🧵 Atomic Energy General
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 02:58:45 UTC No. 16281899
Tried doing this a few months ago, now I see more interest.
What is atomic energy general?
Discuss anything related to nuclear technology here, from particle accelerators and fusion rockets to nuclear bombs and power plants. It is supposed to be similar to /sfg/ but for people interested in (or skeptical of!) nuclear or general energy industry things.
Websites:
world-nuclear-news.org
ans.org/news
happenings in the power industry
fusor.net/board/
You can learn about fusors here, a good intro to DIY nuclear physics experiments.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 12:19:45 UTC No. 16282302
>be humans
>able to get enough power out of a few grams of rock to power a house for a year
>decide to burn coal instead
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:24:36 UTC No. 16282418
reminder that the linear no threshold model is the correct one
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 02:40:30 UTC No. 16283110
>>16281899
Bump
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:06:41 UTC No. 16283350
>>16283134
I've had this idea before but I think cooling would be an issue. We would have to pump water in a loop from down below to the surface heat exchanger then back down.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 22:44:36 UTC No. 16284211
ITER
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 23:52:23 UTC No. 16284274
>>16284165
Like the nuclear industry, progress is slow
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 02:27:31 UTC No. 16284426
>>16282302
it's cheaper to mine and burn coal than to mine and process magic radiation rocks. As a result, coal is more economically viable.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 03:42:52 UTC No. 16284490
>>16281899
I don't care how efficient it is, it looks fucking stupid to have some big gay plunger stroking back and forth to produce thrust.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 03:47:32 UTC No. 16284494
>>16284165
you've forgotten the first rule of any long running general, you need an anime girl as a mascot.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 04:02:33 UTC No. 16284507
>>16284494
Anime is for pedos
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:41:33 UTC No. 16285152
>>16281899
Vogtle Unit 3 Offline Due To Valve Issue
>The issue was traced to a valve malfunction on one of the three main feedwater pumps
https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/v
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:42:54 UTC No. 16285154
>>16285152
For you anons who might not be aware
>Vogtle Unit 3, the first newly-constructed nuclear unit in the U.S. in over 30 years, entered commercial operation on July 31, 2023, after years of delays and projected costs of around $35 billion.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 03:18:40 UTC No. 16285975
>>16285154
Small modular reactors are the future.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:39:03 UTC No. 16286364
boosted
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:48:20 UTC No. 16286636
>>16284507
The japanese?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 12:09:21 UTC No. 16287080
>>16285154
FUCK
Send another billion to Israel and it'll start up again.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:49:52 UTC No. 16287181
>>16281899
i want to make a fusor soon, a proper one that can achieve fusion not some shitty diy failure that cant even fuse deuterium
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:04:53 UTC No. 16288693
>>16285154
Shit costs more than MSR (Mars sample return)
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:52:10 UTC No. 16288765
>>16283134
>so scared of nuclear that you piss and shit yourself that have to put the reactor 1 mile under ground
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:54:43 UTC No. 16288769
>>16282302
Germans do it because it's in their nature to burn coal in all forms
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 02:52:39 UTC No. 16289150
>>16287181
Actually I am trying to work on one too, how far have you gotten? I am collecting up high voltage stuff and cut up some steel for my vacuum chamber. I still need a diffusion pump but the guy I am doing it with thinks we can cheap out by building a getter for the high vacuum
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 03:11:50 UTC No. 16289163
>>16289150
*Aluminium. Mine is kind of unusual since we have access to free sheet aluminum and a watercutter, most people go with welded hemispheres.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 03:12:56 UTC No. 16289165
>>16288769
Germans have a history acussing things of consuming too much money, poisoning their nation, and then killing it at great expense. Usually incineration increases soon after.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 03:16:17 UTC No. 16289175
>>16285154
They finished vogtle 4 now, a lot of people want more AP1000's to get built but they are having trouble finding buyers for more AP1000's in america since vogtle was a bit of a financial abortion.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 03:20:54 UTC No. 16289185
>>16285152
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/vo
they fixed it
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 06:52:43 UTC No. 16289320
>>16289175
>since vogtle was a bit of a financial abortion
understatement, it bankrupted Westinghouse
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 14:07:01 UTC No. 16289573
Could we make a fission powered rocket that shoots neutrons out of it's back to travel through space quickly?
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 14:44:52 UTC No. 16289620
>>16289573
not really
you can't accelerate neutrons like you can do with ions
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 19:09:19 UTC No. 16289941
>>16289573
If the reactor is losing that many neutrons it's probably not able to maintain criticality.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 22:38:45 UTC No. 16290185
>>16284211
God please
Though with how W7X has been doing (30 min plasma when though) I'm starting to wonder if stellarators might actually be more viable. No word of anyone planning any actual prototype plants though I think.
>>16285975
>Small modular reactors are the future.
>First big commercial project cancelled because of quickly multiplying costs before ground is even broken
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 23:05:01 UTC No. 16290221
>>16282418
False
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 06:27:54 UTC No. 16290510
>>16290185
SMR's aren't even fully defined, the natrium reactor terrapower is selling is sized like a lot of SMR's but they say nothing about it being an SMR in the advertising
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 06:38:00 UTC No. 16290523
>>16290185
Nuscales design is fucking stupid, they somehow managed to somehow make the reactor too small to benefit from economies of scale and then it goes in a building just as large as any large reactor.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 06:44:18 UTC No. 16290531
>>16281899
>a board as slow as /sci/ needing/having another general
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:56:32 UTC No. 16290710
>>16288769
as a german I have to admit it's true
we are quite stupid
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 15:50:41 UTC No. 16290935
saw a fission reactor today
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 20:16:41 UTC No. 16291359
>>16290935
Where lmao
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:05:46 UTC No. 16291628
>>16284165
/aeg/ it has been 5 days, it feels like almost yesterday
I'm out of time. You're still young. You have to live on. You have to- ...
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 13:37:53 UTC No. 16292112
>>16291359
drove by past it.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 15:10:43 UTC No. 16292203
How much of the Gen IV/SMR hype is based on reality?
>Small reactors like ACP100, BWRX-300, RITM-200N, etc, will sell like hot cakes because they solve the financing barrier that many customers face
>Floating reactors like RITM-200S will be super cheap because it can be built almost entirely in a factory environment
>Fast breeder reactors like BN series, CFR series, etc, will almost entirely solve all nuclear fuel issues
>High-temperature gas-cooled pebble-bed reactors like HTR-PM will be passively super safe, generate 520C steam, don't need downtime for refuelling, and are ideal as an industrial plant power and process heat source. A future version could increase the primary coolant temperature to 950C, sufficient for thermochemical hydrogen production
etc
Meme, or potential energy revolution?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 15:24:47 UTC No. 16292225
>>16289175
AP1000 fans need not worry. Lots of additional AP1000 and derived designs are going to get built
in China
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 15:42:13 UTC No. 16292238
>>16285975
In the US, certainly. If there's going to be any new nuclear construction in the US, it's going to be small reactors, because after Summer/Vogtle, utilities are terrified of large reactor construction projects
>>16290185
>First big commercial project cancelled
Uzbekistan recently placed an order for 6x RITM-200N. I think this will be the first serious SMR project that is realized. Let's see how it works out. Rosatom has a decent track record, so I feel optimistic.
I also feel pretty optimistic about the prospects for the BWRX-300.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 15:49:30 UTC No. 16292241
>>16281899
why is MYRRHA still not ready and why isn't there any other project with similar goals in terms of lifetime reduction? I still find it fucked how the Germans decided to just throw all their "spent" nuclear fuel into a cave when the idea for the reactor isn't that old.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:18:29 UTC No. 16292272
>>16290510
There isn't really any reason to think of Natrium as an SMR under whatever definition. It's hard to call a reactor "small" when electrical output is 345MWe. It's also hard to call a reactor "small modular" when the steam generator is very much not integrated with the reactor
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:23:02 UTC No. 16292280
>>16292272
Picrel is what you expect when someone says "small modular"
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:31:59 UTC No. 16292291
>>16292241
What is the advantage of MYRRHA over a traditional fast breeder reactor?
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:39:54 UTC No. 16292301
>>16285154
>>16285975
>>16290185
>>16292238
Big nuclear is dead in the USA for the foreseeable future. If you do not believe that, then just listen to Chris Keefer's podcast from last year with guest Jigar Shah, the DoE LPO director.
Private capital doesn't want to go near it after Summer/Vogtle. The US government (i.e. Shah) wants the industry to pull itself up by the bootstraps and sort itself out. The US government categorically rejects a Russian/Chinese/Korean style state-led approach to nuclear. So that means it isn't going to happen. The only way to restore industry confidence to the level that money can be raised for another big reactor construction project is if a number of small reactor construction projects succeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwN
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:47:31 UTC No. 16292308
>>16285154
>>16285975
>>16290185
>>16292238
Big nuclear is dead in the USA for the foreseeable future. If you do not believe that, then just listen to Chris Keefer's podcast from last year with guest Jigar Shah, the DoE LPO director.
Private capital doesn't want to go near any big nuclear project after Summer/Vogtle. The big risk of big nuclear is considered too big for private actors to absorb. The US government (i.e. Shah) wants the industry to pull itself up by the bootstraps and sort itself out, and the US government categorically rejects a Russian/Chinese/Korean style state-led approach to nuclear. So that means big nuclear isn't going to happen. The only way to restore confidence to the level that money can be raised for another big reactor construction project is if a number of small reactor construction projects succeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwN
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:58:45 UTC No. 16292312
>>16285154
>>16285975
>>16290185
>>16292238
Big nuclear is dead in the USA for the foreseeable future. If you do not believe that, then just listen to Chris Keefer's podcast from last year with guest Jigar Shah, the DoE LPO director.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwN
Private companies don't want to go near any big nuclear project after Summer/Vogtle. The big risk of big nuclear is considered too big for private actors to absorb. The US government (i.e. Shah) wants the industry to pull itself up by the bootstraps and sort itself out, and the US government also rejects a Russian/Chinese/Korean/French style government-led approach to nuclear. So that means big nuclear isn't going to happen in the US. The only way to restore confidence enough for another big reactor construction project is if a number of small reactor construction projects succeed.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 17:06:29 UTC No. 16292318
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:30:47 UTC No. 16292429
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:32:51 UTC No. 16292431
>>16292291
no idea I don't know much about nuclear reactors just heard about it from a accelerator lecture. Maybe fast breeder can't transmute the fuel as effectively as the accelerator design? Also maybe not creating more fuel than you input.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:35:48 UTC No. 16292436
>>16288227
I hate these acoustic Chernobyls
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:42:25 UTC No. 16292448
>>16292429
We saved money, but at what cost?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 19:11:09 UTC No. 16292504
>>16292424
Only looked a bit over it, but am I reading it right that it basically says nuclear is already more expensive than renewables + storage, thus doesn't make commercial sense, and only would with very aggressive CO2 reduction targets and some sort of cost reduction (just git gud, manage better, and make it cheaper) in the West, while China has it a bit easier due to labour costs but are also trending towards renewables being preferable?
If so that'd confirm my biases except that I thought that storage isn't yet viable since that's what always gets brought up (disregarding that it's necessary for a high-nuclear grid, too).
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 19:16:02 UTC No. 16292520
>>16282302
That's government interference for you.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:02:57 UTC No. 16292579
>>16292504
Are you referring to table 1.5? I don't understand what they mean by that. They measure battery storage in $/W however battery storage needs to be measured in both watts and watt-hours. Indeed, watt-hours is an even more important metric than watts.
Also, I can't tell if they're talking about dollar per watt of capacity, or if it's adjusted for average capacity factor. That's a quite critical distinction because nuclear has a capacity factor of around 90% whereas for example solar has a capacity factor of 10-25%.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:05:05 UTC No. 16292583
>>16292504
Are you referring to table 1.5 on page 9?
I don't understand what they mean by that table. They measure battery storage in $/kW, however battery storage needs to be measured in both watts and watt-hours. Indeed, watt-hours is an even more important metric than watts.
Also, I can't tell if they're talking about dollar per watt of capacity, or if it's adjusted for average capacity factor. That's a quite critical distinction because nuclear has a capacity factor of around 90% whereas for example solar has a capacity factor of 10-25%.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:18:23 UTC No. 16292611
>>16282070
We should build both, because we need to have a sizable industry in order for the technology to improve. We don't know which will be cheapest in the future. Also, nuclear has co-generation potential that solar does not.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:32:08 UTC No. 16292635
>>16282070
We should build a bit of both. There needs to be a sizable industry in order for the technology to improve. We don't know which could be the cheapest in the future. Also, nuclear has co-generation potential that solar does not.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:46:38 UTC No. 16292656
Potentially retarded question, why does the (non-resource) cost matter if the nation can easily afford it? Can't it just be subsidized like agriculture?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:59:10 UTC No. 16292679
Reminder that the Fukushima cleanup 660 billion dollars. This fact alone proves that nuclear cannot be profitable.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 21:40:27 UTC No. 16292744
>>16292504
Renewables + storage gets less attractive as renewable penetration increases, battery plants need a certain amount of price swinging to be profitable and cost of energy storage rises rapidly as the number of hours that need to be stored increases. Nuclear probably won't grow as large as renewables but having it provide 20 or 30 percent of electricity does wonders to unfuck problems caused by renewables.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 21:56:15 UTC No. 16292771
>>16292583
Its probably for a 4 hour energy storage plant since that seems to be the standard for battery plants rn
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:09:51 UTC No. 16292795
>>16292504
>China also trending towards renewables being preferable
How did you come to that conclusion? Their optimal capacity mix charts have a significant nuclear component for China (T-B-T and Zhejiang) in all emission scenarios
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:11:54 UTC No. 16292797
>>16292679
source? I found 200 billion. 300% difference, somebody has to be wrong as fuck
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:11:56 UTC No. 16292798
>>16292771
How could 4h be considered sufficient? Don't you need a full night's worth of storage for solar in a region that never has clouds, and possibly even more for wind or for solar that's in a region that can have clouds?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:13:50 UTC No. 16292803
>>16292656
Opportunity cost
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:16:08 UTC No. 16292806
>>16292312
I can highly recommend that podcast for anyone who takes an interest in the economics of nuclear power, especially the episodes with James Krellenstein and Jacopo Buongiorno
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 23:14:43 UTC No. 16292856
>>16292583
Yes and also the numbers in Appendix A, also table 1.6 showing nuclear having little impact unless the target is <10g CO2 which seems excessive (that's just the Texas case though I just saw)
>>16292795
Oh right, thought one of the Chinese regions wasn't quite that significant. But adding the investment costs for wind/solar and storage beats nuclear in most scenarios even in China and if their projections for cost reductions in renewables are similar to what has happened in the past they may still be underestimating. Should've qualified that more though, you're right.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 23:26:49 UTC No. 16292868
>>16292798
It isn't, its just what happens most profitable at the moment
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 23:28:19 UTC No. 16292869
>>16292856
If renewables+storage is cheaper in china why do they build so many nuclear power plants too?
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:05:05 UTC No. 16292899
GNOMON and SUNDIAL are still classified 1-gigaton weapon designs by Teller. There is no disclosed research on multi-stage designs. I read somewhere that apparently the later fusion stage would just be a large 'candlestick' of liquid deuterium for optimal yield but alas, details are still redacted. Pls post speculations.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 07:14:49 UTC No. 16293152
>>16292504
>China has it a bit easier due to labour costs
Not just that. It's also accrued experience and economies of scale. Chinese projects can avoid the type of legendary screw-ups like at Vogtle. As they mention:
>Nuclear plants started off in China, Korea, and Japan being fairly expensive, but with very concerted efforts at cost reduction and schedule improvement, learning over time has reduced their costs relative to those of earlier plants.
Vogtle 4 was cheaper than Vogtle 3. South Korea and Japan could build cheap nuclear like China. Their differences in cost between China and western countries for non-nuclear construction is a lot less than for nuclear construction.
(Also, their hourly wage numbers are horribly outdated for China, being from sources dated 2007 and 2012)
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 07:16:26 UTC No. 16293156
>>16292868
Then how would it be meaningful to use 4h of storage as the implied standard in a paper that compares the costs of different energy solutions?
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 07:40:37 UTC No. 16293172
>>16292856
We'd need to know if these numbers are raw capacity or if they are adjusted for capacity factor. If the numbers are just raw capacity, then it becomes an apples and oranges comparison to compare them watt for watt.
Looking up numbers, wind was about 1.3m$/MW in the US in 2022, a decrease of 10% since the year before. The numbers in table A.1 for the US say wind is 1,550,000$/MW in the nominal case. So it seems the listed numbers indeed refer to raw capacity, and are not adjusted for capacity factor.
https://www.statista.com/statistics
To take an example from Appendix A, table A.2 for China:
Wind is 1,270,000$/MW, solar is 671,000$/MW, and nuclear is $2,800,000 $/MW. The average capacity factor of wind in China is about 20%. The average capacity factor for solar in China is around 15%. The new Hualong-1 reactor has a design capacity factor of 90%. So adjusted for capacity factor, the cost would be 6,350,000$/MW, 4,473,333$/MW and 3,111,111$/MW respectively. The capacity factor for wind and solar will likely go down as more is built because the best sites are chosen first, whereas the capacity factor for nuclear is likely to increase as more is built due to improved tech and operating experience. Also, the cost for wind and solar doesn't take into account the 1500-2000km of transmission lines necessary to transfer the electricity from the Gobi desert to the coast.
Furthermore, the lifespans are different. Wind has around 20 years. Solar has a gradually declining capacity, although they assume 20 years of life. For some reason, they assume 40 years for nuclear, even though a modern reactor is designed for a lifespan of at least 60 years.
Also, as was mentioned, they don't say how long a watt of storage lasts. It is clearly not 12h, since LFP cells are currently about 50$/kW in China, even after immense price drops, and so just the cells would cost 600,000$/MW for 12h.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 07:49:12 UTC No. 16293175
>>16292856
We'd need to know if these numbers are raw capacity or if they are adjusted for capacity factor. If the numbers are just raw capacity, then it becomes an apples and oranges comparison to compare them watt for watt.
Looking up numbers, onshore wind was on average 1,274,000$/MW in 2022, a decrease of 10% since the year before. The numbers in table A.1 for the US say wind is 1,550,000$/MW in the nominal case and for China the number is 1,270,000$/MW. So it seems the listed numbers indeed refer to raw capacity, and are not adjusted for capacity factor.
https://www.statista.com/statistics
From Appendix A, table A.2 for China:
Wind is 1,270,000$/MW, solar is 671,000$/MW, and nuclear is 2,800,000 $/MW. The average capacity factor of wind in China is about 20%. The average capacity factor for solar in China is around 15%. The new Hualong-1 reactor has a design capacity factor of 90%. So adjusted for capacity factor, the cost would be 6,350,000$/MW, 4,473,333$/MW and 3,111,111$/MW respectively. The capacity factor for wind and solar will likely go down as more is built because the best sites are chosen first, whereas the capacity factor for nuclear is likely to increase as more is built due to improved tech and operating experience. Also, the cost for wind and solar doesn't take into account the 1000-2000km of transmission lines necessary to transfer the electricity from the Gobi desert to the coast.
Furthermore, the lifespans are different. Wind has around 20 years. Solar has a gradually declining capacity, although they assume 20 years of life. For some reason, they assume 40 years for nuclear, even though a modern reactor is designed for a lifespan of at least 60 years.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 07:50:14 UTC No. 16293176
>>16293175
Also, as was mentioned, they don't say how long a watt of storage lasts. It is clearly not 12h, since LFP cells are currently about 50$/kW in China, even after immense price drops, and so just the cells would cost 600,000$/MW for 12h.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 07:58:34 UTC No. 16293181
>>16293175
Also, as was mentioned, they don't say how long each watt of storage lasts. It is clearly not 12h, since LFP cells are currently about 50$/kWh in China, even after immense price drops, and so just the cells would cost 600,000$/MW for 12h.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:58:46 UTC No. 16293248
>>16293156
I think its dumb too, but if I had to guess maybe it is because batteries are often used as peaking plants nowadays, and peaking plants are in fact a power plant
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:03:32 UTC No. 16293255
>>16293181
Depends on which table you're looking at. The nominal-level cost of 715,000$/MW they have in table 1.5 looks optimistic in the current year of 2024, and certainly not possible in 2018. The nominal-level cost of 1,430,000$/MW they have in table A.2 would be rather pessimistic for the current year of 2024
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:09:57 UTC No. 16293259
>>16292312
>a number of small reactor construction projects succeed
the biggest US military bases should all have their own mini-reactors, Ft Hood in central Texas for example has over 50k personnel and the energy requirements especially during the summer are quite large, it should have a mini-nuke on site to remove its draw from the civilian power grid
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:18:33 UTC No. 16293266
>>16292312
Small reactor projects succeed regularly in the US, its just for the navy
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:08:59 UTC No. 16293341
>>16293266
I suspect not at a price acceptable to utilities. To "succeed", it doesn't just need to work, it needs to be built at a good price. Otherwise, Vogtle 3&4 would be a "success".
Also, I think a key difference is that a civilian nuclear power plant requires a lot more than just the power source. For example, it requires high-quality hardened seismic-proof aircraft-proof foundation and buildings to comply with regulations. A lot of the problems in the Vogtle 3&4 project were not due to the reactor itself, rather due to things such as concrete and rebar not being built within specified tolerances
I think another key difference is that a naval reactor can be installed on a ship or submarine in a shipyard. A civilian reactor needs to be installed "on site", unless it is a floating barge plant. So you need specialist labor, large cranes, module assembly sheds, etc, to be moved/erected there, which increases costs.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:13:10 UTC No. 16293344
>>16293266
I suspect not at a price acceptable to commercial utilities. To "succeed", it doesn't just need to work, it needs to be built at a good price. Otherwise, Vogtle 3&4 would be a "success".
Also, I think a key difference is that a civilian nuclear power plant requires a lot more than just the power source. For example, it requires high-quality hardened seismic-proof aircraft-proof foundation/buildings, to comply with regulations. A lot of the problems in the Vogtle 3&4 project were not due to the reactor itself, rather due to things such as concrete and rebar not being built to specification
I think another key difference is that a naval reactor can be installed on a ship or submarine in a shipyard. A civilian reactor needs to be installed "on site", unless it is a floating barge plant. So you need specialist labor, large cranes, module assembly sheds, etc, to be moved/erected there, which increases costs.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:55:23 UTC No. 16293759
>>16292797
even then it's too much. This is what makes nuclear uncompetitive.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:04:13 UTC No. 16293775
>>16292899
what am I looking at?
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:05:30 UTC No. 16293862
>>16293175
Ignoring capacity factor would be stupid, though. And indeed the study text and Table 1.2 say it is accounted for, and Table 1.5 has this note:
>Note that these LCOEs assume U.S. Energy Information Administration capacity
factors of 34% for wind and 25% for solar.
So maybe the assumed factors are too high, but not as bad as in your calculation and would still land below nuclear (maybe not with storage anymore, though). Also in another part of that note, LCOE is called out, which should also account for capacity factor. The storage numbers are still questionable though (and from 2015?) and I'm not sure if the costs they use are current or projections, because in some places they talk about projections.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 21:39:10 UTC No. 16293971
>>16293759
just don't have meltdowns then
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 11:10:05 UTC No. 16294542
>>16284494
The cutest birb
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 11:41:44 UTC No. 16294567
>>16293862
>Note that these LCOEs assume U.S. Energy Information Administration capacity factors
That's for the LCOE numbers listed in the text below table 1.5. Table 1.5, and tables A.1-4 column 1, list capacity (measured in $/W), not LCOE (which would be measured in $/Wh).
The comparison with the statista link's price for wind capacity clearly shows that the numbers listed in the tables are nameplate capacity, not adjusted for capacity factor.
Also, it is common practice that nameplate capacity is stated in watts, whereas actual generation is stated in watt-hours per year.
> in another part of that note, LCOE is called out
Those LCOE numbers are for US capacity costs and capacity factors, not China. The cost of building nuclear capacity is very different in the US and China. Furthermore, as the Appendix A tables show, they use the flawed assumption of a 40 year lifetime for nuclear reactors. They also assume 8% interest rates, and high interest hits nuclear LCOE the hardest. 8% interest might be a reality right now for energy construction projects in western countries, but there is no fundamental reason why you have to finance an energy construction project at 8% interest. Currently, Chinese long term government bonds yield 2.2-2.5% interest.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 11:48:01 UTC No. 16294570
>>16293862
> Table 1.2 say it is accounted for
In the GenX model. The fact they have capacity factors as a separate input to the model suggests capacity factor was not already accounted for in the capacity numbers
>and Table 1.5 has this note:
>Note that these LCOEs assume U.S. Energy Information Administration capacity factors
That's for the LCOE numbers listed in the text below table 1.5. Table 1.5, and tables A.1-4 column 1, list capacity (measured in $/W), not LCOE (which would be measured in $/Wh).
The comparison with the statista link's price for wind capacity clearly shows that the numbers listed in the tables are nameplate capacity, not adjusted for capacity factor.
Also, it is common practice that nameplate capacity is stated in watts, whereas actual generation is stated in watt-hours per year.
> in another part of that note, LCOE is called out
Those LCOE numbers are for US capacity costs and capacity factors, not China. The cost of building nuclear capacity is very different in the US and China. Furthermore, as the Appendix A tables show, they use the flawed assumption of a 40 year lifetime for nuclear reactors. They also assume 8% interest rates, and high interest hits nuclear LCOE the hardest. 8% interest might be a reality right now for energy construction projects in western countries, but there is no fundamental reason why you have to finance an energy construction project at 8% interest. Currently, Chinese long term government bonds yield 2.2-2.5% interest.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:05:49 UTC No. 16294585
>>16293775
Thermonuclear bomb with two fusion stages
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:28:43 UTC No. 16294601
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRC
Sirs, looks like cold fusion is back.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:45:18 UTC No. 16294621
>>16294570
But if the capacity factors aren't accounted for in those costs shouldn't nuclear perform vastly better in the GenX model? It does perform very well in the Chinese cases but if the numbers are as far off as you say I'd assume it'd do better in the western ones as well.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:00:31 UTC No. 16294695
>>16293971
Unironically the solution.
You might say you can never bring the probability of a major accident down to zero, however if the probability is close to zero then the *expected value* of the cost of cleanups will be close to zero as well.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:04:47 UTC No. 16294703
>>16294621
Nuclear is *a lot* more expensive in the US, UK and France than in China. In the optimal mix charts, in the low cost nuclear cases for the US, UK and France (in which the costs of nuclear are still a lot higher than in the nominal case in China), nuclear gets a much bigger role.
In the GenX model, they will also have accounted for the rather low capacity factors for wind and solar in China compared to for example the US. Page 7:
>For our analysis, we characterized different systems in the United States, Europe, and China using region-specific data on chronological hourly demand and hourly capacity factors for renewable generators.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:08:27 UTC No. 16294710
>>16293259
If the federal government is going to build NPPs, then why not just build the biggest NPPs possible, that can then supply both the military base and the civilians nearby with power
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:21:01 UTC No. 16294724
>>16294703
I see, thanks. Didn't realise that capacity factors are different in China.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:42:40 UTC No. 16294753
It is possible to make a tiny nuclear bomb? Just curious. How small could you create a nuclear explosion? Imagine a cluster bomb that had 100,000 tiny pill sized nuclear bombs that each explode like a 3,000 lb bomb. You could clear the entire surface of a wide battle frontline. Imagine FPV drones dropping micro-nukes.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:01:06 UTC No. 16294774
>>16294753
>It is possible to make a tiny nuclear bomb?
You can get fairly small, the W54 warhead and its variants for the M28/29 Davy Crockett weighed between 50 and 70 pounds. The problem is that its short range meant that in order to use it you risked getting whacked by your own fallout.
>pill sized nuclear bombs
I have have severe doubts that you could build an implosion device that small. More over even if you could, they wouldn't explode with with that much energy as its only the large bombs that get close to the Taylor limit.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:32:06 UTC No. 16294875
>>16294774
>they wouldn't explode with with that much energy as its only the large bombs that get close to the Taylor limit
Well at least that's one horror of the modern world I can cross off my list.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 01:59:01 UTC No. 16295516
How far away from earth would a nuclear explosion need to be for the charged particles to get deflected away from the magnetosphere instead of getting trapped. Does the altitude go down if you go closer to a magnetic pole?
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 07:19:53 UTC No. 16295748
>>16294875
You can comparatively easily get a grenade size fat man don't gain hope yet
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 07:33:45 UTC No. 16295762
Why can't you pseuds use joules instead of watt hours?
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 08:37:13 UTC No. 16295803
>>16295762
wat sounds better than jool
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 09:00:43 UTC No. 16295822
>>16281899
We should build nuclear plants all over Israel and one day there could be a totally unplanned and unforeseen catastrophe that causes nuclear meltdowns and leaves Tel Aviv uninhabitable for hundreds of years
That would solve the Middle East and luckily kill some Jews along the way
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 10:16:22 UTC No. 16295852
>>16295748
> easily get a grenade size fat man
How so?
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 10:27:27 UTC No. 16295861
>>16295748
How so?
>>16295803
>wat sounds better than jool
Does it?
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:36:12 UTC No. 16295947
>>16284507
Where do you think we are?
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 19:27:46 UTC No. 16296350
>>16294585
could you not just double the length of the 2nd stage for the same effect? Have a longer Pu-239 rod and use more Lithium-6 Deuteride powder.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:56:26 UTC No. 16296905
>>16295762
because watt hours are whats used when talking about electricity prices
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:06:50 UTC No. 16297201
What's the cheapest way to get positron particle beam?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:36:01 UTC No. 16297216
>>16297201
Shit man I think that could be its own thread.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:55:15 UTC No. 16297241
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:29:36 UTC No. 16297734
Does Iran have nukes?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 22:04:05 UTC No. 16297974
>>16297734
Probably not, but they have the ability to make them. Most nuclear non-proliferation efforts are about preventing non-nuclear states from getting materials for weapons rather than trying to deny them the technological know-how, since most of the science needed to design and build a nuke isn't too hard to figure out.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:46:54 UTC No. 16298095
>>16296350
The energy from the primary stage helps compress the fusion secondary as well, the spark plug crushes cylinder from the middle and X-rays from the primary crush it from the outside, so the size of a single stage is limited by how much energy the primary can provide.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 12:09:57 UTC No. 16298826
>>16292238
>Rosatom has a decent track record
Consolidation and a decade of technocratic reform in 2007 will do that.