History Memes

parent

[–] GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

They would be breeder reactors then, using the fast neutron spectrum. Molten salt reactors don't necessarily mean no bomb material, its just that it's fuel is mixed into the coolant bound to salts. The upside is that they get much hotter, and are subsequently more efficient as a result. Couple that to a super critical CO2 turbine or 2 and you have a very small, extremely powerful zero carbon emissions power source.

By making smaller and easier to build in a factory, especially with the new additive manufacturing, reactors can benefit from the economy of scale. Something we didn't do building the fleet we have now. Every one is essentially custom made, which is a weird choice coming from the country that created the assembly line and the concept of economy of scale.

As for safety, new designs are eliminating the risk of meltdown with TRISO fuel and passive emergency cooling features. These aren't your grandpa's reactors.

It would be nice to close the fuel loop here in the US, but Uranium is just that cheap to pull out of the ground. It's about 4 times the cost to reprocess, but that can be a boon by just keeping it around. It means we have a known and easily accessable source of fuel that we know how to deal with just in case the uranium supply chain gets disrupted.

parent

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

Fair enough, as I said I left the field two decades ago at this point. I just know that at this point, solar is so damn cheap and easy to deploy, I would still say that civvy power shouldn't be messing around with nuclear. Hell you can get 100 400-450 KW panels for $1000-$1500 these days. Even the batteries are cheap if you invest into sodium ion batteries, which is kinda the best choice for grid storage.

parent

[–] GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

The scale is the problem. I'm all for solar and wind, stick them anywhere you can. It's just that based on the numbers, we need baseload power, and nuclear provides that. There is a lot of anti nuclear sentiment still left over from the 70s, but younger generations don't have that memory to be afraid of, nor should they. Nuclear power isn't a panacea, it won't solve every problem and it has its pains too, but it's certainly better than Fossil fuels, and fills the gap left by fossil fuels better than wind and solar can. It's matter of the right tool for the right job.

Would a town of 1000 need a nuclear plant? Probably not. They could get a grid scale battery and some panels to power their town. But a town of 100,000 with heavy industries like Arc furnaces, smelters, recycling facilities, data centers, etc would benefit from the massive amount of stable power that a reactor would provide.

Humanity has made advancements because we have a power surplus on average. Electricity is the currency of reality and it enables us to do the crazy shit we do, but eliminating fossil fuels is a shared goal of both the anti nuclear and pro nuclear sides.

parent

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

Watch the recent video by Technology Connections on how fissile fuels are lying about green energy. Scale isn't an issue. We can literally produce 1.8 times the needed energy for the entire US just by replacing 25% of the corn we grow with solar panels. Just for reference, that 25% isn't being used as feed, human or animal, it's being fed to cars as ethanol. If we were really motivated about it, we could replace all energy production to green energy within 5 years. 10 at the outside.

I realize that nuclear doesn't produce much in the way of physical waste, but there's an awful lot of heat waste with any Rankine cycle, so I'm still not going to support nuclear at any scale. We are having some excess heat issues on Earth at the moment, if another Ice Age gets triggered we can talk, but until then, nuclear doesn't provide the benefits as cost efficient you think it does.

parent

[–] GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

You won't hear any complains from me about getting rid of the asinine "green" fuel ethanol. It's just an excuse to funnel farm subsidies to monsanto.

The issue replacing all of those fields is the interconnecting wiring and the limitations of inverters with shifting loads.

You remember trying to start a pump of any meaningful size on the boat while on the diesel resulted in the shitty 100 year old governor shutting it down? Kinda the same with solar panels. When a massive load shift occurs, the resulting transient can force anything with an inverter to trip, since they take voltage from the utility side usually.

Big spinning machines with a lot of momentum smooth out that spike with their rotational interia. The SSTGs and SSMGs were that big rotating hunk of metal for the boat.

parent

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

Water storage would be a safer and cheaper option. Basically build two reservoirs at different elevations. Stick a hydroelectric plant in the middle. During low demand an electric pump pumps the water back up to the high reservoir, and when demand spikes you open the spillway and turn on the hydroelectric plant. We've done this before.

Edit: oh and while I do know what you're talking about, I never actually experienced it. I joined the Navy to see the world and they said "you're going to South Carolina, and staying there!" I was born on a carrier, and toured a few while I was in, but I've never been on a boat.

parent

[–] GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Pumped hydro is alright where you can build it. We have some out here in Washington. It has the same hazards as dams, but you can float out solar panels on top to reduce evaporation.

Like I said, right tool for the right job. Southern California could benefit significantly from nuclear powered desalination. Very High Temperature gas cooled reactors can desalinate without even the need for all the Reverse osmosis infrastructure, by splitting the water into H2 and O2 directly and recombining it, doubling as green Hydrogen production.

I studied them a bit on college before joining the Navy about 10 years ago now.

I also see Navy nuke and assume submarines, but I was also an RC instructor up at NPTU ballston, so I ran into the surface nukes too. It's odd how the experiences are so vastly different despite being the same job.

parent

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Funny you should mention SoCal. I live in Imperial Beach. Nuclear is pretty much a non-starter in this area after what we've dealt with with Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. GE fucked up good with those reactors. Especially since Fukushima happened, even uttering the phrase "nuclear power" down here will get a pack of rabid locals on you.

parent

[–] GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

I mean, Diablo Canyon powers like 10% of California's grid alone. I am aware of the fault line issue, but it seems a little odd to propagate a very situational problem to every reactor that could be built. I also know that area is quite wealthy, and the wealthy are really good at being NIMBYs but still want the benefits. See the high speed rail project for further details.

It's kind of our thing here in the US to try literally everything except the right answer, but still get to the right answer. I suspect anti nuclear sentiment will continue to fall the further we get from Fukushima.

parent

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

Yeah NIMBYS are the rabid locals. As you said even the widely popular HSR has been delayed for a couple decades because of them.

I'm aware that DC still operates, but there's a huge contingent of people that want it offline just like San Onofre.

parent

[–] GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah I remember when DCs license was up for renewal and despite all the backlash they had to approve it because there wasn't anywhere else to get that amount of power.

It's funny because California buys nuclear (and solar) power from Nevada anyway, so their choices are build nuclear power or buy it.