Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Hillhater said:
There is no debate that the climate is constantly changing….
…. A consensus on climate change and its human cause exists.

But a “consensus” on its cause is not scientific proof…!
..if it were proof, they would not need to declare a “consensus” !

A scientific consensus roundly beats the propaganda-fed opinion of one uninformed idiot who doesn't have a consensus of anybody credible.
It's not doomsday for the planet! Just for humans. Once we are gone or reduced to a few the planet will recover to a new normal state.

by Hillhater » Jul 05 2022 2:25am

My understanding in science, trumps your mindless faith in a consensus of doomsday believers , every time.!
..but dont let me stop you self flagelating .
ZeroEm said:
The new trend is not to deny it anymore just don't talk about it. Ok back to my facts it's warming faster than the oil companies crystal balls predicted.
I began doing this thing at work, when my coworkers complain about temps I just go "Yeah it's frocking climate change" instead of allowing the message to get warped. They either agree with me, or stop talking completely; I began doing it to not only harden myself but also to smash aside their safe spaces, and so far not a single one has tried to refute me. It's liberating.
c'mon people, thems oceans aren't gonna fill up with plastic by themselves.

petrochem plant grand opening


All I know is it costs $35/foot for a 4' wide pathway to be built, but how much for graded and crushed stoned pathway?
The city put in big rock gravel, its no good, need crushed stoned man.

The biggest problem is the grocery store packaging for their own items, and the packaged items how they are packed. Really needs to be addressed because straws and bags are just the start. We can do all we can, pay trillions, meanwhile Billy Joe next door gets to do what he like, drain his oil down the sewer and burn his garbage. No fun at all.

Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:
Know where you are coming from! Few years ago had a change of thinking. I don't worry what the other guy is doing and decided to do my part. Used to see if I could get by cheaper but now know it does not mater what I pay it is worth it to have a low impact.

by calab » Jul 07 2022 12:04am

All I know is it costs $35/foot for a 4' wide pathway to be built, but how much for graded and crushed stoned pathway?
The city put in big rock gravel, its no good, need crushed stoned man.

The biggest problem is the grocery store packaging for their own items, and the packaged items how they are packed. Really needs to be addressed because straws and bags are just the start. We can do all we can, pay trillions, meanwhile Billy Joe next door gets to do what he like, drain his oil down the sewer and burn his garbage. No fun at all.
Well, well, ?….it seems some of the dumbass world destroyers ,.(UN + EU) ..are slowly being forced to accept reality ,…and have done a backflip to anounce that gas and Nuclear generators should be classed as “sustainable” energy sources for future investments.
In simpler terms, they now realise that all their investment in Wind and Solar has not been effective in allowing a move from Fossil Fuels…
Very Slow learners……Must try harder in future, (as some teachers used to say) !
25% renewable total in uk as i type this message, its hot so aircon is going but its overcast and fairly still wind wise.
40% gas and 13% nuclear, really ? Plus 1gw of coal who the f×+#s that guy.
Only found out about how far along this new nuclear project from TerraPower by listening to a Scott Adams podcast trying to keep on top of fake news on politics...

Unlike the very ambitious Traveling Wave Reactor, this other reactor design from the Bill Gates funded TerraPower company is actually set to start building a demonstration nuclear plant on 2025 in Kemmerer, Wyoming called "Natrium".

TerraPower's Natrium™ reactor demonstration project features a 345 MW sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system, and its expected completion date is 2028, so that is a pretty short time to see something even in demonstration form for nuclear, so I am kind of excited for it.
And 345MW is not really small, for comparison remember that the 25km2 Topaz Solar farm's average MW output is about 146MW and also took 3 years to build.
Average Annual Production (years 2015-2019) ---> 1,279,216
1,279,216MWh / 8760_hours_in_a_year = 146MW average power output.

Their aim is to replace the old coal-power station at the same Kemmerer, Wyoming location.

Here is their fact sheet.
Here is a copy and paste of the most interesting bits
The Natrium reactor builds on existing nuclear energy plant technology but diff ers in several ways.
• SMALLER. The Natrium plant is much smaller than most conventional nuclear plants that are around 1,000 megawatts
in size. It is easier and faster to construct, and more cost eff ective for utility customers.
• SAFER. By using sodium near atmospheric pressure, the plant both enhances safety and can reduce costs by using a
much simpler architecture.
• INTEGRATES WITH RENEWABLES. The reactor’s heat can be stored in the molten salt tanks, much like a large
thermal battery. This enables a Natrium plant to operate as a baseload power source or as a fl exible, load-following
system to support grids with variable-output renewables.
^Here are some interesting bits from the FAQ part of their site.
GW scale energy storage – in the $50-60/MWH range. No other offering provides carbon-free, dispatchable and flexible electricity at this scale anywhere near this cost. TerraPower expects its commercial Natrium plant to cost about $1 billion.

Is the Natrium™ plant safer?
Yes. The Natrium technology enhances safety, relying on natural forces and advanced design. In addition, the Natrium reactor operates at atmospheric pressure and uses sodium, instead of water, as its coolant. The reactor operates at a temperature more than 350 degrees Celsius (the equivalent of 662 degrees Fahrenheit) below the boiling point of sodium.

Further, the Natrium reactor is a pool-type reactor, so there are no penetrations in the reactor vessel below the lid, which eliminates the possibility of a leak or loss of coolant accident. The design also relies on natural forces, like gravity and hot air rising, to cool the reactor if an unexpected shutdown occurs. This means the plant does not rely on power to cool itself.

Why did you choose to develop a sodium-based technology?
The team chose liquid metal sodium as the reactor coolant because it has several excellent characteristics that include:

Operation at atmospheric pressure: Sodium is a high-temperature liquid with a boiling point that is far higher than temperatures experienced during operations. This allows operation near atmospheric pressure, meaning that the reactor can use easier-to-fabricate metallic structures. This also avoids the expense of large, pressure-retaining equipment and civil structures.
Exceptional heat transfer: Because sodium is a liquid metal, it has exceptional heat transfer. This results in high power density, meaning that large amounts of heat can be generated and harnessed with a small footprint. The main driver for the heat transfer is the coolant’s ability to transfer heat, its thermal conductivity, which is three times higher than stainless steel, the reactor structural material. High power density, combined with the inertia of the sodium pool configuration, leads to a smaller heat supply and heat removal systems. The high heat transfer of the reactor coolant, even under natural circulation, enables direct heat removal from the surface of the vessel by air. Heat removal from the vessel surface is responsible for a major reduction in equipment and structures versus previous nuclear technologies.
High Temperature: The high-temperature capability of the sodium drives eight percentage points higher thermal efficiency as compared to conventional light water reactors. It also enables process heat applications for refining and petrochemical processes, chemicals, forest products and other sub-sectors traditionally fueled by natural gas. The high temperature output allows for the use of an economic and proven thermal storage system.
Practicality: Sodium is a practical coolant that supports longevity and minimal maintenance on components. It has high-temperature capability. It maintains the high energy of the neutrons without degrading. Maintenance of sodium quality is a simple established process. It also doesn’t corrode materials, so operators can avoid corrosion-driven maintenance of permanent reactor structures.
Extensive experience: Building on the scientific community’s more than six decades of experience using sodium, this technology can be commercialized quickly enough to make a difference in decarbonization efforts.
That's badass! More nuclear systems like this are better for us all, especially with really esoteric stuff like Fast, TWR and Thorium (which can also burn the actinide wastes for fuel as well).

I've also noticed he's not the only one that is focusing on sodium cooling over something like lead- the latter I would think is more palatable since then you're also sequestering that metal poison, but it's also massively heavier than sodium and, well, as long as you keep it from much water you can kinda just shove it back underground and not have it hurt someone for several thousand years.
It seems we are about 5 years away from seeing a bunch of next generation nuclear design demonstrations or actual plants delivering power, all with promises of:
1) Being melt down proof.
2) Cheap to build due to being small in size via being in a modular format so that that it can be build in a factory and trucked to the location and put together quickly like lego blocks.
3) Some being able to use nuclear waste as fuel.

First, with have the Bill Gates funded Natrium nuclear reactor which really seems quite remarkable, more details in my post above as well as some interesting bits here.
A New Nuclear Power Alternative to Back Up Unreliable Wind and Solar

Second, is Nuscale Nuclear, where they also aim to have nuclear reactors that are entirely built in truckable modules built in a factor and just placed at the site where they will be connected to the grid.
They made a mini video here showing how dedicated they are to the truckable sized modularity of their nuclear reactor so that it can be built quickly with no surprise cost blow outs due to weather etc.,as%20early%20as%202027%2F2028.
It appears their first nuclear plant will be in Romania 2027/2028.
the organizations will take steps toward deploying a first NuScale VOYGRTM 6-module, 462 MWe, power plant in Romania as early as 2027/2028. Romania has the potential to accommodate the first deployment of SMRs in Europe and to become a catalyst for SMRs in the region, as well as a base for supporting operatorship of this new technology in other countries.
^Quote from the article
The first NuScale power module is planned to go into operation in Idaho in 2029. It will be what the company calls a VOYGR 6 — a six-module plant that will produce 462 megawatts of power. For comparison, coal-burning plants in this region are rated from about 1,300 megawatts such as the Mountaineer plant in Mason County up to the 2,300-megawatt John Amos power plant in Putnam County, West Virginia.

NuScale plans to build plants with four, six or 12 reactor modules, with each module producing 77 megawatts. Thus the plants’ production can range from 308 megawatts to 924 megawatts, Colbert said.
The small reactors have two advantages over the larger ones at existing nuclear plants, Colbert said: the fundamental technology is the same and there is a well-established supply chain for them.
The smaller reactors can be built in a factory and transported to the power plant site, he said.
“A large reactor might take six years to build. We’re looking at three years for our reactor in a four-, six- or 12-module configuration,” he said.
While replacing coal-burning units with nuclear units on the site of an existing or former coal-burning plant is possible, it probably won’t be done by utilities, Colbert said.
“They will need to see the plants can be built on time and on budget. Investor-owned utilities must justify their rates to utility regulators and to their investors and rating agencies.” he said, “They just want to see it proven out, so they probably won’t be second movers. They may be third or fourth movers.”

Third, is a company called Radiant Nuclear, they aim to have a portable demo reactor in 2026.
One practical use for these portable micro reactors would be for electric car charge stations.
The Chinese already have aThorium pilot plant built and cleared ready for operation..
Construction of the 2 MWt TMSR-LF1 reactor began in September 2018 and was reportedly completed in August 2021. The prototype was scheduled to be completed in 2024, but work was accelerated.

If the TMSR-LF1 proves successful, China plans to build a reactor with a capacity of 373 MWt by 2030.

As this type of reactor does not require water for cooling, it will be able to operate in desert regions. The Chinese government has plans to build more across the sparsely populated deserts and plains of western China, complementing wind and solar plants and reducing China's reliance on coal-fired power stations. The reactor may also be built outside China in Belt and Road Initiative nations.

The liquid fuel design is descended from the 1960s Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the USA.
ZeroEm said:
Have been reading about molten salt for years. Glad they are putting it to use, better than water.
No joke! The lack of pressurized anything in these new generations of reactors isn't just massively safe, it will also drop the costs by an enormous fraction since you no longer need thousands of pounds of pressure rated metals. I imagine keeping the molten sodium in an anhydrous environment is far easier than said pressure vessels, especially with something like Fluoride instead of sodium.
Sorta like CO2 as a coolant in HVAC's, it was used for years. The cost of high pressure systems moved them to lower pressure systems.

Now we are moving the pressure back up. I'm for going back to CO2 systems. Would make a great heat pump.

Was all in for Natural Gas until I see the Carbon companies cranking up the prices for it. Decided not to be reliant on anything but Electric which I cam make some myself if needed.

CO 2 was first patented as a refrigerant in Great Britain in 1850. By 1869, an American, Thaddeus S.C. Lowe, had built a refrigeration system that was used on board a ship to transport meat from Texas to New York.

Why is CO2 the Most Promising Refrigerant in Cooling Industry?

Would give companies another reason to capture emissions.
There is a lot of data accessable for various power generation countries via the Net.
Australia..home to Tesla’s Big Battery, has a good history of data for that 200 MWh facility.
. This site dump shows 12 months data for all Australia power sources, and the battery..
The data shows battery charging power total and discharging total (GWh for the year)
That data shows a <75% charge/discharge efficiency !😳..
..effectively CONSUMING 70+GWh over the period !!
Pity there was not a performance/efficiency clause in the sales deal !
…….Also, it lists the average cost of electricity during those charge/discharge periods..
..and that shows that the battery was PAID $13+ million dollars over 12 months …..TO CONSUME 70+ GWh !
Nice little earner ! wonder there is a rush from companies like Blackrock to invest billions of dollars into australian grid battery installations :roll:
Expensive or not, it will still be cheaper in the long run than the cost of the environmental damage from burning all that coal Australia wants to export to other developing nations to make a buck.
…The conventional engineering wisdom is that there will be a 10-15% loss of output for a turbine placed less than 2 km downwind of another.
ArcVera is suggesting that new wind farms could experience losses of as much as 25% at a distance of 10 km(!)…..


  • 5AA90192-1C46-4C99-8B48-4477BD64BD56.jpeg
    118.2 KB · Views: 21
Hillhater said:
…The conventional engineering wisdom is that there will be a 10-15% loss of output for a turbine placed less than 2 km downwind of another.
ArcVera is suggesting that new wind farms could experience losses of as much as 25% at a distance of 10 km(!)…..

Already have an algorithim that can make up for that.


The increase in energy output from a given installation may seem modest — it’s about 1.2 percent overall, and 3 percent for optimal wind speeds. But the algorithm can be deployed at any wind farm, and the number of wind farms is rapidly growing to meet accelerated climate goals. If that 1.2 percent energy increase were applied to all the world’s existing wind farms, it would be the equivalent of adding more than 3,600 new wind turbines, or enough to power about 3 million homes, and a total gain to power producers of almost a billion dollars per year, the researchers say. And all of this for essentially no cost.

Some links also say it generates more power to obliviate the issue, but it's a new finding so we'll have to see. I picked the one that seemed the most "real world" improvement.