6 ms·

Nuclear is expensive even after the reactor is build. And I wouldn’t call it progress to still rely on steam machines for energy

by croes 10mo ago

ethmarks 10mo ago
> Nuclear is expensive even after the reactor is build. Solar panels and wind turbines need maintenance too. And they have much shorter operational lives than nuclear power plants, meaning they'll need to be expensively replaced much more frequently. > And I wouldn’t call it progress to still rely on steam machines for energy Could you please explain your objection to steam-based power? Is it purely aesthetic, or is there some inherent downside to steam turbines that I'm not aware of? Also, concentrated solar power systems that concentrate sunlight and use it to boil steam[1] are significantly more efficient than direct photovoltaics. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
- hvb2 10mo ago
  > Could you please explain your objection to steam-based power? My guess would be that you're taking energy that you burn, you then boil water, water then goes through a number of turbines, then to a generator and then you might have electricity. Every step in that process is not 100% efficient. Direct PV is, sunlight, cell that generates current, current gets transformed into whatever the grid needs. So it's fewer steps.
graeme 10mo ago
What's wrong with steam? It's better than carbon. And solar + battery requires more carbon to produce than nuclear energy as there's a lot of mining and physical construction involved + you must overbuild to supply power or rely on non solar sources. All for building solar. Do not understand the constant need to denigrate nuclear in favour of carbon sources while doing so. (If carbon sources were at zero this would be a different conversation)
- croes 10mo ago
  It’s an inefficient way of producing energy. Only 30-35% results in electricity
  - ethmarks 10mo ago
    What alternative do you propose that's more efficient?
  - graeme 10mo ago
    Could you please provide comparable figured of EROI for solar vs Nuclear? For a useful comparison you have to compare both sides, not give a stat in isolation and assert it is worse without comparing.
  - ai_critic 10mo ago
    If you believe that figure, that's still comparable to solar's best ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency ). Optimal steam plants can get do better, exceeding 50% in some configurations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined-cycle_power_plant#Efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined-cycle_power_plant#Eff... ). Steam is awesome.
    - _aavaa_ 10mo ago
      The difference that makes your statement misleading is that solar doesn’t pay for its fuel, the sun shines for free.
  - fc417fc802 10mo ago
    30-35% of what? What are the inputs here? What is driving the cost? What are the externalities? And what is the end result in price per kWh?
- epistasis 10mo ago
  Nothing inherently wrong with steam, just as there's nothing inherently wrong with spinning rust hard disks or punch cards. We are at the end of the tech curve for steam, we have pushed it hard and made some super impressive technology, but it's not advancing anymore. Supercritical CO2 might have some advantages, or other fluids. We have zero-carbon tech that uses non-steam principles, and is currently on a tech curve that's getting cheaper than any thermodynamic cycle. We have storage tech now which is an even bigger revolution for the grid than cheap solar, because a huge limitation of the grid has always been the inability to store and buffer energy. I still have pinning rust disks, but only because they are cheap. If SSDs were cheaper, then we would see a massive switch. (BTW denigrating steam also denigrates all fossil fuel electricity sources, because they use the same mechanism, except for some natural gas turbines)

Nuclear is expensive even after the reactor is build. And I wouldn’t call it progress to still rely on steam machines for energy

by croes 10mo ago

Nuclear is expensive even after the reactor is build. And I wouldn’t call it progress to still rely on steam machines for energy

ethmarks 10mo ago

> Nuclear is expensive even after the reactor is build. Solar panels and wind turbines need maintenance too. And they have much shorter operational lives than nuclear power plants, meaning they'll need to be expensively replaced much more frequently. > And I wouldn’t call it progress to still rely on steam machines for energy Could you please explain your objection to steam-based power? Is it purely aesthetic, or is there some inherent downside to steam turbines that I'm not aware of? Also, concentrated solar power systems that concentrate sunlight and use it to boil steam[1] are significantly more efficient than direct photovoltaics. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

hvb2 10mo ago
> Could you please explain your objection to steam-based power? My guess would be that you're taking energy that you burn, you then boil water, water then goes through a number of turbines, then to a generator and then you might have electricity. Every step in that process is not 100% efficient. Direct PV is, sunlight, cell that generates current, current gets transformed into whatever the grid needs. So it's fewer steps.

graeme 10mo ago

What's wrong with steam? It's better than carbon. And solar + battery requires more carbon to produce than nuclear energy as there's a lot of mining and physical construction involved + you must overbuild to supply power or rely on non solar sources. All for building solar. Do not understand the constant need to denigrate nuclear in favour of carbon sources while doing so. (If carbon sources were at zero this would be a different conversation)

croes 10mo ago
It’s an inefficient way of producing energy. Only 30-35% results in electricity
- ethmarks 10mo ago
  What alternative do you propose that's more efficient?
- graeme 10mo ago
  Could you please provide comparable figured of EROI for solar vs Nuclear? For a useful comparison you have to compare both sides, not give a stat in isolation and assert it is worse without comparing.
- ai_critic 10mo ago
  If you believe that figure, that's still comparable to solar's best ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency ). Optimal steam plants can get do better, exceeding 50% in some configurations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined-cycle_power_plant#Efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined-cycle_power_plant#Eff... ). Steam is awesome.
  - _aavaa_ 10mo ago
    The difference that makes your statement misleading is that solar doesn’t pay for its fuel, the sun shines for free.
- fc417fc802 10mo ago
  30-35% of what? What are the inputs here? What is driving the cost? What are the externalities? And what is the end result in price per kWh?
epistasis 10mo ago
Nothing inherently wrong with steam, just as there's nothing inherently wrong with spinning rust hard disks or punch cards. We are at the end of the tech curve for steam, we have pushed it hard and made some super impressive technology, but it's not advancing anymore. Supercritical CO2 might have some advantages, or other fluids. We have zero-carbon tech that uses non-steam principles, and is currently on a tech curve that's getting cheaper than any thermodynamic cycle. We have storage tech now which is an even bigger revolution for the grid than cheap solar, because a huge limitation of the grid has always been the inability to store and buffer energy. I still have pinning rust disks, but only because they are cheap. If SSDs were cheaper, then we would see a massive switch. (BTW denigrating steam also denigrates all fossil fuel electricity sources, because they use the same mechanism, except for some natural gas turbines)