|
GABA ghoul posted: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) First off, this is great info and changes a lot. That's not 'ahead' as I'd define it, that appears to be "meeting". Its worth noting the article highlights that its more likely they will meet it due to drops in transit emissions, not so much that they cut power emissions significantly enough to make the goal. Second off: They still shouldn't have shuttered their nuclear plants versus continuing their use of gas and lignite/biomass. Biomass is not renewable, sorry. In a time when we need to cut every ounce of CO2 and Methane emitted, any sort of biomass is just a bait-and-switch. gently caress off with the ad homs, by the way. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Sep 4, 2020 |
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Oracle posted: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... That was in 2020, on lake Eerie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:First off, this is great info and changes a lot. That's not 'ahead' as I'd define it, that appears to be "meeting". Its worth noting the article highlights that its more likely they will meet it due to drops in transit emissions, not so much that they cut power emissions significantly enough to make the goal. Why is biomass not renewable? I can understand some complaints, such as how handling some types of waste biomass in some ways can generatre methane emissions and how larger trees take time to accumulate the biomass and thus not offsetting the carbon emitted by burning trees right now. But over time it is almost completely renewable and dedicated energy forestry have very short generation time of 3-7 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:Why is biomass not renewable? I can understand some complaints, such as how handling some types of waste biomass in some ways can generatre methane emissions and how larger trees take time to accumulate the biomass and thus not offsetting the carbon emitted by burning trees right now. But over time it is almost completely renewable and dedicated energy forestry have very short generation time of 3-7 years. You're stripmining the soil biome to burn the production and pump carbon into the atmosphere, the gently caress is renewable here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:If you thought building a nuclear plant onshore was expensive, just wait until you build an offshore one. No one ever said that a nuclear submarine is cheap It's almost as though the US Government can decide that cost isn't a deal breaker when it decides to make things that it decides are in the public interest, and the only impediment to massive growth in US-based nuclear power is the US Government being in love with the fossil fuel industry
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:Why is biomass not renewable? I can understand some complaints, such as how handling some types of waste biomass in some ways can generatre methane emissions and how larger trees take time to accumulate the biomass and thus not offsetting the carbon emitted by burning trees right now. But over time it is almost completely renewable and dedicated energy forestry have very short generation time of 3-7 years. If you mean "Pretend its sustainable growth when it isn't, ship it from North America to Europe with fossil energy, then pretend that its carbon neutral to burn, and give bonus credits that make it effectively considered carbon negative by the emissions markets" then no: quote:https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass Another example is the Californian emissions market gives such a bonus to capturing methane without concern for what created it that it will keep a few coal mines operating because it turns a loss-making operation into a profitable one. So the coal mine gets money for capturing the methane they created mining coal. Company wins, climate loses. Also one has to consider the reality that as we continue into the future forests are getting less healthy and they will store less carbon. This means that we can't really rely on future forests to credit our current emissions even if the legal schemes say we can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Nah, that's wrong.... mods are like illiterate cops. they can't read/follow the thread, they don't pretend to understand whats going on, they just shoot based on tone. MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:and yet i catch the probation for daring to confront the lying troll.  I already fully admitted based on new evidence, they've made startling progress.But its still not enough and they'd be further along had they not shuttered their nuclear plants in favor of gas/coal/wood What the gently caress is with you people and ad homs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What the gently caress is with you people and ad homs? but we don't. we spend alllllll of our time having to sift through and occasionally correct and yell at the nukechuds with their endlessly smug and condescending bullshit built on their wholesale ignorant understanding of the basic reality we theoretically share. *you* are the problem, people aren't "ad-hom"ing you in a debate, they're pointing out what a loving miserable contributor to the debate you as a person are. (to be fair its you as a type of person, the nuke contrarian, you're not unique or special in this regard) this is the problem with the endless endless nuke debate. its not anchored in the reality of energy generation as evolving on earth. its entirely in service of your posting ego. the problem with nukechuds is the chuds not the nukes, so you can never solve it talking about nukes. i'm sorry for anyone else wasting their time reading along, here are some charts so that it was worth your time. first off, here we see emissions from the energy sector dropping quickly:  why's that? well here we see its because of a huge shift to renewables and drop in coal:  but whats that? some concern troll dragging you into their bullshit again over what renewables means? well here's the breakdown, spoiler alert its wind and solar:  wait whats that? all of that seems counter to everything you've read on facebook and in this thread? yes, thats the problem. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:wait whats that? all of that seems counter to everything you've read on facebook and in this thread? This doesn't change much though. Because this doesn't actually match daily power usage. This just shows sources, not the flux daily that heavily favors gas/coal. Your looking at the big picture and ignore the gaping holes that fossil fuels continue to fill that need to go away, and will not be filled by renewables or storage. And no, you are ad homing, sorry dude. Calling it all Dunning Kruger and pretending that there isn't still an issue is a problem. Even your got damned graphs: Lignite, Coal, and Natural Gas are STILL significant energy factors that are not being replaced fast enough, because there's going to be a point of no return where they can't cover it during the day be it winter, lack of wind, or not a peak solar period, and energy storage density is NOT there. quote:*you* are the problem, people aren't "ad-hom"ing you in a debate, they're pointing out what a loving miserable contributor to the debate you as a person are. (to be fair its you as a type of person, the nuke contrarian, you're not unique or special in this regard) Holy poo poo your ears must be full of dirt when you skipped the part where I highlighted that the need for nuclear is to get rid of the fossil fuels, NOT THE RENEWABLES. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
and thus we come full circle gently caress you chud, we're doing this without you (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:and thus we come full circle Again, not a chud, again, pro renewables, again I'm advocating replacing Coal/Gas/Biofuel with nuclear. Your dense as gently caress. This is why you got accused of accusing others of being nazis, because your are doing just that more blindly than I ever could.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
for all our sakes I just put him on ignore Anyone following Stanford Energy's youtube channel's "digital grid summer series"? Its amazing how much work has already gone into this, some of the pilot projects are as early as '06. https://www.youtube.com/user/PrecourtInstitute/videos check out how massive the real marginal action is around the 6pm solar-fade/load-ramp demand peak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITgxaFEymEo&t=3230s MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:for all our sakes I just put him on ignore Cool cool, same. What have you actually contributed other than blatant name-calling anyways and actually ignoring what I said.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:its not an ad-hom its the core issue of this thread. if this thread were in any way anchored in reality, we would spend our time talking about real developments in energy generation, which have overwhelmingly been wind/solar/batteries for nearly a full decade now. this is just false, the thread covers a variety of energy topics but is overwhelmingly about recent developments in renewables, because that's where most of the news happens. Aside from MomJeans420 the thread is really just anti-fossil fuels. Nuclear power is good, renewables are good, you don't have to put posters on ignore just because they personally want to eliminate fossil fuels by combining nuclear and renewables
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
Nuclear power is a relevant contemporary topic in energy generation. It might be very clear that new nuclear build will not be the easiest path to a zero carbon energy sector, in that it's very much an ongoing concern whether or not to retire the aging nuclear fleet or to phase it out in favor of other sources. Those plants can't run forever, but every sizable piece of zero-carbon generation is worthwhile. Existing nuclear is becoming uneconomic to dispatch compared to renewables and especially due to lowered natural gas prices, but it's a huge lost opportunity if nuclear plants are retiring while coal plants are still limping along thanks to regulatory and legislative fuckery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:this is just false, the thread covers a variety of energy topics but is overwhelmingly about recent developments in renewables, because that's where most of the news happens. Aside from MomJeans420 the thread is really just anti-fossil fuels. Nuclear power is good, renewables are good, you don't have to put posters on ignore just because they personally want to eliminate fossil fuels by combining nuclear and renewables Exactly. The basic agreement with the Energy Generation thread is: Renwables are Good. Nuclear is good. Fossil fuels of any sort is bad. The problem is the basic load that fossil fuels provide is difficult to replace with renewable and will likely keep limping along no matter how much Renewable we put on the grid, we need a way to eliminate that fossil base. That's what nuclear is for. That's not a chud opinion. A loving Chud would be screaming about saving coal/oil jobs, not promoting an energy source in combination with renewables that will ENTIRELY wipe out out the need for fossil fuels, and combined with the electrification of Transit, which is a must, we're going to need HUNDREDS if not thousands of GW to spare for charging cars, buses, and maybe even ships (if we don't get a nuclear merchant marine going, which probably won't happen). Ending our fossil energy glut isn't the last step, because if we want to turn this Climate bus around, we have to end it all, and we have to have the electricity to spare in off-peak hours that grid storage is not going to provide. Its not just about replacing Fossil fuels, we have to generate more energy without adding to our emissions debt. There is no other energy source denser that nuclear, period. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 03:29
|
|
|
Charging transit: you can setup buffer batteries to take care of peaks - also time charging so that you do the bulk of charging at night, and top up batteries when there's excess renewable production. Ships: We're already operating electrical ferries in Norway, but that's a fairly limited use case, with very frequent charging. We'll probably see a shift towards more (sustainable, maybe?) biofuels and possibly also hybrid sailing vessels to decrease fuel usage. I'm not sure I'd want a nuclear reactor on a civilian freight vessel, I've met my fair share of engineers in the merchant marine who shouldn't be let anywhere near machinery of any kind  Nuclear is definitely part of the energy mix of the future, even though there's a bunch of under-educated/misinformed idiots out there, especially politicians, who try to sabotage nuclear at every step. To our common detriment... Germany was mentioned earlier in the thread. They'd be further along if they weren't shuttering their nuclear plants, although they still have a fair amount of generating capacity left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Wibla posted:Charging transit: you can setup buffer batteries to take care of peaks - also time charging so that you do the bulk of charging at night, and top up batteries when there's excess renewable production. The problem you have here is: Imagine replacing every car on earth with an electric car. Every single one. Think about the sheer amount of trillions of joules of fossil fuels you have to replace. Its not a storage issue. Its a need for more energy that's not fossil fuels. UK has already established 2035 for cutoff of sales of petrol and diesel cars (we'll see if they stick to it, I hope they do). That's 15 years we have to figure out how to provide the same amount of joules as all the petroleum we have to stop using. We use 98.8 billions of barrels a day, and even if we don't account for other uses like agriculture, plastics, etc, each barrel is 6.118e+9 Joulse of energy. That's a LOT of energy we have to generate without fossil fuels. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 03:51
|
|
|
What if we took like just 1 of our big nuclear powered aircraft carriers and just repurposed it to ship cargo. It's not economical I just wonder what the energy profile of that would look like compared to say an equivalent number of diesel powered cargo ships. Keep all of the sailors and engineers but they just haul cargo across the oceans as a service provided by the US Navy. Aircraft carriers already carry cargo aircraft so you could unload at a combination of massive sea ports and airports. That would be pretty cool
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
Do a SMR version of the EBR-2 for maritime. I know there's talk about a US Coast Guard maybe getting a nuclear ice breaker like the Russians
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:What if we took like just 1 of our big nuclear powered aircraft carriers and just repurposed it to ship cargo. Having a nuclear reactor on board seriously limits the number of ports that you can tie up at. That is one of the reasons why we no longer have any nuclear cruisers, another big one being the operating expenses. Nuclear cargo vessels do not have a great track record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion Although what you describe might make sense for the Ford, because it’s looking like it might wind up being pretty fuckin’ useless as an aircraft carrier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 06:36
|
|
|
From how I’m reading this, wouldn’t germany be close to carbon neutral if, in addition to the growth in renewables and the savings, it had let the nukes running while shutting down more coal in turn?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 09:14
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:From how I’m reading this, wouldn’t germany be close to carbon neutral if, in addition to the growth in renewables and the savings, it had let the nukes running while shutting down more coal in turn? Yes for electricity generation at current demand. Just like now, road vehicles still need to get electrified/replaced by trains which will increase the electricity demand even after taking into account efficiency improvements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 09:43
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Wibla posted:Charging transit: you can setup buffer batteries to take care of peaks - also time charging so that you do the bulk of charging at night, and top up batteries when there's excess renewable production. Yeah, transit isn't much of a problem. IRC current consensus is that we would need around 10-20% more electricity generation per year for complete electrification of all cars in Germany. That's roughly in the same ballpark as what we are already exporting to other countries each year due to lack of demand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Yeah, transit isn't much of a problem. IRC current consensus is that we would need around 10-20% more electricity generation per year for complete electrification of all cars in Germany. That's roughly in the same ballpark as what we are already exporting to other countries each year due to lack of demand. Can you link a source for that? Last time I read about the issue 10-20% would have seemed, uh, optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 11:25
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Can you link a source for that? Last time I read about the issue 10-20% would have seemed, uh, optimistic. https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Verkehr/emob_strom_ressourcen_bf.pdf quote:Eine vollständig elektrifizierte deutsche Pkw-Flotte von 45 Millionen Fahrzeugen hätte einen Strombe-darf von rund 90 Terawattstunden (TWh). Dies entspricht weniger als einem Sechstel der aktuellen Bruttostromerzeugung in Deutschland. Der Anteil der Stromerzeugung aus erneuerbaren Energien be-trägt aktuell bereits rund ein Drittel. Die 2015 erzeugte EE-Strommenge von 196 TWh ist also doppelt so hoch wie der Bedarf einer komplett elektrischen Fahrzeugflotte. Some quick sanity check/napkin math make the claim seem plausible: There are ~47 mio cars in Germany. Average driven distance is ~15000km p.a., average energy use of an electric car is 15kWh/100km. That makes a total energy demand of ~106 TWh p.a. or roughly ~17% of total generated Wh in 2019. GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:From how I’m reading this, wouldn’t germany be close to carbon neutral if, in addition to the growth in renewables and the savings, it had let the nukes running while shutting down more coal in turn? the first one clearly answers your question about carbon neutrality. (the answer is no, of course not, no one is even close to that, regardless of nukes, not even france) the second one shows the math to answer the second half of your question. Since "Energiewende" began (2013) nuclear production has been reduced about 20TWh/year while coal went down ~85 TWh/year. Over that same time period wind and solar increased about 90TWh/year. Essentially wind and solar replaced coal 1:1 while nuclear just got retired slowly. It is only a relentless prioritizing of being a technically correct contrarian concern troll that keeps people talking about nukes. In actual realty (see graphs) the german energy transition is going far far better than almost anywhere else in the world, and we should be praising them and emulating them not tut-tuting our amateur horseshit about nukes. This is analogous to concern trolling about long waiting times or various other nitpicks of the canadian or british healthcare system when people are promoting medicare for all. You're not helping, you're not even really correct, you're just babbling contrarian nonsense in service of undermining consensus and progress in order to defend the status quo. MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 13:21
|
|
|
Your selected timeframe is omitting the bit from 2006-2012 where there was a 60 TWh reduction of nuclear generation while coal was treading water (hard coal down a bit, lignite up a bit). Also, during this 2013-present timerame the chart also shows about a 30 TWh increase in gas-fired generation. This might be good enough to meet current emissions targets, but it remains to be seen that reaching longer-term decarbonization is possible with a mere extension of the current trend of replacing things with wind, solar and storage (even if biomass is technically renewable I think there are a lot of use cases where it's far from carbon-neutral). Once the percentage of wind/solar gets high enough, managing the grid becomes harder due to curtailments, so having dispatchable zero-carbon resources remains important. I would say that there's limited utility relitigating the past, but you should not be surprised that people are refusing to view Germany's policy solely through the lens of 2013-2019. Also, given the scope of the climate crisis any increase in burning natural gas is a Problem. Now if those nuclear retirements were truly reflecting the full lifecycle of those plants, it doesn't reflect much of an opportunity cost, but if things are similar to the US where nuclear retirements are primarily due to economic concerns, then that's another story. e: fixed the referred numbers to reflect generation as opposed to capacity FreeKillB fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 13:46
|
|
|
I didn't have jack poo poo to do with selecting the timeframe of when Energiewende begain, that was entirely up to german voters. But please keep lecturing from your place of ignorance. I especially like the trick you used where you insert a bunch of "if" qualifiers so you can post bullshit off the top of your head rather than google and read for 5 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 13:59
|
|
|
Those graphs are conventiently hard to compare due to different types being used, but ouch at Lignite with less than 1/5 of renewable capacity producing about half as much of gross power after a big drop in 2019. The same for gas and nuclear. Germany has also been importing more power last year because it was cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 14:29
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:I didn't have jack poo poo to do with selecting the timeframe of when Energiewende begain, that was entirely up to german voters. quote:But please keep lecturing from your place of ignorance. I especially like the trick you used where you insert a bunch of "if" qualifiers so you can post bullshit off the top of your head rather than google and read for 5 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Having a nuclear reactor on board seriously limits the number of ports that you can tie up at. That is one of the reasons why we no longer have any nuclear cruisers, another big one being the operating expenses. If you removal the Soviet submarines, Nuclear merchant ships had a good track record. I mean for the whole 2 (outside of Russian Icebreakers) that were built. Lurking Haro posted:Those graphs are conventiently hard to compare due to different types being used, but ouch at Lignite with less than 1/5 of renewable capacity producing about half as much of gross power after a big drop in 2019. Yeah haven't they been a net importer for ages?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah haven't they been a net importer for ages? They've exported more in the 5 previous year mainly because renewables produced too much and they didn't want to tank the local prices. Headlines were that on some days all of power consumption was covered by renewables (It didn't say how much of the day, though). This highlights that energy storage is important for renewables, even with conversion losses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If you removal the Soviet submarines, Nuclear merchant ships had a good track record. You mean the American one that was so expensive to operate it only was in service for 10 years, the German one that was so expensive to operate that they re-engined her with a diesel, or the Japanese one that leaked a trivial and utterly insignificant amount of radiation and wound up having ports blockaded against her entrance by angry fishermen?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:You mean the American one that was so expensive to operate it only was in service for 10 years, the German one that was so expensive to operate that they re-engined her with a diesel, or the Japanese one that leaked a trivial and utterly insignificant amount of radiation and wound up having ports blockaded against her entrance by angry fishermen? Considering the Japanese design, like Fukushima, was against the advice of other reactor designers, and we've come a long way since then, I suspect modern reactors would likely not have these same issues. quote:As the crew brought the reactor up to 1.4% of capacity at 5pm on 1 September 1974,[6] there was a minor shielding inadequacy that permitted the escape of neutrons and gamma rays[4] from the reactor shielding enclosure.[6] Westinghouse Electric Corporation had reviewed the design and warned of this possibility, but no changes were made to the design. And considering where we're going with SMRs, this makes it incredibly easy to integrate a stable reactor design into ship design. Again, I said its incredibly unlikely to happen, but it would solve a lot of emissions issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
The biggest container ships built so far has a 11 cylinder diesel engine, weighing in at 2 200 tonnes and outputs about 75MW peak. Those ships weigh in at over 228 000 gross tonnes, so a few hundred tonnes give or take in the engineering spaces hardly matter much. To give an example, the reactor compartment on the USN nuclear cruisers (page 57) weighed in at 1400 tonnes with two D2G reactors, though power output is significantly lower (at 45 MW to the shafts). That's a fairly old military design, though. I doubt it would be extremely hard to build one of those container ships with a nuclear power plant, but steam-operated ships are passé, so that's a hurdle to pass as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:did you not see the big giant charts on your screen? They wouldn't be carbon neutral, but they would obviously be a lot closer to that if they were generating (according to your plots) an additional 75TWh of nuclear power instead of lignite. This is indisputable. I can praise their massive expansion of renewables while lamenting their massive reduction in nuclear power simultaneously. I've done both in this thread. These positions aren't at odds with each other QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:They wouldn't be carbon neutral, but they would obviously be a lot closer to that if they were generating (according to your plots) an additional 75TWh of nuclear power instead of lignite. This is indisputable. He really is hung up on namecalling anyone who doesn't agree with his premise right off the bat. He's more hostile than half the Conservative Nuke die-hards I know that don't recognize the need to work hand in hand with renewables. Wibla posted:The biggest container ships built so far has a 11 cylinder diesel engine, weighing in at 2 200 tonnes and outputs about 75MW peak. Those ships weigh in at over 228 000 gross tonnes, so a few hundred tonnes give or take in the engineering spaces hardly matter much. And combined with something like the EBR-II (IFR), you could design a very fail safe reactor, EBR-II was tested against the failures that happened at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island and it could self-stabilize in a meltdown situation and be started right back up without issue after a couple hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU&t=93s New Navy reactors IIRC are designed to be passively cooled as well, so it'd be incredibly difficult to damage the reactor, and I think SMRs are shooting for passive cooling as well. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:They wouldn't be carbon neutral, but they would obviously be a lot closer to that if they were generating (according to your plots) an additional 75TWh of nuclear power instead of lignite. This is indisputable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 21:37
|
|