Cost of nuclear vs renewable energy
Cost of nuclear vs renewable energy
Jeez twitch, how clueless are you.
Of course electric planes have been around for decades.:rolleyes:
But power needs to be increased by the order of X60 for it to get an airliner off the ground. You’ll be dead waaay before a commercial electric airliner will be able to haul you from Rotherham, or whatever pit you’re based in, to your brown boys in the sun.
You are in denial about progress then? Nothing new there then. What a joker you are Cy. Next time your limited knowledge lets you down, just bluff with insults or quote some vaguely disguised opinion piece from the Guardian. You have nothing else. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
This is just not true. Nuclear does not produce ANY contaminants that can be classified as pollution. Spent fuel stays in the form of solid blocks and it is transported to safe locations and never heard from again. Yet you somehow believe that nuclear has the equivalent to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
Air pollution from coal-fired power plants:
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain and forms small airborne particles that can cause lung damage, heart disease, and other illnesses. 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), equivalent to half a million late-model cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
Radioactive Waste – Myths and Realities
Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities : World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear Association
The amount of waste produced by the nuclear power industry is small relative to other industrial activities. 97% of the waste produced is classified as low- or intermediate-level waste (LLW or ILW). Such waste has been widely disposed of in near-surface repositories for many years. In France, where fuel is reprocessed, just 0.2% of all radioactive waste by volume is classified as high-level waste (HLW).
Appropriate disposal arrangements are required for HLW due to its prolonged radioactivity. The safe, environmentally-sound disposal of HLW is technologically proven, with international scientific consensus on deep geological repositories.
There is a lot of talent in this forum, and I am sure you are very talented in your field of expertise, and perhaps many others, but in this one you are way out of your depth.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
In your lifetime, all airplanes will be powered with electric motors. The problem at this point is range, and the weight of the batteries. This will not always be a problem.
As I explained in an earlier post that you chose to ignore, all energy in this planet is solar. The only difference is how it is collected , stored, and used.
Photovoltaic cells is one way solar energy can be collected, but is not the only one,
Batteries is one way energy can be stored , but it is also not the only one, and batteries are to heavy for airplanes, but as we said, there are other mediums,some lighter than air.
The most likely, some sort of fuel cell , perhaps hydrogen .
The current means of aircraft propulsion is unsustainable. It is not only it's proportion of CO2 generated by it (2%) but where it is deposited . It is only a matter of time before it is replaced. Research in the issue is being conducted as we talk,
I owned a house near where this proposed nuclear plant was gonna go. But it never happenedQuote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
Bruce Power dropping Alberta nuclear plant proposal | CBC News
^^As I said, research has been going on for decades.
The quantum leap needed in power density is barely any closer.
You and Twitch will certainly never see it, and the chances a relative youngster like me will do so are also slim.
I note that you provide precisely nothing substantive against this statement.
I’m afraid the points you consider to be cornerstones that I should be quoting are really just statements of the obvious.
Sorry, but to claim, for example, oil is a type of solar power may intrigue you but it’s just sort of ‘old fart musing’ really.
That's what the techno rapturists are saying. But reality is probably somewhere in the middle. Electric still has an energy density problem. There hasn't been any big breakthroughs in fuel cell research for 25 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai
in the past 25 years there was really no urgency , most research was done by Toyota. Once Elon Musk disrupted the industry and put both of their feet in one shoe,combined with the existential threat of global warming, The Urgency is suddenly there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspin
As the industrial infrastructure develops, demand increases and the payoffs become attractive, expect development to accelerate exponentially.
When I see a video on YouTube about new developments in the field, I look at the date the video was posted. if it is longer than 6 months it is already old news.
a couple of months ago I heard about a new development by Plasma Kinetics , where Hydrogen is infused into a plastic film , the film then is packaged into fuel cartridges, When the film is exposed to a lazer light it releases the Hydrogen, The spend cartridges can be replaced with new ones, and the old ones can be recharged.
Plasma Kinetics
The video below explains the process, don't be put of by the title, it is not a conspiracy video,
This BANNED Technology Could Push Hydrogen Cars Over BEVs - YouTube
Self proclaimed academic ignores reality, again. No surprise there. What a precious fool you are. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
Just because you are blind to something real, doesn’t make it disappear like magic. Continue to ignore the ongoing, unsuccessful storage of dangerous nuclear waste, and it will come back to bite you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspin
If you bury your dumb head in the sand, your head does not miraculously disappear unfortunately. If the sum of your knowledge comes from google, you will stay as dumb as dirt.
Nuclear waste is not clean. As you yourself posted, it has to be transported somewhere and then kept safe - because it is not clean. Some of it may be processed for re-use. Most of it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspin
And do you know exactly what happens before the spent fuel is transported away from the power plant? Do you know how long it is kept on site (at the power plant) before it is transported somewhere? And why is that?
I know you have no idea so I'll tell you what happens.
When it is removed from the reactor, the spent fuel is kept locally and put in large ponds of water. Yes, water. That is to cool the fuel rods down. The fuel rods are kept there for months. Do you think that pond water is clean after that? Let me tell you. No, it isn't. You wouldn't want to drink it or swim in it.
And then there's the small matter of the fuel rod assembly. Not the fuel, but the assembly that the fuel sits inside. What happens to that once it has served its purpose? And do you think it is somehow clean after a year or more in the middle of a nuclear reactor? Let me tell you. No, it is not.
Apart from the above, other contaminated items are produced in nuclear power plants. In the 1980s, the UK nuclear industry used to dump some of their contaminated nuclear "rubbish" at the bottom of the North Sea. According to you, it must have been all very clean and safe, yet it would be transported in a very thick, heavy and sealed container. Why would that be, Backspit?
And when a power plant is decommissioned after its life-cycle ends, what happens to the reactor core, the pressure vessel, and all the other contaminated bits and pieces? This waste is not clean and so must be stored somewhere. But for how long? How many hundreds of years?
I am pro-nuclear, Backspit, but nuclear power is not 100% clean. That's a fact.
^Very accurate, up to a point, but totally wasted on Backspin, because you included so many irrefutable facts that his few brain cells will be severely overloaded.
Backspin has read one article on line, taken any shit out of context, that supports his warped view of reality, and decided that ‘nuclear is clean’.
The utter thick imbecile.
Americans with a similar mindset voted for Trump.
Setting aside all the bitching, Nuclear is here to stay for a good while yet. For the UK the challenge is to bring the cost down from the ridiculous contract rates offered to the Froggies, which was absurd but justified under return on funding basis, but when you consider the sums spunked on COVID the UK Govt should have bank rolled it and not left us tied to EDF for a few decades. Hopefully the SMRs get final approval and roll-out to de-risk reliance on EDF.
You are a hopeless bastard. WTF happens to worn out windmills or lithium ion batteries ? Comparatively, nuclear has the least waste by far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Switch
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...zkycuz3utd.jpg
Non recyclable wind turbine blades are filling up landfills. No waste here nah.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cp...berecycled.jpg
I believe both the USA and the USSR had designs for nuclear powered planes. However, the shielding required to protect the crew as well as the dangers following crashes prevented anything going into production.
Battery technology has improved greatly in recent times but they are still too heavy to consider for passenger aircraft.
Airbus are planning their future on hydrogen engines. However, storage and delivery is still a problem without weight penalties. There is also the fear factor after the zeppelin accidents.
Fossil fuel based energy will be with us for at least a couple more generations.
^ While plenty of quality coal is still available, disreputable, or poor countries will continue to exploit it. Fracking for shale oil smacks of desperation to wean countries off Middle East supplies.
Perhaps not as many generations as you think?
Aircraft technologies for more efficient and cleaner power exist for a very good reason. Once the breakthrough occurs, economies of scale will make it available for air travel.
Not everything moves slowly enough for your dated philosophy to keep up. :)