|
Groda posted:That's not really the case, for exactly the same square-cube law you mention. A lot of the safety systems required, and required to be highly redundant and nuclear specific, fall away as the square dominates the cube. I don’t understand how having four safety systems is cheaper than one safety system, though? Or hooking one safety system up to four reactors is cheaper than hooking it up to one?
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
in a well actually posted:I don’t understand how having four safety systems is cheaper than one safety system, though? Or hooking one safety system up to four reactors is cheaper than hooking it up to one? Because not all safety systems are equal. A 1GWe reactor pressure vessel is going to require *vastly* more expensive and intricate safe shutdown mechanical, structural, electrical, instrumentation, and LSS components and infrastructure than SMRs. The complexity and redundancy are on a different scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 07:04
|
|
|
in a well actually posted:I don’t understand how having four safety systems is cheaper than one safety system, though? Or hooking one safety system up to four reactors is cheaper than hooking it up to one? it took me a while to get over this hump for smrs too I know it doesn't make sense at first but keep thinking about it scale does not always work in the direction of bigger = better, or more numerous systems = more numerous critical safety points of failure
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 07:17
|
|
|
Hypothetically, give a knowledgeable person a plasma cutter and a couple of hours and they will bring a gigawatt station to its knees give the same person a plasma cutter and a couple of hours and the most damage they can do to an SMR is cease power production, or cause a very low level radiation leak Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 07:22
|
|
|
like, a genuine meltdown would require a team of people to deliberately drain the module immersion pool while another team of people hacked apart at the vessels' active cooling systems in the right sequence insert adequate time for the pool to drain into the Earth, too
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 07:25
|
|
|
a lot of the rescue efforts around notorious meltdowns were complex because someone somewhere had to figure out how to get water into a complicated pressure vessel with limited access points, often under pressures that are challenging to supply without specialized pumps or existing reactor equipment working any old firefighter department can just run a hose into an SMR pool and gg, even if somehow we got to the point where the immersion pool was maliciously (and somehow invisibly) drained by a saboteur before an accident disabled active cooling systems
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 07:29
|
|
|
I don't think the 200 MW Indian unit is SMR to that degree, the main point for me proposing the smaller ones is that it would ideally not displace rollout of 700 MW units in India and a market like Western Australia would have issues; I think, if there units came in batches of 700 MW - as in two offline would be a big problem whereas two 200 MW units (out of six) offline would be quite easy to plan around. For the Indian market, I assume 700 MW units going offline would be but a small blip on ye olde governors of the other generating units. But good points about how a decrease in size might bring outsize benefits (or that there is a diseconomy of scale for nuclear reactors) to a at least a naive market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 09:46
|
|
|
in a well actually posted:I don’t understand how having four safety systems is cheaper than one safety system, though? Or hooking one safety system up to four reactors is cheaper than hooking it up to one? People are making it sound more intricate than it really is. As the surface/volume fraction goes up, passive heat transfer becomes more dominant over the heat generation. And, from an PWR/BWR core's perspective, as long as it's below the boiling point of its coolant, its fuel is practically incapable of being damaged by overheating. Also, certain water volumes in the primary system can't be scaled down proportionately, meaning that they will dominate transient heat production even more. Now, I've had a few compost fires in my day, but those compost piles were >1 m³. My kitchen compost bucket never catches fire. If there were compost cooling systems for sale, I wouldn't be installing a 1:200 scale system for my kitchen compost bucket -- I'd just not need it. Now, an 870 MW BWRX-300, for example, won't manage all of its cooling needs passively, but its need for multi-pressure emergency core cooling won't just be proportionally scaled Electric Wrigglies posted:I don't think the 200 MW Indian unit is SMR to that degree,
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 10:05
|
|
|
yea as of the total implosion of nuscale its officially time to start considering anyone talking about smr's kindof a schmuck
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 14:39
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:yea as of the total implosion of nuscale its officially time to start considering anyone talking about smr's kindof a schmuck Or at least getting wound up in buzz words. For India, at least some of the supposed benefits of SMR are being realised through fleet building anyway. Slowly and surely assemble a whole infrastructure and institutional knowledge around siting, planning, fabricating and constructing 700 MW units. I am sure they expect that whole infrastructure to be building out for 40 years or more. Young engineers will go to school, learn 700 MW units, get a job with the mob that does these things and retire having never worked on anything else - leaving their job to their family.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
Isn’t that the model that France used successfully?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:yea as of the total implosion of nuscale its officially time to start considering anyone talking about smr's kindof a schmuck What does this mean? I don't think a company imploding has anything to do with the soundness of the technology. Can you specify who is being a schmuck?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 17:42
|
|
|
After Berlin-Brandenburg anyone talking about airports is a schmuck
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:yea as of the total implosion of nuscale its officially time to start considering anyone talking about smr's kindof a schmuck Ok? It's an indictment of the "modular" part of the acronym. They were selling a PWR/SG/containment that could be serially produced and delivered in a significantly pre-assembled state. Which seems to only be done at a reactor size slightly above that everybody else in this SMR discussion is pitching for the application of remote mining sites / military bases (but without the cycle lengths / infrastructure independence that they're claiming). It's a long-term improvement that this SMR push did inspire a number of designs that genuinely take advantage of nuclear design experience to simplify designs in the 100-500 MWe range, based on the physical consequences of their size and the use of more passive cooling / pressure relief methods. And to minimize the number of nuclear-grade systems, structures and components required from the very beginning of the design phase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 10:47
|
|
|
Some news I didn't expect to read now lol:quote:Exclusive: Ukraine to start building 4 new nuclear reactors this year Extremely blessed move. Maybe we could get some weapons-grade material out of it, as a treat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:48
|
|
|
Isn't this sort of a bad time to do that? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 12:01
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Some news I didn't expect to read now lol: The primary driver will be power of course, Ukraine is looking to be energy poor after this conflict (coal rich regions are to the East and coal should be avoided anyway) but I wonder if part of it is to cut Russia's grass on selling nuclear abroad? Ukraine has the technical knowhow to construct these things, probably near as well as the Russians. The Chinese and Indians are flat out supplying themselves with powerstations and Western nations such as the US/France/UK etc do not really have the knowhow to bust these things out (for now, France might re-learn it) so Russia was shaping up to be the biggest provider (alongside S. Korea?) of nuclear power stations outside China and India. Ukraine might take a big chunk of that market as being more socially acceptable. eightysixed posted:Isn't this sort of a bad time to do that? It still takes 5-10 years to build these things, you can't put all your planning for the future on hold until after the conflict when the conflict is going to take several years if not a decade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 12:11
|
|
|
That's a fair point 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 12:16
|
|
|
eightysixed posted:Isn't this sort of a bad time to do that? They're adding the reactors at existing plants so I doubt it'll make any difference w.r.t. russia's fuckery anyway. Electric Wrigglies posted:The primary driver will be power of course, Ukraine is looking to be energy poor after this conflict (coal rich regions are to the East and coal should be avoided anyway) but I wonder if part of it is to cut Russia's grass on selling nuclear abroad? Ukraine has the technical knowhow to construct these things, probably near as well as the Russians. The Chinese and Indians are flat out supplying themselves with powerstations and Western nations such as the US/France/UK etc do not really have the knowhow to bust these things out (for now, France might re-learn it) so Russia was shaping up to be the biggest provider (alongside S. Korea?) of nuclear power stations outside China and India.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 12:17
|
|
|
Also Ukraine NEEDS energy because some plans for new manufacturing plants are sucking up available power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
I don't see Ukraine building anything nuclear any time soon. They need money for that. In other news.. quote:US pauses decisions on LNG export terminals
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:I don't see Ukraine building anything nuclear any time soon. They need money for that. Huh? quote:All four reactors will be built at the Khmelnytskyi nuclear power plant in the west of Ukraine, Galushchenko added. Literally this year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Huh? Yeah...I said I don't see it happening. Regardless of what Galushchenko said. They haven't bought anything yet, either from Bulgaria or Westinghouse. Neither have they passed any legislation on it. Last time they tried with KEPCO to finish 3 and 4, they went nowhere too. I'm not optimistic. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jan 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 21:51
|
|
|
In other news, NJ is back. New Jersey resuscitates offshore wind with two new projects https://electrek.co/2024/01/25/new-jersey-resuscitates-offshore-wind-with-two-new-projects/  quote:Ørsted dealt New Jersey a massive blow by canceling 2.2 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind last year, but the state just added 3.7 GW of new projects to its pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 10:58
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:In other news, NJ is back. Being offshore, it should have great capacity factor compared to onshore wind so that 2.4 GW will be more than it looks on first blush. However, completion slated for 8 years from now on a large project with the expected cost and time over-runs, I foresee that it is not going to be too different in how technical issues cruel a lot of the large projects being done as a one off (ie all of the recent nuclear projects in Western nations). I assume NJ has access to large hydro generation to provide the dispatchability that will really partner well with the offshore wind?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:36
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Being offshore, it should have great capacity factor compared to onshore wind so that 2.4 GW will be more than it looks on first blush. That’s what the Niagara is for, yeah. That’s the magic of grids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 16:03
|
|
|
No, it has to be in NJ. What if New York or Pennsylvania leave the union?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:No, it has to be in NJ. What if New York or Pennsylvania leave the union? Well, in that case take a look at my crayon sketches for a TVA-BAMA hvdc connector (the B is for Baltimore in this cyberpunk scenario)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
Crossposting Leon's post from USCE:Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The IRA included incetives for nuclear power and money for research into modular nuclear reactors, but didn't include anything for restarting or constructing new nuclear reactors. Didn't seem anyone was talking about it here, good news, and more reasons to hope Biden gets 4 more years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
Four years of what? Life? Poor dude can’t even put sentences together anymore 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 10:43
|
|
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/02/04/solar-power-in-kansas/71920670007/quote:The land owned by the Knoche family is just one spot in a statewide fight in Kansas, which has both the nation’s fourth best wind resources and, as solar power technology has become more efficient, strong solar as well: the same sunlight that drives photosynthesis in large-scale crops like corn can generate energy in solar panels. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/02/04/us-counties-ban-renewable-energy-plants/71841063007/ quote:A nationwide analysis by USA TODAY shows local governments are banning green energy faster than they’re building it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
You left out the best part:quote:Opponents decried what they call industrial wind and solar and said the installations have no place in an idyllic landscape of corn, wheat, soybeans and cattle. Old rurals workin' real hard to justify the stereotypes right there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 22:48
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
golden bubble posted:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/02/04/us-counties-ban-renewable-energy-plants/71841063007/ A very disappointing article where they do enough research to find all the indications that a whole heap of the local ordinances are the product of front groups and concerted campaigns, and then they don't connect the dots, at all. Gosh, people at meetings across the country are participating in opaquely funded opposition groups with closed planning meetings, show up using the same talking points and new terminology? How could this be happening?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 23:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A very disappointing article where they do enough research to find all the indications that a whole heap of the local ordinances are the product of front groups and concerted campaigns, and then they don't connect the dots, at all. Gosh, people at meetings across the country are participating in opaquely funded opposition groups with closed planning meetings, show up using the same talking points and new terminology? How could this be happening?! Eh, energy generation is very far from putting food on the plate (or being a car park spot for the family car) so it is easy to organise against. This is not new. Nuclear in the 80's because of the hundreds of hectares of land it takes and the hundreds of tonnes of waste that needs to be buried, hydro dams ahead of that, solar and wind after and coal throughout. Additionally, like mines/dam developments/etc, companies struggle to get their consultation and community engagement right. Local stakeholders are always the first priority and it seems only now green movements have an issue with them now that it impacts their dreams.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
in German, but tl;dr: Czech government halts tender to build nuclear reactor because they're going to re-tender for 4 reactors instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 10:22
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:in German, but tl;dr:  that should be enough to replace all the coal plant capacity
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 11:14
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Local stakeholders are always the first priority and it seems only now green movements have an issue with them now that it impacts their dreams. Is it really meaningful to talk of a US ‘green movement’ as a thing distinct from oil industry lobbyists? Opposing alternatives to oil, gas and coal is where the money is, and the movement has never been organised or independent enough to go against that incentive. You can’t do studies, write reports or show up as a talking head on news media unless someone is paying your salary. And the energy industry is pretty much always that someone. It’s only actually governments, and to a lesser extent large non-energy corporations, that are an even attempting to do anything about carbon emissions. And that’s for self-interested technocratic reasons that will always wilt in the face of sufficient popular opposition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 11:46
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Eh, energy generation is very far from putting food on the plate (or being a car park spot for the family car) so it is easy to organise against. This is not new. Nuclear in the 80's because of the hundreds of hectares of land it takes and the hundreds of tonnes of waste that needs to be buried, hydro dams ahead of that, solar and wind after and coal throughout. Additionally, like mines/dam developments/etc, companies struggle to get their consultation and community engagement right. Local stakeholders are always the first priority and it seems only now green movements have an issue with them now that it impacts their dreams. Except he’s absolutely right and if these guys had done the slightest bit of homework they would have discovered this has been happening since at least 2012 and seems to be a concentrated effort by anti wind and solar money (probably the Kochs at least, likely others as well, all tied to oil and coal) to push for these onerous restrictions at rural county level government. They’ve been quite successful at seeding fear and doubt among an already prone to conspiratorial thinking rural populace who are convinced wind and solar are going to poison their land and drive their cows crazy and other batshit bullshit (windmill cancer?!)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 10:40
|
|
|
Yes, "windmill cancer" is a thing that certain interest groups have been pushing. What's supposedly causing the cancer is infrasound and electromagnetic radiation. You can read about all the fun propaganda talking points the coal & gas industry has been coming up with here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_syndrome And that's just the health related claims. There are vast numbers of other insane claims like them eradicating bird populations, changing the weather, leading to blackouts or not being deployable in large numbers, their shadows disturbing wildlife, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 10:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
Oracle posted:Except he’s absolutely right and if these guys had done the slightest bit of homework they would have discovered this has been happening since at least 2012 and seems to be a concentrated effort by anti wind and solar money (probably the Kochs at least, likely others as well, all tied to oil and coal) to push for these onerous restrictions at rural county level government. They’ve been quite successful at seeding fear and doubt among an already prone to conspiratorial thinking rural populace who are convinced wind and solar are going to poison their land and drive their cows crazy and other batshit bullshit (windmill cancer?!) Outside agendas whispering into the ears of local stakesholders is not new or something invented by the dickhead Koch Bros (Greenpeace are gurus at it). It is part of the scene and just another thing that has to be factored into project development costs. This doesn't mean that local stakeholders are in the wrong for pushing for consultation like with any project, a lot of the time they didn't know they can agitate to not have to stare at a great big windmill from the kitchen they were raised in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 14:07
|
|