The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

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

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Discendo Vox posted:

I'm trying to see the downsides of a federal heavy investment into modular liquid fluoride thorium reactors, and I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

Aside from the fact that LFTRs don't exist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages

# ¿ Aug 24, 2019 23:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 8, 2024 07:11

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

A couple of months ago I read a pretty extensive report from OECD on the matter (moving marine transport away from fossil fuels). It provides an overview of all the challenges needed to achieve this by 2035. You can check it out here.

It is possible to do this, but will require a huge global effort (not surprising).

Comrade Blyatlov posted:

That will never, ever happen.
And if by some miracle the technical hurdles were overcome, actually I can't even finish that thought.

Here is the list of shipwrecks that happened last year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shipwrecks_in_2018

Now imagine a good chunk of them actually having nuclear reactors.

Here is the part about Nuclear from the report I linked above.

quote:

Nuclear propulsion

Nuclear propulsion of ships has been used since 1955 mostly for military and submarine purposes. Despite a small number of commercial vessels being built since, the technology has not progressed beyond usage in the military or for ice-breakers (mostly Russian icebreaker classes). �Savannah�, a nuclear propelled containership operated in the U.S. 1970 to 1977. One ore carrier and one cargo ship operated in Germany and Japan but were decommissioned in 1982 and 1995 (Hirdaris et al., 2014).

Nuclear ship propulsion during operation emits no CO2, NOX, SOX, or particulate emissions. Another advantage of nuclear power is that it enables the vessel to run for long periods of time without the need to refuel, which increases its autonomy and removes exposure to fuel price fluctuations. There are however significant environmental and health risks. The use of radioactive fuel poses risks such as environmental hazards and challenges including safe storage for spent nuclear fuel and decommissioned on-board power plants. This means that the conventional methods of design, planning, building and operation of merchant ships would need complete overhaul, since for a nuclear propelled ship the process would be dominated by a safety rather than an efficiency case. Main difficulties stem from design execution and planning, operation, training of crews and shore staff, nuclear regulation, security, public perception, disposal, etc. Operating nuclear propelled vessels requires stringent crew selection, education and training regimes. This would require an up-to-date and sensitive regulatory framework on an international level. E.g. the IMO Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships, Resolution A.491(XII) would need to be updated for current use of nuclear technology in shipping (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2013). A range of other regulatory issues, such as safety, insurance, damage compensation, etc. remain despite international nuclear liability conventions in place.This also relates to the fundamental issue of nuclear propulsion: a majority of countries would not allow these vessels to enter their ports unless a multilateral treaty covers this case. It is hence likely that international nuclear fuelled shipping would need to start on a bilateral level based on a specific treaty.

The cost of uranium has been relatively cheap in comparison to conventional marine fuels. Operation costs however have been excessively high in former commercial trials so that the ships were finally decommissioned. With the building, operation, maintenance of the ship and decommissioning of used fuel being sensitive features, complex safety analysis and compliance are principal factors driving up the cost of the technology. Moreover, financing this technology implies that the initial cost of the on-board plant is paid up front (including the nuclear fuel).

While no broad uptake is expected for nuclear fuels in the short-term, some safer and less risky nuclear fuels could be considered for propulsion in the long run. So-called molten salt reactors fuelled with thorium are one option. Thorium reactors are considered safer and have a lower proliferation risk than traditional naval reactors fuelled with highly enriched uranium, although commercial use would require considerable R&D investment (World Nuclear Association, 2017). Thorium-based reactors, depending on their configuration, may only produce some 3% of the high level waste developed by current nuclear reactors (Royal Academy on Engineering, 2013). However, there is a lack of clear drivers and economic incentives to the deployment of thorium fuels and only a few industrial projects are being considered in this direction. Such projects face a very high capital cost and very little public support. The prospects for industrial use before 2050 are therefore relatively limited (OECD, 2015). While there has been almost no public investment in this domain since the 1970s, interest from governments and researchers is slowly rising again. In late 2017, the Chinese government has decided to spend USD 3.3 billion on two prototype molten salt nuclear reactors, which will be developed for use in aircraft carriers, drones and military aircrafts, as well as a potential commercial use in the future (Chen, 2017).

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Aug 25, 2019

# ¿ Aug 25, 2019 13:34

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Nevvy Z posted:

I'm confused as to why cheap shipping is important? Given the whole climate emergency this seems like an unlikely thing end up having and a low as gently caress priority.

The fact that we do have a climate emergency means that our assets have to be used in the most cost-effective way possible to provide the maximum intended result in the shortest timeframe.

To give a very simplistic example. Shipping right now is responsible for around 3% of global CO2 emissions.
You may need a trillion dollars to convert the fleet to ammonia propulsion over the course of a decade, and make said ammonia carbon neutral in production inside two decades.
You may need three trillion dollars to convert half the fleet to LFTR based nuclear propulsion over the course of two decades.

Which one will you choose?

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Aug 25, 2019

# ¿ Aug 25, 2019 16:37

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

CommieGIR posted:

I do admit: I'd like to see what supplementing the engine with sails would do for a modern ship with proper rigging. I don't know how well it would work, since most modern ships are built around the ability to sail in a straight direction with minimal drift, versus sailing ships of old.

The study I linked above talks about this. Take a look at skysails (kites) and rotorsails (Flettner rotors) for example.

There are also some other projects under development.

# ¿ Aug 25, 2019 20:39

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Maybe there's some airplane treadmill thing I'm missing here, but why not put rotating wind turbines on cargo ships to power electric motors? Sails seem more efficient in ideal circumstances, but that would work regardless of wind direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill_ship

something different but closer to wide implementation is the following

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship

# ¿ Aug 26, 2019 00:56

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

HLW management is very doable, even if we do scale up considerably. From standard fare geological repositories to deep borehole disposal to subduction zone disposal etc. Or even, transmutation or re-use.

The main problem for scaling up has to do with cost and desirability. I am a proponent of nuclear power, but at this point - and given the ridiculous advances in technology and efficiency that renewables have seen the last decade, as well as the rate they are still accelerating at - it might be cheaper AND faster to attack this without building new plants (and letting outstanding nuclear and gas plants in use until the base load problem is solved).

If your cosmo-theory is that the only way to survive this is to build nuclear plants on a massive scale, I really hope that you will be proven wrong.
Because its not happening anyway, and if you are right we are going to die.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2019 19:11

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

The extremely ironic part though is that if humanity persisted with peaceful nuclear tech in the 70s and 80s, we wouldn't even been having this discussion now.

Nevvy Z posted:

This is a self fulfilling prophecy that is murdering the planet

Sure. And it is true as toast still.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2019 19:17

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Nevvy Z posted:

If someone else wises up and supports nuclear Bernie might stop being the best candidate. I know that's not what you want, but maybe it's bad to just declare that nothing can change so everyone should stop having ideas.

There are a lot of candidates that support nuclear. Here is a matrix.

Yang in particular wants thorium.

Andrew Yang Wants Thorium Nuclear Power. Here's What That Means.

quote:

Yang suggests in his plan that he would heavily promote thorium research in America, promising that part of "$50 billion in research and development" would go toward thorium-based molten salt reactors, and on top of that, he would engage in a public relations campaign to update the reputation of nuclear reactors.

I guess, if one really believes that another candidate is going to move with the urgency and force that is needed on this matter, it would be logical to vote for him, instead of Bernie and his nationalization/command economy 16Tr for the environment.

Oh...and if said pro-nuclear candidate doesn't really try hard to do what he is saying now, we die. Same goes for everyone else of course, Bernie included.

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Aug 28, 2019

# ¿ Aug 28, 2019 18:18

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

I think it is bad (and ancient at that) opinions. Sanders was anti-nuclear when the anti-nuclear movement came out in the 60's (see WSP). Partly because then it was inextricably linked with nuclear weapons and the cold war.

As almost everything else about him, he is remarkably consistent. On this one though (as well as the subject of GMOs) he is unremarkably wrong.

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Aug 28, 2019

# ¿ Aug 28, 2019 19:37

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Separately, one thing I haven't heard any discussion of with regards to renewables is the issue of overcapacity and diminishing returns.

SInce you have to build more renewables to cover for the intermittent nature of the power, each new unit installed yields less of a return due to it being used less overall. At a certain market penetration the rate of return essentially drops to zero. How do you overcome that economic barrier to reach 100% renewable? Now if we are talking 60% renewable 40 % nuclear it makes sense to me. otherwise it just seems to ignore some fundamental economics of the situation.

To solve this you need a system that utilizes the a-priori needed overcapacity to overcome intermittence. For example (to tie this with a previous discussion), when your grid outputs a lot more than you need, you can power an energy-to-ammonia production base to store and use energy at night/when production is low, while at the same time solving both the fertilizer and marine propulsion problems.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2019 07:38

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

suck my woke dick posted:

China is building regular reactors in numbers that aren't a complete joke. Rumours of the demise of the Chinese nuclear expansion have been greatly exaggerated, they just waited until at least one unit of all the GenIII reactor types in build got finished before deciding on which ones to expand further.

WRT China, you can view this process as the same approach they had with high-speed rail. Start by shopping around, then move to ToT deals, improve the design while removing intellectual property right-limited components at the same time, test it thoroughly, bring it to market and THEN use it to furiously expand.

Right now, they are at the phase of completing their GenIII merged design, and are waiting for this.

If the design proves successful, they are going into overdrive with them (both in China and as exports).

# ¿ Aug 29, 2019 10:52

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

StabbinHobo posted:

no you're not. you're sandbagging the one viable option with concern trolling and making perfect the enemy of good.

I think that you are misunderstanding something. Critisizing Sanders for some of his policy ideas does not mean that he is magically cancelled because of them.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2019 14:40

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Phanatic posted:

Meanwhile, local communities and environmentalist have successfully blocked the building of transmission lines from the windy north to the industrial south.

why?

# ¿ Sep 8, 2019 19:17

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Pander posted:

I'm pretty down on most ocean-based power generation. Material science isn't magic, and the ocean is a very harsh environment to build, operate, and maintain equipment on. There are good arguments for offshore wind (better resource availability, bigger turbines, preserves arable land, typically nearer to population centers than deserts/hills), but boy its expensive to build and maintain em, and the increasing frequency and intensity of storms doesn't bode well.

Similar environmental problems exist for wave generation techs, but also minus several key upsides of wind power. Like, it's just fundamentally more difficult to build a means to capture very variable ocean waves (they can quickly change direction, wavelength, height, frequency, etc). Wind is also relatively uniform over a cross-sectional area, while waves can vary based on wavelengths measured in dozens of feet. Meaning, your wave-catching device can't be too big or else it may fight against itself as different waves hit at different times over the same device.

I've seen other ocean techs too, like some that propose using temperature gradients between water depths in a large water column to fuel circulation loops that can push turbines. I just doubt that most of these techs could ever generate enough power to overcome their lengthy list of drawbacks.

Another one that may have some upside (but cannot really be used everywhere) is tidal power generation. Two large barrages exist in South Korea and France (254 and 240MW capacity respectively), and another one is coming online in England (Meygen, ~400MW).

Some of the proposals are bonkers btw, like the Severn barrage (8.6GW) and the Penzhin plant (87GW).

It's not only barrages though. Some of the technologies under consideration now are DTP (essentially large dams going out to sea) or even artificial reservoirs with circular walls (tidal lagoons).

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Sep 9, 2019

# ¿ Sep 9, 2019 20:55

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

GABA ghoul posted:

Also, holy poo poo, after Fukushima polls were 80% in favour of the nuclear phase out. 8% opposed. I don't even remember it being so extreme

That was pretty much expected, judging from what exactly happened to Fukushima (as well as the two+ hundreds of billions of dollars that will be spent over the next 4 decades to deal with what happened).

# ¿ Sep 9, 2019 22:14

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

CommieGIR posted:

Tsunami kills 20,000, and here we are bitching about cleanup of a melted reactor.

It's not us that are bitching about it. Moreover, the total cost of the Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami is calculated around $360Bn (for reference, Katrina stood at ~$250Bn).

The Fukushima Disaster alone adds another $180-200Bn on top of that. The death of the Japan nuclear industry is also estimated to cost around $84Bn.

I mean, I'd bitch about it too. And I'm pro nuclear energy.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2019 22:29

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Comrade Blyatlov posted:

got your numbers handy?

Japan's 2011 Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster - Economic Impact on Japan and the Rest of the World
Japan nearly doubles Fukushima disaster-related cost to $188 billion
Costs for scrapping Japan's nuclear facilities estimated at $84.2 billion

# ¿ Sep 9, 2019 22:33

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

There are also some bigger numbers floating around, but I don't really trust the sources. At all.

Think tank puts cost to address nuke disaster up to 81 trillion yen
Fukushima�s Final Costs Will Approach A Trillion Dollars Just For Nuclear Disaster

# ¿ Sep 9, 2019 22:36

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Pander posted:

The catastrophic disruption to the local ecosystem caused by dams is completely forgotten decades later. So I'm already leery about building other devices designed to significantly impede the natural flow of water, such as a tidal power generator.

There are indeed potential problems (like noise pollution, marine life getting sucked to the turbines, biofouling, changes in sedimentation processes on beaches etc). But we are talking about much, much less problems than hydro, considering.

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Sep 9, 2019

# ¿ Sep 9, 2019 22:48

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Question. Can anyone explain why most governments and people are putting almost all their funding in a specific tokamak design for fusion research? Is that the only way the tech can work?

# ¿ Dec 17, 2019 01:47

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

So this is like a "best shot - most feasable" scenario. Another question, why do they need 10 years between first plasma and actually starting to test D-T? I'm trying to read more on the matter but my poor comprehension skills fail me.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2019 02:04

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

It goes somewhat like this.

quote:

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, though the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil.

Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant . Considering only tailpipe emissions, natural gas also emits 15 to 20 percent less heat-trapping gases than gasoline when burned in today�s typical vehicle.

Emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes, however, do not tell the full story.

The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called �fugitive� methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions .

Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments.

Which means that, at the end of the day, gas is not the way forward. If your goal is to actually do something about climate change. If we had this conversation say, 35 years ago, the answer could have been different (due to gas giving us the potential to transition better, simply by adding time to the ticker). Now, it can't.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2020 17:37

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Tab8715 posted:

Why not?

Because we have reached the point right now where two things are happening at the same time.

1. The cost and TRL of renewables is good enough to replace fossil fuels for energy generation, when coupled with a mild expansion of nuclear, hydro, tidal and geothermal for base load purposes.
2. Temporary solutions are simply not enough to alleviate the problem at hand.

This is predominantly a political problem. You need massive investment to phase out fossil fuels anyway...which is the whole point btw. Choosing to back another fossil fuel while knowing the particulars is simply an exercise in futility.

The reason I said that gas was a solution 30+ years ago is because point 1. was untenable and point 2. was relevant.

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jan 2, 2020

# ¿ Jan 2, 2020 05:37

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

quote:

and keep smartphones running for five continuous days, the researchers said.

My trusty Samsung E1190 is already running more than a week on one charge, tyvm.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2020 08:45

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

50 reactors are under construction worldwide, 11 of them in China. China is also working on moving to a closed nuclear fuel cycle, gen IV projects and thorium.

France is actually moving away now - kinda - from nuclear power. After Fukushima and the 2016 Framatome scandal, the populace is still positive on nuclear power, but a lot less than before. And the government does not really see a big future on nuclear power.

The idea is to reduce nuclear power in the energy generation mix from 72% that it is today to 50% by 2025 (although the phase-out might be postponed to 2035 in the end).

# ¿ Jan 22, 2020 16:17

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Most of that is France though, and also

https://twitter.com/grunblatt/status/1296339140275994624

T_T

# ¿ Aug 20, 2020 15:45

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

They don't, and they shouldn't. Only a massive national program for energy generation can cope with the challenges ahead. And even then...just barely.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2020 16:51

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

ilkhan posted:

Anything that isn't solar or wind gets laughed at by a certain, fairly significant, segment of the environmentalist population. Large scale nuclear isn't going to happen until that changes.

Sure, but at the end of the day there is no other way. You need about 30-35% to come from nuclear and hydro if you want to remove fossil fuels completely from energy production. Massively scaling up solar and wind should be a given, but you can only get so far.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2020 17:54

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Saukkis posted:

I haven't about heard about significant damages caused by the nuclear program in France, and the list of accidents doesn't seem unreasonable.

France has other problems (river water temperature is one of them). Which is why it is scaling up renewables now while essentially pausing almost everything nuclear going forward (will move from 75% nuclear to under 50% in the following decades).

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Aug 22, 2020

# ¿ Aug 22, 2020 18:07

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

CommieGIR posted:

Considering the Japanese design, like Fukushima, was against the advice of other reactor designers, and we've come a long way since then, I suspect modern reactors would likely not have these same issues.

And considering where we're going with SMRs, this makes it incredibly easy to integrate a stable reactor design into ship design.

Again, I said its incredibly unlikely to happen, but it would solve a lot of emissions issues.

Hello. Nuclear marine propulsion is not going to become mainstream. Ever. And thanks god for that. Emissions are irrelevant when in the last ten years alone, more than a thousand ships have gone to the bottom of the sea.

https://www.agcs.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/agcs/agcs/reports/AGCS-Safety-Shipping-Review-2019.pdf

Adding nuclear reactors to a good chunk of said ships is Darwin Award worthy, really. Same goes for nuclear airplanes, trains, cars etc btw. It is simply not a prudent or logical use of the technology at hand.

If you are interested in the question of curbing marine propulsion emissions, here is a good starter imo of what is being done/considered right now. Things are not that optimistic looking, sadly. But - surprisingly so - ammonia looks like a good candidate.

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Sep 6, 2020

# ¿ Sep 6, 2020 14:57

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

I was not arguing about whether it was likely to happen (it isn't, as you said), I was arguing that you wouldn't want it to happen. Literally any other solution for removing fossil fuel from marine propulsion is better for humanity, global warming and the environment as a whole.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2020 17:16

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Ammonia really has some pretty nasty side effects..one of which is that you have to develop and proof an ammonia infra/economy in the first place. While an oil spill can gently caress up royally anything for years though, ammonia - while extremely toxic, caustic and hazardous - is a different story.

Water reacts with ammonia to form ammonium and hydroxide ions. Ammonia is often referred to as �unionized ammonia�. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms but ammonium is non-toxic. There exists an equilibrium in water between the toxic ammonia and the non-toxic ammonium. The equation shifts back and forth depending upon existing or introduced environmental changes.

The dynamic equilibrium between NH3 and NH4 + is affected by water temperature and pH (acidity). At a pH of six the ratio of ammonia to ammonium is 1 to 3000 but decreases to 1 to 30 when the pH rises to eight (becomes less acidic). Warm water will contain more toxic ammonia then cooler water. When sampling water for ammonia analysis both the temperature and the pH of the surface water body must be measured at the same time the water samples are collected.

If ammonia is directly spilled into surface water or if water used by a fire department to depress an ammonia vapor cloud is allowed to reach surface water, aquatic life can be harmed. Even at a concentration of 0.02 mg/L (48 hour LC50) unionized ammonia is lethal to some sensitive freshwater fish. That equates to about � a cup of unionized ammonia in one million gallons of water. Ammonia is also highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates having a 48-hour LC50 of 0.66 mg/L for Daphnia magna . Again, water contaminated with fertilizer ammonia should not be allowed to enter any storm drains, rivers, drainage ditches, wetlands or lakes.

Luckily for us, destroying ammonia is pretty easy by adding acid (keeping the medium pH low). While still a disaster in the making, this is much better than having a crude spill - for example.

The main reason people are looking at it for marine propulsion is the 3 hydrogen atoms it contains when used as a cell, or its 11.5 MJ/L energy that is roughly one third that of diesel oil. Its high octane rating of 120 and low flame temperature allows the use of high compression ratios without a penalty of high NOx production. Since ammonia contains no carbon, its combustion cannot produce carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, or soot.
And we are already handling more than 175 million tons of the stuff yearly, so we have an idea how to work with it.

Personally, I don't see it going anywhere really, the future seems to be electrification for small boats/routes and natural gas engines for large cargo ships.

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Sep 6, 2020

# ¿ Sep 6, 2020 17:28

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Trabisnikof posted:

I'm very skeptical that we have the carbon budget to support large scale shipping on natural gas when the real world leakage rates of the system are factored in.

We don't. I'm just listing where money is actually getting spent on right now.
Whatever the cumulative improvement may be over other sources, gas is still a fossil fuel and its use adds to global warming. And since you have to pay a lot of money for the transition anyway, choosing a lesser poison is...still choosing to poison yourself.

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Sep 7, 2020

# ¿ Sep 7, 2020 06:01

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Cingulate posted:

What�s better for grid storage?

Also, this is a good starter :.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/grid-energy-storage

# ¿ Sep 10, 2020 10:05

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

evil_bunnY posted:

"peaking plants are generally heavier poluters" eeeeh, what? Aren't they all natural gas, which while horrible are still vastly preferable to coal?

I don't know where you got this but I think it may mean something else. For example, a peaking gas turbine/engine plant is a heavier polluter than a base load gas turbine/engine plant. The reason for this is that peaking plants are running with less overall efficiency (when they run), and are a priori not built with efficiency in mind, since they are not supposed to run all the time.

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 12:28 on Sep 10, 2020

# ¿ Sep 10, 2020 12:26

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

I know we've been talking about Germany and all but it needs to be said.
The German people don't want nuclear plants, especially after Fukushima. Say it's because they are idiots, or misinformed or bad etc. It doesn't matter really.

And they have the capacity to vote people out over it. In free, Democratic societies, that is what happens. You are not getting nukes back in Germany. I mean, given the history and breadth of the anti-nuclear movement in the country, it is a miracle of sorts that Nuclear plants existed in the first place, or were kept running after the re-unification.

Germany may de-carbonize slower because of it, that is true. But it is what the people want, and no amount of whining is changing popular opposition to something like this, any time soon.

Oh, and Germany is doing more about climate change than many others in Europe (including France which has set a higher goal - 23%).

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Sep 11, 2020

# ¿ Sep 11, 2020 18:47

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

CommieGIR posted:

If we just accept that the social pressure against nuclear, regardless of the actual foundation on fact, is acceptable, a lot of scientific advancements and things that benefit humans in general go away.

Do we need to work to address the social? Yes. But the reality is: they are wrong, they took the wrong actions backed by evidence, and its unlikely if that's the end.

The reality is, this is not changing, and it not worth pursuing it at this point in time either, given where we are with regards to climate change. The sooner you personally understand this, the faster you will be able to move on. Sorry, this is how real life works man.

And the anti-vaxxing analogy does not work really. There are alternatives to nuclear power. There are no alternatives to vaccination.

Monaghan posted:

I mean the real questions to me seems to be what would be the best way to deal with this issues that we have right now, assuming that there's no overthrow of capitalism in the near future. .

This.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2020 18:56

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

CommieGIR posted:

Again, disagree: The alternatives to Nuclear is Natural Gas. That's about it. And its not a good alternative period.

And there is alternatives to vaccines, at least in anti-vaxxer mindeset, and that's the EXACT problem we're highlighting.

We have to agree to disagree then. I vastly prefer pursuing re-newables + smart grids that would make base load even more moot than it is today, than talking about things that are not going to happen whether I like it or not.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2020 18:59

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

CommieGIR posted:

Except the smart grid component still assumes peaker plants that are largely Natural Gas.

And we don't have smart grids. California is currently enjoyed that right now.

That is why I said pursuing smart grids together with renewables. Fortunately, there is money globally moving into that this last decade.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2020 19:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 8, 2024 07:11

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

Electric Wrigglies posted:

I assume you are keen and as excited about the winding up of the germen wind energy buildout then? They don't want anymore and they do vote people out so I guess we should give up working on changing their minds on wind and stick with gas and more PV I guess.

In what way acknowledging reality makes me excited about anything? Does German voters being dumb-asses with regards to Nuclear (and power lines, and wind farms) change anything?

Germany is a democracy. So the nimbys can actually win. And they do.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2020 19:13

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

«‹›3 »