|
Phanatic posted:Why? PWRs in normal operation put a bunch of boric acid into the coolant to regulate activity. The relative quantities are the distinction. Small amounts of boric acid are of course useful and necessary for nuclear power, as they are used to reduce and control the reaction rate. But high amounts of boric acid will eventually eat away at the steel pressure containers and ensure that they can never be used again. The German process for decommission has been to turn off the facility, fill the reactor with boric acid, and then walk away. There's still tons of deactivated reactors throughout Germany that are basically untouched and left to future generations to dismantle, except that they were intentionally poisoned and cannot be used.
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2022 09:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
All this is after Germany just spent the entirety of the G7 summit lobbying to loosen international fossil fuel financing rules (apparently they have their eyes set on projects in Senegal and Turkey). The SDP and the Greens appear to be presiding over the biggest expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in Europe since NordStream 1, which they were also responsible for. The FDP tried to push against it, but they were overruled. Politically, things have been shifting quickly in Germany over the last few months. Support for Scholz and the SDP has cratered, with voters fleeing to Habeck and the Greens due to Scholz's close ties with Russia and unwillingness to support Ukraine. Support for the CDP has crept upward, and as the largest party it remains a contender for any alliance-building if the traffic light coalition falls apart. While the Greens have been quick to embrace a more progressive military policy in regards to Russian aggression, their embrace of coal and gas power is allowing conservative parties to flank them on the left when it comes to environmentalism and energy security. If the state elections are any judge, the federal election in or before 2025 will be an interesting one.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
Maybe Germany should just tap all of that martyr energy being produced by anti-nuclear folks getting called out by the actual environmentalists for their failed policies and fossil industry ties.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
Watts Bar 2 went critical in 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Will battery based storage ever become realistic? I feel like we're going to be stuck with Natural Gas because everyone's paranoid of Nuclear and the regulatory environment for it sucks. There's been some interesting advances with thermal batteries recently, and smart grid operations are increasingly tying in electric car charging with the overall grid to encourage a degree of demand management. One of the issues though is that the material needs for developing appreciable storage is just really high right now. We need significant improvement in the efficiency and endurance of battery systems, as well as advancements in the recycling of such systems. Right now a national battery / wind / solar grid would require massive amounts of material and regular replacement - it's not a sustainable vision at all. And frankly all the batteries we are building are already critically needed for replacing fossil fuel vehicles with electric ones. It's one of the reasons that environmentalists have been openly calling for a kitchen sink approach where each type of green tech is supported and implemented in cooperation, rather than competing with each other. Countries should pursue multiple avenues at once, seeking out the best opportunities they have and developing a resilient and efficient grid. Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Jul 19, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Also isn't it the case that if we wanted to dam it, we already have? Microhydro is actually a growing technology, both in fresh water and in saltwater. There's lots of opportunity for placing snakes or wheels into the water. And while dams have generally been built everywhere that is a promising candidate, the vast majority of them are built for flood control and aren't currently producing power. There's also some good opportunities for upgrading the dams that we have already built. New designs are safer for fish and are more efficient. Here's the estimates from 2010 (for comparison, the US has installed 135 GW of wind, 63 GW of solar, and 80 GW of hydro.) https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_01 quote:“Though we have 79,000 dams in this country, only 3 percent produce electricity right now. Although dams were built years ago for flood control, irrigation and navigation, now we want -- with minimal environmental impact -- to capture the power that’s there,” says Garner. “In some cases, 20 to 30 percent more power output could be gained with today’s hydraulic design tools versus what was done 30 years ago, so there’s huge potential to upgrade existing machines.” There is 90,000 MW of untapped hydropower generation capacity in the country, according to the National Hydropower Association. Kaal fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Jul 19, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2022 13:40
|
|
|
One thing to remember about Hawaii is that because it is an island they have a very different economic relationship with energy sources. Coal is particularly expensive to import, so they've always mostly relied on oil. They're making some good progress towards unifying their electric grids and promoting alternatives to fossil fuels, but one of the biggest reasons is that the cost of importing fuel helps to justify that investment. Something to keep in mind.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
Comment-free links and images are particularly toxic for discussion. I'd encourage people to explain what they mean and why they think an article is relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Hoover dam power plant goes boom: As a necessary addendum, while obviously concerning and the cause is at yet unknown, the fire was relatively small and was already out before the fire department arrived. The explosion appears to be located near one of the turbine areas. https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/officials-fire-at-hoover-dam-extinguished-before-crews-arrived-at-scene?_amp=true https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/explosion-fire-nevada-hoover-dam-b2126820.html?amp Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jul 19, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I read a few weeks ago that due to drought, Hoover dam was no longer producing any power, the water levels were too low. I think this may have been a misunderstanding. The Hoover Dam has reduced power generation at the current height of 1,041 ft, but it is still capable of producing power unless the water level drops to 950 ft. https://mead.uslakes.info/level.asp https://bouldercityreview.com/news/dam-power-full-lakes-level-remains-high-enough-for-energy-generation-69744/amp/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
If we're talking about economics, then we should also talk about the massive subsidies being doled out by the US government. Fossil fuels pick up a princely $6 billion / year in direct tax subsidies. Solar and wind earn $5 billion / year in direct tax subsidies. Nuclear gets $1 billion / year, mostly in the form of regulator salaries. It's a very different world. Replacing those per-industry subsidies with a Green New Deal carbon tax would go a long ways towards implementing an 'economical' green energy solution for our climate goals.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
freezepops posted:Renewables and nuclear isn’t a good option unless renewables are only deployed as a quick stop gap while waiting for nuclear power to come online. The low CF nuclear would achieve in a renewables + nuclear scenario would be far more expensive than a nuclear only or renewables only grid. At least here in the US we do not have the capability to deploy both, the US lacks the construction and industrial capability to deploy nuclear power at the scales needed but is rapidly expanding the ability to deploy wind and solar at larger scales and it looks like battery storage will have similar deployment curves over the next decade. This goes against everything that environmentalists have been arguing in regards to climate change, energy sources, or GND policy. A complex, specialized, cooperative energy infrastructure is the way forward, where energy technologies can be leveraged to be used to their best capacity. In a world clamoring for energy and absolutely dominated by the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, there is every need to expand green technologies wherever possible. There is no silver bullet solution.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:So are we just completely ignoring the stated long-term mass storage solution being favored and pushed by the EU as a whole, every (western) European country individually, and also many other states on the periphery of Europe? Hydro is very popular.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:That is not the solution being pushed. Are you some sort of hydrogen fan? Certainly that's being pushed more than any alternative. Explain what you mean rather than being arch and cryptic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The inverse being true: There is little evidence that battery deployments will ever meet or outpace our energy demand, so that also seems like a dead end. Might as well give up now, because we wouldn't want to invest in long term projects regardless of the real, proven benefit. Yeah agreed. Overbuilding batteries isn't a great solution when the batteries in question only last 2-4 hours and are designed with summer loads and peaker gas plants in mind. They're great for what they do, but they're not going to replace power plants any more than your kettle is going to replace your hot water boiler.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Thank you. That is exactly the plan. Green hydrogen isn't the plan, the plan is to rebrand Russian fossil gas as "clean energy". Europe is not even close to being able to supply its current electricity needs with renewables, much less electrify its transportation, heating, and industry, then start creating green hydrogen at 30% efficiency. On the other hand, there's a rainbow of "transitional hydrogen types" available from gas, oil, and coal that the fossil fuel companies are itching to sell (and collect carbon subsidies on like biomass). It's greenwashing, pure and simple. There is an absolute ton of this thread dedicated to the rise and fall of hydrogen over the last 10 years. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
In 1985, 35.9% of global electricity came from low-carbon sources. By 2021, that had skyrocketed up to 38.26%. If we're judging the future by how well we're doing, then we'll reach our 2040 net zero goal by approximately 2964. https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20almost%20two%2Dthirds,and%20nuclear%20energy%20for%2010.4%25.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
Ultimately, I think there's little doubt that the same group of fossil fuel lobbyists that created Germany's failed Energiewende policies also promoted the "clean hydrogen" dream. The intent is clearly to hook Europe on Russian gas the same way that Germany is, with the rather empty promise that it will some day become low-carbon. But just as Germany's Putin-whispering was irresponsible foreign policy, converting all of Europe to fossil gas is irresponsible climate policy.quote:'Could Europe replace Russian gas with green hydrogen? Let's look at the numbers' Kaal fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
I thought this thread would appreciate a cross-post from one of the Ukraine threads, as it was deemed by some as not sufficiently germane. Sounds like the clean energy folks are getting sick of being lied to by the "green gas" advocates.Atreiden posted:yea what's even worse about that, is that Germany could have used nuclear power to offset some of this by extending the use of 3 nuclear power plants and apparently reactivate 3 others. These threads are pretty damning, that's for sure. This off-shoot in particular just methodically pulls apart the German administration's actions on nuclear energy. It points out that while there is both majority public support and legal obligations for continuing the use of nuclear power in Germany, the Greens and the SDP have been refusing to acknowledge experts and have instead been misrepresenting them to the public since March. https://twitter.com/simonwakter/status/1548429942471286792?s=20&t=YpbHiMoXdaGO8IuP_4PZRw
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:They suggested it as something the public might find more palatable than nuclear. I think that's fairly true with regards to megaprojects, particularly in the United States, but there's certainly some real opportunity available in the mini- and micro-hydro market. There are a ton of already built small- and medium-sized concrete dams that don't have any power generation equipment at all, or have really old and inefficient systems. A lot of the dams were built with agriculture and water-control in mind, rather than power generation. If they can be affordably retrofitted with new systems then it can be something of an easy win. The same can be said for installing micro-hydro systems along waterways that can extract power in a minimally invasive way. This can be in the form of sea snakes or waterwheels or microturbines. They won't be the new Grand Coulee Dam, but they can be placed all over the place without necessarily attracting a lot of attention. In the podcast, the idea being presented is essentially to drop pre-fabricated turbine cubes along the sides of controlled waterways like water treatment plants or municipal canals, cap it all with solar as possible, and connect to the power infrastructure that already exists in these industrial areas. It's a concept that taps into the idea that the best way to avoid political opposition is to ensure that projects are as unobtrusive as possible. Without a big construction site, fenced off field array, concrete cooling tower, etc., for the media to showcase, the public just can't maintain enough attention on it to feel disrupted by it. The fossil fuel industry has been doing this sort of thing forever, where they can get away with whatever they want to so long as they remain out of sight and out of mind.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Aptera looks neat but it’s ultimately trying to solve a charging problem that doesn’t really exist anymore. My friend is in the midst of a two week long road trip in the PNW where he’s traveled nearly 3,000 miles, routinely camped in the backcountry, and never had any trouble keeping his rented electric car (a Tesla Model 3) charged. It’s cost him a grand total of $50 for electricity (he estimates it would have been $450 in gas, or about $200 if he’d been using the Tesla superchargers all the time). While I can definitely see a market for cheaper, short-ranged electric cars, I think they’ll end up looking like a Mini Cooper EV, not a Mars Rover.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:How's that scale? Mostly he’s just been using a little bit of planning ahead using charging apps to find hotels with chargers, or committing to an overnight charge at an RV site or a friend’s house with an available plug. It hasn’t been difficult, just requires a bit of planning. Certainly that’s more scalable than equipping every car with its own solar array
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
Seems like a pretty hypothetical concern. Right now, it’s not a significant barrier - particularly for the average user who drives 20 miles per day in a familiar area. As the demand increases, more chargers will be installed. Certainly there’s no shortage of gas stations and parking lots available.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2023 01:43
|
|
|
Knowing where you will usually charge your vehicle is a reasonable thing to consider, but for most people it is their house or apartment complex. These sorts of things will become less scary to people as they are normalized. Edit: Speaking of nuclear power and gas stations, what are the possibilities of converting old gas station sites to power generation? Are they typically hooked up with high energy infrastructure? I know they are generally considered to be significant waste liability concerns that have been dumped onto the public. Digging them out and installing a micro reactor sounds like an appealing fix. Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Aug 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Converting gas stations to electric charging stations has nothing to do with power generation. I did a little bit of reading, and it certainly seems like gas stations are avidly embracing solar panels at least. There’s apparently an average of 120 m^2 of open roof space at each station, and several of the big corporations like BP and Total have embarked on building sprees taking advantage of the existing power infrastructure and equipping them with 10-20 kw solar arrays and EV vehicle stations. These sorts of businesses are already adept at navigating environmental impact statements, building codes, and other issues that NIMBYs can attack projects with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2023 04:24
|
|
|
Pesticides are only intangible and unseen if your only exposure to farming is the grocery store - they cause all the same problems as any other use of fossil fuels. GMOs are essentially synonymous with pesticides, because a lot of the promises of drought resistant crops have ended up being moonshine. And there’s a host of medical objections to processed foods. These are topics where there’s still quite a bit of real scientific controversy over their merits. I’m not sure including them in that list really supports the argument that people are ignorant and just fear the unknown.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Aug 31, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
TheMuffinMan posted:https://newatlas.com/energy/touchwind-floating-wind-turbine/ It seems cool - a good use of physics principles rather than sheer engineering.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2023 12:22
|
|
|
In 2023, the wind and solar share of German electricity production reached its highest percentage of all time. This was primarily due to a sluggish economy using less energy generally, increased energy imports, and the early shuttering of the last of the German nuclear reactors. Success!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
I’m all for putting wind farms in cropland, they actually work together pretty well and lots of fields have plenty of wind available (in fact that’s often a problem once all the trees get knocked down). That being said, 2% of German land is not even close to providing for 100% of current electrical needs, much less what they will be by the time this all gets built out. Currently Germany uses 0.8% of its land to create 61 GW. The 2% figure was intended to create 115 GW of onshore power by 2030, a goal which has now been pushed back to 2032. But today Germany has a baseplate capacity of 240 GW, which means it would take quite a bit more than 2% of German land to replace with wind power (which to be fair, the government is clear about). Also, that’s all without getting into the gnarly topic of effective production (ie while Germany has 61 GW of wind power, it only produced 139 TWh of wind power in 2023, rather than a full 534 TWh). Still, hopefully they will continue to pursue their goals despite their political troubles. The economics of it are pretty clear - that’s why the US already had 146 GW of wind power in 2022, and hopes to keep adding 5-10 GW each year for the foreseeable future. The irony of states like Texas (with 44 GW) competing with Germany’s 61 GW on wind power continues to amaze.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
DTurtle posted:Up to a certain percentage (I've seen conflicting numbers from 8 - 50%), hydrogen can simply be stored together with natural gas. My guess is that that percentage is dependent on the material, etc. used. To store even higher percentages without refitting the entire natural gas infrastructure, hydrogen could be combined with CO2 in order to produce methane - obviously with further conversion losses. I think a lot of that sort of thing depends largely upon how much leakage the operator is willing to tolerate. Fossil gas already has significant issues with gas escaping from their infrastructure (both in the distribution piping and from the building endpoints), and hydrogen is even more prone to leaking.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 04:00
|
|