Green Groups Thwarting Geothermal Solutions to Energy Problems

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

2 hours ago, Richard D said:

A use of impure steam from geothermal could be to produce hydrochar from garbage. Few waste to energy plants work well and are very expensive. Plastic in garbage would mostly melt to globules which could be floated off from the hydrochar.

This stuff works all right

https://electratherm.com/products/

and is just a screw compressor. Note the aircon that generates electricity on the side.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Andrei Moutchkine

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

12 hours ago, nsdp said:

 Post operation requires 25,000 years storage of spent radioactive materials.  You have to pay for that too.

You may be fascinated to know that a long half life means that the compound in question is rather safe. You know that all the nuclear waste in the US could fit on a football field right? 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They said the same thing about RBMK. Is a thousand square mile exclusion zone included in the budget?

RBMK is not a Gen III. I believe Andrei mentioned Rosatom and Generation III.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

12 hours ago, turbguy said:

I tended to avoid spent fuel movement activities.  If one spent fuel assembly ever was mistakenly raised out of the water for a few seconds, and I was in the same room...I won't say more.

You'd be okay if it were a few seconds. Everybody (not saying you) seems to think that HBO's Chernobyl has accurate depiction of radioactive health effects. It's pretty absurd. 

Hell, I found out a while back that swimming in a spent fuel pool would be just fine so long as you weren't in for too long. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

5 hours ago, Richard D said:

Something that I have been fuming about for years. Exxon patented catalytic gasification of coal,way back. Along comes another upstart company,quite recently,and the US Patent Office allows them to patent the same thing. Is the US Patent Office staffed by morons who got a job because of 'equal opportunities'? I have a vested interest,because I have taken out two patents in the United Kingdom for the treatment of red mud waste from alumina production. The UK Patent Office rigorously searched past and present patents to make sure that mine covered new ground.

Curious, did Exxon steal from the Nazis on that count? 

[turbguy + 1,543]

24 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

You'd be okay if it were a few seconds. Everybody (not saying you) seems to think that HBO's Chernobyl has accurate depiction of radioactive health effects. It's pretty absurd. 

Hell, I found out a while back that swimming in a spent fuel pool would be just fine so long as you weren't in for too long. 

The dose received from an unshielded, freshly removed fuel bundle (lifted out of the water) is REALLY high.  An inch or two of water makes a great shield, however.

Of course you can swim in it.  Divers go in frequently to service "things".  Be careful. Stay a few inches away from the spent bundles.

If you ever attempt an unauthorized "swim" in a spent fuel pool, I can guarantee you will die...

...from gunshots.

Edited November 1, 2021 by turbguy

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 minute ago, turbguy said:

The dose received from an unshielded, freshly removed fuel bundle (lifted out of the water) is REALLY high.  An inch or two of water makes a great shield, however.

Of course you can swim in it.  Divers go in frequently to service "things".  Be careful. Stay a few inches away from the spent bundles.

I you ever attempt an unauthorized "swim" in a spent fuel pool, I can guarantee you will die...

...from gunshots.

It's on the bucket list, with proper approval of course. And no gun shots. 

I'll have to look into what would happen if I stared at an exposed core for more than ten seconds. Maybe it wouldn't be very peachy. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

59 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

You may be fascinated to know that a long half life means that the compound in question is rather safe. You know that all the nuclear waste in the US could fit on a football field right? 

Screw storage, go closed nuclear cycle!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix_Fuel

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Screw storage, go closed nuclear cycle!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix_Fuel

I completely agree! At some point you do get useless fission products though. They decay fast though, which is a bonus. 

[Richard D + 86]

37 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Curious, did Exxon steal from the Nazis on that count? 

You are thinking of catalytic liquefaction of coal,not gasification.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

RBMK is not a Gen III. I believe Andrei mentioned Rosatom and Generation III.

Of course not. What Rosatom is shipping is VVRs that are classified Gen III+

https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/academy/pdfs/nuclearReactors.pdf

That is, conditionally closed loop (and with additional safety devices to Gen III) Gen IV means closed loop anybody can do (as opposed to Rosatom collecting all of your spent fuel)

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

6 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I completely agree! At some point you do get useless fission products though. They decay fast though, which is a bonus. 

Rosatom collects all the spent fuel from the new reactors they ship, so you wouldn't know

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

5 minutes ago, Richard D said:

You are thinking of catalytic liquefaction of coal,not gasification.

Gasification (making syngas) is a precursor to liquefaction (Fischer-Tropsch in the Nazi case)

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

10 minutes ago, Richard D said:

You are thinking of catalytic liquefaction of coal,not gasification.

They're both required for gas to liquids. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

6 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Rosatom collects all the spent fuel from the new reactors they ship, so you wouldn't know

Proliferation? 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

27 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Proliferation? 

That is actually their excuse. An actual breeder reactor which makes recycled MOX fuel/"undepletes" the DU is also very handy for making plutonium. So, they are not selling it.

Fission nukes are so last century though. Chubby Kim embraces the hydrogen economy:

https://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/developments-after-1996/2017-sept-dprk/

Edited November 1, 2021 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Richard D + 86]

21 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Gasification (making syngas) is a precursor to liquefaction (Fischer-Tropsch in the Nazi case)

No. Nazi Germany gasified coal without catalyst to make synthesis gas for the Fischer-Tropsch process. Catalytic liquefaction was used to hydrogenate coal using high pressure hydrogen. The catalyst was some form of iron oxide,as is being used in the Chinese coal liquefaction plant.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

14 hours ago, nsdp said:

You haven't dealt with the two long term problems that  require a sinking fund four times the cost construction.  You have 24000 years of tons of radiaoactive material to maintian and SECURE. Second as your spent fuel continues neutron alpha and beta decay you still contibute to thermal decay causing global warming. 

Rosatom is taking back all the spent fuel from the new reactors it ships. For reprocessing into new fuel.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

7 hours ago, Richard D said:

Something that I have been fuming about for years. Exxon patented catalytic gasification of coal,way back. Along comes another upstart company,quite recently,and the US Patent Office allows them to patent the same thing. Is the US Patent Office staffed by morons who got a job because of 'equal opportunities'? I have a vested interest,because I have taken out two patents in the United Kingdom for the treatment of red mud waste from alumina production. The UK Patent Office rigorously searched past and present patents to make sure that mine covered new ground.

As far as I can tell, when reviewing patents, is that yes, ZERO work is being done by the US patent office at all.  Leaving EVERYTHING up to the patentee in question to 1) ascertain if their idea is patentable and 2) protect their patent in court as the USPTO is doing shit all nothing from my perspective as a bureaucrat might have to make a distinction/decision and gosh golly gee, that might get their ass fired from their plush do nothing highest paid government job!

[nsdp + 449]

On 10/30/2021 at 2:14 PM, KeyboardWarrior said:

Whoah. $100 MWh? Where the fuck did you get that? 

Vogtle plant in SC. Dunce. https://nuclear-news.net/2021/08/02/vogtle-nuclear-power-projects-costs-27-billion-and-rising/   Now $12110/kw name. Compare that to $20-40/Kw.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

8 hours ago, nsdp said:

Vogtle plant in SC. Dunce. https://nuclear-news.net/2021/08/02/vogtle-nuclear-power-projects-costs-27-billion-and-rising/   Now $12110/kw name. Compare that to $20-40/Kw.

If the extreme capital expenditure can only account for $30/MWh over its generating lifetime, I fail to see how operating expense makes up the difference between $30 and $100. 

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

On 11/1/2021 at 2:55 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

OIl and gasoline prices going up decreases demand for ICE cars and increases demand for EVs. I have demonstrated this to you, ICE car sales are down and EV sales are up.

You are being very funny again, just like your wild claims about the percentage of energy supplied by fossil fuels (which is 84%, not 79% as you claimed)...demand for ICE vehicles is very strong, mostly in SUVs which have a huge appetite for gasoline, and EVs are a tiny fraction of a fraction of total vehicles on the road. That continues going forward. If EV production attempts to ramp up, the prices of essential battery inputs will skyrocket, and so will EV prices.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Ecocharger

[nsdp + 449]

19 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

If the extreme capital expenditure can only account for $30/MWh over its generating lifetime, I fail to see how operating expense makes up the difference between $30 and $100. 

Only if you violate accounting standards and and ignore AFUDC.  You willing to invest your retirement interest free  with an annual repayment of 1/30th of you principal amount?

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

3 hours ago, nsdp said:

Only if you violate accounting standards and and ignore AFUDC.  You willing to invest your retirement interest free  with an annual repayment of 1/30th of you principal amount?

Annual repayments would be more in the range of 10-12%. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@nsdp

Interesting

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184754/cost-of-nuclear-electricity-production-in-the-us-since-2000/

Just need to build these plants until we figure out how to do it right. It's worth the cost, considering the alternative.