The link I gave, had some suggestions as to how to address this.and temperature is getting worse all across Europe.
Its something all thermal systems need to consider going forward.
The link I gave, had some suggestions as to how to address this.and temperature is getting worse all across Europe.
Who said we see anything that they don't? The hurdles aren't technical, they are political. But companies need to consider political hurdles, because they can destroy a company. Nobody in favor of nuclear energy denies that. In fact, that's largely what we seek: removal of the political hurdles that are preventing nuclear energy adoption.
utter BS.
You believe in the fairy tale of the Almighty Green Lobby, and not the actual millions of donations and hoards of lobbyists the energy sector throws at Washington.
Just as with Smoking not being bad, the lie about progress being held up by nasty backwards hippies is just that - a fabrication. Energy Companies don't want the risks of Nuclear, not when the rewards are so tiny - but they the blame others for their lack of innovation.
You, as almost everyone, think US centric.
But none of your concerns apply to China, which, politically, could build as many reactors as it wants, but prefers to get most of its energy from renewables.
Are the Chinese idiots? Stooges of Greenpeace? Too scared of public backlash?
But none of your concerns apply to China, which, politically, could build as many reactors as it wants, but prefers to get most of its energy from renewables.
Are the Chinese idiots? Stooges of Greenpeace? Too scared of public backlash?
This is very strange. First off, regardless of what China prefers, in reality it gets most of its electricity from coal, by a large margin...
And are you under the impression that China isn't building more nuclear reactors? Because they are. They're building a lot of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
"As of February 2023, China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW."
The USA is the world's largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for about 30% of worldwide generation of nuclear electricity...
Some states have liberalized wholesale electricity markets, which makes the financing of capital-intensive power projects difficult, and coupled with lower gas prices since 2009, have put the economic viability of some existing reactors and proposed projects in doubt...
Despite a near halt in new construction for more than 30 years, US reliance on nuclear power has grown. In 1980, nuclear plants produced 251 TWh, accounting for 11% of the country's electricity generation. In 2019, that output had risen to 809 TWh... Much of the increase came from the 47 reactors, all approved for construction before 1977, that came online in the late 1970s and 1980s, more than doubling US nuclear generation capacity. The US nuclear industry has also achieved remarkable gains in power plant utilisation through improved refuelling, maintenance and safety systems at existing plants.
And it wasn't just 'greenies' who were concerned. Just think what it would do to Nuclear's reputation if a reactor blew up in a populated area. The whole industry would be toast. So they have to do whatever it takes to ensure that doesn't happen. If that means plants cost more and take longer to build, so be it.Until 2013 there had been no new construction starts since 1977, largely because for a number of years gas generation was considered more economically attractive and because construction schedules during the 1970s and 1980s had frequently been extended by opposition, and compounded by heightened safety fears following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.
And they are continuing to ramp up coal use, not decrease it
The main reason China is building 'more' coal plants is that they are replacing inefficient local plants (eg. in factories) with centralized plants that use less coal. The reason for increased overcapacity is to provide a backup in case other sources can't supply due to eg. extreme weather. If things go to plan then nuclear and renewables may soon make those plants redundant.China is adding more coal capacity, but its plants are running less often...
In the first decade of the 2000s, plants were running around 70% of the time. They’re now running around 50%. We can also see this in operating hours data from the National Energy Administration (NEA) of China.
If utilisation rates continue to drop, China’s coal use could fall despite it adding more capacity...
China is offering ‘capacity payments’ to power plants to keep them online. This provides plants with a source of income even when they’re not being used. Some project that by the end of the decade many coal plants will be making more money from not running than actually producing power...
That’s a paradox that I think most people aren’t aware of. They see China building new plants and assume that its emissions will keep rising.
If things go to plan then nuclear and renewables may soon make those plants redundant.
oh??And nuclear is not playing a significant part in that project
It certainly is playing a part in China's run at net zero.China has 22 nuclear reactors under construction, many more than any other country.30 Nov 2023
oh??
It certainly is playing a part in China's run at net zero.
China is installing the wind and solar equivalent of five large nuclear power stations per week
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-07-16/chinas-renewable-energy-boom-breaks-records/104086640
at this point, nuclear power is a curiosity, a science project for China.
It is not a relevant part of the energy mix, and is not planned to be one, barring major technological advances.
You cannot deny China the opportunity to build their societal wealth partially on fossil fuel
at this point, nuclear power is a curiosity, a science project for China.
It is not a relevant part of the energy mix, and is not planned to be one, barring major technological advances.
China is also installing more hydroelectric power, which provides the same type of supply as nuclear. Including a plan for a 60GW plant (big IF it gets built), as well as many other sites:
https://www.power-technology.com/da...an Wah Rang,State Grid Qinghai Electric Power.
The Medog project (the 60GW project) is just insane, not just in scale, but for so many issues around it. May not get done, so will likely need more nuclear (see comment about type of supply).
Hydro is completely unlike Nuclear Power.
The MAIN POINT about Hydro is that you can use it to produce as well as store power, as required to balance the Grid.
Hydro is there to complement Renewables, to balance the different between peak output and low output.
It does nothing for a Reactor that has be kept online, because it takes a long time to power down and up again.
Hydro, as well as any other energy storage, is desirable for investors, because you can do electricity arbitrage with them.
You can't with Nuclear Power, small or otherwise.
Hydro can provide baseload supply, unlike other wind/solar, but like nuclear power. Were you not aware?
You missed the point. Hydro can provide baseload, but with renewables, it is better to use it when there is not enough wind and solar, as it can be turned off and on quickly and easily. With nuclear power, the only way to use it is 24 by 7 as it cannot be turned off and on quickly.
You missed the point. Hydro can provide baseload, but with renewables, it is better to use it when there is not enough wind and solar, as it can be turned off and on quickly and easily. With nuclear power, the only way to use it is 24 by 7 as it cannot be turned off and on quickly.
Wrong. As you can see in the graph you linked to, increased solar, wind and hydro are reducing the proportion of coal-sourced electricity. Furthermore the graph doesn't show how much CO2 was produced. If power plant efficiency goes up then more electricity can be produced without increasing emissions.Maybe they will at some point, but they haven't been. Forget the number of plants, look at the actual output. Electricity generated from coal has consistently risen for the past 40 years. The most recent decade hasn't been an exception.
It's a historical graph that tells you nothing about the future.What counts as "soon"? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Look at that graph again. The largest non-coal source is hydro, and that's not going to keep expanding much more. Other sources have increased and will continue to, but they aren't close to being able to displace coal. It's going to be a long, long time before coal becomes redundant for China.
Whereas most parts of the world use natural gas plants to fulfill many flexibility and reliability requirements, the lack of natural gas resources in China and the relatively high price of imported gas - especially during a year of global gas market upheavals as a result of the Russia-Ukraine War - are making it unrealistic for the country to rely heavily on gas...
S&P Global Commodity Insights analysis shows that the average capacity factor of China's coal plants will continue declining as they become a main source of flexibility and reliability in a grid dominated by variable renewables. By 2050, the average utilization rate of China's coal fleet is expected to drop further to 26%, operating more or less as a peaking capacity.
The decline in capacity factor and retirements of coal plants means that China's power sector emissions will likely peak as early as 2024, with the majority of incremental power demand met by renewables.
That's a different issue. Once the reservoir is built it can indeed be turned on and off at will, unlike nuclear.I get what you're saying, but I don't see hydro as something that can be turned off. Shut down the turbines, and the reservoir remains. The land appropriated and drowned remains appropriated and drowned.
I agree. There are areas that can be flooded without destroying river valleys, but many of them have already been utilized. That's why hydro capacity is not likely to increase dramatically in the future.Flooding a river valley just to use the power it stores as an occasional top-off of the grid seems like bad stewardship. Bad conservation. A bad investment.
The key word being 'if'. However increased wind and solar will reduce hydro base load, making more available for 'peaking'. Smaller, more environmentally dams could be run as pumped hydro, filled up during the day and drained in the evening.Also, hydro is renewable. And it can be built to handle both base load and... Whatever the name is for intermittent demand over base. You don't need to also appropriate land for solar and wind if you've already got enough hydro.
Hydro is completely unlike Nuclear Power.
The MAIN POINT about Hydro is that you can use it to produce as well as store power, as required to balance the Grid.
Hydro is there to complement Renewables, to balance the different between peak output and low output.
It does nothing for a Reactor that has be kept online, because it takes a long time to power down and up again.
Hydro, as well as any other energy storage, is desirable for investors, because you can do electricity arbitrage with them.
You can't with Nuclear Power, small or otherwise.
This thread has really drifted far off topic. Perhaps the discussion of everything other than nuclear fusion can be moved elsewhere?
In the meanwhile:
Scientists show nuclear fusion inside tokamak using 3D visualization
Progress of sorts.![]()
This doesn't mean nuclear fusion will be ready to go anytime soon
And always will be.It's only 49 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds away!
Yes, it's progress. A small amount of progress. There's still a long way to go, but they're definitely making progress.
Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), the private company Tokamak Energy and Kyushu University in Japan have proposed a design for a compact, spherical fusion pilot plant that heats the plasma using only microwaves.
Eventually.Slowly, slowly, but they'll get there.![]()
First Light Fusion, a startup based in the United Kingdom, has achieved a new record for nuclear fusion pressure using a novel new approach, Interesting Engineering reported.
Interesting Engineering described First Light Fusion's method as being "analogous to, but different from" how fusion occurs in the sun.
Not only was this new method able to achieve more fusion pressure than ever before, but the company also said it could produce energy more cheaply and efficiently.
"This method is simpler, cheaper, and more energy-efficient than approaches requiring complex and expensive lasers, reducing the physics risk," First Light Fusion said, per the news report.
Even newer news
Scientists use new tech to break major record in quest for limitless energy: 'Peak power exceeding 80 trillion watts'
Geez. That's a lot of Watts!
Soon be there.![]()
For how long?
Even newer news
Scientists use new tech to break major record in quest for limitless energy: 'Peak power exceeding 80 trillion watts'
Geez. That's a lot of Watts!
Soon be there.![]()
You're in Toronto, so roughly 8 light minutes away, same as for everyone else.
I've just realised that the answer to the question posed in the thread title is 150.88 million km.