Feel free to go to that thread to follow this discussion
Been there.
Done with that
Conventional Nuclear (AKA Nuclear Fission) a thread for discussion of the pros / cons.
-
-
Does Frank believe the claims of GEC 2012 made in Guam? Ask him at the LCF thread.
Cold Fusion Hybrid Fission Fusion GeNie tech... Ready to go 2012.
-
What about the GEC trickle LCF tech...
Outlandish claims sure to make traditional fission tech obsolete.
Or not?
Will we connect these...
Or will they?
-
Now
United States Government LENR Energy 2018" Reviewing twenty five years of U.S. funded ‘cold fusion’ projects including patents, contracts, publications and public/private sector partnership efforts towards LENR energy applied engineering and LENR energy commercialization. https://gbgoble.kinja.com/unit…18-a-review-of-1822335542
“I began to compile this review in the fall of 2017. The reason being, I had asked a few editors of LENR news sites what they thought of the claims being made by Global Energy Corporation. Each editor asked me to provide any recent follow up to those claims. None that I could find; so I decided to compile this review as a frame of reference for the question: What are your opinions of these claims?” - Greg Goble
I would like to hear the opinions of LENR Forum members. I find it odd that there is little to no discussion at LENR sites about GEC or their claims. If Rossi, Brillouin, the MFMP, or Randy Mills, were making similar claims, it would be discussed, scrutinized, and become the focus of our attention.
Please keep comments on topic... Are these claims truthful or a scam? -
That's nature, wind
A million of domestic breeds of cats are not found in nature.
-
The idea of renaissance of nuclear power is more frequent, but this is not possible without the use of novel materials, based on nano-engineered structures.
-
Historical construction costs for nuclear power reactors vary a great deal across the world.
Historical Construction Costs of Global Nuclear Power ReactorsIn Breakthrough’s 2013 report, How to Make Nuclear Cheap , we argued that nuclear needed innovative new designs to become radically cheaper, able to displace…thebreakthrough.orgHistorical construction costs of global nuclear power reactorsThe existing literature on the construction costs of nuclear power reactors has focused almost exclusively on trends in construction costs in only two…www.sciencedirect.comIn the US, projects that got started before Three Mile Island were generally completed in less than five years and for <$2000/kWe, with many coming in around $1000/kWe. These plants produced some of the world's cheapest electricity and remain cost effective to this day. After TMI, construction costs rapidly went to the moon. In fact, between 1998 and 2008, new build costs roughly doubled in the US and are now 10-20 times higher than they were in the 1970s.
Other parts of the world had very different experiences. In South Korea and India, construction costs remain in the region of $2000/kWe to this day. More recent projects in China, not shown in this study, have completed in 4-5 years and come in at around $2000/kWe as well.
This study demolishes the myth that there is anything inherently expensive about nuclear power. OECD countries have managed to make this technology unworkable. But there are still plenty of countries that continue to construct economical power plants. In principle, there is no technical reason why nuclear fission cannot generate power very cheaply in Western countries. Clearly something has gone very wrong with the way we manage nuclear build programmes. But it isn't a problem with the technology.
-
Here is why it will be impossible for renewable energy to replace more than a small fraction of the energy presently gained from fossil fuels.
Below is a link to the 2015 Quadrennial energy review, produced by the US department of energy. A reliable enough source?
Go to Section 10, Table 10.4 for a summary of materials inputs into several different types of powerplant in ton/TWh. Here are some tallys per TWh:
Nuclear (PWR) = 760t concrete / cement; 3t copper; 0t glass; 160t steel; 0t aluminium.
Wind = 8000t concrete / cement; 23t copper; 92t glass; 1800t steel; 35t aluminium.
Solar PV = 4050t concrete / cement; 850t copper; 2700t glass; 7900t steel; 680t aluminium.
Compared to a pressurised water reactor nuclear power plant, a solar PV plant producing the same electric power output will require some 5.3x more concrete; some 280x more copper, some 49.4x more steel; and thousands of times more glass and aluminium. Wind turbines (presumably onshore) require about an order of magnitude more materials for the same amount of electrical energy generated.
There is no indication that these quantities include any materials investments needed for energy storage. This would require further materials investments in pumped hydro, CAES or some other means. This increases the materials cost of wind and solar still further. Embodied materials are a reflection of embodied energy.
Solar PV and Wind energy, appear relatively affordable right now, only because the embodied energy used to provide their enormous materials budgets is provided by low cost fossil fuels. These fuels are predominantly coal based and mostly in China. How much would a wind turbine cost, if the energy needed to produce all of the materials necessary for its manufacture were produced using wind energy? Do they actually generate enough net energy for this to be possible?
The enormous material budgets of RE systems stem from the inherently low power density of wind and sunlight. The power density of wind and solar farms are 2-3W/m2 and 5W/m2, respectively. Compare that to a pressurised water reactor, which has core power density of 80,000,000W/m3. Nuclear power, in the form of fission, Fusion or LENR, is really the only solution to the energy crisis that allows any measure of material prosperity to survive. People that claim we can switch from fossil fuels to RE without huge declines in human numbers and living standards are kidding themselves.
-
Display More
Here is why it will be impossible for renewable energy to replace more than a small fraction of the energy presently gained from fossil fuels.
Below is a link to the 2015 Quadrennial energy review, produced by the US department of energy. A reliable enough source?
https://www.energy.gov/quadrennial-technology-review-2015
Go to Section 10, Table 10.4 for a summary of materials inputs into several different types of powerplant in ton/TWh. Here are some tallys per TWh:
Nuclear (PWR) = 760t concrete / cement; 3t copper; 0t glass; 160t steel; 0t aluminium.
Wind = 8000t concrete / cement; 23t copper; 92t glass; 1800t steel; 35t aluminium.
Solar PV = 4050t concrete / cement; 850t copper; 2700t glass; 7900t steel; 680t aluminium.
Compared to a pressurised water reactor nuclear power plant, a solar PV plant producing the same electric power output will require some 5.3x more concrete; some 280x more copper, some 49.4x more steel; and thousands of times more glass and aluminium. Wind turbines (presumably onshore) require about an order of magnitude more materials for the same amount of electrical energy generated.
There is no indication that these quantities include any materials investments needed for energy storage. This would require further materials investments in pumped hydro, CAES or some other means. This increases the materials cost of wind and solar still further. Embodied materials are a reflection of embodied energy.
Solar PV and Wind energy, appear relatively affordable right now, only because the embodied energy used to provide their enormous materials budgets is provided by low cost fossil fuels. These fuels are predominantly coal based and mostly in China. How much would a wind turbine cost, if the energy needed to produce all of the materials necessary for its manufacture were produced using wind energy? Do they actually generate enough net energy for this to be possible?
The enormous material budgets of RE systems stem from the inherently low power density of wind and sunlight. The power density of wind and solar farms are 2-3W/m2 and 5W/m2, respectively. Compare that to a pressurised water reactor, which has core power density of 80,000,000W/m3. Nuclear power, in the form of fission, Fusion or LENR, is really the only solution to the energy crisis that allows any measure of material prosperity to survive. People that claim we can switch from fossil fuels to RE without huge declines in human numbers and living standards are kidding themselves.
Very sobering. Many environmentalists are coming to the same realization that wind/solar are great, but they won't be nearly enough to satiate our thirst for energy. None of us want nuclear, but if LENR does not come through....
-
Very sobering. Many environmentalists are coming to the same realization that wind/solar are great, but they won't be nearly enough to satiate our thirst for energy. None of us want nuclear, but if LENR does not come through....
LENR will make conventional Nuclear safer and wasteless, specially, this is what AUREON is working on, and also what the MFMP is doing in some of its projects.
-
I think I saw a post of yours that said it was desirable to tame the speed of nuclear reactions involved in lenr. Well, in my view, that happened some fifty years ago by a different pathway for lenr.
When Joseph Papp did his demonstration of his home made cannon for the Navy, it exploded. The explanation was that the projectile, a piston from an engine, got stuck in the barrel. Well, maybe it simply didn't have enough time to exit the barrel before the force of reaction became large enough to peel the barrel back like a banana. On the other hand you have his 'Noble Gas Engine' where the explosions occurred at a regulated rate. People don't seem to like to connect the dots when they don't agree with their biases. The fact is nuclear reactions occur at unimaginable rates.
-
Nuclear (PWR) = 760t concrete / cement; 3t copper; 0t glass; 160t steel; 0t aluminium.
You should stop watching Simpsons cartoons or posting nonsense...
-
You should stop watching Simpsons cartoons or posting nonsense...
Presumably, you disagree with the embodied materials estimates provided by the US Department of Energy? Or maybe you just don't like the answer it gives?
Many techno-utopian fantasies have withered and died when subjected to the cold light of arithmetic. Intermittent renewable energy is destined to go the same way. It will continue to have niche applications in some places, but it cannot sustainably provide the terrawatts of Power that humanity needs. You can be bitter about it if you like.
-
Presumably, you disagree with the embodied materials estimates provided by the US Department of Energy?
Your post is just junk. The amount of concrete needed is at least 100x larger...
May be they refer to an open air reactor with no shield no cooling tower etc...
-
Your post is just junk. The amount of concrete needed is at least 100x larger...
May be they refer to an open air reactor with no shield no cooling tower etc...
Here are some steel and concrete input estimates from Berkeley, University of California.
http://fhr.nuc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf
For a vintage PWR, they estimate 40 tonnes concrete per average MW for the whole powerplant. Over a 50 year life, that is 40 tonnes for 438,300MWh, or 91 tonnes of concrete per TWh. I think the US DOE estimate may actually be conservative.
At least one of the innovations that has developed from LENR (Lattice Confinement Fusion) has the potential to reduce further the embodied materials and energy required to establish a nuclear power programme. If it can be scaled in the way NASA and US Navy foresee, future nuclear reactors will not need uranium enrichment. DU or Natural U can be used as fuel in light water reactors. This can happen because LCF functions as a neutron multiplier in a nuclear reactor. One of the first things than LENR is going to provide humanity is better and cheaper fission reactors.
-
Wyttebach's posts can have a few gems now and then but most of the things he posts are just something claiming superior knowledge. He may be right. I also take issue with some data that USDOE issues but in order to be taken seriously he needs to post alternative sources and data instead of just spouting "no!".
Jurg, do you care to show your math and sources?
You do realize that that the embodied materials data that Caliban posts are normalized per TWh, right?
A 1GW nuclear power plant with a capacity factor of 90% over its 40 year lifespan would produce 315TWh of electricity over its lifespan so 239,400 tons of concrete are used in that system.
I don't think there is a problem with Caliban's USDOE data.
-
Daniel, he probably just misread the post. Easy enough to do.
The reason the PWR figures are so low compared to competing energy sources is the high power density of nuclear systems. Below is a link detailing the primary circuit component volumes for a VVER-1000 power plant.
Volume of Coolant in Reactor Coolant SystemThe volume of Coolant in Reactor Coolant System. In typical modern pressurized water reactors (PWRs), the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) consists of several…www.nuclear-power.comFor a power plant producing 3GW of heat and 1GW of electric power, primary circuit volume is 285m3. That is incredibly compact for a machine that can power a city of a million people. Were it not for the mass of steel and concrete in the containment dome, a PWR would be the most compact power plant in existence.
-
Daniel, he probably just misread the post.
In fact nobody is interested in tons of concrete/"for produced MW" hour. I'm only interested in tons needed for a production capacity of a MW hour.
Reason to know the "construction resources needed" is to understand how long it takes for the pay back of the energy. So a nuke has a pay back time of 5 years. Compared to all other energies this is an outrageous long time frame.
So if you construct two nukes - second after 5 years - you still did not produce any net energy after 10 years...
But of course we can produce other very useful statistics like birds killed by nukes versus birds killed by solar, wind, cats, ....
-
Compared to a pressurised water reactor nuclear power plant, a solar PV plant producing the same electric power output will require some 5.3x more concrete; some 280x more copper, some 49.4x more steel; and thousands of times more glass and aluminium. Wind turbines (presumably onshore) require about an order of magnitude more materials for the same amount of electrical energy generated.
That can't be. They would cost far more than nukes if they took that much more materials. Solar does take up a lot of space, but there is very little material per square meter of that space. You can put a solar array on your roof it is so light. Try doing that with a natural gas generator!
-
They are putting in a Hectare of solar on the farm next to my lab. There's virtually no concrete. Gravel access roads (very few). All the solar panels are mounted on square steel tube frames which are bolted to pads on top of large rebar corkscrews augured into the ground. There are 4 guys on site, they reckon 3 weeks to finish their part plus another 6 weeks wait for a grid connection. It's all designed to be 'plug and play' they say.
