There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

schroedingershat

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

schroedingershat , (edited )

No on all fronts.

The only reactor designs with any sort of history don’t produce steam at high enough temperature for the sulfur cycle and haber process.

The steam they do produce costs more per kWh thermal than a kWh electric from renewables with firming so is more economic to produce with a resistor.

Mirrors exist. Point one at a rock somewhere sunny and you have a source of high temperature heat.

Direct nitrogen electrolysis is better than all these options. It’s had very little research but the catalysts are much more abundant than hydrogen electrolysers and higher efficiencies are possible.

Using fertilizer at all has a huge emissions footprint (much bigger than producing it). The correct path here is regenerative agriculture, precision fermentation and reducing the amount of farmland needed by stopping beef. Nitrogen electrolysis is a good bonus on top of this.

schroedingershat , (edited )

It’s getting close to the point where even if you are handed one it’s more cost effective to build a wind farm and let it sit.

A MWh of wind is about $33 and O&M for a MWh of nuclear is about $30.

schroedingershat ,

You save the water in a hole, then pump it back and forth. You can cover it with PV to stop evaporation

This is also good for the droughts as you have emergency water.

schroedingershat ,

Typical energy density of ore in a new uranium mine burned in an LWR is about the same of coal.

All of the economic/not too damaging stuff together would power the world for about 3 years.

schroedingershat ,

Plug in car. Press the “I would like to only pay $100/yr to fuel this please” button.

Later when you leave for work press the “I would like the house to be cool when I get home and also want to pay half as much for AC” button.

Buy the 1.5m wide water heater that stores 10kWh of hot water and lasts a week between heatings rather than the 70cm one that lasts a day.

Such an unconscionable burden.

schroedingershat ,

This is a misrepresentation of what he said, which was a discussion on net metering and high feed in tarriffs.

The people with surplus can pay for the grid infrastructure with energy they produce consumed elsewhere at whatever its value is. When they have no surplus they can pay with money.

schroedingershat , (edited )

Also renewables.

Also incorrect. We need whatever reduces total cumulative emissions the most.

A solar panel today does a lot more than a nuclear reactor in 2045. And installing 5W of solar (which will average 1W) today only costs you the opportunity to build 0.15W of nuclear (which will average 0.12W).

schroedingershat ,

Here’s an example of what can be done with 5 hours of storage. 5 hours is a 25% participation rate of V2G where the participants offer a third of their battery capacity.

…com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australi…

If going with the (false) assumption that nuclear can hit 100% grid penetration, it would take decades to offset the carbon released by causing a single year of delay.

The lowest carbon “let’s pretend storage is impossible and go with 100% nuclear” would still start with exclusively funding VRE.

schroedingershat ,

1kg of lithium produces about 10kWh of storage for 15-20 years. 3-12 hours of storage is plenty for a >95% VRE grid.

1kg of uranium produces about 750W for 6 years.

There are about 20 million tonnes of conventional lithium economically accessible reserves (and it has only been of economic interest for a short time).

There are about 10 million tonnes of reasonably assured accessible uranium (not reserves, stuff assumed to exist). It has had many boom/bust cycles of prospecting.

Lithium batteries are not even being proposed as the main grid storage method.

schroedingershat ,

Droughts could even affect pumped hydro: a much-touted solution to availability problems with wind and solar. For crying out loud, present both sides of the argument fairly! /end rant

Pumped hydro doesn’t consume nearly as much water as a thermal generator. Especially if you cover the reservoirs. It also gives you an emergency backup.

Would you prefer:

Option A where you immediately have no power when the river gets low,

Or option B where you still have power after the river gets low, but can also choose to give up the ability to have some of your power at the end of a week long cloudy period in exchange for water?

schroedingershat ,

NO2, methane from byproduct/digestion, soil carbon release from land overuse. Downstream methane release due to nitrate pollution.

The overwhelming majority of cropland is for “biofuel”, industrial chemicals and animal feed.

Industrial scale regenerative agriculture has lower yields in the short term, but doesn’t emit NO2 and leave behind a dust bowl (requiring clearing a new forest).

Eating crops directly rather than feeding cows is far more effective than changing fertilizer source. Eating organic crops uses a small fraction of the crop land that eating beef fed on intensively grown corn does.

Biointensive methods have many times the yield as industrial agriculture but are very labour intensive – automating them would save a lot more emissions.

Precision fermentation uses a tiny fraction of the land per unit of protein/nutrients.

schroedingershat ,

Fertilizer which they can’t make because the steam isn’t hot enough.

Every single pro nuclear argument is a fractal of terrible ideas and gaslighting.

schroedingershat ,

“Baseload generator” isn’t a useful concept. And grid reliability (which is a useful concept) is thought about. It just doesn’t fit into a soundbite like winddon’tblowsundon’tshine.

Here’s an example of a full plan aemo.com.au/en/…/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp

Or a simpler analysis on the same grid: …com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australi…

For reference, 5kWh home batteries currently retail for about $1300 so this would add <10% to the capital cost compared to recent nuclear projects. Pumped hydro is about half the price per capacity, but a bit more per watt. The former is dropping at 10-30% per year, so by the time a nuclear plant is finished, storage cost would be negligible.

Here’s a broad overview of a slightly simplified model www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z demonstrating similar is possible everywhere.

Even in the counterfactual case where the ~5% of “other” generation is only possible with fossil fuel, focusing on it is incredibly myopic because the resources spent on that 1% of global emissions could instead be used for the other 70% which isn’t from electricity and has different reliability constraints.

schroedingershat ,

If you include the full costs of the nuclear programs including the various subsidies, wind has been cheaper for decades, possibly since before nuclear was a thing.

schroedingershat ,

Cobalt isn’t even in most EV batteries anymore, and LMFP is replacing NMC next year.

Sodium ion will then replace LFP the year after.

It’s also real weird how people only ever care about french colonial exploitation of africa when it comes to materials they pretend are in renewables and not when they’re flooding villages drinking water with uranium tailings.

schroedingershat ,

Except overprovisioning your total load by 30% with nuclear capacity doesn’t allow turning the transient gas off

energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&a…

schroedingershat , (edited )

Like the free insurance, or the free loans, or the underfunded decomissioning and waste management, or the unremediated mines?

Or is it the storage and grid redundancy required to meet peak load with a generator that runs at constant output and shuts down for months at a time?

schroedingershat , (edited )

When you demand free insurance from someone they get to set the risk profile.

Tell you what. You put up collateral equal to the value of any nearby city and everything in it, and you can stop ALARA.

Also even with that it’s still bullshit. Nuclear had a higher negative learning rate before ALARA and is still horrifically expensive outside the US.

Also the suggestion that wind and solar aren’t subject to more extreme regulation on potential harms is even more ridiculous.

schroedingershat ,

Four points:

The profile of other is short spikes 5-100 hours a few times a year.

1 year of delay is equivalent to 20 years of exclusively using fossil fuels for “other”.

It’s not even obvious that adding nuclear reactors would reduce this because they’re so geographically and temporally inflexible. France has 63GW of nuclear capacity, <45GW of average load and 61GW of winter peak load with vast amounts of storage available via interconnect to hydro countries. They still use 5% gas on top of the rest of the “other” (which is about 10-25GW).

5% of other from gas adds about 20g CO2e/kg per kWh to the total. Less than the margin between different uranium sources.

Running 40% of the capacity 10% of the time puts your nuclear energy in the realm of $1-3/kWh. The list of ways of generating or storing 6% of your energy for <$1/kWh is basically endless.

That’s about 4-8TW of capacity worldwide. 1kg of uranium is good for fuelling about 750W of reactor on a 6 year fuel cycle. Loading those reactors would require digging up all of the known and assumed-to-exist uranium immediately.

Nuclear is an irrelevant distraction being pushed by those who know it will not work. You only have to glance at the policy history or donor base of the politicians pushing for it in Sweden, Canada, Australia, UK, Poland, etc etc or the media channels pushing it to see how obvious it is that it’s fossil fuel propaganda.

It is obviously obviously true that it’s a non-solution. It fails on every single metric. All of the talking points about alleged advantages are the opposite of the truth without exception.

schroedingershat ,

Adding 1GW that runs 80% of the time with months long outages to a grid that has 10GW of power available 95% of the time and 3GW 5% of the time doesn’t fix the issue and requires charging $4000/MWh rather than merely $200/MWh to pay back your boondoggle.

All the people chanting “baseload” understand this but pretend not to.

schroedingershat , (edited )

Yes. It costs less and requires less mining to use the most expensive and wasteful storage option. The only reason there aren’t more is a lack of sufficient investment in VRE required to make them useful.

schroedingershat ,

Another solution would be adding some intelligence to water heaters. Have a temperature control valve on the output where you set the temperature, and program the water heater get to 160-180°F when electricity is cheap. This would be a thermal battery that would easily level out demand for electricity for heating water.

This has been done for close to a century in wind or run of river hydro heavy countries (as well as some coal ones).

The water heater has a buffer tank and is attached to a meter that only runs when a signal is sent across the power line. This stores about 20kWh for a 300L tank.

Modern insulation would allow going up to a few m^3 for a couple weeks’ worth.

schroedingershat ,

Paltering.

Corn and soy grown for the purpose of large animal feed exceeds the amount of cropland used directly for human consumption in areas where <20% of calories and protein come from red meat.

schroedingershat ,

I said red meat. Pork and chicken need to go too, but that’snot as urgent.

schroedingershat ,

iowafarmbureau.com/…/Relative-Value-of-Soybean-Me…

Most of the revenue is the meal. Nobody would grow it for the oil.

Almost half of the oil is used for biodeisel. So even if it were exclusively for the oil (a lie) getting rid of 40% and getting rid of the meat would do more than green fertizer

Also all an attempt at distraction because humans could eat a plant grown there.

schroedingershat ,

Why is it supposed to be easier to get people onboard with nuclear (which is decreasing) than wind and solar (which are increasing at triple the rate of the nuclear construction peak in the 80s and growing at 20% p.a.)?

People are on board with VRE. Some of the are on board with nuclear too, but it’s not working.

schroedingershat ,

The U235 is good for about 3 years, and pinning everything on something that has never had more than a half proof of concept is a bad choice.

schroedingershat ,

Coal is filthy, but this is a myth and also an attempt at paltering.

Someone compared a poorly filtered coal plant running cherry picked coal to a brand new nuclear plant in the middle of its fuel cycle once decades ago and got the expected result.

When you open it and get the fuel out and when you mine the fuel it’s orders of magnitude more. Reprocessing plants like La Hague under normal operation release more of the long lived radiation than fukushima and TMI combined.

schroedingershat ,

Even if you could magically increase the number of nuclear reactors started before 2012 tenfold to keep up with wind and solar, you’d have to triple uranium mining overnight to fuel them for the first time.

schroedingershat ,

It was called horse and sparrow before that.

schroedingershat ,

The modern banking apparatus would devour any fixed standard currency in a few weeks by manipulating the value. It would be like being paid ij bitcoin. Every time the plebs needed to buy more than usual, money would be worthless. Every time they were short on money and needed to sell it would be super valuable.

The only fix is redistribution. Wealth exponentially agglomerates, you have to spread it out once it does or your economic system breaks.

Biden administration unveils first 10 drugs subject to Medicare price negotiations (www.cnbc.com)

The Biden administration on Tuesday unveiled the first 10 prescription drugs that will be subject to price negotiations between manufacturers and Medicare, kicking off a controversial process that aims to make costly medications more affordable for older Americans....

schroedingershat ,

Anyone who is 89 or younger was 9 when wwii ended. They did not fight in wwii. You are talking about some combination of silent generation and baby boomers.

Most if the US government is baby boomers or gen x. Only a handful are over 77

The Spotify Car Thing cost $100, but I can't use it anymore. (lemmy.ml)

EDIT: The only reason why I still had it at this point was because I could use it with other apps. However, now that my Spotify Subscription is cancelled, it doesn’t work with anything. It’s mildly infuriating because today, I can’t still use it with other apps like I was able to yesterday....

schroedingershat ,

You can buy gas from anyone. Even make your own in a digester.

Your gas stove is not cryptographically locked to one gas company.

schroedingershat ,

Yes, many much easier ways. A propane tank for one. Wet, high CO2 methane is really hard to make explode.

Do get a CO detector though.

schroedingershat ,

Look out! Communists are coming for your toothbrush. Better vote for harsher penalties for modifying stuff you bought. The DMCA still allows throwing away or disconnecting the computer locking you out of your heated seats.

schroedingershat ,

But car drivers crash into them and hurt themselves sometimes or birds perch and poop on cars. Not worth having trees /s

schroedingershat ,

You can buy the panels, inverter, racking and a battery which produces more than enough for anything smaller than a mansion for <$10k. Batteries are also not really necessary and can be added later.

Why are you paying > $20k for someone to put in 60 screws and a piece of conduit?

schroedingershat ,

Pv is now around $30/m^2 wholesale and $60/m^2 retail.

Not much more expensive than a sheet metal roof (far cheaper than a mature tree after all the water and tending), but a sheet metal roof doesn’t produce $100/yr worth of electricity.

Tree good. If can’t afford tree, then pv obvious choice.

schroedingershat ,

Wild concept: It’s possible to offer a fair price to someone who can. You don’t need to pay $20k for one day’s labour (although you probably do need to pay about $1k for an hour for a licensed electrician to inspect and do the final hookup if you want to AC feed for winter and cloudy days). You do not need to pay $1/W or wait years for grid tie if you have a battery and size for self consumption.

Given how thoroughly ripped off you are and how dismissive you are of the price people in civilised countries consider normal, I’ll assume you’re in the US. Signature solar sell panels for 31c/W hybrid off-grid inverters for $2k and batteries for $280/kWh. You can probably do better if you look around and don’t just listen to the door to door MLM scammers.

schroedingershat ,

You’re just spreading propaganda.

If you don’t personally want a thing then just shut up rather than polluting a discussion about a completely different use case.

schroedingershat ,

Wouldn’t it depend on the artificial structure and how much water you are adding?

Like a piece of foam painted with pure white IR-emissive CaCO2 is going to be >10 degrees cooler than a black panel with an air gap and glass.

There are likely tradeoffs (water and cost for the tree being the main downside).

Personally I think both is good pv-magazine.com/…/sunagri-reveals-agrivoltaics-pe…

Less water, more elecricity and cooler temps than either alone.

schroedingershat ,

It’s always correct to dismiss concern trolls.

schroedingershat ,

Yup. Definite concern troll behavior.

Pretending the worst prices in the most expensive place in the world for solar are normal. Then pulling the hostage shield politics card in a thread about public spending. Now crying victim.

Completely standard conservative reactionary behavior.

schroedingershat ,

Isn’t there a decent argument they’ve abandoned the trademark?

schroedingershat ,

Elaboration on the reasons why would be nice.

Japan says seawater radioactivity below limits near Fukushima (www.channelnewsasia.com)

Tests of seawater near Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant have not detected any radioactivity, the environment ministry said on Sunday (Aug 27), days after authorities began discharging into the sea treated water used to cool damaged reactors....

schroedingershat ,

Because no human activity could ever have effects that accumulate at the macro scale. All that plastic has been successfully diluted and SO2, CO, CFCs and CO2 are all harmless once released.

schroedingershat ,

Yeah because it’s not as if TEPCO would lie to the public about danger they were in. or try to release water that wasn’t safe by not planning to have anywhere to store it or fail to filter the way they claimed

They’re definitely trustworthy this time. Anyone who doesn’t believe everything they say is just crazy, there is absolutely no reason to not take everything they say at face value. Why are you even checking?

Realistically this is China playing political games, but it is also Japan playing political games to try and paint all the times they were lying and there was danger (andnall the times they intend to lie) as innocuous.

schroedingershat ,

I seem to remember tepco doing something where they cut corners and lied and put the japanese people in danger and cost them $400 billion and then lied about the cleanup and cut corners further contaminating fisheries for 9 years.

I can’t quite remember what that was. Must have been chinese propaganda.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •