Grid power discussion (solar, wind, nuclear, etc.)

[Imperial Joseon]

Use reactors that can't meltdown.

Doesn't meltdown have the possibility to occur in every nuclear plant?

[The of Korea]

Use reactors that can't meltdown.

Doesn't meltdown have the possibility to occur in every nuclear plant?

no, only in reactors with a positive void coefficient.

[Imperial Joseon]

Doesn't meltdown have the possibility to occur in every nuclear plant?

no, only in reactors with a positive void coefficient.

Ah, okay.

[Novus America]

no, only in reactors with a positive void coefficient.

Ah, okay.

A reactor with a positive void coefficient produces more energy the hotter it gets (all else being equal), and the more energy it produces the hotter it gets.
This can rarely produce a runaway feed back loop, (it keeps getting hotter and hotter) or a melt down.

However many reactors have a NEGATIVE void coefficient. As they get hotter they produce less energy, thus making a melt down literally impossible.

[Grenartia]

Ah, okay.

A reactor with a positive void coefficient produces more energy the hotter it gets (all else being equal), and the more energy it produces the hotter it gets.
This can rarely produce a runaway feed back loop, (it keeps getting hotter and hotter) or a melt down.

However many reactors have a NEGATIVE void coefficient. As they get hotter they produce less energy, thus making a melt down literally impossible.

I believe I made the comparison before, its not possible in the same way the Titanic was unsinkable, its not possible in the same way the Titanic couldn't fly from London to New York.

[UniversalCommons]

Since nobody has brought this up, I will throw it in. It is still not there yet. What do you think of plasma converters? Plasma arc technology. This is not quite the same as incinerators. They run a lot hotter.

[The New California Republic]

Since nobody has brought this up, I will throw it in. It is still not there yet. What do you think of plasma converters? Plasma arc technology. This is not quite the same as incinerators. They run a lot hotter.

If one of the offshoots of the technology is plasma rifles then I'm all for it.

[UniversalCommons]

Since nobody has brought this up, I will throw it in. It is still not there yet. What do you think of plasma converters? Plasma arc technology. This is not quite the same as incinerators. They run a lot hotter.

If one of the offshoots of the technology is plasma rifles then I'm all for it.

I created a ridiculous idea, superfission, a plasma arc converter that was powered by nuclear fission. A kind of crazed early attempt at a matter converter by a mad scientist. It ran hot enough that there was no residue when you threw junk into it. A fantasy that will never happen... Everyone has these moments sometimes.

[Grenartia]

Since nobody has brought this up, I will throw it in. It is still not there yet. What do you think of plasma converters?

What, like direct energy converters?

Plasma arc technology. This is not quite the same as incinerators. They run a lot hotter.

You mean plasma gasification. I have a few concerns. First, at best, the gas produced is only carbon neutral, not carbon zero or even carbon negative. Second, it seems like you get less energy out of the gas than you use to produce it in the first place. That means it isn't an energy source, its just an energy transport system (just like hydrogen, except hydrogen has the benefit of being carbon zero). Don't get me wrong, its great for waste management, I just wouldn't use it as an energy source.

If one of the offshoots of the technology is plasma rifles then I'm all for it.

I created a ridiculous idea, superfission, a plasma arc converter that was powered by nuclear fission.

Name sounds highly misleading. Makes it sound like a variant of the nuclear fission process, rather than an use case for power generation from it.

A kind of crazed early attempt at a matter converter

All chemical reactions are "matter converters". They convert one or more kinds of matter into one or more kinds of different matter. You yourself are a matter converter.

by a mad scientist. It ran hot enough that there was no residue when you threw junk into it. A fantasy that will never happen... Everyone has these moments sometimes.

Ummm ok.

[UniversalCommons]

Speaking of Nuclear Power. Something like this is the right kind of nuclear power plant. Not the giant ones.
https://news.yahoo.com/worlds-tiniest-n ... 00256.html

[Waldoven]

Speaking of Nuclear Power. Something like this is the right kind of nuclear power plant. Not the giant ones.
https://news.yahoo.com/worlds-tiniest-n ... 00256.html

Wow, that's a cool nuclear powerplant! It looks very futuristic, that's what all nuclear power plants should be like!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Speaking of Nuclear Power. Something like this is the right kind of nuclear power plant. Not the giant ones.
https://news.yahoo.com/worlds-tiniest-n ... 00256.html

Wow, that's a cool nuclear powerplant! It looks very futuristic, that's what all nuclear power plants should be like!

Looking at the surrounds, I'm pretty sure the whole pic is a simulation.

What do you expect it to look like, a rectangular concrete block with no windows, some rusty drums out the back and the skyline ruined with electricity poles?

[Waldoven]

.....maybe?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

.....maybe?

Just my personal aesthetic. Buildings should look like what they are.

Rectangular concrete building. No windows (because minimal staff). A road and a parking lot (for the staff). A fence around it.

Not that I'm opposed to the idea itself. If they can find a way to generate electricity from nuclear waste, while keeping it safely sub-critical, then good luck to them.

My respect for aesthetics went out the window, watching the pretty blue boxes at Fukushima fuck up. They should have spent the money on better backup generators but they spent it on aesthetics.

[Grenartia]

Speaking of Nuclear Power. Something like this is the right kind of nuclear power plant. Not the giant ones.
https://news.yahoo.com/worlds-tiniest-n ... 00256.html

I'm...skeptical. The general rule for nuclear power is the smaller your reactor, the faster the fuel is used up, and the more often it needs to be replenished. This is why cars and tanks designed to be powered by internal reactors never got moving (pun intended).

[Novus America]

Speaking of Nuclear Power. Something like this is the right kind of nuclear power plant. Not the giant ones.
https://news.yahoo.com/worlds-tiniest-n ... 00256.html

Definitely worth looking into, although large ones have benefits as well. I do not think it is a one size fits all thing, the size and type should be optimized for what it is being used for.

Although small, modular reactors are not new, the navy has been using them over 60 years.
Without a single serious accident I might add.

They are ideal for ships obviously, small islands, and small islands, other more isolated communities, large building/schools/industrial complexes though,

And should be used for those. Perfect for military bases, the White House and Capital compex, etc.

Not so good for say NYC.

[The New California Republic]

Speaking of Nuclear Power. Something like this is the right kind of nuclear power plant. Not the giant ones.
https://news.yahoo.com/worlds-tiniest-n ... 00256.html

Definitely worth looking into, although large ones have benefits as well. I do not think it is a one size fits all thing, the size and type should be optimized for what it is being used for.

Although small, modular reactors are not new, the navy has been using them over 60 years.
Without a single serious accident I might add.

They are ideal for ships obviously, small islands, and small islands, other more isolated communities, large building/schools/industrial complexes though,

And should be used for those. Perfect for military bases, the White House and Capital compex, etc.

Not so good for say NYC.

I've always wondered whether any government bunkers have their own reactors for power similar to the naval ones, that could last decades or more without refuelling. Then the only time limit on habitability would be food, as water could be drawn from underground water sources and purified, and filtered air pumped around almost indefinitely. But unfortunately it's one of those things we are never likely to find out.

[Novus America]

Definitely worth looking into, although large ones have benefits as well. I do not think it is a one size fits all thing, the size and type should be optimized for what it is being used for.

Although small, modular reactors are not new, the navy has been using them over 60 years.
Without a single serious accident I might add.

They are ideal for ships obviously, small islands, and small islands, other more isolated communities, large building/schools/industrial complexes though,

And should be used for those. Perfect for military bases, the White House and Capital compex, etc.

Not so good for say NYC.

I've always wondered whether any government bunkers have their own reactors for power similar to the naval ones, that could last decades or more without refuelling. Then the only time limit on habitability would be food, as water could be drawn from underground water sources and purified, and filtered air pumped around almost indefinitely. But unfortunately it's one of those things we are never likely to find out.

True, it is possible mount weather and the like has one.
But we know the Capitol power plant runs on gas. And most military bases run on fossil.
Something that could be easily fixed via installing ship reactors on land.

[Satuga]

I'm still saying thorium is our future main power source, which will probably last us much longer than most people think.

[Novus America]

I'm still saying thorium is our future main power source, which will probably last us much longer than most people think.

Definitely, although because we do not have a working Thorium plant yet, we need to build more Uranium plants, and continue to research Thorium. My plan would be to replace peaking fossil plants with solar and hydroelectric, all baseload fossil with nuclear.
Start with Uranium but with a long term plan to transition to Thorium and then Hydrogen (fusion).
We have enough Uranium, with reprocessing to lay us centuries, with Thorium that gives us a few thousand extra years to get fusion up and running.

[Satuga]

I'm still saying thorium is our future main power source, which will probably last us much longer than most people think.

Definitely, although because we do not have a working Thorium plant yet, we need to build more Uranium plants, and continue to research Thorium. My plan would be to replace peaking fossil plants with solar and hydroelectric, all baseload fossil with nuclear.
Start with Uranium but with a long term plan to transition to Thorium and then Hydrogen (fusion).
We have enough Uranium, with reprocessing to lay us centuries, with Thorium that gives us a few thousand extra years to get fusion up and running.

It would also allow us to control the effects of the use of fossil fuels, coal, etc, as thorium would barely produces waste materials. So all in all thorium is just the best thing we have for power. I hope humanity lives long enough and prosperous enough to be able to build a fully functional Dyson sphere.