The problem is you can't bring back girls.
Thread
Copenhagen Atomics Molten Salt Reactors
What are your thoughts on this upcoming Thorium Molten Salt SMR from Copenhagen Atomics??
YouTube Link.
YouTube Link.
Conventional Nuclear (AKA Nuclear Fission) a thread for discussion of the pros / cons.
-
-
One of my grandchildren has just qualified as a wind turbine service engineer working for Vesta. The newest monsters he is working on are amazing, they have elevators, bunks, lavatories and showers.
That is interesting. I understand why they have an elevator, but what is the point of the bunks, lavatories and shower? Why not bring a trailer for that purpose? (A caravan, I believe they are called in the UK.) Do they need a technician on site at all times? If so, it seems like it would be cheaper to install a small prefab house or trailer . . . errr. . . caravan.
Or is this an offshore installation? That would make it even more challenging to bring back girls.
-
Hi Jed.
It's not in all of them apparently, but where there's a cluster of next generation wind turbines on a ridge or moor then at least one will have such an arrangement since maintenance can apparently require longer periods of observation to fond out (for example) why the blade feathering systems or rotor brakes are malfunctioning. And if you end up 80 miles from home and 10 miles from anywhere on a dark and stormy night it's probably useful. Rural France is not famously accessible to random travellers. I have no doubt some engineers have camper (winnebagos) vans though.
-
I have no doubt some engineers have camper (winnebagos) vans though.
Winnebago? Is that what you young people call it these days? (The bringing back girls thing . . .)
This is off topic and politically incorrect, but I read a WWII memoir by an RAF pilot. He and his fellow pilots had a beat up old car they bought for 10 pounds. Only the driver side door worked. The back doors would not open from the inside. They called it the Wren Trap. And if you know what that means, you are old.
-
-
I will never watch a video with such a silly title. Solar and wind work fine. Also large flow batteries built with cheap iron are now available for energy buffering.
Of course A LENR reactor would be ideal!
-
Watch the video and then we can discuss. The arguments are solid and logical.
-
I will never watch a video with such a silly title. Solar and wind work fine. Also large flow batteries built with cheap iron are now available for energy buffering.
Of course A LENR reactor would be ideal!
I think the “will not work” is constrained to the condition “for achieving net zero”. I install solar panels in almost every irrigation project I design and build, and they work very well, albeit they are a “pain in the neck” to keep clean.
-
Probably a better way to say it would be "Why wind and solar will not work as well as we told you it would"? Lots of brilliant engineers on this. As pointed out by the author, there are regional, cross border, sharing schemes that could even out the demand/production imbalances as they arise. That is as far as I watched, and will finish later.
-
The conclusion is that the sharing schemes, even when shared across the entire continental United States does not solve the problem.
It’s a very well thought out and logically presented argument. If you choose not to watch it you are showing your cognitive dissonance.
Curbina nobody said wind and solar don’t work. The point of this analysis is that there is no path to net zero with wind and solar without bankrupting the global economy.
-
Curbina nobody said wind and solar don’t work. The point of this analysis is that there is no path to net zero with wind and solar without bankrupting the global economy.
And I would agree to that, these are technologies that have a niche, but when it comes to ner zero, we are far from it being realistic.
-
Some form of nuclear will be absolutely essential to wean us off of fossil fuels. It’s delusional to think otherwise. Beware of groupthink.
-
Technology – Powerful and protected by nature – Dual Fluid (dual-fluid.com) is one of the ICCF25 sponsors. Konrad Czerski (ICCF25 organizer) is Dual Fluid's "Senior Research Officer" and co-inventor of the tech. I don't believe this is LENR related, although using spent nuclear fuel to power the reactor core reminds me of Global Energy Corp ( http://www.gec.solutions/ ). Still on the drawing board according to them, but if it works out as hoped, it could be a game changer...if LENR doesn't beat them to it:
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
Had a quick read of the Dual-Fuel white paper. My first thought was 'WTF can they build that thing from?' - and towards the end of the paper (attached) they say:-
"it will be a manageable task to identify and develop the most suitable material."
This suggests to me that so far this is an entirely theoretical concept that in the event of someone giving them the cash will need to be engineered from zero, including finding out what to build it from that can withstand the conditions. In other words, a long and expensive R&D programme.
-
"it will be a manageable task to identify and develop the most suitable material."
Yeah - it does sound like a "scoping exercise".
The fast-type reactor, with liquid lead coolant, sounds like it might be relying declassified information on old Soviet submarine reactor designs.
Lead-cooled fast reactor - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.orgThe "liquid fuel" sounds a bit like like the Copenhagen Atomics idea.
It will face the same problems.
-
https://dual-fluid.com/technology/ was one of the ICCF25 sponsors. Konrad Czerski was the ICCF organizer, and is also a Senior Researcher with DF. Received this update last week:
Hello Friend,We have reached another important milestone: we´ve recently signed a cooperation agreement with Rwanda to jointly develop a Dual Fluid demonstration reactor. The first ever small-scale Dual Fluid reactor is expected to be operational by 2026 and will be the proof of concept of the new and patented operating principle.
The Rwandan government will provide the site and infrastructure for the project, while Dual Fluid will be responsible for the technical implementation. We are confident that we will achieve our goal quickly since the use of peaceful nuclear power is a top priority for the Rwandan government.
Signing of cooperation agreement in Kigali, Rwanda: Fidele Ndahayo, CEO Rwanda Atomic Energy Board; Ernest Nsabimana, Minister of Infrastructure; and Armin Huke, Dual Fluid (President / Chairman of the Board)
Götz Ruprecht, CEO of Dual Fluid: "Time is a critical factor for us. After years of detailed preparation and improvement of the concept, we have now found the ideal partner for implementing our completely new technology. In Rwanda, the determination and ambition to implement new nuclear power is even more evident than in most Western countries. We have found here a stable and positive business environment that has already attracted major international companies. Our demonstration reactor will show that a better, much more efficient way to generate nuclear power is possible and quickly achievable."
New financing round launched
The demonstration reactor will cost around EUR 70 million to build and operate. We are therefore launching a funding round for qualified investors (minimum investment: €200,000 for corporate law reasons; as we want to keep the number of new shareholders manageable, higher amounts in the seven-figure range are preferred). If you would like to know more, please email us at [email protected] - thank you!
Sketch of the planned demonstration reactor
Best regards
Your Dual Fluid team -
Thanks Shane D.
This has been reported in the general nuclear press too.
Demonstration reactor to be built in Rwanda : New Nuclear - World Nuclear News
Rwanda signs deal to co-operate on novel reactor - Nuclear Engineering International
I do feel some sympathy for Rwanda after all the crap that has happened there, over the decades. They are desperate for development, and have been quick (maybe too quick) to sign deals with people that might bring some money into the country.
Interestingly, Rwanda does have uranium deposits of its own. I guess it makes a change for an African country with uranium deposits to possibly get some benefit from them, rather than them being siphoned off by some old European colonial country...
-
The conclusion is that the sharing schemes, even when shared across the entire continental United States does not solve the problem.
It’s a very well thought out and logically presented argument. If you choose not to watch it you are showing your cognitive dissonance.
Curbina nobody said wind and solar don’t work. The point of this analysis is that there is no path to net zero with wind and solar without bankrupting the global economy.
It is true that grid stability adds a lot of cost to renewable energy once the non-renewable stuff is not enough to provide that (I mean - it can be done now with a whole load of different storage techniques, but you need a lot of it and it is expensive).
BUT - batteries and esoteric storage techs have been getting better and progress will continue. We have many fallbacks - such as keeping old FF generation available for the once-in-10-years weather goes against you for a long time scenario. And we can have some slice (how much depends) of nuclear.
So:
- Renewables are cheaper than anything else we don't need FF or nuclear for net zero - wrong now, and maybe storage will always be very expensive in which case we are going to end up needing nuclear (or FF with Carbon capture & storage)
- Renewables are not a good way to get to Net Zero with some added base load and/or storage - absolutely wrong
- The argument about what is the cheapest mix - as we know from PVs - will change over time as technology advances. We have got time - no need to decommission all FF plants yet. We just (as with PVs) need to put in enough early money to incentivise to R&D so we have decent solutions in time.
- 20 years ago people would have said using PV was not cost-effective without subsidy. Now it is. We can see how the relevant technologies have been getting cheaper and better.
The point is that there are many different ways to obtain decent supply which is effectively net zero and mostly renewable. Once in 10 years weather-related use of FF is not a problem because it is such a small amount total - and it can at high cost even be net zero if joined to DAC schemes.
It would cost a lot more now than a dirt-cheap (and not allowed on human health grounds in developed countries) dirty coal plant. But we don't know whether it will cost more in 30 years time than advanced coal plants that don't poison cities - even with no requirement to capture carbon. So "bankrupt the global economy" is overreach.
Also, you need to consider intelligent cost-based demand-side management which will not work for everything but is an effective tool in dealing with some of the supply-side variability and allow every EV battery to be an essentially free bit of medium-term grid storage.
-
The point is that there are many different ways to obtain decent supply which is effectively net zero and mostly renewable.
Yes. Saying you cannot achieve net zero "with renewables only" is true, but it is like saying "you cannot achieve net zero with nuclear power only." That is also true because 100% nuclear power with today's technology would be incredibly expensive and wasteful. Demand for power is greatly reduce at night. You cannot turn off a nuclear power plant for 12 hours a day, so a tremendous amount of energy would be wasted. A nuclear plant has to be used 24 hours a day, most days of the year, or the cost of financing (paying interest) skyrockets. It has to be baseline power. So, 100% nuclear power would be economic insanity. Nukes produce a lot in France, but they sell it to other countries at night.
100% electricity directly from renewables and storage is not possible, because in many parts of the world there is not enough wind or solar, and long distance powerlines are not feasible. You could produce hydrogen or synthetic fuel at places with far more renewable resources that can be locally consumed. You could send that fuel via pipelines or tanker ships. That would cost a lot of money. But, places such as North Dakota with wind, or Nevada with solar, could supply more fuel than the oil from the Middle East.
Offshore wind could produce 18 times more electricity than we now consume, but again the problem is getting the power to the customers in a cost-effective way.
Offshore Wind Outlook 2019 – Analysis - IEAOffshore Wind Outlook 2019 - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.www.iea.orgWith present day technology, a mix of renewables, storage, natural gas, and nuclear is probably the best way to approach net zero. It is probably the most cost effective. It will not achieve net zero, but it will reduce CO2 emissions and smoke, and it will improve things. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.
A slight increase in generator capacity might be needed to replace all gasoline cars with electric vehicles in the U.S. (I do not know about Europe or Japan.) If I have done my arithmetic correctly, only a small increase in generator capacity -- or no increase -- would be needed if most cars are recharged at night. I base that on the LLNL graph, with various estimates I have described here before.
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2023-10/US%20Energy%202022.png
-
would be needed if most cars are recharged at night.
I recommend Solar to car as then no conversion DC-AC-DC is need... You anyway need batteries for solar. China soon will deliver the first mass produced Sodium accumulators. These have more weight but no resource limits! So you can preload accumulators and just echange them.
Only problem:: Law maker urgently must force the once favorite standard for exchange batteries. No more bribes from Tesla etc..
