schroedingershat @ schroedingershat @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

375

Joined

2 yr. ago

Assuming you're telling the truth that there's a massive shortfall in December already (a provable lie ) then you are suggesting the solution for an urgent shortfall of around a TWh per year is to build 10GW of nuclear plants which will be ready in 2045 for €300 billion and run them at an operating loss for 10-11 months per year.

This in order to provide low grade heat which could be stored in a district heating system for a few dollars per kWh for a total cost of about 3% of your suggestion or even in batteries for about 20% of the cost (which would also run at a profit the rest of the year and make the hydro go further).

Nuke shills say some colossally stupid things, but this really takes the cake.

For renewables, Construction, Maintenance and Demolition cost more

This is less true as time goes on. CCGT and coal has substantial overlap with all-in cost of firmed PV and onshore wind just in terms of capex and FOM. Nuclear O&M overlaps with all-in cost of wind or PV (although not the latter in sweden).

SMRs (most of the proposals to reduce cost) are also substantially less efficient than full sized reactors and the high grade Uranium or Uranium in countries you can pollute without consequence is mostly tapped out so prices are increasing (currently about $3/MWh for full scale or $6/MWh for an inefficient small reactor). By the time an SMR finally comes online, just the raw uranium will cost as much as renewables, let alone the rest of VOM (which is still a minority of O&M which is far, far less than Capex).

Anyone suggesting new nuclear should be regarded as either someone lying to maintain a nuclear weapons program, a scammer, or a russian agent trying to sell dependence on rosatom.

The first is potentially defensible, but they could also not lie instead.

"It wouldn't have bankrupted every program that tried if you'd just let us fill every body of water with lethal levels of Pu240, Cs137 and Tc99" isn't a great counter argument.

Still requires expanding uranium production somewhere, and likely also buying from Russia.

Mines take a lot longer than 10 years, as do power-plants (the whole thing starting at permit submission and ending at last reactor coming online). 2045 is optimistic.

You're now trying to misdirect with an unrelated statistic. The current market saturation of recycling isn't the amount of a panel that can be recycled.

Breeding some fissile fuel is not closing the fuel cycle. No reactor has ever prodiced the same material it ran on. Closed cycle nuclear is not even proof of concept.

Because renewables don't change at all in a decade, and the ever-decreasing quality of uranium ore doesn't involve higher emissions than the benchmark of ranger and cigar lake from 2014. /s

Except it has happened at least once at >99% yield.

And happens regularly commercially at >70% yield.

So you continue to repeat stupid and absurd lies.

Okay.

Make a PV system out of a strict subset of the materials in the reactor.

Put the PV system over top of Inkai mine.

Get more power than the uranium from the mine would produce for longer.

The 40 year guaranteed lifetime of the panels is longer than the 30 year lifetime of the average nuclear plant at shutdown.

Your materials can be recycled after.

The ground around the mine isn't poisoned with heavy metals permanently,

This all assuming everything goes perfectly for the nuclear plant and waste disposal.

Calling an LWR renewable because somebody somewhere might run a closed fuel cycle eventually is like calling oil renewable because you can make hydrocarbons by electrolyzing CO2 and water.

It's and absurd and ridiculous lie.

Lithiun is also not a rare earth, and is not required (doubly so in sweden). Even if you do choose to use it, you need it in significantly smaller quantities than uranium, and mining it is significantly lower impact.

The mining impact of PV and onshore wind is acceptably small (although should still be reduced further), the orders of magnitude worse impact of digging up or leeching uranium ore with lower energy density than coal, poisoning indiginous communities with the milling waste and then never cleaning it up is not.

You're sharing praeger U propaganda talking points. This is trolling.

The emissions from nuclear are primarily from mining (this is huge in some cases, enough to not consider it as low carbon, or negligible in others), enrichment, conversion, and fuel fabrication (these last three have no trustworthy data, but from the few steps that are public knowledge, are enough to put it higher than PV or wind).

Transport, and the building are negligible enough they're not worth considering.

In either case, it's largely irrelevant. The main harm is to the local environment of the mines (this is devistating) as well as the main reason the astroturfers come out in force, which is that it delays decarbonization due to being an ineffective use of resources.

This isn't an "all of the above approach" though, it's a "cancel the short term plans and pretend we're going to do something later" approach.

Solar requires 0 rare earths, troll.

This would be relevant if any reactor had ever gotten its energy from primarily from fertile material. None have so it is not.

A thousand years is a massive over-estimate. Providing the 6TW or so of final energy with the stuff assumed to exist that's vaguely accessible for costs that don't exceed renewables' total cost is well under a decade.

No breeding program has ever done a full closed cycle and even if it were to happen, the currently proposed technologies only yield about 50 years.

I loved the content, and paid for it for over a year, but the app and website were so awful I wound up watching the youtube versions via newpiped and not bothering with any of the exclusives so I cancelled.

Researchers at weapons facility achieve 2MJ of heat for a cost of tens of MJ of electricity and chemical energy to power single-shot laser fired at target that took at least gigajoules to produce for method that will never have any relevance to energy generation.

But they pinky swear that at some point they might think about electricity so keep giving them a big chunk of the civialian energy budget.

Rail has some advantages. Efficiency, Tyre dust. Long term cost. It's a bit harder for the next government to dismantle it. Higher capacity, more predictable path/easier to give intersection priority. Much much easier to automate if given dedicated right of way. Better accessibility.

Rubber wheels have advantages too. Quieter, more flexible (especially with a buffer battery), lower per-vehicle cost can increase the number of services.

I think the first goal should be getting any service that doesn't get stuck in traffic. Then grade separation and consider the tradeoffs for rail.

Or. Don't leave them to an even worse imperial power.

Stop wielding aid as a weapon, and repay them for what was stolen without using it to control.