The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Son of Rodney posted:

Of course it should be about "cheap", it's one of the major factors in energy financing. What else would you base those decisions on? Ideology? Fliiping a coin? Potential for painting racing strips on the cooling tower to make it run faster? Even china is building vastly more renewables in any case. Nuclear is not a bad option, all things concidered, it's just not a good option right now for the issues we are facing *right now*. You can theorize about building nuclear plants fully "unleashed" in as little as 5 to 10 years, but under those conditions you could build wind or solar plants in under a year.

Nuclear vs. renewables is a false dichotomy. We should be building renewable capacity as fast as possible, as well as nuclear as fast as possible. Nuclear is still the only really near-term option for base load.

# ? Jun 21, 2023 18:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 15:42

in a well actually: Jan 26, 2011; dude, you gotta end it on the rhyme

cat botherer posted:

Yeah, this should not be about "cheap." Nuclear plants can be built fast. We've built them fast in the past, and China is building them fast now. We know it's possible.

They�re really not, though. Their current average is only a few years faster than global average for new nuclear.

# ? Jun 21, 2023 18:22

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

in a well actually posted:

They�re really not, though. Their current average is only a few years faster than global average for new nuclear.

That's not correct. China builds plants much faster than we do. The median construction time for new reactors in 2021 was 88 months.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/712851/construction-time-for-new-reactors/

At any rate, nuclear is still the baseload option that realistically can be deployed the fastest, at wide scale. There's no other option on the horizon - pumped hydro needs dams to be built and relies on sufficient water and favorable topography, and grid battery storage is a Muskian pipedream. Both of those options are much worse than nuclear from an environmental standpoint, as well.

# ? Jun 21, 2023 18:31

in a well actually: Jan 26, 2011; dude, you gotta end it on the rhyme

cat botherer posted:

That's not correct. China builds plants much faster than we do. The median construction time for new reactors in 2021 was 88 months.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/712851/construction-time-for-new-reactors/

At any rate, nuclear is still the baseload option that realistically can be deployed the fastest, at wide scale. There's no other option on the horizon - pumped hydro needs dams to be built and relies on sufficient water and favorable topography, and grid battery storage is a Muskian pipedream. Both of those options are much worse than nuclear from an environmental standpoint, as well.

Worldwide average is only 8 years, tho. �Faster than the US� is more about US industrial incompetence than imagined structural issues.

# ? Jun 21, 2023 18:46

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

SpeedFreek posted:

This argument has always bothered me, we should be doing as much as possible to avoid burning stuff for power. Do both, not the current solution of peaker gas turbines to run all night.

Also there is a difference between efficient, profitable, and very profitable.

The reality as outlined in our remaining optimistic IPCC AR6 carbon pathwaysis that we will need to be sequestered carbon like a motherfucker* by 2060. Whether we historically have or have not run all our generation capacity at full power at all times has no bearing on the fact that we will need to be running all our generation capacity at 100% 24/7/365 to sequester carbon as fast as possible in just a few decades.

I don't recall what the AR6 says, but the AR5 spitballed that we'd need something on the length scale of tens of terawatts of excess capacity dedicated to carbon sequestration, and that's after a huge hypothetical Future Tech Will Save Us™ reduction in the energy intensity of carbon sequestration tech over modern capabilities.

Tl;dr it will not be a problem if we overbuild nuclear capacity AND renewables to power sequestration. We're going to need absolutely every watt of installed capacity we can wring out of our corrupt, shortsighted leaders.

*The IPCC does not actually say "like a motherfucker"

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jun 21, 2023

# ? Jun 21, 2023 18:49

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Son of Rodney posted:

Nuclear is neither fast nor is building the necessary capacity in any way realistic, and also depends on peaker plants and storage, why do people keep pretending it doesn't

Nuclear exists, grid storage at the scale you're describing does not.

E: and I still say it's a false dichotomy, nuclear does not compete with renewables. I just wish people would stop pretending that we are only allowed to build renewables

QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jun 21, 2023

# ? Jun 21, 2023 20:09

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

I feel like I recall it being said a long time ago in this thread or another nuclear thread that the USA just flat-out doesn't have the capability to produce big enough steel vessels required for decently large-sized nuclear reactors. It had something to do with the size of the largest hydraulic presses or some other kind of huge industrial machinery that the US doesn't have anymore.

It was a really interesting post, I wish I recalled the specifics!

# ? Jun 21, 2023 20:20

VictualSquid: Feb 29, 2012; Gently enveloping the target with indiscriminate love.

DrSunshine posted:

I feel like I recall it being said a long time ago in this thread or another nuclear thread that the USA just flat-out doesn't have the capability to produce big enough steel vessels required for decently large-sized nuclear reactors. It had something to do with the size of the largest hydraulic presses or some other kind of huge industrial machinery that the US doesn't have anymore.

It was a really interesting post, I wish I recalled the specifics!

When someone says "impossible" in this sort of context they mean "someone would have to make investments that take more then 4 years to pay off".

# ? Jun 21, 2023 20:57

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Ah, I think I found an article about this: https://www.newequipment.com/plant-operations/article/21921859/us-cedes-capability-for-largest-nuclear-forgings

It's a bit :911:

but

quote:

U.S. Cedes Capability for Largest Nuclear Forgings
June 16, 2009

When Maryland governor Martin O�Malley stood at a podium before the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant last spring, he described in the strongest of possible terms America�s need to embrace nuclear energy. Citing reasons of economic, environmental, and social well-being, O�Malley called it �a moral challenge and moral imperative.�

For an industry that has not begun construction on a new nuclear power plant since 1979, O�Malley�s sentiment was the latest signal that if there has not quite been a warm re-embrace for nuclear energy in the United States, there certainly has been a public awakening of a sort not seen in more than a generation. An increasing number of Americans are recognizing the importance and availability of nuclear power as a source of electricity.

There are currently 104 operating nuclear plants in the U.S., producing 20% of the country�s electricity. And, as an increasing number of Americans are understood to be environmentally conscious, nuclear power can make the claim that it is by far the largest available source of electricity that does not result in greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a federal agency, there are now 33 applications from 22 companies on file seeking permission to build new nuclear reactors. While it remains to be seen whether those plants will be built, the applications signify that utility companies, governments at the state and federal levels, and industry, are coordinating their efforts to bring new facilities online within the next seven years.

This could mean a windfall in new business for domestic forgers. There are nearly 200 forgings of various sizes, weights and specifications required for today�s newest generation of nuclear power plants.

But, this demand also represents a monumental challenge. There are dozens of suppliers capable of providing small- to medium-sized forgings, but there are just a few capable of delivering the ultra-heavy forgings that weigh greater than 400,000 pounds. None of these operations are in the U.S.

�The real crux of the issue in the United States comes down to whether we want to produce these large parts,� says Charlie Hageman, executive vice president of the Forging Industry Association. �It�s a supply chain issue. And what we see is that the government policy doesn�t appear to be clear and the companies that would make the large parts are reluctant to invest in adding to their capabilities.�

The pieces in question
Four of the most complex parts of a nuclear power plant � the containment vessel, the reactor vessel components, the turbine rotors and steam generators � are made from over 4,000 tons of steel forgings, and almost none of those components are manufactured in the United States.

The reactor vessel functions like the outer shell of an egg, protecting all the vital internal pieces, including the components in which the nuclear reaction takes place. The outer vessel alone weighs over 500 tons and is made up of seven very large forgings, including several that make up the nozzle.

The newest nuclear plant design on the market, the Generation III Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR), from French nuclear engineering group Areva, uses four steam generators � each of which weighs up to 500 tons.

A generator rotor weights in excess of 200 tons, according to Craig Hanson, vice president and product line manager for nuclear plant builder for Babcock & Wilcox. And, for each nuclear plant, there are three to four turbine rotors.

�There�s a full-scale market for heavy forging and heavy forged materials in a nuclear reactor, everything from the closure head, to forged rings that make up the vessel head, to internal support plates within steam generators,� says Hanson. �We anticipate our demand for these forgings to be increasing substantially as we begin to prepare for the nuclear renaissance.�

Today, Babcock & Wilcox estimates its demand at 100 heavy forgings per year. But, that demand could more than triple in the next 15 years, says Hanson, as the market in the United States blooms with proposals for new nuclear facilities receiving NRC approval.

Extinction of U.S. capacity
The U.S. steel industry produces over 100 million tons of steel per year. In theory, there should be enough domestic steelmaking capacity to fulfill the demand for forging nuclear components. The problem lies in how those forgings have changed over the last 40 years and the scale of the investment that would be required for U.S. forgers to participate.

The first generation of nuclear power plants built in the U.S. used forgings produced domestically. Most of those components were smaller than what are used today and many were made from different materials. Steam generators, for instance, were made from rolled plate.

In the late 1960s, designers discovered that larger forgings had better mechanical properties, requiring less welding and therefore less inspection requirements over the life of a plant. These larger forgings became a signature of Generation II plants and all others that have followed.

But, by choosing larger forgings, even the most powerful domestic steel producers, such as U.S. Steel and the now-defunct Bethlehem Steel, were shut out of the supply chain.

�In the interest of efficiency, the companies that built nuclear reactors made their reactors bigger,� says Mike Kamnikar, senior vice president for marketing and business development at The Ellwood Group, a forging group. �The biggest ingot that could be made by Bethlehem Steel or U.S. Steel in the 1970�s was roughly 380 tons. Bethlehem and U.S. Steel each had 8,000- ton presses, but the presses didn�t have enough clearance to make these big rings, which were over 200 inches in diameter.�

Today�s newest nuclear power plants, Generation III, follow designs that require steel ingots weighing between 500 to 600 tons each. No steel producers in the U.S. can handle that kind of size or weight, says Chris Levesque, Areva�s president and general manager at its Newport News, VA, facility for fabricating heavy reactor components. �Forgers are limited because while [a forger] can make his press bigger and he can make his machine tools bigger, he needs a larger ingot,� says Levesque. �He�s limited by the steel mill and the ability of not just a mill that can make that big of an ingot, but also transport it to him by rail. You�re talking about a piece of metal that�s huge and needs to stay hot and get from the mill to the forge. One of those mills can�t exist just to supply the forge.�

Another significant factor is that in the 40 years since the U.S. stopped producing these large forgings, a host of international rivals have filled the void of supplying the parts necessary for the 40 nuclear plants currently under construction in 11 countries.

The largest and best-known supplier of heavy forgings is Japan Steel Works (JSW), which claims 80 percent of the world market for large forged components for nuclear power plants, including the steam generator, reactor pressure vessels and turbine shafts. JSW is contracted to supply Areva with large forged parts until at least 2016 � enough to build six nuclear plants per year.

Heavy forging capacity is also available in China (China Fi rst Heavy Industr ies) and Russia (OMX Izhora), along with new capacity emerging in South Korea (Doosan), and France (Le Creusot), and it�s being planned in the U.K. (Sheffield Forgemasters) and India (Larsen & Toubro).

JSW�s Muroran plant in Hokkaido has 3,000 to 14,000 ton hydraulic forging presses, the latter able to take 600- metric ton steel ingots, and a 12,000-metric ton pipeforming press. Its capacity was limited to producing just four reactor pressure vessels and associated components per year, but that was before aggressively upgrading its technology in the past year. JSW believes it will be able to triple its production by 2012 thanks to $837 million worth of expansion in the next three years. It has commissioned another 14,000 ton forging press.

So what�s the hold up?
For a lot of forgers, the capacity question is not whether (or not) there is going to be demand for ultra-heavy nuclear forgings, but whether (or not) the potential reward is worth the financial risk.

�I think it boils down to a question of whether you can make money doing these forgings,� says B&W�s Hanson. �If you do it right, you can probably develop a North American capability, but it�s going to require real smart thinking.�

In recent years, the Ellwood Group considered expanding its large heavy-forging capacity. The company, which produces heavy metal sections for the oil and gas, mining, metals processing, and power generation industries, among others, calculated how much investment it would take to compete internationally.

The projected investment totals were staggering. According to Kamnikar, the tab started at $1 billion.

�You�re talking about a lot of money in equipment,� says Kamnikar. �The biggest expense of all is the melt shop, which has to be capable of making a 600-ton ingot. Those are capable of making nearly a million tons of steel a year. But only about 70,000 tons are required to make all the huge forgings in the U.S. So what do you do with the rest of the steel?�

There is also the element of patience that must be considered. According to B&W�s Hanson, nearly four years can pass between the time a company puts forth the money to upgrade its facility and its first orders are ready for manufacturing.

�If you combine that time frame with the fact that some people are unsure of when these orders [for nuclear forgings] are going to actually go through, that�s what�s driving the hesitancy to invest substantial amounts in these facilities right now,� says Hanson.

Market concerns
Not everyone is sitting idle. Areva has made owning a portion of its supply chain part of its business strategy. For that reason, the French builder of nuclear plants purchased SFARsteel in 2006, along with a 1.3-percent equity in Japan Steel Works late last year.

In July, Areva broke ground on a $360-million joint venture with Northrop Grumman to build a factory at its shipyard at Newport News, VA. The facility is designed to be a twin to Areva�s Chalon-St Marcel plant in France, which machines large forgings, such as reactor pressure vessels, steam generators, and pressurizers, and finishes them for installation.

# ? Jun 21, 2023 21:02

marchantia: Nov 5, 2009; WHAT IS THIS

This is replying to discussion bit up thread but wrt geothermal the Volts podcast had an interview 3/31 about it and I thought it was an interesting conversation. Not sure how David Roberts is regarded around here but I think he does good interviews and I learned a lot about current/future anticipated tech limitations and what people in the field are currently doing to ramp up production so figured I'd mention it.

Sorry to interrupt nuke chat

# ? Jun 21, 2023 21:21

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

I would love to hear more about geothermal, anything you personally took away that you'd like to share?

# ? Jun 21, 2023 21:28

SpeedFreek: Jan 10, 2008; And Im Lobster Jesus!

VictualSquid posted:

When someone says "impossible" in this sort of context they mean "someone would have to make investments that take more then 4 years to pay off".

The free market demands ROI now and running existing equipment into the ground.

marchantia posted:

This is replying to discussion bit up thread but wrt geothermal the Volts podcast had an interview 3/31 about it and I thought it was an interesting conversation. Not sure how David Roberts is regarded around here but I think he does good interviews and I learned a lot about current/future anticipated tech limitations and what people in the field are currently doing to ramp up production so figured I'd mention it.

Sorry to interrupt nuke chat

Thanks, something to listen to on my flight.

# ? Jun 21, 2023 21:46

Saukkis: May 16, 2003; Unless I'm on the inside curve pointing straight at oncoming traffic the high beams stay on and I laugh at your puny protest flashes.
I am Most Important Man. Most Important Man in the World.

The discussion about energy storage needs a website that lists all the available or possible future methods, and the state of research with them. I have seen so many technologies listed that I can't keep track of them.

When posters mention battery storage do they mean Li-Ion batteries, or also flow and liquid metal batteries and what else there are? I suspect that as long as we are limited by our litium battery manufacturing capacity we should prioritize them for EVs and only use minimal amount for grid stability uses.

One unusual energy storage is used by Helsinki energy company. They have turned decommissioned oil caves to heat storage, 260 000 m� caves that can hold 11,6 GWh of hot water. But this is probably only practical in cities with district heating. Smaller version could be hot water tanks in households, might as well heat them to 90�C when electricity is plentiful. Just need a device that mixes it with cold water at the output. Or maybe the output tube could run the height of the tank with temperature controlled openings at regular intervals. Or cool a freezer down to -20�C.

Years ago I heard of device that monitors the grid frequency and would turn equipment off if the frequency dropped below nominal. It would probably be a minimal expense if all appliances that can manage with intermitten power were equipped with one, fridges, freezers, water tanks, EV chargers...

For grid I think I like cryogenic energy storage best, it doesn't require rare or unusual materials or technology. Any company that has built oil refineries, chemical plants or similar should be able to manufacture them. For example, what is the company that manufactured the Nord Stream 2 pipes doing? In fact, we already have those broken and unusable pipes, let's raise them up, cut to sections, weld endcaps and stand them upright and we'll have whole lot of storage tanks right there, assuming liquid air won't make them too brittle.

# ? Jun 21, 2023 22:27

marchantia: Nov 5, 2009; WHAT IS THIS

QuarkJets posted:

I would love to hear more about geothermal, anything you personally took away that you'd like to share?

To be honest it's been 3 months since I listened so I don't remember fine points well enough to type up anything without having to Google a bunch of facts I've forgotten but here's a link to the transcript if you wanna read/skim without listening.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 01:21

His Divine Shadow: Aug 7, 2000; I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do.

QuarkJets posted:

Nuclear exists, grid storage at the scale you're describing does not.

E: and I still say it's a false dichotomy, nuclear does not compete with renewables. I just wish people would stop pretending that we are only allowed to build renewables

For renewables to work as a baseload sans storage, the infrastructure needs to be massively built out to transfer power around and that is a project that will probably take longer than building nukes in the first place. So sure renewables can be built fast, but does that mean they can actually provide baseload? No. It's a form of dishonesty IMO to gloss that over.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 06:06

Son of Rodney: Feb 22, 2006; ohmygodohmygodohmygod

QuarkJets posted:

Nuclear exists, grid storage at the scale you're describing does not.

E: and I still say it's a false dichotomy, nuclear does not compete with renewables. I just wish people would stop pretending that we are only allowed to build renewables

Hydro exists in many countries, as do other technologies that can be used, people seem to conflate grid storage with batteries, which correctly do not exist at the needed size and propably won't in any significant speed. Here in Germany 5% of baseload is already provided by bio-gas, which can be ramped up at least a bit. It both works as storage, baseload and peaker plants. small scale battery systems for homes are also increasing, before I switched to my current job I worked with a company who were planning to use a swarm of these as grid compensation measures. The issue is that there is no one storage catch all, it's gonna be a creative mix of small scale decentralized stuff coupled with larger scale projects. If battery power, molten salt or otherwise, ever reaches a viable scale all the better

Also you can build whatever you want, and people will continue building nuclear, it's just not economically or technically viable in the vast majority of use cases.

Apart from the basic constraints that are discussed often stuff like not having nearly enough building capacity or personel for a huge push is also a problem. Who's gonna build and man these nuke plants? You'd need to first build the infrastructure and train people, while renewables are already deep into that process and able to do it faster.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 07:10

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Son of Rodney posted:

Hydro exists in many countries, as do other technologies that can be used, people seem to conflate grid storage with batteries, which correctly do not exist at the needed size and propably won't in any significant speed. Here in Germany 5% of baseload is already provided by bio-gas, which can be ramped up at least a bit. It both works as storage, baseload and peaker plants. small scale battery systems for homes are also increasing, before I switched to my current job I worked with a company who were planning to use a swarm of these as grid compensation measures. The issue is that there is no one storage catch all, it's gonna be a creative mix of small scale decentralized stuff coupled with larger scale projects. If battery power, molten salt or otherwise, ever reaches a viable scale all the better

Also you can build whatever you want, and people will continue building nuclear, it's just not economically or technically viable in the vast majority of use cases.

Apart from the basic constraints that are discussed often stuff like not having nearly enough building capacity or personel for a huge push is also a problem. Who's gonna build and man these nuke plants? You'd need to first build the infrastructure and train people, while renewables are already deep into that process and able to do it faster.

You are sort trying to imply that storage does exist at the scale required but it is further away from existing at the scale required than nuclear is. Hydro is the only scale storage currently not just hopes and dreams and it is very problematic to scale up that much further for most of the world. Additionally, infrastructure powerlines, etc need a lot more maintenace than I think you realise. It is not just string some wires and job done, opex is still the overall largest cost of a powerline, not the capex (especially when you try and cut a corner and the dusty isolator sets fire to half of Western Australia).

In among those hopes and dreams is one I agree one that might work is the electricity to hydrocarbon (biofuel) but that also requires quite a lot of work to get the scale, round trip efficiency and cost (land use, labor, materials) where it needs to be to be more than just a bit of greenwashing on the side/niche use. If it did get to scale at reasonable cost, it would be amazing as it would instantly remove the need for massive battery buildout, BEVs, etc.

Again to re-iterate, I am all for continuing the rollout of solar and wind, and excited at the thought of cheap drilling enabling geothermal at reduced cost, but am railing against the concept that renewables as is currently state of the art or with predictable technology has the capacity to completely replace fossil fuels (within the labor hours, materials and land-use budget that exists). Waiting 30 years without some massive breakthrough in battery chemistry or other pipe dream to then decide to start ramping up nuclear is very sub-optimal.

E) and nuclear has been kicked down the road for 30 years so far by and large. So, for me the general consensus is that that climate emergency is an emergency but not enough of an emergency to build nuclear.

Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Jun 22, 2023

# ? Jun 22, 2023 09:16

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Son of Rodney posted:

Hydro exists in many countries, as do other technologies that can be used, people seem to conflate grid storage with batteries, which correctly do not exist at the needed size and propably won't in any significant speed. Here in Germany 5% of baseload is already provided by bio-gas, which can be ramped up at least a bit. It both works as storage, baseload and peaker plants. small scale battery systems for homes are also increasing, before I switched to my current job I worked with a company who were planning to use a swarm of these as grid compensation measures. The issue is that there is no one storage catch all, it's gonna be a creative mix of small scale decentralized stuff coupled with larger scale projects. If battery power, molten salt or otherwise, ever reaches a viable scale all the better

Also you can build whatever you want, and people will continue building nuclear, it's just not economically or technically viable in the vast majority of use cases.

Apart from the basic constraints that are discussed often stuff like not having nearly enough building capacity or personel for a huge push is also a problem. Who's gonna build and man these nuke plants? You'd need to first build the infrastructure and train people, while renewables are already deep into that process and able to do it faster.

I guess since grid-scale energy storage doesn't even exist on paper yet there's no need to worry about how it's going to get built or operated, that's true

# ? Jun 22, 2023 09:24

KillHour: Oct 28, 2007

DrSunshine posted:

Ah, I think I found an article about this: https://www.newequipment.com/plant-operations/article/21921859/us-cedes-capability-for-largest-nuclear-forgings

It's a bit but

This is interesting, but it's more of a "we don't have the capability because we don't build enough nuclear power for it to be profitable" than it is an actual barrier to making new plants. We would just ship the parts we need from Japan or elsewhere. 600 tons is big, but not so big that we couldn't just throw it on a boat. If anything, a bigger problem would be getting it on site because our rail infrastructure sucks and putting more than a million pounds of steel on a ridiculously huge truck can be done but is a royal pain in the rear end and terrible for the roads.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 09:40

Clarste: Apr 15, 2013; Just how many mistakes have you suffered on the way here?

An uncountable number, to be sure.

Things not being profitable enough to invest is a solved problem. Start subsidizing renewables/nuclear, stop subsidizing beef.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 10:20

His Divine Shadow: Aug 7, 2000; I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do.

Not too shabby, Finland power production, nuclear was up to almost 66% last night and over 60% basically all day. Haven't been following closely lately but our power situation is much improved recently. Next winter will be interesting.

K�rnkraft = nuclear

# ? Jun 22, 2023 12:00

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

QuarkJets posted:

Nuclear exists, grid storage at the scale you're describing does not.

I've always struggled with this notion that grid scale batteries don't exist. Looking back on CAISO's historical peak demand day, 9/6/22, batteries collectively provided more power to the grid than nuclear during the evening crunch.

This example is obviously only during a short window but it's not impossible. If the argument is that we could have built more power generation capacity had we directed what was spent on batteries toward more nuclear plants instead, I could buy that as technically true. Assuming the external risks to such projects (permitting etc) were alleviated.

QuarkJets posted:

E: and I still say it's a false dichotomy, nuclear does not compete with renewables. I just wish people would stop pretending that we are only allowed to build renewables

But if there were unlimited funds available (somehow capitalism stops applying to the power generation sector, something I could also get behind) then it's this 100%.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 13:29

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

spf3million posted:

But if there were unlimited funds available (somehow capitalism stops applying to the power generation sector, something I could also get behind) then it's this 100%.

"Somehow capitalism stops applying" doesn't mean "unlimited funds." Resources are scarce, regardless of what method you use to allocate them.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:17

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Phanatic posted:

"Somehow capitalism stops applying" doesn't mean "unlimited funds." Resources are scarce, regardless of what method you use to allocate them.

We have plenty of capacity in a physical sense to get all of this done fast.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:22

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

cat botherer posted:

We have plenty of capacity in a physical sense to get all of this done fast.

Sure. It's not "physical capacity" that has driven up the cost and time required to build a new nuclear plant. How much of what has is Because Capitalism?

# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:38

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Phanatic posted:

Sure. It's not "physical capacity" that has driven up the cost and time required to build a new nuclear plant. How much of what has is Because Capitalism?

It is possible to build nuke plants much faster than we do now, but it's not profitable. Everything is downstream from physical constraints, but that doesn't mean that all of our economic decisions are informed purely by those constraints. The capital involved in all of our nuclear plants is infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:41

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

cat botherer posted:

It is possible to build nuke plants much faster than we do now, but it's not profitable.

Do you think the reason we don't build nuke plants much faster than we do now is because it's not profitable?

# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:55

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Phanatic posted:

Do you think the reason we don't build nuke plants much faster than we do now is because it's not profitable?

Yes. Profit is a motive for a lot of decisions. We know it's physically possible to build them faster, but would cost more.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 15:57

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

cat botherer posted:

Yes. Profit is a motive for a lot of decisions. We know it's physically possible to build them faster, but would cost more.

Public utilities in Australia seem to have a hard time going with nuclear without the shackles of profit (also don't install Electro-Static Precipitators on gas stacks as required by law for private power station operators so it is not an abundance of caution regarding the environment/people's health either).

Profit is not the biggest thing holding back nuclear, lack of social acceptance of nuclear tech is the single biggest issue, by far and away.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 16:03

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Public utilities in Australia seem to have a hard time going with nuclear without the shackles of profit (also don't install Electro-Static Precipitators on gas stacks as required by law for private power station operators so it is not an abundance of caution regarding the environment/people's health either).

Profit is not the biggest thing holding back nuclear, lack of social acceptance of nuclear tech is the single biggest issue, by far and away.

Public utilities still have pretty strict budgetary constraints even if maximizing profit per se isn't a goal - they must remain solvent. I somewhat agree though. Lack of social acceptance results in less public resources put into nuke power, and also ties up new construction in delays, consultations, litigations, etc.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 16:05

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

cat botherer posted:

Yes. Profit is a motive for a lot of decisions. We know it's physically possible to build them faster, but would cost more.

So, just to be clear, you�re saying that the public opposition to nuclear power, and the fact that many people do not want nuclear power plants built anywhere near them is solely the result of a profit motive, and not an artifact of a democratic political process? Furthermore, your solution to this problem is that if we abandoned the profit motive, that somehow we would be able to completely run roughshod over the over the democratically expressed preferences of such people, and a whole slew of regulations involving site licensing, and environmental impact, could simply be ignored?

# ? Jun 22, 2023 16:20

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Phanatic posted:

So, just to be clear, you�re saying that the public opposition to nuclear power, and the fact that many people do not want nuclear power plants built anywhere near them is solely the result of a profit motive, and not an artifact of a democratic political process? Furthermore, your solution to this problem is that if we abandoned the profit motive, that somehow we would be able to completely run roughshod over the over the democratically expressed preferences of such people, and a whole slew of regulations involving site licensing, and environmental impact, could simply be ignored?

You can�t separate economics from politics. Opposition to nuclear power results in reduced funding, but there are also a myriad of other economic reasons why building plants quickly is hard. In the US, power plants are usually built by private corporations. Expectations of profit are central to their decision making. I�m not sure how this is controversial.

Nuclear power is supported by a majority of people in the US. A vocal minority oppose it, as do fossil fuel interests.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/474650/americans-support-nuclear-energy-highest-decade.aspx

# ? Jun 22, 2023 16:29

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

cat botherer posted:

You can�t separate economics from politics. Opposition to nuclear power results in reduced funding, but there are also a myriad of other economic reasons why building plants quickly is hard. In the US, power plants are usually built by private corporations.

In almost every country, nuclear power plants are typically built by private corporations. The program management and the design bureau might be in a government office, but it's not people drawing a government paycheck who are pouring the concrete, tying the rebar, and rolling the steel. There have been some historically-notable exceptions but I don't think those are particularly anything a wise person would want to emulate.

quote:

Expectations of profit are central to their decision making. I�m not sure how this is controversial.

It isn't. What's controversial is your claim that we can't build plants faster *because* of those expectations of profit.

Moreover, your assertion that there's just all this unused capital sitting around that could simply be reallocated to big nuclear-certified pressure vessels aside, let's ask how long are these plants we can rapidly build once we get rid of capitalism going to sit idle because there aren't people to operate them? How many trained nuclear engineers do we turn out annually? How are you going to bump those numbers up?

quote:

Nuclear power is supported by a majority of people in the US.

Building more housing is supported by a majority of people in the US, and yet somehow most places in desperate need of housing make it as difficult as possible to build any. Hell, a majority of people in Germany support wind power and yet there's still massive local opposition to building out the transmission lines required to move the wind power from the turbines to the people who want to use it.

Nuclear power in the abstract is supported by a majority of people in the US in polls. Revealed preferences, on the other hand, demonstrate that almost nobody in the US wants a nuclear power plant built near them, which is precisely why we've got multiple public comment periods built into the licensing process. And I'm gonna go ahead and say that this opposition has a lot more to do with a number of spectacular high-profile nuclear disasters than with fossil fuel industry propaganda. It wasn't "profit motive" that made Japan close all its plants. It wasn't "profit motive" that made Germany close all its plants. And it's not "profit motive" that explains the political opposition to building nuclear plants that is so visceral that accommodating it is baked into the process.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 17:02

VictualSquid: Feb 29, 2012; Gently enveloping the target with indiscriminate love.

Phanatic posted:

Moreover, your assertion that there's just all this unused capital sitting around that could simply be reallocated to big nuclear-certified pressure vessels aside, let's ask how long are these plants we can rapidly build once we get rid of capitalism going to sit idle because there aren't people to operate them? How many trained nuclear engineers do we turn out annually? How are you going to bump those numbers up?

There is infinite money available if it is for something the government actually wants to do. Because the government can just invest the money they print instead of handing it out for free. Like the military or police or even covid.
The only time you need to penny pinch is when the government is split. Like with healthcare or infrastructure investments.
Moving power generation investments from one pool to the other is only stopped by the lack of political will. For nuclear generations specifically there is the problem that the people who believe in Austerity have historically overlapped with the people who are pro-nuclear, so there is very little support to actually spend money on it.

And training nuclear engineers doesn't take longer then building the plants. If you promise jobs and fund college courses, there will be trained engineers. Similar things have been done, even for dumber reasons.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 17:43

GlassEye-Boy: Jul 12, 2001

it's amusing that people think that public utilities and infrastructure need to be profit generators.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:05

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

VictualSquid posted:

There is infinite money available if it is for something the government actually wants to do. Because the government can just invest the money they print instead of handing it out for free. Like the military or police or even covid.
The only time you need to penny pinch is when the government is split. Like with healthcare or infrastructure investments.
Moving power generation investments from one pool to the other is only stopped by the lack of political will. For nuclear generations specifically there is the problem that the people who believe in Austerity have historically overlapped with the people who are pro-nuclear, so there is very little support to actually spend money on it.

And training nuclear engineers doesn't take longer then building the plants. If you promise jobs and fund college courses, there will be trained engineers. Similar things have been done, even for dumber reasons.

Infinite money doesn't turn on the infinite power button, otherwise we wouldn't need nuclear power in the first place. It turns on the crazy inflation button for the power that was always there.

When we are talking cost, we are talking labour hours, land use, materials, pollution, etc. The estimated USD value of that labour/land/mateirals/polution is a made up number that is immaterial.
It takes more than deciding it is a good idea before the institutional knowledge is there. It is expected to take decades for China to get good at multi carrier ops or for Australia to learn how to operate Nuclear submarines, both with $$$$ budgets being tipped in (~$USD0.3 trillion for Aus I understand) and genuine desire to make happen. China scaled back their nuclear ambitions specifically because they weren't confident they could train and stand up enough regulators with sufficient skills to regulate their original ambition.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:06

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

GlassEye-Boy posted:

it's amusing that people think that public utilities and infrastructure need to be profit generators.

They don't need to be, but that's the usual unfortunate reality - and one that needs to be changed. Fossil fuel generation would never be profitable if generators had to pay for the negative externalities they create.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:13

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

cat botherer posted:

They don't need to be, but that's the usual unfortunate reality - and one that needs to be changed. Fossil fuel generation would never be profitable if generators had to pay for the negative externalities they create.

so what you are saying is that pricing in externalitiies means they wouldn't be profit generators but that's ok because they don't need to be.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:16

VictualSquid: Feb 29, 2012; Gently enveloping the target with indiscriminate love.

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Infinite money doesn't turn on the infinite power button, otherwise we wouldn't need nuclear power in the first place. It turns on the crazy inflation button for the power that was always there.

When we are talking cost, we are talking labour hours, land use, materials, pollution, etc. The estimated USD value of that labour/land/mateirals/polution is a made up number that is immaterial.
It takes more than deciding it is a good idea before the institutional knowledge is there. It is expected to take decades for China to get good at multi carrier ops or for Australia to learn how to operate Nuclear submarines, both with $$$$ budgets being tipped in (~$USD0.3 trillion for Aus I understand) and genuine desire to make happen. China scaled back their nuclear ambitions specifically because they weren't confident they could train and stand up enough regulators with sufficient skills to regulate their original ambition.

It is massively of topic, but why do you think that investing money into power generation will cause massive inflation, while investing the same amount of money into the military, police and banking bailouts does not?
I do think that nuclear plants are currently practically impossible to build in large part because your attitude on government spending is historically more common among pro-nuclear people then anti-nuclear people.

And it sounds like china failed to train sufficient nuclear experts. And now that they presumable have invested additional resources into training they will have such experts in a few years. And if they had invested such resources earlier they would have more experts earlier.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 15:42

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Electric Wrigglies posted:

so what you are saying is that pricing in externalitiies means they wouldn't be profit generators but that's ok because they don't need to be.

I think you're kind of conflating some different things. Fossil fuel plants can be profitable, but only because they don't factor in externalities which are easily in the trillions per year. Renewables and nuclear should get massive capital investment, which would not turn a profit on a company's balance sheet. Profit or lack of profit is something I don't really care about in itself. Decarbonization is what I care about.

# ? Jun 22, 2023 18:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

«‹›348 »