Everyone should know that rare earth manufacturing is responsible for the vast majority of radioactive sludge that exists in purpose-built tailings dam lakes, some lakes as big as 10km2 in size. Luckily for the green pro-renewable folks, most are in northern China, but the cost is total hypocrisy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
https://youtu.be/w87LBiXwwdE
[youtube]w87LBiXwwdE[/youtube]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
The average sized wind-turbine is 3MW.
The Bill Gates Terra power Molten Chloride nuclear reactor is getting ready to be tested soon.
As said many times, the Terrapower reactor uses nuclear waste as fuel and Bill Gates claims it will be cheaper to run than coal.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/southern-company-and-terrapower-prep-testing-molten-salt-reactor
The other interesting to note with traditional light water reactors is the problem of them producing hydrogen, this is because the water immersed nuclear reactor tends to break h2o molecules apart creating oxygen and hydrogen, the passive recombiner prevents hydrogen build up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_autocatalytic_recombiner
This is the core ingredient to the Fukushima explosion, the huge build-up of hydrogen gas from the overheating creator breaking h2o apart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown
But there is work being done to make Hydrogen for transport-fuel not only via electrolysis but also thermochemically inside a nuclear reactor
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/transport-and-the-hydrogen-economy.aspx
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2012/march/nuclear-power-plants-can-produce-hydrogen-to-fuel-the-hydrogen-economy.html
Nuclear energy can be used to make hydrogen electrolytically, and in the future high-temperature reactors are likely to be used to make it thermochemically.
News just announced today for making Hydrogen from nuclear.
Terrestrial Energy USA, a leading U.S. nuclear technology company developing the generation IV Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR®) power plant, has partnered with Southern Company, a nationally recognized energy company, and several U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories to develop a more efficient and cleaner method for producing hydrogen using nuclear heat and power.
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/terrestrial-energy-usa-partners-with-leading-energy-company-national-labs-to-produce-economical-cl/
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/carbon-free-production-of-hydrogen-with-molten-salt-nuclear-reactors.html
As Bill Gates says there are billions of years worth of uranium energy on earth, let alone the 1000's of years of depleted uranium nuclear waste that is just waiting to be used already stored in the USA that is ready to go and can be placed directly into his reactor.
https://youtu.be/dbbq_KdPzjE?t=5m26s
Some of the core things to understand about the Bill Gates Terrapower nuclear reactor is that if anything it should be considered a 5th generation, in my opinion.
Some of its biggest advantages are that it uses the other 99% of uranium that traditional nuclear reactors don't use at all, or alternatively, it can just burn all of it. Traditional reactors need a much larger amount of enriched uranium, the Terrapower reactor doesn't. This saves on a lot of processing costs. It can essentially use the nuclear waste that has built up since nuclear power-stations began.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor#Fuel
Quote from Wikipedia on the Terrapower TWR design "
the fuel consists of natural or depleted uranium-238, which can generate power continuously for 40 years or more and remains sealed in the reactor vessel during that time. TWRs require substantially less fuel per kilowatt-hour of electricity than do light-water reactors (LWRs), owing to TWRs' higher fuel burnup, energy density and thermal efficiency. A TWR also accomplishes most of its reprocessing within the reactor core. Spent fuel can be recycled after simple "melt refining", without the chemical separation of plutonium that is required by other kinds of breeder reactors. These features greatly reduce fuel and waste volumes while enhancing proliferation resistance."
The other important thing to note is that typical nuclear reactors need refueling around every 2 years. The Terrapower nuclear reactor only needs to be refuelled every 60 years, another massive increase in efficiency. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/05/11/when-should-a-nuclear-power-plant-be-refueled/#50de0d133d95
Bill Gates main aim is to make nuclear so economical that it can be the best economical choice for the worlds poorest 20%. <- this is his core goal, making energy so cheap it can lift the bottom 20% out of extreme poverty.
Bill Gates has claimed it repeatedly now, that his nuclear technology will be cheaper than coal at producing electricity.
Some people just seem to let Bill Gates biggest core claims go right past their brain, that Bill Gates must, therefore, be lying about his nuclear reactor, and that he is REALLY just spending large amounts of his Philanthropy fund to
build nuclear reactors just for the fun of it. Which to me, is just an absurd way to think, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I?t=25m41s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
Bill Gates historically has been known to be ultra-aggressive in his software business days, so it's logical he is also pursuing nuclear efficiency aggressively, especially when the core goal is to make it economical for the worlds very poorest people.
If you take the fact that the reactor only needs to be fueled every 60 years (that's 30 times more efficient than traditional nuclear) then times that by the fact he is using the other 99% of the mined uranium, producing vastly much more energy, rather than creating nuclear waste and extra management costs, that totals around 30 x 99 =
2,970 times more efficient nuclear technology, one could argue.
Then there are the various different TerraPower reactor designs like the molten salt coolant, this helps to make it practically meltdown proof, the insurance costs then drop as well.
Here is news on the construction on currently the world’s largest electrolyzer manufacturing plant for Hydrogen.
https://www.hydrogeneurope.eu/news/constructing-worlds-largest-electrolyzer-manufacturing-plant
^ If you follow Fuel-Cell news there really is so much news in this area it's ridiculous, and it proves all those garbage Greentech sites that seem to just pump out Tesla battery based renewables is garbage. Just another arm of the "
renewable-energy subsidy-mining industry".
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/11/f27/fcto_fuel_cells_fact_sheet.pdf
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/
One day Nuclear/Hydrogen will be the most common sources of energy in the world, Nuclear for generation of electricity and production of Hydrogen for transport including "flying cars"
Look at how easily a small company was able to whack together a fuel cell drone that can fly for almost 2 hours straight! While most Lithium drones on a fresh set of batteries last 20 minutes and quickly need a fresh battery pack because the c-rate draw murders the total battery cycles.
https://youtu.be/AHlrLU7kTys
[youtube]AHlrLU7kTys[/youtube]
Here is another 2-3 hour fuel-cell drone, from a company called Doosan https://youtu.be/kIiMW5qQAhk https://youtu.be/ocS1_rJqY4M
And this bigger MMC H1 Fuel-Cell can fly for up to 4-hours! https://youtu.be/WZP4u4YP_e4?t=57s , most conventional helicopters only can fly for 2.5 hours.
^ Think about it, everyone's going to want to be able to have a flying car just like when the smart-phone came.
And there is
NOTHING on the horizon that makes pure lithium battery based flying a practicality, sure this stuff is a decade away but the idea its going to be based on lithium batteries is fools garbage. 1 Kilo of Hydrogen can take a vehicle 100km in distance,
you just can't get a fuel source lighter than that. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriewinkless/2016/06/01/are-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-becoming-normal/#7b1e5dfe683a
https://20700batteries.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/sanyob-charge-cycle-chart.png?w=900
^Latest 20700 lithium cell cycle chart, showing the battery getting murdered on cycles from high c-rate draw which is always what happens on any flying lithium-battery based machines.
Then there is the huge breakthrough of storing hydrogen as ammonia for even more compact and safe storage before running the ammonia through the membrane breakthrough for use as original Hydrogen. This is from the same group that invented Wifi the CSIRO, so don't write it off as nobodys.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-08/hydrogen-fuel-breakthrough-csiro-game-changer-export-potential/10082514
Look at the 25km2 solar farm average power output of 145MW, a fraction of the 1,100 megawatts a >single< Bill Gates Terra power nuclear reactor, (and it can produce the power at night time).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
Quote from page "
(145 MW avg. power)"
Sure you pro-renewable charlatans/profiteers can fool the public for the next couple of years but sooner or later it will be over, and the world will be a better place.
Need a reminder? Look at the BIGGEST LITHIUM BATTERY IN THE WORLD (from Tesla).. its TINY blue contribution is pathetic, and South Australia only needs 2,000MW maximum which is less than what most coal power-stations built these days put out. 30MW for 4 hours before it runs out, useless garbage, didn't save them from having $8,823MW/h, insane power prices.
You can see the orange below of diesel distillate generation providing 230MW for days until the wind started to blow again, (not to mention all the nat-gas usage).
If we wanted to power the modest requirements of South Australia (2000MW) entirely for a week due to little or no wind (which happens) how big would the battery would need to be?
Now that we have a
real-world example of a giant battery from Tesla, including its size and costs we can do a larger scale overview to simulate what mainstream media keeps pounding the public in how future energy can be provided by "green tech energy".
The Tesla/Hornsdale 129MWh battery reserve in SA is 22,000m2 or 0.022km2, according to GoogleMaps. I think my size estimation is fair if you consider the fact that if you are going to build square-kilometre sized batteries you are going to need road-way access in case of fires etc.
2000MW_required_state_load x 168_hours_in_a_week = 336,000MWh battery required.
336,000MWh / 129MWh_Hornsdale_build_size = 2604.65_Hornsdale_battery_reserve_stations
2604.65_Hornsdale_battery_reserve_stations x 0.022km2 =
57km2 sized battery.
That's 57square kilometers!
If we take the generous/dubious unconfirmed never revealed claim the battery construction cost was $50million dollars then,
2604.65_Hornsdale_battery_reserve_stations x $50,000,000 = $130,232,500,000 (
$130billion dollars)
You can grab *any* random hydroelectricity dam of around the same size (this one is almost half at 34km2) and see it generates way more power for the same size, and it has the incredible convenience of creating its own power via free rainwater
Surface area 13.1 sq mi (34 km2)
Annual generation 9,780 GWh ( 9,780,000 MWh )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Joseph_Dam
Then there is a break down of a bad week for wind in South Australia, the fact is relying on natural-gas (which is x84 more GWP than co2) is well known for serious leakage problems and has the net effect of just increasing global warming.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/epa-methane-climate-impact#.snqXXAKq8w
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Natural_gas_transmission_leakage_rates#Leakage_Rates_Worldwide_and_in_the_United_States
When South Australia is typically emitting 10-20 times MORE CO2 than France, how isn't the public being fooled by garbage information?
If we were comparing car emissions and the other car typically emitted 20 times MORE CO2 than the other car it would be considered a COMPLETE JOKE, yet this is what we do every day with wind vs nuclear energy on real-world data co2 emissions.
Germany is equally as bad as South Australia on massive wind-farms setups but 10-20 times more co2 emissions than France.
https://twitter.com/energybants/status/806969631797714944
The end of false economy energy subsidies and profiteering is close to being over. As well as all the cancerous politics over co2.
View attachment 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower
Quote "
TerraPower notes that the US hosts 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium and that 8 metric tons could power 2.5 million homes for a year. Some reports claim that the high fuel efficiency of TWRs, combined with the ability to use uranium recovered from river or sea water, means enough fuel is available to generate electricity for 10 billion people at US per capita consumption levels for million-year time-scales."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ
[youtube]fA5sGtj7QKQ[/youtube]
