4 ms·

> Why not keep doing the thing that's provably working. So nuclear then? Plants take on average 1-year longer than natural gas plants and a single nuclear plan

> Why not keep doing the thing that's provably working. So nuclear then? Plants take on average 1-year longer than natural gas plants and a single nuclear plant produces thousands of hectares worth of solar panels with a tiny fraction of the resource usage. We have viable and in-use grid-scale U-235, Pu-239, and Th-232 reactors. We also have viable and in-use military operated U-233 breeder reactors in multiple nations that are in active production. Converting from a military design to a grid-scale design isn't really that hard as you loosen a ton of the space and thermal management requirements making manufacturing, operation, and maintenance cheaper. > So a technology that hasn't made it to the test bench The technology is fully proven in test reactors. The first 5 grid-scale reactors being built in the USA are part of a US Department of Energy program looking to create shovel-ready Th-232 SMR designs. There isn't a shortage of any of the isotopes we'd need for nuclear. Even if we used only U-235 and Pu-239 reactors using existing reserves to replace all current and projected global energy needs, we'd have 79 years to find more fuel or build something else. Meanwhile, with solar and wind, we still haven't figure out how to cheaply and safely store the energy to smooth the power supply curve. We could buy ourselves over 79 years to figure this out by building nuclear with only existing grid-scale technologies starting today.

pfdietz 4y ago
Natural gas plants take as little as 28-30 months. https://www.powermag.com/controlling-schedule-quality-and-costs-for-new-gas-fired-plants/ https://www.powermag.com/controlling-schedule-quality-and-co...
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> So nuclear then? Plants take on average 1-year longer than natural gas plants Water moderated reactors provably cannot work. Breeders do not exist. You don't get to start gaslighting about build times until you prove it's possible to make the fuel rods. Here's a few hints on how to tell if something works: What was the largest ever deployment of nuclear generation in a single year? For how many years in a row have renewables exceeded this? How many Joules of wholly unsubsidized, non-state-controlled, self-financed, insured nuclear generation have ever been produced? Now how much does unsubsidized solar or wind generation sell for? > a single nuclear plant produces thousands of hectares worth of solar panels How long did Inkai block 3 Uranium mine take to develop? What is its area in km^2 including the exclusion zones where the ground is too poisonous to live on or grow anything on? How many GW net of solar could be placed there in Kazakhstan's climate? How many times less energy does the Uranium it outputs produce? Now do a Namibian open cut mine with 0.01% concentration (the Uranium might even break even). How much fossil fuel does it take to mine the fifty billion or so tonnes of ore you'll need? If you were to expand production significantly that would be a comparatively high concentration mine. > with a tiny fraction of the resource usage. A solar panel produces >100GJ per kg of sand with roughly 10x the silver investment of a NPP or ~50g/kW and traces of B and P. The power density is around 3-6W/kg for high durability panels depending on how they are mounted. A nuclear reactor produces 5-10W/kg. The solar panel doesn't require indium or chromium or cadmium or all of the exotic materials required for a gas centrifuge. A kg of Uranium ore from Rossing produces about 30-80MJ. You can't just repeat a lie based on 20 year old data. You're making a claim that renewables (which have now surpassed the world nuclear fleet and are adding 20-30% per year) are insufficient compared to Nuclear. Prove it. Show me where the fuel can possibly come from. > Even if we used only U-235 and Pu-239 reactors using existing reserves to replace all current and projected global energy needs, we'd have 79 years to find more fuel or build something else. It's ~79 years at current consumption. Which one of the facts I stated about the available energy are you disputing? Is there not roughly 8-10 million tonnes of Uranium resource? Is it not 0.7% fissile? Does 20-30% not get left in tailings? Does a current generation reactor not require roughly 3.5 tonnes net of fissile material per GW? You can't just repeat the lie. Where is the fissile material hiding and how do you start your breeder reactors once you are done without taking a century to build up the U233? > The first 5 grid-scale reactors being built in the USA are part of a US Department of Energy program looking to create shovel-ready So you have a program to maybe finish building the test bench in 10 years? > The technology is fully proven in test reactors No reactor has ever run start to finish at non-negligible capacity factor with a multi year fuel cycle (whether constant reload or not), created >80TJ/kg of usable steam the whole time and ended with more fuel than it started. It is as proven as a 1000Wh/kg AlS battery that costs a few dollars a kilo or a quad junction 45% efficient paintable PV. 'I kinda tried one of the steps but am ignoring the really hard part of separating fission products or not having it corrode' isn't proven.
- __pache__ 4y ago
  Does this invalidate everything you're saying, or what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    what. Definitely what.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Have any of those actually bred more than they used and extracted it without catching fire or spewing radioactivity everywhere? If not it's just MOX, a slightly radioactive sodium fire, or a graphite pile with extra steps.
    - __pache__ 4y ago
      > Have any of those actually bred yes? do the research. you're making assertions you haven't done research on, apparently.........
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Which one? Or are you just lying?
        __pache__ 4y ago
        ??? which ones haven't? how do we know about the concept? have we ever tested it?
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        We know about tokamaks, have they generated net power? Which breeder ran on a full load of fuel made from fertile material inside it? By your logic we don't need to worry about storage because an AlS battery worked on a test bench and has a theoretical energy density of 1000kWh from $5 worth of materials.

pfdietz 4y ago

Natural gas plants take as little as 28-30 months. https://www.powermag.com/controlling-schedule-quality-and-costs-for-new-gas-fired-plants/ https://www.powermag.com/controlling-schedule-quality-and-co...

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> So nuclear then? Plants take on average 1-year longer than natural gas plants Water moderated reactors provably cannot work. Breeders do not exist. You don't get to start gaslighting about build times until you prove it's possible to make the fuel rods. Here's a few hints on how to tell if something works: What was the largest ever deployment of nuclear generation in a single year? For how many years in a row have renewables exceeded this? How many Joules of wholly unsubsidized, non-state-controlled, self-financed, insured nuclear generation have ever been produced? Now how much does unsubsidized solar or wind generation sell for? > a single nuclear plant produces thousands of hectares worth of solar panels How long did Inkai block 3 Uranium mine take to develop? What is its area in km^2 including the exclusion zones where the ground is too poisonous to live on or grow anything on? How many GW net of solar could be placed there in Kazakhstan's climate? How many times less energy does the Uranium it outputs produce? Now do a Namibian open cut mine with 0.01% concentration (the Uranium might even break even). How much fossil fuel does it take to mine the fifty billion or so tonnes of ore you'll need? If you were to expand production significantly that would be a comparatively high concentration mine. > with a tiny fraction of the resource usage. A solar panel produces >100GJ per kg of sand with roughly 10x the silver investment of a NPP or ~50g/kW and traces of B and P. The power density is around 3-6W/kg for high durability panels depending on how they are mounted. A nuclear reactor produces 5-10W/kg. The solar panel doesn't require indium or chromium or cadmium or all of the exotic materials required for a gas centrifuge. A kg of Uranium ore from Rossing produces about 30-80MJ. You can't just repeat a lie based on 20 year old data. You're making a claim that renewables (which have now surpassed the world nuclear fleet and are adding 20-30% per year) are insufficient compared to Nuclear. Prove it. Show me where the fuel can possibly come from. > Even if we used only U-235 and Pu-239 reactors using existing reserves to replace all current and projected global energy needs, we'd have 79 years to find more fuel or build something else. It's ~79 years at current consumption. Which one of the facts I stated about the available energy are you disputing? Is there not roughly 8-10 million tonnes of Uranium resource? Is it not 0.7% fissile? Does 20-30% not get left in tailings? Does a current generation reactor not require roughly 3.5 tonnes net of fissile material per GW? You can't just repeat the lie. Where is the fissile material hiding and how do you start your breeder reactors once you are done without taking a century to build up the U233? > The first 5 grid-scale reactors being built in the USA are part of a US Department of Energy program looking to create shovel-ready So you have a program to maybe finish building the test bench in 10 years? > The technology is fully proven in test reactors No reactor has ever run start to finish at non-negligible capacity factor with a multi year fuel cycle (whether constant reload or not), created >80TJ/kg of usable steam the whole time and ended with more fuel than it started. It is as proven as a 1000Wh/kg AlS battery that costs a few dollars a kilo or a quad junction 45% efficient paintable PV. 'I kinda tried one of the steps but am ignoring the really hard part of separating fission products or not having it corrode' isn't proven.

__pache__ 4y ago
Does this invalidate everything you're saying, or what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
- pencilguin 4y ago
  what. Definitely what.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Have any of those actually bred more than they used and extracted it without catching fire or spewing radioactivity everywhere? If not it's just MOX, a slightly radioactive sodium fire, or a graphite pile with extra steps.
  - __pache__ 4y ago
    > Have any of those actually bred yes? do the research. you're making assertions you haven't done research on, apparently.........
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Which one? Or are you just lying?
      - __pache__ 4y ago
        ??? which ones haven't? how do we know about the concept? have we ever tested it?
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        We know about tokamaks, have they generated net power? Which breeder ran on a full load of fuel made from fertile material inside it? By your logic we don't need to worry about storage because an AlS battery worked on a test bench and has a theoretical energy density of 1000kWh from $5 worth of materials.