Nuclear Power Plant

[grimmjeeper]

If only - I’ve been hearing it’s about 7 years away since the late 70’s or early 80’s the latest does look promising though so maybe someday the 7 years will be accurate.

It's hard to say for sure. They only just recently got a fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes. And while this is a great milestone, there is still a lot of work to do.

It's possible someone could have a breakthrough and it could happen in 7 years. But it's more likely going to be a slow slog with lots of people doing lots of work for decades. Depends a lot on how much is invested in R&D.

Sponsored

 

[Nitehawk92]

Any nuclear plant they could build today would be infinitely safer than any plant built in the past. Not so sure that it would be as good of an idea to reactivate 50 year old plants. The technological advances that has been made since the 1970's and 80's are amazing. Nuclear energy is much cleaner energy then typical power plants. People just fear nuclear energy due to accidents from the past...

 

[pablo_max3045]

It's hard to say for sure. They only just recently got a fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes. And while this is a great milestone, there is still a lot of work to do.

It's possible someone could have a breakthrough and it could happen in 7 years. But it's more likely going to be a slow slog with lots of people doing lots of work for decades. Depends a lot on how much is invested in R&D.

Even if they returned a Q greater than 7 next Tuesday, which is real net positive for fusion, it still wouldn't be possible to build a commercial plant in 7 years.
The planning a permission stages for a fission plant is on the order of 20 years. For a tried a true tech.
Fusion plants will produce radio active waste, just a lot less, and we have no idea what happens when someone crashes a plane into it. So, expect an obscenely long and expensive approval process.
Regardless, we are at least 10 years from getting a Q that high. They like to talk about getting a Q of 1 as breakeven, but it's bullshit and done to secure funding.
It only accounts for the power released at that moment relative to the output. Not all the power to charge up the confinement field and all the extra stuff.
Fusion will happen someday, but I will be surprised if it happens on anything larger than a test scale in my lifetime.
Geothermal, Fission, solar/wind + gravity storage or other cheap means are the currently viable path in my opinion to move towards net zero while still having enough power to actually do work.

 

[Plumbean]

Any nuclear plant they could build today would be infinitely safer than any plant built in the past. Not so sure that it would be as good of an idea to reactivate 50 year old plants. The technological advances that has been made since the 1970's and 80's are amazing. Nuclear energy is much cleaner energy then typical power plants. People just fear nuclear energy due to accidents from the past...

Every major nuclear accident has at its core (ahem) an element of human hubris/error.

 

[RockAltered]

So, in a billion years we will be fossil fuel for the inhabitants ?

 

[Matanzas]

Everyone talking about small modular reactors (SMRs) for data centers.

 

[Flip]

I would also say that was pretty unclear from your post. It seemed like you were ranting against EV's because then we would need to have nuclear plants, which is bad because, reasons.

The fact is, nuclear is the only viable "green" option that currently exists today. Unfortunately, China is the only country who is actively installing "next generation" plants, that I am aware of at least.

Geothermal is another possible option, with companies like Quaise Energy an their plan to use plasma drills to get to depths needed for super critical steam. It's not been tried in real life yet though.

EVs or not, most of the western world needs to spend trillions to update their electrical infrastructure because it old as electricity and falling apart.
But, that means a shit ton of jobs, so it's not a bad thing.

No, I'm not against EV's as I stated in my original post. I had originally posted; you can't stop technology, it can't be done, just ask Ted Kaczynski. Since my original post Ted died in June, 2023 so I left it out. Unlike Ted I'm a firm believer technology cannot be stopped, there's no reason for me to be against EV vehicles. However, because of EV's this will increase the demand for electricity. A lot of naysayers thought Solar & Windmills would sustain the demand, that would be great! Roughly 10 years ago I met with a group of engineers from MD, PA, VA, NC. Everyone had agreed on one thing, it would not sustain the demand, we will more than likely need more Nuclear Power Plants. This was just a theory but it seems to be happening.

Nuclear energy is a zero-emission clean energy source, which is great but like fossil fuels, nuclear fuels are non-renewable energy resources. Like I said I'm not against Nuclear power plants either, why? Because I want my electricity besides that my garden is spitting out 5lb tomato's.

Keep in mind, there are a lot of people against NP. Do you think they have a legitimate complaint, do you think Nuclear Power Plants are good for the earth?

This is a friendly conversation, nothing more.

 

[grimmjeeper]

Even if they returned a Q greater than 7 next Tuesday, which is real net positive for fusion, it still wouldn't be possible to build a commercial plant in 7 years.
The planning a permission stages for a fission plant is on the order of 20 years. For a tried a true tech.
Fusion plants will produce radio active waste, just a lot less, and we have no idea what happens when someone crashes a plane into it. So, expect an obscenely long and expensive approval process.
Regardless, we are at least 10 years from getting a Q that high. They like to talk about getting a Q of 1 as breakeven, but it's bullshit and done to secure funding.
It only accounts for the power released at that moment relative to the output. Not all the power to charge up the confinement field and all the extra stuff.
Fusion will happen someday, but I will be surprised if it happens on anything larger than a test scale in my lifetime.
Geothermal, Fission, solar/wind + gravity storage or other cheap means are the currently viable path in my opinion to move towards net zero while still having enough power to actually do work.

I certainly agree that the process to make a working plant will be well above 7 years. I was thinking 7 years was for someone to have the breakthrough that can then be turned into real world working reactors.

And I'm curious what radioactive waste you think is being produced. Everything I've seen is that the hydrogen fuses to helium, neither of which is particularly radioactive.

 

[pablo_max3045]

I certainly agree that the process to make a working plant will be well above 7 years. I was thinking 7 years was for someone to have the breakthrough that can then be turned into real world working reactors.

And I'm curious what radioactive waste you think is being produced. Everything I've seen is that the hydrogen fuses to helium, neither of which is particularly radioactive.

Tritium and plenty of it. Not as bad as what you get with fission and a WAY shorter half life. 100 years vs 1000's of years.
Still, it's radio active waste and therefore will take a very long time for approval and studies.

 

[grimmjeeper]

Tritium and plenty of it. Not as bad as what you get with fission and a WAY shorter half life. 100 years vs 1000's of years.
Still, it's radio active waste and therefore will take a very long time for approval and studies.

I was under the impression that tritium was consumed during fusion and not released as a byproduct.

https://www.iaea.org/topics/energy/...eactor produces helium,its half life is short.

 

[pablo_max3045]

No, I'm not against EV's as I stated in my original post. I had originally posted, you can't stop technology, it can't be done, just ask Ted Kaczynski. Since my original post Ted died in June, 2023 so I left it out. Unlike Ted I'm a firm believer technology cannot be stopped, there's no reason for me to be against EV vehicles. However, because of EV's this will increase the demand for electricity. A lot of naysayers thought Solar & Windmills would sustain the demand, that would be great! Roughly 10 years ago I met with a group of engineers from MD, PA, VA, NC. Everyone had agreed on one thing, it would not sustain the demand, we will more than likely need more Nuclear Power Plants. This was just a theory but it seems to be happening.

Nuclear energy is a zero-emission clean energy source, which is great but like fossil fuels, nuclear fuels are non-renewable energy resources. Like I said I'm not against Nuclear power plants either, why? Because I want my electricity besides that my garden is spitting out 5lb tomato's.

Keep in mind, there are a lot of people against NP. Do you think they have a legitimate complaint, do you think Nuclear Power Plants are good for the earth?

This is a friendly conversation, nothing more.

I would point out that currently, Nuclear power is far and away the most costly way to make energy. The plants are orders of magnitude more expensive also.
That's down to using 1950's era tech and an miles of paperwork and approvals. For a new gas plant or massive solar farm, think millions. For a new fission plant, it's billions.
Some people think small scale plants like Nuscale could work, but I am not sure. Looking at the numbers I am not sure it's viable.
Like I said, China is the only one actually dumping money into rollout of next gen stuff. They are turning on a full scale thorium plant this year. Still a problem with high level waste and by some accounts it's actually easier to make a bomb with thorium waste, but it does not have the same run-away risk.

The main reason why there will not be any investment in such things in a large scale in the US is simple though. The companies are privately held. Why spend money on a new plant when we can just use "peak pricing" and charge you 10 times the normal rate?

 

[pablo_max3045]

I was under the impression that tritium was consumed during fusion and not released as a byproduct.

https://www.iaea.org/topics/energy/fusion/faqs#:~:text=A fusion reactor produces helium,its half life is short.

Depends. With a deuterium-tritium reaction, which is the preferred method, It does consume tritium in the reaction. Normally it should be deuterium-tritium fuel in a lithium shell. Only about 10 or less is consumed. Depending on the style, you can theoretically re-burn, but since we have no working plants, it's hard to say.

 

[2nd 392]

No, I'm not against EV's as I stated in my original post. I had originally posted; you can't stop technology, it can't be done, just ask Ted Kaczynski. Since my original post Ted died in June, 2023 so I left it out. Unlike Ted I'm a firm believer technology cannot be stopped, there's no reason for me to be against EV vehicles. However, because of EV's this will increase the demand for electricity. A lot of naysayers thought Solar & Windmills would sustain the demand, that would be great! Roughly 10 years ago I met with a group of engineers from MD, PA, VA, NC. Everyone had agreed on one thing, it would not sustain the demand, we will more than likely need more Nuclear Power Plants. This was just a theory but it seems to be happening.

Nuclear energy is a zero-emission clean energy source, which is great but like fossil fuels, nuclear fuels are non-renewable energy resources. Like I said I'm not against Nuclear power plants either, why? Because I want my electricity besides that my garden is spitting out 5lb tomato's.

Keep in mind, there are a lot of people against NP. Do you think they have a legitimate complaint, do you think Nuclear Power Plants are good for the earth?

This is a friendly conversation, nothing more.

The grid’s capabilities ? Where would it be without all the people like me with home solar connected, and battery backup to drain to 50% daily…… they now want to use your EV the same way.
- we don’t need no stinking nuke plants.

 

[Flip]

The grid’s capabilities ? Where would it be without all the people like me with home solar connected, and battery backup to drain to 50% daily…… they now want to use your EV the same way.
- we don’t need no stinking nuke plants.

I completely understand, unfortunately that's the direction we seem to be headed in. Don't worry ol' buddy, I don't think old guys like us have to worry about them.

 

[2nd 392]

I completely understand, unfortunately that's the direction we seem to be headed in. Don't worry ol' buddy, I don't think old guys like us have to worry about them.

Home batteries charge during the day, power used during peak along with the connected systems. Charge EV’s at night, they want to drain them during the day to support the grid. Hey man, they got it all figured out, uh unless an outage and you need your backup, or your EV with depleted batteries. Here in Ca they tell you when not to charge your EV, regardless of when you need it. That’s for you to figure out …
Good luck suckers.

Sponsored