Civilian nuclear power and renewables and other power options

T. A. Gardner said:


My view on energy is that the only viable solution to eliminating CO2, if that's what you want to do, is nuclear. Nothing else is going to work without destroying the world's economy and standard of living. Solar and wind are intermittent generators and do nothing but get in the way and destabilize the grid while grossly increasing the cost of electricity. They are worthless and should be dumped in favor of more nuclear.
Click to expand...
That is your view but it is disagreed with by many including many experts in the field. The economics here are also highly subjective. As for comments such as "destroying the world's economy and standard of living", please enough with the hyperbole.
 
Is it wise to allow a thread to just repeat the usual dispute between certain positions?
How does this debate the science and technology of various power production systems?

All this is, is a descent to religious views.
 
GTX said:
T. A. Gardner said:


My view on energy is that the only viable solution to eliminating CO2, if that's what you want to do, is nuclear. Nothing else is going to work without destroying the world's economy and standard of living. Solar and wind are intermittent generators and do nothing but get in the way and destabilize the grid while grossly increasing the cost of electricity. They are worthless and should be dumped in favor of more nuclear.
Click to expand...
That is your view but it is disagreed with by many including many experts in the field. The economics here are also highly subjective. As for comments such as "destroying the world's economy and standard of living", please enough with the hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Yea, experts... I judge experts on results, not credentials.

Getting back to something closer to the board... I had fairly--brisk--exchange with the author of this book. He's a PhD at Loyola University.

s-l300.jpg


Anyway, his defense to most of what I tossed at him was, I have a PhD, you don't so shut up! Typical academic full of himself but not credible based on output and results.
 
FWIW, the ruddy Victorians figured their coal-fired CO2 would cause temperatures to rise. But, they did not anticipate a zillion oil-wells, gas flaring etc etc...

The Hawaiian CO2 record brooks no doubt.
Question is how much more heat will go into deep ocean, how much will stay at surface to super-charge weather extremes...

( Forest fires in Canada in May ?? You cannot be serious... )

I'm safely situate on a UK sandstone ridge with the reassuring Medieval dry-foot suffix ' On The Hill'. But, I've several sets of cousins on the lower land, formerly fens and marshes, behind a 'soft' coast that can lose several metres to each 'king tide' or full gale...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Oh, the old Appeal to Authority ploy. Doesn't matter. Their predictions have been rubbish.
Click to expand...
That is not the case. It is quite reasonable to ask for qualifications so as to allow readers to have full context and thus to make judgements as to the appropriate weight to place on the opposing views. For instance, one would normally allocate more weight to an opinion that is backed by many years of study, research and someone who has made a particular subject part of their entire their career verses someone with just an opinion.
 
GTX said:
T. A. Gardner said:
Oh, the old Appeal to Authority ploy. Doesn't matter. Their predictions have been rubbish.
Click to expand...
That is not the case. It is quite reasonable to ask for qualifications so as to allow readers to have full context and thus to make judgements as to the appropriate weight to place on the opposing views. For instance, one would normally allocate more weight to an opinion that is backed by many years of study, research and someone who has made a particular subject part of their entire their career verses someone with just an opinion.
Click to expand...
A more charitable view (if we be minded to be charitable) is that the level of education informs best how one might describe the matter.
A true educator would want to know how to shape their arguments best to the level of the one they speak to so that this person might understand.

But appeals to authority, imply something else.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Arjen said:
T. A. Gardner said:
This assumes that you accept Gorebal Warming as presented by mostly the Left.
Click to expand...
Some light reading from the IPCC on climate change:

Reports — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch www.ipcc.ch
The IPCC carries some weight in the meteorological community.
Click to expand...
I've read their reports. Their predictions, based on actual results, are rubbish. I could be better guesses from a psychic.
Click to expand...
In some circles, the Dutch have a reputation of being penny-pinching misers.

The Dutch government takes the IPCC's reports so seriously that it is investing billions in specific coastal defence measures - heightened dikes, flood barriers in rivers - to mitigate one effect of climate change: rising sea levels. Additionally, billions are being invested in water management to compensate for months long dry stretches alternated by periods of heavy rain - climate change as predicted by KNMI, the Dutch government's meteorological institute, entirely in line with the IPCC's reports.

Please enlighten me *why* you think KNMI and IPCC are talking 'rubbish'.
My penny-pinching compatriots would like to know.
 
Last edited:
Hang on Arjen, the North Sea is sinking since the billions of tons of water came back.
By contrast Scotland and Scandinavia are rising since the billions of tons of ice went away.
 
Rising sea levels caused by melting ice caps are an immediate concern for the Netherlands. Hence the extra money for dikes and barriers.
 
UK's post-glacial isostasis hinge-line runs WSW/ENE through my location. We have neither Scotland's benefit of 'primary' up-lift nor S/SE/SW UK's worry about sinking due 'secondary' effects. Uh, how many metres are London's 'Roman Stuff' now below current bench-mark ??

FWIW, my location close to hinge line means a lot of local strata are 'mildly' fractured, enough to provide umpteen mild quakes when lubricated by hapless gas-fracking attempts. Same fractures previously put an end to local collieries....

Fortunately, we do not face wide-spread subsidence due to water or gas extraction. Some areas have collapsing coal or salt mines, but they're 'localised'....

So, here is not affected by isostasis, we just have to worry about sea level rising.
As we already have BIG tides (4m Neap ~~ 10m Spring) plus Atlantic gales driving BIG waves with lonnng 'fetch' and serious 'surge', plus a lot of soft coasts that are little more than glacial moraine, we're a tad sensitive about thermal expansion and those melting ice-caps...
 
Nik said:
UK's post-glacial isostasis hinge-line runs WSW/ENE through my location. We have neither Scotland's benefit of 'primary' up-lift nor S/SE/SW UK's worry about sinking due 'secondary' effects. Uh, how many metres are London's 'Roman Stuff' now below current bench-mark ??

FWIW, my location close to hinge line means a lot of local strata are 'mildly' fractured, enough to provide umpteen mild quakes when lubricated by hapless gas-fracking attempts. Same fractures previously put an end to local collieries....

Fortunately, we do not face wide-spread subsidence due to water or gas extraction. Some areas have collapsing coal or salt mines, but they're 'localised'....

So, here is not affected by isostasis, we just have to worry about sea level rising.
As we already have BIG tides (4m Neap ~~ 10m Spring) plus Atlantic gales driving BIG waves with lonnng 'fetch' and serious 'surge', plus a lot of soft coasts that are little more than glacial moraine, we're a tad sensitive about thermal expansion and those melting ice-caps...
Click to expand...
Don't worry about sea ice melting , worry about ice on land melting.
Greenland, not the Arctic matters more in the North and Antarctica in the South.

But never forget as your nails grow, so do we move. Away from America.
 
Nik said:
IIRC, Australia's BIG 'pumped storage' scheme is running several years behind schedule.

Covid, Covid, Covid, then TBM nosed into 'very bad ground', the foul fill of of a big, unsuspected sink-hole.
Click to expand...

Apropos of nothing much, here's a follow up to Nik's post re the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project in Australia. I thought this was a pretty damn good idea when it was first proposed and then put into action. Unfortunately...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1654292594615271425
View: https://twitter.com/QuentinDempster/status/1654292594615271425?t=lud9ilPI7-61HxyNKtHEqw&s=19
 
The Secret to Unlimited Energy Is Beneath Our Feet—And the World’s Deepest Hole Will Unlock It

"Now Quaise Energy is planning to drill test holes up to 12.4 miles deep, using a 1-megawatt gyrotron that should zip through the rock in a mere 100 days. At these depths, the temperature will likely be around 932 degrees Fahrenheit, which is hot enough to provide a practical source of geothermal energy. Woskov, who serves as an advisor to the company, hopes that a successful deep drill test is a promising start to fully replacing our current fossil fuel needs. Instead of coal and gas, he envisions existing power plant turbines spinning forever on geothermal energy. This could be the beginning of a carbon-free, energy-rich future for humanity."

See:

www.popularmechanics.com

The Secret to Unlimited Energy Is Beneath Our Feet—And the World’s Deepest Hole Will Unlock It

Scientists now know how to drill deep enough to tap into an energy supply that would power the world for more than 20 million years if we capture just 0.1 percent of it.
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com
 
jeffb said:
Apropos of nothing much, here's a follow up to Nik's post re the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project in Australia. I thought this was a pretty damn good idea when it was first proposed and then put into action. Unfortunately...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1654292594615271425
View: https://twitter.com/QuentinDempster/status/1654292594615271425?t=lud9ilPI7-61HxyNKtHEqw&s=19
Click to expand...
Pumped hydro is terrible cost wise. Using solar, you have to install the amount of panels necessary to supply power while the sun is shining and in addition, panels to pump the water. To store a KW of water you need a KW+ of power. Then you have to build the dam or reservoir(s) to store the water. On top of that, due to evaporation, you need a source of makeup water. Thus, you end up building what amounts to two powerplants to supply one powerplant worth of electricity plus a grotesquely expensive storage system.

Battery storage is exactly the same way, as is using fly wheels or whatever. No scheme using solar and storage is cheap nor economically viable.
 
dumpster4 said:
The Secret to Unlimited Energy Is Beneath Our Feet—And the World’s Deepest Hole Will Unlock It

"Now Quaise Energy is planning to drill test holes up to 12.4 miles deep, using a 1-megawatt gyrotron that should zip through the rock in a mere 100 days. At these depths, the temperature will likely be around 932 degrees Fahrenheit, which is hot enough to provide a practical source of geothermal energy. Woskov, who serves as an advisor to the company, hopes that a successful deep drill test is a promising start to fully replacing our current fossil fuel needs. Instead of coal and gas, he envisions existing power plant turbines spinning forever on geothermal energy. This could be the beginning of a carbon-free, energy-rich future for humanity."
Click to expand...
Hm! Sounds interesting!
 

Attachments

  • 0021.pdf
    76.5 KB · Views: 3
dumpster4 said:
The Secret to Unlimited Energy Is Beneath Our Feet—And the World’s Deepest Hole Will Unlock It

"Now Quaise Energy is planning to drill test holes up to 12.4 miles deep, using a 1-megawatt gyrotron that should zip through the rock in a mere 100 days. At these depths, the temperature will likely be around 932 degrees Fahrenheit, which is hot enough to provide a practical source of geothermal energy. Woskov, who serves as an advisor to the company, hopes that a successful deep drill test is a promising start to fully replacing our current fossil fuel needs. Instead of coal and gas, he envisions existing power plant turbines spinning forever on geothermal energy. This could be the beginning of a carbon-free, energy-rich future for humanity."

See:

www.popularmechanics.com

The Secret to Unlimited Energy Is Beneath Our Feet—And the World’s Deepest Hole Will Unlock It

Scientists now know how to drill deep enough to tap into an energy supply that would power the world for more than 20 million years if we capture just 0.1 percent of it.
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com
Click to expand...
And there is the rub...
en.wikipedia.org

Kola Superdeep Borehole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

maximum true vertical depth of 12,262 metres (40,230 ft; 7.619 mi) in 1989.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hi.
I'm a nuclear energy enjoyer but in Israel there is no energy production from nuclear stuff.
Some of the arguments I've heard are proximity to population centers and vulnerability to attacks.
But are these really serious factors today? Or are we still limited by technology?

Are there any other factors relevant to Israel that could make a nuclear plant not worthwhile?

1742204090366.png
 
Hobbes said:
Incorrect. Battery storage systems operating today are already economically viable. So are pumped storage systems.
Click to expand...
No, they're not when compared to alternative means of generation such as nuclear and natural gas. The problem is that you are building more generation than you need to meet demand, then building a storage system to go with that. Against, say, a natural gas generation plant that added cost of duplicate capacity and storage is so much that the natural gas plant is cheaper even with the cost of the gas supply factored in, and not just a small bit cheaper, but massively cheaper.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Hi.
I'm a nuclear energy enjoyer but in Israel there is no energy production from nuclear stuff.
Some of the arguments I've heard are proximity to population centers and vulnerability to attacks.
But are these really serious factors today? Or are we still limited by technology?

Are there any other factors relevant to Israel that could make a nuclear plant not worthwhile?

View attachment 763274
Click to expand...
Israel consumes about 55 terawatts of electricity annually. A single large nuclear power plant on the size of Palo Verde Nuclear in Arizona would supply about half that demand. You could build it in some remote part of the Negev desert so long as it has access to cooling water. You'd still need more variable load supplies to handle variations in load. So long as that plant were well guarded it wouldn't represent a threat to much of anything from a military aspect.
 
Arjen said:
Until you factor in the environmental impact.
Click to expand...
Unless you recognize that there's a cost tradeoff to be had. There's a reason why wind and solar are economic disasters everywhere they're pushed. Forcing stupidity like that on the population is what dictatorships like the Soviet Union and China do. It's also a big reason they fail. In other words, the environmental impact is a minor concern, or it should be.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Israel consumes about 55 terawatts of electricity annually. A single large nuclear power plant on the size of Palo Verde Nuclear in Arizona would supply about half that demand. You could build it in some remote part of the Negev desert so long as it has access to cooling water. You'd still need more variable load supplies to handle variations in load. So long as that plant were well guarded it wouldn't represent a threat to much of anything from a military aspect.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the answer. I have a few follow-on questions.

Are modern or upcoming nuclear reactors possible to keep underground, or at least their more vulnerable/expensive parts?

Underground = any level deemed sufficient to protect from modern low-end penetrating warheads.

I forgot the other question.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Thanks for the answer. I have a few follow-on questions.

Are modern or upcoming nuclear reactors possible to keep underground, or at least their more vulnerable/expensive parts?

Underground = any level deemed sufficient to protect from modern low-end penetrating warheads.

I forgot the other question.
Click to expand...
All you need in that respect is a way to ensure that the reactor, if breeched, can either be submerged in water and / or "poisoned" with boron. Water would act as shielding to prevent the escape of most of the fission fragments, etc., as well as coolant to drain residual heat from decay of radioactives. Boron is a neutron absorber that would prevent fission from continuing.

Sure, you could harden the reactor and site to protect it from conventional weapons as well.

Now, getting hit by a nuclear weapon... Different story. There you want something like 150 km or so downwind of the site to be sparsely or uninhabited.
 
Arjen said:
Dream on.
Click to expand...

I live 60 miles from a 3-reactor meltdown site.

I was promised a “hemispheric extinction event”.

What we got was political bloviating and an effective clean-up programme that has massively shrunk the exclusion zone around Fukushima Daiichi.

Of note: if the reactors had been equipped with passive hydrogen recombiners, like in most countries*, the meltdowns would not have occured - as the hydrogen explosions that presaged them would have been prevented.

* Except the UK. They have only one reactor with recombiners. I wonder why no protests?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Israel consumes about 55 terawatts of electricity annually. A single large nuclear power plant on the size of Palo Verde Nuclear in Arizona would supply about half that demand. You could build it in some remote part of the Negev desert so long as it has access to cooling water. You'd still need more variable load supplies to handle variations in load. So long as that plant were well guarded it wouldn't represent a threat to much of anything from a military aspect.
Click to expand...

There’s a whole host of planned SMR (Small Modular Reactor) designs. They’re not as efficient as a large reactor - but because of their lower power density they have very small safety zones around the reactor. Some can’t even meltdown - because their fuel is already molten, and that state accounted for.

They could also help with load variations more efficiently. Some are designed vary output over a large range, some can bypass the power turbines to drop output to zero. Thus, depending on reactor choices, and/or mix, load fluctuations could be largely be managed by managing reactor power output - and in the case of a large drop - output could be dropped to zero. Fine-tuning would likely be met by batteries and/or peaker plants.
 
starviking said:
I live 60 miles from a 3-reactor meltdown site.

I was promised a “hemispheric extinction event”.

What we got was political bloviating and an effective clean-up programme that has massively shrunk the exclusion zone around Fukushima Daiichi.

Of note: if the reactors had been equipped with passive hydrogen recombiners, like in most countries*, the meltdowns would not have occured - as the hydrogen explosions that presaged them would have been prevented.

* Except the UK. They have only one reactor with recombiners. I wonder why no protests?
Click to expand...
If the reactors were in a secondary containment like they are in the US (that big concrete dome) it wouldn't have mattered either way. Just think of it this way:

Three-Mile Island was a worst-case scenario for the US nuclear power industry. The operators did everything wrong. They made things far worse as they struggled to get the plant under control. Yes, the reactor partially melted down. In the aftermath, the cleanup cost less than the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster and did almost infinitely less environmental harm. Nobody died, nobody got cancer from the TMI accident.

Yet, we still use oil and drill for it regularly offshore. But nuclear power? The average person is somewhere between afraid and terrified of it.
 
Hobbes said:
The environmental effects of CO2 emission are real, whether you like it or not. That makes is desirable to phase out all large-scale uses of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
There's also a finite amount of fossil fuels, at least on human timescales. We'll have to figure out how to do without them at some point, whether or not we want to.
starviking said:
* Except the UK. They have only one reactor with recombiners. I wonder why no protests?
Click to expand...
Different reactor types. The UK's gas-cooled reactors don't have water in the core, and therefore can't produce hydrogen in the same way that LWRs can. I'm guessing the only reactor that does have them is also the only (civilian) LWR in the UK.
 
starviking said:
There’s a whole host of planned SMR (Small Modular Reactor) designs. They’re not as efficient as a large reactor - but because of their lower power density they have very small safety zones around the reactor. Some can’t even meltdown - because their fuel is already molten, and that state accounted for.

They could also help with load variations more efficiently. Some are designed vary output over a large range, some can bypass the power turbines to drop output to zero. Thus, depending on reactor choices, and/or mix, load fluctuations could be largely be managed by managing reactor power output - and in the case of a large drop - output could be dropped to zero. Fine-tuning would likely be met by batteries and/or peaker plants.
Click to expand...
SMR can be almost 100 times more efficient than conventional PWR light water reactor, if they belong to the fast reactor category. Todays conventional PWR use only about 1 % of the Uranium and archieve a thermal efficiency of about 35 %. A molten salt fast reactor could eat up all of its fuel (e.g Torium) over the time and could also archieve an higher efficiency due to higher operating temperatures. Flexible electricity production can also be archieved much more efficient than you describe it, e.g. by thermanl storage (Terra power) which ises molten salt for heat transfer and storage just like the solar plant Andasol.

There are many very intresting new (or rediscovered) reactors technologies beeing developed, here is one nice example:

Thorcon

thorconpower.com thorconpower.com
 
FWIW, NW UK is*seriously* proposing a tidal barrage across River Mersey's famous 'Pool'.

Now that most shipping has shifted to the big Seaforth terminal, the barrage only needs 'serious' ship access to the restricted 'Manchester Ship Canal'.

Also, given rising sea levels, storm surges, salination etc, is much more economical to build a discreet estuary barrage which will pay for itself than miles and miles of ugly sea-walls, with dozens of water-gates and weirs further upstream, all expensive to maintain and eco-awful.

The 'New Pool' will also provide extensive recreational facilities: Local yachties rather like idea of an 'all tide' facility...

Similarly, proposal to put a barrage across mouth of Wash is equally positive. It buys a new road, new docks, protection for truly-vast, vulnerable, low-lying area, as entire Wash used to to be Mere, reed-marsh and islets...

A major consideration is that inundation by even one (1) century-grade storm-surge would salinate much valuable agricultural land for a decade.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Different reactor types. The UK's gas-cooled reactors don't have water in the core, and therefore can't produce hydrogen in the same way that LWRs can. I'm guessing the only reactor that does have them is also the only (civilian) LWR in the UK.
Click to expand...

You, sir, get a most excellent - but sadly, virtual - cookie.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom