America Could Go Fully Electric Right Now

[Wombat + 1,028]

26 minutes ago, NickW said:

The Rolls Royce Modular reactors look like a potential option for Australia and its relatively small Grid. 400MW per reactor. You also get the reactor built by a firm that's been building pressurised water reactors for Submarines for the past 60 years, not some shoddy piece of crap from Chyna with numerous bits of built in spyware. 

Any idea as to pricing? When Howard was looking at Nuclear, they wanted largest and supposedly cheapest model at the time, the GE APR I seem to recall. I agree that we would be best off with a couple of smaller reactors in each of the 3 major East Coast cities (Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane for anyone here that does not know that covers 70% of our population). I was particularly interested in the pebble-bed reactor developed by the South Africans, as there was literally no possibility of a meltdown, but have heard nothing about it for over a decade. That was also a small, modular design. I just googled it to discover the South African demo plant never got built and has been indefinitely postponed. Dunno what is happening with the Chinese version. I am guessing that no nuclear reactor is 100% fool-proof when it comes to meltdown, but that is what the South Africans claimed at the time. What happens if the cooling system on a pebble-bed reactor somehow fails? I understand there are both active and passive safety systems on modern reactors, but would be interested to hear your views on these? Let's say a sizeable asteroid hit the Pacific Ocean and caused a hundred foot tsunami, do you think any of the new generation reactors would survive it? When u mention that the Rolls Royce Modular reactor has been in subs for 60 years it makes me wonder if they even need to be located by the sea for cooling water purposes? Surely it could go in a tunnel in the side of a mountain? The HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney was only about 15 feet in diameter, so I assume it was based on similar design to those for subs. They didn't tell us much, just showed us where the neutrons exited and let us walk around it. Had a scale model of one of the fuel rods, and I was surprised the uranium pellet was only the size of a peanut  Would really appreciate any further info you can give me on these issues, because Labour and the Coalition may come around if it explained that Fukushima style disaster not possible?

[NickW + 2,714]

11 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Any idea as to pricing? When Howard was looking at Nuclear, they wanted largest and supposedly cheapest model at the time, the GE APR I seem to recall. I agree that we would be best off with a couple of smaller reactors in each of the 3 major East Coast cities (Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane for anyone here that does not know that covers 70% of our population). I was particularly interested in the pebble-bed reactor developed by the South Africans, as there was literally no possibility of a meltdown, but have heard nothing about it for over a decade. That was also a small, modular design. I just googled it to discover the South African demo plant never got built and has been indefinitely postponed. Dunno what is happening with the Chinese version. I am guessing that no nuclear reactor is 100% fool-proof when it comes to meltdown, but that is what the South Africans claimed at the time. What happens if the cooling system on a pebble-bed reactor somehow fails? I understand there are both active and passive safety systems on modern reactors, but would be interested to hear your views on these? Let's say a sizeable asteroid hit the Pacific Ocean and caused a hundred foot tsunami, do you think any of the new generation reactors would survive it? When u mention that the Rolls Royce Modular reactor has been in subs for 60 years it makes me wonder if they even need to be located by the sea for cooling water purposes? Surely it could go in a tunnel in the side of a mountain? The HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney was only about 15 feet in diameter, so I assume it was based on similar design to those for subs. They didn't tell us much, just showed us where the neutrons exited and let us walk around it. Had a scale model of one of the fuel rods, and I was surprised the uranium pellet was only the size of a peanut  Would really appreciate any further info you can give me on these issues, because Labour and the Coalition may come around if it explained that Fukushima style disaster not possible?

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/nuclear/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/

One of the main benefits all the reactor casting etc done in a workshop and shipped to sit. More reliable than letting loss a gaggle of construction works loose on it. 

I suspect it will come to nothing or given away to another country  as usual - invariably the way with British innovations. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

7 minutes ago, NickW said:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/nuclear/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/

One of the main benefits all the reactor casting etc done in a workshop and shipped to sit. More reliable than letting loss a gaggle of construction works loose on it. 

I suspect it will come to nothing or given away to another country  as usual - invariably the way with British innovations. 

Indeed, the new reactor at Lucas Heights had problems with the concrete cracking. Did a bit of Materials Science during my Physics degree, and learnt that concrete is a field all of it's own, no different to metallurgy. Just found this on Pebble Bed reactors and can see why you say the 60 years experience with the Rolls Royce design makes a big diff:

https://ieer.org/resource/factsheets/the-pebble-bed-modular-reactor/

Do you mind if I ask how many MW it takes to power a sub? I am guessing about 20 so the 400MW version would be about 20 times larger, about the size of a tennis court, is that correct? If so, it suggests to me that an ideal location would be a tunnel in the mountainside next to the snowy river scheme. Somewhere safe from terrorists and foreign bombs.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, Wombat said:

Indeed, the new reactor at Lucas Heights had problems with the concrete cracking. Did a bit of Materials Science during my Physics degree, and learnt that concrete is a field all of it's own, no different to metallurgy. Just found this on Pebble Bed reactors and can see why you say the 60 years experience with the Rolls Royce design makes a big diff:

https://ieer.org/resource/factsheets/the-pebble-bed-modular-reactor/

Do you mind if I ask how many MW it takes to power a sub? I am guessing about 20 so the 400MW version would be about 20 times larger, about the size of a tennis court, is that correct? If so, it suggests to me that an ideal location would be a tunnel in the mountainside next to the snowy river scheme. Somewhere safe from terrorists and foreign bombs.

The RR PWR 2 is around 50MW (electrical) and is fitted in the Vanguard (Carry Trident Nukes)  and Astute Class Subs (Attack Subs that Oz should buy😉 and would put the willies up China - The Astutes usually run rings round US subs in war games trials)

[Wombat + 1,028]

16 minutes ago, NickW said:

The RR PWR 2 is around 50MW (electrical) and is fitted in the Vanguard (Carry Trident Nukes)  and Astute Class Subs (Attack Subs that Oz should buy😉 and would put the willies up China - The Astutes usually run rings round US subs in war games trials)

Indeed, but it looks like the French are gonna fleece the Aussie taxpayer as well  Our own fault, our defence procurement team never buy off the shelf. 12 French designed subs, highly modified. Won't be available for over a decade. If we had the brains to do so, we would buy off the shelf and could have dual manufacturing and actually get equipment in time for when it needed. That is what the US has done with the LCS (littoral combat ship) from Australia. Half were built here, half over there. At least we have 2 small aircraft carriers that are not officially aircraft carriers. The govt insists they are "helicopter landing ships" even though they are perfectly suitable for the F-35C. (Which we are definitely NOT purchasing, officially). Go figure?

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

Indeed, but it looks like the French are gonna fleece the Aussie taxpayer as well  Our own fault, our defence procurement team never buy off the shelf. 12 French designed subs, highly modified. Won't be available for over a decade. If we had the brains to do so, we would buy off the shelf and could have dual manufacturing and actually get equipment in time for when it needed. That is what the US has done with the LCS (littoral combat ship) from Australia. Half were built here, half over there. At least we have 2 small aircraft carriers that are not officially aircraft carriers. The govt insists they are "helicopter landing ships" even though they are perfectly suitable for the F-35C. (Which we are definitely NOT purchasing, officially). Go figure?

 BAE who have significantly facilities in OZ, especially in Adelaide. I'm sure in the longer term more Aussie jobs would be secured with an Anglo - Australia deal to build the Astute. Much of the work have to done at Barrow (Cumbria) but teams from OZ could be sent to Barrow to learn the maintenance and Oz would get a fleet of subs that were well suited to blue water operations with flexibility to carry torpedoes and cruise missiles. 

[Meredith Poor + 895]

9 hours ago, Wombat said:

There is no such thing as "compact fusion". That really is "Pie in the Sky"!

Another example of someone 'shooting from the lip'.

 

[Meredith Poor + 895]

9 hours ago, Wombat said:

Aha, you seem to be figuring it out! Yes, budget deficits are just consumption of future tax revenues. The "alternative" is higher future inflation, which is just another tax (on savings and income) in the future. There is no free lunch Meredith.

OK, so we've been running deficits since the Johnson administration in 1967. There is 'inflation' in terms of dollars, and 'inflation' in terms of labor hours per unit of consumption. How many work-hours is needed to buy a new car in 2020 in comparison to 1967? Same goes for a 'conventional' house, which might be 1200 square feet in a typical small town (as opposed to LA or the Bay Area) in comparison to the 2400 square foot monsters people buy these days. What used to be 25 cent candy bars now cost $2. However, how much work does someone do now to buy a $2 candy bar? 'Dollar' inflation may not be a very meaningful metric.

There is no relationship between 'deficit spending' and 'free lunches'. When the US government spends money, they do so in exchange for work. The dollars that go out are earned. You will have to provide a more concrete example of what you mean by 'free lunch'.

[specinho + 467]

4 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

OK, so we've been running deficits since the Johnson administration in 1967. There is 'inflation' in terms of dollars, and 'inflation' in terms of labor hours per unit of consumption. How many work-hours is needed to buy a new car in 2020 in comparison to 1967? Same goes for a 'conventional' house, which might be 1200 square feet in a typical small town (as opposed to LA or the Bay Area) in comparison to the 2400 square foot monsters people buy these days. What used to be 25 cent candy bars now cost $2. However, how much work does someone do now to buy a $2 candy bar? 'Dollar' inflation may not be a very meaningful metric.

There is no relationship between 'deficit spending' and 'free lunches'. When the US government spends money, they do so in exchange for work. The dollars that go out are earned. You will have to provide a more concrete example of what you mean by 'free lunch'.

it might be much earlier than that especially during wars. But there was always a correction, until after 1961, maybe.........

https://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_usxbudget_history.htm

The relationship between deficit spending, free lunches and no free lunches any more might be these:

1. education - you need to pay for quality education which used to be free. They can not afford to pay good teachers any more because they need money for infrastructure.

2. health care - you need to pay much higher costs for what used to be free because they need money for more infrastructure.

3. water, electricity and other social benefits - used to be free....... much higher costs now because they need money else where.........

 

[Meredith Poor + 895]

5 hours ago, specinho said:

1. education - you need to pay for quality education which used to be free. They can not afford to pay good teachers any more because they need money for infrastructure.

States generally pay teachers. States operate under fiscal restraints that the US Federal Government doesn't have. This item doesn't appear to have relevance to the discussion.

[Meredith Poor + 895]

5 hours ago, specinho said:

2. health care - you need to pay much higher costs for what used to be free because they need money for more infrastructure.

Health care sophistication has risen geometrically over the last 60 years. There are all kinds of things that are easily corrected now that used to be incurable. I don't think anything is competing with health care for money (such as infrastructure), this is a fundamental characteristic of the service.

[Meredith Poor + 895]

5 hours ago, specinho said:

3. water, electricity and other social benefits - used to be free....... much higher costs now because they need money else where.........

Water and electricity have always had costs in the United States. Homeowners have had to pay for water service, and electricity in particular has always been billed. Water service has certainly gotten more expensive as water utilities have had to comply with stricter standards, both for water quality and for discharges back into the ecosystem.

When there is labor looking for work, the government has 'spare' resources by definition. Health care and education don't compete with infrastructure development if there are coal miners and oil field workers looking for jobs. What is the difference between digging a trench down the street in Flint, Michigan and mining coal, or laying a water pipe compared to laying a hydrocarbon pipeline?

[Wombat + 1,028]

13 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Another example of someone 'shooting from the lip'.

 

Meredith, wake up. Read the last line: "However, fusors are not considered a viable concept for large-scale energy production by scientists"! I have a degree in Physics and I can assure you that is is impossible to get more energy out of a fusor than you put in. You can apologise if you feel so inclined?

[Wombat + 1,028]

13 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

OK, so we've been running deficits since the Johnson administration in 1967. There is 'inflation' in terms of dollars, and 'inflation' in terms of labor hours per unit of consumption. How many work-hours is needed to buy a new car in 2020 in comparison to 1967? Same goes for a 'conventional' house, which might be 1200 square feet in a typical small town (as opposed to LA or the Bay Area) in comparison to the 2400 square foot monsters people buy these days. What used to be 25 cent candy bars now cost $2. However, how much work does someone do now to buy a $2 candy bar? 'Dollar' inflation may not be a very meaningful metric.

There is no relationship between 'deficit spending' and 'free lunches'. When the US government spends money, they do so in exchange for work. The dollars that go out are earned. You will have to provide a more concrete example of what you mean by 'free lunch'.

I think I am wasting my time with you on this issue. You believe in Voodoo Economics and I cannot change that. Best we stick to green energy, something we can agree on?

 

[Meredith Poor + 895]

18 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Meredith, wake up. Read the last line: "However, fusors are not considered a viable concept for large-scale energy production by scientists"! I have a degree in Physics and I can assure you that is is impossible to get more energy out of a fusor than you put in. You can apologise if you feel so inclined?

Bell Labs announced silicon PV cells in 1954. As of 1973, during the oil embargo, they were obscenely expensive, used only in space exploration. Bit by bit they got cheaper, partly because of what else was being learned about silicon in semiconductors for making computers and memory. Within the last ten years they have finally gotten cheap enough to use at the utility scale.

So here we find out that fusors were made in the mid 1960s. Step by step, they worm their way into more scientific establishments, and eventually into the sphere of hobbyists. Perhaps they need another ten years to 'commercialize' into something useful. Perhaps we're already there.

If you have a degree in Physics then you should be able to provide a formal explanation of why it won't work. There are people that are claiming they have a 'burn' that produces 14x the power needed to start the reaction. Maybe they're making it up - they're trying to raise money from investors. Look up 'safire project'.

Apologizing would appear to be premature.

[Meredith Poor + 895]

24 minutes ago, Wombat said:

I think I am wasting my time with you on this issue. You believe in Voodoo Economics and I cannot change that. Best we stick to green energy, something we can agree on?

If we agree on it, there's nothing to discuss. This is all a cross examination - you aren't thinking things through. A lot of 'economic thought' is conventional wisdom. Problem is, it is internally inconsistent. I'll keep illuminating those inconsistencies to anyone that attempts to support them.

[Wombat + 1,028]

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Bell Labs announced silicon PV cells in 1954. As of 1973, during the oil embargo, they were obscenely expensive, used only in space exploration. Bit by bit they got cheaper, partly because of what else was being learned about silicon in semiconductors for making computers and memory. Within the last ten years they have finally gotten cheap enough to use at the utility scale.

So here we find out that fusors were made in the mid 1960s. Step by step, they worm their way into more scientific establishments, and eventually into the sphere of hobbyists. Perhaps they need another ten years to 'commercialize' into something useful. Perhaps we're already there.

If you have a degree in Physics then you should be able to provide a formal explanation of why it won't work. There are people that are claiming they have a 'burn' that produces 14x the power needed to start the reaction. Maybe they're making it up - they're trying to raise money from investors. Look up 'safire project'.

Apologizing would appear to be premature.

Your ignorance and arrogance know no bounds. Here are some of the basics. Get back to me when you understand them:

 

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 minute ago, Wombat said:

Your ignorance and arrogance know no bounds. Here are some of the basics. Get back to me when you understand them:

 

 

There are some people on this planet who have studied enough to know what they do and don't know, and there are those who don't even know what they do not know. You are in the latter camp. There is a big difference between making fusion viable for electricity production and solar PV. The latter is very simple, like you, and the former is very complex, like my knowledge. I am TELLING YOU that compact fusion will not work, just as other Physicists told you in the article you quote, but you know best coz u read something somewhere? Only a large-scale tomokak or high-energy laser has a hope in hell of producing more power than it consumes, but that is still likely another century away. Stop pretending you understand the laws of Physics, just coz u have read some books aimed at the untrained like yourself.

[Wombat + 1,028]

3 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

If we agree on it, there's nothing to discuss. This is all a cross examination - you aren't thinking things through. A lot of 'economic thought' is conventional wisdom. Problem is, it is internally inconsistent. I'll keep illuminating those inconsistencies to anyone that attempts to support them.

No, a lot of "economic thought" these days is complete rubbish, precisely because it ignores conventional wisdom. That is why the Western world is on the verge of bankruptcy.

[Wombat + 1,028]

3 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

If we agree on it, there's nothing to discuss. This is all a cross examination - you aren't thinking things through. A lot of 'economic thought' is conventional wisdom. Problem is, it is internally inconsistent. I'll keep illuminating those inconsistencies to anyone that attempts to support them.

You have probably never even studied the CAPM, let alone that Black-Scholes rubbish?

[Wombat + 1,028]

10 minutes ago, Wombat said:

No, a lot of "economic thought" these days is complete rubbish, precisely because it ignores conventional wisdom. That is why the Western world is on the verge of bankruptcy.

 

3 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

If we agree on it, there's nothing to discuss. This is all a cross examination - you aren't thinking things through. A lot of 'economic thought' is conventional wisdom. Problem is, it is internally inconsistent. I'll keep illuminating those inconsistencies to anyone that attempts to support them.

"This is all a cross examination"? What drugs are you on? What court am I in and what is my crime? Are you the Judge AND the jury? They say you are what you eat, and it seems you had too many fruit loops for breakfast?

[Robert Ziegler + 121]

On 9/25/2020 at 8:54 AM, Robert Ziegler said:

As the great Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov said, Socialism is Electrification. We are indeed pretty close to 100%.

Note the wind power!!!

[Meredith Poor + 895]

6 hours ago, Wombat said:

Your ignorance and arrogance know no bounds. Here are some of the basics. Get back to me when you understand them:

 

 

Lovely math and formulas.

I have a degree in computer programming. The company I worked with in the late 1990's hired someone that was one semester away from graduating with a Masters in Computer Science. In about 3 days I realized this guy couldn't program. This isn't just my experience. Most tech companies pay little attention to degrees.

A lot of people that got degrees 20 or 40 years ago look at today's degree programs and realize what they learned 20 or 40 years ago wouldn't get them a job today. So 'having a degree' doesn't mean much in itself, what matters is what people do.

Science is loaded with error and accidental discoveries. I might be arrogant. I suspect the average PhD candidate facing their peers while defending their thesis sees a lot of 'arrogance'. Keyword search 'two dangerous tribes'.

Fundamentally, fusion works - the sun and hydrogen bombs prove it. Low yield fusion is achieved all the time in laboratories. No one has been able to get a high yield 'burn' under controlled conditions. Yet.

[Meredith Poor + 895]

6 hours ago, Wombat said:

There are some people on this planet who have studied enough to know what they do and don't know, and there are those who don't even know what they do not know. You are in the latter camp.

I'm a happy camper.

If we all knew everything, there wouldn't be any point in experimenting. Why are so many individuals and groups building fusion devices? Perhaps it's just to add character to their fireplace, who knows?

[Meredith Poor + 895]

6 hours ago, Wombat said:

No, a lot of "economic thought" these days is complete rubbish, precisely because it ignores conventional wisdom. That is why the Western world is on the verge of bankruptcy.

Keynes was, and perhaps is, complete rubbish. Most economists in the 1930's were mystified by his work. His theories are still taught in schools. So there must be something there.

Most economic thought I see these days focuses on money. When I look at 'money' I realize that this is a euphemism for various kinds of energy, some of it literally 'thermal gradients', some of it electricity, and some of it 'animal spirits' in human beings. Changes in the energy landscape instantly transform the value of money. One dimension of this is the 'watt-hours' produced or available for consumption per 'labor-hour', another is the ability of sovereign authorities to control who gets or does not get access to energy supplies, and another relates to the 'side effects' or 'social costs' of pollution or resource depletion.

Productivity is largely a function of the watt-hours produced or consumed per labor hour. Picture the difference between the crew driving a fully loaded train using a 1920's steam engine compared to a string of 3000 horsepower diesels today, for one example.

If I have a solar array on my roof, I can ignore the power utility, and I can ignore the regulators that price that power and perhaps control 'rolling blackouts'. If I live in a 'failed state', I can mind my own business while my neighbors get sucked into warlord intrigues. The value of money to me is different than it is to someone dependent on supplies someone else controls.

If the only house I can afford is downwind from a coal burning power plant, then my poverty is further amplified by the effects of exposure to the emissions from the plant. If I live in a big city, my 'costs' are related to breathing combustion products from leaded gasoline, 'oil burning' cars, and diesel engines. If all these are replaced by electric cars, the value of my life increases markedly. If I live in an area of the country with a lot of oil refineries, and these shut down, then I trade lost jobs for cleaner air and lower fire and explosion risks.