For the "Greens"

[sd_matt]

Ok if I follow this technical-ese then, when considering the timescales, we are better off waiting for commercial fusion rather than develop any MSR?

[KitemanSA]

Ok if I follow this technical-ese then, when considering the timescales, we are better off waiting for commercial fusion rather than develop any MSR?

Not sure how you got to that conclusion. You could make that leap if you are restricting yourself to MCSFRs like Elysium wanted. But if we max out the number of MCSFRs that can be built (~100GW worth) and if the last line I presented can be made to happen, we could be building and fueling ~140GW worth every year. Given the 20 year doubling assumption, We could fuel 147 after a second year, ~154 on the third, 162 on the fourth, and ~240 on the 10th year. After about 14 years, the LFTR bred fuel outpaces the MCSFR bred.

I’m going to write a spread sheet to verify this.

I did it and it shows that after ~43 years we could fuel~1TW of reactors and after 55 it is 2TW.

To support a global middle class civilization, while leaving nature to itself, we need to build about 1TW of new clean power plants every year, FOREVER. We can reach that build rate after ~43 years with no more uranium mining and little if any EXTRA thorium mining given we extract many thousand tonnes each year from Rare Earth Element mining.

[KitemanSA]

It comes out to about 15,000 tonnes each year.

[sd_matt]

I should mention that I am a layman and not an engineer or a scientist.

In layman's terms and regarding your post a couple posts back: Are you saying the Elysium concept would be best implemented in conjunction with other MSR, what is the word, "configurarions"?

[KitemanSA]

I should mention that I am a layman and not an engineer or a scientist.

In layman's terms and regarding your post a couple posts back: Are you saying the Elysium concept would be best implemented in conjunction with other MSR, what is the word, "configurarions"?

Yes, that is what I am saying. With MCSFRs we can make use of the Pu in the world but we can’t build enough to make a significant difference. In conjunction with thermal spectrum MSRs like LFTR, we can rapidly build units in excess of the MCSFRs alone.

Did you find a typo? Looks like “configurations” to me; the “r” and the “t” being right next to each other on my keyboard.

[sd_matt]

Yeah I keep the auto spell off. It's a real pain.

According to this lady, who seems to attempt to be neutral, the "levelized" cost of nuke plants is five times that of wind or solar.

First thing. What is levelized cost?

Second thing. Is she correct? If so I wonder if that is the U.S. building one of a kind plants as opposed to the French.

Last third of the vid

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k

[KitemanSA]

According to this lady, who seems to attempt to be neutral, the "levelized" cost of nuke plants is five times that of wind or solar.

First thing. What is levelized cost?

Levelized cost is an ATTEMPT to have a point to point comparison of energy sources. The problem is that it does not really take into account system cost. For example, W&S requires large amounts of transmission capacity to connect up all those remote generation sites, but that cost is not included. W&S also requires a buffering system that has ~100% of the peak capacity of the W&S and THAT cost is not included.

Second thing. Is she correct? If so I wonder if that is the U.S. building one of a kind plants as opposed to the French.

She could be, but the measure is useless for the real world. The better measure is to compare the electricity prices for systems with high nuclear and high W&S. Nuclear wins, hands down. Electricity in 75% nuclear France is about 1/3 the cost of electricity in 25% W&S Germany.

The US NRC is widely known to be the enemy of commercial nuclear power. Design certification and site certification are ungodly expensive, and the yearly license fee costs about as much as the fuel. The South Koreans install at ~1/3 (IIRC) the US cost.

[KitemanSA]

Last third of the vid

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k

Many things wrong.

• CO2 output WAS as high as 110 to 170 g/kwh back in the 50s when most enrichment was by gas diffusion, and when the process was run by a local coal fired power plant. Modern centrifuge enrichment takes about 1/10th the energy, and much of it is done by nuclear and hydro. The most recent values I have seem for MODERN nuclear power is ~12g/kwh. And when you compare to BUFFERED W&S and use the dominant buffering source (natural gas turbines) and include the GHG effects of leaked CH4, they (W&S) produce more CO2 equivalent than coal.
  
  The deaths per TWy for nuclear is by far the lowest. The Chernobyl Forum, Second Report, shows total expected deaths at ~200, not the 4000 to 9000 she said. Those numbers are from the old report when they used the ridiculous Linear No Threshold (LNT) model for death rate. And she was wrong about the Fukushima worker too. He died of lung cancer which takes far more that 7 years to show up. He was a smoker. TEPCO did not pay death benefits because he died from smoking. His relatives won in court because his employment included a “no-fault” insurance program. If he received over a set amount of radiation AND he died of any of a number of diseases, he got the benefit. They didn’t have to prove more than the dose and the cause of death.

I was getting so disgusted I stopped watching.

[charliem]

First thing. What is levelized cost?

Basically, it's is an attempt to calculate the cost per MWh of electricity produced by a power plant during its whole operational life. It is calculated by dividing the estimated lifelong production, by the sum of all the costs of financing, construction, fueling, operation, maintenance, decommission, etc. (usually, adding a discount rate to reflect capital costs, and compensating for predicted inflation).

This is the article on Levelized Cost of Electricity/Energy (LCOE) in Wikipedia.

As KitemanSA says, it is not perfect because of the difficulty of taking everything into account, although, if there are alternatives they seem hard to find, at least in Internet.

Second thing. Is she correct? If so I wonder if that is the U.S. building one of a kind plants as opposed to the French.

I'm no expert myself (just started researching this topic a few weeks back) but from what I've seen up to now (and as Sabine says), it is really confusing because almost everyone seems to have an agenda, and offer numbers all over the place. For example, I've found that many compare the most optimistic figures for their preferred option, against the worst estimations for "the others". Or choose numbers from different years that favor their "side". Or confront real numbers obtained from the real operation for one, against estimations for the future of the other, etc.

I've decided that for now I'm going to stick to info from the big energy investment houses (and [some] government agencies.) At least these put their money where their mouth is.

It is not hard to find reports from Lazard (their anual LCOE report is, apparently, quite well regarded), Bloomberg, Energy Capital Partners, the French Energy Regulatory Commission, and so on.

[charliem]

Solar and Wind are unreliable, but also cheaper.

This is just plain false. W&S MUST be buffered for grid use. Buffered W&S is about the most expensive power there is.

I don't get it. If this is false, why are the big energy companies still investing in installing more W&S ?

Nuclear is reliable, but more expensive (at least until 4th generation nuclear is operational).

Again, just plain false. Nuclear France has power costs ~1/3 of buffered W&S Germany. You simply MUST think about the entire system.

I found this from Eurostat, and this from Euronews.

The second link includes a list of average electricity price for residential clients by country (for 2023). Comparing France, Germany, and Spain, it says that Germany is the most expensive (almost double than France), and Spain the cheapest (~10% less than France).

Now, according the first link, the share of renewables (in 2021) is more or less the same in Spain and Germany. Any ideas why the apparent contradiction ?

By the way, in this year's report, Lazard included estimations of the LCOE for backed W&S in some US states ("Cost of Firming Intermittency"). They sound optimistic.

[KitemanSA]

Solar and Wind are unreliable, but also cheaper.

This is just plain false. W&S MUST be buffered for grid use. Buffered W&S is about the most expensive power there is.

I don't get it. If this is false, why are the big energy companies still investing in installing more W&S ?

Massive federal and state subsidies. Money stolen from us and given to them. Pigs scarfing down at a trough.

[KitemanSA]

Nuclear is reliable, but more expensive (at least until 4th generation nuclear is operational).

Again, just plain false. Nuclear France has power costs ~1/3 of buffered W&S Germany. You simply MUST think about the entire system.

I found this from Eurostat, and this from Euronews.

The second link includes a list of average electricity price for residential clients by country (for 2023). Comparing France, Germany, and Spain, it says that Germany is the most expensive (almost double than France), and Spain the cheapest (~10% less than France).

Now, according the first link, the share of renewables (in 2021) is more or less the same in Spain and Germany. Any ideas why the apparent contradiction?

Please note the difference in statements. “W&S” vs “renewables” and “electricity cost” vs “residential electricity cost”. Sweden has a shitload of “renewables” but it is almost all hydro. And German “residential” power used to be much higher until they stopped using the citizens to subsidize commerce. I suspect Spain uses higher commercial costs to subsidize the residences.

[KitemanSA]

I was thinking about “rock catchments” for rainwater harvesting in arid and semi-arid parts of the world when it struck me that “white tarp” catchments would do as well, could be placed most anywhere, AND have the added benefit that they would counter the effects of GHG emissions. That got me thinking about what that factor would be. For an albedo change of 1 (water to floating white tarp) one square meter of tarp would counter emissions from ~250 liter of gasoline. A white tarp on a typical desert would have an albedo change of about 0.4, so ~100l worth of emissions.

A single large white tarp costs ~$2.5/m^2 at a hardware store. I presume in bulk it would be more like $1/m^2. So, a fee of ~$0.01/l of gas would counter the heating effects AND help folks in arid and semi arid lands harvest clean water. Even arid zones could get 300l/year of water for every 100l of gas purchased with that fee. Hmmm.

Assumes I did my math correctly and got the right data from my research.

[KitemanSA]

I had all that stuff until I was evicted from facebook.

I found the reference.
Markadya A & Wilkinson, P. (2007). Electrical Generation and Health. Lancet 370(9591), 979-990

Sadly these are truths that almost no one wants to hear...

Check the attachment.
The colored bar segments was from M&W and the grey was the info on buffering that I added.

[Giorgio]

Check the attachment.
The colored bar segments was from M&W and the grey was the info on buffering that I added.

It gives quite a different truth, but convincing the laymen about it is a whole odyssey.
I still remember in a dinner few years ago arguing for one hour with two green brain ladies that rejected the idea that the Sun was a nuclear fusion machine because it was "environmentally friendly and had nothing to do with dirty nuclear reactions".
The amount of ignorance out there that is pushed by the media is sometimes beyond belief..