The energy thread

[golftdibrad1]

Max wants a power thread. Lets just go with energy in general.

anyway, this is where we can start

Not that I'm any kind of expert, but I still think we should be using power here.

1000% correct. Will still needs lots of fossil until we can build out 5-600 reactors over a generation.

I think we had a thread somewhere. I know that those who hump the leg hard talk about how it is a “0 emission” process. And now “safe” it is… yet we’ve had countless disasters that have made many areas of the world inhospitable…

On top of that storing discarded fission materials for eternity is a huge burden on future generations as well.

There is no such thing as a free lunch Imo. For those in the sun belt solar is a real thing. I generate enough for myself and 2 cars. And with proper battery storage, I.e through an ev battery vs standalone home storage that’s the best way to go …

But yet mining lithium is a huge bitch as well…

Love to see an independent full service life assessment all all energies.

Wow you are so wrong here about nearly everything.

1. countless disasters? there has been 1 bad one. Chernobyl. and its not even that bad anymore outside the immediate area of the plant. Far from 'many' areas that are 'inhospitable'
2. Storage/waste. This is only a thing in the USA because we are stupid. It can be reprocessed, reused, the the really nasty hot shit sored for a few hundred years in much smaller volume than a few 10k years as spent rods. France and most the rest of the world do this on some level. Then you can stuck the depleted elements back in the ground as NORM once they are less hot than ore.

3. also if we went to 3rd or 4th gen designs that move away from light water a lot of these issues go away

4. You are correct about no free lunch. All your tesla, battery storage, and solar panels took huge amounts of energy to manufacture. Do I think this stuff can work well for residential? Sure, it can and does. And its a good solution to boot IMHO.

But you are NOT going to power our modern industrial civilization as it exists today off solar panels and wind farms, the math simply doesn't work. We need lots of nuclear, and fast, if we ever want to become less dependent on carbon based energy.

So do that or drill and dig, I honestly dont care at this point - but what I won't do is go back to living in the 1800's energy wise

[golftdibrad1]

neat

[max225]

Whoa this is in political... I couldn't find it...

Anyways. Back to the safety aspect. And I if a natural disaster or manmade caused it, but there have been MANY nuclear accidents that cause significant radiological pollution that is around for decades... and so far the solution to pollution is dilution... which is the shit they are doing in Fukushima, which is insane.. storing millions of gallons of radioactive water and then releasing it into the fucking OCEANS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_a ... _incidents

Plenty of information here. While a lot of these don't result in immediate death, they cause a shit ton of pollution that then ends up being "sealed for life".

[golftdibrad1]

Whoa this is in political... I couldn't find it...

Anyways. Back to the safety aspect. And I if a natural disaster or manmade caused it, but there have been MANY nuclear accidents that cause significant radiological pollution that is around for decades... and so far the solution to pollution is dilution... which is the shit they are doing in Fukushima, which is insane.. storing millions of gallons of radioactive water and then releasing it into the fucking OCEANS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_a ... _incidents

Plenty of information here. While a lot of these don't result in immediate death, they cause a shit ton of pollution that then ends up being "sealed for life".

you are just not correct here dude, Fukushima was not a bad accident. and they are going way over the top with the contaminated water that's so barely radioactive as to not matter. it's another gov jobs program and cash grab.

but hey, be afraid of the tech that will save us while regular fossil fuel use puts more radionuclides in they air than Fukushima could ever hope to.

[max225]

Whoa this is in political... I couldn't find it...

Anyways. Back to the safety aspect. And I if a natural disaster or manmade caused it, but there have been MANY nuclear accidents that cause significant radiological pollution that is around for decades... and so far the solution to pollution is dilution... which is the shit they are doing in Fukushima, which is insane.. storing millions of gallons of radioactive water and then releasing it into the fucking OCEANS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_a ... _incidents

Plenty of information here. While a lot of these don't result in immediate death, they cause a shit ton of pollution that then ends up being "sealed for life".

you are just not correct here dude, Fukushima was not a bad accident. and they are going way over the top with the contaminated water that's so barely radioactive as to not matter. it's another gov jobs program and cash grab.

but hey, be afraid of the tech that will save us while regular fossil fuel use puts more radionuclides in they air than Fukushima could ever hope to.

Explain the latter point please

[golftdibrad1]

you are just not correct here dude, Fukushima was not a bad accident. and they are going way over the top with the contaminated water that's so barely radioactive as to not matter. it's another gov jobs program and cash grab.

but hey, be afraid of the tech that will save us while regular fossil fuel use puts more radionuclides in they air than Fukushima could ever hope to.

Explain the latter point please

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ear-waste/

[golftdibrad1]

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/f ... tus-update

[max225]

Explain the latter point please

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ear-waste/

This seems a bit odd. Also they had to disclaim their * disclaimer and link to some study in 1978…

According to the epa here the ash produced is no more radioactive than earth and 99% is captured.
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive ... wer-plants

[golftdibrad1]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ear-waste/

This seems a bit odd. Also they had to disclaim their * disclaimer and link to some study in 1978…

According to the epa here the ash produced is no more radioactive than earth and 99% is captured.
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive ... wer-plants

ah you are getting to the core of the issue!

NORM or Normally Occurring Radioactive Material. IE, a scoop of dirt is going to have some radionuclides in it as a matter of fact. Or a gallon of water.

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/file ... -07-29.pdf

Go look at appendix 2 & 3. They literally can't detect the really bad stuff, there is no beta emissions in the water.

The trinum is high compared to background, but the ocean is GIAGANTIC compared to the amount of water we are talking about. And we've already done far worse with h-bombs. Also has a fairly short half-life at ~12 years. Its a beta decay so it would be inadvisable to take a bath in that water, but it's still far, far less than WHO liit sets for DRINKING water. (see attachment 3 above)
More on Trinium.
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/e ... ethod.html

Cant be too bad as its used in night sights on weapons all the time #nuclearbatteries. Hell I have a trinum night sight thats gettin' old and don't work too well in the dark no more. Shit be expensive to get recharged.

So to reiterate... fukushima looked bad on TV (big badaboom) but as an actual significant nuclear accident it released orders of magnitude fewer radionuclides into the environment than chernobyl. Chernobyl is as bad as it gets, you almost couldn't design a worse power reactor accident. The core design of the plants revealed some flaws that we knew/should be addressed in the future, BUT still largely worked as intended. (NB in a bad accident the design basis isn't zero release...its to limit dangerous release)

[golftdibrad1]

https://www.masterresource.org/wind-pow ... d-project/

Good synopsis of why wind isn't a great ROI for energy

[golftdibrad1]

Solar power! lets do some back of the envelope math.

big g says teh US is 2.26 billion acres
big g says typical solar farm nameplate capacity is 1 mw for 10 acres
big g says us has 1.2 million MW of generation capacity

Alrighty!
2.26e7 (land area)divided by 10 (power per acre) gives you 2.26 MW.

BUT, solar farm capacity factor is like 30% on the best case scenario the best places. (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39832) Big g didnt make this as easy to find, courisily.
2.26e6(our theroitial nameplate capacity) times 0.3 (our foolishly optimistic capacity factor) =678,000 MW.

678,000 / 1,200,000 = 0.565. This number needs to be at least 2 (because the sun don't shine at night) for solar to be practical. Its less than 1 which means this doesn't even work during the sunlight hours.

And of course we cant practically speaking covery every square inch of the country with solar panels.

them inconvenient

[ChrisoftheNorth]

Solar power! lets do some back of the envelope math.

big g says teh US is 2.26 billion acres
big g says typical solar farm nameplate capacity is 1 mw for 10 acres
big g says us has 1.2 million MW of generation capacity

Alrighty!
2.26e7 (land area)divided by 10 (power per acre) gives you 2.26 MW.

BUT, solar farm capacity factor is like 30% on the best case scenario the best places. (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39832) Big g didnt make this as easy to find, courisily.
2.26e6(our theroitial nameplate capacity) times 0.3 (our foolishly optimistic capacity factor) =678,000 MW.

678,000 / 1,200,000 = 0.565. This number needs to be at least 2 (because the sun don't shine at night) for solar to be practical. Its less than 1 which means this doesn't even work during the sunlight hours.

And of course we cant practically speaking covery every square inch of the country with solar panels.

them inconvenient

I haven't seen the direct sun in a week now. Winter is gray here all day every day for like 6 mos. Solar?

[Tar]

Nice!

[golftdibrad1]

Absolute utter garbage and LIES coming from the brandon admin, as usual.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rest ... gas-stoves
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EE ... -0005-0096

You guys over at the dept of ENERGY have any actual ENGINEERS on board there? How about people with just a smidgen of technical education, like the basic ability to convert units like a high school student. Energy is energy.

Table 1 commits the very grave sin of mixing units to mislead the public. 1,204,000 BTU = 352 kw-hr. Report that. 1.7 times more energy used, BUT its used for direct heating. Where does electricity come from? Well in this country if its not from an atom being split its more than likely from coal or natural gas. Natural gas has the best efficiency so we will use that figure of 50%. so for a fair comparison, that 207 kw-hr figure needs a 50% increase in the ACTUAL AMOUNT of energy used. So that's 414 kw-hr equivalent or 1,412,627 btu. Or put another way a 17% increase. Opps! that's MORE than my gas stove if you are checking. And we have not even begun to speak about transmission losses.

The dept of energy should be ashamed for even publishing this garbage and for its rank incompetence. Its 'regulations' like this that 'benefit americans' that make me ashamed of my government.

[golftdibrad1]

[golftdibrad1]

We are committing energy suicide if we don't get the NRC / administrative out of the way and start building new plants NOW. And we should fast-track next gen designs.

[golftdibrad1]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/giganti ... 46190.html

There’s a global energy crisis and onshore wind farms are a potential growth option. Larger wind turbines produce more power than standard ones, but the components are too big to be transported by road.

What’s the solution? A Colorado-based energy startup named Radia has an idea. It’s developing the biggest aircraft in aviation history.

yes, the solution to using less oil is to *check notes* build a fleet of aircraft for wind turbines that burn jet-a fuel at a rate measured in gallons per hour or minute to build wind turbines made of *checks notes* oil.