LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

Well today,

we are sold the EPR 2 as better because bigger and cheaper.

Cheaper because strangely French engineers found that by standardizing the SS tubes sizes and their supports, it costs less !?

Better because bigger, very basic male reasoning.. Don't believe that nuclear engineers today are the ultimate.. Enrico Fermi cannot be cloned ad infinitum.

These EPR 2 have vibration problems in the reactor vessel in relation to poorly controlled incoming and outgoing cooling flows. Experts are very concerned about this impact on the tubes resistance containing the fuel, which could degenerate into a reaction that over runs. In the daily newspapers, everything is fine. The EPRs are our national pride

Quote from JedRothwell

EPR is running, though. Vogtle is a gigantic doorstop for now.

Quote from Cydonia

My own country should be able to challenge the Georgia on this topic ahahahha

Finns still remember our EPR

You can be sure that we will ! Anyway now the production has finally started, about 50% level at the moment, and full power during next summer. The very important consequence of this in the present security situation will be that we don't need to import electricity anymore from Russia.

Quote from Rjzk

The very important consequence of this in the present security situation will be that we don't need to import electricity anymore from Russia.

Seriously, that is a very good thing. It happened just at the right moment in history. Along those lines, Germany should not close its nuclear plants. That would be a huge mistake the way things are.

There is much to be said for nuclear power. It is a shame it has serious problems and it costs so much. Running reactors is risky, but abandoning them and using coal or natural gas from Russia would also be risky. At the moment they are the least bad option in Europe, and possibly Japan. It is complicated, and people who oppose nuclear power should acknowledge the complexity.

I will be pleased when they finally finish Vogtle and turn it on, even though there is a slight risk from an accident, and even though Georgia Power will raise my electric bill to pay for it. It will reduce the need for coal. Coal is already on its way out in Georgia. Vogtle will be a big step toward finishing it up. See:

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

". . . coal consumption in Georgia declined from more than 35 million tons in 2010 to less than 8 million tons of coal in 2020."

The Biden administration wants to give the U.S. nuclear industry $6 billion to avoid shutting down old reactors. On balance, I think that is a good idea, even though I hate subsidizing inefficient and obsolete technology.

Biden launches $6 billion effort to save nuclear power plants, to help combat climate change

The administration emphasizes the need to continue nuclear energy as a power source that helps to combat climate change.

www.cbsnews.com

By the way, it is not a "sunk cost fallacy" to say that we should finish Vogtle and generate power with it.

The new units will be 2.3 GW. It would only be a sunk cost fallacy if you could show that it will cost $X billion more to finish it, and for that same $X billion (or less) we could build 2.3 GW of solar or wind capacity. I do not think that is the case. We could have done that if we had never starting building the two new units in the first place, but not now that they are close to completion. (I hope they are close! You never know with Georgia Power.)

In 2018 you could make the case that finishing the plant was a sunk cost fallacy, but only if you specified that natural gas should be used instead. See:

Betting the House on Plant Vogtle - Master Resource

[Editor Note: The touted nuclear power renaissance in the United States has been stymied by engineering, procurement, and construction problems with…

www.masterresource.org

Natural gas contributes to global warming, so I would oppose that. Present day dollar cost is not the only criterion we should apply.

It is a little unfair for me to say "we should never have started the project." It began in 2009. The estimated cost was $14 billion. It was supposed to be finished in 2016. The cost has ballooned up to $30 billion. But here's the thing: no one knew it would cost so much or take so long. No one predicted that, or wanted it. Westinghouse certainly didn't want that, because it bankrupted the company. It was reasonable for Georgia Power executives to trust the engineers and the cost estimates. Also, wind and solar were a lot more expensive back in 2009. You can't say they should have selected a much cheaper option when it wasn't so cheap back then. Some experts predicted wind and solar would get cheaper, but others did not. We cannot expect power company executives to be omniscient. On the other hand, nuclear power plants nearly always exceeded their budget and took longer to build than planned, so they knew there was some risk.

From my point of view, these people take large risks too often and too readily, but they do not take small risks often enough. They risked -- and lost -- $16 billion on a nuclear plant (so far). But they have not been willing to risk far smaller sums on things like distributed solar on warehouse roofs in Atlanta. Needless to say, not a single power company exec has been willing to risk $1 million -- or even $100,000 -- on cold fusion. This is very foolish.

“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Recently i have had the opportunity to speak with a former responsible of EDF, the French state company to produce and manage the electricity. Because former he was able to speak free.He said this is a big mistake continuing the manufacturing of high pressurized water for nuclear power plant. To maintain the water pressurized the reactor must be enough strong meaning too much expensive. Then with time the reliability of welds isn't good in parallel this requires finding and training a lot of competent welders, again this has an impact on the cost.

he said me a nuclear powerplant avoiding water as cooling carrier and running at ambiant pressure will lower the electricity cost by one order at least.

Quote from JedRothwell

There is much to be said for nuclear power. It is a shame it has serious problems and it costs so much.

What exactly is Turbo-Tax? Looks like a simple con to me! Nothing to do with this thread, so don't be fooled so easily!

@ Jed Rothwell - my UK energy provider is EDF, who appear to have their knickers in a twist. Over-investment in nuclear energy in France has made their bills astronomical! My monthly payment is going up from £89 to £329! Even though they say they have invested heavily in renewables! Either their CEO's are lying or the company (one of the UK's big four) is about to go bust. I suppose I shall have to change my supplier to a more trustworthy company like Scottish Power or British Gas! But I doubt the change will make any difference now it is too late (to prevent Global Warming).

Quote from Dr Richard*

@ Jed Rothwell - my UK energy provider is EDF, who appear to have their knickers in a twist. Over-investment in nuclear energy in France has made their bills astronomical! My monthly payment is going up from £89 to £329! Even though they say they have invested heavily in renewables! Either their CEO's are lying or the company (one of the UK's big four) is about to go bust. I suppose I shall have to change my supplier to a more trustworthy company like Scottish Power or British Gas! But I doubt the change will make any difference now it is too late (to prevent Global Warming).

Doctor Richard! Please explain to me on the basis of what scientific observations you claim about global warming ... I am 67 years old ... For example, I believe that according to the cyclical impact of the Sun on our Earth, the climate changes cyclically ... The share that a person brings to this system is worthless...

What is the mistake of many scientists who deal with this issue ... The fact is that researchers use the "energy approach" - they operate with Watts ... and this is wrong ...

It is necessary to talk about the "mass"... Man, by his activity, adds to the mass of photons that come to us from the Sun, a very insignificant part... If we consider the average mass of light photons for green photons, then this mass is equal to 1.5*10^ 14 tons.

4.4•10^9 tons of oil are produced per year. The mass of photons from the combustion of diesel fuel, gasoline, fuel oil is three orders of magnitude less ... this value ... Gas is produced 1.2 • 10 ^ 12 tons. The mass of photons during gas combustion is also three orders of magnitude less.... Thus, a person by his activity brings an insignificant fraction of the mass - the mass of photons - a million times less than the Sun... Think about this fact and scare us with global warming. In the Crimea this winter it was unusually cold and snowy... All water storage facilities were overflowing...

Quote from Cydonia

he said me a nuclear powerplant avoiding water as cooling carrier and running at ambiant pressure will lower the electricity cost by one order at least.

Pebble bed reactors might do that. But I think it is too late to develop them.

They are called 4th generation reactors.

Yes with pebbles for solid or liquid solutions with molten sodium or lithium salts. The Russians are using currently lead but tin could be another solution too ( low melting point).

Pierre Clauzon the Frenchman involved in Lenr who experimented around "Mizuno" ways had responsibilities in these 4th generations that existed in France, already 20 years ago.

Unfortunately, we also had our male "Merkel" at the time and they were stopped. It was the one who told me that these solutions strong point are high overheating capabilities (high boiling point for metals vs water). This technical way would have avoided the 3 major disasters known to date.

Quote from JedRothwell

Pebble bed reactors might do that. But I think it is too late to develop them.

Quote from JedRothwell

Pebble bed reactors might do that.

Less energy waste will do it everywhere on the planet. Heating cooling can be reduced by insulation 4-5x. Heating cooling can be reduced by heat pumps up to 6x (Water/water) So best case you will need up to 30x less energy. Same for electric cars that will save up to 3x. Even better: Use your bicycle for short distance commuting and restrict your vacation to 1 flight/year.

This is called punitive ecology...

Also all these wonderful solutions require a significant investment, especially for less well-off people.

Unfortunately, not everyone has a bank account in Switzerland

Quote from Wyttenbach

Less energy waste will do it everywhere on the planet. Heating cooling can be reduced by insulation 4-5x. Heating cooling can be reduced by heat pumps up to 6x (Water/water) So best case you will need up to 30x less energy. Same for electric cars that will save up to 3x. Even better: Use your bicycle for short distance commuting and restrict your vacation to 1 flight/year.

Quote from Cydonia

Also all these wonderful solutions require a significant investment, especially for less well-off people.

Unfortunately, not everyone has a bank account in Switzerland

It also needs some basic third year math knowledge... More expensive not means more expensive during 10 years... But a stupid hungry farmer shoots his cow...

Quote from interested observer

I would assert that the most dangerous and inappropriate thing to do with regard to LENR is to assume anything about either its significance or the timetable for its development. There is simply not enough information to say anything reliable on either subject.

I assume the GeNie Hybrid Fission Fusion market entry is significant. The timetable is not discernable. My assumption is not dimmed. Oth

Agree this is why i need i business plan for comparison of all of this solutions.

Quote from Wyttenbach

It also needs some basic third year math knowledge... More expensive not means more expensive during 10 years... But a stupid hungry farmer shoots his cow...

Cherepanov2020 - so you had to use up more precious supplies of fossil fuels to survive the unusually cold winter in the Crimea? Clearly water supplies are not an issue there unlike in e.g. sub-Saharan Africa. Global Warming is causing a re-distribution of energy focused largely on the North and South Poles, and Greenland is rising up from sea levels by about 4 cm per year due to the mass of ice lost to the sea. Do you think the Earth's orbit is changing, that we are flying closer to the Sun is causing this? Or what about other factors such as methane released from the permafrost? Whatever the cause, the danger we all face is a re-distribution of energy world-wide in which only the wealthy in the Western and Eastern civilisations in temperate regions can survive. Equatorial nations are taking the brunt of the devastation. Hence the mass exodus from these regions in the hope of survival in the temperate 'First World' regions.

Dr. Richard, Greenland Ice's contribution to SLR is 13.7mm since 1972. That is 27.4mm/century. Hardly anything to panic about. The sun is in a solar minimum now and possibly a Grand Solar Minimum. The effect of the GSM is counter-intuitive, but the weak sun promotes a meridional jet stream so low and high latitude air mixes in unusual patterns that results in massive amounts of polar ice melt without changes in average temperatures (rather heat is redistributed). The current weak sun is possibly similar to the 1930s where massive heat waves plagued much of the Norther Hemisphere. Once must parse out the sun/jet stream effects from the CO2 effects. From the data I see it at least appears that the jet stream effect is the more important one. Notice the DMI data median calculation was based on 1981-2010. Now if you look at the solar cycle data, you will see that this data is the period in which we had strong sun activity and zonal jet streams. That is an absolutely massive confounder. Any cogent analysis of NH ice that doesn't consider this meridional jet stream effect is like measuring the temperature inside an oven without considering where the temperature setting is at. The data is manipulated to take the worst possible alarmist viewpoint.

The Changing Jet Stream and Global Cooling - Electroverse

This explains why far-northern latitudes (Siberia) have been experiencing anomalous heat of late, while the lower-latitudes have been suffering record cold.

electroverse.net

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353366235_The_jet_stream_and_climate_change

I am working as hard as anyone to find a new energy source for humanity but I very much dislike politicized pseudoscience. We are scientists we have to base our views on actual data. Please don't show me SLR satellite data as this has been "adjusted" just like most climate related data these days. Tide gauges analyzed globally are our best indicator that SLR is not an issue. Pacific islands said to be disappearing in our life time have actually gained area. There are much more pressing issues for life on Earth than CO2. This is far down on my list of worries. Human civilization needs a clean and abundant energy source to thrive and this will also allow us to clean up our environment.

Let's not conflate scientific issues so we can keep our focus, spending and policy going in the right directions.

Pollution

Acid rain

This is not a climate forum. This is such a divisive topic that we urge members to avoid it- there are plenty of GW discussions available elsewhere,

Update on Hot Fusion.

Building the LEGO Kit.