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.

A group is developing thermal storage with molten silicon:

https://www.solarpaces.org/mit-proposes-pv-to-discharge-energy-from-2400c-silicon-thermal-storage

Silicon is almost uniquely suited for energy storage. It melts at 2400C, has a high heat capacity. It's also cheap and the most abundant element in Earth's crust. This group is using multi-junction photovoltaics to extract energy, and graphite vessels. An IMHO cooler idea is to use liquid-solid phase change of silicon - store energy by melting it, and release it by freezing. Si has a crazy high latent heat of fusion, way more than water even, so this could give densities comparable (but less than) batteries.

https://oa.upm.es/40561/1/Datas_2016_LHTES%26TPV_Postprint_final.pdf

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jan 11, 2022

# ¿ Jan 11, 2022 17:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 8, 2024 20:31

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

VideoGameVet posted:

What's the heat->electrical conversion? Steam Turbines?

And visa-versa? Resistance elements?

The thing I linked uses multi-junction thermphotovoltaics to extract energy by radiant heat. MPVs are a pretty cool, mature technology you don't see around that much aside from concentrated solar. They can convert photons over multiple/wider bands than ordinary PV, at higher temps, and higher power per unit area. The liquid silicon goes through graphite pipes radiating onto the MPVs. It's a fuckton of radiation per unit area at those temperatures. Apparently turbine systems capable of working at those temperatures haven't been developed, so MPVs make more sense. They also can respond faster than turbines to changing demand.

Going the other way, it's just resistance - which is 100% efficient of course.

As a side note, the very high temperatures are a specific (ha) advantage of silicon. With heat engines (whatever kind), a higher temperature difference between hot and cold reservoirs means higher efficiency.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2022 22:47

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

aniviron posted:

I think we're much more likely to embrace a flooded future than a low-energy one.

I'm also a bit curious as to why that article considers that nuclear cannot replace fossil. If it's regarding transportation uses, sure; though electrifying automobiles and charging them with a fission grid would go a long way towards solving that. But equally no other generation source can replace fossil in planes and ships either.

For cargo ships at least, they are getting bigger and bigger which shifts the economics to favor nuclear, just like aircraft carriers. There was a push towards nuclear cargo ships in the 60's-early 70's that died due to port NIMBYism. The ships were more expensive to operate, but much of that was due to poor economies of scale (few ships, and smaller compared to today).

# ¿ Jun 9, 2022 14:53

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

MightyBigMinus posted:

carbon capture has advanced significantly from wild-eyed lie to hilariously failed nonsense

And always just a product of coal industry lobbying and funding. If Rube Goldberg designed a power plant.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2022 15:13

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

Raenir Salazar posted:

Also expensive compared to what? What about accounting for externalities like emissions and climate change? Its more expensive I can imagine to build a nuclear power plant compared to a solar array but the nuclear plant can generate power 24/7, might even take up less space depending on the designs and what we're comparing; the end-user is definitely not going to be paying more for nuclear power electricity compared to Russian natural gas electricity.

Anyways, a youtube video extolling a new advance in nuclear fusion has popped up in my timeline and it actually explains the achievement! Wow! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G27M0eRTRZE

Paper being referenced: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.185003

Press release: https://news.epfl.ch/news/a-new-law-unchains-fusion-energy/

My poor summary is that this porpoises that there was a density limit to tokomak reactors that limited the amount of useable energy you could get from the reaction (as exceeding this density would cause the reaction to fail), but now it seems to be the case you can actually increase their density limit with more power and this actually pushes the amount of theoretical energy output into the viability zone that would be needed for commercial power. Supposedly the next fusion project DEMO might be able to make use of this development as ITER isn't designed with this new limit in mind, but the old limit.

I wonder if this can work together with the more efficient magnets development or if that's only for stellerator fusion reactors?

That's exciting. I wonder if this could be used by Commonwealth Fusion, which is a startup I've been watching whose pitch is to basically just build a compact tokamak with high-temp superconductors. Significantly higher field strength than ITER, and much smaller/cheaper.

ITER is just such a waste of time and money, sucking up the available funds to for a multinational porkfest for what is now a wildly outdated design.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2022 17:35

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

His Divine Shadow posted:

Well the problem I see with that is we're having a doozy of a time getting nuclear online for just our own purposes, and the swedes are doing even worse on that front, doing a mini-germany. So I don't see it as plausible that enough generation will come online in time to prevent decade(s) of high energy bills for consumers. For producers it would be pretty darn nice though, it's just those pesky consumers who get the shaft as usual.

It's implausible in the current political situation, but it would be entirely possible to build many plants relatively quickly if there is a will to do so. Among other things, you'd need to cut out the contractor graft and the decades of fossil fuel-lobby regs that set nuclear up to fail.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2022 15:53

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

I think we've all learned not not count our nuclear chickens before they hatch, but Saskatchewan and Ontario want to install 300 MW GE-Hitachi small modular reactors.

https://www.westerninvestor.com/british-columbia/saskatchewan-ontario-to-roll-out-mini-nuclear-reactors-5568249

# ¿ Jul 14, 2022 15:12

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

MightyBigMinus posted:

this is flagrantly false, all the pro-nuke crowd does is punch-left and try to make perfect the enemy of good. see below.

That's not punching left. That's pointing out this dumb conflation that apparently exists that anti-nuclear == left. It's a bit of a hangover from the hippies and the demented "New Left," along with the anti-science organizations these cultural threads have spawned, such as Green parties, Greenpeace, etc.

I'm a Marxist, for example. I'm almost certainly to your left. Check out the biosphere collapse thread in CSPAM if you want to see more leftists that like nuclear.

quote:

nuclear is very simply a video game fantasy by stemlords that wish they could just pick a spot on the map, right-click -> add nuke plant, and then when they get the popup from the locals going "booo" click the dismiss button. its a childish video game reality mindset. it is wildly incompatible with the financial, economic, political, and technical reality of today.

For the 500th time, do you have a more realistic solution to provide baseload power? This is not going to be easy, but we know it is possible. That is not true of any other possible solution that people have laid out.

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Jul 18, 2022

# ¿ Jul 18, 2022 14:12

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

ulmont posted:

In the United States, literally anything is a more realistic solution to provide baseload power than nuclear, considering that no new plants have been successfully completed in the 21st century.

Nuclear plants have been build before. Wide-scale grid storage has not. Renewables have not been used anywhere to provide reliable *base* load.

For these reasons, there is no other realistic option for base load that is not fossil fuels. Can any of you guys supply a better, more realistic way to decarbonize our electricity supply?

None of the anti-nuclear FUD people in this thread have offered any other realistic ideas. Yes, its not easy. However, continuing with fossil fuels will lead to the fall of industrial civilization. We need another solution fast. I'd love if you have a better idea, and I'd encourage you to actually reply with that idea rather than these stupid snipes. You all expect to have an easy solution to this hole that capitalism has dug for humanity. There isn't one.

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jul 18, 2022

# ¿ Jul 18, 2022 20:15

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

silence_kit posted:

Are you trying to claim that utilities and the people who make levelized cost of electricity models don�t account for the fact that batteries degrade?

Maybe they are that stupid IDK but I doubt it.

CommieGIR said that that graph doesn't account for capacity factors. It doesn't. You are right that utilities sure do, which might go a long ways to explain why battery storage is not a thing outside of a few heavily-publicized smaller-scale tests. You keep handwaving away all of these issues with irrelevant strawmen.

e:

Grid storage is nowhere near to the point it can make up for solar and wind's variability. This is necessary for solar and wind to replace baseload fossil fuel sources. We need to do this yesterday, and nuclear is far more doable and exists now. Can you literally just answer the question: How do you think these problems can be addressed, given these absolutely factual constraints?

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jul 21, 2022

# ¿ Jul 21, 2022 16:21

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

In other demented EU news, there is a push now for space-based solar, like in Sim City:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/european-space-chief-says-continent-will-lead-in-space-based-solar-power/

It's obviously is a non-starter for many reasons, but at least it isn't nuclear.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2022 14:24

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

Even ignoring all of the economics, there is a big problem in the microwave beaming (aside from another energy-losing step). You can't have 100 MW microwave focused on a small antenna, because the density of the beam would fry any birds or people that hit by it - especially a big deal if it gets off-kilter. So then, your beam needs to have no more than a few watts per square meter - so the land use situation would be just as bad anyway, and its not like you can use people's roofs.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2022 16:50

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

GABA ghoul posted:

As far as long term storage is concerned, hydrogen from electrolysis might become a practical solution by that point. Maybe not from a market perspective, but if there is a regulatory demand to keep a certain amount of it storage for energy security reasons it could be a solution. The energy market is already heavily regulated with security in mind today.

Hydrogen is very difficult to store. You either have to keep it liquid at only a few degrees above absolute zero, which is much more expensive than the comparatively balmy temps of LNG, or have it in high-pressure vessels, which is still very low energy-density. Either way, you're looking at huge inputs, both environmental and economic.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2022 21:49

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

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-minister-rules-out-keeping-nuclear-plants-running-save-gas-2022-08-21/

The German economy minister has ruled out not shutting down the nuclear plants. Things are going to get fun in Europe this winter.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2022 14:27

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

This is a really dumb slapfight over what is basically semantics.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2022 16:41

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

Just start a new thread to debate and discuss QP in solar panels. No one here gives a poo poo.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2022 15:06

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

DTurtle posted:

Once again the Greens in Germany show that they can put practicality ahead of ideology:

Germany plans to keep 2 nuclear power plants in operation

You're right, I'm sure there's at least one other case of Greens putting practicality ahead of ideology. One thing that just came to my mind was how practical their support for natural gas is. You'd think a party that emphasizes environmentalism would not support continued reliance on natural gas - a fossil fuel, which itself is a greenhouse gas about 10x more potent than CO2. You'd think that, but they are far more practical.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2022 02:33

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

There's this concept of a dusty-plasma fission-fragment reactor, which you usually hear about regarding space travel. Such a reactor could do MHD direct energy conversion by focusing the fragment beam and decelerating it, with >90% efficiency.

This would never be practical or cost-competitive, because fuel is not a major cost for existing plants. It would be badass though.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2022 17:10

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

Ionicpsycho posted:

So Lockheed Martin has a patent on a compact fusion reactor from 2018.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180047462A1/en

It contains statements such as,
"Fusion reactor 110 generates a large amount of heat from the nuclear fusion process that may be converted into various forms of power. For example, the heat generated by fusion reactor 110 may be utilized to produce steam for driving a turbine and an electrical generator, thereby producing electricity. As another example, as discussed further below in reference to FIG. 2, the heat generated by fusion reactor 110 may be utilized directly by a turbine of a turbofan or fanjet engine of an aircraft instead of a combustor."

I know that fusion is a perpetual future tech, but what am I to make of this. Just the barest Googling showed the company announced a major breakthrough in '14 and then received this patent in '18. Are my biggest fears coming true, that the American military-industrial complex is proving itself actually necessary?

The US MIC is completely incapable of executing anything like this. There's tons of smart people working for Lockheed, which is why you hear about stuff like this all the time - but that's before all the bureacracy and graft come in.

There's this startup called Commonwealth Fusion Systems that I'm relatively (for fusion) bullish on. They were started by some pretty levelheaded plasma physics/fusion people, and don't have the baggage of Lockheed.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25634090-100-can-a-slew-of-nuclear-fusion-start-ups-deliver-unlimited-clean-energy/

# ¿ Oct 28, 2022 00:24

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

in a well actually posted:

I hear computational plasma scientists are a hot hire right now.

I'd hope they're well-compensated, because they're charged with a very difficult job.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2022 20:36

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

Raenir Salazar posted:

Most recent fusion test designs have been getting smaller though.

Superconducting magnets have really slashed the size these things need to be. They also don't have iron cores like regular electromagnets.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 17:31

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

QuarkJets posted:

Ah, so your explicit anti-nuclear posts are even more lovely and disingenuous than they seem? Good to know!

I'm completely shocked that an anti-nuclear person is advocating partial reliance on fossil fuels. Just shocked.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Nov 28, 2022 20:22

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

His Divine Shadow posted:

I would really like to see some reliable cost estimates for power to gas personally. It's just a hunch but I figure once that's factored in, nuclear won't look so bad in comparison anymore.

It's not a contest whatsoever the moment you factor in co2 and other pollution. Natural gas production is also heavily subsidized.

https://generation180.org/the-absurd-truth-about-fossil-fuel-subsidies/

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Nov 30, 2022

# ¿ Nov 30, 2022 16:11

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

Random thought: Have there been any proposals to use a stirling engine or something to partially recover energy used in liquefying hydrogen, as like some kind of combined-cycle deal?

# ¿ Nov 30, 2022 19:13

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

Potato Salad posted:

Once it's chilled and liquefied, the goal is to try to insulate the tank as best as possible. Attaching some kind of apparatus doing PV work is counterproductive, because that thing is going to be less effective as you add more insulation--and if you could afford to add a heat engine to the system, why not just spend less and add more insulation?

I was actually thinking trying to extract energy from the hydrogen as it is re-gasified for electrical production. There's the energy available in oxidizing the H2, but also there's an over 400C difference in temp between the liquid hydrogen and the ambient environment, which is conceivably exploitable. It does take a lot of energy to liquefy H2, after all. I know there's been some waste heat extraction done with stirling engines on a lot smaller temp differences.

: vvv Wow, thanks! I'm guessing this will fall into the "possible, but not cost-effictive" bucket.

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Nov 30, 2022

# ¿ Nov 30, 2022 19:19

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

DTurtle posted:

Hydrogen (and natural gas) storage in the huge scales required is done and planned as a compressed gas, not as a liquid.

I've heard of plenty of liquefied hydrogen storage ideas, where are you getting that from? There's no technology that's currently being used for really large-scale (e.g. comparable to current LNG or CNG) hydrogen storage, so it doesn't really make sense to just say that CNG is the way it is done.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/site-and-bulk-hydrogen-storage

the DOE posted:

Cryogenic liquid storage tanks, also referred to as dewars, are the most common way to store large quantities of hydrogen.

Large-scale storage of hydrogen

the abstract posted:

Although the storage of gaseous hydrogen in salt caverns already is used on a full industrial scale, the approach is not applicable in all regions due to varying geological conditions. Therefore, other storage methods are necessary. In this article, options for the large-scale storage of hydrogen are reviewed and compared based on fundamental thermodynamic and engineering aspects. The application of certain storage technologies, such as liquid hydrogen, methanol, ammonia, and dibenzyltoluene, is found to be advantageous in terms of storage density, cost of storage, and safety.

Commercial interest:
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/japan-australia-firms-look-build-large-scale-green-liquefied-hydrogen-supply-2021-09-15/
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/mcdermotts-unit-and-kogas-to-explore-large-scale-liquid-hydrogen-storage/

Sounds like it's not some kind of weird niche thing. Given that compressed hydrogen is low density, needs high-pressure vessels, and the high-pressure hydrogen diffuses through the walls easily, it's not hard to see why.

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Nov 30, 2022

# ¿ Nov 30, 2022 23:42

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

DTurtle posted:

Salt cavern storage is compressed hydrogen and mentioned in both your sources.

Natural gas pipelines and storage tanks can be (and are) filled with hydrogen up to a certain percentage. That percentage is currently relatively low (a few percent), but it is apparently possible to increase it to 50 or so percent relatively easily. All of that is compressed gas.

Germany�s natural gas infrastructure, as an example, provides storage for hundreds of TWh of energy for compressed natural gas. Converting that to compressed green hydrogen (or methane from CO2 + green hydrogen) would mean that physical storage is not a problem - being able to economically and efficiently fill that storage is the problem.

You said that compressed storage is the way it is be done/planned to be done. All the sources I provided refuted that. I�m not claiming that it is never used or always impractical.

Hydrogen to methane makes sense, but compressed cng is not compressed hydrogen. The natural gas infrastructure also isn�t as reusable as you say. Compressed hydrogen has much lower energy density than natural gas at the same pressures. Also, like I said, it diffuses through metal easily.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2022 00:47

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

His Divine Shadow posted:

Thanks for the link it was interesting, but I think you misunderstood me, when I said power to gas I meant like windmills making hydrogen, then storing and burning it. I'd love to see some cost analysis of that.

Oh, yeah, totally misunderstood you there. I'd like to see that too. Large scale hydrogen seems like it would work better as a near-term storage than grid batteries, not that any technique is a clear winner right now.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2022 16:05

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

mobby_6kl posted:

As always the devil is in the details but it looks like they're doing a test to find out.

This would probably work as yet another pretty good way to dispose of nuclear waste. The real-life feasibility of a waste disposal method has little to do with its technical feasibility, however.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2023 20:02

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

SourKraut posted:

Does anyone actually have studies that have actually calculated the quantity of CO2 released as a result of the production of materials required to build a nuclear power plant?

Because the linked articles so far seem to just make assumptions/generalities about costs, but don't provide any numbers. And there are a lot of ways to significantly offset the cost of concrete (such as on-site batching plants that essentially halves the amount of delivery truck usage). Honestly I'm not even sure rebar usage would constitute a significant impact, given it typically makes up about 1% or less of the total volume of concrete installed for structures such as these.

It's also worth noting that the most common pressurized water reactors need much larger containment buildings than most other designs, so in the event of an accident, the high-pressure steam has a bigger area to expand. That obviously increases concrete use by a lot.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2023 17:07

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

MightyBigMinus posted:

skeptical enough to post, not skeptical enough to google, the hallmark abitrage of the just asking questions guy

Raenir Salazar posted:

Those are different nuclear designs right? How does that compare with coal or natural gas?

IPCC 2014:

UNECE 2020:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources)

No matter how you cut it, the emissions of nuclear are far lower than fossil fuels or even solar. In the first chart, wind is slightly less than nuclear, but not significantly. In the second, it has less. I'm guessing the variance of lifecycle emissions between nuclear plants or between wind installations overwhelms any of the small signal of their true average difference.

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 19, 2023

# ¿ Mar 19, 2023 15:35

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

Capt.Whorebags posted:

Complete Crock of poo poo

The only scalable way to capture and store carbon from the atmosphere is to not release it in the first place.

CCS is the result of deciding you're going to still burn coal and work backwards from there. Of course, no one in the fossil fuel industry thinks CCS would work, but that's not the point.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2023 16:29

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

Deteriorata posted:

There isn't a way to make cement without also generating lot of CO2, so they need either to figure out how to capture it or find a different basis for construction.

Not necessarily. Most of the CO2 from standard concrete comes from the production of portland cement:

Portland cement is made from mostly limestone. This needs to be heated in a kiln to around 1450C to undergo calcination, making "clinkers." This obviously takes a lot of energy, which usually means big CO2 emissions - but not if the energy comes from nuclear or renewables. Separately, the calcination process splits off CO2, releasing additional CO2, regardless of the energy source for the heat. However, this latter emission is ameriolated during curing: the curing process absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, ultimately mostly negating the releases of the calcination process, over a period of years.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2023 20:18

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

Dante80 posted:

How? It's 2023 right now.

It's completely possible to roll out 50GW of nuclear by 2029 from a technical standpoint. It's just not politically possible. Really a microcosm of our failure to fight climate change.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2023 15:55

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

Arglebargle III posted:

Is there a climate job thread?

There aren�t climate jobs. There�s greenwashing jobs though.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2023 16:28

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

Pander posted:

Sure there are!

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Jobs/Vogtle-Nuclear

Good point. When I see a phrase like "climate jobs" it's usually something more like this:

https://climatebase.org/job/46109948/midsenior-product-designer?source=jobs_directory&queryID=a011673e8a0115098778c80b97167f19

quote:

Granular is a fast-growing climate tech startup developing a platform to help electricity consumers, producers and suppliers move towards 24/7 clean energy. Our SaaS platform gives our clients visibility over how electricity was produced on each hour using hourly energy certificates and allow them to trade clean energy with each other. You can find out more about the 24/7 energy space in this article.

We are active across Europe and the US and have partnered with Europe�s leading power exchange and grid operators, among others. Our seed round was led by some of the world�s top early-stage VCs, and we are currently preparing for our next funding round.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2023 17:41

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

Phanatic posted:

FWIW, the NRC has decided that fusion power plants will be regulated like particle accelerators, and not like fission plants:

https://www.fusionindustryassociation.org/post/nrc-decision-separates-fusion-energy-regulation-from-nuclear-fission

They'll still come down pretty hard on any unlicensed particle accelerators, though.

# ¿ May 3, 2023 15:57

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

Yeah old mines are toxic death traps, it�s like the worst thing you could ever do. Look up the Berkeley Pit. Flocks of birds have flown in there and died from chemical burns. Not great! Pumped hydro is dumb, especially given water scarcity.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2023 22:57

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

cant cook creole bream posted:

You don't need to waste water as long as it's a boilable liquid. Just fill the mine with mercury!

This would be much more efficient due to the high density of mercury compared to water.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2023 23:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 8, 2024 20:31

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

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Two things;

~You can and do develop hydrogeochemical models of what is going to happen. It's pretty routine work. The vast majority of mines don't have chemical leaching problems. The generally common nasty one is acid forming waste (primarily because it has been sized reduced by blasting and digging and raised to above ground) but that is not so applicable to most pits themselves and the waste should be encapsulated (MUCH more likely to happen if you do something like build an upper water storage reservoir on top of it).
~Pits fill with water in any event, hence why some old mines have ongoing water treatment plants operating long after the mine has gone (eg, the old Mt Morgan copper mine south of Rockhamptom).

A little bit beside the point but pumped hydro is VASTLY less environmentally damaging than rare earth mining and processing that are used in spiffy magnets and

you are telling me that if some birds get burnt (say by flying in concentrated sunlight) we should assume nothing can be done and the tech itself is hopeless?

The Berkeley Pit is one of the worst superfund sites in the country.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2023 15:12

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

«‹›3 »