Netherlands considers more nuclear power

[Y'all Qaeda]

Can these not be used in a city?

A US aircraft carrier has a 700 Megawatt reactor.

A1B reactor - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Why do you want to use a aircraft carrier in a city? Airports are a better option.

 

[Gnome]

I watched a video on this recently where they polled a lot of people that fall into the nuclear, non-nuclear camp.

Those falling into the non-nuclear camp universally insisted that only "renewables" should be used and a significant number also believed we should change our lifestyles to fit in with those solutions
Those falling into the nuclear camp (who aren't lunies) almost entirely felt that a mixture of nuclear and renewables was the optimal solution.

I should state that expecting everyone on the planet to change their lifestyle is an unrealistic goal. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. People won't downgrade their lifestyle. If you think that you are an idiot. It is the same reason Tesla was the first successful electric car. They started up front with the understanding that you can't compromise. People expect everything a petrol car provides and then you need to provide an incentive to switch.

As for going fully renewable, it requires significant infrastructure in terms of land and equipment. Not mentioning its stability is very fragile. The 99th percentile for renewable that often gets overlooked is the fact that although it is super rare that wind, water and sunlight could all produce very little on the same day, it WILL happen.

As for pumped storage being able to cover peak load, that is absolutely crazy. It isn't even close. Battery storage less so.

So either you need to lower your standards and exchange lifestyle or you need to accept that fact you need something there just in case.
Some in the non-nuclear camp see that as being natural gas (ignoring the obvious increase in oil price and how that would look if everyone went natural gas)

The reality is nuclear power is beyond the comprehension of most people, even some people that think they understand it don't really. Series like Chernobyl (with the megaton water explosion arc) also create a completely skewed vision of what the risks are.

The end result: Coal here we come!! Until non-nuclear advocates can admit that going nuclear is better than coal, the easy choice for most governments is to simply install more coal capacity.

 

[Lupus]

I watched a video on this recently where they polled a lot of people that fall into the nuclear, non-nuclear camp.

Those falling into the non-nuclear camp universally insisted that only "renewables" should be used and a significant number also believed we should change our lifestyles to fit in with those solutions
Those falling into the nuclear camp (who aren't lunies) almost entirely felt that a mixture of nuclear and renewables was the optimal solution.

I should state that expecting everyone on the planet to change their lifestyle is an unrealistic goal. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. People won't downgrade their lifestyle. If you think that you are an idiot. It is the same reason Tesla was the first successful electric car. They started up front with the understanding that you can't compromise. People expect everything a petrol car provides and then you need to provide an incentive to switch.

As for going fully renewable, it requires significant infrastructure in terms of land and equipment. Not mentioning its stability is very fragile. The 99th percentile for renewable that often gets overlooked is the fact that although it is super rare that wind, water and sunlight could all produce very little on the same day, it WILL happen.

As for pumped storage being able to cover peak load, that is absolutely crazy. It isn't even close. Battery storage less so.

So either you need to lower your standards and exchange lifestyle or you need to accept that fact you need something there just in case.
Some in the non-nuclear camp see that as being natural gas.

The reality is nuclear power is beyond the comprehension of most people, even some people that think they understand it don't really. Series like Chernobyl (with the megaton water explosion arc) also create a completely skewed vision of what the risks are.

The end result: Coal here we come!! Until non-nuclear advocates can admit that going nuclear is better than coal, the easy choice for most governments is to simply install more coal capacity.

Well apparently peak electricity in the early morning and early evenings isn't a thing and all electricity is used during the day? I mean yes this is what some people believe. When a lot of the places using renewables have had to look at Peaking power plants to cater for those exact reasons. I mean we've got ours as the OCTGs but ours is because our infrastructure is dying.

 

[Gnome]

Well apparently peak electricity in the early morning and early evenings isn't a thing and all electricity is used during the day? I mean yes this is what some people believe. When a lot of the places using renewables have had to look at Peaking power plants to cater for those exact reasons. I mean we've got ours as the OCTGs but ours is because our infrastructure is dying.

So what natural gas, oil or coal? We already know that natural gas and oil prices skyrocket because there is a literal cartel making sure its price stays high. Which leaves coal. Not to mention that none of those "peaking" plants are anywhere near renewable.

With nuclear there is so much fuel on earth (not to mention that we can bread more fuel) that it is effectively moot if it is renewable or not.

As for the lifetime of a reactor, there is a lot fallacies. If you are a non-engineer you can easily fall into the trap of believing that building's design life means it'll collapse the day after. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. It is simply what the engineer predicted the lifetime to be without a next assessment and likely maintenance work that will need to be carried out.

When a building is built (any building), it is built with a life expectation. After that time an engineer will assess the state of the building and recommend upgrades or alterations to provide an additional X years of service. In the building industry you see that often, sometimes they even consider tearing down the building.

People don't do this for their homes so they don't think it counts for their homes but actually it does. Your homes are typically built with a 50 year design life. After that the pipes will corrode through, the foundation will shift, the insulation around the wires have degraded to the point that it is brittle and just falls apart, your circuit breakers are likely worn out, etc.

The same is true of nuclear power plants. It doesn't suddenly mean you need to shut it down, game over. Even the reactor core which is peppered with neutrons which weakens steel is often still fine after the "design" life. It is at that point that x-rays are taken and an assessment is done to determine what if any work is required. FYI Koeberg is going through that very process right now.

The design life of solar, wind, etc. will be significantly lower than a nuclear power plant. Those renewables are not somehow exempted from engineering principles and the limits of the our physical universe. As quickly as you are installing renewables you'll need to be maintaining and replacing existing renewables. Sure it'll take a few years before that cycle begins but when it does, it'll never end. You will forever be replacing panels, replacing turbines, etc.

 

[Lupus]

So what natural gas, oil or coal? We already know that natural gas and oil prices skyrocket because there is a literal cartel making sure its price stays high. Which leaves coal. Not to mention that none of those "peaking" plants are anywhere near renewable.

With nuclear there is so much fuel on earth (not to mention that we can bread more fuel) that it is effectively moot if it is renewable or not.

As for the lifetime of a reactor, there is a lot fallacies. If you are a non-engineer you can easily fall into the trap of believing that building's design life means it'll collapse the day after. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. It is simply what the engineer predicted the lifetime to be without a next assessment and likely maintenance work that will need to be carried out.

When a building is built (any building), it is built with a life expectation. After that time an engineer will assess the state of the building and recommend upgrades or alterations to provide an additional X years of service. In the building industry you see that often, sometimes they even consider tearing down the building.

People don't do this for their homes so they don't think it counts for their homes but actually it does. Your homes are typically built with a 50 year design life. After that the pipes will corrode through, the foundation will shift, the insulation around the wires have degraded to the point that it is brittle and just falls apart, your circuit breakers are likely worn out, etc.

The same is true of nuclear power plants. It doesn't suddenly mean you need to shut it down, game over. Even the reactor core which is peppered with neutrons which weakens steel is often still fine after the "design" life. It is at that point that x-rays are taken and an assessment is done to determine what if any work is required. FYI Koeberg is going through that very process right now.

The design life of solar, wind, etc. will be significantly lower than a nuclear power plant. Those renewables are somehow exempted from engineering principles.

Well with proper maintenance and upkeep things can run for quite sometime passed the life span as well, especially since apparently Koeberg has an excellent rating and our engineers have actually kept things running optimally for years. Though the upgrades are now coming.
Oh peaking plants use well natural gas, diesel or pumped storage, as they are literally only supposed to be used to back up peak hours, which are generally early morning and early evening, daytime usage is pretty stable.
Wind and Solar also kill a lot of wild life, but hey it's okay for us to live only during the day and shift our peaks.

 

[Gnome]

I should also add to my essay the fact that we, as a society are happy to throw sand in the face of nuclear which, for 99% of reactors, has virtually no nucleotides emitted. Yet the rare earth minerals and hard to find elements required to make all these renewables are emitting low level radiation themselves and making the areas around them completely uninhabitable

Wind and Solar also kill a lot of wild life, but hey it's okay for us to live only during the day and shift our peaks.

Yeah, don't see that happening. You need 100% cooperation and even with certain death you will never get 100% cooperation from humans. Hell we had day 0 coming in Cape Town and a lot of people still just couldn't be bothered. Yet somehow we think some nebulous problem such as global warming which has a very long impact duration is somehow going to convince everyone to change their lifestyles.

It is laughable

Oh peaking plants use well natural gas, diesel or pumped storage, as they are literally only supposed to be used to back up peak hours

SA has several of those and they don't even come close to being able to carry all the load. In fact even with Cape Town's massive pumped storage facility (which btw. doesn't work during droughts) can only avert stage 1.

 

[Lupus]

I should also add to my essay the fact that we, as a society are happy to throw sand in the face of nuclear which, for 99% of reactors, has virtually no nucleotides emitted. Yet the rare earth minerals and hard to find elements required to make all these renewables are emitting low level radiation themselves and making the areas around them completely uninhabitable


Yeah, don't see that happening. You need 100% cooperation and even with certain death you will never get 100% cooperation from humans. Hell we had day 0 coming in Cape Town and a lot of people still just couldn't be bothered. Yet somehow we think some nebulous problem such as global warming which has a very long impact duration is somehow going to convince everyone to change their lifestyles.

It is laughable

Don't forget that a nuclear reactor will not blow up like a nuclear bomb, firstly different fuels, they are also not designed like bombs. So seeing the mushroom cloud won't happen. Oh and all the nuclear waste so far would take up a football field.

 

[Gnome]

Don't forget that a nuclear reactor will not blow up like a nuclear bomb, firstly different fuels, they are also not designed like bombs. So seeing the mushroom cloud won't happen.

Haha or if you drop nuclear fuel in water it'll make Europe uninhabitable.

We should let North Korea and Iran know. Especially Iran, they already have nuclear power plants. Why the hell are they struggling to make nuclear bombs. Just dump the core into water, boom megaton explosion!

 

[Lupus]

Haha or if you drop nuclear fuel in water it'll make Europe uninhabitable.

We should let North Korea and Iran know. Especially Iran, they already have nuclear power plants. Why the hell are they struggling to make nuclear bombs. Just dump the core into water, boom megaton explosion!

Don't give them ideas ;-)