|
Infinite Karma posted:We don't have the steel manufacturing capacity to build even one nuclear power plant? That's impossible to believe. Nope https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/heavy-manufacturing-of-power-plants.aspx
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
The other thing about NG vs coal is that coal (generally) releases a lot more nasty particulates including toxic and nucleonic than gas. Even if it was similar in carbon emissions to NG, NG makes sense over coal. Similar to how diesel engines are now out of favor even though they cause less carbon emissions than an equivalent petrol car. VVVAgreed, I really enjoyed it and it highlights that we can yell "THERE IS NO CHOICE BUT TO BUILD OUT NUCLEAR NOW" all we want but yelling don't give you a 15,000 t press VVV Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 07:56
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Nope Fascinating read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 08:02
|
|
|
Well the article says that the US has some smaller presses still standing around, so in principle the US could probably still make parts for a handful of 600MW reactor vessels every year like those presses did in the past. This might not be economical compared to sourcing 1000MW reactor vessels from abroad, but in a maximum nuclear construction effort it could be done. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 09:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
weren’t the CANDUs designed in part not to require too heavy of an industrial base? let’s brings those plans out of retirement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 14:15
|
|
|
For the argument about how we don't have the steel for reactors or whatever, why couldn't we then just buy it from somewhere that does?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
The article said that we don't have the gigantic forges to turn any amount of steel into a solid monolithic reactor vessel. We'd have to fabricate it in parts and then join them. It seems like a very strange problem to have, between buying completed vessels or just welding them together.  I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:weren’t the CANDUs designed in part not to require too heavy of an industrial base? let’s brings those plans out of retirement. Yeah, they have a bunch of pressure tubes instead of a single large pressure vessel. Expensive and complicated plumbing to be sure, but it was quite nice as far as slow neutron reactors go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:The other thing about NG vs coal is that coal (generally) releases a lot more nasty particulates including toxic and nucleonic than gas. Even if it was similar in carbon emissions to NG, NG makes sense over coal. clearly Merica should reopen the heavy press program and finally make those 100K ton presses. also maybe try to future proof it and go for 200 or even higher.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
clearly if i were the god emperor of america i would right click on the menu and just put 200! nukebugs ideology always comes down to their mistaking reality for a game of civ
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
science and tech fetistism applies to solar and wind bugs too?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:For the argument about how we don't have the steel for reactors or whatever, why couldn't we then just buy it from somewhere that does? Did you bother reading the article? We *do* buy them from somewhere that does, but if you only have a handful of presses capable of producing the parts, then that constitutes an enormous bottleneck regardless of where the presses and forges are located. quote:For very large Generation III+ reactors, production of the pressure vessel requires, or is best undertaken by, forging presses of about 140-150 MN (14-15,000 tonnes) capacity which accept hot steel ingots of 500-600 tonnes. These are not common, and individual large presses do not have high throughput – about four pressure vessels per year appears to be common at present, fitted in with other work, though the potential is greater than this. Westinghouse was constrained as of 2009 in that the AP1000 pressure vessel closure head and three complex steam generator parts could only be made by JSW. Areva has a little more choice. Good news: https://apnews.com/910766c07afd96fbe2bd875e16087464 quote:U.S. officials have for the first time approved a design for a small commercial nuclear reactor, and a Utah energy cooperative wants to build 12 of them in Idaho. Bad news: quote:The proposed project includes 12 small modular reactors. The first would be built in 2029, with the rest in 2030. 10 years (assuming a miracle happens and nothing causes schedule overruns) to build a 60-megawatt reactor is not a solution to anything. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The article said that we don't have the gigantic forges to turn any amount of steel into a solid monolithic reactor vessel. We'd have to fabricate it in parts and then join them. It seems like a very strange problem to have, between buying completed vessels or just welding them together. Welding introduces additional failure modes (irradiated welds get brittle, basically), increases operating cost due to the need for periodic reinspection, and is not the preferred solution as a result. E: that article notes that there are solutions to weld embrittlement, but given the choice between “we’re pretty sure this fixes the issue” and methodologies that don’t have the issue at all, reactor designers/operators are probably not going to want the risk. Kalman fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:science and tech fetistism applies to solar and wind bugs too? eh solar and wind seems to have a better track record of keeping their promises.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:clearly if i were the god emperor of america i would right click on the menu and just put 200! the fact that correct policy decisions weren't made 20 years ago doesn't mean we should not make them today
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Did you bother reading the article? We *do* buy them from somewhere that does, but if you only have a handful of presses capable of producing the parts, then that constitutes an enormous bottleneck regardless of where the presses and forges are located. it's a demonstration project so obviously they're not building hundreds of the things before the first one is even installed but if the us government got its head of its rear end and subsidised useful things one of the things it subsidised would be reactors and you could make headway plopping down SMRs in appropriate sites before the mega presses are ready to churn out several big reactor parts per year
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Double is good. Is it all in texas? A shitload of it is in Texas but a lot of that was the repowering of dead turbines with new equipment, so its not necessarily a 100% addition over existing capacity. A lot of those clippers had been dead for a long, loooong time but were still being counted as "installed capacity" regardless. Lots of new BIG fuckers going up in the Midwest this year, 162m+ rotors and 6-8MW per tower. Here in Canada it's slower. Some operator in Saskatchewan decided to buy 90 Goldwind turbines, chinesium unreliable garbage based off stolen Enercon technology, and that project is going very badly. Siemens is starting their big 400MW project in Alberta six months late, and they're going to be loving wrecked by the wind like I was last year since they do full rotor picks on those bad boys - which requires zero wind in the windiest place in North America. Rime fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Ballparking that chart... That comes out to 11.52 Gigawatts? Solar PV... I do not know. (With the land required, seems like a bit of a wash anyway.) Wind farm... I do not know. Gas Plant - You can literally build a 2 unit 1000 MWe plant - in 12 to 18 months at1 billion dollars Nuclear power plant 2unit 2000 MWe plant - in 8 to 10 years - 8 to 10 billion(per 1000 MWe unit) - so 16 to 20 billion dollars And with regards to Nuscale... Ya'll are jumping the gun a bit. Until they get their COL, not much is going to happen. With regards to a heavy press program and high capacity forgings necessary to make reactors. The problem is literally the only purpose they have is to be used for manufacturing components for reactor vessels. If you're not regularly building them (and we have not been in the U.S.) then it really does not make sense to establish a niche to manufacture them. To the best of my knowledge these typically only get used for reactor vessels and reactor heads. Senor P. fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Sep 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:clearly if i were the god emperor of america i would right click on the menu and just put 200! Sorry that reality got on your way about PV and Wind, Germany.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Ballparking that chart... That comes out to 11.52 Gigawatts? To be honest, once you're planning out that kind of build, you have to be planning some transmission lines to move that many jiggawatts around pretty much regardless of plant type. If you have your poo poo together, getting any transmission at all built in like five years is really good. Obviously this isn't a engineering-type limitation along the lines of 'lol we can't make steel' or whatever, but securing right-of-way and the like is intrinsically tricky stuff, even before you discuss how convoluted transmission financing and permitting actually play out. e: That's if you're trying to concentrate a lot of it as opposed to distribute it out, but given where the good wind and solar resources are, if you wanted to do something at a large scale avoiding serious transmission buildout would require building like 2x as much wind and solar. FreeKillB fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Sep 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 03:53
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:but if the us government got its head of its rear end and subsidised useful things one of the things it subsidised would be reactors and you could make headway plopping down SMRs in appropriate sites before the mega presses are ready to churn out several big reactor parts per year It is subsidizing that project. It’s subsidizing the poo poo out of that project. Here’s another thing the government should be doing: pre-issuing site licenses. Just saying “here’s a big map of the US. The green areas are where you can put a nuclear reactor.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:Solar PV... I do not know. 400MW onshore farm takes 4-12 months depending on how much weather and logistics fuckery is involved and should cost around $500 Million inclusive of all costs. A Gigawatt offshore used to take about 2-4 years to fully assemble and commission, but the new madlad WTG's from GE and Siemens are hitting 12-15MW so you only need 66 turbines instead of 220 of them to break a gig now which should speed that timeframe up a lot. Unfortunately the cost savings in man hours are absorbed by a 15MW turbine costing $10-$20 Million each instead of $2-$4 Million. The USA has estimated capacity for 20-30ish Gigawatts of offshore, between the NE where its safe enough from hurricanes and the West Coast where its safe from everything except the efforts of dumbfuck yuppies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
Rime posted:400MW onshore farm takes 4-12 months depending on how much weather and logistics fuckery is involved and should cost around $500 Million inclusive of all costs. Gabriel S. posted:Ballparking that chart... That comes out to 11.52 Gigawatts? Doing the math replacing all of today’s Natural Gas not accounting for future growth would take... Onshore - 10 to 30 Years Offshore - 20 to 40 Years
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
Uh, that would only be valid if you could only develop one project at a time... e: other complications include the fact that nameplate capacity isn't the whole story for wind, 11 GW of wind is only 11 GW when the wind is blowing whereas as long as you have yuuge pipelines 11 GW of gas is 11 GW whenever you want. Even if you just scale it up so that on average it's 11 GW of wind, unless you ALSO build a ton of battery storage or similar that's only an average, no guarantee that you can pull 11 GW when you need to to serve load. In theory you can mitigate this by building A LOT more wind turbines (hopefully it's always windy somewhere), but it's not just a matter of arithmetic at this point. e2: oh, also that 11.5 GW is just the gas generation that came online in _one year_, the total generation capacity nationwide is more on the order of ~550 GW. Now even if we're in the 'money is no object' frame of reference, there are limitations based on bottlenecks in existing supply chains. Figuring out how long a buildout would take is then a lot more involved than determining how long any individual construction or project will take. FreeKillB fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Sep 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
Wind turbines also draw from the grid when idling, some brands considerably more than others. They don't just go neutral when the wind is too low.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 Someone already corrected this, but if you search you'll see the actual reasons people have well water they can light on fire. A lot of them have done dumb things like drill a water well through a bunch of coal. I'm still convinced if they had chosen a different nickname for it than fracking the misinformation campaigns wouldn't have been so successful. Cyclic steam injection can be very similar to fracking but no one cares about it because they've never heard about it. Trabisnikof posted:This doesn’t make sense when discussing electricity generation. Is your premise that between now and 2021 new coal plants will be brought online or that they’re going to un-shutdown coal plants? Production is increasing, and consumption is supposed to increase by 20%. You are aware the US can increase or decrease its coal consumption without bringing new plants online / shuttering old plants?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 07:35
|
|
|
Rime posted:400MW onshore farm takes 4-12 months depending on how much weather and logistics fuckery is involved and should cost around $500 Million inclusive of all costs. What about the Great Lakes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 08:55
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It is subsidizing that project. It’s subsidizing the poo poo out of that project. Agreed on the site licenses. If we were talking about subsidising the gently caress out of things though, I'd expect at least 10-20 billion dollars to get spent annually, not just enough to prop up the odd demo unit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 12:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Sorry that reality got on your way about PV and Wind, Germany. what churlish and childish tripe. gently caress you chud we're doing this without you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:what churlish and childish tripe. gently caress you chud we're doing this without you. To be fair, I immediately thought of Germany as well when I read the post his post referred to. Let's be real, your post was mainly in reference to the political headwinds that nuclear face against political and environmental opposition. Nuclear did not have that opposition in the early days either (France finished off converting to nuclear for instance) and now wind and solar will face increasing environmental and NIMBY organized opposition as well - as evidenced in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
What's even the joke here? Germany is way ahead of it's goals on renewables. Yeah, further wind expansion is currently bogged down in NIMBY hell, but that's not a problem that the US has due to its size.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:what churlish and childish tripe. gently caress you chud we're doing this without you. Hi, I'm not a chud, rear end, I'm pro-Renewables but Germany is a clear cut case that Renewables alone are not going to get us off fossil fuels. Germany is still off track for their 2020 emissions. France, their neighbor, is not. Renewables ARE good. But they are not dense enough to replace fossil fuels entirely. That's the problem. GABA ghoul posted:What's even the joke here? Germany is way ahead of it's goals on renewables. Yeah, further wind expansion is currently bogged down in NIMBY hell, but that's not a problem that the US has due to its size. And they are still expanding their lignite coal mining and use of Russian natural gas. It still makes up a third of their energy profile, and during the winter months renewables make up far less. Renewables are not cutting as much as they had hoped, especially during winter and off-peak hours. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Sep 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:What's even the joke here? Germany is way ahead of it's goals on renewables. Yeah, further wind expansion is currently bogged down in NIMBY hell, but that's not a problem that the US has due to its size. Germany is “way ahead of its goals on renewables” because chopping down forests and shoveling them into coal plants is considered a renewable. If you’re talking about solar and wind, yeah, Germany has so much of that installed that it has to switch between effectively paying other countries to take its surplus power when those things are working, to needing lots and lots of lignite when they’re not. Meanwhile the “greens” are opposing the installation of transmission lines to wind farms. Germany isn’t a success at anything except marketing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
Oracle posted:What about the Great Lakes? The only wind farm approved for the great lakes is not going to be built, because they mandated it could only operate between 8am and 6pm for "reasons" (We can't legally deny this project without being sued, so we'll gently caress with it such that it just can't be built instead.) There's some solid offshore capacity to be found in there. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
Why not build offshore nuclear reactors? Then we wouldn't have NIMBYs or site selection as an issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Why not build offshore nuclear reactors? Then we wouldn't have NIMBYs or site selection as an issue. The US has about 80 of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Germany is still off track for their 2020 emissions. Nah, that's wrong. Barring some major changes, Germany is almost guaranteed to reach its 2020 emission target(especially with the corona slump that wasn't even accounted for in forecasts) https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/steep-emissions-plunge-puts-germanys-original-2020-climte-target-back-cards quote:And they are still expanding their lignite coal mining and use of Russian natural gas. It still makes up a third of their energy profile, and during the winter months renewables make up far less. Renewables are not cutting as much as they had hoped, especially during winter and off-peak hours. Nah, that's wrong. Lignite mining in Germany is still on the decline, as it has been for last ~10 years. So is electricity generation from coal. Renewable generation has been growing rapidly over the last years, accounting for 46% of all generated Wh in 2019. Phanatic posted:Germany is “way ahead of its goals on renewables” because chopping down forests and shoveling them into coal plants is considered a renewable. Nah, that's wrong. Germany is ahead of its set policy goals, even if you do the mental gymnastics of just not counting biomass as renewable. I swear, once a nerd makes up an their condescending dunning-kruger opinion about anything, it's stuck for life. Like a childhood trauma. Might as well try to move a mountain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The US has about 80 of them. Those definitely aren't worried about NIMBYs
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
Rime posted:The only wind farm approved for the great lakes is not going to be built, because they mandated it could only operate between 8am and 6pm for "reasons" (We can't legally deny this project without being sued, so we'll gently caress with it such that it just can't be built instead.) How long ago was that, and where was it located (just based on the power of NIMBYism I'm going to guess somewhere around Grand Rapids, probably near a DeVos house). Michigan has a Dem governor now, maybe it'll change...
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
If you thought building a nuclear plant onshore was expensive, just wait until you build an offshore one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 18:01
|
|