|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 17, 2012 23:18:36 GMT 9.5
A new post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/time-for-reckoningThis a new article on BNC written by Geoff Russell. He argues that it's time the global political Green movement showed some compassion by taking steps to try to reduce the distress and panic around the Fukushima nuclear accident, and treating risks on the basis of real-world evidence by targeting efforts to those dangers that cause most actual harm. This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 14, 2012 18:40:57 GMT 9.5
Best options I see are: (1) Well-developed and relatively isolated grids that require incremental additions to the generation infrastructure, rather than a massive new plant(s) - e.g. my state of South Australia
(2) Remote large-scale mining sites that currently rely on diesel generators
(3) Trans-Siberian gas pipeline, for pumping (to save a $-load of gas that is currently used for this purpose)
We proposed 1 and 2 in the BNC lead article, and 3 has been proposed before for the 311 MWe IFR PRISM (and is still under some serious discussion)
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 14, 2012 12:02:01 GMT 9.5
David Forbes, it is on my reading list (actually, it's in my Kindle library queue, awaiting its turn)
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 14, 2012 11:55:59 GMT 9.5
Ted’s simpler way is impractical to implement, even if we could get enough people to assent to it (and we can’t, for innumerable reasons). Although his critiques of large-scale renewables are robust, the “Simpler Way” conclusion is undermined if his nuclear conclusion is incorrect (as Ted has acknowledged to me), although general points about sustainability are still valid.
In short, the developing world lives in Trainer’s power-down society already, and they are going to do everything possible to get the hell out of it. The developed world will fight tooth and nail, and will burn the planet to a soot-laden crisp, rather than embrace Trainer’s simpler way. Power down is a non-solution to the climate and energy crises.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 12, 2012 12:38:06 GMT 9.5
A new post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/smallish-is-beautifulThis a new article written by Ben Heard and me in the SA Mines & Energy Journal (issue 23, pg 22-23), about the potential for small modular nuclear reactors. (Ben should get the primary authoring credit here -- my job was to 'enhance' this one rather than lead the writing.) This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 12, 2012 10:13:58 GMT 9.5
Coal would tend to pack tighter than blocks of wood too (depending on size of wood cuts)
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 7, 2012 21:54:39 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 7, 2012 21:18:25 GMT 9.5
EclipseNow, that only works for WordPress.org
I have WordPress.com
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 7, 2012 0:15:02 GMT 9.5
Janne, you (and others) are correct. Logically (in my mind, and that of the BNC Moderator), it made sense to give people a classification structure. But in practice, such an approach is NOT user friendly. So, I've totally revamped the Boards. There are now only 4 options - BNC Blog Posts, Energy, Climate Change, and Forum Help. Basically, if you want to find something specific, just put it in the search box (the search engine on Proboards is excellent). No more fine-grained hierarchical classification. Just nice and simple. As for the BNC blog, I'll now close comments on all the new (Post BNC Forum) blog posts, and not open them for most blog posts. The only place to comment on BNC blog posts henceforth with be at the BNC Forums: bravenewclimate.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bncblogpostsThanks everyone for the critical feedback - much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 1, 2012 14:23:19 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 31, 2012 17:12:25 GMT 9.5
A new guest post by Tom Blees has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/roads-not-taken-yetIt describes the political roadblocks that have been faced in getting the Integral Fast Reactor built in the U.S., and the likely future road. It's actually extremely promising. This recent further announcement from the UK bolsters this viewpoint: University to support PRISM promotionThis BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 29, 2012 11:28:44 GMT 9.5
I gave a lecture to a large group of general medical practitioners on the weekend. After the facts and options were explained to them, the majority seemed in favour of including nuclear in the energy option mix. I was asked afterwards by one GP how he might go about talking to his patients on nuclear energy, and helping to explain to them why it is needed. I suggest that he focus on what is closest to his area of expertise - radiation - and explain to them the great benefits, medically, that nuclear medicine brings to his profession. It's a good starting point, I think, because it relates so strongly to people's fear of nuclear waste and nuclear accidents - both are principally linked to an overreaction to radiation dangers.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 28, 2012 13:52:21 GMT 9.5
I think the 4S is proposed to be air-cooled, much as the EBR-II reactor was - in the desert out at Arco, Idaho. But I agree, it seems to be overkill, unless they start marketing sub-megawatt nuclear batteries.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 28, 2012 13:20:00 GMT 9.5
LancedDendrite, agreed, if this is the scale. I think the smallest feasible size for an SMR would be about 40-50 MWe (although a 10 MW version of the 4S nuclear battery is proposed, and when you take account accommodation etc. it might be feasible).
Regarding their context statement - I guess one person's definition of 'a lot of power' is different to another's!
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 28, 2012 11:50:36 GMT 9.5
Good find wilful. Unfortunately they don't say how much power (or energy) they are going to require - do you know if this is reported anywhere? I agree a SMR or two sounds ideal.
It's silly really that they don't include nuclear in their list of options already - from an engineering-science viewpoint, it is crazy not to, and they are physicists running it!
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 24, 2012 16:46:04 GMT 9.5
jmkorhonen, the 'trilemma' summary is a very sharp way of thinking about the problem. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 18, 2012 11:51:09 GMT 9.5
A new guest post by Martin Nicholson has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/power-makers-challenge-p2It introduces his new book, and includes an overview of low-carbon energy options for future energy supply. Part 2 covers Fission Energy (Martin's suggested term for nuclear). This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 18, 2012 10:54:01 GMT 9.5
Eclipse, did you read my paper on Energy Policy on this topic (or the blog post?). Could nuclear fission energy,etc., solve the greenhouse problem? The affirmative caseIn the scenario I paint, a decarbonised world will need about 8,800 GWe of average final power (to do everything, including replacing oil). I guesstimated that ~4,500 of that would come from nuclear fission. This results in the following discussion on build rates:
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 16, 2012 17:23:35 GMT 9.5
Fran, you should register an account. It will only take 1 min, and then you'll be able to track your posts, and you won't need to enter a bot-check every time, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 15, 2012 18:25:03 GMT 9.5
David M, you say: "To me to run away from getting serious in this area is running away from the future."
So what exactly do you propose? How fast will your solution work (presuming you have one)? Did you read the BNC post on this issue? (it doesn't sound like it, from your reply). Do you dispute the numbers?
Actually, it's not. 3 million people at current energy use in the US equates to about 6 GWe of addition power. The US has already installed 100 GWe, which is, expressed in these terms, enough to cover more than 15 years of population growth. You're focusing on the wrong problem.
The US is increasing its population because of immigration, yes. But its fertility rates continue to drop. If you want to bring affluence into the equation, then you've ceased to talk about population growth.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 15, 2012 11:25:39 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 15, 2012 11:09:29 GMT 9.5
Geoff, if we knew the answer to that question, we might be making faster headway. Perhaps it's the way it is being presented, as words rather than diagrams? People want to see visuals with their (small amount) of text, I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 11, 2012 18:23:05 GMT 9.5
A new guest post by Martin Nicholson has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/power-makers-challenge-p1It introduces his new book, and includes an overview of low-carbon energy options for future energy supply. Part 1 covers The Carbon Challenge, Renewable Energy, Energy Storage, Clean Coal, and Baseload Alternatives. (Part 2 will cover Nuclear Fission). This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 11, 2012 12:52:47 GMT 9.5
Tom Blees estimated <$2,000/kW for an nth-of-a-kind S-PRISM plant, based on GE estimates and other data, as detailed in Prescription for the Planet. The first commercial demo units will clearly be more expensive, so the question is very dependent on context.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 11, 2012 10:43:30 GMT 9.5
David M, for answers to your questions on the IFR, there is a detailed resource compiled on BNC at the " Integral Fast Reactor - Facts and Discussion" series This covers all the questions you've asked above. If you still have specific queries after reading these 22 entries, then I'd be happy to answer them: bravenewclimate.com/category/ifr-fad/
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 9, 2012 10:12:49 GMT 9.5
sod, off topic, you should register on this forum if you are going to continue to post here. You can then llogin to your account and post from that - you won't need to enter the SPAM check each time, and all your posts will be archived etc. All the cool kids are doing it...
BTW - when you do register (Mod talking now) be sure to register as sod(all lower case, no gaps etc) you can alter your name to any form in your membership details after you have registered. Many, including I, got caught (frustratingly) with the lower case enrolment necessity.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 9, 2012 10:11:41 GMT 9.5
Cyril, off topic, you should register on this forum if you are going to continue to post here. You can then llogin to your account and post from that - you won't need to enter the SPAM check each time, and all your posts will be archived etc. All the cool kids are doing it...
BTW - when you do register (Mod talking now) be sure to register as cyrilr(all lower case, no gaps etc) you can alter your name to Cyril R in your membership details after you have registered. Many, including I, got caught (frustratingly) with the lower case enrolment necessity. Great to have you on board ;D
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 8, 2012 12:33:17 GMT 9.5
Accepter is an excellent term wilful, I'm going to start using that. It is not only accurate, but it positively prompts people to ask more about it (What do you accept? The evidence and logic, dear sir!)
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 7, 2012 15:39:17 GMT 9.5
Right huon - now we need to couple optimism with pragmatism, and we'll really start to lick the big problems.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 6, 2012 21:00:38 GMT 9.5
Ben, this is no different to the situation with coal. The typical way to cope with this is for the electricity generation system to have a 'reserve margin' of additional plant (hydro, gas, or just other coal and nuclear), on the order of 20 to 25 % above the typical peak load. This is how Australia copes with 80% coal (and some very large plants), for instance, and how France copes with 80% nuclear.
The great thing about large-scale nuclear is that we don't need to guess how it's done. We can see it, operating in the real world, in France. It's something technosolar (non-hydro) renewables just can do, at present.
|
|