sendler2112 wrote: ↑
Jan 13 2019 8:18am
Did I post the Jeremy Rifkin lecture here yet? Watch it on 1.5 speed to save time. He outlines the infrastrucure shifts needed worldwide for a new, more efficient society.
Very optimistic and inspiring. But he only briefly alluded to the relationship of energy and economy by stating that a crash is coming when oil prices go over $120 and skipped past it.
I agree that we need to move to an internet of things sharing economy world wide. But it takes energy to make the transition so we need to stop all superfluous human activities and focus our remaining fossil fuel wealth to get as much done as possible before oil starts to slip away. It will leave us before we are ready to leave it. Along with many other peaking non renewable resources.
He also (deliberately?) leaves out any concept of scale and density of rebuildable solar and wind compared to the amount of energy we are using now.
So I agree we should strive for his vision with full dedication of remaining resources but also be ready with a simpler "Plan B" for the times when the techno solution falters over the inevitable speed bumps.
Interesting Youtube presentation.
I totally agree on the idea of trying to get off from fossil fuels because they will one day run out, but I really am strictly in the Bill Gates camp where logically only Nuclear is the future.
If anyone wants to see the low "low emissions" nuclear is just compare nuclear-based France vs Germany https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=fa ... emote=true
There really seems to be an acceleration in 4th gen nuclear support. Lots of articles and talk about more support to get it built.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/only-nucle ... 1547225861
Bill Gates has promised to talk up nuclear in 2019, but to make it into MSM/broadcast media he will probably need to have a stunt or say something thats shocking in some way or else he will just be headlines on science/environmental websites that far less people look at.
Bill Gates: to save Earth, we will need more nuclear power
https://www.sustainability-times.com/lo ... ear-power/
My biggest hope for seeing 4th gen nuclear is the Terrestrial Energy Molten Salt Reactor.
It's design is fully done, it just needs regulatory approval in Canada and they can build their first pilot/demo plant. They are a head in approval that most other reactors as they are in "Phase 2" of the approval process.
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors ... /index.cfm
This is my whacked together thoughts on MSR, I am no expert, just been looking around on the web, I could be wrong on specifics. but I included a lot of links so try and prove me wrong.
This is as brief and to the point on key benefits as I think anyone could ask for.
In reality, if
the TE MSR project had a lot of public and government support it could be up and running in a few years rather than expected "fair while yet", because its all about attitudes and support more than people sitting in government pretending to analyse a design for years then rubber stamping it.
The way to look at it is how fast were they able to make the original Molten Salt Reactors in the 60's and 70s, they basically put them together in a year and had comparatively limited technology like today's super-computer modelling etc to know how well they would work. But they did work and it was really because of nothing other than full government/public support.
You can see they whacked the first MSR power-plant together like a mere formality and ran it successfully for 6000hours. If it had never been built or proven and was going to be built for the first time today it would probably take 100's of years in approval government processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Sa ... Experiment
This tech was a spin-off from a silly request from the US airforce to have a nuclear-powered super-hotair-turbine aircraft simply because the US Navy had the successful nuclear submarine in 1955 that could spend months at sea without needing to refuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_ ... Propulsion
The technology and safety behind MSR technology is truly remarkable, they did a test in 1955 where they poured the nuclear fuel salt into an open pit surrounded by Geiger-counters/measuring-instruments just to watch the radioactive-fuel-salt instantly harden and not emit any gaseous radioactive particles because it sticks to the specially designed fluoride salt mixture.
This is because the incredibly high boiling point of Flibe salt is 1430°C, unlike water where its merely 100°C there is no issue of it turning into a gas.
https://www.knowablemagazine.org/sites/ ... -vials.jpg
^Here is the fuel mixture heated up in a test tube, image from the article on MSR further below.
^ As talked about here, the idea and safety around a nuclear aircraft crashing and how dangerous it would be was actually tested in the real-world.
All the technology around MSR is so unlike 3rd-gen that you have to watch a technology video on it to understand how much better /safer/advanced it is than 3rd gen nuclear, including using up all the waste as well as a bare minimum of 10x times more efficient use of uranium.
Main technology overview speech for the Terrestrial Energy Molten Salt Reactor
http://gifsymposium2018.gen-4.org/docum ... eBlanc.pdf
^Must watch video Terrestrial Energy Molten Salt Reactor.
^Similar technology reactor competitor video.
^And another one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ou_xswB2b0
The second most notable key feature of MSR reactors is the virtually "atmospheric pressure" the reactor vessel runs at, instead of needing about a 1-foot thick steel reactor-vessel of today's 3rd-gen water-reactors it only would require around 1inch think steel reactor core for MSR.
3rd gen nuclear is especially difficult/expensive because so much of the plant/design is based around containing the insane level of pressure that 3rd-gen water-based nuclear coolant creates.
https://www.jsw.co.jp/en/products/shell ... index.html
Making reactor vessels for 3rd gen nuclear is a bit of a science project in its self, there are only a few custom-built steel-forges in the world that can make 3rd-gen reactor vessels and they are booked solid for new orders for a long time, apparently.
For 4th gen MSR this complete removal of pressure in reactor part changes building large nuclear-reactor plants from a expensive time consuming process (with 3rd gen) into something closer to the lines of making a large tractor inside a building in terms of materials and construction process for MSR 4th gen, once the manufacturing processes are in place.
Also, 4th gen MSR is aimed to be "modular" rather than 3rd gen which is typically seen as "custom" in its design or lack of consistency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generatio ... advantages
Some people use the unrelated "sodium-cooled fast" reactors to attack MSR but they are nothing like MSR.
There is frequent confusion between Molten-salt reactor (MSR) and Sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR).
The "Sodium" reactors have been around for a long time in experimental reactors and have clocked up some bad news/headlines over time, these are NOT the same as MSR reactors.
DOES SALT MEAN SODIUM?
Molten salt reactors are quite different from sodium fast reactors, even though many people think of sodium when they hear of salt. The sodium metals used by those reactors can release a hydrogen byproduct that is combustible in the presence of air or water. Our fluoride salts remove this fire risk, while further simplifying and increasing the safety of the plant design.
http://www.transatomicpower.com/nuclear ... -of-terms/
Here is a great "general" article over how nuclear MSR designs work and their history behind it all.
https://www.knowablemagazine.org/articl ... er-outlook