|
I take you point on physical size of facilities. My original statement was more that I think by the time fusion is in any way a possible solution for climate change / decarbonisation, we will have either solved it or it will be too late. But long before that it may have niche uses where practicality or economy is less of a concern.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
cat botherer posted:Superconducting magnets have really slashed the size these things need to be. They also don't have iron cores like regular electromagnets. Trouble with newer high temp, compact superconductive materials is that any disturbance whatsoever -- especially neutrons displacements -- gently caress 'em up real good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 05:32
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:I take you point on physical size of facilities. My original statement was more that I think by the time fusion is in any way a possible solution for climate change / decarbonisation, we will have either solved it or it will be too late. Your first post got off the rails at "I reckon"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 05:33
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Your first post got off the rails at "I reckon" There'll be a reckoning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Your first post got off the rails at "I reckon" Hardly going to be the last time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 09:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cmarinucci/status/1594721212407902208 hell yeah, but also boo pg&e
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
Watch them spend it on bonuses and close the plant anyway. Even if it's explicitly earmarked for not doing that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Watch them spend it on bonuses and close the plant anyway. Ahh I see you are familiar with the PG&E business model
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Ahh I see you are familiar with the PG&E business model You forgot the reckless negligence; pge never does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
When it comes to waste. Keep it as tightly, or even more regulated as today. Find a convenient really deep spot in the middle of the Pacific as far as can be from anyone interested. If it's a place where tectonic plates meet, even better. Package accordingly to keep things together, not necessarily water/air tight. But packaged. Chuck it in. But only there. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
That’s silly. Burn it in a reactor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
InAndOutBrennan posted:When it comes to waste. Keep it as tightly, or even more regulated as today. It's literally not even a major problem, none of the "chuck it into the sun/mariana trench" solutions are needed. We don't really a solve for it. It's kinda already solved. Just store it on site or reprocess it. The real issue making fossil fuel generation treat it's waste with the seriousness that Nuclear does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's literally not even a major problem, none of the "chuck it into the sun/mariana trench" solutions are needed. Cheaper with a trench though. But I agree with you and Phanatic, best use burn use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 22:26
|
|
|
in a well actually posted:You forgot the reckless negligence; pge never does. This is why I'll never make it as a soulless government sponsored monopoly. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
InAndOutBrennan posted:When it comes to waste. Keep it as tightly, or even more regulated as today. An American's lifetime energy usage, residential, commercial, and industrial, including 2nd order usage in manufacturing and transport, adds up to 1.3cuin of high level nuclear waste per lifetime. That can be further reduced with reprocessing. Your entire life is a little larger than a sugar cube worth of nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
Given that any material PG&E are meant to keep safe is eroded to 10% of its proper weight, you’re an order of magnitude off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 03:16
|
|
|
Kind of interesting that the California nuclear power plant needs $1 billion just to keep running for another five years. According to what I've read in this thread, I thought nuclear power was essentially free once you've constructed the plant and bypassed the minefield set by the environmentalists who are in charge in the various levels of US gov't? Maybe the people running the plant need to bookmark this thread so they can learn how much it REALLY should cost to run a nuclear power plant. The people running the US nuclear regulatory agencies could also benefit from bookmarking this thread too--it seems like they just don't understand the technology as well as the posters in this thread. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Nov 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 11:28
|
|
|
I mean, it's PG&E, it wouldn't surprise me if they are embezzling all of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 11:44
|
|
|
There is absolutely no way that the posters in this thread could be wrong about nuclear power. According to them, the operating cost of a nuclear power plant is zero. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion to make regarding this news story is that the federal government, because they are stupid and corrupt, wired $1 billion directly into the personal account of the CEO running PG&E. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) silence_kit fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Nov 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 11:58
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:There is absolutely no way that the posters in this thread could be wrong about nuclear power. According to them, the operating cost of a nuclear power plant is zero. but every evidence points to them being stupid and corrupt?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 12:04
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:but every evidence points to them being stupid and corrupt? they know when to hire accountants and audit consultants good at fastidiously legalizing crime something that's interesting about all these operators squeezing blood from stone in all areas of their company is that they know when to pay for good finance talent, and they'll pay through the nose for em
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
I'm also pretty sure a good chunk of that billion is to keep the aging plant operational. It's not like it is a brand new plant with no maintenance required. I'd rather dump a few hundred million a year to keep it up and running than the hundreds of millions or billions to decommission it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Kind of interesting that the California nuclear power plant needs $1 billion just to keep running for another five years. According to what I've read in this thread, I thought nuclear power was essentially free once you've constructed the plant and bypassed the minefield set by the environmentalists who are in charge in the various levels of US gov't? silence_kit posted:There is absolutely no way that the posters in this thread could be wrong about nuclear power. According to them, the operating cost of a nuclear power plant is zero. When you get back from probation you can feel free to quote where in the thread that was posted, which I'm sure it definitely was.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
If it costs $200 million to run a power plant for a year (using every accounting trick known to man to inflate that cost), and they can sell the 16 TWh of electricity it generates for $1 - $6 billion a year, I'm failing to see where they can't pay for the loving power plant out of the profits. Profit margins of 80% - 95% are pretty good in the business world, and something tells me the construction costs are fully depreciated by now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I'm also pretty sure a good chunk of that billion is to keep the aging plant operational. It's not like it is a brand new plant with no maintenance required. Nuke plant decommissioning is prepaid by the utility. NRC requires decom costs to be prepaid by licensees so a company can't declare bankruptcy, rug pull, and leave a reactor just chilling there waiting to melt down once it boils off its cover. I'm sure there's accounting fuckery that goes on with those trust funds, but nominally the decom is already paid for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:If it costs $200 million to run a power plant for a year (using every accounting trick known to man to inflate that cost), and they can sell the 16 TWh of electricity it generates for $1 - $6 billion a year, I'm failing to see where they can't pay for the loving power plant out of the profits. Profit margins of 80% - 95% are pretty good in the business world, and something tells me the construction costs are fully depreciated by now. Because a 40 year old piece of infrastructure probably has significant operational and maintenance costs. In addition California's regulations are unfavorable to nuclear power, there's regulatory uncertainty and economic risks associated with future market development. https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/End-of-an-atomic-era-PG-E-to-close-Diablo-Canyon-8314258.php#photo-10419088 SFGate posted:A rising flood of renewable power is pouring onto the state’s electricity grid, and, under California regulations, that power has priority over electricity generated from nuclear reactors or fossil fuel plants. In addition, energy efficiency and the rapid spread of public power projects like San Francisco’s CleanPowerSF are cutting the amount of electricity that PG&E will need to generate or buy for its customers. SFGate posted:Next week, the State Lands Commission is scheduled to decide whether to require a full environmental impact report before extending those leases, which are due to expire in 2018. Another panel, the California State Water Resources Control Board, was considering forcing PG&E to replace the cooling system with another that would kill fewer fish. One estimate pegged the cost of replacement as high as $14 billion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
Even as the thread's designated free-marketeer I'd vastly prefer the US government spend a billion to keep a nuclear power plant open than spend a billion to keep the House of Saud in power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:
coincidentally pop science youtuber Kurzgesagt's recent video is exactly why this idea is stupid as gently caress. lol at even popsci media consumers still being dumb as bricks when it comes to atoms. or space. like im pretty sure they have an old waste disposal video and they also said space was the omg the worst/dumbest idea, but apparently they get asked so much they have to make one whole video. on a similar note to the ocean trench method, there's also the volcano as a fire dumpster method, again just massive ignorance on how volcano work or the basic real world logistics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:coincidentally pop science youtuber Kurzgesagt's recent video is exactly why this idea is stupid as gently caress. Meanwhile coal plants just dumbing toxic poo poo wherever and it has no half-life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Meanwhile coal plants just dumbing toxic poo poo wherever and it has no half-life. Theres plenty of radioactive particles emitted by coal plants. For reasons unknown this like all the emissions other than CO2 are mostly ignored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
SpeedFreek posted:Theres plenty of radioactive particles emitted by coal plants. For reasons unknown this like all the emissions other than CO2 are mostly ignored. I mean that's true too but I was speaking of stuff like heavy metals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
If the worst case scenario for keeping an aging plant in the hands of corrupt morons running is a billion bucks a year that's fantastic. We spend like 200x that just to keep airline companies in the same position functional and that's a luxury service whereas electrical generation is the foundation that all modern civilization is built on. If you want a sensible approach you want the profit seekers out of the mix entirely, not something like a return to what got us here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:There is absolutely no way that the posters in this thread could be wrong about nuclear power. According to them, the operating cost of a nuclear power plant is zero. I don't know which poster itt is sleeping with your mom but they're probably not going to stop just because you threw a tantrum, sorry. This "gently caress you dad" thing where you just make up some accusations about other posters in the thread isn't interesting. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 08:11
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Because a 40 year old piece of infrastructure probably has significant operational and maintenance costs. In addition California's regulations are unfavorable to nuclear power, there's regulatory uncertainty and economic risks associated with future market development. “Our analysis continues to show that instead of continuing to run all the time, there will be parts of the year where Diablo will not be needed” 50 percent of California's power generation comes from natural gas plants, I wonder why none of those can be turned off or scaled down
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 08:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:“Our analysis continues to show that instead of continuing to run all the time, there will be parts of the year where Diablo will not be needed” I'm sure they are. It's just not all that helpful if a natural gas plant that idles half the time produces cheaper electricjty than a nuclear power plant that idles half the time. One solution is to give nuclear power priority over gas/coal and eventually wind/solar when renewable penetration becomes high enough to be an issue. Apparently that is an issue for the state of California? And evidently they are not inclined to do so. Moreover you need to signal that it's a persistent policy that won't be rolled back in 4 or 8 or 12 years or the regulatory uncertainty will be priced in. Another solution is to pay PG&E to keep Diablo Canyon running - and idling - which is what the feds are doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 10:13
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:I'm sure they are. It's just not all that helpful if a natural gas plant that idles half the time produces cheaper electricjty than a nuclear power plant that idles half the time. It's all decision-driven data making.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 13:20
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:It's all decision-driven data making. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:I'm sure they are. It's just not all that helpful if a natural gas plant that idles half the time produces cheaper electricjty than a nuclear power plant that idles half the time. As much as everyone claims Illinois is a corrupt state full of gangsters, they may have come up with a reasonable solution to this problem. The parent company of some nuclear plants (at the time Exelon, now spun off to Constellation) went to the state with an ultimatum. Give us money, or we shut down two nuclear plants in the state. It had worked before, so it would probably work again. But between those attempts, a couple of scandals had surfaced that made a deal kind of hard to reach until the last minute. Eventually a bill was passed that appeared to give something like 700 million over 5 years to keep the plants open. The main driver was extremely low cost natural gas was pricing nuclear power out of the market. And capacity payments from the wholesale market were not making up the difference anymore. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/illinois-senate-close-providing-lifeline-3-nuclear-power-plants-2021-09-13/ Turns out it was more of a price floor for the electricity produced. Whoever wrote up that bill included cutoffs for the subsidies, and included refunds if the price of power hit certain benchmarks. So this year, ComEd customers are getting nuclear rebates on their bills due to the high price of power. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/5/10/23062706/nuclear-plant-credit-illinois-commerce-commission-commonwealth-edison-power-bills-editorial I am sure the plants are making a poo poo ton of money in the current energy market, but if it takes setting up a government sponsored price floor to keep the nuclear plants open, maybe that should be explored elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
What is the effective price floor in c/kwhr?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
PhazonLink posted:coincidentally pop science youtuber Kurzgesagt's recent video is exactly why this idea is stupid as gently caress. Firing to solar escape velocity is easier than sun diving! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 18:50
|
|