Slashdot Mirror
Westinghouse AP1000 Nuclear Reactor Starts Generating Power (world-nuclear-news.org)
Longtime Slashdot reader TopSpin writes: The Sanmen 1 nuclear reactor in Zhejiang, China, has been synchronized to the power grid and is generating power. The reactor has been under construction for nine years and became the first AP1000 in the world to achieve criticality on June 21, 2018. The AP1000 design received final design certification from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2005 and has a net output of 1.117 GWe. Three other AP1000 reactors are under construction in China at the Sanmen and Haiyang sites and two reactors are under construction in the U.S. at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia. On June 29, the Taishan 1 reactor became the first Areva Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) design to generate power. Four EPR reactors are under construction in Finland, France, and China.
China is doing wind AND solar balls to the wall. That is what greenies just can't wrap their heads around, *it is not enough*
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/27/16935382/climate-change-ugly-tradeoffs
As deployment of solar and wind increases, so do electricity prices. How much more do you want to pay for electricity?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's 2018 kid, you can buy plutonium at your corner 7-11. Or, you know, the internet.
Generation of power always needs to meet demand. You need baseline power plus on demand power from a reliable source. You need to adapt to changing power demands with a variable source. Variable power from "green" sources (wind, solar) is useless if it can't be stored and released, or balanced by fast acting sources like natural gas or hydro power. Most "green" power sources increase carbon emissions because they need a fast on natural gas power source to balance out their variable power.
China: "Thanks for the nuclear reactor IP, we'll take it from here."
Yes it is extremely hard, as there is very little direct matter contact in space, so you cannot use convection or conduction as your means of temperature regulation. You are stuck with emitted radiation as your only real means of keeping cool.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Fast Acting.... you mean like a massive battery connected to a wind farm?
https://www.teslarati.com/tesl...
https://www.news.com.au/techno...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Have a nice day.
There are more precise explanations, but I'll try to put it in layman's terms;
Space is mostly empty and thus NOT good at transferring heat.
This is why a vacuum flask works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Heat can be thought of atoms vibrating with more or less energy depending on how 'hot' things are. If you want to cool something down, a good way to do it is to put these energetic atoms in contact with others 'cool' ones which have less energy. Put ice in hot water and energy levels out.
In space, there is nothing to transfer to, so you have to irradiate (using radiators)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Getting very cold is not trivial, and can be problematic:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
Generation of power always needs to meet demand.
True! (well, to a first order approximation)
You need baseline power plus on demand power from a reliable source.
False! (well, the first half is false) You need enough "on demand power [generation ability]" and/or enough demand response ability to ensure supply meets demand. None of that generation ability need be "baseline," commonly called base load.
Most "green" power sources increase carbon emissions because they need a fast on natural gas power source to balance out their variable power.
False! (with no caveats whatsoever; this is just plain wrong and OP has no source to verify it)
Support a few technologists in Washington.
With subsidies and long term feed in price guarantees. They basically run no risk with wind ... but they are making the consumer electricity prices a lot more expensive. Nuclear needs similar long term guarantees to be worth the risk, but government are no longer willing to give them in the west. So we build more coal and gas plants for when the wind doesn't blow while decommissioning nuclear plants. CO2 emissions don't really budge in the process.
Eventually wind and solar will reduce fuel consumption of the fossil plants enough that it will be a big net gain in CO2 emissions, but we aren't quite there yet. In the mean time electricity is getting more expensive.
No the US free market is choosing wind
No, the subsidy farming market is choosing wind.
"Nuclear plants release around 100g of CO2/kWh, much better than coal but also much worse than wind and solar."
Lessee, that's 1 Kg / 10 KwH, 100 Kg per MwH, and 100,000 Kg / GwH. Where is the rail transport to bring enough carbon to the nuclear reactor to release 100,000 Kg of carbon dioxide for every hour of operation of a 1 Gw nuke? I don't normally see rail transport to nuke plants. They trucking it in, or what? Where is it combined with oxygen, what process within nuclear power generation has that happening?
Perhaps the calculation is for the workers in uranium mining driving to work each day, as if they wouldn't drive to some other work if they weren't mining uranium. Someone inputting tons and tons of carbon into the uranium enrichment process for use in nuclear fuel? Where is this carbon in the nuclear generation cycle?
Yes, it's the total emissions including all the mining and fuel transport and storage and air conditioning for the control room etc. etc.
Don't take my word for it though, ask the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...
Page 1335. Lifecycle emissions. Depending on who you ask and what measurement you use, Nuclear is at best about the same as Wind, but it depends a lot on where it is and where the fuel comes from and where the waste ends up.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
OK, but we need very little uranium, in comparison to other ways of generating electricity.
I'd say nuclear power uses quite a lot more Uranium in comparison to other ways of generating electricity, considering those other ways don't use any Uranium at all...
According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear power consumes about 200 tons of Uranium oxide per GWe per year.
I now wonder what is the comparison with mining the raw materials to make all those wind turbine blades and solar panels, as well as the fossil fuel it takes to ship / truck them all over the place for their installation?
Probably not nearly as much as the environmental impact of uranium mining and enrichment. Mining uranium is an ongoing process that produces thousands of tons of radioactive and hazardous waste in the form of mine tailings before it even gets to the enrichment plant.
Solar panels are made primarily from silicon, which is refined from sand and quartz rock. While not all sources of quartz are created equal, it's not exactly hard to come by. Right now there is no method of recycling solar PV panels since there is no economic benefit to figuring out how, and there's not a lot of scrapped PV panels piling up causing a problem: Panels installed decades ago are only recently reaching their natural end of life, and panels produced today have output warranties of 30+ years... so in practical terms they will probably outlive the people who bought them.
For wind turbines, the blades are typically made of carbon and/or glass fiber composites. (Carbon fiber is potentially renewable though AFAIK current industrial scale production relies on petroleum.) The pillars are steel, and the bases are steel and concrete.
Then there is an army of techs necessary to climb those towers and maintain the equipment in the generator room of those wind turbines, and those guys burn gasoline to get to those wind machines.
Unless they use electric vehicles, which would make a lot of sense since they would literally be surrounded by renewable energy sources. And as far as I know, there is no legal limit on how much exposure to a wind turbine nacelle you're allowed in a year.
Solar is probably less maintenance intensive, but can only generate a limited number of hours per day. Right now we have few ways to store generated power, so that situation isn't ideal either.
The "baseload power" argument has been bunk for almost a decade now. Turns out that utility companies from all over the world, who are responsible for maintaining the stability and reliability of the electrical grids within and between their jurisdictions, are keenly aware that renewable energy is going to continue to grow. They're planning for it. They're doing studies and analysis. Those studies keep showing that "baseload" power like coal and nuclear are just not necessary even without storage.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/k...
Storage is just extra gravy on the side, and since it will take decades to fully transition there's plenty of time to build that, too.
=Smidge=
There, I have now doubled the number of times that "France" has been mentioned in a discussion that includes extravagant statements about the unaffordability of nuclear power, how it only survives by huge subsidies.
None of these people ever explain how France has not gone broke, relying on it for 75% of power generation for over 40 years. The power utility has separate books, so you're presumably including a vast nuclear-wing conspiracy to steal trillions from French taxpayers, decade after decade, right-wing and left-wing governments alike keeping the dread secret... of the money smuggled over to the electrical utility to fake up a profit.
Or we could go with Occam's and figure they really produce power with nukes at about a mid-range price for Europe, far cheaper than Germany and Belgium:
https://1-stromvergleich.com/e...
As for safety and all that, this is France, fercrissake; they take to the streets in crowds of black masks, smashing windows, in support of disgruntled train drivers: ...so I really think they would have called their government on the malfeasance if there had been any with nuclear reactors.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
It totally blows me away how aggressively Americans preserve their lack of interest in other countries. The fact that something worked somewhere else never makes any impression on them. Everybody else has universal health insurance? Still can't actually work. (On the right.) France runs the country on nukes since Disco was cool? It's still technically and financially impossible. (On the left.)