Advertisement
by Valentine Z » Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:08 pm
♪ If you are reading my sig, I want you to have the best day ever ! You are worth it, do not let anyone get you down ! ♪
Glory to De Geweldige Sierlijke Katachtige Utopia en Zijne Autonome Machten ov Valentine Z !
(✿◠‿◠) ☆ \(^_^)/ ☆
♡ Issues Thread ♡ Photography Stuff ♡ Project: Save F7. ♡ Stats Analysis ♡
♡ The Sixty! ♡ Valentian Stories! ♡ Gwen's Adventures! ♡
• Never trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.
• World Map is a cat playing with Australia.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:25 pm
Valentine Z wrote:Hydroelectric, now that's a big one! The cost of building a dam is pretty damning, but at least the water flows almost continuously. There's also the limitation of disrupting the ecosystem if you built a big dam. If my limited geographical knowledge serves, waterfalls don't really dry up unless the source of the river dries.
by Valentine Z » Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:44 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Valentine Z wrote:Hydroelectric, now that's a big one! The cost of building a dam is pretty damning, but at least the water flows almost continuously. There's also the limitation of disrupting the ecosystem if you built a big dam. If my limited geographical knowledge serves, waterfalls don't really dry up unless the source of the river dries.
That happens sometimes though. It's the catchment not so much the source of the river, but it can dry up.
If there's a source like wind or solar nearby, excess electricity can be used to pump water uphill from one dam to another, effectively storing the electricity.
♪ If you are reading my sig, I want you to have the best day ever ! You are worth it, do not let anyone get you down ! ♪
Glory to De Geweldige Sierlijke Katachtige Utopia en Zijne Autonome Machten ov Valentine Z !
(✿◠‿◠) ☆ \(^_^)/ ☆
♡ Issues Thread ♡ Photography Stuff ♡ Project: Save F7. ♡ Stats Analysis ♡
♡ The Sixty! ♡ Valentian Stories! ♡ Gwen's Adventures! ♡
• Never trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.
• World Map is a cat playing with Australia.
by Krasny-Volny » Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:55 pm
by Jack Thomas Lang » Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:06 pm
Krasny-Volny wrote: Cheap source of power and we’re getting rid of this stuff, forever, instead of shoving it under a finite amount of topsoil and pretending it isn’t there.
by Bromagia » Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:13 pm
by Thermodolia » Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:11 pm
by Valentine Z » Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:18 pm
♪ If you are reading my sig, I want you to have the best day ever ! You are worth it, do not let anyone get you down ! ♪
Glory to De Geweldige Sierlijke Katachtige Utopia en Zijne Autonome Machten ov Valentine Z !
(✿◠‿◠) ☆ \(^_^)/ ☆
♡ Issues Thread ♡ Photography Stuff ♡ Project: Save F7. ♡ Stats Analysis ♡
♡ The Sixty! ♡ Valentian Stories! ♡ Gwen's Adventures! ♡
• Never trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.
• World Map is a cat playing with Australia.
by Jack Thomas Lang » Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:20 pm
Thermodolia wrote:You can’t burn the garbage all at once. Do you have it sit in a landfill capture the methane and burn it and the garbage
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:54 am
by Grenartia » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:25 am
Neu California wrote:My main criticism of nuclear is cost and inability to be built on time and on budget, which, per industry reports, is making it too expensive to compete with wind and solar.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ener ... SKBN1W909J
And it's not regulation that's causing the problems
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... 57d3145d1a
1 Design
Nuclear contractors in the United States and Europe have tended to begin construction before they have completed the design phase. It's important that the design be complete when construction begins, Petti said, and it matters who's on the design team:
"Making sure that the design is complete, making sure that you have fabricators and constructors on your design team early so that you know that what you design can be built. This was not done for certain projects."
2 Construction Management
Nuclear contractors can better manage projects by "making sure everyone has skin in the game, making sure the process can deal with and adapt quickly to change, because change is inevitable in something as complex as this."
If the construction system doesn't adapt to change it gets delayed, Petti said, "and as construction schedules drag out you’re paying interest and you’ve got a lot of people on the site that are not being productive."
3 Supply Chain and Workforce
Because reactor construction has stalled in Europe and the U.S., the West no longer has a reliable supply of spare parts and trained workers, Petti said.
"There have been problems, there’s been an atrophy in the West because we haven’t built a plant, whether it be in Europe or the United States, in 30 years. The successful vendors have really strong supply chains, like South Korea."
As to thorium, I'm skeptical. The claims of how amazing it will be and how much better than uranium it is and how it's the best power source instantly trigger my "sounds too good to be true" sense. Sources are lacking (and older, as in 2014 older, based on a cursory Google search). One specific criticism I have is about how thorium is everywhere. This would be a great plus if (IF) uranium itself was a major cost in nuclear power production.
Thing is, it's not. to my understanding, uranium is cheap, relatively speaking, which is part of why opex (operating expenditure, running it) for nuclear is so low. The problem is, as my sources above, and in the op, say, capex (capital expedinture, building it) which needs to be recouped for economic viability (they're not going to build it unless they can make money off of it) which I'm not convinced thorium would fix.
Krasny-Volny wrote:Burn garbage.
Every week in the US, we bury enough garbage in our landfills to fill the Golden Gate Bridge 12 times over. This is terribly unsustainable; there’s only so much land. Not to mention the serious environmental damage we’re doing. Landfills are an institutionalized form of dumping.
We ought to process and burn our garbage in plants to generate power. Cheap source of power and we’re getting rid of this stuff, forever, instead of shoving it under a finite amount of topsoil and pretending it isn’t there.
I once met a man who ran a private landfill where he used this business model. He claimed that the power generated at his facility powered 14,000 local homes.
by Novus America » Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:52 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Novus America wrote:We never tried it because it is not practical.
You would have to build absurdly huge barges, deal with the fact the ocean moves, that seawater and salt ruins smooth surfaces, etc.
Or you could tie a bunch of floatation devices to the shore and put the mirrors on stands that are on the floatation devices. As long as they're well above the wave height they should be fine.
Novus America wrote:“Unused” space, even if you are not using it for human development still has use. Environmental conservation is a thing, which requires efficient use of resources to avoid excessive footprint from mining, etc.
Uranium mining causes environmental harm too.Novus America wrote:And you admit you cannot solve the material usage problem.
Not completely. But we can take it one step at a time.
The focus on thermal!solar is primarily for how simple it is to construct and the ability to use unskilled labour displaced by immigration and automation. Small scale hydroelectricity, waterwheels, and wind turbines all have a role to play too.
by Thermodolia » Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:15 am
Jack Thomas Lang wrote:Thermodolia wrote:You can’t burn the garbage all at once. Do you have it sit in a landfill capture the methane and burn it and the garbage
We don't burn garbage in landfill. We let it fester in a controlled environment (that is, to prevent leachate from leaking as well as gases), with some landfills having methane capture facilities close-by.
by Thermodolia » Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:18 am
Grenartia wrote:Neu California wrote:My main criticism of nuclear is cost and inability to be built on time and on budget, which, per industry reports, is making it too expensive to compete with wind and solar.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ener ... SKBN1W909J
And it's not regulation that's causing the problems
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... 57d3145d1a
If you're going to link the article, the least you can do is summarize it.1 Design
Nuclear contractors in the United States and Europe have tended to begin construction before they have completed the design phase. It's important that the design be complete when construction begins, Petti said, and it matters who's on the design team:
"Making sure that the design is complete, making sure that you have fabricators and constructors on your design team early so that you know that what you design can be built. This was not done for certain projects."
2 Construction Management
Nuclear contractors can better manage projects by "making sure everyone has skin in the game, making sure the process can deal with and adapt quickly to change, because change is inevitable in something as complex as this."
If the construction system doesn't adapt to change it gets delayed, Petti said, "and as construction schedules drag out you’re paying interest and you’ve got a lot of people on the site that are not being productive."
3 Supply Chain and Workforce
Because reactor construction has stalled in Europe and the U.S., the West no longer has a reliable supply of spare parts and trained workers, Petti said.
"There have been problems, there’s been an atrophy in the West because we haven’t built a plant, whether it be in Europe or the United States, in 30 years. The successful vendors have really strong supply chains, like South Korea."
So, the first one can be changed with legislation. The second one sounds like vague corporatespeak. The third one is exclusively caused by the lack of momentum for nuclear plants.
In other words, a significant factor for why we shouldn't be building nuclear plants is that we're not building nuclear plants. Its a classic feedback loop, of the same mechanism behind the "employers want someone with 15 years of experience, but you can't get that experience without being employed" bullshit.
It is readily solved by building more nuclear plants.As to thorium, I'm skeptical. The claims of how amazing it will be and how much better than uranium it is and how it's the best power source instantly trigger my "sounds too good to be true" sense. Sources are lacking (and older, as in 2014 older, based on a cursory Google search). One specific criticism I have is about how thorium is everywhere. This would be a great plus if (IF) uranium itself was a major cost in nuclear power production.
Thing is, it's not. to my understanding, uranium is cheap, relatively speaking, which is part of why opex (operating expenditure, running it) for nuclear is so low. The problem is, as my sources above, and in the op, say, capex (capital expedinture, building it) which needs to be recouped for economic viability (they're not going to build it unless they can make money off of it) which I'm not convinced thorium would fix.
The primary reason to use uranium instead of thorium is that you can use uranium plants as an intermediate step in the manufacture of plutonium for nuclear weapons.Krasny-Volny wrote:Burn garbage.
Every week in the US, we bury enough garbage in our landfills to fill the Golden Gate Bridge 12 times over. This is terribly unsustainable; there’s only so much land. Not to mention the serious environmental damage we’re doing. Landfills are an institutionalized form of dumping.
We ought to process and burn our garbage in plants to generate power. Cheap source of power and we’re getting rid of this stuff, forever, instead of shoving it under a finite amount of topsoil and pretending it isn’t there.
I once met a man who ran a private landfill where he used this business model. He claimed that the power generated at his facility powered 14,000 local homes.
Do you realize how much carbon that produces?
Just go full nuclear and use the excess clean energy to recycle the garbage.
by Rojava Free State » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:37 am
Rojava Free State wrote:Listen yall. I'm only gonna say it once but I want you to remember it. This ain't a world fit for good men. It seems like you gotta be monstrous just to make it. Gotta have a little bit of darkness within you just to survive. You gotta stoop low everyday it seems like. Stoop all the way down to the devil in these times. And then one day you look in the mirror and you realize that you ain't you anymore. You're just another monster, and thanks to your actions, someone else will eventually become as warped and twisted as you. Never forget that the best of us are just the best of a bad lot. Being at the top of a pile of feces doesn't make you anything but shit like the rest. Never forget that.
by Antityranicals » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:42 am
by Novus America » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:47 am
Antityranicals wrote:For grid power, coal all the way, baby. It's cheap, it's plentiful, and it's easy to store. Petroleum's a close second, but its best use is in plane and car engines. Running a grid on wind and solar is quite simply a joke, and while nuclear's cool, it's just not advanced enough yet to compete with coal.
by Thermodolia » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:52 am
Antityranicals wrote:For grid power, coal all the way, baby. It's cheap, it's plentiful, and it's easy to store. Petroleum's a close second, but its best use is in plane and car engines. Running a grid on wind and solar is quite simply a joke, and while nuclear's cool, it's just not advanced enough yet to compete with coal.
by Antityranicals » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:53 am
Novus America wrote:Antityranicals wrote:For grid power, coal all the way, baby. It's cheap, it's plentiful, and it's easy to store. Petroleum's a close second, but its best use is in plane and car engines. Running a grid on wind and solar is quite simply a joke, and while nuclear's cool, it's just not advanced enough yet to compete with coal.
It is actually now more expensive than natural gas, but the main downside is it kills tons of people and does the most environment harm.
Nuclear is superior to coal already.
by Antityranicals » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:54 am
Thermodolia wrote:Antityranicals wrote:For grid power, coal all the way, baby. It's cheap, it's plentiful, and it's easy to store. Petroleum's a close second, but its best use is in plane and car engines. Running a grid on wind and solar is quite simply a joke, and while nuclear's cool, it's just not advanced enough yet to compete with coal.
Nuclear has been able to compete with coal for the last 70+ years.
Coal is deadly, expensive, and honestly not worth it
by Thermodolia » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:56 am
Antityranicals wrote:Novus America wrote:
It is actually now more expensive than natural gas, but the main downside is it kills tons of people and does the most environment harm.
Nuclear is superior to coal already.
Not really. Coal is practically banned by uber-overregulation, which is why it's so expensive. Without that overregulation, it would be less than a third of its current cost.
Otherwise, why would China use so much of it?
by Satuga » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:57 am
Neu California wrote:My main criticism of nuclear is cost and inability to be built on time and on budget, which, per industry reports, is making it too expensive to compete with wind and solar.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ener ... SKBN1W909J
And it's not regulation that's causing the problems
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... 57d3145d1a
As to thorium, I'm skeptical. The claims of how amazing it will be and how much better than uranium it is and how it's the best power source instantly trigger my "sounds too good to be true" sense. Sources are lacking (and older, as in 2014 older, based on a cursory Google search). One specific criticism I have is about how thorium is everywhere. This would be a great plus if (IF) uranium itself was a major cost in nuclear power production.
Thing is, it's not. to my understanding, uranium is cheap, relatively speaking, which is part of why opex (operating expenditure, running it) for nuclear is so low. The problem is, as my sources above, and in the op, say, capex (capital expedinture, building it) which needs to be recouped for economic viability (they're not going to build it unless they can make money off of it) which I'm not convinced thorium would fix.
by Thermodolia » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:57 am
Antityranicals wrote:Thermodolia wrote:Nuclear has been able to compete with coal for the last 70+ years.
Coal is deadly, expensive, and honestly not worth it
If that's so, why are people so worried about killing coal? If coal's just that expensive, why not just let it die? There's a reason why people use coal, and it's because coal is king.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:59 am
Antityranicals wrote:Novus America wrote:
It is actually now more expensive than natural gas, but the main downside is it kills tons of people and does the most environment harm.
Nuclear is superior to coal already.
Not really. Coal is practically banned by uber-overregulation, which is why it's so expensive. Without that overregulation, it would be less than a third of its current cost. Otherwise, why would China use so much of it?
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Novus America » Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:01 am
Antityranicals wrote:Novus America wrote:
It is actually now more expensive than natural gas, but the main downside is it kills tons of people and does the most environment harm.
Nuclear is superior to coal already.
Not really. Coal is practically banned by uber-overregulation, which is why it's so expensive. Without that overregulation, it would be less than a third of its current cost. Otherwise, why would China use so much of it?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ifreann, Likhinia, Rogers scandanavia, Tiami, Tillania
Advertisement