Page 23 of 38 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 375

Thread: Random chat thread

  1. #221
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    887
    Thanked: 31

    Default

    I think ya right in some ways.
    Im trying to find this article I read like back in 2008 or 2010 where there where a bunch of CEO’s from GE, Shell and bill gates and so on, and they went on talking about synthetic fuels and that for it to be profitable, fuel will have to be at around $9 a gallon, where it is basically at the moment.
    But they went on saying that the public are just not ready for it and that it might be something worth profitable some time down the track.
    Bill gates was there talking about his new venture in starting up a Modular reactor systems industry.

    Gates now has his own energy company Terra power, that is going to be using a GE Hitachi BRWX-300 reactor and which is planned to start construction next year in Wyoming under the natrium project.
    Meanwhile there is huge research and advancements in carbon capture synthetic fuels. And to say there is huge advancements in DAC is a absolute understatement, in the last 5 years we have gone from $1000 per ton to $1 per ton lol And not to mention massive advancements in supercritical Co2 gas turbine systems getting thermal efficient at over 75%.

    And I think this is where things will take off. The biggest problem with nuclear energy is, you have the most known dense form of energy, but still we were really only able to extract 30% to 40% of its energy through steam systems where your having to build these huge monstrously dangerous reactors with 100’s of tons of Uranium dioxide.
    Like I love nuclear energy, but these reactors pumping out Terra-watts of thermal energy just scars the **** out of me lol
    But a small underground 500MW reactor that can be put on the back of a truck is the win if you can extract like 80% of its energy, if not more. Smaller package but same electrical energy output.

    I just think this whole hype over battery cars is just a pipe dream and its never going to work because it dose not address the elephant in the room.
    You still need a answer for all the Jets, trucks, Trains, Ships and anything els that requires long amounts of endurance work.
    Personal cars are not the problem. But if we change the fuel to a carbon neutral (if not negative) than the problem is solved, and the only way I can even see this happening is with nuclear energy industry.
    But not the conventional, highly expensive projects, but something that is cost effective and more importantly, faster and cheeper to build. And those are the two key points they are addressing with these reactors. Cheep, highly efficient and mass produced to a point we can almost convert the whole industrial sector to a nuclear revolution.
    Metal fabrication, concrete production, chemical productions, fuel productions all can be done with industrial designed modular reactors.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Blue Mountains, NSW
    Posts
    2,089
    Thanked: 57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pickles View Post
    Yes, for those that have to drive every day, family use etc, the cost of fuel is horrific, & what about owner driver truckies filling their 1600L tanks at $2.30 a litre.
    The motoring press seems to have an ever increasing focus on various forms EVs & the like, no doubt being influenced/assisted by fuel costs.
    Our dentist is a bit of a car guy, his "toy" is an BMW M3, but He's bought a Tesla model 3 which he is very impressed with.
    Pickles.
    Fuel cost increases affect everything. We see it in filling up our cars first but then groceries go up because of the cost of farming goes up, and the cost to transport for distribution goes up. Fun times.

    Current:
    2004 A6 C5 Sedan 3.0 V6 Quattro
    1999 A4 B5 Avant 2.4 V6 (Unreg)

    Retired:
    1990 100 Sedan 2.3
    1991 90 Sedan 2.3
    1999 A4 B5 Sedan 2.4 V6
    2005 A6 4F Sedan 3.2 V6 Quattro

  3. #223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muckman View Post
    I think ya right in some ways.
    Im trying to find this article I read like back in 2008 or 2010 where there where a bunch of CEO’s from GE, Shell and bill gates and so on, and they went on talking about synthetic fuels and that for it to be profitable, fuel will have to be at around $9 a gallon, where it is basically at the moment.
    But they went on saying that the public are just not ready for it and that it might be something worth profitable some time down the track.
    Bill gates was there talking about his new venture in starting up a Modular reactor systems industry.

    Gates now has his own energy company Terra power, that is going to be using a GE Hitachi BRWX-300 reactor and which is planned to start construction next year in Wyoming under the natrium project.
    Meanwhile there is huge research and advancements in carbon capture synthetic fuels. And to say there is huge advancements in DAC is a absolute understatement, in the last 5 years we have gone from $1000 per ton to $1 per ton lol And not to mention massive advancements in supercritical Co2 gas turbine systems getting thermal efficient at over 75%.

    And I think this is where things will take off. The biggest problem with nuclear energy is, you have the most known dense form of energy, but still we were really only able to extract 30% to 40% of its energy through steam systems where your having to build these huge monstrously dangerous reactors with 100’s of tons of Uranium dioxide.
    Like I love nuclear energy, but these reactors pumping out Terra-watts of thermal energy just scars the **** out of me lol
    But a small underground 500MW reactor that can be put on the back of a truck is the win if you can extract like 80% of its energy, if not more. Smaller package but same electrical energy output.

    I just think this whole hype over battery cars is just a pipe dream and its never going to work because it dose not address the elephant in the room.
    You still need a answer for all the Jets, trucks, Trains, Ships and anything els that requires long amounts of endurance work.
    Personal cars are not the problem. But if we change the fuel to a carbon neutral (if not negative) than the problem is solved, and the only way I can even see this happening is with nuclear energy industry.
    But not the conventional, highly expensive projects, but something that is cost effective and more importantly, faster and cheeper to build. And those are the two key points they are addressing with these reactors. Cheep, highly efficient and mass produced to a point we can almost convert the whole industrial sector to a nuclear revolution.
    Metal fabrication, concrete production, chemical productions, fuel productions all can be done with industrial designed modular reactors.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Thanks Muckman, I enjoyed reading your post.
    My Brother In Law, is a lot smarter than me, He is a Nuclear Physicist, (well he was before He retired!) and He believes that Nuclear power is the only sensible, cheap, & reliable way to go.
    He has worked in Nuclear establishments in Europe & the U.S.
    Of course, I realize that "Public Opinion" will not allow "Nuclear" in Aus, but I would support it.
    Pickles.

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Feb 1980
    Location
    Back in Sydney (again!)
    Posts
    5,741
    Thanked: 638

    Default

    I found this an interesting series..

    Inside Bill's Brain: Decoding Bill Gates (TV Mini Series 2019) - IMDb

    In one of the shows, it goes in to the nuclear power he is investing/looking in to.

    From memory (and it's bad most of the time!), they were talking about using the waste (spent rods) from the current stations, that are 'stored' in various locations across the world. Apparently the 'existing' stations only use x% of the uranium, then they are no use.

    His plan/invention/idea was to use that 'spent uranium' in the new stations. They would also be 'safe', as they don't require the same cooling as the existing ones, so won't/can't have the 'same' meltdown as some have done in Japan/Russia etc.

    Anyway, I'm probably horribly misquoting, so worth a watch for those that are interested.

  5. #225
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    887
    Thanked: 31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jnrdavo View Post
    I found this an interesting series..

    Inside Bill's Brain: Decoding Bill Gates (TV Mini Series 2019) - IMDb

    In one of the shows, it goes in to the nuclear power he is investing/looking in to.

    From memory (and it's bad most of the time!), they were talking about using the waste (spent rods) from the current stations, that are 'stored' in various locations across the world. Apparently the 'existing' stations only use x% of the uranium, then they are no use.

    His plan/invention/idea was to use that 'spent uranium' in the new stations. .
    Yes you are right. That was the whole plan he had with his “wave” reactor design where it basically decayed most of its fuel to a point only leaving small amounts of high level waste that only had around 100 half life. His wave reactor has had to make a few changes in a more conventional way moving around its fuel to accomplish this but for what I understand they are really only starting with this reactor and there is a lot more to come.
    But there are heeps of new reactor designs to come so it be interesting how they are going to go about it.

    The BRWX-300 will be the first of all the SMR systems to really have real time R&D that can be used to make all future SMR technologies more affordable.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    887
    Thanked: 31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pickles View Post
    I realize that "Public Opinion" will not allow "Nuclear" in Aus, but I would support it.
    Pickles.
    The problem is the “Public Opinion” is absolutely misinformed about the nuclear debate.
    I guarantee if you just walk up to anyone in the street and ask them about nuclear energy, they will always bring up Chernobyl or Fukushima, or if they are old enough TMI lol
    Fact of the matter is these incidents are completely irrelevant to todays modern reactor designs, especially with new SMR technologies. Comparing a Gen I and II reactor to something that is made today it’s absolutely uneducated.

    Secondly, the publics perception of nuclear waste is also hugely misinformed when comparing low level waste, to high level waste.
    They just see the nuclear symbol and not knowing the level of contamination.
    Low level waste (that is mostly the majority of nuclear wastes) is mostly made up of supercilious materials such as gloves, gowns, googles, Medical waste and so on.
    Things you will never find in a low level waste facility is, spent fuel rods, contaminated coolant, or anything other that has been directly contaminated.
    Low level waste is mostly a precautionary measure to eliminate 100% of any unknown contaminations being leaked into the public.
    Low level waste does not mean it is going to kill you upon contact.

    But how do we educate the public on this topic?
    I think If we are going to have a real “ Adult” discussion on this, and I really mean an adult discussion and not having alarmism overwhelming the debate, the government really needs to start Public service awareness on the topic, like how we educate people on skin cancer, smoking, drinking and anything els we educate about public health and safety.
    Only than we can have a real public opinion and discussion on nuclear energy.
    But sadly, we live in the age of alarmism and panic.

    Like not even our own politicians are even qualified to even talk on the topic. I can’t stop shaking my head on the whole “nuclear subs” issue lol.
    If we are going to go down that road no matter what type of platform it is being for power or military use, you still need the supporting industry to support such a venture.
    For example, what is their contingency plan if you have a reactor that goes beyond criticality? Ya can’t just float the thing out into international waters and hope for the best lol
    In absolutely no way is Australia even ready to have a power producing reactor.
    In no way is Australia ready to take on one of the most responsible decisions a country can make.
    The first thing our government needs to do is to start up the industry. Start educating and possibly enriching our own fuels, Be that be of a Uranium kind, or a Thorium kind.
    Thorium is brilliant and has a lot of advantages, but for anyone to go down that path is basically throwing out all that we know of the nuclear Industry and starting all over again. That’s a huge risk.
    But I am in full support for Australia to start our own enrichment industry and get the ball rolling.

    But we must start educating the public if we are ever going to make any real discussions on the matter. Otherwise we are just going to see more pointless protests. More people blocking roads. More people putting their head in the sand.

    It’s bad enough as it is these people have absolutely have no idea what energy is or even understand the first law of the conservation of energy.
    Thinking we can switch to solar and wind is ludicrous. Anyone with a calculator can prove this.

    For example, ever notice not ones, does the energy minister ever state what his target is of energy output for the nation, but his more than happy to say its going to be clean, cheep and reliable lol yeh mate but how much we talking about? 1We ? 100We 100MWe? 100TWe? It doesn’t matter how you make it. People don’t give a **** how its made. We only care how much is made because this will determine how much is there to go around and how much it is going to cost.
    I don’t give a rats ass how its made. As long as there is abundance of it to go around at a cheep price.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  7. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muckman View Post
    The problem is the “Public Opinion” is absolutely misinformed about the nuclear debate.
    I guarantee if you just walk up to anyone in the street and ask them about nuclear energy, they will always bring up Chernobyl or Fukushima, or if they are old enough TMI lol
    Fact of the matter is these incidents are completely irrelevant to todays modern reactor designs, especially with new SMR technologies. Comparing a Gen I and II reactor to something that is made today it’s absolutely uneducated.

    Secondly, the publics perception of nuclear waste is also hugely misinformed when comparing low level waste, to high level waste.
    They just see the nuclear symbol and not knowing the level of contamination.
    Low level waste (that is mostly the majority of nuclear wastes) is mostly made up of supercilious materials such as gloves, gowns, googles, Medical waste and so on.
    Things you will never find in a low level waste facility is, spent fuel rods, contaminated coolant, or anything other that has been directly contaminated.
    Low level waste is mostly a precautionary measure to eliminate 100% of any unknown contaminations being leaked into the public.
    Low level waste does not mean it is going to kill you upon contact.

    But how do we educate the public on this topic?
    I think If we are going to have a real “ Adult” discussion on this, and I really mean an adult discussion and not having alarmism overwhelming the debate, the government really needs to start Public service awareness on the topic, like how we educate people on skin cancer, smoking, drinking and anything els we educate about public health and safety.
    Only than we can have a real public opinion and discussion on nuclear energy.
    But sadly, we live in the age of alarmism and panic.

    Like not even our own politicians are even qualified to even talk on the topic. I can’t stop shaking my head on the whole “nuclear subs” issue lol.
    If we are going to go down that road no matter what type of platform it is being for power or military use, you still need the supporting industry to support such a venture.
    For example, what is their contingency plan if you have a reactor that goes beyond criticality? Ya can’t just float the thing out into international waters and hope for the best lol
    In absolutely no way is Australia even ready to have a power producing reactor.
    In no way is Australia ready to take on one of the most responsible decisions a country can make.
    The first thing our government needs to do is to start up the industry. Start educating and possibly enriching our own fuels, Be that be of a Uranium kind, or a Thorium kind.
    Thorium is brilliant and has a lot of advantages, but for anyone to go down that path is basically throwing out all that we know of the nuclear Industry and starting all over again. That’s a huge risk.
    But I am in full support for Australia to start our own enrichment industry and get the ball rolling.

    But we must start educating the public if we are ever going to make any real discussions on the matter. Otherwise we are just going to see more pointless protests. More people blocking roads. More people putting their head in the sand.

    It’s bad enough as it is these people have absolutely have no idea what energy is or even understand the first law of the conservation of energy.
    Thinking we can switch to solar and wind is ludicrous. Anyone with a calculator can prove this.

    For example, ever notice not ones, does the energy minister ever state what his target is of energy output for the nation, but his more than happy to say its going to be clean, cheep and reliable lol yeh mate but how much we talking about? 1We ? 100We 100MWe? 100TWe? It doesn’t matter how you make it. People don’t give a **** how its made. We only care how much is made because this will determine how much is there to go around and how much it is going to cost.
    I don’t give a rats ass how its made. As long as there is abundance of it to go around at a cheep price.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Once again Muckman, thank you, a very good, rational, easy to understand post, about a very important subject that should concern everyone.
    I mentioned my Brother In law (Nuclear Physicist), and He mentioned to me, a long time ago, when I wanted to know what happened in Japan, & He explained Chernobyl & Fukushima to me in exactly the same manner as you have, both of them being totally irrelevant to what we "should" do in the future.
    But it seems that in Aussie, as soon as "Nuclear" is mentioned IN ANY CAPACITY, alarm bells ring, red lights start flashing, voices of doom are heard,...it's ridiculous, especially as we have so much of the necessary natural materials, which would enable us to solve all of our energy issues in one hit.
    Anyway, you've said it all,...all Aussies should read this. Well spoken.
    Pickles.

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Feb 1980
    Location
    Back in Sydney (again!)
    Posts
    5,741
    Thanked: 638

    Default

    Tell us what you really feel Muckman

    Some good reading and points here. What is hard to find it unbias option documenties/commentary on this. There are always too sides and on this topic there seems to be the majority of reporting on the negative side of it..

    Hopefully the 'new' ones that are coming up are indeed safe and even if they have 'issues', they are not to the same level as the other sits have had (watched a show about a new reactor in the US in the 70's that had issues before it actually came online and was a cover up)...

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    887
    Thanked: 31

    Default Random chat thread

    Another misconception that public have on Fukushima is a tricky one that might seem my following comment contradicting.
    I am 100% pro nuclear, But I also agree for all Gen I and Gen II and even gen III reactors to be shut down immediately.
    I can almost assure you there will be another nuclear incident with these older style generation reactors because not just of their age, but just the pure design of them being how dangerous they are to operate, and Fukushima and TMI was just a classic example of how easy this can happen.
    Now that Biden has passed a bill to pledge billions of dollars to keep and recommission old Gen reactors, is a somewhat frightening attempt to make his green agenda possible while, running the risk of a possible nuclear incident.

    Now the problem with Fukushima was not the reactor that failed, but being that the power plant was completely engulfed in sea water, resulting to the failure of the backup generators to pump water into the reactor was the number one cause of the incident, and therein lies the problem with these reactors. They rely on too much human intervention to control its cooldown. Ones you go SCRAM and you stop the reaction, you still need to cool the reactor down, otherwise you will boil up your cooling pool resulting in your fuel going beyond melting point and what they use to call “China syndrome”.
    Now its pretty simple to prevent this and that’s just to pump fresh water into the reactor to keep the cooling down. And in most scenarios, you don’t have the luxury of just pumping water in and solving the problem, there are so many other problems that will prevent or even make it redundant to do so. But again, the failure of human intervention is the recipe for disaster, and not even including systematic and instrumental failures that can cause a reactor to runaway, and TMI was another example of this having a valve failure resulting in a partial meltdown.

    Modern reactor designs are now implemented with a walkway policy. Being that if everyone at the plant was to walk away and evacuate the facility, the reactor will simply shut, and cool it self without human intervention. These are the key attributes to these SMR concepts. Another advantage a SMR has over a convention reactor is that the fuel is fully self contained meaning there is no need for a plant to hold its spent waste in cooling pools and needing a whole fuel handling section of the plant. The reactor is simply removed, put on the back of a truck and taken for reprocessing and put back into production. It’s basically just a big reusable thermal battery.

    But the biggest advantage that a SMR facility has over a convention plant is the there is no need for these huge containment shelter domes that are basically the 3rd of the cost of the plants construction and is almost always the reason why a project is always over budget and delayed.

    As you can see these conventional containment buildings are absolutely huge constrictions and is why nuclear energy has the highest construction coasts.
    But that doesn’t mean that economics of nuclear energy doesn’t work. Being that a nuclear facility can run 24/7 for over 30 years of operation results in reason as to why its hard to justify any investments because you basically wont see any return of investment until around 10 years later, but they do pay them selves off and become hugely profitable around 20 years of commission. And is why its hard for investors to invest because everyone wants quick money, and threats where gas and coal come in being that they are cheep to build and make a faster return profit.



    I’m not a fan of vapourware but these SMR facilities have been approved for low cost construction containment that will lower the cost of nuclear energy dramatically.




    And another point I’d make over conventional plant construction is the lower your thermal efficiency and higher your thermal output, the bigger your cooling systems are to be to get that return steam to a controlled manner. Hens why most nuclear plants are build with these huge, monstrous, and expensive natural draft cooling lowers.




    But if you are running at 70% thermal efficient, your thermal ambient output is lower meaning there would be no need for these huge cooling tower constructions. If your at 100% then your in a fully closed loop cycle.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Muckman; July 21st, 2022 at 05:53 PM.

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    91
    Thanked: 3

    Default

    I'll admit, I've never taken an interest in this topic but I'm really enjoying these educational posts. Kudos.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •