The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

[LP]

The axis of evil for SolarPV or Wind, and for fossil fuel industry for that matter, is a triad of solutions built around modern nuclear, desalination and hydrogen.

In isolation we are weak, together we are strong.

[LP]

When those old batteries were repurposed saving the environment, one assumes that in some case the EV itself was repurposed with a new battery, that almost doubled the carbon footprint of those vehicles that endured. If they didn't endure then the break even point was never obtained, was the EV carbon footprint recalcuated?

Will it make it's next break even target before it's junked?

I wonder what those replacement batteries cost, what became of the cost per kilometre/kilowatt?

Was the environmental impact of the 2nd battery refactored into the original environmental impact figures?

Just a handful of batteries, nothing much to worry about, yet enough to have the project described as a burgeoning industry! :o

So so so many holes to fill, better change the subject!

[Mav]

As for Mav he lists a video about hydrogen that he claims debunks hydrogen, but if I recall correctly Sabine's hydrogen video from a few months back actually states that hydrogen works with nuclear hand in glove, she actually makes that point twice, when she describes pink hydrogen and again when she summarise the future options. Which is consistent with her position that the solution to the world's problem must be as diverse as the problem.

That’s hilarious ? You didn’t watch the video, did you LP …

It reminds me of TV shows where a student tries to BS his way through a book review when he didn’t do the reading!

[DJC]

DJC, you have to give up on only debating this at the high power end of the SMR range, your discussing systems that are the upper limit of SMR, I'm talking about systems designed to power 2000 to 3000 homes, 1/300th the size of the SMRs you are referring to, and not a drop of water being used in any of the designs.

As for Mav he lists a video about hydrogen that he claims debunks hydrogen, but if I recall correctly Sabine's hydrogen video from a few months back actually states that hydrogen works with nuclear hand in glove, she actually makes that point twice, when she describes pink hydrogen and again when she summarise the future options. Which is consistent with her position that the solution to the world's problem must be as diverse as the problem.

Horses for courses, you don't construct a building made out of steel, glass, bricks and timber by just hiring a carpenter.

So you can't answer the questions I posed LP?

I'll make it easy for you; how are the reactors on the latest Virginia and Astute class nuclear powered submarines cooled?

Answer: They have pressurised water reactors (PWRs).

But you said:

Modern modular reactors are self contained and fully enclosed, they are referred to as nuclear batteries and are water free, much like the devices on aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, space probes, etc., etc.,

You're just making stuff up.

Look up Professor Alfredo Caro of The George Washington University.  He recently wrote, "“There are plenty of technologies now—50 different models around the world. Once one of them gets into a financially viable equation, that will capture the entire market and I think that this will happen with water-cooled small reactors.”

Of course, that's only his expert opinion ... but the fact that the only SMR design certified by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is water-cooled lends weight to his opinion. That design was certified in January this year.

[LP]

I'll make it easy for you; how are the reactors on the latest Virginia and Astute class nuclear powered submarines cooled?

You keep presenting examples of designs from the 80s and 90s and using them to talk down current and future technologies.

It's like using the steam powered horseless carriage as a reason not to have an EV.

By the way though the Virginia class nicely supports my longevity argument, they are expected to remain in service until 2070 from first launch in the early 2000s. But how can that be, the Renewable Apparatchik's tell use nuclear power plants have to be decommissioned after an average service life of 30 years? Is it because they want to compound all the environment overheads into 3 decades to make the emissions overhead twice the real world case?

[LP]

Sabine present a rational case based on historically available technologies, and that is a reasonable position to take as she doesn't want to be drawn into a debate about future capabilities. It's a bit like not planning the use of a space telescope until it gets into space.

But even so she still arrives at the fundamental conclusion that no one technology can deliver the targets we need, which is either an invisible or uncomfortable truth for some it seems! :

[DJC]

You keep presenting examples of designs from the 80s and 90s and using them to talk down current and future technologies.

It's like using the steam powered horseless carriage as a reason not to have an EV.

By the way though the Virginia class nicely supports my longevity argument, they are expected to remain in service until 2070 from first launch in the early 2000s. But how can that be, the Renewable Apparatchik's tell use nuclear power plants have to be decommissioned after an average service life of 30 years? Is it because they want to compound all the environment overheads into 3 decades to make the emissions overhead twice the real world case?

You keep saying that LP but you're wrong.

The Rolls Royce PWR3 used in the latest Astute class submarine draws heavily on the S9G reactor used in Virginia class submarines.  While the first Rolls Royce PWRs date to the mid 1980s, the PWR3 reactor is a 21st century design.  S9G stands for Submarine, 9th generation core General Electric and the first S9G reactor went into service this century.  As mentioned previously, the PWR3 and S9G reactors are water cooled.  All nuclear powered vessels currently in service are water cooled.

Nuclear submarine reactors produce around 200 megawatts (thermal), and that contributes to the longevity of the fuel.  SMRs are expected to produce around 300 megawatts (electric or 1000 megawatts thermal). While there's a world of difference between reactors used to produce steam for propulsion and those used to generate electricity, the prototype Russian SMRs are based on nuclear icebreaker reactors that produce 30 megawatts (electric).  It makes sense, in terms of safety, energy requirements and economics for nuclear submarine reactors to have full life cores.  The same doesn't apply to conventional nuclear power plants or SMRs.  SMRs may have longer fuel cycles than conventional nuclear power plants but will still require regular refuelling.

SMRs are future terchnology with only three prototypes in operation (one is gas cooled).  However, the literature is quite clear on the likelihood of successful designs being water cooled and the need for clusters of SMRs to meet both grid demand and for modular construction to be cost effective.

[LP]

You keep saying that LP but you're wrong.

The Rolls Royce PWR3 used in the latest Astute class submarine draws heavily on the S9G reactor used in Virginia class submarines.  While the first Rolls Royce PWRs date to the mid 1980s, the PWR3 reactor is a 21st century design.

They are not a "21st century" design, they are a 21st century update to a 1980s design.

Given it's Airshow week maybe an aircraft analogy, not matter how many 2000s era James Hirds you pack into a DC-3 it'll still be a 1940s aircraft!

I can add Android to the dash of a FC Holden, but it's still an FC!

[Mav]

Interesting arguments about solar geoengineering: dispersing particulates into the upper atmosphere to deflect a fraction of the sunlight.

Block the sun, save the planet?, Politico.

The Wapo reports that the US intelligence agencies and national security officials have workshopped how to deal with geopolitical tensions where one country may push ahead with measures that detrimentally affect neighbours.

[LP]

Interesting arguments about solar geoengineering: dispersing particulates into the upper atmosphere to deflect a fraction of the sunlight.

Block the sun, save the planet?, Politico.

The Wapo reports that the US intelligence agencies and national security officials have workshopped how to deal with geopolitical tensions where one country may push ahead with measures that detrimentally affect neighbours.

Unfortunately, because of such slow progress, these geo-engineering solutions are being seriously considered by some locations. But it's like pollution and won't respect borders! btw., Many of them are already under small scale test, by small scale it still means large enough to affect a major region like a state.

The most likely so far is going to be seeding the oceans.

To me this is a step too far, it's like tapping a metronome and expecting it to settle into a new regular beat, but we should take heed of the mysterious effects of synchronicity and chaos. Such is the biosphere.

For the fun of it, this example uses a resonant surface to accelerate the effect, but given enough time this can even happen when devices are spread over surfaces as diverse as rough or sandy terrain or a concrete floor. The very last one to sync and how that seems to happen by brute force is the most surprising
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v5eBf2KwF8
People are perhaps a little ambitious if they think they can safely fiddle with things on a global scale.