|
Trabisnikof posted:Uh, 18-20 months delayed and potentially $1.4B in overruns on top of a $6B project might be good for nuclear but it isn't that great for other infrastructure or energy projects. Compare that to basically any other major infrastructure project in Europe or North America. If the cost overrun is less than 100% it's reasonable, if it's less than 50% it's good.
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 22:22
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
blowfish posted:Compare that to basically any other major infrastructure project in Europe or North America. If the cost overrun is less than 100% it's reasonable, if it's less than 50% it's good. Maybe that's true that Vogtle's overruns and delays would be normal for a "major infrastructure project" but it isn't normal when compared to other electricity generating projects we're still building.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Maybe that's true that Vogtle's overruns and delays would be normal for a "major infrastructure project" but it isn't normal when compared to other electricity generating projects we're still building. Didn't you start down this path in response to mention of how massively overbudget the Kemper project has become? GOTO 10
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Didn't you start down this path in response to mention of how massively overbudget the Kemper project has become? Because someone pointed out how Vogtle was less over-cost and less behind schedule. I pointed out that beating a plant that was being designed as it was built isn't exactly something to brag about. Then the defense shifted to "actually those cost overruns and delays are good compared to the Boston big dig." (Note: hyperbole) I am honestly not happy that the AP1000 didn't live up to the promises of lower costs and faster construction, but at this point, I'm not surprised. But seriously, if Kemper is the bar for success then Solyndra would still be in business.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because someone pointed out how Vogtle was less over-cost and less behind schedule. I pointed out that beating a plant that was being designed as it was built isn't exactly something to brag about. If it's not on an assembly line, it's being designed as it's being built. There are always revisions and redlines to make and incorporate for all the things you find out in a major construction project that don't match up between the map and the territory. If that gets Kemper off the hook, it should apply to Vogtle as well. If, on the other hand, Vogtle is to be saddled with its poor estimations and overruns, then so should Kemper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:If it's not on an assembly line, it's being designed as it's being built. There are always revisions and redlines to make and incorporate for all the things you find out in a major construction project that don't match up between the map and the territory. If that gets Kemper off the hook, it should apply to Vogtle as well. If, on the other hand, Vogtle is to be saddled with its poor estimations and overruns, then so should Kemper. My bad, I was being imprecise. Kemper is a one-off proof of concept of a technology that has never been applied at scale, while the specific design of Vogtle (AP1000) was supposed to be less likely to have cost overruns and delays.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:My bad, I was being imprecise. Kemper is a one-off proof of concept of a technology that has never been applied at scale, while the specific design of Vogtle (AP1000) was supposed to be less likely to have cost overruns and delays. And it has significantly less cost overruns and delays than other similar plants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
The biggest travesty with that whole "clean coal" project is that a 65% reduction in emissions for a process that is very dirty to begin with is considered "clean". Between that and its cost only getting 1/4 of what a nuclear plant does it seems pretty clear these set ups are not the solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:The biggest travesty with that whole "clean coal" project is that a 65% reduction in emissions for a process that is very dirty to begin with is considered "clean". And it's even worse than that, because they're going to be burning lignite, which is about as puissant a fuel as damp gym socks. In other words, the clean coal tech isn't really being used to improve an existing process, it's being used to allow them to burn a shittier grade of coal than most plants here burn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
It's not about cost-effective power. This was about meeting criteria for grants on paper then keeping the charade of good faith up long enough to collect enough disbursements to make the farce worthwhile. If the plant goes live, then hey, expensive power bills for a facility paid for by taxpayers are just gravy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:And it's even worse than that, because they're going to be burning lignite, which is about as puissant a fuel as damp gym socks. In other words, the clean coal tech isn't really being used to improve an existing process, it's being used to allow them to burn a shittier grade of coal than most plants here burn. Yeah "clean coal" should at the very least be required to be anthracite-only for the fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah "clean coal" should at the very least be required to be anthracite-only for the fuel. Well, absolutely nobody could use it then. There's hardly any anthracite left in the US, most was mined out in northeast PA and they're not digging any more of that out there considering all the population growth that's taken place. Lignite is really lovely. Sure, the US burns some, but the entire US mines about 70 million tons per year, compared to almost 200 in Germany. I'd hope that while they're "cleaning" the combustion they're scrubbing out all the other poo poo, but even if they are that still means they've got to be mining a lot more lignite than it they were burning bituminous; its energy content really, really sucks compared to bituminous. It sucks a high hard one compared to natural gas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Well, absolutely nobody could use it then. There's hardly any anthracite left in the US, most was mined out in northeast PA and they're not digging any more of that out there considering all the population growth that's taken place. I'm not seeing the problem. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Vacuum-magnetic-suspension flywheels continue to win prizes for most environmentally safe and coolest form of power storage. How big have those gotten and how many megajoules can they store? Like I was saying about synchronous condensers if they can respond fast enough they might be a great way to provide additional grid stability and power quality (including stuff like absorbing extra energy during swells and discharging it during sags). You could do analysis of power systems in a computer and install that equipment where it would provide the most benefit. You would need to run them below 100% capacity of you wanted to be able to help absorb swells. In Cleveland there have been some areas recently hit with bad swells that damaged electronics in people's homes and they are PISSED at First Energy something awful. Three-Phase fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Jul 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Well, absolutely nobody could use it then. There's hardly any anthracite left in the US, most was mined out in northeast PA and they're not digging any more of that out there considering all the population growth that's taken place. And possibly is still on fire depending on what kind of coal is at Centralia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:And possibly is still on fire depending on what kind of coal is at Centralia. That's anthracite. Centralia gets all the press but there are a whole bunch of mine fires still going in NEPA. I went to school in Wilkes-Barre and there are places in the township where you can see smoke coming from the ground from the Laurel Run mine fire, which has been burning since 1915 and given up on in 1973, although it no longer endangers the town. That one started when a lamp left hanging from a support post set it on fire. http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Mining/Abandoned%20Mine%20Reclamation/AbandonedMinePortalFiles/Centralia/PAFireLocationMap.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah but the coal plant is a pilot project which is always a big money sink. Vogtle is not. ... why not? Even if you managed to cut the cost of Kemper in half (lol good luck), you're still nowhere close to the cost efficiency of these new nuclear facilities. And you're still polluting way more than a nuclear plant in the process. These observations lead to the conclusion that everyone already knew all along: clean coal is a dead end if you're trying to cut carbon emissions in a cost effective way. Trabisnikof posted:My bad, I was being imprecise. Kemper is a one-off proof of concept of a technology that has never been applied at scale, while the specific design of Vogtle (AP1000) was supposed to be less likely to have cost overruns and delays. What does "applied at scale" even mean in this context? If we built 20 facilities identical to Kemper, do you believe that the cost/GW would decrease by an order of magnitude? Has any power plant design in history ever achieved that kind of cost reduction over time without some kind of fuel price crash? You're also mischaracterizing the history of clean coal; we've been building clean coal proof-of-concept facilities since the 80s. Don't try to paint Kemper like it's some kind of research facility What in the world would compel you to defend a power source that is both more expensive and more polluting than nearly all of the alternatives? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Jul 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:What in the world would compel you to defend a power source that is both more expensive and more polluting than nearly all of the alternatives? "not arguing in good faith" is a starting point. As far as the AP1000 plants go, yes they're supposed to be a cookie-cutter design and therefore more efficient, but America has been so lax in building new nuke plants that there really are no efficiency gains from repetition/experience for any part of the manufacturing or construction process. It's about as new and unique to American manufacturing and construction as Kemper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:... why not? Even if you managed to cut the cost of Kemper in half (lol good luck), you're still nowhere close to the cost efficiency of these new nuclear facilities. And you're still polluting way more than a nuclear plant in the process. These observations lead to the conclusion that everyone already knew all along: clean coal is a dead end if you're trying to cut carbon emissions in a cost effective way. You're mistaking me saying "bragging about smelling better than poo poo isn't much to brag about" with me being pro-poo poo. Kemper is nothing more than a pork barrel money hole, being less delayed and less overrun than a dumb idea designed to milk federal funds isn't a crowning achievement for Vogtle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're mistaking me saying "bragging about smelling better than poo poo isn't much to brag about" with me being pro-poo poo. Oh I'm sorry, the rest of us were laughing at clean coal for being lovely and when you jumped in with "but but but nuclear has cost overruns too" I naturally assumed that you were defending clean coal. Silly me The point of all of this is that nuclear is a superior proposition to "clean" coal from both a cost and environmental perspective. If we agree then there's really nothing more to say.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
I for one am in favor of building exactly one (1) clean coal plant just so we can see how stupid the concept is in reality and put it to rest. Shame they had to saddle one of the poorest states in the country with it, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
California is building a 100MW li-ion battery storage plant to replace a gas fired peaker. It'll use 18,000 battery packs the size of the Nissan Leaf's which as far as I can tell is about 3.5 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Between projects like this and expansion of the electric car market batteries are going to see some significant price decreases in the coming years just to economies of scale - provided lithium mining can keep up. Between that and falling solar/wind costs it'll be pretty interesting to see where renewables+storage costs will end up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Anos posted:California is building a 100MW li-ion battery storage plant to replace a gas fired peaker. It'll use 18,000 battery packs the size of the Nissan Leaf's which as far as I can tell is about 3.5 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Between projects like this and expansion of the electric car market batteries are going to see some significant price decreases in the coming years just to economies of scale - provided lithium mining can keep up. Between that and falling solar/wind costs it'll be pretty interesting to see where renewables+storage costs will end up. This is pretty exciting, though disappointing that it will take 5 years for them to build it. I know infrastructure moves on a pretty slow timeline in general but that seems a little slow for a relatively proven technology (just not at that scale) and the rather dire need for these things like yesterday. Though with the amount of lithium required, mass-manufacturable, cheap graphene ultracapactors are the thing we need yesterday more than anything
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Vacuum-magnetic-suspension flywheels continue to win prizes for most environmentally safe and coolest form of power storage. Do I even want to know how many tons and RPMs we're talking here? e: I see this has been covered a couple pages back. aphid_licker fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jul 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Do I even want to know how many tons and RPMs we're talking here? If it can't level a building, it's not enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
I'm envisioning something that will blast through the Rockies on its way out of the solar system Could you mess with the earth's rotation with a sufficiently large flywheel? I know literally nothing about physics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:I'm envisioning something that will blast through the Rockies on its way out of the solar system Yes but you would need a flywheel on a planetary scale. Or, to put it another way, a planet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes but you would need a flywheel on a planetary scale. With large dams, there is a measurable effect on the rotation of thr earth, granted its very small. I cannot imagine a massive flywheel wouldn't also have an effect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
What if you had flywheel made out of weed, and it spun into the sun?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:What if you had flywheel made out of weed, and it spun into the sun? The sun will once again rise high in the sky 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
What about material costs for the acres of solar panels? And which solar panels are in use for these solar concentration projects? I have a background in condensed matter and we hopped on the graphene bandwagon in ~2008 or so trying to find cheap (material wise) solutions to solar cell devices but they, naturally, fell short. Some construction methods utilizing, for example, Indium Tin Oxide electrodes worry me if they are to be used in massive quantities. The massive implementation of solar panels has its issues as laid out in the previous few pages, but what of the raw material cost? Are new mining operations going to be necessary for this? What is the ecological and carbon cost of opening new mines and transporting these materials? What about maintenance and replacement for these massive projects? None of this free, yet, in comparison with nuclear (also a big project, of course, but much higher energy density) I just don't see the upshot. Strategic deployment here and there (houses, the Agua Caliente site) is reasonable, but coating large swathes of land in solar panels is not. If anyone has some material cost information (I might run through this myself) or an actual example calculation of this I'd like to see it. Some time ago I saw a dubious one from some silicon valley "social entrepreneur" (I think), but I cannot find it again to link here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
I did a Google search on polysilicon price and found a couple of articles saying that solar grade polysilicon costs 10-20$ per kg. I think that you are focusing on the wrong thing by worrying about the raw material cost and mining impact. First off, I don't think that ITO is used in silicon cells, the most popular type of solar cell. ITO is really only necessary for solar cells made with junk optical material which has very short non-radiative minority carrier diffusion lengths. Silicon comes from sand, which is cheap, plentiful, and not hard to find. The relatively expensive thing about silicon for solar cells is the necessary purification of the silicon. Even so, I have been told that the solar cell manufacturing cost is not the dominant cost of solar electricity--most of the cost is in the rest of the system. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Acres and acres of concrete and steel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
The issue in getting a quick answer for the impact of resource consumption for power two-fold, one there aren't many life-cycle analysis reports that aren't climate only. So that narrows the field on the depth and quality of analysis (fewer papers capture fewer nuances) along with reducing the comparability between studies (lacking standards for LCA outside of carbon). It's a still evolving field. The second issue is in trying to predict the future impact of demand on resource extraction. The boom/bust cycle is real and likewise changes in consumption can swing wildly. So trying to determine the future different number of mines for different resources is really hard to get right when a technology or regulation change could swing demand or supply in either direction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
What's in the inverters? Do they use any precious, or at least pretty valuable materials like copper by necessity? Of course, if we were as enlightened as Captain Soylent, we wouldn't even need inverters for our filthy barbaric monkey-kitchens: http://robrhinehart.com/?p=1331
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:What's in the inverters? Do they use any precious, or at least pretty valuable materials like copper by necessity? Does he really say that he gets new clothes made for him instead of washing them and donates the old ones to charity because of how much he loves the environment?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Does he really say that he gets new clothes made for him instead of washing them and donates the old ones to charity because of how much he loves the environment? It really is one of the most magically silicon valley things ever written for a guy that doesn't even live in silicon valley  I mean, reminder: this is the guy who made Soylent
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Holy loving poo poo that's an entire article of the sentence, "I hate being inefficient, so I pay to externalize my inefficiency and that makes me feel much better." repeated ad nauseum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Every time I have wild fantasies about ~getting off the grid~ because I have solar panels now I rein in my enthusiasm by remembering this article, basically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
Sinestro posted:Does he really say that he gets new clothes made for him instead of washing them and donates the old ones to charity because of how much he loves the environment? He's the kind of guy who describes a normal kitchen as "a room of fire and sharp objects", so yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 01:09
|
|