|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Yeah, well, all reporting is pretty terrible when it comes to Everything. It's pretty awful when it comes to science. But it's not like they're saving the good reporters who really know a lot about the subject matter for the stories on legal issues, finance, crime, etc.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:LOL China. So, naive questions: Why does China build so much coal power capacity, instead of nuclear? I know they have nuclear plants under construction, so why the mix? Why not just one kind of power generation, whichever is cheaper for them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
Cheap
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:So, naive questions: Why does China build so much coal power capacity, instead of nuclear? I know they have nuclear plants under construction, so why the mix? Why not just one kind of power generation, whichever is cheaper for them? Cheap and fast and doing it wrong doesn't kill everyone in the vicinity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:47
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Cheap and fast and doing it wrong doesn't kill everyone in the vicinity. Weird how doing coal power right does that
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 09:22
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:So, naive questions: Why does China build so much coal power capacity, instead of nuclear? I know they have nuclear plants under construction, so why the mix? Why not just one kind of power generation, whichever is cheaper for them? From what I understand, it is t least partly due to their own assessment on how quickly the institutional knowledge can be increased to the scale required. Slapping down a few dozen reactors to 1960's French spec over a decade or so is one thing, throwing down hundreds of gen 2 reactors in half the time is quite another. The capacity for design, construction, parts procurement and operations personnel at such a consistently high QAQC standard that was not expected in the 60's and 70's is no mean feat. China kills thousands of coal workers a year and that is the price of doing business - the CCP can't afford for nuclear accidents potentially impacting Beijing to be normalized. Maybe as they gain confidence in the ability to cookie cutter the plants and support services, they might lean more and more heavily in that direction but for the CCP to survive, they need to expand the electricity network to a program that requires building out coal now. Also, I have started assembling knowledge on local providers for battery storage (as well as reputable suppliers like ABB) for assessing the potential here - going to be a slow process I am sure but will update as we receive the proposals - at the very least it is a good learning experience for one of my local grad engineers. Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 10:56
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Cheap and fast and doing it wrong doesn't kill everyone in the vicinity. Oh man, have I got news for you about coal...
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:From what I understand, it is t least partly due to their own assessment on how quickly the institutional knowledge can be increased to the scale required. Slapping down a few dozen reactors to 1960's French spec over a decade or so is one thing, throwing down hundreds of gen 2 reactors in half the time is quite another. The capacity for design, construction, parts procurement and operations personnel at such a consistently high QAQC standard that was not expected in the 60's and 70's is no mean feat. China kills thousands of coal workers a year and that is the price of doing business - the CCP can't afford for nuclear accidents potentially impacting Beijing to be normalized. Maybe as they gain confidence in the ability to cookie cutter the plants and support services, they might lean more and more heavily in that direction but for the CCP to survive, they need to expand the electricity network to a program that requires building out coal now. Excellent explanation, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh man, have I got news for you about coal... Be fair, coal doesn't only kill people in the vicinity of the plant!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 14:03
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Cheap and fast and doing it wrong doesn't kill everyone in the vicinity. It sure did in Wales in the late 60s, as recently shown in the third episode of season three of The Crown
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Be fair, coal doesn't only kill people in the vicinity of the plant! On a big enough scale we are all in vicinity of a coal plant
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Or a nuclear plant
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I would love to see those sorts of prices as well. We utilize HFO sets for power and run an extra one just for redundancy - hurting fuel efficiency and running up maintenance hours. I have organized PLC/SCADA gurus to implement a powerstation wide SCADA control linked into the process plant SCADA so that load shedding can be implemented such that large loads such as a 4MW mill can be dropped off in the event of a generator trip but obviously that comes with process interruption and wear and tear costs. A decent rule of thumb is you can discharge at about 3x the installed capacity. So a 1 MWh install can discharge at 3 MW. This is a little reductive since it depends on the size of a base battery cell, how many cells you have, and the size and quantity of inverters. But for the commercially available grid-scale systems that I have worked with its about right. I am sure you can mess with the storage size vs discharge rate if you get into designing something custom. A project I am currently working on is 550 kWh and 1,600 kW. Cost for the system was about $600,000. This doesn't include installation and permitting and utility interconnect approvals/costs. For reference I am an Industrial Controls Engineer that works for a firm that designs and (sometimes) installs power plants, mostly small fossil fuel based CHP plants but we also do electrical infrastructure including grid scale battery systems. Most of my battery system installs have been for end users that have critical loads that need to do exactly what you are talking about, ride through a short outage until their backup generators are online and able to accept load. Usually hospitals but also a few manufacturing facilities that have very high costs for production shutdowns like biopharm. Edit: Another datapoint is a 500 kWh unit with a 700kW discharge rate is closer to $300,000 so you are paying quite a bit for the extra output. There is a lot of copper involved for the larger transformer, larger switchgear bus, and additional inverters required to handle the extra current. funkymonks fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
^ thank you, I so appreciate posts with real information in them could you maybe share some vendors, makes, and models to go along?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
funkymonks posted:Edit: Another datapoint is a 500 kWh unit with a 700kW discharge rate is closer to $300,000 so you are paying quite a bit for the extra output. There is a lot of copper involved for the larger transformer, larger switchgear bus, and additional inverters required to handle the extra current. A problem for EV charging stations is getting a high capacity connection to the grid, and this sounds like a convenient solution for that. That battery could charge quite a few Teslas and you don't need very thick connection to the grid if it's running at full blast 24/7. Could also provide a bit of grid storage with any excess capacity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Weird how doing coal power right does that Yeah, but it's slow enough that people don't give a poo poo. It's easy to demonize something that can kill hundreds or thousands of people in one go rather than hundreds of thousands over a longer period, some people still smoke cigarettes...
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Yeah, but it's slow enough that people don't give a poo poo. It's easy to demonize something that can kill hundreds or thousands of people in one go rather than hundreds of thousands over a longer period, some people still smoke cigarettes... I read somewhere that coal plants burning coal for a year releases more radioactive elements and heavy metal into the environment than if an equivalent-MW nuclear plant just dumped its radioactive water and core into the river when it was done with a fuel cycle (instead of properly disposing of it/containing it). I don't have the data in front of me to math it out, but that's what we should be comparing, not some moronic Chernobyl comparison. Chernobyl couldn't happen again no matter what kind of accident a nuclear reactor had.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I read somewhere that coal plants burning coal for a year releases more radioactive elements and heavy metal into the environment than if an equivalent-MW nuclear plant just dumped its radioactive water and core into the river when it was done with a fuel cycle (instead of properly disposing of it/containing it). I don't have the data in front of me to math it out, but that's what we should be comparing, not some moronic Chernobyl comparison. Chernobyl couldn't happen again no matter what kind of accident a nuclear reactor had. Yeah, I read that quite some time ago, yet those stats aren't cited when comparing coal to nuclear. Probably this article? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I read somewhere that coal plants burning coal for a year releases more radioactive elements and heavy metal into the environment than if an equivalent-MW nuclear plant just dumped its radioactive water and core into the river when it was done with a fuel cycle (instead of properly disposing of it/containing it). I don't have the data in front of me to math it out, but that's what we should be comparing, not some moronic Chernobyl comparison. Chernobyl couldn't happen again no matter what kind of accident a nuclear reactor had. It also helps if Dyatlov is not the reactor lead. I mean, they had to make so many mistakes prior to the reactor amplifying their idiocy for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
3.6 tons of spent fuel unaccounted for, not great, not terrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 09:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
CommieGIR posted:It also helps if Dyatlov is not the reactor lead. I'll step in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 10:18
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Yeah, but it's slow enough that people don't give a poo poo. It's easy to demonize something that can kill hundreds or thousands of people in one go rather than hundreds of thousands over a longer period, some people still smoke cigarettes... But you have those flipped! Going by the actual statistics on this matter, accidents related to coal power have killed hundreds or thousands of people in quick and horrific ways, whereas most nuclear power "disasters" entail a prediction of how cancer rates may rise X% over the next 30 years. Like it's not even comparable, coal is the bigger killer in the long and short terms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 10:20
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:So, naive questions: Why does China build so much coal power capacity, instead of nuclear? I know they have nuclear plants under construction, so why the mix? Why not just one kind of power generation, whichever is cheaper for them? Coal plants field a lot of employment in a lot of non coastal regions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
You know how Germany's wind power expansion has basically come to a total stop last year? Now the Merkel government is trying to pass a ban on wind turbine construction in a radius of 1km around anything bigger than 4 residential houses. According to studies this would permanently stop any further wind power expansion on German soil and lead to a substantial reduction of capacity over time. Germany would start to reduce its renewable power generation and, presumably, switch to natural gas. There are massive protests against that law right now and Merkel's junior coalition partner has announced that they will not support the law in parliament, but it's doubtful if they gonna break up the coalition over this cause elections would be disastrous for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/maartenzam/status/1190253562267340800?s=21
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
 Making some motherfuckin' sausage. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
i don't think they go on the ground like that
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
They do when they're about to be put up. Source: just drove through most of Iowa. And saw bunches of turbines on trucks and half built windmills. It was literally the only interesting thing I saw in Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/zackkanter/status/1201259377816027138?s=21
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
gently caress, he's right, I guess we'll just have to keep burning gas
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
What the gently caress does that even mean
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:What the gently caress does that even mean Its the stupidest take ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
There might be nothing wrong with nuclear power, but how does it further the aims of individualist global anarchic communitarianism? We can't solve climate justice without also resolving 1,500 years of colonial patriarchy, and we must stand in the path of anyone who would try. #ThingsOverheardAtCityCouncilMeetings Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
Oh so because you can't do micro nuclear but can do micro hydro it's bad, got it Ever heard of a little something called the SL-1 you moran
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
Something tells me the venture capitalist loving tech bro doesn't actually care about systems of oppression.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
I mean he is trashing nuclear power, so the response in this thread is to be expected, but I'd think that his kind of all-or-nothing style of thinking about solving political problems would really appeal to D&D posters. I don't have forums search, but the phrase in his tweet 'we need to dismantle them all' has probably been posted many times on this subforum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I mean he is trashing nuclear power, so the response in this thread is to be expected, but I'd think that his kind of all-or-nothing style of thinking about solving political problems would really appeal to D&D posters.  He's trashing nuclear power using something that has nothing to do with nuclear power at all. But yeah, its all D&D dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 13:32
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Something tells me the venture capitalist loving tech bro doesn't actually care about systems of oppression. Yes. He’s trolling. Masterfully as it turns out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yes. He’s trolling. Masterfully as it turns out. The Paradox of Trolling is that often Trolls unironically believe what they are trolling about, but just want the option of being able to wave it off as a troll if called out enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:I mean he is trashing nuclear power, so the response in this thread is to be expected, but I'd think that his kind of all-or-nothing style of thinking about solving political problems would really appeal to D&D posters. Lol the exact same thought crossed my mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 15:06
|
|
