New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#26 2019-11-05 16:05:50

Calliban
Member
From: Northern England, UK
Registered: 2019-08-18
Posts: 530

Re: Low-cost nuclear reactors

louis wrote:

Do they know something we don't? Yep...if you use free prison labour to build nuclear reactors you can build them more cheaply...

Seriously, take a look at this projection from BP:

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/busin … -china.pdf

The analysis states "Nuclear increases by 7.3% p.a. from 2017 to 2040, and China accounts for 37% of global nuclear power generation in 2040. Renewables expand rapidly, rising by8.5% p.a. to 2040, and accounting for 26% of global renewables by then" - so renewables are growing at a faster rate than nuclear. Do you think that means they know something else?

Yes.  The Chinese have a lot of legacy coal plants, with capital cost long paid off.  The only costs are fuel and operating labour.  Trouble is, Chinese coal production has peaked; coal prices are rising and air pollution in China kills a couple of million people per year.  Although winfd and solar plants are not cheap, it makes economic and societal sense to build them and use the coal plants as backup power plants.  This reduces fuel consumption and pollution, which outweighs the wasted operating costs.

The trouble will come when the coal plants reach the end of their lives and need replacement.  Building a few wind turbines to reduce coal consumption in an old plant is one thing.  But building a state of the art coal powerplant to function as dedicated backup is quite another.  At a stroke, it doubles the cost of power.  So renewables make sense as a short-term strategy, but not so well in the long run, because two power plants are needed instead of one.  If storage is used, make that 2.5 power plants.  Not many countries can afford that.  Which is why the Chinese are building nuke plants as quickly as they can.  You only need one nuke plant to produce a GW of power.  No need for backup.  No one ever escapes the second law of thermodynamics.

Last edited by Calliban (2019-11-05 16:08:53)


Interested in space science, engineering and technology.

Offline

#27 2019-11-05 18:08:28

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 5,868

Re: Low-cost nuclear reactors

Wind energy will continue to decline in cost but the reductions will not be as steep as with solar.

I believe that already it could well be economic in some parts of the USA now to have PV plus methane storage, at least for daylight hours.  Last time I looked at this I was getting a figure of about 20 cents per KwH for methane manufactured from air and water using PV in the best locations.  The problem may be that in the SW USA there is not already a methane infrastructure as in Western Europe and some parts of the USA.


Calliban wrote:
louis wrote:

Do they know something we don't? Yep...if you use free prison labour to build nuclear reactors you can build them more cheaply...

Seriously, take a look at this projection from BP:

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/busin … -china.pdf

The analysis states "Nuclear increases by 7.3% p.a. from 2017 to 2040, and China accounts for 37% of global nuclear power generation in 2040. Renewables expand rapidly, rising by8.5% p.a. to 2040, and accounting for 26% of global renewables by then" - so renewables are growing at a faster rate than nuclear. Do you think that means they know something else?

Yes.  The Chinese have a lot of legacy coal plants, with capital cost long paid off.  The only costs are fuel and operating labour.  Trouble is, Chinese coal production has peaked; coal prices are rising and air pollution in China kills a couple of million people per year.  Although winfd and solar plants are not cheap, it makes economic and societal sense to build them and use the coal plants as backup power plants.  This reduces fuel consumption and pollution, which outweighs the wasted operating costs.

The trouble will come when the coal plants reach the end of their lives and need replacement.  Building a few wind turbines to reduce coal consumption in an old plant is one thing.  But building a state of the art coal powerplant to function as dedicated backup is quite another.  At a stroke, it doubles the cost of power.  So renewables make sense as a short-term strategy, but not so well in the long run, because two power plants are needed instead of one.  If storage is used, make that 2.5 power plants.  Not many countries can afford that.  Which is why the Chinese are building nuke plants as quickly as they can.  You only need one nuke plant to produce a GW of power.  No need for backup.  No one ever escapes the second law of thermodynamics.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#28 2019-11-05 18:24:50

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 19,686

Re: Low-cost nuclear reactors

Well if its the cost to the consumer that matters than 20 cents for an equal quantity of energy means that I will stick with my high level of power from the electric company thats selling it for 9 cents. So what is the costs for energy in any form?

capital investment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_e … _by_source

consumer cost are not as easy is is more varied with local and type of source with many companies subsiding there cost to the consumer with cheaper sources so as to maximize there profits while still charging more for the connection to the pole supply.

The investment for the consumer if you have the funds when compared to what you get currectly take a long time to pay off and to equalize out to a net zero for comparison over time.

Offline

#29 2019-11-05 19:01:08

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 3,496

Re: Low-cost nuclear reactors

For SpaceNut ... this item is hard for me to place, so if you want to move it please do.

The article is about Bill Gates funding research to make carbon fiber out of coal, even though the title is about his attempt to fund nuclear reactors.

I'm hoping kbd512 will be interested to see this line of research, because he has posted on numerous occasions about the economic value of pure carbon, for manufacture of a wide range of valuable products.

I ** really ** like the idea of finding a better use for coal than burning it, and hope this initiative succeeds in the marketplace.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-vent … 56952.html

(th)

Offline

#30 2019-11-05 19:25:29

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 19,686

Re: Low-cost nuclear reactors

Went looking for KBD512 posts as that was the use of carbon in nano tube applications, topics found listed next but still looking for the post which is way newer..

Carbon nano tube straw for fuel transfer to space

Physics transfers fuel inside carbon nano tube - fuel into space

Capillary action in a carbon nanotube???

Colonizing / terraforming small asteroids

CNT Flywheels vs Batteries for Energy Storage

Power to Ammonia for Energy Storage

If I recall the post was in regards to carbon capture and use in creating fibers for frames and body parts for vehicles under a fuel cell topic.

Need to check for CNT as well since its being used as the abbreviation

big post with links for CNT by kbd512 in the topic Technology needed for Mars which is the one we remembered along with this one Fuel Cell Development, Application, Prospects

Offline

#31 2019-11-05 22:11:49

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 3,496

Re: Low-cost nuclear reactors

For SpaceNut .... First, thanks for finding all those neat links about Carbon as it relates to the idea (still in research) of making useful products out of coal.

Here is another link which is a stretch for this topic, but there ** is ** a connection to many posts in this forum in the past year (and likely before)

The article reports on research indicating that progress with pulsed lasers is moving in the direction of a capability to transmute elements, and thus could be used to detoxify nuclear waste.  We have a forum contributor whose ID has a French aspect who's been writing recently about transmutation for manufacturing purposes, so this new capability might be of interest.

The specific technique described is to apply a laser pulse to knock a proton out of a nucleus.  I find that concept to be surprising at first reading, but perhaps it shouldn't be, because something like that already happens when a massive particle such as a neutron enters a nucleus.

The difference (as I understand it) is that the arriving object would be a photon of sufficient energy to achieve transmutation.

In any case, I am looking forward to comments that may show up here in the forum, as contributors have time to evaluate the article.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/nobe … 00349.html

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-11-05 22:12:48)

Offline

#32 2019-11-06 21:17:09

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 19,686

Re: Low-cost nuclear reactors

Wind is a very plausible energy creator in just the correct location but there are those that do not want it arguing its killing birds, they are noise makers and yes they are unsightly. Some have gone to no end to block the building of of these large windmill farms and have gone to the point of purchasing land adjecent to property such that they are not letting current sites expand.
I was reminded about the Groton wind Farm that can be seen as you drive north on route 95 setting high on the hillside turning out 48-megawatt with Annual net output 144 - 158 GWh....with nearly none lowering the energy cost to NH residents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_powe … _Hampshire

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB