|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Beffer posted:The economics  Planet's dying but tell me more about how saving it costs too much. Same re: the meme. cost cost cost meanwhile we all are dying
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
Chad worked well for Germany, lmao. Also: The meme isn't even correct. By law in the US, Nuclear Plants are REQUIRED to carry insurance. What's the meme's makers beef with Steam turbines? Its one of the most efficient ways to generate electricity. Also: gently caress ROI, we're in a oncoming disaster. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Aug 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Virgin nuke also works at the time of the day with the highest power demand, Chad solar has dropped off
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Chad worked well for Germany, lmao. They're in the pocket of Big Inverters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Virgin nuke also works at the time of the day with the highest power demand, Chad solar has dropped off i'd already forgotten about the meme when i saw this post and was wondering if i missed something about Virgin ™️ Nuclear a la dick branson now wanting to save the world
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
How are PV panels versus using evacuated tube solar collectors to heat water for steam generation in terms of efficiency?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
A decade ago PV was more space-efficient and less cost-efficient, I don't know whether that's still the case
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:How are PV panels versus using evacuated tube solar collectors to heat water for steam generation in terms of efficiency? For what application? Steam generation for on-site heat or for power generation? For power generation it sadly looks like all the concentrating solar power plants have been a relative bust compared to PV. (Bechtel strikes again!)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
I tried to find it a while ago but I couldn't, but I read some article about the unforeseen maintenance problems with the solar collector style plants. It's annoying because it was really detailed, but for the life of me I can't find it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
I mean Spain has a few decent output solar concentrating plants, dunno about their track record
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
I meant for power generation, either on a local or large scale. But perhaps they're not suitable for that in the first place. My knowledge of them comes mostly from watching various off-grid house videos and they seem to be able to generate a fairly large amount of heat even when partly overcast. e: I'm talking about the double-wall glass tubes where the space between the walls is evacuated for insulation, and a heat pipe inside the tube then carries the heat to a bulb at the top that heats the water. Collateral Damage fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Sep 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:I meant for power generation, either on a local or large scale. But perhaps they're not suitable for that in the first place. I think its a thing where the scales mean that if you're trying to deliver MW+ its worth it to switch to molten salt or other more complex working fluids versus water. CommieGIR posted:I mean Spain has a few decent output solar concentrating plants, dunno about their track record Yeah, I was kinda just assuming with the failure of Ivanpah and Crescent Dunes projects in the US that it wasn't looking good for CSP anywhere. But this is a cost relative discussion, so incentives and market structure are why things succeed or fail:  Another part of the big problem with current CSP designs is they require natural gas to heat them up to working temp in the morning, which depending on the cloud cover that morning can be a lot of energy required.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:
I understood the point of modular reactors was that their factory construction made them cheaper and overcame the economic problems of mainstream nuclear. The video I posted showed the opposite: that they're more expensive than mainstream nuclear. I don't know if that's correct, but if it is then it undermines the case for modular reactors. I 100% agree re climate change. We have to make the switch and do it urgently. The question is what is the most cost-effective and deployable solution?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
There's a fantastic amount of poo poo info out there about nuclear power, a fair amount of which is from anti-nuke groups. On the other hand, there's also a fair amount of pro-nuke propaganda out there, so it's not exactly a simple field to read up on. My physics professor at uni spent considerable time on nuclear physics and power generation during our pre-eng year, it was really interesting stuff, but he had a PhD in nuclear physics, and was a brilliant lecturer, so I'm probably biased 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
Beffer posted:The question is what is the most cost-effective and deployable solution? If we are caring about cost effectiveness we are doomed as a species.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
Nuclear power owns and is one of the greatest achievements of our species, a culmination of science and engineering that is a testament to our ability to bend nature to our will. But we are apparently unable to continue performing that feat, and that fact is a testament to our ongoing decline as a species.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
big nuke fan here but i'd like to talk about farts i'm sure the thread has discussed biogas before but has anyone ever used one of those residential generators? not sure i could get away with using one but i idly fantasize about having one to right cute gas lanterns on my fence posts
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
I eat a fuckload of Mexican food but I still wouldn't try to power my house on it
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 07:11
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:If we are caring about cost effectiveness we are doomed as a species. Cost is not just dollars but also a measure of social damage, health impacts and environmental degradation. If you don't look at what your proposed solution is going to cost in terms of unintended consequences than you are not really agitating for preventing climate change, you are just agitating for change for its own sake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 07:34
|
|
|
Beffer posted:I understood the point of modular reactors was that their factory construction made them cheaper and overcame the economic problems of mainstream nuclear. The video I posted showed the opposite: that they're more expensive than mainstream nuclear. I don't know if that's correct, but if it is then it undermines the case for modular reactors. I don't think the argument for SMRs was that a properly built SMR would necessarily be cheaper per unit output than a properly built big reactor. In that case, efficiencies of scale would likely win out and you'd just build standardised big reactors for most applications like South Korea did. The argument is that SMRs are capitalism friendly reactors because they force standardisation, have a smaller upfront payment per reactor and can be installed more rapidly with less opportunities to gently caress up the project so badly it's a decade late and 300% over budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 11:02
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
MomJeans420 posted:I eat a fuckload of Mexican food but I still wouldn't try to power my house on it joking aside, i'm not really interested in powering my house with it as much as a composting replacement and doing fun weird things with the gas. mediaphage fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Sep 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 12:43
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:If we are caring about cost effectiveness we are doomed as a species. The invention of capitalism is just a very drawn out suicide attempt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 12:55
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Cost is not just dollars but also a measure of social damage, health impacts and environmental degradation. If you don't look at what your proposed solution is going to cost in terms of unintended consequences than you are not really agitating for preventing climate change, you are just agitating for change for its own sake. Again, this argument makes little to no sense in the face of Global Warming, and considering that the most costliest of energy solutions under the terms you are highlighting are already the most used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Again, this argument makes little to no sense in the face of Global Warming, and considering that the most costliest of energy solutions under the terms you are highlighting are already the most used. Global warming is a problem, it is not the only problem. Feeding India's and China's billions is also a problem. Going to global thermonuclear war with China and India to enforce no use of hydrocarbons there would certainly work towards global warming far more effectively than modular nuclear reactors. The cost of doing so is so high that it is not on the table. Cost is not just dollars and cents and the argument that any mention of the word "cost" is automatically countered by the words "gently caress capitalists" is just displaying an ignorance of how economics apply to more than capitalism or money. For instance, the lives wasted and years (decades?) delay trying to build a nuclear only/dominate solution to global warming is likely a far greater cost than using (reducing levels of) carbon and renewables to bridge the gap from the current high ratio of carbon in energy generation to low/nil carbon nuclear & renewables energy generation. What sort of policy or technology that encourages the world as a whole to transition to no carbon electricity is interesting - another round of woke broke brain main mud chud "if bezzoz money was used, we could feed and power the world without carbon so all we have to do is  " or "this problem is too big a problem to think about, just go ahead and start doing the first thing that comes to mind " is not so interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Global warming is a problem, it is not the only problem. Feeding India's and China's billions is also a problem. Going to global thermonuclear war with China and India to enforce no use of hydrocarbons there would certainly work towards global warming far more effectively than modular nuclear reactors. The cost of doing so is so high that it is not on the table. Cost is not just dollars and cents and the argument that any mention of the word "cost" is automatically countered by the words "gently caress capitalists" is just displaying an ignorance of how economics apply to more than capitalism or money. The lives/years wasted when Global Warming gets worse will directly impact all other problems, especially food related supply issues. The social cost is already a debt on the balance sheet regardless. So, no, again your point makes zero sense. The urgency in electrifying transit to cut emissions requires an electrical generating capability that can only be met by nuclear, and kind of displaces any argument that its not worth it. And nobody is saying "No Renewables" in this thread, I'm pro renewable, but its not going to end our addiction to the glut of fossil fuels. There is only ONE solution to do that. One. No other. So your commitment to this "Social cost" is actually more highlighting that the cost will be paid one way or the other, the question is whether it'll be too late for the general populace when that cost is paid. The ability to feed the world is going to be directly impacted by how much Carbon emissions we can cut. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Sep 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The lives/years wasted when Global Warming gets worse will directly impact all other problems, especially food related supply issues. The social cost is already a debt on the balance sheet regardless. Ok, well if your argument is that nuclear and renewables is good and we need to get there as quick as possible than that's fine and agreed. It was highlighted however that nuclear is already being built as fast as possible in China, that the US is far behind China in building capacity and France is de-nuclearizing its power generation so don't expect the world mix to change much anytime soon. It was also discussed that the cost of small modular nuclear does not stack up against other power generation except diesel which while useful for sure, is not going to provide the power to replace jet planes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:It was highlighted however that nuclear is already being built as fast as possible in China, that the US is far behind China in building capacity and France is de-nuclearizing its power generation so don't expect the world mix to change much anytime soon. It was also discussed that the cost of small modular nuclear does not stack up against other power generation except diesel which while useful for sure, is not going to provide the power to replace jet planes. France is denuclearizing not for an rational reason, they are doing so because they put an anti-nuclear advocate in charge of their power infrastructure who is lobbying on behalf of the natural gas industry. The Natural gas industry has been going full bore on the EU to push Natural Gas as a "green" energy solution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
I strongly believe in the Baseload Meme, why am I wrong?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I strongly believe in the Baseload Meme, why am I wrong? Your not. That entire Nuclear vs Solar chad meme is pretty much entirely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I strongly believe in the Baseload Meme, why am I wrong? Because you may have a basic amount of knowledge and education around the subject, and aren't terminally online. Otherwise known as not wrong , but the internet doesn't care
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:France is denuclearizing not for an rational reason, they are doing so because they put an anti-nuclear advocate in charge of their power infrastructure who is lobbying on behalf of the natural gas industry. To be honest, the renewable industry has lobbied more successfully and more damagingly against French Nuclear. Natural gas peakers support French nuclear (increases its capacity factor assuming the expanded capacity goes into increased peak demand as over electricity consumption increases) whereas wind/solar capacity that does not match up with peak use instead dials back use of nuclear reducing the economics of said nuclear. Gas looks to have increased a little in France, non-hydro renewable has increased a lot more and better accounts for the reduction in total nuclear power generation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Cost is not just dollars but also a measure of social damage, health impacts and environmental degradation. If you don't look at what your proposed solution is going to cost in terms of unintended consequences than you are not really agitating for preventing climate change, you are just agitating for change for its own sake. It is also a measure of *opportunity cost*. CommieGIR posted:Again, this argument makes little to no sense in the face of Global Warming Yes, it absolutely does. The only thing it doesn't make sense in the face of are things that have no solutions whatsoever, like "Giant meteor is two weeks away."
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:To be honest, the renewable industry has lobbied more successfully and more damagingly against French Nuclear. Natural gas peakers support French nuclear (increases its capacity factor assuming the expanded capacity goes into increased peak demand as over electricity consumption increases) whereas wind/solar capacity that does not match up with peak use instead dials back use of nuclear reducing the economics of said nuclear. The problem is we know better from Germany: Renewables are not going to make up a significant cut if they cut back their nuclear that much. Something else will likely fill that gap if they cut back too much. And its likely going to be gas. I doubt they'll go Lignite coal like Germany did....I hope...
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I doubt they'll go Lignite coal like Germany did Don't forget wood pellets. Nice, "renewable" wood pellets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Don't forget wood pellets. Nice, "renewable" wood pellets. That's carbon neutral if the pellets come from dedicated trees planted for this purpose, right? If they cut down existing mature trees obviously that's a dumb choice given the timeframes involved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That's carbon neutral if the pellets come from dedicated trees planted for this purpose, right? The problem being is it doesn't offset the actual carbon output of the tree, and should never have been considered a "Carbon Neutral" method of power generation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The problem being is it doesn't offset the actual carbon output of the tree, and should never have been considered a "Carbon Neutral" method of power generation. That depends on the order of operations, doesn't it? cut down tree -> burn pellets -> plant new tree That's carbon positive for a long time until the new tree grows. Maybe if you plant some large number of trees for each one cut down this could work? plant tree -> wait for it to grow -> cut down tree -> burn pellets That should be carbon neutral
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
doesnt it take decades for trees to get to useful sizes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
PhazonLink posted:doesnt it take decades for trees to get to useful sizes? Depends on the tree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 19:11
|
|
