In article <t3p1p8$rlk$1@dont-email.me>,
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
>>>>>>> the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
>>>>>>> smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
>>>>>>> Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
>>>>>>> has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
>>>>>>> weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
>>>>>>> masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
>>>>>>> engine I hope to build in my backyard won't come for free :D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
>>>>>> the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem
>>>>>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
>>>>>> while we also work on short term solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Only if you haven't bothered to think how much you a re going to
>have to charge for each kilowatt hour of energy you sell to your
>customers to let you make a profit.
>>>>
>>>>> It takes a long time of course but much of it is due to over-regulation,
>>>>> like Jeroen suggested.
>>>>
>>>> Then again some twenty of France's 56 nuclear reactors were all shut
>down for a while recently while mistakes in the original build were
>corrected, Nuclear plants have got more expensive recently because we've
>learned more about how they can go wrong. Solving problems that you can
>anticipate is cheaper that solving them after they've made themselves
>obvious, but it isn't free,
>>>>
>>>>> Then the word "nuclear" still spells suicide for many if not all
>politicians - which is the biggest problem, after decades of training
>the public to perceive the word like this now is pay time.
>>>>
>>>> It's taken a long time for all the problems posed by dealing with
>long term radio-active waste to be fully appreciated. They haven't been
>by any means solved. Nobody has yet set up a repository for long term
>storage - several hundreds of thousands of years - and they may never
>succeed. Not in my backyard is a potent slogan.
>>>>
>>>>> But we have no other sane option, we have to start building now
>indeed and cover by short term solutions.
>>>>
>>>> The Australian power generation industry doesn't see it that way.
>They are building new solar farms and new wind turbines at a great rate,
>because they produce electricity more cheaply than any other source and
>quite a bit more cheaply than nuclear plants. They are starting to
>invest grid-scale batteries, and the Australian Federal Government is in
>the process of extending our biggest hydroelectric scheme to offer a lot
>of pumped storage.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
>>>>
>>>> The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels.
>>>>
>>> Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
>>> have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and
>>> pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
>>> the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
>>> it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
>>> simply because there is not as much sun.
>>
>> There's actually more in your summer.
>
>No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than you
>have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the full 24
>hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the Arctic
>Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at a much
>steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.
>
>And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give you
>some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep you going
>for half the year.
>
>> And wind power works pretty much everywhere.
>
>It works where there is reliable wind - the tops of hills, or in the
>middle of wide plains with little interruption. Australia has lots of
>plains - Norway does not. So they can only be put at the tops of hills,
>and even then it has to be relatively accessible hilltops (unlike most
>of our hills) relatively near people and infrastructure (unlike most of
>our hills). And people don't want them there.
>
>There could certainly be more off-shore wind generation in Norway, but
>even that has its challenges here. We have rather sharp slopes to deep
>sea, making it more expensive than when you have shallower seas available.
>
>(We also have a big social challenge for wind power in Norway - no one
>wants to see a windmill disrupting nature hillsides or sea views.
>Norwegians also do not want nuclear power stations anywhere near them,
>or gas power. They want to believe that we could be self-sufficient
>with cheap, clean hydroelectric power if only we stopped selling
>electricity abroad, and that expensive, ugly or polluting electricity
>generation is a problem for other countries. It's not true, of course,
>but it's hard to convince some people.)
>
>>
>>> Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
>>> Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).
>>
>> You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is
>quite a bit more expensive than wind power.
>>
>
>Nuclear power has many advantages over wind power (as well as
>disadvantages). Cost in dollars is not the only measure of the best
>choice of power generation. Usable land space is a premium in Norway -
>nuclear takes a fraction of the space compared to wind. Accident, death
>and injury rates per generated unit are negligible for nuclear power in
>comparison to other methods, including wind. (The few accidents that
>have occurred lead to a lot more publicity - you never year about all
>the accidents involved in mounting or maintaining wind turbines.) The
>impact to the environment and nature, in the way Norwegians want to see
>and use their nature, would be much less with nuclear power than wind power.
>
>Then there is the stability of the supply. For power generation, you
>want a base constant stable supply, with extra generation when there are
>peaks in the demand. Wind power is not stable (unless it is very high
>masts out at sea), and goes up and down independently from demand.
>Nuclear power (which is very stable) combined with hydroelectric (which
>we have, and which can be turned up and down quickly as needed) is an
>ideal combination - far better than covering half the country in
>windmills and massive lithium battery arrays.
>
>>> But solar and wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe
>sodium ion batteries?)
>>> could well be the right answer for Australia.
>>
>> Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds.
>>
>
>Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is
>significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
>someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these
>problems, that would be good news.

Beryllium is proposed to use in modern reactor design.
It is likewise extremely toxic, not on a par with lead or cadmium.

Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

In article <t3n22a$5dq$2@dont-email.me>, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:
>On 4/19/22 10:47, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Ukraine war is a spiritual war. Spiritual wars are the most dangerous.
>>> It will go on forever.
>>
>> Nope. Methinks it's an economic war. Russia just finished building
>> an $11 billion offshore natural gas pipeline to Germany primarily to
>> bypass transit charges for the existing pipelines crossing Ukraine.
>>
>> "The Engineering Behind Russia's Deadlocked Pipeline: Nord Stream 2"
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzibtVSamrY>
>>
>> As the process of certifying the pipeline blundered forward, the
>> stumbling block seemed to be getting approval by various countries
>> which stood to lose transit revenue for existing pipelines:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream#Regulatory_clearance>
>>
>> "Russia-Ukraine gas disputes"
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes>
>>
>> It seems to be an amazing coincidence that Russia would invade Ukraine
>> just after certification negotiations were going too slow. Just
>> connect the (pipeline) dots and follow the money:
>> <https://mondediplo.com/IMG/jpg/lmd_0521_13_gazoducs_rgb.jpg>
>> Maps with much more detail:
>> <http://www.entsog.eu/maps#transmission-capacity-map-2021>
>>
>> "When somebody says it’s not about the money, it’s about the money."
>> H. L. Mencken
>>
>>
>Isn't there supposed to be a huge natural gas reservoir under Eastern
>Ukraine? Another amazing coincidence!
>

Sure enough, but I find it entirely believable that religion is
used to "inspire" soldiers to fight.

Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

albert wrote:

>>> Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is
>> significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
>> someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these
>> problems, that would be good news.
>
> Beryllium is proposed to use in modern reactor design.
> It is likewise extremely toxic, not on a par with lead or cadmium.

Heavy metal ions have the very comforting feature that they bind
strongly to clay minerals, and so don't go anywhere in ground water.
The Oklo natural reactor in Gabon went critical (iirc) 1.5E9 years ago,
and its fission products have travelled about a mile in that time.

Dunno about Be.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:20:07 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>albert wrote:
>
>>>> Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is
>>> significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
>>> someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these
>>> problems, that would be good news.
>>
>> Beryllium is proposed to use in modern reactor design.
>> It is likewise extremely toxic, not on a par with lead or cadmium.
>
>
>Heavy metal ions have the very comforting feature that they bind
>strongly to clay minerals, and so don't go anywhere in ground water.
>The Oklo natural reactor in Gabon went critical (iirc) 1.5E9 years ago,
>and its fission products have travelled about a mile in that time.
>
>Dunno about Be.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

BeO is an even better heat conductor than AlN, but is deprecated
because its dust may be toxic. That's not a serious real-world issue.

I visited a test site (DHART, a giant linear-induction accelerator
x-ray machine) at Los Alamos. There were Be bits everywhere so we had
to wear booties and stuff to go outside.

--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar