Grid Storage Systems for Renewable Energy - Technology and Projects (No Politics)

[MTBDoc]

Modern reactor design is quite safe - and as my father said:

“More people died at Chappaquiddick than Three Mile Island.” Back in the day he wrote a book addressing the fallacies of the anti-nuke crowd. He absolutely refused to change the title so it never got a serious technical review by any publishers. They said the title was too inflammatory:

Chappaquiddick 1, Three Mile Island 0

 

[MediumRare]

US expanding grid battery capacity faster than natural gas-fired generation for the first time.

US will see more new battery capacity than natural gas generation in 2023

2023 will also likely see the last nuclear additions for a while.

arstechnica.com

 

[tomtoo]

Modern reactor design is quite safe - and as my father said:

“More people died at Chappaquiddick than Three Mile Island.” Back in the day he wrote a book addressing the fallacies of the anti-nuke crowd. He absolutely refused to change the title so it never got a serious technical review by any publishers. They said the title was too inflammatory:

Chappaquiddick 1, Three Mile Island 0

I have seen now three of this teepots out of controlle. And iam only 60 and not three million years old. So sry but the anti nuke crowd was right.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I have seen now three of this teepots out of controlle. And iam only 60 and not three million years old. So sry but the anti nuke crowd was right.

There were boiler explosions a plenty at one time. Ships, trains and fixed steam installations. In time and with better design they became quite safe. Nuclear accidents can be so bad you really need to keep them under tight QC. That doesn't mean people cannot come up with designs that have no possibility of creating accidents of some early designs.

 

[ctrl]

There were boiler explosions a plenty at one time. Ships, trains and fixed steam installations. In time and with better design they became quite safe. Nuclear accidents can be so bad you really need to keep them under tight QC. That doesn't mean people cannot come up with designs that have no possibility of creating accidents of some early designs.

The problem is that the nuclear reactors currently feasible on an industrial scale are based on the chain reaction of U-235, which will not stop without external measures (or only when the "critical mass" of U-235 is undershot) - this can never be safe, only safer.

For example, the reactor pressure vessels of older nuclear power plants (which is the vast majority) suffer from material fatigue due to the constant neutron bombardment, so that the emergency cooling water must be heated to about 60° to prevent the reactor vessel from bursting in the event of an emergency shutdown.

Worldwide, the average age of nuclear power plants is 31 years, and in the U.S. it is almost 42 years (Source) - there is no "new design" in reality. For the completely new technology such as thorium reactors, things look much better in terms of safety. But mass production of power plants with this technology are unfortunately pure fantasy and will remain so for the next 20-40 years.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The problem is that the nuclear reactors currently feasible on an industrial scale are based on the chain reaction of U-235, which will not stop without external measures (or only when the "critical mass" of U-235 is undershot) - this can never be safe, only safer.

For example, the reactor pressure vessels of older nuclear power plants (which is the vast majority) suffer from material fatigue due to the constant neutron bombardment, so that the emergency cooling water must be heated to about 60° to prevent the reactor vessel from bursting in the event of an emergency shutdown.

Worldwide, the average age of nuclear power plants is 31 years, and in the U.S. it is almost 42 years (Source) - there is no "new design" in reality. For the completely new technology such as thorium reactors, things look much better in terms of safety. But mass production of power plants with this technology are unfortunately pure fantasy and will remain so for the next 20-40 years.

Sodium salt cooled reactors and smaller designs using pebbles for fuel look promising in reducing cost and greatly increasing safety. Don't know if costs are reduced enough. It gives reason to say safer designs are possible. Simpler inherently safer designs. Just because they aren't ready now, does not mean they never will be.

 

[Dismayed]

Yes, using traditional methods that would be true. But even then I'm suggesting more burning hydrocarbons and collecting the resultant combustion products to re-crack into usable fuel. It's more that you're making up for the losses in the process and adding to it as you can. You're not trying to gather all of the carbon you're going to use in the process out of the air, at least not

There’s a small problem with your proposed scheme: thermodynamics. You can’t ‘re-crack’ combustion products back into usable fuel unless you put back more energy than was originally released!

 

[Dismayed]

There are some really promising grid storage solutions that are on the verge of commercialization. Ambri, an MIT spinoff, has developed low-cost molten metal batteries that have 80% efficiency and projected life of over 25 years. Vanadium flow batteries look good, too. And sodium and aluminum battery chemistries are getting close.

 

[Dismayed]

Modern reactor design is quite safe - and as my father said:

“More people died at Chappaquiddick than Three Mile Island.” Back in the day he wrote a book addressing the fallacies of the anti-nuke crowd. He absolutely refused to change the title so it never got a serious technical review by any publishers. They said the title was too inflammatory:

Chappaquiddick 1, Three Mile Island 0

Sorry, but your claim on the Three Mile Island accident doesn’t match conclusions in epidemiology studies. Childhood leukemia rates increased 40% in areas affected by the accident. They had been below the average for the country, then above average after the accident.

So tell me about Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Of course other means of energy production kill people, too. But I prefer estimates that are as accurate as possible when comparing.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Sorry, but your claim on the Three Mile Island accident doesn’t match conclusions in epidemiology studies. Childhood leukemia rates increased 40% in areas affected by the accident. They had been below the average for the country, then above average after the accident.

So tell me about Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Of course other means of energy production kill people, too. But I prefer estimates that are as accurate as possible when comparing.

Those rates haven't been substantiated around the Three Mile Island area population. There may have been some increase in cancers, but it isn't anywhere near 40%. When relevant factors are included the TMI accident made somewhere between no difference or not much of one. Not downplaying the fact it may have caused deaths and it takes very little to be more than 1 in the population in a 10 mile radius around the reactor.

Chernobyl was a piss poor design and poorly run.

Fukushima had the obvious design flaw of having important backup generators in an area that could be and was flooded. A factor easily foreseen, but somehow it occurred anyway.

Oh, and do you want to compare cancer deaths of fossil fuel emissions? They are real, and dwarf deaths from all reactors by some orders of magnitude. They range from several million cancer deaths per year from particulate pollution to possibly several times that much from all other fossil fuel pollution effects.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.5662

 

[Dismayed]

Those rates haven't been substantiated around the Three Mile Island area population. There may have been some increase in cancers, but it isn't anywhere near 40%. When relevant factors are included the TMI accident made somewhere between no difference or not much of one. Not downplaying the fact it may have caused deaths and it takes very little to be more than 1 in the population in a 10 mile radius around the reactor.

Chernobyl was a piss poor design and poorly run.

Fukushima had the obvious design flaw of having important backup generators in an area that could be and was flooded. A factor easily foreseen, but somehow it occurred anyway.

Oh, and do you want to compare cancer deaths of fossil fuel emissions? They are real, and dwarf deaths from all reactors by some orders of magnitude. They range from several million cancer deaths per year from particulate pollution to possibly several times that much from all other fossil fuel pollution effects.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.5662

I pointed out that there are deaths associated with non-nuclear forms of energy production, too. And you weaken your pro-nuclear position by ignoring accidents or by blaming them on poor design. That means you are arguing that this time will be different. Surely you can do better than that!

The biggest strikes against nuclear are lead time and economics. Nuclear power is expensive. Assuming that the next generation of reactors will be far less expensive is not convincing. The current generation of reactors was supposed to produce energy too cheap to meter!

 

[Blumlein 88]

I pointed out that there are deaths associated with non-nuclear forms of energy production, too. And you weaken your pro-nuclear position by ignoring accidents or by blaming them on poor design. That means you are arguing that this time will be different. Surely you can do better than that!

The biggest strikes against nuclear are lead time and economics. Nuclear power is expensive. Assuming that the next generation of reactors will be far less expensive is not convincing. The current generation of reactors was supposed to produce energy too cheap to meter!

I'm not ignoring accidents. And poor designs are for real. Designs in most things improve over time. And yes, I am arguing this time will be different. Furthermore last time was different for designs not like the one in Chernobyl.

I agree lead times and up front costs are the main problem with having more nuclear power. Assuming designs will try and reduce costs and complexity seems like it would be pretty obvious in an industry where those are known problems. The too cheap to meter slogan is from the 1960's. Obviously it was wrong, but so what, that has nothing to do with what is going on now. A slogan is not guiding design.

 

[Dismayed]

Those rates haven't been substantiated around the Three Mile Island area population. There may have been some increase in cancers, but it isn't anywhere near 40%. When relevant factors are included the TMI accident made somewhere between no difference or not much of one. Not downplaying the fact it may have caused deaths and it takes very little to be more than 1 in the population in a 10 mile radius around the reactor.

Chernobyl was a piss poor design and poorly run.

Fukushima had the obvious design flaw of having important backup generators in an area that could be and was flooded. A factor easily foreseen, but somehow it occurred anyway.

Oh, and do you want to compare cancer deaths of fossil fuel emissions? They are real, and dwarf deaths from all reactors by some orders of magnitude. They range from several million cancer deaths per year from particulate pollution to possibly several times that much from all other fossil fuel pollution effects.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.5662

A 2006 study by Joseph Mangano on the standard mortality rate in children in 34 counties downwind of TMI found an increase in the rate (for cancers other than leukemia) from 0.83 (1979–83) to 1.17 (1984–88), meaning a rise from below the national average to above it.

My point is that to claim no deaths or ill effects is likely incorrect. I do believe that we did dodge a bullet with TMI. We were lucky. The potential for a much worse accident was there.

 

[Dismayed]

I'm not ignoring accidents. And poor designs are for real. Designs in most things improve over time. And yes, I am arguing this time will be different. Furthermore last time was different for designs not like the one in Chernobyl.

I agree lead times and up front costs are the main problem with having more nuclear power. Assuming designs will try and reduce costs and complexity seems like it would be pretty obvious in an industry where those are known problems. The too cheap to meter slogan is from the 1960's. Obviously it was wrong, but so what, that has nothing to do with what is going on now. A slogan is not guiding design.

Less complex, cheaper, and safer sounds like another slogan that I don’t believe. Nuclear has a role while we work out better grid storage for intermittent power sources.

 

[Blumlein 88]

A 2006 study by Joseph Mangano on the standard mortality rate in children in 34 counties downwind of TMI found an increase in the rate (for cancers other than leukemia) from 0.83 (1979–83) to 1.17 (1984–88), meaning a rise from below the national average to above it.

My point is that to claim no deaths or ill effects is likely incorrect. I do believe that we did dodge a bullet with TMI. We were lucky. The potential for a much worse accident was there.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.2968/060005010

The article by Mangano.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Less complex, cheaper, and safer sounds like another slogan that I don’t believe. Nuclear has a role while we work out better grid storage for intermittent power sources.

No it sounds like a progression in design based upon experience plus addressing weaknesses in the previous designs. Many of the proposed newer designs are for smaller reactors. Multiple modular units rather than extremely large reactors.

 

[Marc v E]

I'm truly speechless why anyone would favour nuclear power over solar panels and wind. I guess in a few years we'll see what happens. In the meantime this article gives good insight in what is happening now and where we're heading (at least in Europe, probably much the same for the rest of the world):

Mapped: Europe’s Biggest Sources of Electricity by Country

As Europe and the EU shift away from fossil fuels, which energy sources are European countries depending on for their electricity generation?

elements.visualcapitalist.com

 

[Marc v E]

Looks to me wind is mainly replacing gas which is better any way you interpret it, less fumes, LOL

 

[Blumlein 88]

I'm truly speechless why anyone would favour nuclear power over solar panels and wind. I guess in a few years we'll see what happens. In the meantime this article gives good insight in what is happening now and where we're heading (at least in Europe, probably much the same for the rest of the world):

Mapped: Europe’s Biggest Sources of Electricity by Country

As Europe and the EU shift away from fossil fuels, which energy sources are European countries depending on for their electricity generation?

elements.visualcapitalist.com

It is not a matter of either nuclear or solar. Both may be good to have. The new smaller proposed modular reactors are capable of ramping up and down energy output in a way they could replace natural gas powered plants. Making them a good compliment to wind and solar. Natural gas is also the best of the ways to use fossil fuel. With the time needed for things to evolve fossil fuel will be important for quite some time.

 

[Marc v E]

It is not a matter of either nuclear or solar. Both may be good to have. The new smaller proposed modular reactors are capable of ramping up and down energy output in a way they could replace natural gas powered plants. Making them a good compliment to wind and solar. Natural gas is also the best of the ways to use fossil fuel. With the time needed for things to evolve fossil fuel will be important for quite some time.

From a logical standpoint yes. From a market standpoint the cheapest will prevail. Most probably that means that solar will get the lionshare, wind second place and nuclear last because of costs and time to build and run them. Even if that implies shutting down solar or wind when there is temporarily too much power delivered to the grid. In fact, this is already what is happening right now.