Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Hillhater]

USA, France, UK, Russia, Etc, and several others, all have ability to supply various Nuke technologies

Westinghouse is out of the market. Areva survives on state money. (Siemens gave up on nukes, too, as did the Candiens and most of the Japanese companies. , ...........

Nobody has a “production Factory”. Set up just to produce Nuclear power plants, but all of those countries , and several others have the technology and resources to undertake the construction of one if they needed to.
Gone are the days when every component is designed and manufactured under one roof or even in one country, big projects such as these ( or even a “simple “ coal power plant),.. rely on international sourcing.
The main reason much of the Nuclear construction has slowed, is petty political social movements who see it as a big Red Eyed Monster, that they are frightened of.
Maybe Covid 19 will wake a few up to some of the real dangers in this world ?

 

[sendler2112]

Thorcon actually proposes factory built GenIV molten fuel Nuclear electricity manufactured in a shipyard and barged to any navigable location already certified. High temperature steam uses the same plentiful turbines as combined cycle gas plants and the same thermal salt storage as concentrating solar if variable load following is desired to compliment solar. Passive walk away safe.
.
http://thorconpower.com/

 

[Hillhater]

Sure, but i would guess that Thorcon will not be manufacturing the steam turbine or the Generator plant
They could be sourced from one of many worldwide manufacturers, depending on customer preference, cost, support , etc etc.

 

[jonescg]

"Gone are the days when every component is designed and manufactured under one roof or even in one country, big projects such as these ( or even a “simple “ coal power plant),.. rely on international sourcing."


That's why a 27 km tunnel and pump/turbine house between Talbingo and Tantangarra will cost over $5 billion in 2020 dollars.

And the entire Snowy Hydro scheme cost $6 billion in today's money. When governments sub out, we all get reamed...

 

[Hillhater]

...and why the grid battery at Hornsdale cost $1100/kWh !

..but talking Hydro Power,....
.....there is a lot of chatter over concerns for the 3 Gorges Dam in China.
Continuous torrential rains for weeks have pushed the dam level several meters above its designed safe limit.
Combined with the controversy over its standard of construction and geological issues, there is potential for a colossal disaster if it fails.
There are hundreds of cities and many millions of people directly in the downstream flood areas
Already there have been major floods and drownings from overnight releases of water to reduce the dam level.....all denied by authorities of course .

 

[Ianhill]

Got to laugh as I'm ignored for speaking the truth of nuclear a radiation leak has occurred somewhere in Russia PMSL borrowed time is the phrase time to shut the show down before the party becomes way to wild.

 

[TheBeastie]

More flying fuel-cell electric transport.

Californian propulsion developer ZeroAvia has conducted what it claims is the UK’s “first electric-powered flight of a commercial-scale aircraft”, with a converted Piper M350 piston-single taking off on 22 June from Cranfield airport.

The six-seat hydrogen-electric-powered aircraft is also Europe’s largest zero-emission aircraft currently flying, says the Hollister-headquartered firm. It is now preparing the aircraft for a 300nm (560km) flight late in the third quarter from the Orkney Islands, off Scotland’s north coast.
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/zeroavia-claims-uk-first-with-flight-of-electric-powered-piper-m350/138968.article
https://www.zeroavia.com/press-release-23-06-2020

[youtube]aUONPo95xYk[/youtube]

https://www.commercialdroneprofessional.com/flying-cars-one-step-closer-with-new-hydrogen-cell-fuel-source-company-says/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*POST ADD*
The largest all Australian owned renewable energy company in Australia is going bust and is being bid for by overseas energy giants.
Fact is if these companies can't make it with all the subsidies and support then they never can, I suspect that some of Infrigen's older renewable energy projects 10 years ago have already reached the end of their life and need to be abandoned because 10 years seems to be the "real-world" life-cycle of a lot of renewable energy projects.

Article quote Infigen is Australia’s largest Australia-focused renewables company (Tilt Renewables has a bigger market cap but is split between New Zealand and Australia).
https://reneweconomy.com.au/bidding-war-breaks-out-for-australias-biggest-listed-wind-operator-77605/

You can track energy stocks in Australia here, it's remarkable how many times when these stocks start to sag that Australian politicians and green groups go out in force and demand more support for the renewable energy industry.
https://www.tradingview.com/markets/stocks-australia/sectorandindustry-industry/electric-utilities/

Also, Planet of the Humans has been reinstated by Google/YouTube. It was pulled off by an activist who claimed his 3 seconds of video used in the video hadn't been approved by him and claimed copyright ownership.
Normally you can't claim 3seconds of video as it falls under the "fair use category".
Also, the 3 seconds of footage in question was filmed/funded by the BBC who paid the guy to go down to China and film industrial waste footage.
It was just a blatant act of censorship, but it worked, it really hurt the momentum of the film being watched and shared by people.
Planet of the Humans: Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs criticise ‘blatant act of censorship’ after controversial documentary removed from YouTube
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-youtube-removed-censorship-climate-change-a9532221.html

Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE
[youtube]Zk11vI-7czE[/youtube]

Another scary thing in turns of tech censorship is normally when I used to google search "abandoned renewable energy projects" it would show tons of images of spectacular photos of old abandoned green energy projects, but now they are almost impossible to find.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Excavator
https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/news/2020/07/jcb-leads-the-way-with-first-hydrogen-fuelled-excavator#utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
[youtube]q1-__SYskjc[/youtube]

 

[jonescg]

I have on good authority that particular flight was battery powered, but they do have some impressive fuel cells to go in.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Thorcon actually proposes factory built GenIV molten fuel Nuclear electricity manufactured in a shipyard and barged to any navigable location already certified. High temperature steam uses the same plentiful turbines as combined cycle gas plants and the same thermal salt storage as concentrating solar if variable load following is desired to compliment solar. Passive walk away safe.
.
http://thorconpower.com/

When I last did any research work on nuclear power some studies I read claimed even a 'standardized' series of plants would have trouble breaking even. Has that changed?

 

[Cephalotus]

When I last did any research work on nuclear power some studies I read claimed even a 'standardized' series of plants would have trouble breaking even. Has that changed?

No. All of them are too expensive.

https://www.oeko.de/fileadmin/oekodoc/New-Reactor-Concepts.pdf

Long version only available in German: https://www.oeko.de/fileadmin/oekodoc/Neue-Reaktorkonzepte.pdf

 

[sendler2112]

Thorcon is factory built. Uses factory reprocessing. Molten fuel is passive walk away safe. States a lifetime $0.03/ kWh.
.
http://thorconpower.com/
.
"A ThorCon plant requires less of the planet’s resources than a coal plant. Assuming efficient, evidence based regulation, ThorCon can produce clean, reliable, CO2-free electricity at 3 cents per kilowatt-hour — cheaper than coal."

 

[Cephalotus]

Yaeh, typical nuclear fairy tales.

Reality is what's out there.

"...A full-scale 500 MW ThorCon prototype can be operating under test within four years. After proving the plant safely handles multiple potential failures and problems, commercial power plant production can begin. Visit MSRE..."

So build that cheap prototype within 4 years first and see what it can do.

So far they have managed to build a cheap website.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

No. All of them are too expensive.

"124 pages study download here"

HAHA, CANT DO THAT.

Some of the data is old tho, as...

Thorcon is factory built. Uses factory reprocessing. Molten fuel is passive walk away safe. States a lifetime $0.03/ kWh.

So far they have managed to build a cheap website.

... there are a couple of thorium plants operational in China, and Thorcon was in talks with the country of indonesia in 2019.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Thorium_use_in_Candu_units_to_be_assessed-1507095.html#:~:text=Two%20728%20MWe%20Candu%206,reactors%20(PWRs)%2C%20respectively.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/09/p3tek-recommends-thorcon-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-for-indonesia.html

 

[sendler2112]

So build that cheap prototype within 4 years first and see what it can do.

So far they have managed to build a cheap website.

That is mostly because you won't let them or anyone else build anything.

 

[TheBeastie]

So build that cheap prototype within 4 years first and see what it can do.

So far they have managed to build a cheap website.

That is mostly because you won't let them or anyone else build anything.

I started following this Twitter account which has some great videos and memes on Molten Salt Nuclear and Thorium technology.
https://twitter.com/ThoriumNetwork

Here is a great video describing Molten Salt Nuclear that I never saw before, its still meant for folks that have an interest and basic understanding of Nuclear, so the assume anti-nuclear types on here might not watch it and continue to be annoying.
Annoying Naggers!

https://youtu.be/_ojJpwg6ZRU
[youtube]_ojJpwg6ZRU[/youtube]

I also like their thorium process table showing how the molecule breaks down during the fission process.

 

[sendler2112]

Kirk Sorensen "Now is the right time for liquid fuel Thorium" Google Talk.
.
https://youtu.be/bbyr7jZOllI?t=1814

 

[classicalgas]

Anyone still promoting nuclear needs to read this (an honest,cradle to grave analysis of net energy production of nuclear plants vs energy consumed )

https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon

It's long and thorough, and covers the omissions and distortions that are often used to make nuclear look good. It's also fully referenced, unlike most pro nuclear stuff.

A couple notable quotes...

"Using 0.005% ore, nuclear has higher carbon emissions than gas

Nuclear fuel preparation begins with the mining of uranium containing ores, followed by the crushing of the ore then extraction of the uranium from the powdered ore chemically. All three stages take a lot of energy, most of which comes from fossil fuels. The inescapable fact is that the lower the concentration of uranium in the ore, the higher the fossil fuel energy required to extract uranium.

Table 12 in the Berteen paper confirms the van Leeuwen result that for ore with uranium concentration around 0.01% the carbon footprint of nuclear electricity could be as high as that of electricity generation from natural gas.

This remarkable observation has been further confirmed in a report from the Austrian Institute of Ecology by Andrea Wallner and co-workers. They also point out that using ore with uranium concentration around 0.01% could result in more energy being input to prepare the fuel, build the reactor and so on, than will be generated by the reactor in its lifetime.

According to figures van Leeuwen has compiled from the WISE Uranium Project around 37% of the identified uranium reserves have an ore grade below 0.05%."

..."Given these three factors it is surprising that a report commissioned by the CCC in 2013 claims a carbon footprint for the EPR of 6 gCO2/kWh, comparable with the lowest two LCAs in the figure.

The report is from the company Ricardo-AEA, formed in 2012 when Ricardo acquired AEA Technology, itself a spin-out from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Their analysis makes the astonishing assumption that both the EPRs at Hinkley Point C will operate at 1 GW above their design power for 85% of every year over a 60 year lifetime.

This is a remarkably optimistic projection that gives an unrealistically high total for electrical energy generated in a lifetime. But this is only one reason for the very low carbon footprint...."

 

[Hillhater]

Anyone still promoting nuclear needs to read this (an honest,cradle to grave analysis of net energy production of nuclear plants vs energy consumed )

https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon
...."

You are confusing Energy returns , (ERoEI), with Carbon Footprint. (LCA)
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the principles of ERoEI
http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/
.....and then ponder which energy systems are more realistic for future societies.

 

[Cephalotus]

So build that cheap prototype within 4 years first and see what it can do.

So far they have managed to build a cheap website.

That is mostly because you won't let them or anyone else build anything.

Build it in Indonesia then.

This will not happen, because it's a fraud, a technical and economical phantasy.

The entire nuclear industry is about that. In the 1960s they promied energy to cheap to meter. They promised safe Technology and they promiessed Solutions for storage.
This was 60 yaers ago.

Sure they will have all this solved within just 4 years from some "startup" with a website, while a global industry sucking up a trillion of USD/€ couldn't do it in 60 years.

You believe in this?

 

[Cephalotus]

EU has a new hydrogen strategy:

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/hydrogen_strategy.pdf

 

[sendler2112]

Round trip Hydrogen economies are very inefficient. Circa 30%. Much better to just use the available electricity when it is there. That whole report makes no mention where or how all of this extra electricity to turn into Hydrogen will be produced.

 

[Cephalotus]

Round trip Hydrogen economies are very inefficient. Circa 30%. Much better to just use the available electricity when it is there. That whole report makes no mention where or how all of this extra electricity to turn into Hydrogen will be produced.

Of course it does mention that. You need to read it.

It's difficult to make steel with electricity and also ships, planes, some trains and some industrial processes need other options than batteries.

 

[JackFlorey]

Round trip Hydrogen economies are very inefficient. Circa 30%.

Yep. Which is why most energy use should be immediate and near where the energy is generated.

However, any plan that is based on solar and/or wind require a lot of overbuilding so that during peak consumption times (late afternoon) loads are handled with the reduced insolation - which means there are gigawatts of energy available with no loads available at noon. A way to store that energy, even if it's only 30% efficient, would be a good match. (Car engines are typically around 20% efficient and they're considered pretty useful.)

 

[sendler2112]

A way to store that energy, even if it's only 30% efficient, would be a good match. (Car engines are typically around 20% efficient and they're considered pretty useful.)

But we didn't have to generate the energy in liquid fuel. Only to harvest it. Which until 2000 resulted ER/EI of 100 with a historical trend average prices of $20/ barrel. This is what has allowed the Great Acceleration of human civilization since 1950 that we take for granted as continuing forever. The human population tripled in 70 years.
But the horizons of all natural resources are receding since we have used them according to the best, first. Which will begin to ripple through the world economy as higher financial and environmental costs to do big and complex things. The energy density and scale of fossil Carbon will not nearly be matched by rebuildables.

 

[sendler2112]

Jason Hickel: "We’re used to thinking about poverty according to the usual $1.90 per day poverty line (as used by the World Bank and the United Nations). About 897 million people live on less than this amount; roughly 13 per cent of the world’s population.
Researchers who study poverty insist that people need at least $7.40 per day to achieve good nutrition and normal human life expectancy. When we use this more empirically meaningful metric, the story changes completely: World Bank data shows that more than 4.2 billion people live on less than this amount. That’s nearly 55 per cent of the human population."
.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-07-07/we-cant-grow-our-way-out-of-poverty/?mc_cid=613c67cfb0&mc_eid=a399d2045e
.
"Faced with the scale of this problem, the orthodox response is to double down on the call for growth. Indeed, the goal of ending poverty has come to be the single greatest defence for growth-at-all-cost thinking, with economists insisting that we have a moral imperative to do everything we can to clear the way for capital.

This approach is wildly out of step with our planet’s ecology. A study by the economist David Woodward in the journal World Economic Review found that, given the prevailing distribution of new income from growth, it will take no less than 200 years to bring everyone in the world above the poverty line.4 And to get there we will need to grow the global GDP to 175 times its present size.

That’s 175 times more extraction, production and consumption than we’re already doing. It is horrifying to contemplate."