|
Potato Salad posted:if only there were an empowered supernational organizing body capable of incentivizing genuine green european power generation industry expansion Unfortunately said organization incentivized "gently caress you, got mine" as a solution to all of lifes problems. You can't even join unless you reshape your country to be more FYGM.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PGV8fAyIrE Interesting video about the NG industry in Australia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 20:07
|
|
|
Nord Stream 2 has what sounds like a *major* leak, with gas pressure in the line dropping from 105 to 7 bar. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/26/nord-stream-2-pipeline-pressure-collapses-mysteriously-overnight Nord Stream 1 is also showing a pressure drop: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nord-stream-ag-operator-says-looking-into-decline-pressure-nord-stream-1-2022-09-26/ I wonder what could have caused simultaneous pressure drops in both pipelines. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Nord Stream 2 has what sounds like a *major* leak, with gas pressure in the line dropping from 105 to 7 bar. Or flared it near where they bring it into the pipeline? I mean for that volume of pipe... (Isn't it something like 800 miles of 50" diameter pipe on the sea floor?) If it was leaking I would think there would be some pretty clear evidence of it in terms of sattelite imagery. Senor P. fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 05:20
|
|
|
The leak was discovered due to waterside bubbles of natural gas so...
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 07:20
|
|
|
Are we betting on subs or frogmen?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:06
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:The leak was discovered due to waterside bubbles of natural gas so... They were'nt previously attached to the article. Postorder Trollet89 posted:Are we betting on subs or frogmen? Would be real interesting to see what exactly was done to it... will have to wait for details. Senor P. fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Sep 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
Once again the Greens in Germany show that they can put practicality ahead of ideology: Germany plans to keep 2 nuclear power plants in operation quote:Germany will keep two of its remaining three nuclear plants on standby until at least April 2023, as the country also secures other alternative energy supplies to make it through winter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Once again the Greens in Germany show that they can put practicality ahead of ideology:
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
Does anyone have any good sources I can refer to when it comes to arguments with anti-nuclear people? Especially in terms of safety and pollution, or benefits that Nuclear energy has in comparison to most renewables.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 05:24
|
|
|
One of my coworkers is German and generally a great guy, but a while back we discussed Germany's energy crisis and when the topic shifted to their nuclear reactors, he said some stuff I never heard before. Specifically, he insisted that German reactors required some unique type of fuel (not sure if he was referring to the actual fuel or the assembly of the fuel rods), and that the production of this fuel was already scrapped and that's why it's basically impossible for Germany to maintain their nuclear fleet and there's no going back. I haven't been able to find any corroborating info on this, anyone here know what he's referring to?khwarezm posted:Does anyone have any good sources I can refer to when it comes to arguments with anti-nuclear people? Especially in terms of safety and pollution, or benefits that Nuclear energy has in comparison to most renewables. ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Oct 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 05:51
|
|
|
unless they're doing it with a fresh browser profile/session and maybe even with a vpn their google poo poo is going to be salted/bias to their current anti nuclear stance. lol at info bubbles getting worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:You'd think a party that emphasizes environmentalism would not support continued reliance on natural gas - a fossil fuel, which itself is a greenhouse gas about 10x more potent than CO2. You'd think that, but they are far more practical. Just note that burning natural gas doesn't release natural gas, the combustion emissions are still mostly CO2 and then traces of other nasties, so in comparison to other fossil fuels - coal and oil - gas fired plants are cleaner and more efficient. But if someone wants to push that line, natural gas production has horrendous fugitive emissions. It's not a clean fuel and "natural gas" is a great advertising job. So replacing an old coal plant - particularly if it's brown coal - with gas is an improvement but it's only kicking the can down the road. Much better off to go nuclear and renewables.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 11:21
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Does anyone have any good sources I can refer to when it comes to arguments with anti-nuclear people? Especially in terms of safety and pollution, or benefits that Nuclear energy has in comparison to most renewables. "hi, i have a strong pre-formed opinion and want to win an argument with someone about it, but I don't actually know what i'm talking about, can someone give me talking points that I won't understand any follow up questions to so i can own this hippy?" if you take nuclear out of it, this is the exact and frequently recurring argument-pattern-signature for every right wing crank argument in life. this is where tucker fans come from. but I guess in the effort of this not being a complete poo poo post here's some grist: pro - negligible GHG emissions (this is why we're here) - historically great safety record on average (see below re: past-performance), has net saved a lot of lives (also the why behind why we're here) - very high capacity factor. works *almost* independently of weather/time-of-day/season (see below re: drought) - volumetrically speaking there isn't *that* much waste con - just loving batshit expensive. so unbelievably expensive that it should be thought of like winter methane/hydrogen storage and li-ion batteries through a "whats the minimum we can get away with to keep the grid reliable" lens, because to actually scale it to be greater than marginal percentages of supply would be an insane opportunity-cost/misallocation-of-capital. - the cost factors (today/so-far) necessitate massive centralized multi-GW plants where nearly all of the multi-$B capital is invested up-front - the failure modes are simultaneously very rare, very long-dated, and very catastrophic, making private insurance and therefore financing effectively impossible (if your friend is a socialist this is a non issue on a cost basis but then becomes an issue on a community-stakeholders basis) - the "past performance" safety record is rooted in 60 years of plants designed to run for 40 - 50 years. with every extend-and-pretend "don't shut them down" mystery risk-debt accrual decision that long term average becomes increasingly invalid logic for future expectations (in the west. china is actually building new poo poo) - SLOW! even with the mandate of heaven they take 5 - 10 years. in the west its hard to measure how long they take... what is the speed of an object not even in motion? - extremely difficult to site. centralized multi-GW plants are harder to place into grid infrastructure regardless of fuel. regional political backlash is guaranteed. localized realestate legal issues are guaranteed. water.. i'm gonna make its own bullet... - waste heat. your 5GW electrical plant is also putting out ~10GW of waste heat that needs to be dumped into a nearby body of water. this is tractable in a stable climate, but makes it a total crapshoot guess to site right now because on a 50 year plant-lifetime window we don't know if or where warming will stop and therefore what the drought risks are in most regions. - we're literally incapable. from an 'industrial capacity' perspective. we simply have not done this enough to actually have a meaningful/robust/functioning nuclear industry. the companies all went bankrupt. there is no sector. there is no labor pool. there is no talent pipeline. even if every single other problem above were miracle-innovated out of existence, this one would still add "roughly one human generation" to the problem timeline. it is simply climate change science denial to pretend we have that time. the interesting thing about most of the cons is they're really engineering-tradeoffs-with-modern-american-capitalism cons. like you could read that list as: America: - won't price carbon - ideologically committed to private/"free-market" financialization approaches - can't build poo poo (nuke plants are just big construction projects like bridges and tunnels and railways and even loving housing that america just simply doesnt seem capable of anymore) - treats the private property rights of smallholders as inviolable ur-sacrosanct priorities/values - hasn't done the (decades) long slow boring and steady work of building a few new plants every few years to develop the industry and get to the fun part of the learning-rate curve - hasn't properly funded r&d such that maybe smaller and easier to site and insure/finance options that we can *conceive* of now (smr, thorium, fusion) were actually at a point where we could factor them into our timeframe (2050) and therefore plans today - managing the waste is a 1000 year problem and we're proving screachingly incapable of managing 10 and 100 year problems. the problem with nuclear power is americanism i welcome my pro-nuclear brothers in chanting: Marg bar Amrika! MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Oct 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Just note that burning natural gas doesn't release natural gas, the combustion emissions are still mostly CO2 and then traces of other nasties, so in comparison to other fossil fuels - coal and oil - gas fired plants are cleaner and more efficient. Motion to refer to it as "methgas" rather than the misleading advertising term "natural gas", with backup term "fossil gas" if someone gets shirty about it being not just pure methane
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:"hi, i have a strong pre-formed opinion and want to win an argument with someone about it, but I don't actually know what i'm talking about, can someone give me talking points that I won't understand any follow up questions to so i can own this hippy?" I'm going to be honest I don't really care very much because I've read about Nuclear energy on and off for years and the arguments from informed people always seem to come out in its favour, but I'm not so deep into energy production as a topic that I can just automatically pull up bulletproof studies and papers like its second nature, in the same way that I can't automatically refer to a killer source proving climate change to somebody who disagrees in an argument, so its helpful to ask in places like this for sources that I don't know about directly. Generally the most solid argument I can give is talking about the French Nuclear Programme and pointing out how much lower France's CO2 emissions are compared to almost every other first world nation and how they are more buffered against fuckery in things like the gas market compared to the likes of Germany. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Oct 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
I thought this was a good read, for those scared of nuclear waste https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs-reality/
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Generally the most solid argument I can give is talking about the French Nuclear Programme and [...] how they are more buffered against fuckery in things like the gas market compared to the likes of Germany. 
MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Oct 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:only they're not, because of the combination of both the "crazy old/aging plants" and "waste heat" points above.  And as you said, some of the issues were caused by old plants that were also not designed to deal with higher temperatures. It's a direct result of policy where they also decided to phase out nuclear about 15 years ago IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
its not a convincing argument that their plants are too old to be reliable because they're not reliable right now and they haven't been built in decades absolute perfect circle, congrats
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
If you build your grid on wind power and postpone maintenance and then it's less windy than average one summer, it means wind sucks too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I don't think this is a very convincing argument Isn't reality always the most convincing argument? mobby_6kl posted:If you build your grid on wind power and postpone maintenance and then it's less windy than average one summer, it means wind sucks too? No, but your specific wind based grid does this summer. It literally does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:- waste heat. your 5GW electrical plant is also putting out ~10GW of waste heat that needs to be dumped into a nearby body of water. this is tractable in a stable climate, but makes it a total crapshoot guess to site right now because on a 50 year plant-lifetime window we don't know if or where warming will stop and therefore what the drought risks are in most regions. That's not just a nuclear power issue. Natural gas, coal, etc. produce waste heat, too. Heat efficiency tends to be inversely proportional to the temperature of the process; this is why a power plant that burns diesel tends to be more efficient than a diesel-burning combustion engine in a car. Nuclear power plants tend to operate at very high temperatures, so I'd wager that a nuclear power plant's heat efficiency is not significantly worse than a natural gas power plant's. A brief Google search suggests that nuclear power is actually more heat efficient (at 40%, vs natural gas at 20-35%) but my search was pretty shallow, so I won't stand by that claim but will stand by the notion that the two plant types are in the same ballpark when it comes to waste heat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Isn't reality always the most convincing argument? quote:No, but your specific wind based grid does this summer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:
How do you think other power plants work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
guys i put the counterpoint to your dumb argument pre-emptively right there in the listquote:- the cost factors (today/so-far) necessitate massive centralized multi-GW plants where nearly all of the multi-$B capital is invested up-front its *in the context of siting* yes obviously all heat engines have this problem, but gas (or whatever) doesn't need to be built in the muilt-GW range to have a prayer of being economical edit: btw i'll interpret you both disingenuously trying to context-free-contrarian snipe what you think is the weakest point to imply you basically accept/agree with the rest of them (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Oct 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:How do you think other power plants work? *chuckles in manatee*
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:guys i put the counterpoint to your dumb argument pre-emptively right there in the list That's the only point that I responded to because it's the only one that I felt like responding to at the time, I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with any other points. Your attempt at a pre-emptive counter-argument doesn't address what I actually wrote in my post. Try to be less of a buffoon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
The heat stuff is kinda dumb. New reactor designs can be built small enough that you can overheat rivers without attracting large protests, like coal plants do. Or even do KWK or something. And large reactors can take advantage of convection driven cooling towers which are much more efficient and safe waste energy disposal then any alternative. And they even save water. The only good anti-nuclear argument is that nobody pro-nuclear can be trusted to build, let alone operate, a nuclear plant. If you want a pro-nuclear government made out of existing political movements you get built as many plants as Merkel built, and plants run as efficient as France's current fleet. Or someone who wants to leave all climate and energy policy to the free market. And that is without going into the fact that being anti-nuclear is the centrist position, so they only have to give vague unfounded complaints and delays against all proposals and rest on the status quo. But the pro-nuclear people need to pretend those tactics are legitimate. Because those were the pro-nuclear tactics until the 00s, and are the tactics of the pro-nuclear people on other topics. Like preventing renewables built-up or whatever other currently ongoing indefensible policies they currently like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:And that is without going into the fact that being anti-nuclear is the centrist position, so they only have to give vague unfounded complaints and delays against all proposals and rest on the status quo. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this claim is false. I'm sure that you can find some hot-take blog poster lunatic who thinks that we should have a 100% nuclear grid or some poo poo (I've never seen such a thing but I won't rule out its existence, bad opinions exist everywhere about everything) but I believe that'd be the exception rather than the norm. Can you quote even a single post in this thread where a pro-nuclear poster opposes a simultaneous build-up of renewables? From what I recall, every pro-nuclear poster itt wants a mixed grid with a large percentage of renewable power. If you can find such a post, maybe we could discuss it. If you can't, maybe we could discuss how you came to that opinion without any evidence
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this claim is false. I'm sure that you can find some hot-take blog poster lunatic who thinks that we should have a 100% nuclear grid or some poo poo (I've never seen such a thing but I won't rule out its existence, bad opinions exist everywhere about everything) but I believe that'd be the exception rather than the norm. If this thread is an accurate sampling of the pro-nuclear arguments you encounter in your life I am honestly very happy for you. Where did I say that I assume that all pro-nuclear groups want 100% nuclear? I specifically mentioned the previous German government (under Merkel) as example of pro-nuclear governments. Because that is what the local pro-nuclear groups want me to vote for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:If this thread is an accurate sampling of the pro-nuclear arguments you encounter in your life I am honestly very happy for you. I didn't say that you were assuming that, I said that one could probably look hard enough to find some moron blog post somewhere that espouses it. Because I like to cover my bases by being very specific about what I mean (that it's not impossible for a pro-nuclear extremist to be anti-renewable as a result of their extremism, but it'd be pretty unusual) What you did say is that pro-nuclear people are opposed to a build-up of renewables, which I took to mean is the default for a pro-nuclear position rather than an exception. If you can't point to a poster itt who believes that, then can you explain why you believe that's the case? You're now alluding to the Merkel government in Germany as demonstrating this, but that's more of a counter-argument to your own claims since the Merkel government was both pro-nuclear and pro-renewable (Germany became a powerhouse of renewable expansion under Merkel) QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Oct 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's not just a nuclear power issue. Natural gas, coal, etc. produce waste heat, too. Heat efficiency tends to be inversely proportional to the temperature of the process; this is why a power plant that burns diesel tends to be more efficient than a diesel-burning combustion engine in a car. Just out of sheer curiosity and laziness to google, do you know what the difference in efficiency between gas fired boiler plants (steam loop) and direct gas turbine (stationary jet engine) is? Lately I've heard of more of the latter being built but I'm not shilling for big gas so I don't tend to know much about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 04:05
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:The heat stuff is kinda dumb. New reactor designs can be built small enough that you can overheat rivers without attracting large protests, like coal plants do. Or even do KWK or something. The largest nuclear power plant in the US uses nothing but reclaimed sewage for cooling. "But what about the heat!" is a dumb point. Christ, California *needs water*, the fact that you can use heat to desalinate seawater is a plus. MightyBigMinus posted:edit: btw i'll interpret you both disingenuously trying to context-free-contrarian snipe what you think is the weakest point to imply you basically accept/agree with the rest of them Yes, that is certainly an indication that you have a willingness to argue in good faith and that it is worth engaging with you. Oh, "in the context of siting," yes, wherever will we find several towns' worth of dirty pisswater to feed our reactor with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Just out of sheer curiosity and laziness to google, do you know what the difference in efficiency between gas fired boiler plants (steam loop) and direct gas turbine (stationary jet engine) is? Lately I've heard of more of the latter being built but I'm not shilling for big gas so I don't tend to know much about it. I don't know how efficient gas boilers are. This publication actually quotes 60% heat efficiency for combined-cycle gas turbines (meaning the waste heat from a gas turbine is used to run a steam turbine), but it also quotes 70% for Gen IV nuclear reactors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I don't know how efficient gas boilers are. Thanks for the article. I followed through to wiki on high temperature gas reactors and would love to see the use of "waste" heat in a GenIV reactor used as process heat for industry which is touted as a possibility, effectively creating an industrial estate around the power plant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 05:50
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I didn't say that you were assuming that, I said that one could probably look hard enough to find some moron blog post somewhere that espouses it. Because I like to cover my bases by being very specific about what I mean (that it's not impossible for a pro-nuclear extremist to be anti-renewable as a result of their extremism, but it'd be pretty unusual) The Merkel gov massively defunded renewable research and investment, outside some flashy exceptions. The original plan was to already have enough effective renewable generation and support infrastructure(like storage) to turn off all nuclear safely without building new fossil plants. Or optimistically shutting them down. The hardest hit part of renewables research was actually storage research, leading a lot of the current discussions about base load. The worst possible case for the funding levels proposed by the old greens would still leave us with well researched and evidence based studies that tell us exactly how much nuclear power(or whatever) we need to meet base load goals. But, after those cuts storage research was essentially limited to what was already happening for other reasons. Leading many people to falsely assume that batteries are a good grid level storage tech, because they were funded through the mobile and EV markets while all other storage tech was neglected, like French nuclear plants were. I admit my arguments apply less to this thread, then I thought. I was remembering an argument but, it seems to have happened in a different thread. Though the current discussion started as a discussion of discussions with normal people. The only anti-nuclear argument I hear in real life is pointing to the history of existing pro-nuclear groups, and their massive grifting and general assholeness. There have of course been new pro-nuclear groups without that track record in recent years. But, we are not politically significant enough to overcome that inertia of perception. VictualSquid fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Oct 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 10:01
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:The only anti-nuclear argument I hear in real life is pointing to the history of existing pro-nuclear groups, and their massive grifting and general assholeness. Well the leader of the Australian Greens last year referred to nuclear powered submarines as "Floating Chernobyls" so there are some real well thought out opinions in the wild.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 10:57
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Well the leader of the Australian Greens last year referred to nuclear powered submarines as "Floating Chernobyls" so there are some real well thought out opinions in the wild. What were the counterarguments deployed by the presumed pro-nuclear people he was arguing with at the time? If it was an argument against a pro-nuclear sub fraction among the greens, then I assume his argument was successful. Because he only needs to defend the status quo, and such crazy non-sequiturs are entirely sufficient there to stall and prevent any change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Nuclear is objectively the correct answer for baseline power moving forward if we don't want to destroy human civilization, but also impossible because of human civilization. Welp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 23:04
|
|