11 ms·

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 physic

by graeme 9mo 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 9mo ago
It’s an inefficient way of producing energy. Only 30-35% results in electricity
- ethmarks 9mo ago
  What alternative do you propose that's more efficient?
- graeme 9mo 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 9mo 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_ 9mo ago
    The difference that makes your statement misleading is that solar doesn’t pay for its fuel, the sun shines for free.
- fc417fc802 9mo 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 9mo 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)
- fc417fc802 9mo ago
  What is this, the hipster approach to technology evaluation? Steam conversion efficiency doesn't make sense as a metric for nuclear because (AFAIK) fuel consumption per watt isn't the primary driver of cost for that technology. Or am I mistaken? > I still have pinning rust disks, but only because they are cheap. If SSDs were cheaper, then we would see a massive switch. I only use this technology because it is more competitive than the alternatives for my usecase ... ? > denigrating steam also denigrates all fossil fuel electricity sources I doubt name calling is a sensible basis for policy decisions.
  - epistasis 9mo ago
    It's actually hipsters that are into steam, you know, the steam punks. I don't care about steam conversion efficiency as much as I care that steam Rankine cycle engines are a solved problem so there is no more technological advancement. One of the biggest advancements over the past decades is using a Britton cycle in front for natural gas, ie moving away from steam engines. > I only use this technology because it is more competitive than the alternatives for my usecase ... ? If I understand you, yes of course use the more competitive technology. Sticking with steam when there are cheaper alternatives is a poor idea. But moreover as we look to what people choose as technology improves, we will find that steam usage will be relegated to things like geothermal, which like nuclear has essentially free fuel, but doesn't have to go down for a month to refuel, has the potential for more variable generation instead of undesirable constant generation, and is far less complicated. > denigrating steam also denigrates all fossil fuel electricity sources The critique is not name calling, it's pointing out that the technology is mature and not improving, unlike the technologies that are recolutionizing grid energy right now across the world. The number of applications that use fuel to generate electricity via steam are shrinking. Perhaps hydrogen in the future, if electrolyzers ever come down the cost curve, but it's pretty speculative. Horse buggies still exist, but mostly as novelties. Steam generation is headed the same direction.
hvb2 9mo ago
> What's wrong with steam? > It's better than carbon. Steam isn't occuring naturally (except for geothermal etc) so you first have to put in energy to produce it > you must overbuild to supply power or rely on non solar sources True for every source of power because demand isn't flat across day/year
Fazebooking 9mo ago
Wind appears to be similiar than nuclear. Nuclear has a few other major flaws: Uranium aka nuclear weapons risk, Dependency on uranium (yes china finally solved the Thorium issue but that happened this year?), geopolitical/terrorism risks (see ukraine). And because i'm from germany: do you know that in bavaria, you still have to check certain meat for radioactivity?

by graeme 9mo ago

croes 9mo ago

It’s an inefficient way of producing energy. Only 30-35% results in electricity

ethmarks 9mo ago
What alternative do you propose that's more efficient?
graeme 9mo 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 9mo 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_ 9mo ago
  The difference that makes your statement misleading is that solar doesn’t pay for its fuel, the sun shines for free.
fc417fc802 9mo 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 9mo 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)

fc417fc802 9mo ago
What is this, the hipster approach to technology evaluation? Steam conversion efficiency doesn't make sense as a metric for nuclear because (AFAIK) fuel consumption per watt isn't the primary driver of cost for that technology. Or am I mistaken? > I still have pinning rust disks, but only because they are cheap. If SSDs were cheaper, then we would see a massive switch. I only use this technology because it is more competitive than the alternatives for my usecase ... ? > denigrating steam also denigrates all fossil fuel electricity sources I doubt name calling is a sensible basis for policy decisions.
- epistasis 9mo ago
  It's actually hipsters that are into steam, you know, the steam punks. I don't care about steam conversion efficiency as much as I care that steam Rankine cycle engines are a solved problem so there is no more technological advancement. One of the biggest advancements over the past decades is using a Britton cycle in front for natural gas, ie moving away from steam engines. > I only use this technology because it is more competitive than the alternatives for my usecase ... ? If I understand you, yes of course use the more competitive technology. Sticking with steam when there are cheaper alternatives is a poor idea. But moreover as we look to what people choose as technology improves, we will find that steam usage will be relegated to things like geothermal, which like nuclear has essentially free fuel, but doesn't have to go down for a month to refuel, has the potential for more variable generation instead of undesirable constant generation, and is far less complicated. > denigrating steam also denigrates all fossil fuel electricity sources The critique is not name calling, it's pointing out that the technology is mature and not improving, unlike the technologies that are recolutionizing grid energy right now across the world. The number of applications that use fuel to generate electricity via steam are shrinking. Perhaps hydrogen in the future, if electrolyzers ever come down the cost curve, but it's pretty speculative. Horse buggies still exist, but mostly as novelties. Steam generation is headed the same direction.

hvb2 9mo ago

> What's wrong with steam? > It's better than carbon. Steam isn't occuring naturally (except for geothermal etc) so you first have to put in energy to produce it > you must overbuild to supply power or rely on non solar sources True for every source of power because demand isn't flat across day/year

Fazebooking 9mo ago

Wind appears to be similiar than nuclear. Nuclear has a few other major flaws: Uranium aka nuclear weapons risk, Dependency on uranium (yes china finally solved the Thorium issue but that happened this year?), geopolitical/terrorism risks (see ukraine). And because i'm from germany: do you know that in bavaria, you still have to check certain meat for radioactivity?