sasfasaf

5 ms·

1.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
Yes, I am aware of the difference between high and low level fuel and the stew of different half lives of the constituents of higher level fuel. There's 47 k tones of high level waste in the US alone [1].So I think it's fair to
2.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
"Which ones?" Cascading failures. Those are very effectively blocked by power islands connected by HVDC lines (like Texas is). A power outage like the North East in 2003 is unlikely in Europe because of your mild weather being unl
3.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
"If the conversion losses were as high as 10%, why did anyone bother using HVDC for e.g. a mere 85 km stretch in the Trans Bay Cable?" 1. Because AC also has transformation losses (2-3% per transformer. You need at least three (me
4.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
Ok, but I want numbers. How good can ICEs get? Mercedes claims their 1.5L F1 engine - designed for power, not efficiency - is over 50% thermally efficient. An EV can't match that. Not with the gas cycle efficiency and all the line pow
5.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
I'm not arguing that 3GD wasn't stupid, just that it generates an insane amount of power. Either way, no more of them will be built - there are not many more gorges like that left.
6.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
"Which is going to be a fixed amount regardless of distance" Sure, but knock off another 10% "I would expect HVDC to be a dead end already if it made a difference to my conclusion." I didn't get that. Could you re-p
7.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
Ok, look, I'd rather not talk about "football fields 10 meters deep". But going by that number your 80 000 metric tonnes of spent fuel has an average density of 740kg/m^3. So does your football field include the empty sp
8.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
Sorry let me re-phrase "Nope. Germany averages about 6% of transmission loss" I wasn't referring to ohmic losses, or transmission losses. I was referring to consumed along the way. The power generated in Vladivostok doesn&#x2
9.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
A fairer comparison is comparing the CO2 emissions caused by putting all that precious lithium and rare earths in one electric car vs. putting it in several light trucks. The workman's hybrid Ford Maverick or hybrid Ford 150 replacing
10.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
That's not obvious to me. Sure, using the numbers and technology we all learned about in thermo class 20 years ago (best ICE efficiency of a car is 20% usually gets much worse), I agree. But the hybrid drivetrain throws all the assumpt
11.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
It's a lot greener than little generators you'd buy at Costco. But don't dismiss neighborhood scale generation. It can approach efficiencies of large scale plants, while providing free heating/cooling. All whilst being v
12.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
" and produces 1% of China’s power." It produces 1% of the electricity used by CHINA the premier industrial and most populous country in the world and you dismiss it? Three Gorges was a mistake, but it generates power used by 13
13.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
". I have no idea how much a multi-gigawatt HVDC line costs per kilometre," Well there's the crux, ain't it? They're bloody expensive. Also, to your 3.5% loss / 1000km line loss add in the transformation losses
14.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
" a grid that has enough capacity to distribute power across continents." That's easy to write, but very hard to envision the scale. The grid transports very small fraction of the consumed power over large distances, most of
15.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
Well there are breeder reactors that significantly transform waste to less harmful products, and the Russians have basically commercialized them. But they're still a bad idea. Nuclear waste implies a strong, competent, and stable state
16.
by sasfasaf 5y ago
Probably not. Super conductors don't really solve any problem because they loose their super conductivity at high B fields; i.e. when they transport large currents. Case in point the highest field magnets are not made w/ superco