4 ms·

Knowledgeable nuclear folks: Is there a way of designing safe nuclear plants in safe places in the world and efficiently exporting that energy to other parts w

Knowledgeable nuclear folks: Is there a way of designing safe nuclear plants in safe places in the world and efficiently exporting that energy to other parts within that same region? Thank you for your answers. I know v little on the subject but am a big believer in the inherent power that nuclear generates and its’ cost effectiveness.

MikeAmelung 7y ago
This isn't so much a nuclear question as a power transmission question. Here is a link that could help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Advancements_in_UHVDC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Ad...
saboot 7y ago
I would look at France's history, they are one of the most nuclear centric countries, with (relatively) few major accidents. In general, build a not-fancy light water reactor away from the ocean and major fault lines. We have the most experience with LWRs, and they are pretty safe except for the impact of major natural disasters. There are other reactor designs, but we really need more experience with them.
- Krasnol 7y ago
  Yes let's look at France, closing down 14 reactors and investing in renewables: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-france-nuclear-reactors-macron.html https://phys.org/news/2018-11-france-nuclear-reactors-macron... Time and money has ran out for nuclear.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    It's a beautiful exercise in circular logic you have going here. If time and money have run out for nuclear, it's only because of the anti-nuclear activism people like you have been ignorantly spouting for decades. Your point is less of an argument and more an instance of gloating.
    - Krasnol 7y ago
      The anti-nuclear activism in France? You got any proof for that anywhere? The money run out because the technology itself is expensive, the waste disposal is expensive, the costs for repairs were skyrocketing for years (not to mention the costs for buying energy from Germany because of the break downs) and the costs for decommissioning are not even priced in. Also, they recently shut down research there too because...you probably guessed it: too expensive. I like it when nuclear fans come in, downvote me and the only comment is full of advertisement phrases and lack of information but somehow it must be about me...
    - imtringued 7y ago
      Ok, lets build the modular nuclear reactor designs your international factory is churning out. Surely there must be at least one country on this planet that is doing so? It can't be that every country including china is abandoning nuclear without considering such an obvious design.
      - LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
        https://duckduckgo.com/?q=canada+small+modular+reactor&t=ffsb&iar=news&ia=news https://duckduckgo.com/?q=canada+small+modular+reactor&t=ffs...
philwelch 7y ago
Once you're past the distance where transmitting electrical power is feasible, you would probably have to store the energy chemically. In principle you could charge gigantic banks of lithium batteries and then ship the batteries, but that would require infeasible (probably ludicrous) amounts of lithium, and lithium batteries are a pretty inefficient way to chemically store energy. Alternatively, it probably isn't cost-effective with current technology, but on a fundamental level, you could use a nuclear reactor to power a system that chemically recombined atmospheric CO2 and water back into hydrocarbon fuels. Unlike fossil-derived hydrocarbons, these hydrocarbons would be carbon-neutral since you'd be sourcing all the carbon from the same atmosphere that it would eventually be dumped back into. This is probably going to make sense for things like vehicles, aircraft, rockets, etc. long before it makes sense for power generation, but there are definite benefits. We already have all the necessary technology to burn hydrocarbons, meaning that any improvements in synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels can potentially eliminate the need to switch these things over to batteries or whatnot. Which may be extremely helpful if we run into serious resource constraints over lithium, or if we grow increasingly concerned with the environmental byproducts of lithium battery production.
- keanzu 7y ago
  > past the distance where transmitting electrical power is feasible A 1,100 kV link in China was completed in 2019 over a distance of 3,300 km with a power of 12 GW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current It is feasible to transmit electrical power over far greater distances than most people imagine. For reference Barcelona to Moscow is a 3,000 km flight.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    Sure, but if you want to be safe and resilient against earthquakes and other natural disasters, those are potentially going to take out long distance transmission lines, too.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
xxgreg 7y ago
You can convert electricity, water and CO2 to fuels, such as hydrogen and natgas. These fuels can then be transported. There are significant energy losses if all you want on the other end is electricity. But not so bad if you're burning it for heat. In theory a nuclear reactor could produce both electricity and heat to produce synthetic fuels, making it more cost effective than renewables. For electricity only it looks like renewables are significantly cheaper however.

MikeAmelung 7y ago

This isn't so much a nuclear question as a power transmission question. Here is a link that could help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Advancements_in_UHVDC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Ad...

saboot 7y ago

I would look at France's history, they are one of the most nuclear centric countries, with (relatively) few major accidents. In general, build a not-fancy light water reactor away from the ocean and major fault lines. We have the most experience with LWRs, and they are pretty safe except for the impact of major natural disasters. There are other reactor designs, but we really need more experience with them.

Krasnol 7y ago
Yes let's look at France, closing down 14 reactors and investing in renewables: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-france-nuclear-reactors-macron.html https://phys.org/news/2018-11-france-nuclear-reactors-macron... Time and money has ran out for nuclear.
- philwelch 7y ago
  It's a beautiful exercise in circular logic you have going here. If time and money have run out for nuclear, it's only because of the anti-nuclear activism people like you have been ignorantly spouting for decades. Your point is less of an argument and more an instance of gloating.
  - Krasnol 7y ago
    The anti-nuclear activism in France? You got any proof for that anywhere? The money run out because the technology itself is expensive, the waste disposal is expensive, the costs for repairs were skyrocketing for years (not to mention the costs for buying energy from Germany because of the break downs) and the costs for decommissioning are not even priced in. Also, they recently shut down research there too because...you probably guessed it: too expensive. I like it when nuclear fans come in, downvote me and the only comment is full of advertisement phrases and lack of information but somehow it must be about me...
  - imtringued 7y ago
    Ok, lets build the modular nuclear reactor designs your international factory is churning out. Surely there must be at least one country on this planet that is doing so? It can't be that every country including china is abandoning nuclear without considering such an obvious design.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
      https://duckduckgo.com/?q=canada+small+modular+reactor&t=ffsb&iar=news&ia=news https://duckduckgo.com/?q=canada+small+modular+reactor&t=ffs...

philwelch 7y ago

Once you're past the distance where transmitting electrical power is feasible, you would probably have to store the energy chemically. In principle you could charge gigantic banks of lithium batteries and then ship the batteries, but that would require infeasible (probably ludicrous) amounts of lithium, and lithium batteries are a pretty inefficient way to chemically store energy. Alternatively, it probably isn't cost-effective with current technology, but on a fundamental level, you could use a nuclear reactor to power a system that chemically recombined atmospheric CO2 and water back into hydrocarbon fuels. Unlike fossil-derived hydrocarbons, these hydrocarbons would be carbon-neutral since you'd be sourcing all the carbon from the same atmosphere that it would eventually be dumped back into. This is probably going to make sense for things like vehicles, aircraft, rockets, etc. long before it makes sense for power generation, but there are definite benefits. We already have all the necessary technology to burn hydrocarbons, meaning that any improvements in synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels can potentially eliminate the need to switch these things over to batteries or whatnot. Which may be extremely helpful if we run into serious resource constraints over lithium, or if we grow increasingly concerned with the environmental byproducts of lithium battery production.

keanzu 7y ago
> past the distance where transmitting electrical power is feasible A 1,100 kV link in China was completed in 2019 over a distance of 3,300 km with a power of 12 GW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current It is feasible to transmit electrical power over far greater distances than most people imagine. For reference Barcelona to Moscow is a 3,000 km flight.
- philwelch 7y ago
  Sure, but if you want to be safe and resilient against earthquakes and other natural disasters, those are potentially going to take out long distance transmission lines, too.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago

xxgreg 7y ago

You can convert electricity, water and CO2 to fuels, such as hydrogen and natgas. These fuels can then be transported. There are significant energy losses if all you want on the other end is electricity. But not so bad if you're burning it for heat. In theory a nuclear reactor could produce both electricity and heat to produce synthetic fuels, making it more cost effective than renewables. For electricity only it looks like renewables are significantly cheaper however.