|
Is this the same as the other small reactor proposals, or just a smaller standard plant? https://www.chinadailyasia.com/article/228485 https://youtu.be/3Te-FbQVOaU
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:Is this the same as the other small reactor proposals, or just a smaller standard plant? Its supposed to be an SMR designed inhouse by the Chinese, its a 125MW reactor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://twitter.com/gary_hasty/status/1415677400717963264?s=20 Of course it was. Now lets watch them do absolutely nothing about it 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Wibla posted:Of course it was. Oh they'll do something about it, it just won't be what we want. It'll be to artificially generate windfalls like that in the future on demand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Germany and others doubling down on Natural Gas is coming home to roost: https://twitter.com/SStapczynski/status/1423190248255746048?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 03:26
|
|
|
It's extremely important that we in the nordic countries prevent any further integration with continental europes electrical grid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 04:27
|
|
|
Why? It can't really compete with nordic wind and hydro. EDIT: Like here is a snapshot from right now  
MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Aug 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 08:50
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Why? It can't really compete with nordic wind and hydro. I assume further integration would allow the rest of Europe to place higher bids for Nordic renewables and drive up the price for locals. If there are interconnector constraints now then the Nordic markets are somewhat insulated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 10:59
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:I assume further integration would allow the rest of Europe to place higher bids for Nordic renewables and drive up the price for locals. If there are interconnector constraints now then the Nordic markets are somewhat insulated. This has already happened, fwiw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 11:49
|
|
|
Some integration has happened, and yes it has driven up prices. And we have to prevent it from getting any worse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 12:10
|
|
|
Don't the Nordic countries have access to abundant carbon free renewable energy? Something that desperately needed? Shouldn't getting them to produce more of Europe's energy supply be a very good thing? It's not like your energy producers will sit on their laurels and not expand supply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 12:33
|
|
|
We need our power for our own phasing out our own fossil fuel production and transition. The last thing we need are increased electricity prices from further integration with the clusterfuck that is continental europe and it's power generation policies. We are really dependant on our access to cheap electricity, we don't use gas at all for instance. Europe needs to fix it's own poo poo. And there's no way we'd be able to expand power generation up here to meet demand in the south and keep our prices down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 12:48
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Don't the Nordic countries have access to abundant carbon free renewable energy? Something that desperately needed? Shouldn't getting them to produce more of Europe's energy supply be a very good thing? Rapidly decarbonising your grid through only renewables and without wrecking your environment might be barely possible in Norway/Sweden/Finland. Even then, Finland wants to keep nuclear in the mix and Sweden has shelved nuclear exit plans. With insane radiophobes, blind renewables and nothing else everywhere optimists and corrupt fossil fuel boosters running amok across the rest of the EU I'd definitely want to insulate my power grid of I were running a Scandinavian country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 13:54
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
His Divine Shadow posted:We need our power for our own phasing out our own fossil fuel production and transition. The last thing we need are increased electricity prices from further integration with the clusterfuck that is continental europe and it's power generation policies. We are really dependant on our access to cheap electricity, we don't use gas at all for instance. Long and short is Germany has to stop their Nuclear shutdown. They won't, but the idea that Germany is going to carry on with Coal till 2038 and Natural Gas for the indefinite future, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Sweden gets 30% of their load of Nuclear alongside their Hydro.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Long and short is Germany has to stop their Nuclear shutdown. They won't, but the idea that Germany is going to carry on with Coal till 2038 and Natural Gas for the indefinite future, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Yeah so I don't want us to get pulled down with the continent, they are loving themselves over and I don't want to be paying for their stupidity. I am watching this quite seriously and if things look like they are heading this way then I'll have to consider adding a firewood boiler for my house because the ground exchange heat pump won't be a usable solution if we get insane german price levels here. And I wouldn't be the only one. His Divine Shadow fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Aug 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Yeah so I don't want us to get pulled down with the continent, they are loving themselves over and I don't want to be paying for their stupidity. Yeah, it also depends, seems like France is starting to recognize the issue and is slowing down their nuclear closures, you have Poland that is in the exploratory phase for US designed reactors, Russia is expanding their VVER and VVER-S fleets. Between that and rapid renewables expansion, Germany seems to be doing everything they can to make it worse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:We need our power for our own phasing out our own fossil fuel production and transition. The last thing we need are increased electricity prices from further integration with the clusterfuck that is continental europe and it's power generation policies. We are really dependant on our access to cheap electricity, we don't use gas at all for instance. Is that really what is happening though...? Transfer costs are still a thing and wind power is at the point where it has to be exported south and east because it can and will push energy prices to 0€ during increasing periods of the year. Needless to say, this both makes increasing renewables more dicey (not what we want) and makes nuclear less profitable (also not what we want). If the energy can travel south, theoretically, it should both increase growth of renewables and exert cost pressure southwards on coal and gas. Am I missing something here? suck my woke dick posted:Rapidly decarbonising your grid through only renewables and without wrecking your environment might be barely possible in Norway/Sweden/Finland. Even then, Finland wants to keep nuclear in the mix and Sweden has shelved nuclear exit plans. With insane radiophobes, blind renewables and nothing else everywhere optimists and corrupt fossil fuel boosters running amok across the rest of the EU I'd definitely want to insulate my power grid of I were running a Scandinavian country. There's talk of nuclear power returning to the north with all the industrial expansion going on. Highly theoretical at this stage, but at the rate energy needs are expanding, hydro power is about to go from abundant to scarce in northern Sweden within the following decades. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Aug 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Is that really what is happening though...? Transfer costs are still a thing and wind power is at the point where it has to be exported south and east because it can and will push energy prices to 0€ during increasing periods of the year. Needless to say, this both makes increasing renewables more dicey (not what we want) and makes nuclear less profitable (also not what we want). Well if they get better prices for it in the south of europe, why wouldn't producers rather sell there if they could? Integrating the grids means prices will converge, sure it might lead to some expansion of renewables, good for those times there's a surplus, but the other times? We'll be sharing our capacity with the rest of europe not just when we happen to have some really cheap power to sell, but all the time. German demand will surely drive our prices up and I don't think for a single second we could ever fill Germanys demand even with the wildest in your dreams expansion of renewables. And all the meanwhile our own electricity demand is constantly going up as we rely on electricity for more and more things. So yeah I don't think there's a snowballs chanse in hell that we'd get to keep our price levels, there's more money to be made in selling the power south. [missed some words] His Divine Shadow fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Aug 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
I mean, I'm not really worried about central Europe pushing up energy prices because most of what we pay here for energy is monopoly-rent from waves of privatizations of our power grid. But that might be an uniquely Swedish experience. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
Making electricity a market commodity was the worst mistake in the history of energy politics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
sounds like you hate freedom
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Making electricity a market commodity was the worst mistake in the history of energy politics. Especially weird considering water, which also runs into every home and has huge investment costs, is run at-cost in regulated monopolies around here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 08:48
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1425420240616411137?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
laffo
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
Lead by donkeys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 03:28
|
|
|
Well that's it then. We really are doomed. There's doing nothing, and then there's demanding MORE fossil fuels be burnt. Like just actively encouraging the end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 04:09
|
|
|
I'm not surprised in the slightest, no administration anywhere is going to put up with high energy prices. Even if they did, they won't last long in office but I'm not sure if I'm keen on giving more money to Saudi Arabia and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 05:07
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Especially weird considering water, which also runs into every home and has huge investment costs, is run at-cost in regulated monopolies around here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 06:58
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Don’t worry the zombie AI that is capitalism is hard at work commodifying that too you'll pay to have untreated sewage piped back into your tap and you'll like it
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
New report just dropped (a week ago). Apparently 5% of power plants generate 75% of global (power generation) carbon emissions. They also probably generate a huge chunk of total electricity too since they're all huge coal plants, but still seems like pretty good news if we could replace them with renewables or nukes (lol). According to them this should be enough to cut total global emissions by 20% which seems absolutely massive.code:If this really checks out, imo we should finance their decommissioning and replacement asap. This has to be a much better ROI than planting trees and what not. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Aug 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:New report just dropped (a week ago). Apparently 5% of power plants generate 75% of global carbon emissions. They also probably generate a huge chunk of total electricity too since they're all huge coal plants, but still seems like pretty good news if we could replace them with renewables or nukes (lol). According to them this should be enough to cut total global emissions by 20% which seems absolutely massive. Its a crime that we aren't replacing these with nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Its a crime that we aren't replacing these with nuclear. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 15:52
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Its a crime that we aren't replacing these with nuclear. Germany could easily restart a couple of their nuclear plants and shutter that coal plant. Wonder why they chose to do the opposite 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
Is there a reason there aren't more offshore nuclear plants? Apparently there was an attempt in the 70s that went nowhere, but it seems like a simple enough way to shut down a lot of the safety concerns. If we can deal with 200 million gallons of oil leaking into the ocean when there's a drilling issue, dropping a reactor onto the bottom of the ocean if something happens can't be that bad.quote:New report just dropped (a week ago). Apparently 5% of power plants generate 75% of global carbon emissions. They also probably generate a huge chunk of total electricity too since they're all huge coal plants, but still seems like pretty good news if we could replace them with renewables or nukes (lol). According to them this should be enough to cut total global emissions by 20% which seems absolutely massive. The scale of these things is absurd/amazing. The Scherer power plant in Georgia does about 3500 MW, here's what that takes: quote:At full capacity, the facility burns roughly 1,288 tons of coal every hour—11 million tons a year. To maintain a steady supply of fuel for the plant, coal is continually delivered from the Powder River Basin, 1,800 miles away in Wyoming, using a sophisticated coal-handling system. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Aug 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Is there a reason there aren't more offshore nuclear plants? Apparently there was an attempt in the 70s that went nowhere, but it seems like a simple enough way to shut down a lot of the safety concerns. If we can deal with 200 million gallons of oil leaking into the ocean when there's a drilling issue, dropping a reactor onto the bottom of the ocean if something happens can't be that bad. Salt water being a bitch is a huge reason I imagine. Cost being another. We do have a variety of nuclear vessels however. Its a shame we aren't doing more of that for large ships.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:New report just dropped (a week ago). Apparently 5% of power plants generate 75% of global carbon emissions. Pretty sure you mean 'global carbon emissions from the power sector.' AreWeDrunkYet posted:Is there a reason there aren't more offshore nuclear plants? Yeah, there's no good reason to have offshore power plants. quote:Apparently there was an attempt in the 70s that went nowhere, but it seems like a simple enough way to shut down a lot of the safety concerns. The no-nukes crowd is not arguing from a rational basis and you cannot assuage their concerns by spending even *more* money to move plants offshore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
Building *anything* offshore tends to be a cost multiplier due to salinity, difficulty of access/maintenance, need for anchoring/floating structure, length of interconnection cabling and weather events. In the case of wind it gets slightly offset by better wind resource but it's still around 2.x as expensive. There's no reason whatsoever to do offshore nuclear if you wanna scale things up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
I mean, besides the million other reasons, how do you construct the safety class buildings to the required specifications offshore? Like, 36" walls of reinforced concrete, floating on the ocean? I'm...not even sure conceptually what "offshore" even means here. I'm getting vibes of the floating city idea from arrested development season 3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
It's not a bad idea per se, it's just unnecessary and unfeasibly expensive. I think nuclear's immense potential tends to attract equally outlandish solutions to its problems, like how some folks still talk about launching nuclear waste into the sun rather than just digging a shallow pit on-site. There's nothing wrong with the nuclear plant sites on land - there are lots of good potential locations, and any coal or gas plant could likely be condemned and replaced with a nuclear plant that would be much safer and have a much reduced health and environmental impact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
Pander posted:I mean, besides the million other reasons, how do you construct the safety class buildings to the required specifications offshore? Yeah there is really no reason to offshore a nuclear plant. There is some unique benefits like: Imagine if Fukushima had the option to basically flood the core with sea water to provide passive cooling at a moments notice. It also creates a lot of issues in that cores are generally cooled with borated water that is de-ionized and kept very, very filtered. You'd have to basically scrub and treat the entire core, so this isn't a great idea in practice. Its far better to just build inland with better passive cooling systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 19:04
|
|