11 ms·

To clarify, this reactor doesn't have any thorium or any other radioactive elements in its core. It's for testing before they get to "the nuclear part".

jbverschoor 6y ago
Don’t forget to sign the petition at https://start.thorium.today https://start.thorium.today
- deeviant 6y ago
  Pass on that. Solar and wind are already clapping nuclear in LCOE, and before you can rip out the nuclear battlecry, "But BASELOAD", storage costs are in freefall too.
  - the8472 6y ago
    > storage cost is in freefall too That's short-term storage. No seasonal storage technology is at a point where we could just point at a learning curve chart, draw a circle around some future intersection point and say "problem solved here".
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Chemical storage (as methane or whatever) would work fine and the operational side would be more or less carbon neutral. The cost is high compared to burning fossil fuels, but we could do it as a society (have an excess of solar to meet household winter electrical needs and synthesize methane in the summer to use as household heat fuel in the winter). Just pulling numbers out of the darkness, the upfront cost here in a cold region would be ~¼ to ½ the cost of a house. High, but also clearly workable.
    - deeviant 6y ago
      Seasonal storage? That's not a thing. You just scale your solar/wind installations to the part of the season with the least resource (solar and wind do not often have the same low point, either), which is economically feasible because it is cheaper than nuclear (and coal).
      - the8472 6y ago
        That dramatically changes cost calculation. Currently "cheaper than X" models don't account for such overcapacity factors. If there's no wind in summer and no insolation during winter you'll have to overbuild each by a factor of 5 or so and then build short-term storage on top of that. Conversely that means the bar to meet now is (renewables + storage) < fuel-based / 5. That's a rather fat margin. And things would be a lot cheaper overall if we could shave that off with some long-term storage.
        deeviant 6y ago
        > If there's no wind in summer and no insolation during winter you'll have to overbuild each by a factor of 5... If nuclear power physics stopped working October to March, that would drastically effect nuclear power economic competitiveness... Wait, what's this people are telling me, I can't just make stuff up? You make up a completely BS example but then actually go through and try to come out with actual numbers. Right.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        manfredo 6y ago
        Windless days and cloud cover are phenomena that actually exist and are observed. The behavior of beta particles suddenly changing is not. Yes, 5x variability in wind production has actually been observed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erie_Shores_Wind_Farm_output_Aug-Jul_2008.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erie_Shores_Wind_Farm_out... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windpowerprediction.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windpowerprediction.png
        deeviant 6y ago
        The statement was no X in Summer, no Y in winter. It was not talking about a daily or even weekly phenomena but seasonal one. There is no summer which have had no winds, no winters that have had no insolation or vice versa. Instead of making up numbers, you can use a site like this: https://www.solar-electric.com/learning-center/solar-insolation-maps.html/ https://www.solar-electric.com/learning-center/solar-insolat.... You'll find that by comparing seasonal best case to seasonal worst case it is something like, on average, 50% difference. It gets worse the closer you to get to the pole obviously. Furthermore, surplus production does not go into dev/null. Excess resources create markets, and there will be consumers that take advantage of cheaper surplus power (smelting, heavy industrial, desalination, hydrogen production, and whatever else anybody cooks up).
    - qwertox 6y ago
      There is this concept of "Gravity Storage" [1] which could be promising, if some testing were to be done on it. Basically you cut a large cylinder out of the earth and lift it by pumping water below it. When you then need the energy, you release the water with the help of the weight of the cylinder and use it to generate electricity. It sounds a bit crazy, but it could be worth testing that approach, since it can also be used in a flat area like a desert. In any case, the company filed for insolvency this year [2]. There is a podcast episode [3] from "omega tau podcast" dedicated to it, which is worth listening to. [1]: https://heindl-energy.com/ https://heindl-energy.com/ [2]: https://heindl-energy.com/about-us/ https://heindl-energy.com/about-us/ [3]: https://omegataupodcast.net/299-gravity-storage/ https://omegataupodcast.net/299-gravity-storage/
      - the8472 6y ago
        That is missing the point of my comment. I didn't say that no experimental technology exists. I said that no technology exists where we can point to a chart from which we can conclude that the technology will be ready and economical in a certain number of years if trends continue.
      - dTal 6y ago
        The energy density of gravity storage is abysmal. How abysmal? A mobile phone battery can lift a 1-ton weight 10 meters.
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      Iron-based storage seems promising... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24996153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24996153
    - hedora 6y ago
      Hydroelectric has been a viable form of seasonal storage for a while. Unfortunately, it stores energy when it’s rainy, and releases it when it’s sunny.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Storage costs are in freefall because the bulk of the car market about to transition to electric and it's creating economies of scale and spurring a ton of R&D which is picking all the low-hanging fruit in battery cost improvements. It's difficult to predict how long that will continue before the easy gains run out. Maybe the existing curve will continue for another 30 years. Maybe it will continue for another 30 days. If it continues for 30 years, we're fine. If it peters out before solar+batteries are cheap enough, we still need nuclear and we're that far behind where we would be if we started building it now. Worst case if we build it now is that we have some nuclear plants that cost somewhat more to generate power than future technologies will (but still in line with existing prices). Worst case if we don't is we get more climate change. Which one is more expensive?
    - deeviant 6y ago
      > Storage costs are in freefall because the bulk of the car market about to transition to electric and it's creating economies of scale and spurring a ton of R&D which is picking all the low-hanging fruit in battery cost improvements. That's not true. Utility scale storage is a huge area of interest, has had many advancements in recent past and many of technology paths have absolutely no relation to electric tech or economies of scale.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        It is true. Making batteries for electric cars is a large fraction of the storage R&D, and the existence of non-vehicle storage technology development doesn't really change the equation anyway. The question is whether storage gets cheap enough before the cost stops falling, and the answer is we don't know and we need to be prepared in case it doesn't.
        deeviant 6y ago
        Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "Ah ha!", does not an argument make. I spent 6 years in the solar industry, working at both a start up and a fully vertically integrated behemoth that manufactured panels and built plants and while I'm no longer in the industry today, I'm confident I am up-to-date on utility-scale storage progress and it is not summed up by, "electric car batteries!"
  - manfredo 6y ago
    Storage costs, despite being in freefall still are still in the hundreds of dollars per kilowatt hour range. And it's kind of moot since the total amount of storage produced globally is still a fraction of what is necessary to make renewables feasible as a primary source of power. To put this in perspective, the US alone consumes about 500 GWh of electricity every hour. The entire world produces about 300 GWh of lithium ion batteries every year. It's dubious whether electrochemical storage will ever be able to match the requires scale, hence why a lot of renewable proponents turn to experimental solutions like the Sabatier process, hydrogen storage, or things like cranes lifting weights.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-90-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-dependably-and-without-increasing-consumer-bills https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-... ("The US can reach 90 percent clean electricity by 2035, dependably and without increasing consumer bills") https://www.2035report.com/ https://www.2035report.com/ https://www.2035report.com/data-explorer/ https://www.2035report.com/data-explorer/ "The target year of 2035 allows sufficient time for most coal and gas plants to recover their fixed costs, thereby avoiding risk of stranded costs for consumers and investors, if the right policies are in place. Wind, solar, and battery storage can provide the bulk of the 90 percent clean electricity. The report finds that new fossil fuel generators are not needed. Existing gas plants, used infrequently and combined with storage, hydropower, and nuclear power [my note: existing, not new, nuclear], are sufficient to meet demand during periods of extraordinarily low renewable energy generation or exceptionally high electricity demand. Power generation from natural gas plants would drop by 70 percent in 2035 compared to 2019." That's US centric; Australia is targeting 100 renewables by 2032, using only hydro, renewables, and storage. Let's not say it can't be done while it's being done. https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-could-be-100-renewables-by-2032-at-current-rate-of-wind-and-solar-installs-20759 https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-could-be-100-renewable...
      - manfredo 6y ago
        Academic papers claiming feasibility decades from now is a vastly different thing than something actually being feasible. If it were, then we'd have all been using fusion power since the 1980s. If you prefer a global approach as opposed to a US-centric approach, then consider the fact that the world consumes 60 TWh of electricity per day, or 2.4 TWh per hour. By comparison the entire world only produces 300 GWh, or 0.3 TWh of lithium ion batteries. And only a small fraction of that is used for grid storage [1]. These plans for intermittent sources as a primary source of energy are contingent on vast - 3 or 4 orders of magnitude at least - increases in the production of storage capacity. This isn't something that can be relied upon. This is like pointing to Moore's law and developing an application assuming a 4 THz CPU is going to be around 10 years from now. Lastly, I can't help but appreciate the irony of complaining about a US-centric approach and cherry-picking Australia - a country with lots of undeveloped land and huge solar power potential - as an example. Like I said in my previous comment, the bulk of global energy consumption occurs in North America, Europe, and Northern Asia (China, Japan, Korea). These places have much lower solar potential between greater inclinations of the Earth and less amenable weather. And even with it's natural advantages, Australia still only generates 7% of its electricity from wind and solar each. By comparison, the US already generates 20% of its electricity from nuclear and several countries like France, Ukraine, and Belgium are majority nuclear generation. Nuclear is by far the best proven way of delivering carbon free energy, save for hydroelectric power but the latter is geographically dependent. It's more expensive than fossil fuels, nobody denies that, but it's actually doable with current technology. Its feasibility is not contingent on orders-of-magnitude improvements in key technologies. Using nuclear for the bulk of energy generation has been done by multiple countries, we merely need to walk in their footsteps. 1. https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production#:~:text=As%20of%20Dec%202019%2C%20the,40%20million%20EVs%20by%202028 https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production#:~:t....
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    And we’re still doing storage wrong. My A/C could have a reservoir of refrigerant that is compressed overnight. Same for my fridge/freezer. Or my fridge could make ice that’s held until peak hours. My deep-freezer could have an ultra-chill zone that runs at night. My dryer could run in slow-mode if I turn it on at a dumb time. My water heater (even a gas one has a 250w powered vent) could ultra-heat during off-peak. My dishwasher could auto-delay until 3am...... We don’t even need “smart” 2-way comm appliances. Just a weather forecast should work well enough to predict.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Fridge/freezer combos are already a compromise design that sacrifice efficiency for floor space. Chest freezers that open from the top are far more efficient (the cold air doesn't all pour out when the door is opened.)
      - Scoundreller 6y ago
        ...and don’t get me started on freezer-below units. Who wants a system where relatively warm fridge air sits right above the cold freezer?
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      FWIW, my gas water heater has a chimney, not a powered vent.
      - Scoundreller 6y ago
        Probably bigger exhaust pipe (ie: not 3?” PVC) and straight up so it always acts like a solar chimney or Venturi pump. I’m unsure which is more efficient in the end.
    - MertsA 6y ago
      >My A/C could have a reservoir of refrigerant that is compressed overnight. Not unless you want to just vent all of the refrigerant during operation. You need to keep the suction side under low pressure otherwise it'd just stop boiling the refrigerant. >My deep-freezer could have an ultra-chill zone that runs at night. That'd be making it much less efficient so even if you can get away with some load shifting here you'd be increasing the load substantially in order to do so. Also this would cause large repeated temperature swings for everything inside, might not be too big of an issue once it's already frozen but still, undesireable. >My dryer could run in slow-mode if I turn it on at a dumb time. Your dryer could be replaced by a much more efficient design such as a heat pump dryer or a mechanical steam compression dryer. >My water heater (even a gas one has a 250w powered vent) could ultra-heat during off-peak. Safety devices make this a complete non-starter. A mixing device to lower the output water temperature can fail and probably eventually would fail stuck all the way hot making this a substantial burn hazard. Even ignoring this, all water heaters have a temperature and pressure relief valve and increasing the water temperature to e.g. 200 degrees instead of 140 substantially reduces the safety margin you have between normal operating conditions and catastrophic failure of the tank (a sizeable explosion). Also you're not really gaining a lot here, you could just use a standard water heater timer to turn it off during peak hours and rely on storage capacity. Increasing the setpoint from 140 to 210 assuming ambient cold water temperature of 70 degrees only doubles your hot water equivalent capacity. I suspect it would be cheaper to increase the tank size and not have to deal with the more challenging operating conditions. Also, again, a much better solution is just widespread adoption of heat pump water heaters. For most homes you don't need the higher output of a resistive water heater and even if you did every heat pump water heater I've seen still comes with resistive heating as well if it can't keep up with demand. The decrease in energy bills pays for itself over the lifespan of the appliance. Personally I've always wanted to see a practical combined heating and refrigeration system for a home that could tie in a fridge, HVAC, hot water heater, etc via CO2 refrigerant.
  - steeve 6y ago
    Sorry to break it to you https://twitter.com/wstrzelecki/status/1336754768002347010?s=21 https://twitter.com/wstrzelecki/status/1336754768002347010?s...
bjornsing 6y ago
Why would anybody pay for that?
- magicalhippo 6y ago
  Because it's a pretty good idea to know if the stuff that's responsible for containing the radioactive parts can do the job?
  - jupp0r 6y ago
    They are selling these to customers. GPs question is what customers would do with them.
    - NortySpock 6y ago
      Low corrosion materials and parts designs might still be worth it in other non-nuclear industrial processes?
    - magicalhippo 6y ago
      I presume customers are manufacturers of potential reactor parts that want to see that they can handle the salt, temperatures etc. edit: from the datasheet[1]: The portable loop are sutable rapid prototype validation, long term testing of mean time between failure, salt compatibility testing, and many types of experiments that require flowing molten salts. Components such as gaskets, flanges, filters, valves, pumps, pressure sensors, flow meters, and heat exchangers, etc. can be tested inside the furnace with flowing molten salt. [1]: https://www.copenhagenatomics.com/products.php https://www.copenhagenatomics.com/products.php
- neltnerb 6y ago
  It is better to make sure that the reactor won't corrode through just from the molten salts prior to testing it with radioactive molten salt. This is currently not clear.
api 6y ago
... which is a very good idea for both cost and safety reasons. It's sort of like how SpaceX is blowing up a lot of flying beer cans before packing one with people and expensive equipment.

jbverschoor 6y ago

Don’t forget to sign the petition at https://start.thorium.today https://start.thorium.today

deeviant 6y ago
Pass on that. Solar and wind are already clapping nuclear in LCOE, and before you can rip out the nuclear battlecry, "But BASELOAD", storage costs are in freefall too.
- the8472 6y ago
  > storage cost is in freefall too That's short-term storage. No seasonal storage technology is at a point where we could just point at a learning curve chart, draw a circle around some future intersection point and say "problem solved here".
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Chemical storage (as methane or whatever) would work fine and the operational side would be more or less carbon neutral. The cost is high compared to burning fossil fuels, but we could do it as a society (have an excess of solar to meet household winter electrical needs and synthesize methane in the summer to use as household heat fuel in the winter). Just pulling numbers out of the darkness, the upfront cost here in a cold region would be ~¼ to ½ the cost of a house. High, but also clearly workable.
  - deeviant 6y ago
    Seasonal storage? That's not a thing. You just scale your solar/wind installations to the part of the season with the least resource (solar and wind do not often have the same low point, either), which is economically feasible because it is cheaper than nuclear (and coal).
    - the8472 6y ago
      That dramatically changes cost calculation. Currently "cheaper than X" models don't account for such overcapacity factors. If there's no wind in summer and no insolation during winter you'll have to overbuild each by a factor of 5 or so and then build short-term storage on top of that. Conversely that means the bar to meet now is (renewables + storage) < fuel-based / 5. That's a rather fat margin. And things would be a lot cheaper overall if we could shave that off with some long-term storage.
      - deeviant 6y ago
        > If there's no wind in summer and no insolation during winter you'll have to overbuild each by a factor of 5... If nuclear power physics stopped working October to March, that would drastically effect nuclear power economic competitiveness... Wait, what's this people are telling me, I can't just make stuff up? You make up a completely BS example but then actually go through and try to come out with actual numbers. Right.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        manfredo 6y ago
        Windless days and cloud cover are phenomena that actually exist and are observed. The behavior of beta particles suddenly changing is not. Yes, 5x variability in wind production has actually been observed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erie_Shores_Wind_Farm_output_Aug-Jul_2008.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erie_Shores_Wind_Farm_out... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windpowerprediction.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windpowerprediction.png
        deeviant 6y ago
        The statement was no X in Summer, no Y in winter. It was not talking about a daily or even weekly phenomena but seasonal one. There is no summer which have had no winds, no winters that have had no insolation or vice versa. Instead of making up numbers, you can use a site like this: https://www.solar-electric.com/learning-center/solar-insolation-maps.html/ https://www.solar-electric.com/learning-center/solar-insolat.... You'll find that by comparing seasonal best case to seasonal worst case it is something like, on average, 50% difference. It gets worse the closer you to get to the pole obviously. Furthermore, surplus production does not go into dev/null. Excess resources create markets, and there will be consumers that take advantage of cheaper surplus power (smelting, heavy industrial, desalination, hydrogen production, and whatever else anybody cooks up).
  - qwertox 6y ago
    There is this concept of "Gravity Storage" [1] which could be promising, if some testing were to be done on it. Basically you cut a large cylinder out of the earth and lift it by pumping water below it. When you then need the energy, you release the water with the help of the weight of the cylinder and use it to generate electricity. It sounds a bit crazy, but it could be worth testing that approach, since it can also be used in a flat area like a desert. In any case, the company filed for insolvency this year [2]. There is a podcast episode [3] from "omega tau podcast" dedicated to it, which is worth listening to. [1]: https://heindl-energy.com/ https://heindl-energy.com/ [2]: https://heindl-energy.com/about-us/ https://heindl-energy.com/about-us/ [3]: https://omegataupodcast.net/299-gravity-storage/ https://omegataupodcast.net/299-gravity-storage/
    - the8472 6y ago
      That is missing the point of my comment. I didn't say that no experimental technology exists. I said that no technology exists where we can point to a chart from which we can conclude that the technology will be ready and economical in a certain number of years if trends continue.
    - dTal 6y ago
      The energy density of gravity storage is abysmal. How abysmal? A mobile phone battery can lift a 1-ton weight 10 meters.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    Iron-based storage seems promising... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24996153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24996153
  - hedora 6y ago
    Hydroelectric has been a viable form of seasonal storage for a while. Unfortunately, it stores energy when it’s rainy, and releases it when it’s sunny.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Storage costs are in freefall because the bulk of the car market about to transition to electric and it's creating economies of scale and spurring a ton of R&D which is picking all the low-hanging fruit in battery cost improvements. It's difficult to predict how long that will continue before the easy gains run out. Maybe the existing curve will continue for another 30 years. Maybe it will continue for another 30 days. If it continues for 30 years, we're fine. If it peters out before solar+batteries are cheap enough, we still need nuclear and we're that far behind where we would be if we started building it now. Worst case if we build it now is that we have some nuclear plants that cost somewhat more to generate power than future technologies will (but still in line with existing prices). Worst case if we don't is we get more climate change. Which one is more expensive?
  - deeviant 6y ago
    > Storage costs are in freefall because the bulk of the car market about to transition to electric and it's creating economies of scale and spurring a ton of R&D which is picking all the low-hanging fruit in battery cost improvements. That's not true. Utility scale storage is a huge area of interest, has had many advancements in recent past and many of technology paths have absolutely no relation to electric tech or economies of scale.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      It is true. Making batteries for electric cars is a large fraction of the storage R&D, and the existence of non-vehicle storage technology development doesn't really change the equation anyway. The question is whether storage gets cheap enough before the cost stops falling, and the answer is we don't know and we need to be prepared in case it doesn't.
      - deeviant 6y ago
        Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "Ah ha!", does not an argument make. I spent 6 years in the solar industry, working at both a start up and a fully vertically integrated behemoth that manufactured panels and built plants and while I'm no longer in the industry today, I'm confident I am up-to-date on utility-scale storage progress and it is not summed up by, "electric car batteries!"
- manfredo 6y ago
  Storage costs, despite being in freefall still are still in the hundreds of dollars per kilowatt hour range. And it's kind of moot since the total amount of storage produced globally is still a fraction of what is necessary to make renewables feasible as a primary source of power. To put this in perspective, the US alone consumes about 500 GWh of electricity every hour. The entire world produces about 300 GWh of lithium ion batteries every year. It's dubious whether electrochemical storage will ever be able to match the requires scale, hence why a lot of renewable proponents turn to experimental solutions like the Sabatier process, hydrogen storage, or things like cranes lifting weights.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-90-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-dependably-and-without-increasing-consumer-bills https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-... ("The US can reach 90 percent clean electricity by 2035, dependably and without increasing consumer bills") https://www.2035report.com/ https://www.2035report.com/ https://www.2035report.com/data-explorer/ https://www.2035report.com/data-explorer/ "The target year of 2035 allows sufficient time for most coal and gas plants to recover their fixed costs, thereby avoiding risk of stranded costs for consumers and investors, if the right policies are in place. Wind, solar, and battery storage can provide the bulk of the 90 percent clean electricity. The report finds that new fossil fuel generators are not needed. Existing gas plants, used infrequently and combined with storage, hydropower, and nuclear power [my note: existing, not new, nuclear], are sufficient to meet demand during periods of extraordinarily low renewable energy generation or exceptionally high electricity demand. Power generation from natural gas plants would drop by 70 percent in 2035 compared to 2019." That's US centric; Australia is targeting 100 renewables by 2032, using only hydro, renewables, and storage. Let's not say it can't be done while it's being done. https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-could-be-100-renewables-by-2032-at-current-rate-of-wind-and-solar-installs-20759 https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-could-be-100-renewable...
    - manfredo 6y ago
      Academic papers claiming feasibility decades from now is a vastly different thing than something actually being feasible. If it were, then we'd have all been using fusion power since the 1980s. If you prefer a global approach as opposed to a US-centric approach, then consider the fact that the world consumes 60 TWh of electricity per day, or 2.4 TWh per hour. By comparison the entire world only produces 300 GWh, or 0.3 TWh of lithium ion batteries. And only a small fraction of that is used for grid storage [1]. These plans for intermittent sources as a primary source of energy are contingent on vast - 3 or 4 orders of magnitude at least - increases in the production of storage capacity. This isn't something that can be relied upon. This is like pointing to Moore's law and developing an application assuming a 4 THz CPU is going to be around 10 years from now. Lastly, I can't help but appreciate the irony of complaining about a US-centric approach and cherry-picking Australia - a country with lots of undeveloped land and huge solar power potential - as an example. Like I said in my previous comment, the bulk of global energy consumption occurs in North America, Europe, and Northern Asia (China, Japan, Korea). These places have much lower solar potential between greater inclinations of the Earth and less amenable weather. And even with it's natural advantages, Australia still only generates 7% of its electricity from wind and solar each. By comparison, the US already generates 20% of its electricity from nuclear and several countries like France, Ukraine, and Belgium are majority nuclear generation. Nuclear is by far the best proven way of delivering carbon free energy, save for hydroelectric power but the latter is geographically dependent. It's more expensive than fossil fuels, nobody denies that, but it's actually doable with current technology. Its feasibility is not contingent on orders-of-magnitude improvements in key technologies. Using nuclear for the bulk of energy generation has been done by multiple countries, we merely need to walk in their footsteps. 1. https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production#:~:text=As%20of%20Dec%202019%2C%20the,40%20million%20EVs%20by%202028 https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production#:~:t....
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  And we’re still doing storage wrong. My A/C could have a reservoir of refrigerant that is compressed overnight. Same for my fridge/freezer. Or my fridge could make ice that’s held until peak hours. My deep-freezer could have an ultra-chill zone that runs at night. My dryer could run in slow-mode if I turn it on at a dumb time. My water heater (even a gas one has a 250w powered vent) could ultra-heat during off-peak. My dishwasher could auto-delay until 3am...... We don’t even need “smart” 2-way comm appliances. Just a weather forecast should work well enough to predict.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Fridge/freezer combos are already a compromise design that sacrifice efficiency for floor space. Chest freezers that open from the top are far more efficient (the cold air doesn't all pour out when the door is opened.)
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      ...and don’t get me started on freezer-below units. Who wants a system where relatively warm fridge air sits right above the cold freezer?
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    FWIW, my gas water heater has a chimney, not a powered vent.
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      Probably bigger exhaust pipe (ie: not 3?” PVC) and straight up so it always acts like a solar chimney or Venturi pump. I’m unsure which is more efficient in the end.
  - MertsA 6y ago
    >My A/C could have a reservoir of refrigerant that is compressed overnight. Not unless you want to just vent all of the refrigerant during operation. You need to keep the suction side under low pressure otherwise it'd just stop boiling the refrigerant. >My deep-freezer could have an ultra-chill zone that runs at night. That'd be making it much less efficient so even if you can get away with some load shifting here you'd be increasing the load substantially in order to do so. Also this would cause large repeated temperature swings for everything inside, might not be too big of an issue once it's already frozen but still, undesireable. >My dryer could run in slow-mode if I turn it on at a dumb time. Your dryer could be replaced by a much more efficient design such as a heat pump dryer or a mechanical steam compression dryer. >My water heater (even a gas one has a 250w powered vent) could ultra-heat during off-peak. Safety devices make this a complete non-starter. A mixing device to lower the output water temperature can fail and probably eventually would fail stuck all the way hot making this a substantial burn hazard. Even ignoring this, all water heaters have a temperature and pressure relief valve and increasing the water temperature to e.g. 200 degrees instead of 140 substantially reduces the safety margin you have between normal operating conditions and catastrophic failure of the tank (a sizeable explosion). Also you're not really gaining a lot here, you could just use a standard water heater timer to turn it off during peak hours and rely on storage capacity. Increasing the setpoint from 140 to 210 assuming ambient cold water temperature of 70 degrees only doubles your hot water equivalent capacity. I suspect it would be cheaper to increase the tank size and not have to deal with the more challenging operating conditions. Also, again, a much better solution is just widespread adoption of heat pump water heaters. For most homes you don't need the higher output of a resistive water heater and even if you did every heat pump water heater I've seen still comes with resistive heating as well if it can't keep up with demand. The decrease in energy bills pays for itself over the lifespan of the appliance. Personally I've always wanted to see a practical combined heating and refrigeration system for a home that could tie in a fridge, HVAC, hot water heater, etc via CO2 refrigerant.
- steeve 6y ago
  Sorry to break it to you https://twitter.com/wstrzelecki/status/1336754768002347010?s=21 https://twitter.com/wstrzelecki/status/1336754768002347010?s...

bjornsing 6y ago

Why would anybody pay for that?

magicalhippo 6y ago
Because it's a pretty good idea to know if the stuff that's responsible for containing the radioactive parts can do the job?
- jupp0r 6y ago
  They are selling these to customers. GPs question is what customers would do with them.
  - NortySpock 6y ago
    Low corrosion materials and parts designs might still be worth it in other non-nuclear industrial processes?
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    I presume customers are manufacturers of potential reactor parts that want to see that they can handle the salt, temperatures etc. edit: from the datasheet[1]: The portable loop are sutable rapid prototype validation, long term testing of mean time between failure, salt compatibility testing, and many types of experiments that require flowing molten salts. Components such as gaskets, flanges, filters, valves, pumps, pressure sensors, flow meters, and heat exchangers, etc. can be tested inside the furnace with flowing molten salt. [1]: https://www.copenhagenatomics.com/products.php https://www.copenhagenatomics.com/products.php
neltnerb 6y ago
It is better to make sure that the reactor won't corrode through just from the molten salts prior to testing it with radioactive molten salt. This is currently not clear.

api 6y ago

... which is a very good idea for both cost and safety reasons. It's sort of like how SpaceX is blowing up a lot of flying beer cans before packing one with people and expensive equipment.