Energy

[azgreg]

 

[AlpineSummer]

Growing from a low base, but good news. 

[azgreg]

 

[AlpineSummer]

On 6/10/2024 at 6:08 PM, azgreg said:

 

Half expected Joe from Wyo to be in the pic.  Cool. Might go through Kemmerer on the way to NoCO later this summer. 

[Bison]

Drove through Kemmer last month and it’s understandable why that location was chosen.

[Orange]

I’d be more excited by breaking ground in a network of passenger. rail systems the likes of which they have in Europe.  

[renoskier]

On 6/10/2024 at 9:19 PM, Orange said:

I’d be more excited by breaking ground in a network of passenger. rail systems the likes of which they have in Europe.  

if you want that you're gonna need electricity 

[Orange]

On 6/10/2024 at 9:27 PM, renoskier said:

if you want that you're gonna need electricity 

Honestly, using coal to run train lines like they’ve got in Europe would be more climate-friendly than using nuclear to continue to power a world with endless roads for automobiles.  

[Nevada Convert]

On 6/10/2024 at 10:50 AM, azgreg said:

 

Solar is fine as a temporary stop gap, but it’s not the future at all. The future is nuclear. 

Think about the trillions of solar panels that will have to be put in a landfill. It doesn’t make sense to recycle solar panels because it’s very labor and energy intensive. And China makes most of them and have the materials to do so. It’s a long term big loser. 

Small Modular Reactors are the future. They’ll be available in 2027. This Westinghouse AP300 SMR will power 300,000 homes for 80+ years with minimal maintenance. They cost $1 billion, but serving about a million people for 80+ years spreads that cost out. Over time, technology will lower the cost. 

https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/flysheet-directory/ap300-smr-most-advanced-proven-readily-deployable-smr-solution/

[Orange]

On 6/10/2024 at 10:19 PM, Nevada Convert said:

Solar is fine as a temporary stop gap, but it’s not the future at all. The future is nuclear. 

Think about the trillions of solar panels that will have to be put in a landfill. It doesn’t make sense to recycle solar panels because it’s very labor and energy intensive. And China makes most of them and have the materials to do so. It’s a long term big loser. 

Small Modular Reactors are the future. They’ll be available in 2027. This Westinghouse AP300 SMR will power 300,000 homes for 80+ years with minimal maintenance. They cost $1 billion, but serving about a million people for 80+ years spreads that cost out. Over time, technology will lower the cost. 

https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/flysheet-directory/ap300-smr-most-advanced-proven-readily-deployable-smr-solution/

Yep, and nuclear power plants have ONLY occasionally threatened to turn several states’ worth of area into no-go dead zones.  Totally fine!

[CV147]

My understanding is that Small Modular Reactors can't melt down.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/08/29/how-far-do-you-have-to-run-after-a-small-modular-nuclear-meltdown/

Quote

It turns out you don’t have to run at all. First, they really can’t melt down. Second, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission just agreed that any emergencies that could possibly occur at a small modular nuclear power plant probably won’t even get past the fence.

No need to come up with huge evacuation plans for nearby cities or anyone living near the plant, like we did for older plants. You can just stand there at the fence and watch what’s going on.

The NRC’s openness to reducing the EPZs for SMRs came in evaluating a Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) application for an early site permit to determine a reasonable Emergency Protection Zone (EPZ) for their proposed new small modular reactor site near Clinch River. TVA's application included information on NuScale’s SMR which is the most detailed and the farthest along of all reactors.

 

[Orange]

Yes, and we were told Chernobyl and Fukushima were foolproof, too. 

[azgreg]

On 6/11/2024 at 9:40 AM, Orange said:

Yes, and we were told Chernobyl and Fukushima were foolproof, too. 

Using your logic the first time someone was killed in a car accident would've been the last time we made cars.

 

[Orange]

On 6/11/2024 at 9:45 AM, azgreg said:

Using your logic the first time someone was killed in a car accident would've been the last time we made cars.

 

I’m not against!   Cars are a big reason why we’re in this energy mess and likely to see the death of the oceans and the human race in our grandkids’ grandkids lifetime.  
 

anyway, the risk of a car accident is a few people dead.   The only risk of nuclear meltdown is “we can’t inhabit an area the size of Ukraine”.   

[retrofade]

On 6/11/2024 at 10:11 AM, Orange said:

I’m not against!   Cars are a big reason why we’re in this energy mess and likely to see the death of the oceans and the human race in our grandkids’ grandkids lifetime.  
 

anyway, the risk of a car accident is a few people dead.   The only risk of nuclear meltdown is “we can’t inhabit an area the size of Ukraine”.   

Modern nuclear power plants aren't at risk of rendering entire areas at risk of inhabitation to the degree you're claiming. 

Chornobyl, which wasn't designed well and run by Soviets who cheaped out on everything, was a massive disaster, certainly. But not to the size of Ukraine. Still an absolute tragedy. Fukushima affected around 300 square miles. You sit here and rant and rave about how the planet will die imminently, but you're uninterested in new technological advances that can bring about change to prevent it. Why? Because you've apparently been taught your entire life that nuclear = bad because of those two incidents. One was an absolute tragedy, and the other was handled relatively well, all things considered. 

Have you ever visited a nuclear power plant or have any experience in the utility industry? I have visited one and worked for a company that was the joint owner of a plant. I lived less than ten miles from one in the past. They are very safeguarded and provide a lot of power, and the newer technologies make them even more efficient, easier to build, and safer to operate.

 

[Orange]

On 6/11/2024 at 5:56 PM, retrofade said:

Modern nuclear power plants aren't at risk of rendering entire areas at risk of inhabitation to the degree you're claiming. 

Chornobyl, which wasn't designed well and run by Soviets who cheaped out on everything, was a massive disaster, certainly. But not to the size of Ukraine. Still an absolute tragedy. Fukushima affected around 300 square miles. You sit here and rant and rave about how the planet will die imminently, but you're uninterested in new technological advances that can bring about change to prevent it. Why? Because you've apparently been taught your entire life that nuclear = bad because of those two incidents. One was an absolute tragedy, and the other was handled relatively well, all things considered. 

Have you ever visited a nuclear power plant or have any experience in the utility industry? I have visited one and worked for a company that was the joint owner of a plant. I lived less than ten miles from one in the past. They are very safeguarded and provide a lot of power, and the newer technologies make them even more efficient, easier to build, and safer to operate.

 

Again, in a retrospective on PBS, they talked extensively about how Fukushima was incapable of causing the kind of fallout it did (even despite the obvious foreseeability of a tsunami in Japan).  
 

Wanna impress me with green tech?  Remake cities to be walkable.  Criss-cross the US with public transport.  End planned obsolescence.  Nuclear power won’t get it done.  To have nukes power the world we’d need some 50-100 years to get it done, and by then, we’re WELL past the 2 degrees Celsius rise that we know will kill billions and destabilize the planet. 
 

No, I’m not impressed with nuclear.  Sure, the vast majority are safe and (sorta) green, yet all it takes is one or two and suddenly there is generational cancer across an entire continent.  Humans aren’t capable of tightrope walking to that degree.   Christ, look at all the fears in Ukraine right now with Russia shooting up plants.  Are you serious?

[retrofade]

On 6/11/2024 at 6:18 PM, Orange said:

Again, in a retrospective on PBS, they talked extensively about how Fukushima was incapable of causing the kind of fallout it did (even despite the obvious foreseeability of a tsunami in Japan).  
 

Wanna impress me with green tech?  Remake cities to be walkable.  Criss-cross the US with public transport.  End planned obsolescence.  Nuclear power won’t get it done.  To have nukes power the world we’d need some 50-100 years to get it done, and by then, we’re WELL past the 2 degrees Celsius rise that we know will kill billions and destabilize the planet. 
 

No, I’m not impressed with nuclear.  Sure, the vast majority are safe and (sorta) green, yet all it takes is one or two and suddenly there is generational cancer across an entire continent.  Humans aren’t capable of tightrope walking to that degree.   Christ, look at all the fears in Ukraine right now with Russia shooting up plants.  Are you serious?

Yet all of that would take just as long, if not longer, than the rollout of nuclear technology. 

I agree with you on the principle of better transportation. Things like light and commuter rail need to become prominent, especially when expanding existing cities. But look at the sheer size of the United States... what you're proposing doesn't. eliminate cars. High-speed rail should also exist; I'd love to take an HSR from the East Coast to the West Coast. It would have been nice to have done that a few weeks ago when I drove it. 

So again, I come back to the parallel paths. There's no reason why these things shouldn't be worked on in tandem, despite what you're saying. 

 

[Orange]

On 6/11/2024 at 6:34 PM, retrofade said:

Yet all of that would take just as long, if not longer, than the rollout of nuclear technology. 

I agree with you on the principle of better transportation. Things like light and commuter rail need to become prominent, especially when expanding existing cities. But look at the sheer size of the United States... what you're proposing doesn't. eliminate cars. High-speed rail should also exist; I'd love to take an HSR from the East Coast to the West Coast. It would have been nice to have done that a few weeks ago when I drove it. 

So again, I come back to the parallel paths. There's no reason why these things shouldn't be worked on in tandem, despite what you're saying. 

 

Nuclear’s insanely expensive and takes years, sometimes decades to build.  If you wanna starve oil and gas subsidies in favor of nukes, I’d be at the table.  But let’s not pretend we have some safety silver bullet with nuclear considering humanity’s track record.  I realize risks are a part of life but it’s truly only nuclear that has the potential to destroy all life on earth (unlike climate change, which will likely only kill most of it). 

[stanfordchef]

Part of the reason I’m not gung ho on solar is because of the ecological damage in desert ecosystems it creates owing to the large scale of land needed for solar farms. This is a prime example:

https://www.ecowatch.com/solar-project-mojave-desert-joshua-trees-tortoises.html
 

yeah let’s kill thousands of endangered plants and habitats for endangered animals so rich pricks in LA can feel good about using solar power. 

[Orange]

On 6/12/2024 at 7:11 PM, Joe from Wyo said:

Part of the reason I’m not gung ho on solar is because of the ecological damage in desert ecosystems it creates owing to the large scale of land needed for solar farms. This is a prime example:

https://www.ecowatch.com/solar-project-mojave-desert-joshua-trees-tortoises.html
 

yeah let’s kill thousands of endangered plants and habitats for endangered animals so rich pricks in LA can feel good about using solar power. 

Yes, let’s bleach all of the coral reefs in the world with fossil fuels because Fox News said that solar farms kill a few tortoises.