Nuclear Power: Do you support it?

[Garpal Gumnut]

I WAS THE PERSON WHO HAD THE VISION AND FORESIGHT, NOT YOU!
I am the person who has the exceptional and extraordinary abilities in strategy and risk management, not you.
my solution is the best way to go about it.
So stop being a pest and go do something constructive with your time, rather than attempting to claim ideas and solutions that are quite frankly beyond your intellectual capacity.

Ok.
I call.
Show us your cards.
gg

These are extraordinary claims about yourself and a slur on a fellow ASF Member.

Please provide your full CV with references to validate your statements about your history and ability.

gg

 

[sptrawler]

The problem is wi5 fusion it’s too far away, there too big and way too expensive. All these factors are not the answer. Modular reactors are cheep, small, are multipurpose and can be retro fitted into a existing infrastructure such as decommissioned coal for power stations.

Yes the SMR's will be available a lot sooner than fusion and as you say will suit Australia's relatively small load grid.
Whether they will be required, is yet to be seen and that will depend a lot on the storage capacity available for renewables and the amount committed to IMO.
Renewable generation isn't an issue, it is cheap to install and run, installing storage doesn't have the same commercial return so nowhere near as attractive. The unfortunate part is twice as much storage is required, than generation.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

These are extraordinary claims about yourself and a slur on a fellow ASF Member.

Please provide your full CV with references to validate your statements about your history and ability.

gg

Actually the slur was against me and you're defending a person that is claiming what is not theirs to claim.

If this behaviour continues there will be no more ideas or solutions posted on here by me.

Your first and final warning.

I have the quals and experience. I don't need to post it on here. An intelligent person would know that I am qualified and experienced, just from my posts.

Go back and review them all.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

These are extraordinary claims about yourself and a slur on a fellow ASF Member.

Please provide your full CV with references to validate your statements about your history and ability.

gg

If you can answer this 1st year uni mechanical engineering question correctly; I will post parts of my qualifications for you. Measurements are 4m, 1.2m and .8m with 85kg, if you can read the numbers well enough. If you can't answer it correctly, I suggest you and Basilio need to be taught some manners:

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

These are extraordinary claims about yourself and a slur on a fellow ASF Member.

Please provide your full CV with references to validate your statements about your history and ability.

gg

You will also need these given inputs to solve the problem: D1 is 2.677m and angle at B is 26.57 Degrees:

I will give yourself and Basilio 3 hours from now to respond, at which point this contract will expire.

I will post the correct answer with my workings later tonight Sydney time.

If you fail to respond correctly with your workings; then I will consider accepting your apology, as yours and Basilio's challenge is unsuccessful.

 

[Muckman]

Yes the SMR's will be available a lot sooner than fusion and as you say will suit Australia's relatively small load grid.
Whether they will be required, is yet to be seen and that will depend a lot on the storage capacity available for renewables and the amount committed to IMO.
Renewable generation isn't an issue, it is cheap to install and run, installing storage doesn't have the same commercial return so nowhere near as attractive. The unfortunate part is twice as much storage is required, than generation.

Your right storage is the problem. Unfortunately batteries are not the answer in my view.
The answer is liquid storage not batteries. Carbon Engineering has already shown you can create carbon capture fuels using renewable energy and getting efficient results.
An energy in a liquid form can be transferred, stored and used way more efficient then batteries.
Look at formula E, there answer for a refuel is jumping into a new car lol. That is not the answer.
I believe they even charge there cars up at the track using synthetic fuels in there generators.

 

[sptrawler]

Your right storage is the problem. Unfortunately batteries are not the answer in my view.
The answer is liquid storage not batteries. Carbon Engineering has already shown you can create carbon capture fuels using renewable energy and getting efficient results.
An energy in a liquid form can be transferred, stored and used way more efficient then batteries.
Look at formula E, there answer for a refuel is jumping into a new car lol. That is not the answer.
I believe they even charge there cars up at the track using synthetic fuels in there generators.

Yes it is a huge subject and covers many aspects, we have a good thread on electric cars and another on the future of power generation and storage, there are some very knowledgeable posters who contribute.
It would be great if you joined in.

 

[Muckman]

Another question I have is,
Being that Australia basically has an abundant supply of natural gas, dose anyone Evan see a future for nuclear energy in Australia?
Can nuclear energy and natural gas coexist, or will they be a competitive market?
I’m in no way to put my hands up for a gen4 reactor installed in my neighbourhood anytime soon lol, but places like Adelaide where water levels get extremely low, and power supplies are at critical levels. Having nuclear thermal desalination would be game changing.
Farm produce would be cheeper. We can fertilise the land much faster and in wider areas then before. Australia farms be much greener. These are the things renewables can not deliver.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

@Chronos-Plutus

You are an @rsehole and on permanent ignore.

Next time we meet I'll stick that triangle up you where the sun don't shine and I'll put my request again and I dare say I'll get my answer.

You are all hat and no herd.

gg

 

[rederob]

You will also need these given inputs to solve the problem: D1 is 2.677m and angle at B is 26.57 Degrees:
View attachment 106947

I will give yourself and Basilio 3 hours from now to respond, at which point this contract will expire.

I will post the correct answer with my workings later tonight Sydney time.

If you fail to respond correctly with your workings; then I will consider accepting your apology, as yours and Basilio's challenge is unsuccessful.

Theta could have been derived from your first drawing.
A better test would have been to calculate the diameter of a hailstone in millimetres that could shatter a standard PV panel.

On topic, given that solar/wind+storage is significantly cheaper than nuclear, what would cause Australia to adopt it? That bastion of the free world, the USA, cannot find a commercial case for it.

 

[Muckman]

When you say nuclear what kind of nuclear are you suggesting ?

 

[rederob]

When you say nuclear what kind of nuclear are you suggesting ?

Any type that start with "nu" and end "clear."

 

[Muckman]

What fuel are you suggesting? What reactor design?
What vessel?

 

[sptrawler]

Another question I have is,
Being that Australia basically has an abundant supply of natural gas, dose anyone Evan see a future for nuclear energy in Australia?
Can nuclear energy and natural gas coexist, or will they be a competitive market?
I’m in no way to put my hands up for a gen4 reactor installed in my neighbourhood anytime soon lol, but places like Adelaide where water levels get extremely low, and power supplies are at critical levels. Having nuclear thermal desalination would be game changing.
Farm produce would be cheeper. We can fertilise the land much faster and in wider areas then before. Australia farms be much greener. These are the things renewables can not deliver.

The thing is for humans to survive on earth, we can't just keep using up natural resources at a faster and faster rate eventually you run out even if you recycle you never get 100% recovery.
The other factor of course is also emissions, which at the moment is the flavour of the month, we can't just keep polluting the atmosphere because it is convenient.
So getting to your question regarding gas, at the moment the big push is emissions causing warming and data would indicate that coal generation is a large contributor, so alternative sources of generation are being used to replace it.
In a perfect world renewables would be used to replace it, in reality to replace it in a timely manner gas will also be used, however gas gives off emissions also just not the same quantity.
So in a matter of time, gas will become tomorrows coal and it also will have to be phased out.
By then hopefully renewables have advanced to the point, that they can effectively service the load, if they can't then nuclear has to become an option as it all progresses it will become obvious one way or the other.
The other issue with the trajectory we are going presently, it involves greater use of non renewable materials e.g nickel, cobalt, lithium and the associated residual waste.
So that will drive the agenda toward hydrogen, which will require more energy to produce it, but has less waste, negligible emissions and is more abundant than raw material minerals.
So IMO and it is only my opinion, currently the only clean energy known to man that can produce enough energy from a relatively small footprint is nuclear, so eventually I think it will be inevitable.
But it wont be in the forseable future, it will be when renewables and their limits have been reached. Who knows, by then there may be another form of energy, we can only speculate with what is currently known.
But as I say it is only my opinion and there are many on here who will say i'm a dick head, but I've been called worse.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Theta could have been derived from your first drawing.
A better test would have been to calculate the diameter of a hailstone in millimetres that could shatter a standard PV panel.

On topic, given that solar/wind+storage is significantly cheaper than nuclear, what would cause Australia to adopt it? That bastion of the free world, the USA, cannot find a commercial case for it.

I didn't want to make it too difficult for them

Now for Basilio's tempered glass

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

@Chronos-Plutus

You are an @rsehole and on permanent ignore.

Next time we meet I'll stick that triangle up you where the sun don't shine and I'll put my request again and I dare say I'll get my answer.

You are all hat and no herd.

gg

OK thanks for showing me that you're not worthy to see my quals and experience.

Here is the answer:

 

[Muckman]

Kinda agree and disagree. I believe in partnership natural gas and modular reactors have a huge potential.
Natural gas provides far easier and cleaner ways of hydrogen extraction and other gasses. It plays a huge part in carbon capture.
Everything is a resource no matter what it is even the sun is a resource. Carbon engineering has proven effective methods of capturing a ton of Co2 for less then $100 using natural gas. And in return producing synthetic fuels.
That’s my gas point of view but the reactors can be put in where heat is needed. Not electrical energy it self.
Take tommago aluminium in Newcastle for example. Been told it takes up a 3rd of Newcastle’s power supply lol. That’s where you want a reactor. 100% thermal efficient. Instead of using a power plant to melt steal. Why not have a reactor to do the job and have the factory off grid ? To make heat out of electricity is just straight up ridiculous.
We’re talking about turning heat into electricity then back to heat lol what a waste of efficiency.
Put the reactor in the factory.

 

[rederob]

What fuel are you suggesting? What reactor design?
What vessel?

You choose.

 

[Muckman]

Oh where would I start lol

My favourite so far is the pebble bed reactor.
A reactor that reprocess its fuel and refuels it self I’d have to say that’s my fav.
But I don’t think there is one reactor to all solutions.
What ever reactor design as long as it’s an efficient in a way that there is as little waste as possible. Either be u238 or u233
As long as it can be reprocess and refuelled keeping the high level waste to a minimum.
And that’s the real problem with nuclear energy. The waste.
And that’s where modular reactors come in.
It’s like a battery. Ones your done with replace it, it goes back to the factory to be reprocessed in a controlled production line that is more cost effective. Ones it’s done you got a fully fuel reactor on the back of a flat bed ready to be delivered on site

 

[rederob]

Oh where would I start lol

With metrics.