• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Chernobyl series on HBO

DKT88

Active Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
221
Likes
232
Location
South Korea
I'd been aware of the nuclear battery concept and it seemed an excellent approach. Do you know if that was simply not viable economically or was it just the general fear of nuclear that kept that from working out in the energy market?
Small modular reactors (SMR) are similar to the concept that JJB70 calls a nuclear battery. There is considerable interest and development of these small 300 MW (or less) reactors. About half of the designs use off-site refueling (IAEA 2007) and are called battery-type or long-life core. The economics are a problem, a lot of fixed costs are independent of the size of the reactor e.g. all the site licensing costs. The new designs have a lot more passive safety features. TerraPower, in part funded by Bill Gates, is working on a large 1150 MW reactor, the traveling wave reactor, that uses depleted uranium for fuel and would not need to be refueled for decades.
 
Last edited:

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
...from memory you can get up to about 1.2 kW per square metre out of the sun. Good photovoltaic cells manage about 25% efficiency.

A calculation of the required surface area of solar cell to replace total world energy usage:
http://www.grisanik.com/blog/how-much-would-it-cost-to-replace-all-energy-sources-with-solar/

1558264786303.png

It's about the size of Spain and Portugal combined.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Really! Is that all? ! ?
Not negligible, but the article thinks it's do-able. For me, the issue would always be the storage aspect. Is there enough Lithium? Or how about other technologies, like flywheels etc.?
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,319
Location
Albany Western Australia
Not negligible, but the article thinks it's do-able. For me, the issue would always be the storage aspect. Is there enough Lithium? Or how about other technologies, like air-bearing flywheels etc.?
Of course, its only a part of the generation mix that is required. To my mind the base load is nuclear topped up with renewable. If you believe the scientific conclusions about global warming then fossil fuels are simply not tenable.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Of course, its only a part of the generation mix that is required. To my mind the base load is nuclear topped up with renewable. If you believe the scientific conclusions about global warming then fossil fuels are simply not tenable.
I would ask: why? If it really was possible to replace nuclear with a practical number of panels and flywheels (for example), that's what we should go for ASAP. I'm not even thinking about climate change (I'm not a follower of that particular religion); but just at the level of knowing that energy is guaranteed forever, we should do it if the numbers add up.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,151
Location
Singapore
On the "nuclear battery" concept, the idea is still around but it lost a lot of momentum after the Fukushima incident. When I returned to the maritime sector it was seen as a very promising option to decarbonise shipping as it could meet any conceivable power requirements for ships and was based on technically mature technologies. One of the ironies is that because new generation nuclear power packages were considered high risk by society we are now looking at liquid hydrogen and ammonia fuelled ships. Ammonia is horrible stuff. Funnily enough when I worked at Sellafield the radiological hazards were probably the least of my worries as some of the liquors and materials were much more hazardous yet none of those protesting about the place ever mentioned that.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Was the tour worth doing?
I think so. You travel by mini bus deep into the mountain and get to see the turbine hall. You are left in no doubt about the scale of it. But at the end of the day, it's a pretty simple idea rather stretched out.

If you take in the nearby slate museum - a lot more interesting than it sounds :) - you have a proper day out.
 
OP
Blumlein 88

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,685
Likes
37,398
Just as a thought exercise, I once simulated what kind of on site personal water storage would work if I had solar power to cover my needs. I only wanted to be able to store 1 days worth which actually wouldn't always suffice. Hydrostorage uses up lots of space and works best with high amounts of lift. I forget now, but I would have needed some huge water tower about 300 feet high. Of course as that would have mostly covered the area larger than my house was I could have covered the tower with solar cells and the aircon requirements would have been less.

Now this idea is out of the box. I don't think it practical, but interesting. Rail cars with rocks traveling up and down a long steep railway. Wired of course sensationalized the idea.
https://www.wired.com/2016/05/forget-elons-batteries-fix-grid-rock-filled-train-hill/
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,151
Location
Singapore
I once got into trouble because I refused to get with the program and big up our corporate environment departments genius in reducing the environmental impact of a 2.6GW coal fired plant by putting PV panels on the roof of the plant office building. Those who have never seen just how much coal a 2.6GW plant burns, the constant rail movements to deliver coal, the quantities of bottom Ash and fly Ash to be disposed off, anhydrous ammonia for the SCR, sodium hydroxide for the FGD etc would find it difficult to visualise. The idea that a few PV panels green it all was the ultimate in cynical greenwash I thought. However apparently I was too negative and cynical and needed to get with the program.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,507
Likes
5,432
Location
UK
Just as a thought exercise, I once simulated what kind of on site personal water storage would work if I had solar power to cover my needs. I only wanted to be able to store 1 days worth which actually wouldn't always suffice. Hydrostorage uses up lots of space and works best with high amounts of lift. I forget now, but I would have needed some huge water tower about 300 feet high. Of course as that would have mostly covered the area larger than my house was I could have covered the tower with solar cells and the aircon requirements would have been less.

Now this idea is out of the box. I don't think it practical, but interesting. Rail cars with rocks traveling up and down a long steep railway. Wired of course sensationalized the idea.
https://www.wired.com/2016/05/forget-elons-batteries-fix-grid-rock-filled-train-hill/
Anything that kind of reminds me of a funicular is ok with me.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,319
Location
Albany Western Australia
I would ask: why? If it really was possible to replace nuclear with a practical number of panels and flywheels (for example), that's what we should go for ASAP. I'm not even thinking about climate change (I'm not a follower of that particular religion); but just at the level of knowing that energy is guaranteed forever, we should do it if the numbers add up.
For precisely the reasons you cited. Solar doesn't work at night. You need battery storage. Finite natural resources are needed for them. I think you need to show a practical example of the effectiveness of a flywheel in this application :) as I am a little suspicious.

My comments are really about the realities of a currently workable solution, not an idealised utopia.

Re global warming, I am no eco warrior but I don't think you can ignore the conclusions of the global scientific community on the subject. Terming it as religion implies faith without evidence, that's not the case.
 
Last edited:

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,319
Location
Albany Western Australia
Yes, of course. I recently did the Dinorwig tour as it happens.
Yes this is a great example of alternative storage methods. From the tour can you remember how much energy was required to pump the water up and how long it could generate for and how much. My recollection of this station is that it was more aimed at peak lopping.

Edit I read the link :)

So yes peak lopping and can run for about 4 to 5 hours. You obviously need an appropriate geographic location to build one of these and you would need an awful lot of them.

Hence my reference to a "mix" of non fossil fuel generation.
 
Last edited:

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,496
I would ask: why? If it really was possible to replace nuclear with a practical number of panels and flywheels (for example), that's what we should go for ASAP. I'm not even thinking about climate change (I'm not a follower of that particular religion); but just at the level of knowing that energy is guaranteed forever, we should do it if the numbers add up.

Few things, we've hit "Peak Oil", meaning we've past the point at peak oil production, and now is in decline, year over year. Not by crazy amounts, but it is in decline. Our demand has finally outstripped our energy supply. The only way to remedy this, is "fix" demand.

Second, renewables pale in comparison to non-renewables. The startup costs are enormous currently by relative comparison, and the land-use required to replace non-renewables simply doesn't exist (you can't just plop down wind farms wherever you feel like, likewise I need not mention how this applies to solar panels), they're simply not reliable with current technological status of those technologies. So barring any discovery of an energy source as net-calorie rich as oil is, these forms of energy are simply not viable on a plant racing toward 8 billion. I'm not even going to mention hydro and such, it's caveats have been understood far longer.

Third, nuclear stands to eliminate this energy issue, but it faces a crisis of stability. Basically like solar panels in a sense, but just all the start-up costs and time multiplied thousands fold. To get a power-plant up and running from idea, to serving a grid or so.. is a decade + ordeal when you have to adhere to safety standards (of which we all agree is something no one should be skimping on when dealing with nuclear). So it takes forever to get up and running, costs billions, and is still concerning if a meltdown (or goodness forbid an explosion occurs).

Also global warming isn't a religion (so I hope this was said colloquially, but in a slightly degrading tone to make joke of the stereotypical hippy-type person global warming proponents have been childishly painted as).

At any rate, none of the current solutions will ever replace the ease of energy afforded to us by the discovery of oil and non-renewables. There are those in denial saying we will never actually run out, or that there are vast stores still possibly present at the polar regions, and things like the Canadian Tar Sands. First off, if there was much oil left, companies wouldn't be shelling out $200 million per off-shore oil rig, that alone is enough evidence to demonstrate that land-based reserves are in acute decline. Second, with current political climates, and the ACTUAL climate, prospecting and actually producing something viable from the northern reserves is such a monumentous effort, it seemingly is impossible without encroaching on massive costs (where it basically isn't worth taking the oil out of the ground even if it is there, which is basically what is mean't when people say we've run out of oil.. not technically, but in practice when the cost to get it out outpaces the the price it can be sold for to the worldwide market). And finally, the Canadian Tar Sands are an ecological disaster that even the most staunch deniers of global warming admit the fall-off will be great if they are exploited.

There are lots of talks about what should be done, but VERY little talking about getting anything actually done. When you have the buffoonary displays of for instance Trump leaving the Paris Climate Accords, you're basically providing the litmus test at just how seriously we're going to be fucking ourselves. And the "told you so's" at that point will pale in comparison to the every progressing suffering that will ensue. I am very pessimistic about the whole ordeal partly due to the human element and stupidity, and any prospect of discovering another Oil, is not a very realistic expectation to base any of your optimism in. The destabilizing effects are currently being felt as we speak, both environmentally, and economically when you take a look at the per-emptive hoarding of resources on an Empire level. Lots of superpowers not willing to budge on territories and lots of bullshit threats neither sides are prepared to back their words up with. These escalations will only progress as time goes on.
 
Top Bottom