6 ms·

Interesting, how much CO2 is released producing this? And there is no mention of what electricity supply should be? How both of these factors are comparing to

by viach 7y ago

Interesting, how much CO2 is released producing this? And there is no mention of what electricity supply should be? How both of these factors are comparing to just planting an acre of trees?

iamgopal 7y ago
Electricity supply will be as much as acre of solar cell.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Advanced low cost molten salt thorium rectors will provide cheap electricity to power these.
  - acqq 7y ago
    > Advanced low cost molten salt thorium rectors will provide cheap electricity ...that still don't exist. Those that we know how to make have still so serious problems that they aren't being made for anything but the research: "Basically, MSRs are underdeveloped and require a lot more research (especially in corrosion) before they can surely take off as the world’s fleet of power plants." https://whatisnuclear.com/msr.html https://whatisnuclear.com/msr.html Also: "The problem with MSRs, then, is that the fuel is already completely cut open and melted. You’re halfway to a bomb already" By the same state of availability, it can be said "the advanced fusion reactors will provide cheap electricity." EDIT: in reply to the argument below (as I can't answer there, the moderators like it that way): > Thorium is ... also closer than wind and solar. How? Both wind and solar are already available and usable today to every individual who has the property to install them, everywhere in the world. Who can buy and install his own thorium reactor on his property, and where?
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      Thorium is potentially closer than fusion or fuel cells which means also closer than wind and solar. But yeah we are still not even close to having it ready and it might take decades. So we are going to be stuck with fossil fuels for a very long time.
      - Retric 7y ago
        What do you mean closer than wind and solar? Solar + batteries is cheaper than coal in some areas. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/giant-batteries-and-cheap-solar-power-are-shoving-fossil-fuels-grid https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/giant-batteries-and-... This means Solar is down to 3.3c/kWh at night. That’s vastly cheaper than any Nuclear power plant.
        ThomPete 7y ago
        Solar is not cheaper as it requires backup energy sources such as coal, oil, nuclear etc. You can't just isolate the cost of solar or wind as they are only viable because they sit on top of a fossil or nuclear infrastructure. Solar and wind is always depending on backup energy, those backup energies are not depending on wind and solar. Wind and solar haven't factored in the cost of decommision and maintanance in their prices which is going to be much more given the huge areas they have to be spread out on. There is plenty speculation about how to solve the intermittency problem of wind and solar but we are not even close to a solution for that.
        Retric 7y ago
        Solar across large areas plus batteries does not have intermittency issues. Like all power sources you need to build out for the worst case, as power output can drop. But that’s true of Nuclear as well because power plants need refueling etc. So, let’s hypothetically say you need 2x redundancy with solar generation to hit 100% grid demand 99.99% of the time. 2x 2c + 1.3c only bumps you up to 5.3c/kWh. And note this is with vast overkill wasting 50% of electrify generation. Except that’s not a comparison to coal or Nuclear that’s a comparison with the grid including peaking power plants. Run the economics of 100% Nuclear and you need both excess capacity seasonally and vast amounts of grid storage daily. Thus vastly increasing the already high prices. PS: Remember if the sun goes out we all die anyway, it’s at worst local clouds we care about. Further, demand for AC is lower on cloudy days.
        ThomPete 7y ago

by viach 7y ago

Interesting, how much CO2 is released producing this? And there is no mention of what electricity supply should be? How both of these factors are comparing to just planting an acre of trees?

iamgopal 7y ago

Electricity supply will be as much as acre of solar cell.

Gibbon1 7y ago
Advanced low cost molten salt thorium rectors will provide cheap electricity to power these.
- acqq 7y ago
  > Advanced low cost molten salt thorium rectors will provide cheap electricity ...that still don't exist. Those that we know how to make have still so serious problems that they aren't being made for anything but the research: "Basically, MSRs are underdeveloped and require a lot more research (especially in corrosion) before they can surely take off as the world’s fleet of power plants." https://whatisnuclear.com/msr.html https://whatisnuclear.com/msr.html Also: "The problem with MSRs, then, is that the fuel is already completely cut open and melted. You’re halfway to a bomb already" By the same state of availability, it can be said "the advanced fusion reactors will provide cheap electricity." EDIT: in reply to the argument below (as I can't answer there, the moderators like it that way): > Thorium is ... also closer than wind and solar. How? Both wind and solar are already available and usable today to every individual who has the property to install them, everywhere in the world. Who can buy and install his own thorium reactor on his property, and where?
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    Thorium is potentially closer than fusion or fuel cells which means also closer than wind and solar. But yeah we are still not even close to having it ready and it might take decades. So we are going to be stuck with fossil fuels for a very long time.
    - Retric 7y ago
      What do you mean closer than wind and solar? Solar + batteries is cheaper than coal in some areas. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/giant-batteries-and-cheap-solar-power-are-shoving-fossil-fuels-grid https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/giant-batteries-and-... This means Solar is down to 3.3c/kWh at night. That’s vastly cheaper than any Nuclear power plant.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        Solar is not cheaper as it requires backup energy sources such as coal, oil, nuclear etc. You can't just isolate the cost of solar or wind as they are only viable because they sit on top of a fossil or nuclear infrastructure. Solar and wind is always depending on backup energy, those backup energies are not depending on wind and solar. Wind and solar haven't factored in the cost of decommision and maintanance in their prices which is going to be much more given the huge areas they have to be spread out on. There is plenty speculation about how to solve the intermittency problem of wind and solar but we are not even close to a solution for that.
        Retric 7y ago
        Solar across large areas plus batteries does not have intermittency issues. Like all power sources you need to build out for the worst case, as power output can drop. But that’s true of Nuclear as well because power plants need refueling etc. So, let’s hypothetically say you need 2x redundancy with solar generation to hit 100% grid demand 99.99% of the time. 2x 2c + 1.3c only bumps you up to 5.3c/kWh. And note this is with vast overkill wasting 50% of electrify generation. Except that’s not a comparison to coal or Nuclear that’s a comparison with the grid including peaking power plants. Run the economics of 100% Nuclear and you need both excess capacity seasonally and vast amounts of grid storage daily. Thus vastly increasing the already high prices. PS: Remember if the sun goes out we all die anyway, it’s at worst local clouds we care about. Further, demand for AC is lower on cloudy days.
        ThomPete 7y ago