Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 45307 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #555 –
Some serious scientists exposing the myths around the anti-nuclear power debate, a long video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIQE-EUpMa8
Very clever people presenting these comments.

But note the ROI debate hinges on the longevity of SolarPV and Wind, the figures assume 10-15 year life for SolarPV at full performance, when the figures are adjusted for real world longevity and degrading performance over time the differences swiftly diminish. For example, if 10% of SolarPV panels fail within 5 years, which is about the current average, the difference to nuclear is halved. Even worse, many people are ignorant that their SolarPV is failing or degraded and keep operating an installation long after part of it should have been replaced.
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #556 –
I've been watching Sabine for a couple of years. She's very good IMO.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #557 –
Quote from: LP on
But note the ROI debate hinges on the longevity of SolarPV and Wind, the figures assume 10-15 year life for SolarPV at full performance, when the figures are adjusted for real world longevity and degrading performance over time the differences swiftly diminish. For example, if 10% of SolarPV panels fail within 5 years, which is about the current average, the difference to nuclear is halved. Even worse, many people are ignorant that their SolarPV is failing or degraded and keep operating an installation long after part of it should have been replaced.
This is your Achilles’ heel. For the purposes of making comparisons, you regard technology as static. Even worse, you assume the performance of devices built 15-20 years ago reflect the performance of similar devices manufactured now and there’s no acknowledgement that they’ll be even better in the future.

To a degree, that’s understandable. Rosy predictions can prove to be very optimistic in retrospect, so it’s fair enough to point out that similar claims made in the past fell short. But that doesn’t excuse discounting improvements. When comparing mature power sources with rapidly improving technologies, that’s misleading. Do you agree that solar panels made today are more efficient and reliable than those made 15-20 years ago?

Certainly, that’s not a mistake the markets make. The problem for nuclear is that decisions are made not only on calculations of current RoIs but on what they’ll be as technology improves. Nuclear proponents have to show that an investment today will reap sufficient returns in years 20-70; in other words, will the investment be worthwhile if renewable energy available in that window is cheap and plentiful. It’s not as though nuclear technology will improve so dramatically in the future that the nuclear industry should be seen as developing rather than mature (save of course for nuclear fusion which would be a game changer).

Here’s a potential breakthrough in perovskite solar cells that may increase the longevity and efficiency of solar panels while reducing their costs and carbon footprint:
Once seen as fleeting, a new solar tech proves its lasting power, Princeton University.

Whether it ends up a winner isn’t the point: there is so much promising research into different approaches to renewable energy production and storage that it would be incredible if there aren’t big improvements made in the coming decades.

As a separate matter, when considering an assumption of 10-15 year’s longevity, you have to make sure you aren’t double counting. How do you know this figure doesn’t already factor in the early failure of some panels or their deterioration over time? Given claimed longevity of 20-25 years, there has already been a significant discount applied.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #558 –
I can't say I'd be too thrilled living close to a nuclear power plant, however irrational that may seem.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #559 –
Quote from: PaulP on
I can't say I'd be too thrilled living close to a nuclear power plant, however irrational that may seem.
Thats the beauty of Australia, no shortage of land/locations.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #560 –
Quote from: kruddler on
Thats the beauty of Australia, no shortage of land/locations.

Not really.

The demand for water means that nuclear plants would have to be on the coast and subject to a range of risk factors that coastal locations present.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #561 –
Quote from: DJC on
Not really.

The demand for water means that nuclear plants would have to be on the coast and subject to a range of risk factors that coastal locations present.
Yep, and people think it's one big reactor tucked away in the middle of nowhere. It will be a multiple/network of reactors to share the load for safety reasons.
Also it will probably be foreign owned given the start up costs so look forward to paying more and having to pay for new infrastructure....

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #562 –
Quote from: Mav on
This is your Achilles’ heel. For the purposes of making comparisons, you regard technology as static. Even worse, you assume the performance of devices built 15-20 years ago reflect the performance of similar devices manufactured now and there’s no acknowledgement that they’ll be even better in the future.
I work in the industry that makes the machinery to produce printable electronics and SolarPV, using modern techniques, not even the cutting edge stuff makes it to 10 years with better than 10% failure rate.

The best available technology costs more than a OLED TV per square meter, a typical 6kW system installation using those panels would cost AUD$60K, which is why they are available to the general public and the panel is usually reserved for applications like space where longevity limits mission length. But even it fails down here on the surface, as it cannot be made 100% perfect as the surface has micropores that allow oxygen in, this causes the layers to oxidise and harden as which time they develop micro-stress fracturing from thermal cycling.

Oddly, arguing that SolarPV and WInd will advance seems to reinforce the argument for nuclear, because most of the examples of non-external failure are for technologies that are 70 years old! So thanks for the boost, nuclear has advanced so so much in just the last 20 years it's almost unrecognisable from nuclear of even the 60s or 70s let alone the 40s and 50s designs!
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #563 –
And your evidence for saying the 10-15 year assumption has omitted the factors you put forward is …?

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #564 –
Quote from: DJC on
Not really.

The demand for water means that nuclear plants would have to be on the coast and subject to a range of risk factors that coastal locations present.
You need to update your knowledge base, water isn't part of the cooling system of modern nuclear because at high temperature and velocity water becomes hyper corrosive.

Old archaic designs fundamentally spend a huge chunk of there time managing and disposing of sacrificial anodes / cathodes to prevent the cooling water eroding critical components, coal and gas have the very same issue. For reference hot fast flowing water is even more corrosive than the molten salts being used.

But of course you must know this, because if your claims that modern thermal power generation needs lots of water were true then Solar Thermal would also be dead and buried here is Oz, but because it fundamentally uses the same molten salt technology harness heat energy as modern thorium or modular nuclear reactor designs it is viable.

Modern modular reactors are self contained and fully enclosed, they are referred to as nuclear batteries and are water free, much like the devices on aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, space probes, etc., etc., the a standalone unit that can be swapped in and out of service with a standard crane. There are several projects running right now to improve the weight and mobility, so they can be dropped by helicopter or heavy lift aircraft into disaster zones restoring power in hours or days instead of weeks or months. The only difference between that emergency operation and suburban energy is scale, like a single battery versus a bank of batteries.
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #565 –
Quote from: Mav on
And your evidence for saying the 10-15 year assumption has omitted the factors you put forward is …?
It's in the very video I linked to, and also in the reports that Sabine links to on her own websites.

For example, the anti-nuclear brigade assert nuclear energy is carbon expensive over the lifetime of the plant, but they cap the lifetime of the plant at 30 years, even the old technologies in use now are 50, 60 or 70 years old, most of the carbon in the nuclear plant emissions in is construction, go from 30 to 40 years is a 25% reduction, go from 30 to 60 years and it's 50%.

The same groups issue reports that stretch the MTBF lifetime of SolarPV to 10 - 15 years, which is bogus because although panels might still be working in 15 years they won't be at 100% efficiency any more, they will typically be at 80% or less which in terms of a carbon budget is the same as a 20% failure rate. It's odd for you to question that given you also boost the use of old batteries, batteries that are barely a decade old being repurposed in the desert as grid storage, because they have degraded efficiency.

At the moment SolarPV makes up about 2% to 3% of global supply, wind is about 5% but it's difficult to put a figure on a highly variable form of generation, they have good and bad months subject to the weather. The idea we can use these technologies alone to get to the 80% zero carbon renewable figure needed to meet targets in the timeframe required is a completely absurd joke, like betting on one horse to win every race on the planet!
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #566 –
Quote from: LP on
It's in the very video I linked to, and also in the reports that Sabine links to on her own websites.
Are you saying that the video and reports state that the failure rate and deterioration have not been taken into account at all? If so, please provide the relevant quotes.

Quote from: LP on
It's odd for you to question that given you also boost the use of old batteries, batteries that are barely a decade old being repurposed in the desert as grid storage, because they have degraded efficiency.
Please refer me to those boosts. I can’t recall them.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #567 –
Interesting approach to the work of Sabine Hossenfelder and Elina Charatsidou, “some serious scientists and very smart people exposing the myths around the anti-nuclear power debate.”

They are brilliant scientists when they say things that favour nuclear power but strangely they’re pretty crap at understanding reports and statistics which undermine the economic viability of nuclear power. If only they could see what LP sees. So, pro-nuclear comments good, anti-nuclear comments bad. Got it!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #568 –
Quote from: DJC on
Not really.

The demand for water means that nuclear plants would have to be on the coast and subject to a range of risk factors that coastal locations present.

1. Lucky we have the one of the biggest coastlines of any country.
2. As LP suggests, thats not quite right anyway.

On top of that, our population density is so concentrated, that we can build multiple without affecting any major cities.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #569 –
Quote from: LP on
You need to update your knowledge base, water isn't part of the cooling system of modern nuclear because at high temperature and velocity water becomes hyper corrosive.

Old archaic designs fundamentally spend a huge chunk of there time managing and disposing of sacrificial anodes / cathodes to prevent the cooling water eroding critical components, coal and gas have the very same issue. For reference hot fast flowing water is even more corrosive than the molten salts being used.

But of course you must know this, because if your claims that modern thermal power generation needs lots of water were true then Solar Thermal would also be dead and buried here is Oz, but because it fundamentally uses the same molten salt technology harness heat energy as modern thorium or modular nuclear reactor designs it is viable.

Modern modular reactors are self contained and fully enclosed, they are referred to as nuclear batteries and are water free, much like the devices on aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, space probes, etc., etc., the a standalone unit that can be swapped in and out of service with a standard crane. There are several projects running right now to improve the weight and mobility, so they can be dropped by helicopter or heavy lift aircraft into disaster zones restoring power in hours or days instead of weeks or months. The only difference between that emergency operation and suburban energy is scale, like a single battery versus a bank of batteries.
re: New Less water reactors....They are smaller lightweight reactors that produce less power so you need more of them, they also use different heat transfer mediums like Liquid metal, Helium and Molten Salt so you need to allow for supply of those items to your reactor as well as the supply of water you need to create your steam. They are really designed to be produced in factories modular style and then transported for 3rd world countries/remote areas who lack water and money...
Australia would be building them around the coast  near water supply and building them in safe areas to offset rising sea levels. You would expect Desalination and probably Hydrogen Production to also feature as part of any new builds and the latter of course feeds into greener energy solutions.
I'm in favour of nuclear energy providing its done right, not on the cheap and is Fully Australian owned, once foreign ownership is involved you will have issues with safety, maintenance and rising costs.
As Krud points out our population density is concentrated so I see no reason why we cant have a successful Nuclear energy setup other than lack of finances and finding a  Government willing to take the plunge and risk the backlash of protest votes that come with it..