5 ms·

So you can build nuclear in a tsunami zone? in a seismic zone? in an area without cooling? So you can mine and enrich uranium without carbon? Nuclear does non

by bob29 6y ago

So you can build nuclear in a tsunami zone? in a seismic zone? in an area without cooling? So you can mine and enrich uranium without carbon? Nuclear does none of the things you fantasize it to do really.

sir_bearington 6y ago
> So you can build nuclear in a tsunami zone? in a seismic zone? in an area without cooling? Yes, you harden the structure against tsunamis and earthquakes. That's part of why nuclear plants are so expensive. Atmospheric cooling can indeed be done anywhere. It's typically easier and more efficient to use water cooling. And humans need water to survive, and thus population centers are built near sources of water, water cooling is almost always an option. Also nuclear plants can be cooled with seawater. This is in stark contrast to hydroelectricity which needs both a river and a valley to be viable. Geothermal power needs magma near enough to the surface to heat water into steam. > So you can mine and enrich uranium without carbon? I don't see why not. Use electricity produced by nuclear plants to drive centrifuges. Also use said electricity to power mining equipment. And you didn't answer my question: What other carbon-free sources provide energy 24/7, besides ones that need very specific geography like hydroelectricity and geothermal power?
- bob29 6y ago
  Easy, there’s many: 1) Solar + transmission lines. It’s always sunny somewhere 2) wind + transmission lines, always windy somewhere 3) use some energy produced by hydro to manufacture some concrete river beds and reservoirs 4) use some of the energy produced by 1-3 to dig real deep for geothermal everywhere 5) Ocean thermal energy conversion Don’t get me wrong , I’m not anti nuclear , I’m a huge fan of the big reactor in the sky it produces all we need with perfect reliability there’s no reason to do something as dumb as trying to build terrestrial reactors
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    > 1) Solar + transmission lines. It’s always sunny somewhere > 2) wind + transmission lines, always windy somewhere These don't produce power consistently. That's why one would need to build redundancy. Also it's not always sunny somewhere, unless you build transcontinental transmission lines. And even then, there's a period of time where most sunlight is hitting the pacific ocean. > 4) use some of the energy produced by 1-3 to dig real deep for geothermal everywhere > 5) Ocean thermal energy conversion Both of these are geographically dependent. Might as well has just said hydroelectricity.
  - rurounijones 6y ago
    > Solar + transmission lines. It’s always sunny somewhere Unless it is sunny 24/7 in a given country or even group of coutnries (e.g. the EU) this is not viable. Countries will not give up their energy security and put themselves at the mercy of the other side of the planet (where it is sunny) plus whoeever might want to damage those transmission lines and cripple a country. It is already an issue with oil and gas.
- thomasmg 6y ago
  > What other carbon-free sources provide energy 24/7 Wind + solar + biofuels + waste + batteries. Batteries are primarily for peak usage, and it could be car batteries (V2G). Biofuels are primary for seasonal usage (e.g. winter). Nuclear is too expensive if you take into account the risks, which are currently externalized.
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    There is not enough accessible lithium to provide nearly enough storage [1]. 5 minute with known deposits, and 19 minutes estimated to be accessible with current mining techniques. Biofuels are low energy density, and don't provide nearly enough power. Not to mention they aren't carbon-free. Burning biofuels releases carbon into the atmosphere that would otherwise be trapped. 1. https://dercuano.github.io/notes/lithium-supplies.html https://dercuano.github.io/notes/lithium-supplies.html
    - telchar 6y ago
      Your source seems to be low by about 2 orders of magnitude on the energy density of lithium. They assume ~100% of a battery is made of lithium. There are only 200-300g of lithium metal per kwh in a lithium ion battery[0,1], or 12-18MJ per kg. [0] http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/How_Much_Lithium_Per_Battery.pdf http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/How_Much_Lithium_Pe... [1] https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fgreet.es.anl.gov%2Ffiles%2Flib-lca https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fgreet.es.anl... page 10
    - thomasmg 6y ago
      Battery: it doesn't have to be lithium (even thought, currently all planned ones use lithium-ion). Sodium-sulphur would be an option as well. Biofuels are low energy density: this isn't about aviation or transportation, so that's not a concern at all. Biofuels don't provide enough power: citation needed (are you moving the goalpost again?) - note that most energy will come from wind and the sun, so there is relatively little need for biofuels. Burning biofuels releases carbon into the atmosphere that would otherwise be trapped: No, it would be released anyway (well, unless if you burry it really deep). The problem with nuclear power is cost, due to high risks. And even then, the insurance (which is really expensive for nuclear plants) doesn't cover all the risks. The biggest risk is externalized: if e.g. a power plant in Switzerland would blow up, almost the whole country would be become un-inhabitable. And there is no insurance company paying for that.
rurounijones 6y ago
> So you can build nuclear in a tsunami zone? in a seismic zone? Why not? It worked at Onagawa: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590123020300931 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259012302...
- lostlogin 6y ago
  It’s also failed. Why not just avoid it? That’s the approach taken according to your link. The solution to the problems faced at Onagawa were to decommission the plant, and this process would take longer than the duration for which the plant actually ran. “the 2011 events strongly influenced the decision to decommission the Onagawa Unit 1 early, brought to attention the length of the decommissioning process (which will surpass the operation stage)”
  - rurounijones 6y ago
    The decision to decommission the plant is political, not technical. Onagawa was closer to the epicenter than fukushima and suffered no ill effects. It can be done, the main different between Onagawa and Fukushima is that they were owned by different companies and one company took safety seriously. For more reading, see: https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-that-didnt-melt-down-on-3-11/ https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear... and IAEA report: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/actionplan/reports/onagawa0413.pdf https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/actionplan/reports/ona... which the article is based on.

by bob29 6y ago

sir_bearington 6y ago

> So you can build nuclear in a tsunami zone? in a seismic zone? in an area without cooling? Yes, you harden the structure against tsunamis and earthquakes. That's part of why nuclear plants are so expensive. Atmospheric cooling can indeed be done anywhere. It's typically easier and more efficient to use water cooling. And humans need water to survive, and thus population centers are built near sources of water, water cooling is almost always an option. Also nuclear plants can be cooled with seawater. This is in stark contrast to hydroelectricity which needs both a river and a valley to be viable. Geothermal power needs magma near enough to the surface to heat water into steam. > So you can mine and enrich uranium without carbon? I don't see why not. Use electricity produced by nuclear plants to drive centrifuges. Also use said electricity to power mining equipment. And you didn't answer my question: What other carbon-free sources provide energy 24/7, besides ones that need very specific geography like hydroelectricity and geothermal power?

bob29 6y ago
Easy, there’s many: 1) Solar + transmission lines. It’s always sunny somewhere 2) wind + transmission lines, always windy somewhere 3) use some energy produced by hydro to manufacture some concrete river beds and reservoirs 4) use some of the energy produced by 1-3 to dig real deep for geothermal everywhere 5) Ocean thermal energy conversion Don’t get me wrong , I’m not anti nuclear , I’m a huge fan of the big reactor in the sky it produces all we need with perfect reliability there’s no reason to do something as dumb as trying to build terrestrial reactors
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  > 1) Solar + transmission lines. It’s always sunny somewhere > 2) wind + transmission lines, always windy somewhere These don't produce power consistently. That's why one would need to build redundancy. Also it's not always sunny somewhere, unless you build transcontinental transmission lines. And even then, there's a period of time where most sunlight is hitting the pacific ocean. > 4) use some of the energy produced by 1-3 to dig real deep for geothermal everywhere > 5) Ocean thermal energy conversion Both of these are geographically dependent. Might as well has just said hydroelectricity.
- rurounijones 6y ago
  > Solar + transmission lines. It’s always sunny somewhere Unless it is sunny 24/7 in a given country or even group of coutnries (e.g. the EU) this is not viable. Countries will not give up their energy security and put themselves at the mercy of the other side of the planet (where it is sunny) plus whoeever might want to damage those transmission lines and cripple a country. It is already an issue with oil and gas.
thomasmg 6y ago
> What other carbon-free sources provide energy 24/7 Wind + solar + biofuels + waste + batteries. Batteries are primarily for peak usage, and it could be car batteries (V2G). Biofuels are primary for seasonal usage (e.g. winter). Nuclear is too expensive if you take into account the risks, which are currently externalized.
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  There is not enough accessible lithium to provide nearly enough storage [1]. 5 minute with known deposits, and 19 minutes estimated to be accessible with current mining techniques. Biofuels are low energy density, and don't provide nearly enough power. Not to mention they aren't carbon-free. Burning biofuels releases carbon into the atmosphere that would otherwise be trapped. 1. https://dercuano.github.io/notes/lithium-supplies.html https://dercuano.github.io/notes/lithium-supplies.html
  - telchar 6y ago
    Your source seems to be low by about 2 orders of magnitude on the energy density of lithium. They assume ~100% of a battery is made of lithium. There are only 200-300g of lithium metal per kwh in a lithium ion battery[0,1], or 12-18MJ per kg. [0] http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/How_Much_Lithium_Per_Battery.pdf http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/How_Much_Lithium_Pe... [1] https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fgreet.es.anl.gov%2Ffiles%2Flib-lca https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fgreet.es.anl... page 10
  - thomasmg 6y ago
    Battery: it doesn't have to be lithium (even thought, currently all planned ones use lithium-ion). Sodium-sulphur would be an option as well. Biofuels are low energy density: this isn't about aviation or transportation, so that's not a concern at all. Biofuels don't provide enough power: citation needed (are you moving the goalpost again?) - note that most energy will come from wind and the sun, so there is relatively little need for biofuels. Burning biofuels releases carbon into the atmosphere that would otherwise be trapped: No, it would be released anyway (well, unless if you burry it really deep). The problem with nuclear power is cost, due to high risks. And even then, the insurance (which is really expensive for nuclear plants) doesn't cover all the risks. The biggest risk is externalized: if e.g. a power plant in Switzerland would blow up, almost the whole country would be become un-inhabitable. And there is no insurance company paying for that.

rurounijones 6y ago

> So you can build nuclear in a tsunami zone? in a seismic zone? Why not? It worked at Onagawa: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590123020300931 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259012302...

lostlogin 6y ago
It’s also failed. Why not just avoid it? That’s the approach taken according to your link. The solution to the problems faced at Onagawa were to decommission the plant, and this process would take longer than the duration for which the plant actually ran. “the 2011 events strongly influenced the decision to decommission the Onagawa Unit 1 early, brought to attention the length of the decommissioning process (which will surpass the operation stage)”
- rurounijones 6y ago
  The decision to decommission the plant is political, not technical. Onagawa was closer to the epicenter than fukushima and suffered no ill effects. It can be done, the main different between Onagawa and Fukushima is that they were owned by different companies and one company took safety seriously. For more reading, see: https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-that-didnt-melt-down-on-3-11/ https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear... and IAEA report: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/actionplan/reports/onagawa0413.pdf https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/actionplan/reports/ona... which the article is based on.