Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Andres125sx]

They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

The reply is too easy. Imagine a terrorist with one of those in your town/city

Imagine a large meteor on your town/city. That's about as likely.

Well, I´d say we all have seen some attacks trying to cause as many deaths as possible, and that´s only in our short lifes, while neither of us or any human in history have seen a large meteor, so no, that´s not about as likely, not even close, quite an absurd comparison actually

[Just_a_fan]

The reply is too easy. Imagine a terrorist with one of those in your town/city

Imagine a large meteor on your town/city. That's about as likely.

Well, I´d say we all have seen some attacks trying to cause as many deaths as possible, and that´s only in our short lifes, while neither of us or any human in history have seen a large meteor, so no, that´s not about as likely, not even close, quite an absurd comparison actually

The immediate "think of terrorists" is equally absurd. A compact nuclear plant can be built in a box that protects it from attack, just as easily as any other such plant. Or do you worry that terrorists might get hold of bunker buster bombs along with an aircraft capable of delivering it to a target with sufficient accuracy?

Do we see terrorists attack full size nuclear plants? No. Why should a compact item be any more of a target? I'm still surprised that 9/11 was an attack on skyscrapers rather than a nuclear power plant. Maybe Osama realised that the latter would have less of an impact with far fewer people killed.

[Andres125sx]

Imagine a large meteor on your town/city. That's about as likely.

Well, I´d say we all have seen some attacks trying to cause as many deaths as possible, and that´s only in our short lifes, while neither of us or any human in history have seen a large meteor, so no, that´s not about as likely, not even close, quite an absurd comparison actually

The immediate "think of terrorists" is equally absurd. A compact nuclear plant can be built in a box that protects it from attack, just as easily as any other such plant. Or do you worry that terrorists might get hold of bunker buster bombs along with an aircraft capable of delivering it to a target with sufficient accuracy?

Do we see terrorists attack full size nuclear plants? No. Why should a compact item be any more of a target? I'm still surprised that 9/11 was an attack on skyscrapers rather than a nuclear power plant. Maybe Osama realised that the latter would have less of an impact with far fewer people killed.

What do you consider compact?

Since you did mention carriers and submarines I was assuming you were talking about small size reaktors for vehicles, if you´re just talking about nuclear plants for towns, then agree, but that´s not any different to current plants, what´s the advantage then?

[nzjrs]

Wouldn't it be easiest just to attack a large hydro dam?

[Just_a_fan]

Well, I´d say we all have seen some attacks trying to cause as many deaths as possible, and that´s only in our short lifes, while neither of us or any human in history have seen a large meteor, so no, that´s not about as likely, not even close, quite an absurd comparison actually

The immediate "think of terrorists" is equally absurd. A compact nuclear plant can be built in a box that protects it from attack, just as easily as any other such plant. Or do you worry that terrorists might get hold of bunker buster bombs along with an aircraft capable of delivering it to a target with sufficient accuracy?

Do we see terrorists attack full size nuclear plants? No. Why should a compact item be any more of a target? I'm still surprised that 9/11 was an attack on skyscrapers rather than a nuclear power plant. Maybe Osama realised that the latter would have less of an impact with far fewer people killed.

What do you consider compact?

Since you did mention carriers and submarines I was assuming you were talking about small size reaktors for vehicles, if you´re just talking about nuclear plants for towns, then agree, but that´s not any different to current plants, what´s the advantage then?

The advantage is they are self-contained, don't need refuelling etc. So much less waste produced, much less resource required to make / locate / run. Think large house rather than huge buildings on multi-hectare sites.

There is a lot of work going on around the world on SMR (Small Modular Reactor). There is certainly much to be said for them for more remote towns etc.

[Just_a_fan]

Wouldn't it be easiest just to attack a large hydro dam?

There are only 2 flying Lancasters in the the world (neither of which is a Mk III Special) and no working Upkeep bombs...

[subcritical71]

They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

The reason has to do with nuclear weapons treaties. The military reactors use highly enriched uranium. Civilian reactors only use around 6% enriched. Submarine fuel assemblies are about the size of a 50 gallon barrel, commercial fuel assemblies are huge behemoths in comparison. It’s not that the military reactor could be used as a bomb (it can’t), it’s that you could remove this highly enriched fuel to convert it to a bomb use, it’s weapons grade.
If that wasn’t bad enough, recycling of the fuel is banned. Even after 25 years of operation there is still usable uranium in those fuel assemblies.
Now think about the waste aspect. Military reactors will have a 50 gallon barrel of waste when done, the civilian reactor has many factors more waste (in a 25 year period that civilian plant will refuel several times). Most of the waste in the civilian reactor is because it’s not allowed to be highly enriched and you have a lower power density. So about 20 times the waste for the same power output.

[Just_a_fan]

They're in aircraft carriers and submarines. The latest designs will run for 25 years+ without need for refuelling. Why not adopt similar technology for self-contained civilian power plants?

The reason has to do with nuclear weapons treaties. The military reactors use highly enriched uranium. Civilian reactors only use around 6% enriched. Submarine fuel assemblies are about the size of a 50 gallon barrel, commercial fuel assemblies are huge behemoths in comparison. It’s not that the military reactor could be used as a bomb (it can’t), it’s that you could remove this highly enriched fuel to convert it to a bomb use, it’s weapons grade.
If that wasn’t bad enough, recycling of the fuel is banned. Even after 25 years of operation there is still usable uranium in those fuel assemblies.
Now think about the waste aspect. Military reactors will have a 50 gallon barrel of waste when done, the civilian reactor has many factors more waste (in a 25 year period that civilian plant will refuel several times). Most of the waste in the civilian reactor is because it’s not allowed to be highly enriched and you have a lower power density. So about 20 times the waste for the same power output.

New compact reactors are being developed around the world. These are shipping container-sized devices. So they must have developed more efficient ways of using what energy is available. They are lower output, obviously. The Rolls Royce design is a 400MW electrical output unit, for example.

[izzy]

The reactor-in-a-box units are basically sealed units, unlike the traditional nuclear power stations that have removable fuel rods for refuelling. Obviously, removing high radioactive "spent fuel makes everything close by that's involved in the process in to nuclear waste of some form too. If you can leave the reactor in a safe, spent, state then that's a good outcome. Obviously it's still radioactive so needs to be kept safe, but it's going to be easier than decommissioning a traditional plant.

The problem with the new plant is that the UK Government wants it to be built commercially rather than by the state. As nuclear power is expensive to build, that limits the number of companies that want to / can afford to get involved. If the UK Government wanted to build and own the reactor, rather than rely on private finance, it would have been built by now.

Ah okay. I must admit i quite like direct wind and solar, they're a lot more straightforward! Nuclear is basically steam age really and this disposal issue is a problem even if it can be boxed

People have mostly got used to wind turbines i think and stopped fretting about them, especially offshore, and solar panels are set for a big gain in efficiency i was reading. We just need more steps in storage, more than anything, for global energy as well as vehicles

[Just_a_fan]

People have mostly got used to wind turbines i think and stopped fretting about them, especially offshore, and solar panels are set for a big gain in efficiency i was reading. We just need more steps in storage, more than anything, for global energy as well as vehicles

What is needed is a mix. PV and wind alone won't do it. There needs to be stuff that covers base load / can provide for times when the renewables alone can't cover the demand. There really are times when the wind doesn't blow enough and it sometimes happens at night. Tidal seems a good idea but there seems to be political objection (at least to tidal barrages), presumably on grounds of cost / time / project scale. I like the look of the tidal turbines (think wind turbine under water, using tidal flow instead of wind), but that seems to be slow to develop. I'm guessing there is now a happy (for Government and the money men, at least) balance where wind turbines are mature and easy to do.

I think we either need to look at massive tidal investment or we need to maintain fossil fuel as back up, or nuclear in place of fossil fuel.

Tidal always works, to some degree, around the UK because the tides always happen and they're predictable to the minute. Tidal is also much more reliable in terms of output per device:

Like the wind capturing the air, we are capturing the energy of moving water,” Ward explains. “Unlike wind, it’s regular and it’s reliable because tides are reliable. For every 2MW of wind infrastructure the average output is 250kW of energy. For every 2MW of tidal infrastructure you can guarantee 1.8MW of power.

The UK’s tidal stream potential is 8.5GW, according to MeyGen developer, owner and operator Simec Atlantis. Worldwide the potential is 99GW of clean, secure and predictable energy.

both from https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archiv ... 3-12-2018/

So that looks promising, doesn't it? The UK Government will obviously have been interested in that as a way of powering the country. Well...

But the government in Westminster has yet to appreciate the potential of the world beating work that has been going on so far away from London. It pulled funding from all tidal power development in 2016 with no prospect of review until 2021.

All funding removed from tidal. Why? Got to think someone has some fingers in a different pie.

As an indication, from https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/, at the time of posting, UK demand is 30GW, wind is providing 3.5GW, CCGT about 8GW, nuclear about 4.5GW, solar PV estimated at 7GW.

So the UK's tidal potential could cover the power generated by the CCGT today. The country would be carbon-neutral today using renewables and nuclear. That's for today at the point of posting. Other days will have other figures, obviously, and the lock down will be having some effect.

[izzy]

What is needed is a mix. PV and wind alone won't do it. There needs to be stuff that covers base load / can provide for times when the renewables alone can't cover the demand. There really are times when the wind doesn't blow enough and it sometimes happens at night. Tidal seems a good idea but there seems to be political objection (at least to tidal barrages), presumably on grounds of cost / time / project scale. I like the look of the tidal turbines (think wind turbine under water, using tidal flow instead of wind), but that seems to be slow to develop. I'm guessing there is now a happy (for Government and the money men, at least) balance where wind turbines are mature and easy to do.

I think we either need to look at massive tidal investment or we need to maintain fossil fuel as back up, or nuclear in place of fossil fuel.

Tidal always works, to some degree, around the UK because the tides always happen and they're predictable to the minute. Tidal is also much more reliable in terms of output per device:

Like the wind capturing the air, we are capturing the energy of moving water,” Ward explains. “Unlike wind, it’s regular and it’s reliable because tides are reliable. For every 2MW of wind infrastructure the average output is 250kW of energy. For every 2MW of tidal infrastructure you can guarantee 1.8MW of power.

The UK’s tidal stream potential is 8.5GW, according to MeyGen developer, owner and operator Simec Atlantis. Worldwide the potential is 99GW of clean, secure and predictable energy.

both from https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archiv ... 3-12-2018/

So that looks promising, doesn't it? The UK Government will obviously have been interested in that as a way of powering the country. Well...

But the government in Westminster has yet to appreciate the potential of the world beating work that has been going on so far away from London. It pulled funding from all tidal power development in 2016 with no prospect of review until 2021.

All funding removed from tidal. Why? Got to think someone has some fingers in a different pie.

As an indication, from https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/, at the time of posting, UK demand is 30GW, wind is providing 3.5GW, CCGT about 8GW, nuclear about 4.5GW, solar PV estimated at 7GW.

So the UK's tidal potential could cover the power generated by the CCGT today. The country would be carbon-neutral today using renewables and nuclear. That's for today at the point of posting. Other days will have other figures, obviously, and the lock down will be having some effect.

https://cdn.ca.emap.com/wp-content/uplo ... MeyGen.png

Tidal looks promising doesn't it. Lots of power available and consistent as you say. Reading around quickly it sounds like it's just expensive to get started, build some and do the research

It'd help if energy was more expensive, they should move a lot of tax onto it if you ask me. Really a lot, but they just wanna get reelected in 4 years, part of the same short termism that stops them investing

[Tommy Cookers]

before this now-fashionable tidal stream method the UK researched the tidal range method eg a Severn barrage
designed peak capacity c. 10 GW
because said Herman Bondi tidal energy was self-limiting to this Severn system
these barrages are cheap to build - this is very shallow water (or none)

others before and since said that a much bigger (Severn + Bristol Channel) system would have a much bigger yield
it's all to do with whether the tide acts as a gravity wave or as a progressive wave - the experts appear to lack expertise
the big system might allow eg a 30 GW peak capacity

but barrages were then effectively banned by EU environmental rules requiring all displaced wildlife to be rehomed
this barrage seem to be still effectively banned by the politics of UK regionality
these appear to entertain only small local 'lagoon' schemes which would confound any whole-Severn scheme

[Just_a_fan]

Tidal turbines have the benefit of being simpler to install, cheaper to build/install, and they start making pwoer from the time the first one is connected to the grid. Barrages require a huge resource involvement for several years before they get anywhere near generating power. They also have slack periods where several "fields" of underwater turbines can give constant power as they're spread over an area so they get tidal movement, averaged across the field as a whole, all the time.

Underwater turbines also don't have the same issue with respect to wildlife. Tidal barrages tend to wipe out an entire wetland / foreshore environment.

[Andres125sx]

The immediate "think of terrorists" is equally absurd. A compact nuclear plant can be built in a box that protects it from attack, just as easily as any other such plant. Or do you worry that terrorists might get hold of bunker buster bombs along with an aircraft capable of delivering it to a target with sufficient accuracy?

Do we see terrorists attack full size nuclear plants? No. Why should a compact item be any more of a target? I'm still surprised that 9/11 was an attack on skyscrapers rather than a nuclear power plant. Maybe Osama realised that the latter would have less of an impact with far fewer people killed.

What do you consider compact?

Since you did mention carriers and submarines I was assuming you were talking about small size reaktors for vehicles, if you´re just talking about nuclear plants for towns, then agree, but that´s not any different to current plants, what´s the advantage then?

The advantage is they are self-contained, don't need refuelling etc. So much less waste produced, much less resource required to make / locate / run.

Then they´re disposable? I mean, if they´re self-contained and don´t need refuelling, I read that as they can´t be refueled, so they´re disposable, once it´s used, it must be disposed

Can´t see any big advantage, basically instead of producing waste products wich need to be contained, the whole reaktor is self-contained from the begining, but it will produce waste products equally, only that it´s all self-contained, wich means higher volume for same waste product volume. Edit: I´m far from an expert, actually I knew nothing about this before reading your posts, just trying to understand it


Very interesting post about tidal power btw, upvoted

[subcritical71]

Can´t see any big advantage, basically instead of producing waste products wich need to be contained, the whole reaktor is self-contained from the begining, but it will produce waste products equally, only that it´s all self-contained, wich means higher volume for same waste product volume. Edit: I´m far from an expert, actually I knew nothing about this before reading your posts, just trying to understand it

If the self-contained reactor can be disposed of without opening it, in other words as a whole unit. The hazard of waste/future contamination goes down quickly. The US nuclear submarines which sank are monitored periodically and their cores are still intact and not releasing nasties to the environment.