4 ms·

Smaller, safer, and just as friendly to centralized top-down control by governments, utilities, and mega corporations. Unlike solar which can be controlled by y

by natch 7y ago

Smaller, safer, and just as friendly to centralized top-down control by governments, utilities, and mega corporations. Unlike solar which can be controlled by yourself on your own property.

Tagbert 7y ago
It’s not an either / or. Nuclear makes a good backfill for the variable output of solar and wind.
- natch 7y ago
  Sort of agree. But unfortunately as a taxpayer or ratepayer you still end up sharing the cost of centralized boondoggles when they happen. Less so with decentralized elements of the system.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    Nuclear is not that expensive over its entire lifetime though, the biggest issue (aside from safety and security concerns) is the huge up-front investment. In theory SMRs improve that significantly by providing smaller self-contained units which are easier to reclaim (unlike a traditional power plant site which can't really be reused even if you decommission it).
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      People try to point to operating cost once the investment cost is amortized, but that's only relevant for the decision of whether to shut down an existing nuclear plant. The fully loaded cost, including the cost to build and finance the plant, is the relevant figure when deciding whether to build a new nuclear plant. And even on operating cost, many nuclear plants in the US have failed to be cash flow positive in recent years, and have been shut down before their end of their lives. The remaining reactor at Three Mile Island had not made an operating profit in six years before it was ended.
    - natch 7y ago
      I think there may be some clever accounting going on if it’s claimed to not be that expensive. Example, the carbon offsets that should be required for for the concrete typically used in a large plant are never spoken of. And cleanup and disaster recovery costs are probably tucked away somewhere else or even far off the balance sheet, out of sight. They used to say nuclear energy would be “too cheap to meter” and if that can come to pass (safely) I’m all for it but the accounting has to be done honestly.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Nuclear makes a terrible backup to wind/solar. They aren't compatible. The problem is nuclear needs to generate most of the time to make economic sense. That's not a backup source, that's a baseload source.
- tbihl 7y ago
  Does it? I'm trying to think what the poison transients would be like on a core of that shape and size... In any case, I know that large commercial plants have transients that all but preclude the use case you're suggesting, since the daily periodicity of of the demand variability is much shorter than the poison transients.
goda90 7y ago
Sounds like we need this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELENA_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELENA_reactor
- wolfram74 7y ago
  Or these: https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/kilopower https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/kilopower
- natch 7y ago
  But one has to be wary about the gap between reality and institutional or governmental propaganda (I’m looking at Russia but it happens in any country).
sephamorr 7y ago
While rooftop solar does allow you to go completely off-grid, if you still want to have a grid around, it will have to be centralized. An underappreciated aspect of power grids is just how much advanced control is required to keep the entire thing stable and functioning, think armies-of-PhD's-difficult. When grids get too small, or don't have sufficient control (either knobs, or software/people turning the knobs), the results are frequent blackouts. Interestingly, the risk begins increasing again as your grid gets too large: you have too many knobs to reasonably control centrally, and it certainly won't work without synchronized control. As a case study, see how China is breaking up some of their huge electricity grids (in to still-large ~1000mile or so regions), as maintaining reliability and preventing faults from propagating across the country became too difficult.
- natch 7y ago
  Yes I agree, and thought I said nothing to imply that being on the grid is not useful, but maybe I could have made this more clear.
  - sephamorr 7y ago
    Na, you were fine, sorry if I came across adversarial. I just thought commenting here was an okay place to put my rant.
- petre 7y ago
  You don't need armies of PhDs to operate a nuclear reactor, just very strict procedures, trained personnel and military discipline. I agree that a complex grid complicates things quite a lot. Just don't depend on the grid for anything, especially cooling a reactor after SCRAM.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  > As a case study, see how China is breaking up some of their huge electricity grids (in to still-large ~1000mile or so regions), as maintaining reliability and preventing faults from propagating across the country became too difficult. Have a source on this? IEEE says they're planning to merge the regional grids into a megagrid: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/chinas-ambitious-plan-to-build-the-worlds-biggest-supergrid https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/chinas-amb...
adrianN 7y ago
You need a pretty big property to be self sufficient, or a very reduced lifestyle. The typical American consumes about 10kW of primary energy at all times, on average. That's hundreds of square meters of panels.
- petre 7y ago
  And a small turbine and a wood furnace for heating.
  - MaysonL 7y ago
    No, just good insulation and a heat-exchanging ventilation system. See Amory Lovins's banana trees in Snowmass, Colorado.[0] [0]https://mountaintownnews.net/2017/11/21/amory-lovinss-long-soft-and-creatively-optimistic-path/ https://mountaintownnews.net/2017/11/21/amory-lovinss-long-s...
    - masklinn 7y ago
      That's super interesting for a 40 years old home, around here homes from that time sometimes don't even have double-glazed windows. It's too bad that there are no details being provided, but other articles[0] give more information and aside from the house being covered in solar panels it doesn't look too alien (save for the very bendy walls) at least until you find out the walls are 40cm thick and the greenhouse is absolutely integral to the concept. I really like that the greenhouse uses permanent water fixtures (a waterfall, brook and pond) for both ambience and humidity control, I've been thinking about this sort of things and how to heat responsibly: mixed wood / pellet furnace was about my best idea, and apparently the Lovinses still have a backup wood-burning stove though their 2009 "v2" renovations allowed them to get rid of the gas-fired stove and heater. One of the things which I find more interesting is how diametrically opposite they went for one of the directions: opening up the house using efficient glass panes, where I was thinking more towards burying it, in a more extreme version of turf houses. But that makes sense if you want to produce your own electricity using solar panels, you couldn't maintain a proper turf cover then. [0] https://grist.org/climate-energy/amory-lovins-high-tech-home-skimps-on-energy-but-not-on-comfort/ https://grist.org/climate-energy/amory-lovins-high-tech-home...
petre 7y ago
With great power comes great responsibility (to clean up the mess). One can have rooftop solar and live off the grid anyway, so what's the worry? It's not like the average Joe is qualified to operate a nuclear reactor in his garage, but we're getting closer with SMRs and micro reactors.

by natch 7y ago

Smaller, safer, and just as friendly to centralized top-down control by governments, utilities, and mega corporations. Unlike solar which can be controlled by yourself on your own property.

Tagbert 7y ago

It’s not an either / or. Nuclear makes a good backfill for the variable output of solar and wind.

natch 7y ago
Sort of agree. But unfortunately as a taxpayer or ratepayer you still end up sharing the cost of centralized boondoggles when they happen. Less so with decentralized elements of the system.
- masklinn 7y ago
  Nuclear is not that expensive over its entire lifetime though, the biggest issue (aside from safety and security concerns) is the huge up-front investment. In theory SMRs improve that significantly by providing smaller self-contained units which are easier to reclaim (unlike a traditional power plant site which can't really be reused even if you decommission it).
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    People try to point to operating cost once the investment cost is amortized, but that's only relevant for the decision of whether to shut down an existing nuclear plant. The fully loaded cost, including the cost to build and finance the plant, is the relevant figure when deciding whether to build a new nuclear plant. And even on operating cost, many nuclear plants in the US have failed to be cash flow positive in recent years, and have been shut down before their end of their lives. The remaining reactor at Three Mile Island had not made an operating profit in six years before it was ended.
  - natch 7y ago
    I think there may be some clever accounting going on if it’s claimed to not be that expensive. Example, the carbon offsets that should be required for for the concrete typically used in a large plant are never spoken of. And cleanup and disaster recovery costs are probably tucked away somewhere else or even far off the balance sheet, out of sight. They used to say nuclear energy would be “too cheap to meter” and if that can come to pass (safely) I’m all for it but the accounting has to be done honestly.
pfdietz 7y ago
Nuclear makes a terrible backup to wind/solar. They aren't compatible. The problem is nuclear needs to generate most of the time to make economic sense. That's not a backup source, that's a baseload source.
tbihl 7y ago
Does it? I'm trying to think what the poison transients would be like on a core of that shape and size... In any case, I know that large commercial plants have transients that all but preclude the use case you're suggesting, since the daily periodicity of of the demand variability is much shorter than the poison transients.

goda90 7y ago

Sounds like we need this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELENA_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELENA_reactor

wolfram74 7y ago
Or these: https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/kilopower https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/kilopower
natch 7y ago
But one has to be wary about the gap between reality and institutional or governmental propaganda (I’m looking at Russia but it happens in any country).

sephamorr 7y ago

While rooftop solar does allow you to go completely off-grid, if you still want to have a grid around, it will have to be centralized. An underappreciated aspect of power grids is just how much advanced control is required to keep the entire thing stable and functioning, think armies-of-PhD's-difficult. When grids get too small, or don't have sufficient control (either knobs, or software/people turning the knobs), the results are frequent blackouts. Interestingly, the risk begins increasing again as your grid gets too large: you have too many knobs to reasonably control centrally, and it certainly won't work without synchronized control. As a case study, see how China is breaking up some of their huge electricity grids (in to still-large ~1000mile or so regions), as maintaining reliability and preventing faults from propagating across the country became too difficult.

natch 7y ago
Yes I agree, and thought I said nothing to imply that being on the grid is not useful, but maybe I could have made this more clear.
- sephamorr 7y ago
  Na, you were fine, sorry if I came across adversarial. I just thought commenting here was an okay place to put my rant.
petre 7y ago
You don't need armies of PhDs to operate a nuclear reactor, just very strict procedures, trained personnel and military discipline. I agree that a complex grid complicates things quite a lot. Just don't depend on the grid for anything, especially cooling a reactor after SCRAM.
bobthepanda 7y ago
> As a case study, see how China is breaking up some of their huge electricity grids (in to still-large ~1000mile or so regions), as maintaining reliability and preventing faults from propagating across the country became too difficult. Have a source on this? IEEE says they're planning to merge the regional grids into a megagrid: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/chinas-ambitious-plan-to-build-the-worlds-biggest-supergrid https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/chinas-amb...

adrianN 7y ago

You need a pretty big property to be self sufficient, or a very reduced lifestyle. The typical American consumes about 10kW of primary energy at all times, on average. That's hundreds of square meters of panels.

petre 7y ago
And a small turbine and a wood furnace for heating.
- MaysonL 7y ago
  No, just good insulation and a heat-exchanging ventilation system. See Amory Lovins's banana trees in Snowmass, Colorado.[0] [0]https://mountaintownnews.net/2017/11/21/amory-lovinss-long-soft-and-creatively-optimistic-path/ https://mountaintownnews.net/2017/11/21/amory-lovinss-long-s...
  - masklinn 7y ago
    That's super interesting for a 40 years old home, around here homes from that time sometimes don't even have double-glazed windows. It's too bad that there are no details being provided, but other articles[0] give more information and aside from the house being covered in solar panels it doesn't look too alien (save for the very bendy walls) at least until you find out the walls are 40cm thick and the greenhouse is absolutely integral to the concept. I really like that the greenhouse uses permanent water fixtures (a waterfall, brook and pond) for both ambience and humidity control, I've been thinking about this sort of things and how to heat responsibly: mixed wood / pellet furnace was about my best idea, and apparently the Lovinses still have a backup wood-burning stove though their 2009 "v2" renovations allowed them to get rid of the gas-fired stove and heater. One of the things which I find more interesting is how diametrically opposite they went for one of the directions: opening up the house using efficient glass panes, where I was thinking more towards burying it, in a more extreme version of turf houses. But that makes sense if you want to produce your own electricity using solar panels, you couldn't maintain a proper turf cover then. [0] https://grist.org/climate-energy/amory-lovins-high-tech-home-skimps-on-energy-but-not-on-comfort/ https://grist.org/climate-energy/amory-lovins-high-tech-home...

petre 7y ago

With great power comes great responsibility (to clean up the mess). One can have rooftop solar and live off the grid anyway, so what's the worry? It's not like the average Joe is qualified to operate a nuclear reactor in his garage, but we're getting closer with SMRs and micro reactors.