Cheaper prices due to renewables - forget it

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

This entire thread is why everyone NEEDS fast breeder molten salt reactors.  #1 1000's of times more efficient use of Uranium... #2 Uses higher temperatures, #3 No giant pressure vessel required, and can easily have gargantuan molten salt storage ponds/tanks.   Guess nuc industry they are trying to go for the low  temperature normal idiot pressure reactors with LOW temperatures and low efficiency but add molten salt... as a half way house and pray/hope governments pull their thumbs out of their asses and allow Breeder Reactor designs to be built...  I guess the hope and pray method might work, but I doubt it.  Half way solutions never work other than government boondongle graft.

PS The "heat storage" of molten salt is ~ok, but really needs the higher 700C temps from breeder reactors

[turbguy + 1,405]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Heat dissipates rapidly no matter what, water in a pumped storage reservoir can sit there for years until evaporation removes it.   

If I remove a gallon of hot water from an appropriately insulated 50 gallon Hot Water tank, the remaining 49 gallons in the tank does not decrease in temperature.  I cannot make it any clearer.

Also, don't ignore pumped storage upper reservoir leakage.  That's why they have many, many piezometers stuck around such facilities.

Edited December 5, 2023 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,405]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

This entire thread is why everyone NEEDS fast breeder molten salt reactors.  #1 1000's of times more efficient use of Uranium... #2 Uses higher temperatures, #3 No giant pressure vessel required, and can easily have gargantuan molten salt storage ponds/tanks.   Guess nuc industry they are trying to go for the low  temperature normal idiot pressure reactors with LOW temperatures and low efficiency but add molten salt... as a half way house and pray/hope governments pull their thumbs out of their asses and allow Breeder Reactor designs to be built...  I guess the hope and pray method might work, but I doubt it.  Half way solutions never work other than government boondongle graft.

PS The "heat storage" of molten salt is ~ok, but really needs the higher 700C temps from breeder reactors

The boiling point of sodium at atmospheric pressure is about 860 degrees C.  The issue of metallurgy to handle that temperature arises as an impediment,  The Natrium project will operate at "decent" temps, while generating AND storing BTU's in molten salts to provide additional steam flow (ie, generation) when the grid requires it.  That's known as dispatchabiity, which is NOT provided by the LWR fleet (at least not very much).

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

3 hours ago, turbguy said:

If I remove a gallon of hot water from an appropriately insulated 50 gallon Hot Water tank, the remaining 49 gallons in the tank does not decrease in temperature.  I cannot make it any clearer.

Also, don't ignore pumped storage upper reservoir leakage.  That's why they have many, many piezometers stuck around such facilities.

Well your "understanding of tanks" is piss poor.  You have stratification in tanks and thermal loss.  The only problem with thermal tanks is one has to have sufficient depth for stratification and diffusers so one does not mix different temp fluids. You want 2 giant tanks without diffusers... now you have stratification in 2 tanks increasing losses further.  Have to have diffusers.   If you start mixing and do not have stratification, efficiency quickly disappears.   Now add fact that thermal transport is defined by Thot-Tcold and only way to overcome this is either increase fluid flow rate(more pumps, or add surface area).  In a nuclear facility... adding surface area seems dubious, and you need more pumps as backup anyways.  Of course that is not all it is sliced up to be as what do you do for pipe diameter?  Diameter = friction losses, turbulence... etc.  Maybe they add turbulators permanently so the piping mixes continuously that way the skin is not ~550C while center is 400C.  A doable solution. 

Had this problem with solar thermal big time.  Till I made a proper diffuser.  Bottom of tank would be ~55F while middle was sitting at 150F and top of tank would be at 185F.  By mid winter without said diffuser the tank would be down to ~100F or below.  Only fit for general house warming if pumps run continuously(we have radiant floors).  With said diffusers, tank would still be above 130F at mid winter.  (We get ~zero(4 or less) hours of sun for December, January, and nearly zero in February.  I originally used large steel ~100gallon  tanks, horrific idea(do NOT do this).  Finally gave up, rented a LONG armed backhoe, dug a hole 15ft deep lined it with foam, and a giant pond liner making a tank 16ft deep or so(tank top is ~2ft above ground level so one does not accidentally say drive over it or fall in + insulation on top etc.  Diameter ~10ft.  Our trees have massively grown over the years so my solar thermal has taken a MASSIVE hit.  At the point now, it is cut my big beautiful 3ft + Cedar trees, or... Tried adding some PV, but this is western Washington so... Summer only and frankly even with used panels still has not paid back. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by footeab@yahoo.com

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 12/5/2023 at 10:34 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Load following between big and small reactors is the same. It sucks. Nuclear  reactors on the grid are baseload, end of story. SMR is a joke.

SMRs can and do load follow quite easily - as they are smaller than they can power up and down much more easily than their big brethren. Just think nuclear submarines which can start and stop when they want and can go for years without changing fuel rods. The big reactors are certainly better off as base load units but their output can vary. My understanding is that reactors in Canada have real trouble with this as they use different technology but I don't know much about that.

You may be thinking of this in terms of efficiency, as its certainly less efficient to load follow and places more stress on the components, but that's the same for any generator. One obvious solution would be to dump renewables from the system. You would still need load following generators but the grid would be far less volatile. (SMRs may be well be a joke for other reasons, however.) Hope that helps.  

[notsonice + 1,080]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

The boiling point of sodium at atmospheric pressure is about 860 degrees C.  The issue of metallurgy to handle that temperature arises as an impediment,  The Natrium project will operate at "decent" temps, while generating AND storing BTU's in molten salts to provide additional steam flow (ie, generation) when the grid requires it.  That's known as dispatchabiity, which is NOT provided by the LWR fleet (at least not very much).

these days it is cheaper to store electricity in batteries

KISS principle applies

Keep It Simple Stupid

Batteries (lithium) really are efficient in charging/discharge...above 97 percent

Steam.....well you have to condense it in the loop and this is a big energy loss

your liquid metal generating steam will have a condensation requirement unless you have a free source of clean makeup water

Easier to generate the electricity with solar panels and store the excess electricity in batteries and cheaper

 

no moving parts and no heat losses

I hated Thermo classes....as all they talked about was rankine cycle losses and how to try to about max efficiency......boring

 

what is the efficiency of your sodium salt storage after all the losses 75 to the low 80s???????

 

[turbguy + 1,405]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Well your "understanding of tanks" is piss poor.  You have stratification in tanks and thermal loss.  The only problem with thermal tanks is one has to have sufficient depth for stratification and diffusers so one does not mix different temp fluids. You want 2 giant tanks without diffusers... now you have stratification in 2 tanks increasing losses further.  Have to have diffusers.   If you start mixing and do not have stratification, efficiency quickly disappears.   Now add fact that thermal transport is defined by Thot-Tcold and only way to overcome this is either increase fluid flow rate(more pumps, or add surface area).  In a nuclear facility... adding surface area seems dubious, and you need more pumps as backup anyways.  Of course that is not all it is sliced up to be as what do you do for pipe diameter?  Diameter = friction losses, turbulence... etc.  Maybe they add turbulators permanently so the piping mixes continuously that way the skin is not ~550C while center is 400C.  A doable solution. 

Had this problem with solar thermal big time.  Till I made a proper diffuser.  Bottom of tank would be ~55F while middle was sitting at 150F and top of tank would be at 185F.  By mid winter without said diffuser the tank would be down to ~100F or below.  Only fit for general house warming if pumps run continuously(we have radiant floors).  With said diffusers, tank would still be above 130F at mid winter.  (We get ~zero(4 or less) hours of sun for December, January, and nearly zero in February.  I originally used large steel ~100gallon  tanks, horrific idea(do NOT do this).  Finally gave up, rented a LONG armed backhoe, dug a hole 15ft deep lined it with foam, and a giant pond liner making a tank 16ft deep or so(tank top is ~2ft above ground level so one does not accidentally say drive over it or fall in + insulation on top etc.  Diameter ~10ft.  Our trees have massively grown over the years so my solar thermal has taken a MASSIVE hit.  At the point now, it is cut my big beautiful 3ft + Cedar trees, or... Tried adding some PV, but this is western Washington so... Summer only and frankly even with used panels still has not paid back. 

Yes, there are plenty of engineering considerations with "tanks" that need to be taken into account.  I do not see any serious impediment.

[turbguy + 1,405]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

these days it is cheaper to store electricity in batteries

KISS principle applies

Keep It Simple Stupid

Batteries (lithium) really are efficient in charging/discharge...above 97 percent

Steam.....well you have to condense it in the loop and this is a big energy loss

your liquid metal generating steam will have a condensation requirement unless you have a free source of clean makeup water

Easier to generate the electricity with solar panels and store the excess electricity in batteries and cheaper

 

no moving parts and no heat losses

I hated Thermo classes....as all they talked about was rankine cycle losses and how to try to about max efficiency......boring

 

what is the efficiency of your sodium salt storage after all the losses 75 to the low 80s???????

 

Yes, since the thermal energy is used to operate a heat engine, there are big losses.  Same as any steam plant with the equal initial steam conditions and any recuperation (such as feedwater heaters), with or without reheating.

The Natrium plant will be built adjacent to a retiring coal plant, which will provide the source of cooling water and treated water required, as well as a workforce, and a ready grid connection.

I don't like moving parts either, and nuclear plants are chock full of 'em.  Since the reactor is contained in a sealed vessel (containment), don't you every wonder how hot it gets in there during operation?  Guess what...THEY ARE AIR CONDITIONED (chillers).

The advantage is the dispatchability of generation, for many hours.  Most batteries are rated for 2-4 hours supply at full load.

[notsonice + 1,080]

5 hours ago, turbguy said:

Yes, since the thermal energy is used to operate a heat engine, there are big losses.  Same as any steam plant with the equal initial steam conditions and any recuperation (such as feedwater heaters), with or without reheating.

The Natrium plant will be built adjacent to a retiring coal plant, which will provide the source of cooling water and treated water required, as well as a workforce, and a ready grid connection.

I don't like moving parts either, and nuclear plants are chock full of 'em.  Since the reactor is contained in a sealed vessel (containment), don't you every wonder how hot it gets in there during operation?  Guess what...THEY ARE AIR CONDITIONED (chillers).

The advantage is the dispatchability of generation, for many hours.  Most batteries are rated for 2-4 hours supply at full load.

the design is for 5 to 6 hours of storage .....really no different than batteries ...

looks like a sales pitch for the nuclear end.....you get storage also.......BOGO

The cost of the nuclear end???????? when is the last time anything nuclear was build anywhere near budget?????

KISS wins the day

battery storage gets built in a years time these days

from planning/financing to construction to operation........1 Year these days.....

Nuclear anything???? 10 to 20 years

Investors do not like long winded money pits

 Battery storage for an investor is low risk fast payout

I expect just about every gas fired power plant to have battery storage built alongside the same as wind and solar projects......

even if they only sell power for 4 hours a day

[turbguy + 1,405]

7 hours ago, notsonice said:

the design is for 5 to 6 hours of storage .....really no different than batteries ...

looks like a sales pitch for the nuclear end.....you get storage also.......BOGO

The cost of the nuclear end???????? when is the last time anything nuclear was build anywhere near budget?????

KISS wins the day

battery storage gets built in a years time these days

from planning/financing to construction to operation........1 Year these days.....

Nuclear anything???? 10 to 20 years

Investors do not like long winded money pits

 Battery storage for an investor is low risk fast payout

I expect just about every gas fired power plant to have battery storage built alongside the same as wind and solar projects......

even if they only sell power for 4 hours a day

We will still need a source of carbon-free baseload power to underpin renewables for the inevitable times when batteries become exhausted.  It is wise to investigate such sources.

Li-Ion batteries have a limited number of charge-discharge cycles, even if carefully managed.  That said, they do make sense for grid stability support.  Bring 'em on!

Edited December 6, 2023 by turbguy

[James Pipe 0]

On 12/4/2023 at 9:21 PM, specinho said:

Fukushima incidence shows Japan, as a top few country in quality of technology created, could be frumbling during emergency.

True, but there seems to be no better alternative to nuclear energy, given how fast the humanity on earth could vanish due to the climate change.

[specinho + 440]

17 hours ago, James Pipe said:

True, but there seems to be no better alternative to nuclear energy, given how fast the humanity on earth could vanish due to the climate change.

Would like to presume you are in the group which still holds strong belief that "burning of fossil fuel is the primary cause of climate change" ?

There has been a question raised in one of the heated discussion on this board:

If burning fossil fuel is the main culprit of climate change, why hasn't it been a problem during 100 years beginning 19th century until  1940s? 

Temperature has been noted rising during massive industrial and development era in the 1950s until today.

In addition, according to a post, from 1960s to 2020, total population on earth has increased from ~ 320 million to 8000 million ( 8 billion) within a short 50 to 60 years. 

Besides that, coverage of concrete forest has gradually replaced pristine forest. For examples, many places are recorded with zero plantation by statistic of World Bank; developed countries 0% to 20%; developing countries 25% to~60%.

Focussing on replacing energy alone might not be the right solution. A change from cheap costs of energy production, low maintenance and long lasting well ( more than half to one century or longer?) to energy of high capital costs, frequent maintenance, ~ 10 years total replacement period might bring many unwanted consequences. For examples, economy, wastage of space, standard of living or quality of life, possibly more frequent cyclone, still air etc.

Screenshot below taken from topic " green new deals: blizzard of lies" page 482. 

There are more urgent things that could be handled more readily to slow down the impact of climate change. For your reference and consideration... 

[notsonice + 1,080]

4 hours ago, specinho said:

Would like to presume you are in the group which still holds strong belief that "burning of fossil fuel is the primary cause of climate change" ?

There has been a question raised in one of the heated discussion on this board:

If burning fossil fuel is the main culprit of climate change, why hasn't it been a problem during 100 years beginning 19th century until  1940s? 

Temperature has been noted rising during massive industrial and development era in the 1950s until today.

In addition, according to a post, from 1960s to 2020, total population on earth has increased from ~ 320 million to 8000 million ( 8 billion) within a short 50 to 60 years. 

Besides that, coverage of concrete forest has gradually replaced pristine forest. For examples, many places are recorded with zero plantation by statistic of World Bank; developed countries 0% to 20%; developing countries 25% to~60%.

Focussing on replacing energy alone might not be the right solution. A change from cheap costs of energy production, low maintenance and long lasting well ( more than half to one century or longer?) to energy of high capital costs, frequent maintenance, ~ 10 years total replacement period might bring many unwanted consequences. For examples, economy, wastage of space, standard of living or quality of life, possibly more frequent cyclone, still air etc.

Screenshot below taken from topic " green new deals: blizzard of lies" page 482. 

There are more urgent things that could be handled more readily to slow down the impact of climate change. For your reference and consideration... 

If burning fossil fuel is the main culprit of climate change, why hasn't it been a problem during 100 years beginning 19th century until  1940s?

 

need more info Sherlock?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by notsonice

[specinho + 440]

20 hours ago, notsonice said:

If burning fossil fuel is the main culprit of climate change, why hasn't it been a problem during 100 years beginning 19th century until  1940s?

 

need more info Sherlock?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, i do need more info.

What are you trying to say with the graphs?

" That CO2 is the primary culprit of global warming" ?

'o' 'O' @.@ >.<

[TailingsPond + 476]

Try harder

[Selva + 252]

Last posts has been removed because they have nothing to do with this topic but attempt to continue disscussion about thread that has been locked. Lets stick to the topic. 

[notsonice + 1,080]

On 12/27/2023 at 9:49 PM, specinho said:

Yes, i do need more info.

What are you trying to say with the graphs?

" That CO2 is the primary culprit of global warming" ?

'o' 'O' @.@ >.<

the graph says it all........try to keep up with the times...global warming is real and it is a direct result of Increasing CO2

[specinho + 440]

9 hours ago, notsonice said:

the graph says it all........try to keep up with the times...global warming is real and it is a direct result of Increasing CO2

No one is denying global warming is real. Everyone is trying their best to help in ways they can.

But holding onto or spreading wrong info will mislead the direction to find the right solution.

 

The experiment suggested has been roughly this:

1. Fill a container full of water and a container full of pure CO2. Measure initial temperature.

2. Boil both containers. 

3. Check boiling temperature for each and temperature after 4 hours.

Result:

Temperature for water is likely 100'c at boiling point and ~ 50'c after 4 hours.

Temperature for pure CO2 is likely few degree celcius higher from initial temperature and after 4 hours, at initial temperature or lower.

Conclusion:

CO2 is non reactive gas that does not hold heat nor change chemically by heat.

Question:

How would increase of CO2 directly increase temperature if the conclusion is true? 

[notsonice + 1,080]

On 12/29/2023 at 8:02 PM, specinho said:

No one is denying global warming is real. Everyone is trying their best to help in ways they can.

But holding onto or spreading wrong info will mislead the direction to find the right solution.

 

The experiment suggested has been roughly this:

1. Fill a container full of water and a container full of pure CO2. Measure initial temperature.

2. Boil both containers. 

3. Check boiling temperature for each and temperature after 4 hours.

Result:

Temperature for water is likely 100'c at boiling point and ~ 50'c after 4 hours.

Temperature for pure CO2 is likely few degree celcius higher from initial temperature and after 4 hours, at initial temperature or lower.

Conclusion:

CO2 is non reactive gas that does not hold heat nor change chemically by heat.

Question:

How would increase of CO2 directly increase temperature if the conclusion is true? 

No one is denying global warming is real. ???????
 

Overall, 46% of Americans say human activity is the primary reason why the Earth is warming. By contrast, 26% say warming is mostly caused by natural patterns in the environment and another 14% do not believe there's evidence the Earth is warming at all.Aug 9, 2023

 

Why Some Americans Do Not See Urgency on Climate Change

[turbguy + 1,405]

On 12/29/2023 at 8:02 PM, specinho said:

No one is denying global warming is real. Everyone is trying their best to help in ways they can.

But holding onto or spreading wrong info will mislead the direction to find the right solution.

 

The experiment suggested has been roughly this:

1. Fill a container full of water and a container full of pure CO2. Measure initial temperature.

2. Boil both containers. 

3. Check boiling temperature for each and temperature after 4 hours.

Result:

Temperature for water is likely 100'c at boiling point and ~ 50'c after 4 hours.

Temperature for pure CO2 is likely few degree celcius higher from initial temperature and after 4 hours, at initial temperature or lower.

Conclusion:

CO2 is non reactive gas that does not hold heat nor change chemically by heat.

Question:

How would increase of CO2 directly increase temperature if the conclusion is true? 

You need to do some research about this thing called "heat balance".

[TailingsPond + 476]

26 minutes ago, turbguy said:

You need to do some research about this thing called "heat balance".

He needs a lot more education than that...

His "thought experiment" involves boiling a container of pure CO2.  😄 

He has also drawn up results and conclusions without doing any experimentation. 

He could look up table of heat capacities but he doesn't even understand the concept.  Yet he thinks he can solve world energy and political problems.

[specinho + 440]

18 hours ago, notsonice said:

No one is denying global warming is real. ???????
 

Overall, 46% of Americans say human activity is the primary reason why the Earth is warming. By contrast, 26% say warming is mostly caused by natural patterns in the environment and another 14% do not believe there's evidence the Earth is warming at all.Aug 9, 2023

 

Why Some Americans Do Not See Urgency on Climate Change

Your percentage does not add up to 100%.

Assume 14% do not believe, the remaining who believe would be 100% - 14% = 86%. Divergence is whether it is a man- made phenomena or natural pattern. 

We have discussed this before, both men and natural cycle are contributing factors. 

Recap a few things here:

1. More than 5 years ago, temperature in a tropical country dropped from common 34'C to 38'C to 14'C to 24'C.

- There were cloud seen in front of the landmark towers in the capital city.

- Cold wind was blowing at ~14'C for months in rural area.

Never happened before.

a) Active Volcanic activity was said to be one contributing factor.

b) Solar dark spots increased is another. If dark spots represent colder areas, heat transmitted or conducted is said to have reduced. According to info posted by someone here, most probably Eco, there is a regular cycle involved. 

2. Same with the rise of sea level.

Screenshot from a book < Guinness Book: Amazing Nature>, posted in one of the discussion, showed it happens in a cyclical manner. Thousands or millions of years ago, the level arisen was more than 100 meters. At the moment, it is nearly 50 cm.  

 

3. Human activities, include drastic increase in size of population, massive development and urbanization, contribute to temperature increment largely after WWII i.e. 1950s or 60s.

 

It is not that they do not see the urgency. Too many hoaxes cause them to lose confidence in the authorities, scientists, academicians etc.

No one really knows what is happening or how to deal with it.

If you are in academic or scientific crowd, you will flow with what is popularly believed and where money is.

If you are with politicians, UN, WHO etc, you drift with what is told and put money into those believed could make condition better. 

If you are with common crowd, especially retirees, jobless or less educated, they will show no interest or say:" wasting so much money in vain, blindly, might as well give those money a more useful purpose...."

Being with the majority does not always give you the right outcome. It is like running down hill to the wrong direction enthusiastically. 

Urgency is mood because we do not know yet decline to accept reemergence of  possible facts. 

 

[TailingsPond + 476]

4 minutes ago, specinho said:

 

Urgency is mood because we do not know yet decline to accept reemergence of  possible facts. 

 

lol

[specinho + 440]

8 hours ago, turbguy said:

You need to do some research about this thing called "heat balance".

I probably need you to elaborate what you are trying to say... 

Without water, pure CO2 does not increase in temperature but vibrating faster and increase in volume. 

[TailingsPond + 476]

14 hours ago, specinho said:

I probably need you to elaborate what you are trying to say... 

Without water, pure CO2 does not increase in temperature but vibrating faster and increase in volume.

Read some books, your theories are always wrong.

Vibrating faster is the definition of increase in temperature.

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

"Temperature is measured with a thermometer. It reflects the kinetic energy of the vibrating and colliding atoms making up a substance."

Also increase in volume at the same pressure is a increase in temperature by the ideal gas law

PV=nRT

V= nRT/P   Clearly a change in volume is proportional to the change in temperature.  R, P and n are held constant.

Do the math ya little n@zi.

Edited January 1 by TailingsPond