|
QuarkJets posted:The OP didn't calculate GW needed per hour though, they calculated GW hours needed per hour. So the other poster was correct, GW is the unit that would be used. The actual answer is that I didn’t give a poo poo about units because I was casually (in the sense of “in a relaxed or informal way”) calculating a quick number for someone who needed help with the math, and I spent 0 time looking up units. In retrospect I should have excluded all units from the equation and simply said “40000/8760 = 4.566, 4.566*1000 = 4566, 5380/4566 = 117%” because the entire point of the exercise was to help the op wrap their mind around the output of the reactor relative to a familiar frame of reference. The fact that the op’s curiosity and wonder at the size of the reactor compared to the largest city in their country has been drowned out by “YOU DIDN’T USE THE RIGHT UNIT IN STEP 2” is a perfect example of why science communication has been in the shitter for the last 20 years. Gstu posted:Thanks! The generator itself isn't even in the Emirate of Dubai (it's a fair bit west of the city part of Abu Dhabi), but I just figured that was a good starting point for wrapping my head around how much power this would (in theory) be outputting. There's also some ambitious solar projects happening in the country, which is kind of cool to see out in the middle of the desert. No problem! It’s amazing what we are capable to doing as a species if we put our minds to it. I looked up the giant solar projects and it looks like you already have a 1.2 Gigawatt setup in place and are working on a 2+ Gigawatt setup. UAE seems like a perfect place to experiment with a solar & nuclear grid, so I hope you have a lot of success and can provide a template for other counties to do the same.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:The actual answer is that I didn’t give a poo poo about units because I was casually (in the sense of “in a relaxed or informal way”) calculating a quick number for someone who needed help with the math, and I spent 0 time looking up units. In retrospect I should have excluded all units from the equation and simply said “40000/8760 = 4.566, 4.566*1000 = 4566, 5380/4566 = 117%” because the entire point of the exercise was to help the op wrap their mind around the output of the reactor relative to a familiar frame of reference. Your post wasn't "drowned out", the single inaccurate part of it was discussed for a few posts by some real-life experts pointing out the importance of using correct units. You shouldn't feel like you need to get defensive about it, and the SA forums are in no way representative of science communication And let me just say, "no one is allowed to correct my mistakes on this web forum, think of the science communication" is some Trump-level stable genius thinking
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Rime posted:Also the big rotors cut in at, like, 3m/s, which is so light you'd barely notice it on your face so the variation is even more pronounced. Most turbines cut out the generator for overspeed protection and transition to freewheeling when the wind reaches speeds you'd find "strong" at ground level. A wind farm is most profitable somewhere with consistent moderate speed winds, too windy too often and you make as little money as somewhere with very little or inconsistent winds. What's the issue with the wind being too fast, can we not make generators that can handle it? Or there would be additonal cost that makes it infeasible even with the increased electricity generation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
I'm no pro but I'd guess it's cost-benefit constraints of materials necessary to handle moment arms that are 80+ meters long. That's a lot of bending force.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
Felix_Cat posted:What's the issue with the wind being too fast, can we not make generators that can handle it? Or there would be additonal cost that makes it infeasible even with the increased electricity generation? I'm not an expert, but physical limitations on materials, heat generation, over voltage/current, loss of efficiency, etc. Would all be likely reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
I've felt pretty excited ever since I learned one was being built in my metro last week: (one of the first in the US!!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1-SWVcAdw
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
 jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
The particularly large object which flies out the top and creates the dirt plume is the drivetrain, which weighs 340 tons and is held to the nacelle bedframe by 24x 3" by 20" tension studs. Overspeed incidents are exciting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
My favorite thing about this video is that the insane, out-of-control speeds become even more ridiculous once the tower is severed and you finally get a sense of how big the thing is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
So, fun times in California, huh? https://twitter.com/akoseff/status/1295440093335830528?s=20 I believe the correct response is "Well, duh."
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
I'm pretty confused if this is a capacity or transmission issue? Sacramento and other parts of the state aren't having the same problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/business/energy-environment/california-blackout-electric-grid.amp.html Seems to be an extra fun combination of events: Very high temperatures across the region, a natural gas plant didn’t start when called for (and possibly issues with a second plant?), wind died down, and neighboring states had high demand (California is a net importer). Edit:/ this would look to mainly be a capacity issue. But being short around 4,400 MW can also cause some transmission issues. That might be why only certain areas are seeing blackouts. Orvin fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Aug 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:So, fun times in California, huh?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:So, fun times in California, huh? They want to close Diablo Canyon in 2025 too, good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I'm pretty confused if this is a capacity or transmission issue? Sacramento and other parts of the state aren't having the same problems. Sacramento (SMUD) isn't part of Cal ISO and instead have their own balancing authority with some other utilities. SMUD also has a lot of their own generation, although if I remember correctly they canceled their pumped hydro storage and instead made a deal to import some hydroelectric power from up north. Page four of this pdf from Cal ISO has a map that shows you who's on Cal ISO (most of the state). As someone already said, California is a net importer, which is fine until the heatwave affects other states too and they don't have excess capacity. *edit* I forgot to add that solar wasn't at full capacity yesterday or the day before due to the clouds, which has to be pretty rare in CA when it's this hot. I took a quick look at Cal ISO this morning and my rough estimate was it was down around 1,000MW, or two of SMUD's Cosumnes combined cycle plants. MomJeans420 fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Aug 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Sacramento (SMUD) isn't part of Cal ISO and instead have their own balancing authority with some other utilities. SMUD also has a lot of their own generation, although if I remember correctly they canceled their pumped hydro storage and instead made a deal to import some hydroelectric power from up north. Page four of this pdf from Cal ISO has a map that shows you who's on Cal ISO (most of the state). Wow, clouds really gently caress solar up. Goddamn. Is it even possible of feasible to build that many batteries to hold that capacity? And since you're still around with the inception of COVID-19 how does that impact the Energy Outlook per this earlier post? I'm kind of interested in the math behind the current demand but many, many folks think we still haven't hit peak oil demand and emissions soon but they do think it'll happen in the coming decade. MomJeans420 posted:The all or nothing approach isn't going to work, as mentioned many, many times in this thread. What is your idea to keep the world powered while not burning ANY fossil fuels? You keep on saying we can't burn them, but haven't offered a solution (hint: there's not one that's fossil fuel free). Reposting this chart, but are any of you ok with emissions at 1975 levels? Has anyone going for net zero emissions talked to anyone who works in power generation and transmission? Are you going to invade India and China to stop their emissions from increasing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
I don't know, possibly less than you think. World oil demand in 2020 vs 2019 is projected to shrink < 10%, US electricity consumption < 5%. I think if anything it would just stretch the time axis out on the all the projections in the pre-COVID-19 report. On the other hand, I think the worst of COVID-19's effects upon the economy (in the US) have yet to be seen, and I could see 2021's reality being a lot different than the current projections. Probably depends on if an effective coronavirus vaccine comes out sooner rather than later? Do countries all over the world implement some sort of Green New Deal as a make work program? And a lot of the increased energy consumption was going to be people moving from lower class to middle class lifestyles, but if places like India take a huge hit from COVID-19 then that could slow or stop that. And then you have the decline in gas production in the US due to the Saudis and Russians trying to kill US shale, such that coal is expected to grow in 2021 as gas prices rise. So from a CO2 emissions standpoint, we could be emitting a lot more CO2 just to generate the same amount of power (until production recovers). Re: solar, here are the graphs for August 15th of this year and last year:   The area under the curve is what you're trying to replace, and you also need a way to charge the batteries through solar or non-peak usage power. The difference between 2020 and 2019 for that day alone is more than all of So Cal Edison's seven new battery storage projects combined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Wow, clouds really gently caress solar up. Goddamn. Is it even possible of feasible to build that many batteries to hold that capacity? I just want to add that your red-text avatar is kind of endearing
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/OskaArcher/status/1295662649020018689?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
Most of that is France though, and also https://twitter.com/grunblatt/status/1296339140275994624 T_T
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
Re: batteries and California   *edit* It took some searching but it looks like it can provide 230MW for one hour. MomJeans420 fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Aug 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
Biden wants to zero out U.S. electricity sector CO2 emssions by 2035? I guess they're planning on fast-tracking a whole shitload of nuke plants then? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
Doing it through either nuclear power or some insane attempt at 100% renewable + storage would require new laws (and possibly an amendment to the Constitution to really speed things up) that ensure no lawsuits can be filed to stop any of these projects. Even then I highly doubt it could be done, we don't even have enough skilled craftsmen to build that many nukes at one time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:*edit*
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Yeah popular reporting on energy storage is abysmal in that regard. Frequently mixing/confusing units, or just reporting power not energy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Which then creates confusion among the general population as they assume a 230MW battery pack can replace a 230MW power plant, rather than needing 24 of those packs. I haven't looked into this but I assume the battery packs are down for maintenance a lot less frequently than power plants, I wonder if that's right though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
The gas fired cogen that I am associated with has 1 day outages a couple times per year, a 15 day outage every 3 years and a 30 day outage every 6 years. All rough numbers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Even then I highly doubt it could be done, we don't even have enough skilled craftsmen to build that many nukes at one time. How many craftsmen of nuclear construction would actually be needed? Most of the construction can be applied from other industries. Concrete workers from skyscrapers, piping from chemical industry, steam turbines from coal plants. In Finland large part of the contruction has been done by for example polish subcontractors. Of course that is also a big reason for the delays, but on the other hand they haven't been replaced by proper nuclear contructors, they've just had to redo their work until they've reached required quality standards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:How many craftsmen of nuclear construction would actually be needed? Most of the construction can be applied from other industries. Concrete workers from skyscrapers, piping from chemical industry, steam turbines from coal plants. In Finland large part of the contruction has been done by for example polish subcontractors. Of course that is also a big reason for the delays, but on the other hand they haven't been replaced by proper nuclear contructors, they've just had to redo their work until they've reached required quality standards. What the US is lacking for a nuclear boom isn't skilled labor: Its steel industry to product cores/steam separators/etc. The US Steel Industry is in tatters and most big steel products are still produced overseas. Unfortunately, nuclear is the only way to address what GND wants to do as far as low/zero emissions energy generation by 2035, and ironically places like UAE are seeing the writing on the wall and just brought their first nuclear reactor online.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What the US is lacking for a nuclear boom isn't skilled labor: Its steel industry to product cores/steam separators/etc. Kind sounds like a political win win to do nukes and revitalize the steel industry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Kind sounds like a political win win to do nukes and revitalize the steel industry. The paranoia runs way deep in boomers, who run everything
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:The paranoia runs way deep in boomers, who ruin everything
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
Its been a while since I looked it up or did research on it, so grain of salt and all that, but I remember qualified welders being a big problem for new nuke plants. They have to be specialists too, account for the possible radioactivity effects on their weld. Also scale. A Reactor Pressure Vessel, which holds the core, is HUGE. And those are typically constructed out one, maybe two, pieces of material. No where in America is prepared to build/ship them anymore. All this is for the standard in use light water reactors though. Small modular designs could probably get around some of the issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
SporkChan posted:Its been a while since I looked it up or did research on it, so grain of salt and all that, but I remember qualified welders being a big problem for new nuke plants. They have to be specialists too, account for the possible radioactivity effects on their weld. Small scale reactors are possible. The Navy has been doing it for a long time. Training up advanced steelworkers and welders only seems like a win win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Small scale reactors are possible. The Navy has been doing it for a long time. If "doing it" means "economically operating small-scale reactors," no, it hasn't. Naval plants run at ridiculous levels of enrichment, the stuff that goes into them is basically bomb-grade. A naval reactor wouldn't even come close to being an economical means to generate electricity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 05:57
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:How many craftsmen of nuclear construction would actually be needed? Most of the construction can be applied from other industries. Concrete workers from skyscrapers, piping from chemical industry, steam turbines from coal plants. In Finland large part of the contruction has been done by for example polish subcontractors. Of course that is also a big reason for the delays, but on the other hand they haven't been replaced by proper nuclear contructors, they've just had to redo their work until they've reached required quality standards. I don't know exact numbers, but attracting and keeping skilled labor was one of the problems on a recent nuclear plant that got canceled before it was finished. I don't know the various certifications and levels of experience needed, but the post-mortem by independent experts found that was a major problem. The standards for welding a nuclear pressure vessel are higher than your typical power plant, whether or not the actual pressure of the vessel is different (I don't know if they are, I'm just saying they're different standards). Of course when no one has built a nuclear plant in 30 years, that's going to be an issue. I'm sure we have people whose skills would transfer over close enough and could get certified, but that's different than actually having them available. I only have experience with these things from the legal side when things go wrong, but from what I've seen the higher skilled guys involved in constructing power plants basically just move around the world from one job to the next.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 07:33
|
|
|
Yeah, there's a whole institutional knowledge (that's perishable) that goes into creating, nurturing and utilizing the scale of artisans required for something like a scaled up nuclear build out. You are talking thousands upon thousands of people that are basically the equivalent of writing computer code without a back space button - only a throw away the work and materials of the previous days work button if there is a mistake and multibillion dollar write-off if your artisan manages to hide his mistake. Then there is the operations side that you need to train people how to utilize complex systems, on auditors and QAQC people to keep the systems robust and the management and supervision that has to work in a much different area of the consequence likelihood risk chart than most industrial people are used to. The US developed the knowledge in the 50's - 60's during a time when the number of casualties you created along the way was just a metric. I would hazard a guess that a lot of the American knowhow that is being used in various plants around the world under construction are people created out of the tail end of that build out. IIRC China specifically reduced their nuclear build out ambitions on account of the scalability of skilled labor (for both construction and operation) and China knows a lot about scaling and does not mind an accident or two more than the US would tolerate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 07:50
|
|
|
Oh no, training hundreds of thousands of highly qualified union jobs. The horror. Again, I'm not hearing a reason it can't be done other than cost. You know, the some short sighted profit driven mindset that got is here in the fist place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Oh no, training hundreds of thousands of highly qualified union jobs. The horror. "Cost" isn't necessarily about "profit."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 16:22
|
|