political promise, you'll end up burning lignite like Germany.

Yeah, this is largely my view: Renewables are very good. They should be used everywhere possible. But Nuclear is the ONLY 24/7/365 full power generation method with the least carbon footprint right now. Germany killed it in a Fukushima inspired China Syndrome fearmongering rush job, and now they are mining more coal and burning more gas, while shifting their Green goals way, way down the road.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-failure-on-the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html

# ? Aug 25, 2019 04:10

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

CommieGIR posted:

But I still think that baseload will be a thing,

Baseload is a term that just means the minimum power needed to run the grid, renewables or other intermittent sources can supply baseload.

It often gets used as short hand for non-dispatchable power plants or to the aggregate of ancillary power services that are often achieved by thermal plants with large rotating reserves like those non-dispatchable coal and nuke plants. Those services don't have to be provided by the same power plants just because historically they were. Like blackstart, the ability to turn on first, is something few if any nukes in the US can do (I don't think NRC allows it). But most hydro can.

If we disaggregate the services offered fewer and fewer can't be served by renewables and basically none can't be serviced by biofuels. And also this is why I constantly hammer the role of demand response along with storage and renewables. Large businesses already shift operations to take advantage of electricity pricing, enrolling them in demand response programs drastically reduces the cost of providing reserves.

quote:

and I think nuclear will be critical to that last 20%, as well as make up until we find viable storage solutions, but then comes the trick: Does your plant store, or does it supply to the grid during peak operating hours? Do you split it between storage and grid use?

We already balance this equation through Independent System Operators and Reliability organizations.

For example in the month of August alone we've have 4-5 nuclear reactor trips. That means all of a sudden the grid is down ~1GW of power instantaneously. That's a much worse problem for a grid to handle than for a wind farm to reduce production and far far harder to predict than the weather.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas is actually an incredibly good example of the infrastructure required to run a high renewables penetration grid.

But yes, I think we agree that quibbling over that last 20% doesn't matter when we have the rest of the 80% to replace still.

Pander posted:

We've already covered the best locations for wind, the low hanging fruit. Most of the best spots left are relatively inaccessible locations further from population centers, with little transmission infrastructure available to tie into. And capacity factor for wind is low, so if you eliminate baseload you DO have to factor in storage and/or generation oversizing.

When you underestimate the scope of the engineering challenges with renewables to fulfill a political promise, you'll end up burning lignite like Germany.

That's not true at all. There's lots of available wind siting left in the US. In particular as we've been raising hub height that opens up more space for wind.

Like do you have a scientific source for that claim?

edit: NREL shows that at least 35% of our electricity needs can be met with wind without any issues about running out of locations: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63197-3.pdf

quote:

Electricity demand growth, fuel prices, and financing assumptions in the 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report were based on the Energy Information Administration�s 2007 Annual Energy Outlook [3]. Specifically, U.S. electricity consumption was projected to increase by 39% over consumption in 2005, to 5,800 terawatt-hours per year in 2030. No major breakthroughs in wind technology were assumed. By 2030, wind turbine energy production was projected to increase by about 15% on a relative basis, and wind project costs were assumed to drop by about 10%.
The study found that it would take about 300 gigawatts of wind generating capacity to produce 20% of U.S. electricity in 2030. It concluded that ample, affordable, and accessible wind resources are available throughout the country and in coastal waters to support this amount of wind generation. Substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would result from this amount of wind energy, as would significant water savings. Based on studies and experience through 2007, power system cost impacts arising from the variable and uncertain nature of wind were projected to be modest. Ensuring the availability of sufficient electrical transmission capability, however, was identified as a major challenge.

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Aug 25, 2019

# ? Aug 25, 2019 04:11

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Trabisnikof posted:

Baseload is a term that just means the minimum power needed to run the grid, renewables or other intermittent sources can supply baseload.

It often gets used as short hand for non-dispatchable power plants or to the aggregate of ancillary power services that are often achieved by thermal plants with large rotating reserves like those non-dispatchable coal and nuke plants. Those services don't have to be provided by the same power plants just because historically they were. Like blackstart, the ability to turn on first, is something few if any nukes in the US can do (I don't think NRC allows it). But most hydro can.

If we disaggregate the services offered fewer and fewer can't be served by renewables and basically none can't be serviced by biofuels. And also this is why I constantly hammer the role of demand response along with storage and renewables. Large businesses already shift operations to take advantage of electricity pricing, enrolling them in demand response programs drastically reduces the cost of providing reserves.

We already balance this equation through Independent System Operators and Reliability organizations.

For example in the month of August alone we've have 4-5 nuclear reactor trips. That means all of a sudden the grid is down ~1GW of power instantaneously. That's a much worse problem for a grid to handle than for a wind farm to reduce production and far far harder to predict than the weather.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas is actually an incredibly good example of the infrastructure required to run a high renewables penetration grid.

But yes, I think we agree that quibbling over that last 20% doesn't matter when we have the rest of the 80% to replace still.

But Texas' Wind generation is less than 20% of their total supply. That's great, but not inspiring confidence.
And again, as we already highlighted above, the most ambitious attempts by places like Germany actually resulted in an increase in emissions:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-failure-on-the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html

Where are you getting these reactor trip numbers?

# ? Aug 25, 2019 04:13

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

CommieGIR posted:

But Texas' Wind generation is less than 20% of their total supply. That's great, but not inspiring confidence.
And again, as we already highlighted above, the most ambitious attempts by places like Germany actually resulted in an increase in emissions:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-failure-on-the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html

Where are you getting these reactor trip numbers?

My point is that ERCOT has the rules and infrastructure in place to grow beyond 20%.

My trip count comes from the NRC event logs, looks like it was 4 so far this month not 5:

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2019/20190819en.html

quote:

AUTOMATIC REACTOR TRIP DUE TO TURBINE TRIP

"At 0821 MST, on August 16, 2019, a main turbine trip occurred followed by a loss of power to all reactor coolant pumps. The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Unit 2 control room then received reactor protection system alarms for low departure from nucleate boiling ratio and an automatic reactor trip occurred. Following the reactor trip, auxiliary feedwater was manually started to maintain steam generator levels. A Main Steam Isolation Signal was manually initiated as directed by the Emergency Operating Procedures. Unit 2 is currently stable in Mode 3. Prior to the reactor trip, Unit 2 was operating normally at 100 percent power.

"No major equipment was inoperable prior to the event that contributed to the event or challenged operator response. All control element assemblies fully inserted into the core and no emergency classification was required per the PVNGS Emergency Plan. The cause of the reactor trip is under investigation.

"The event did not result in any challenges to fission product barriers and there were no adverse safety consequences as a result of this event. The event did not adversely affect the safe operation of the plant or the health and safety of the public.

"The NRC Resident Inspector has been informed of the Unit 2 reactor trip."

Decay heat is being removed via the atmospheric steam dump valves.

Units 1 and 3 were unaffected by this event.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2019/20190812en.html

quote:

MANUAL REACTOR TRIP DUE TO FEEDWATER REGULATING VALVE MALFUNCTION

"At 0814 EDT on 8/11/19, with Unit 2 at 83 percent power during a planned load reduction, the reactor was manually tripped due to degraded feedwater flow control to the 23 Steam Generator caused by a malfunction of the associated Feedwater Regulating Valve, 23BF19. The trip was not complex, with all systems responding normally post trip. An actuation of the Auxiliary Feedwater system occurred following the manual reactor trip as expected due to low level in the steam generators. The unit is stable in Mode 3. Decay heat is being removed by the Main Steam Dumps and Auxiliary Feedwater System.

"Due to the actuation of the Reactor Protection System actuation while critical, this event is being reported as a four-hour, non-emergency notification per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(iv)(B). This event is also being reported as an eight-hour non-emergency notification in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(iv)(A) as an event that results in a valid actuation of the Auxiliary Feedwater System.

"There was no impact to the health and safety of the public or plant personnel.

"The NRC Resident Inspector has been notified."

The licensee notified the State of New Jersey.

Unit 1 remains at 100 percent power.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2019/20190805en.html

quote:

MANUAL REACTOR TRIP AND MANUAL ACTUATION OF REACTOR CORE ISOLATION COOLING

"At 1947 [EDT] on 8/3/19, with Hope Creek in Mode 1 at 37 percent power, the reactor was manually scrammed due to loss of condenser vacuum. All control rods fully inserted into the core. All safety systems responded as designed and expected. Reactor level was stabilized using Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) and Reactor Feedwater Pumps.

"Currently reactor water level is being maintained by the feedwater system and decay heat is being removed by the main condenser using the main turbine bypass valves. Due to the Reactor Protection System actuation while critical, this event is being reported as a four-hour, non-emergency notification per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(iv)(B). Due to the manual actuation of RCIC, this event is also being reported as an eight-hour, non-emergency notification per 10 CFR 50. 72(b )(3)(iv)(A).

"There was no impact on the health and safety of the public or plant personnel.

"The NRC Resident Inspector has been notified."

The plant is in its normal shutdown electrical lineup with all safe shutdown equipment available. The licensee will be notifying the state of Delaware, state of New Jersey and the Lower Alloway Creek township.

quote:

AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAM ON LOW REACTOR WATER LEVEL

"At 0226 [CDT], an automatic scram on low reactor water level occurred due to a trip of the 'B' Reactor Feed pump. All control rods fully inserted. Reactor water level 2 was reached and the High Pressure Core Spray system, Reactor Core Isolation Cooling system, Division 3 diesel generator, Standby Gas Treatment Systems 'A' and 'B' and all shutdown safety related service water pumps started as expected. Reactor Core Isolation Cooling and High Pressure Core Spray injected as expected. All level 2 containment isolation signals occurred as expected and all level 2 containment valves closed as expected. Reactor water level is currently being controlled in band by condensate. Reactor pressure is being maintained by main turbine Bypass Valves.

"This event is being reported under 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(iv)(A), for ECCS discharge to RCS; 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(iv)(B), for RPS actuation, and 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(iv)(A), for specified system actuation.

"The NRC Senior Resident Inspector has been notified."

No safety relief valves lifted during the transient. The plant is in a normal shutdown electrical lineup with all safety equipment available. The licensee notified the Illinois Emergency Management Agency per their communications protocol.

* * * UPDATE FROM DAVID LIVINGSTON TO HOWIE CROUCH AT 0321 EDT ON 8/4/19 * * *

"Following automatic initiation of the High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) System as described above, the HPCS System was manually secured following station procedures after verification that additional RPV [reactor pressure vessel] injection was no longer required. Securing HPCS injection in this manner prevents automatic restart of the system in the event of a subsequent low RPV level condition, rendering it inoperable. As the HPCS system is considered a single train safety system, this meets the reportability requirements of 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(v)(D). This reportable condition was identified following review of post-scram actions. The HPCS system has been restored to a Standby lineup."

The licensee will be notifying the NRC Resident Inspector.

Notified R3DO (Pelke).

# ? Aug 25, 2019 04:21

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Gee, it's almost like running on outdated reactors might be a problem, eminently solvable by building their new replacements with current globally accepted designs.

It's not like the rest of the world just sat with their thumbs up their asses when the US decided to halt new construction for decades. There are designs available from many trusted nuclear partner countries completely ready for use.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 05:00

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Trabisnikof posted:

Well now you're asking about different issues. I can point you to studies looking at 80% penetration that answer those questions. But you mentioned land use and that study shows that land use is often an overblown concern.

But lets figure out the frame here, which of these are closer to your belief:

1. It is impossible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables

2. It is possible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables but it would require technology we don't have

3. It is possible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables but is too costly to achieve

4. It is possible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables but it might be more costly than an 80%+ nuclear alternative

Based the answer there are different ways to take this conversation, since #1 & #2 are easily disproven, #3 obviously depends on the budget for action, and #4 depends on cost comparisons with an alternative that we don't have much data on.

Count me in at 5. It is possible to operate a grid at 80%+ renewables but the ecological impact would be huge. Better than ecological impact of climate change, and better than generating even 10% of your power from coal, but worse than generating, say, 40% from nuclear power and 60% from renewables (granted I don't have an analysis to back that up)

# ? Aug 25, 2019 05:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Deteriorata posted:

The technical hurdles that need to be overcome for it to be commercially viable are large and will be expensive to implement. With the prices of solar and wind dropping so fast, there doesn't seem to be a significant case to be made for spending lots of money on it.

I see, thank you. I wasn't aware solar and wind were moving that fast or showed potential to cover the spectrum of supply that way.

How about using reactors of this model to replace current commercial shipping propulsion?

# ? Aug 25, 2019 06:03

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

Pander posted:

When you underestimate the scope of the engineering challenges with renewables to fulfill a political promise, you'll end up burning lignite like Germany.

Germany actually overestimated the engineer challenges and is ahead of its targets for renewables. The target for 2020 is 35% which was reached a couple of years ago (I think 2017?). Especially solar PV costs have dropped faster than studies had expected.

You might still end up right in the future though because there was a massive slow down in wind expansion this year due to NIMBYism and political inaction. It's important to remember that Merkel is leading a conservative pro-business government. She inherited the Energiewende from previous Red-Green governments going back to the 90s and she never really was that much committed to the whole project.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 08:56

Comrade Blyatlov: Aug 4, 2007; should have picked four fingers

Discendo Vox posted:

I see, thank you. I wasn't aware solar and wind were moving that fast or showed potential to cover the spectrum of supply that way.

How about using reactors of this model to replace current commercial shipping propulsion?

That will never, ever happen.
And if by some miracle the technical hurdles were overcome, actually I can't even finish that thought.

Look up "magic pipe" cases, and then you'll understand why I shudder at the thought of commercial shipping having nuclear.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 12:15

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Trabisnikof posted:

constantly hammer the role of demand response along with storage and renewables

Trabisnikof posted:

constantly hammer the role of demand response along with storage and renewables

Trabisnikof posted:

constantly hammer the role of demand response along with storage and renewables

as a mediocre third-tier computer toucher its always amazing to me how almost completely untapped demand response is.

I mean sure, you can get a steel plant or whatever to knock off for a few hours, but compared to something like high-frequency trading, we're in the stone age. Hell your typical something awful forum thread during a heated argument has a faster feedback loop than our grid. We need to catch up to 2002 era vbulletin technology.

A simple 2:1 overprovision of wind & solar, combined with per-second over-the-internet based pricing, would imho solve 90+% of the intermittancy "problem". Hydro storage, thermal storage, li-ion storage, inter-region HVDC, and simple cultural adaptation can handle the rest.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 13:27

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

A couple of months ago I read a pretty extensive report from OECD on the matter (moving marine transport away from fossil fuels). It provides an overview of all the challenges needed to achieve this by 2035. You can check it out here.

It is possible to do this, but will require a huge global effort (not surprising).

Comrade Blyatlov posted:

That will never, ever happen.
And if by some miracle the technical hurdles were overcome, actually I can't even finish that thought.

Here is the list of shipwrecks that happened last year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shipwrecks_in_2018

Now imagine a good chunk of them actually having nuclear reactors.

Here is the part about Nuclear from the report I linked above.

quote:

Nuclear propulsion

Nuclear propulsion of ships has been used since 1955 mostly for military and submarine purposes. Despite a small number of commercial vessels being built since, the technology has not progressed beyond usage in the military or for ice-breakers (mostly Russian icebreaker classes). �Savannah�, a nuclear propelled containership operated in the U.S. 1970 to 1977. One ore carrier and one cargo ship operated in Germany and Japan but were decommissioned in 1982 and 1995 (Hirdaris et al., 2014).

Nuclear ship propulsion during operation emits no CO2, NOX, SOX, or particulate emissions. Another advantage of nuclear power is that it enables the vessel to run for long periods of time without the need to refuel, which increases its autonomy and removes exposure to fuel price fluctuations. There are however significant environmental and health risks. The use of radioactive fuel poses risks such as environmental hazards and challenges including safe storage for spent nuclear fuel and decommissioned on-board power plants. This means that the conventional methods of design, planning, building and operation of merchant ships would need complete overhaul, since for a nuclear propelled ship the process would be dominated by a safety rather than an efficiency case. Main difficulties stem from design execution and planning, operation, training of crews and shore staff, nuclear regulation, security, public perception, disposal, etc. Operating nuclear propelled vessels requires stringent crew selection, education and training regimes. This would require an up-to-date and sensitive regulatory framework on an international level. E.g. the IMO Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships, Resolution A.491(XII) would need to be updated for current use of nuclear technology in shipping (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2013). A range of other regulatory issues, such as safety, insurance, damage compensation, etc. remain despite international nuclear liability conventions in place.This also relates to the fundamental issue of nuclear propulsion: a majority of countries would not allow these vessels to enter their ports unless a multilateral treaty covers this case. It is hence likely that international nuclear fuelled shipping would need to start on a bilateral level based on a specific treaty.

The cost of uranium has been relatively cheap in comparison to conventional marine fuels. Operation costs however have been excessively high in former commercial trials so that the ships were finally decommissioned. With the building, operation, maintenance of the ship and decommissioning of used fuel being sensitive features, complex safety analysis and compliance are principal factors driving up the cost of the technology. Moreover, financing this technology implies that the initial cost of the on-board plant is paid up front (including the nuclear fuel).

While no broad uptake is expected for nuclear fuels in the short-term, some safer and less risky nuclear fuels could be considered for propulsion in the long run. So-called molten salt reactors fuelled with thorium are one option. Thorium reactors are considered safer and have a lower proliferation risk than traditional naval reactors fuelled with highly enriched uranium, although commercial use would require considerable R&D investment (World Nuclear Association, 2017). Thorium-based reactors, depending on their configuration, may only produce some 3% of the high level waste developed by current nuclear reactors (Royal Academy on Engineering, 2013). However, there is a lack of clear drivers and economic incentives to the deployment of thorium fuels and only a few industrial projects are being considered in this direction. Such projects face a very high capital cost and very little public support. The prospects for industrial use before 2050 are therefore relatively limited (OECD, 2015). While there has been almost no public investment in this domain since the 1970s, interest from governments and researchers is slowly rising again. In late 2017, the Chinese government has decided to spend USD 3.3 billion on two prototype molten salt nuclear reactors, which will be developed for use in aircraft carriers, drones and military aircrafts, as well as a potential commercial use in the future (Chen, 2017).

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Aug 25, 2019

# ? Aug 25, 2019 13:34

Comrade Blyatlov: Aug 4, 2007; should have picked four fingers

StabbinHobo posted:

as a mediocre third-tier computer toucher its always amazing to me how almost completely untapped demand response is.

these are definitely skills that are translatable to large-scale power generation and distrbution
it really isn't that simple particularly when big industry is involved

# ? Aug 25, 2019 13:49

Comrade Blyatlov: Aug 4, 2007; should have picked four fingers

there are also specific circumstances where a crew might have to sacrifice their engine in order to save their ship

fine with a diesel engine, but christ, now i'm imagining having to run a nuclear reactor past its safe limits and shuddering like gently caress

i guess one solution there is redundancy but this isn't a thought path i really want to go down

on the other hand, you'd most likely wind up with steam making a comeback, unless there's some other way of directly translating the heat generation into mechanical work that i'm not familiar with

though that causes its own issues again, steam propulsion is a different beast to diesel and has its own ticketing and qualifications, that plus nuclear

i guess with enough impetus it's not an impossible set of obstacles but make no mistake they are not small challenges

Comrade Blyatlov fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Aug 25, 2019

# ? Aug 25, 2019 13:55

A GIANT PARSNIP: Apr 13, 2010; Too much fuckin' eggnog

Also I bet it's a lot cheaper to convert air and water into hydrogen or hydrocarbons with peak solar and wind energy than it is to build 50,000 floating miniature nuclear reactors, create effective regulatory agencies to oversee those 50,000 floating miniature nuclear reactors, and staff nuclear technicians on every cargo ship and nuclear engineers in every port.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 14:18

silence_kit: Jul 14, 2011; by the sex ghost

Comrade Blyatlov posted:

there are also specific circumstances where a crew might have to sacrifice their engine in order to save their ship

fine with a diesel engine, but christ, now i'm imagining having to run a nuclear reactor past its safe limits and shuddering like gently caress

i guess one solution there is redundancy but this isn't a thought path i really want to go down

Yeah, you would solve these issues by greatly overbuilding and over-engineering the nuclear reactor(s) powering the ship, and somehow getting the international crew to take the necessary maintenance and proper operation of the ships' power plant(s) more seriously.

This is why nuclear electricity is so expensive, and it would make shipping expensive too.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 14:20

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Comrade Blyatlov posted:

there are also specific circumstances where a crew might have to sacrifice their engine in order to save their ship

fine with a diesel engine, but christ, now i'm imagining having to run a nuclear reactor past its safe limits and shuddering like gently caress

i guess one solution there is redundancy but this isn't a thought path i really want to go down

on the other hand, you'd most likely wind up with steam making a comeback, unless there's some other way of directly translating the heat generation into mechanical work that i'm not familiar with

though that causes its own issues again, steam propulsion is a different beast to diesel and has its own ticketing and qualifications, that plus nuclear

i guess with enough impetus it's not an impossible set of obstacles but make no mistake they are not small challenges

The drive gearing would be what would be run to the limit much earlier than the reactor most likely.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 14:23

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Comrade Blyatlov posted:

these are definitely skills that are translatable to large-scale power generation and distrbution
it really isn't that simple particularly when big industry is involved

i know you think you're being clever but for the record operations management and capacity planning in internet services is a direct copy/paste descendant of the telco network which is a direct copy/paste descendant of the electric grid (which in turn is a direct descendant of TRAINS).

its not only "that simple" its actually far easier, specifically because of how much slower physical things move. I mean I said "per second" in my example but in reality it could be done regionally on a 10 - 100ms time window. You really only need to crack 500ms if you're trying to handle something globally, and i doubt we're getting there with transmission anytime soon. If you feel some need to slow things down to make yourself feel better you could arbitrarily raise it to a 1 minute window.

Essentially the internet and the power grid need to merge so that our refrigerators and good gaming rigs can all join the realtime auction.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 15:06

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

silence_kit posted:

This is why nuclear electricity is so expensive, and it would make shipping expensive too.

I'm confused as to why cheap shipping is important? Given the whole climate emergency this seems like an unlikely thing to end up having and a low as gently caress priority.

Any talk of economic cost is pretty misplaced at this point. The only costs that matter anymore are emissions.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Aug 25, 2019

# ? Aug 25, 2019 16:09

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

And considering "Its cheap" got us into this mess, arguing that high cost is a reason to avoid nuclear is laughable: It was always going to have a heavy price tag, but given the mess we made, we might as well pay it.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Aug 25, 2019

# ? Aug 25, 2019 16:24

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Oh no we'll have to educate our populace and pay them well for the good of all. The horror

# ? Aug 25, 2019 16:27

silence_kit: Jul 14, 2011; by the sex ghost

Nevvy Z posted:

I'm confused as to why cheap shipping is important?

If shipping cost doesn�t matter, we could just go back to shipping everything by sail. That�d be more green than a nuclear powered cargo ship.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 16:34

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Nevvy Z posted:

I'm confused as to why cheap shipping is important? Given the whole climate emergency this seems like an unlikely thing end up having and a low as gently caress priority.

The fact that we do have a climate emergency means that our assets have to be used in the most cost-effective way possible to provide the maximum intended result in the shortest timeframe.

To give a very simplistic example. Shipping right now is responsible for around 3% of global CO2 emissions.
You may need a trillion dollars to convert the fleet to ammonia propulsion over the course of a decade, and make said ammonia carbon neutral in production inside two decades.
You may need three trillion dollars to convert half the fleet to LFTR based nuclear propulsion over the course of two decades.

Which one will you choose?

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Aug 25, 2019

# ? Aug 25, 2019 16:37

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

silence_kit posted:

If shipping cost doesn�t matter, we could just go back to shipping everything by sail. That�d be more green than a nuclear powered cargo ship.

Ah yes, a *checks calendar* 2 year journey for some thing from China.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 16:38

Crazycryodude: Aug 15, 2015; Lets get our X tons of Duranium back!

....Is that still a valid thing to jingoistically blow out of proportion?

CommieGIR posted:

Ah yes, a *checks calendar* 2 year journey for some thing from China.

More like a few months, and also yeah? Deal with it? If we want to still have something even vaguely resembling a technological society this time next century there's gonna have to be sacrifices made.

Also agreed cost shouldn't just be measured in dollars, because dollars don't take into account the carbon emissions needed to produce a thing, environmental impact from mining the materials to make the thing, etc. Just because something costs fewer dollars doesn't mean it's automatically better, the thing we should be measuring costs in is total carbon emissions or something.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 17:14

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Pander posted:

And capacity factor for wind is low, so if you eliminate baseload you DO have to factor in storage and/or generation oversizing.

A reminder that we've reached the cross over point for renewables on capacity factor. As we build more renewables the capacity factor going forward increases for renewables and decreases for conventional power generation. That was a couple years ago now.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 17:19

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Crazycryodude posted:

More like a few months, and also yeah? Deal with it? If we want to still have something even vaguely resembling a technological society this time next century there's gonna have to be sacrifices made.

Also agreed cost shouldn't just be measured in dollars, because dollars don't take into account the carbon emissions needed to produce a thing, environmental impact from mining the materials to make the thing, etc. Just because something costs fewer dollars doesn't mean it's automatically better, the thing we should be measuring costs in is total carbon emissions or something.

I dont think we'll be seeing any wind driven superfrieghters anytime soon.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 17:26

silence_kit: Jul 14, 2011; by the sex ghost

BrandorKP posted:

A reminder that we've reached the cross over point for renewables on capacity factor. As we build more renewables the capacity factor going forward increases for renewables and decreases for conventional power generation. That was a couple years ago now.

What? Why is this true?

# ? Aug 25, 2019 17:27

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

silence_kit posted:

If shipping cost doesn�t matter, we could just go back to shipping everything by sail. That�d be more green than a nuclear powered cargo ship.

https://www.sailcargo.org/

# ? Aug 25, 2019 17:30

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

MrYenko posted:

https://www.sailcargo.org/

So, basically, we have to grow a bunch of old growth forests, and then we have to probably quadruple the total size of international cargo fleets?

Because that's not gonna cut it.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 18:15

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

CommieGIR posted:

So, basically, we have to grow a bunch of old growth forests, and then we have to probably quadruple the total size of international cargo fleets?

Because that's not gonna cut it.

Agreed, I�m pretty sure SailCargo is a scam to crowdfund a really nice yacht. No one in their right mind wants to try to turn a profit with a wooden ship.

I am curious to see what could be done with a modern steel ship and something like the DynaRig sails seen on the latest sailing yachts.

http://nextgeneration-cargo.com/index.html

# ? Aug 25, 2019 19:18

crazypenguin: Mar 9, 2005; nothing witty here, move along

Yeah, wind capacity factor improvements are no joke:

https://emp.lbl.gov/wind-technologies-market-report/

quote:

The average 2018 capacity factor among projects built from 2014 through 2017 was 42%, compared to an average of 31% among projects built from 2004 to 2011 and 24% among projects built from 1998 to 2001.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 19:20

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

MrYenko posted:

Agreed, I�m pretty sure SailCargo is a scam to crowdfund a really nice yacht. No one in their right mind wants to try to turn a profit with a wooden ship.

I am curious to see what could be done with a modern steel ship and something like the DynaRig sails seen on the latest sailing yachts.

http://nextgeneration-cargo.com/index.html

I do admit: I'd like to see what supplementing the engine with sails would do for a modern ship with proper rigging. I don't know how well it would work, since most modern ships are built around the ability to sail in a straight direction with minimal drift, versus sailing ships of old.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 19:56

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

CommieGIR posted:

I do admit: I'd like to see what supplementing the engine with sails would do for a modern ship with proper rigging. I don't know how well it would work, since most modern ships are built around the ability to sail in a straight direction with minimal drift, versus sailing ships of old.

The study I linked above talks about this. Take a look at skysails (kites) and rotorsails (Flettner rotors) for example.

There are also some other projects under development.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 20:39

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

silence_kit posted:

What? Why is this true?

Here are my post on it from earlier:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/solar-wind-reach-a-big-renewables-turning-point-bnef

Link where I took that from. Won't do you much good though, unless you can use a Bloomburg terminal. I posted that first comment in april and the article I was basing it on has since been archieved.

Smiling Demon posted:

edit: have more renewables does not let you use existing renewables more frequently

No it does that. Found something that was based on the bloomburg article and quotes it (edit, nearly not everything on a second reading) entirely.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...NtZu1xo030Q1gjQ

Here's the tldr

https://imgur.com/3l5ujuC

Edit: the important part

As Bloomberg explains: "It’s a self-reinforcing cycle. As more renewables are installed, coal and natural gas plants are used less. As coal and gas are used less, the cost of using them to generate electricity goes up. As the cost of coal and gas power rises, more renewables will be installed."

The table above shows how the capacity factors of coal and natural gas are starting to be affected, while wind and solar are starting to do better because bigger and taller wind turbines catch more wind and more solar is being installed in the U.S. Southwest where sunny days are more frequent.

It's kind of like a flywheel, and the more solar panels we install, the more wind turbines are built, the faster it spins. At some point, doesn't make any sense to run fossil fuels on sunny or windy days, and overall capacity factors go down enough that prices are simply not competitive with storage, and rather than build new natural gas plants, utilities will simply buy more renewables combined with storage.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 21:49

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006

MrYenko posted:

Agreed, I�m pretty sure SailCargo is a scam to crowdfund a really nice yacht. No one in their right mind wants to try to turn a profit with a wooden ship.

I am curious to see what could be done with a modern steel ship and something like the DynaRig sails seen on the latest sailing yachts.

http://nextgeneration-cargo.com/index.html

Maybe there's some airplane treadmill thing I'm missing here, but why not put rotating wind turbines on cargo ships to power electric motors? Sails seem more efficient in ideal circumstances, but that would work regardless of wind direction.

# ? Aug 26, 2019 00:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 8, 2024 08:51

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Maybe there's some airplane treadmill thing I'm missing here, but why not put rotating wind turbines on cargo ships to power electric motors? Sails seem more efficient in ideal circumstances, but that would work regardless of wind direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill_ship

something different but closer to wide implementation is the following

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship

# ? Aug 26, 2019 00:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

«‹›348 »