manfredo

27 ms·

181.
by manfredo 6y ago
Not getting involved is not getting involved. You might take this as an indirect endorsement of content. But by that logic, a site with no moderation simultaneously liberal, conservative, and centrist because all are allowed. I guess you ca
182.
by manfredo 6y ago
Is a whiteboard political? If I buy a whiteboard from Staples, and draw a confederate flag and some hate speech it does not get erased automatically. Have the whiteboard manufacturers made a political statement because their products do not
183.
by manfredo 6y ago
Plans they continue to delay, because there's no feasible alternative to geographically independent and dispatchable energy save for fossil fuels: https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/French-bill-delays-n...
184.
by manfredo 6y ago
Sure, except the Earth rotates and we can only collect said energy for half the day. It's also fluctuates in the amount of energy collected seasonally (tilt of Earth's axis), and most energy demand happens to occur in northern lat
185.
by manfredo 6y ago
Well, we've already got a tract of desert that's been heavily irradiated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site
186.
by manfredo 6y ago
Flamanville is one of the first EPRs built by France. The bulk of its nuclear fleet were built on serial production of the same design. 34 900 MWe reactors and 20 1300 MWe reactors make up the bulk of its generation: https://en.w
187.
by manfredo 6y ago
That's why you don't build two plants you build 20 or 30. France's nuclear project built 34 and 20 plants of 900 MWe and 1300 MWe classes of plants respectively which make up the bulk of its reactor fleet: https://
188.
by manfredo 6y ago
So it'd have been better to just let people's phones crash on startup and become 100% unusable?
189.
by manfredo 6y ago
Yes, caused by an earthquake 500 times more powerful than the magnitude 4.5 you had previously stated: > An offshore earthquake of magnitude 4.5 or above could cause submarine avalanches and create dangerous tsunamis with waves higher th
190.
by manfredo 6y ago
A submarine avalanche causes waves by a sudden displacement of earth under water. These occur regardless of earthquakes, and rarely result in significant waves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbidity_current
191.
by manfredo 6y ago
Nuclear really does force us into an "either or" scenario. Nuclear is just as cheap as it is to run at a fraction of its capacity as it does to run it at full capacity. Peak energy load also happens when the sun is not in line of
192.
by manfredo 6y ago
There exist no feasible plan to build out the storage required to make renewables work within 5-10 years. The US consumes 11.5 TWh of electricity every day. About 500GWh every hour. We have about one Gigawatt hour worth of battery storage.
193.
by manfredo 6y ago
The US east coast does not suffer from earthquakes. A tsunami is a geological event, not a weather event.
194.
by manfredo 6y ago
It needs a source of water to run heat exchangers, but it doesn't need to be fresh water. It can run on seawater (which can also be used for desalination with the waste heat), or on wastewater.
195.
by manfredo 6y ago
For the third time, the solution is to just save money by ditching the intermittent sources and only using nuclear. Nuclear makes renewables redundant, not the other way around. Nuclear generates power round the clock. Nuclear doesn't
196.
by manfredo 6y ago
The US currently has less than 10 seconds of battery storage relative to it's 11.5 TWh average daily electricity consumption. The scale required relative to the scale we're capable of providing presents a staggering difference. We
197.
by manfredo 6y ago
Maybe some promising new storage technology will prevail, but solutions that are 5-10 years of development away from being viable have a habit of taking a lot more than 5-10 years to become viable. Until then nuclear presents the only prove
198.
by manfredo 6y ago
The point is that nuclear is the only known geographically independent way of generating carbon free energy that isn't subject to intermittency. The redundancy isn't an issue with nuclear, it's an issue of the notion that we
199.
by manfredo 6y ago
Land costs are indeed an immense issue. The exact figure of how much land needs to be covered in solar panels varies depending on inclination with the sun and weather.Its not too bad for countries like Australia that have reliable sunlight
200.
by manfredo 6y ago
The issue is that peak power consumption occurs after sundown in most countries. Nuclear power also costs the same to generate power 24/7 as it does to generate power intermittently. So if you build enough nuclear power to fill in the
201.
by manfredo 6y ago
Right, and ~3 degrees of warming if we continue with current energy policies for the next 80 years is much more benign than what many are claiming. It's not uncommon for people to claim that carbon emissions need to be reduced to zero
202.
by manfredo 6y ago
Most science predicts warming of ~2* Celsius. That will definitely be disruptive, but it's not catastrophic. Remember this change is amortized over much of the century. We should definitely be arriving towards decarbonization, but the
203.
by manfredo 6y ago
In terms of raw generation costs, maybe. Nuclear's price is historically a factor of 4 less when built at scale. Building nuclear plants one at time, like the US is doing currently, does not leverage economies of scale. And when taking
204.
by manfredo 6y ago
If your takeaway is that we're on track to solve energy storage with lithium ion batteries, then you have severely misinterpreted the situation. Remember 300 GWh is global battery production. 4.5 TWh is 9 hours of storage for just
205.
by manfredo 6y ago
4 hours of 17 Gigwatts would represent 20% of the ~300 GWh global lithium ion battery production [1]. That's a massive storage plant, and such a plant would represent an order of magnitude increase in battery storage. But consider the
206.
by manfredo 6y ago
Yes, nuclear power is more expensive than natural gas. But natural gas still emits carbon dioxide. If our goal is to curtail climate change, then our goal is to decarbonize our economy. There are additional culprits too like methane and som
207.
by manfredo 6y ago
Yucca mountain a actually does exist. The tunnels have been bored out. It's just that congress blocked using the site. There wasn't much pushback, because this waste can be used as fuel for nuclear plants currently being built. Ev
208.
by manfredo 6y ago
You've got it backwards. We've built nuclear plants. We've encountered unknown difficulties and overcome them. Our cost estimates for nuclear power are historical estimates. We did built nuclear at scale before, and it did
209.
by manfredo 6y ago
The issue with renewables isn't recycling, it's storage. Solar generates electricity in a sine wave. Half the day it's generating no electricity. Wind doesn't follow a sine wave, but has the potential to generate lower l
210.
by manfredo 6y ago
It largely is a dichotomy, because nuclear power largely makes wind and solar redundant. Peak energy demand occurs right around or after sundown. If we're going to fulfill this demand with nuclear, then we could just run the nuclear pl

More ›