LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 01-22-2023, 01:57 PM   #586
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,515

Rep: Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184

Oh by all means let's count "output from a damaged reactor". What sort of damage can you imagine? The odds of damage to an SMR is extremely low, absurdly, ridiculously less than the odds of dying in a car crash. The passive design which all but eliminates the need for human access, other than refueling in several year cycles, allows for extremely robust packaging. Some designs allow for the package to be underground where even the possibility of exposure to stress is almost non-existent.

The only "but still" that truly remains is the understandable fear that exposure to some lethal levels of radiation are imperceptible. The difference between between SMRs and previous form factors, most of which came from the track record of nuclear submarines, is huge even more than the fact that those older designs basically ignored that power plants are not normally submerged in vast oceans. This means cooling water, required in such designs, must be pumped and controlled, requiring elaborate sensors and backup systems and human overwatch. Passive design, depending on natural forces like gravity, need no oversight, need no complexity, vastly reducing even hypothetical failure points.

It's great to see some of the advances in so-called "green energy" and the huge reductions in price of some types but with the ever increasing need for energy and the 100% duty cycle of nuclear, it must be a large part of any real and practical solution.
 
Old 01-23-2023, 05:14 AM   #587
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 6,661
Blog Entries: 17

Rep: Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976
Small modular reactors are like nuclear fusion. They're only 10 years away and always will be.

But I agree that some form of nuclear energy is necessary in the green mix to provide baseline capacity.
 
Old 01-23-2023, 05:30 AM   #588
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware, Slarm64 & Android
Posts: 14,719

Rep: Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029
Are you allergic to me, enorbet?

I'm sure Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, & Fukishima were "Totally safe." I hear all this one sided publicity and glaze over. Nuclear pollution does not go away. The acid question is - Would you welcome one in your locality?

There was a woman called Adi Roche here who ran a charity called "Chernobyl Children" which gave summer holidays and paid for medical treatment for some of the horribly deformed youngsters that came out of that place. Most of them died of cancer. I never want to become acquainted with the engineering problem or negligence no engineer foresaw which was discovered after the next accident.

https://www.chernobyl-international.com/

Last edited by business_kid; 01-23-2023 at 01:10 PM.
 
Old 01-23-2023, 02:42 PM   #589
Andy-1
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2023
Posts: 42

Rep: Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
Code:
      \   /     Sunny
       .-.      68 °F          
    ― (   ) ―   ← 2 mph        
       `-’      6 mi           
      /   \     0.0 in  

Fri 20 Jan 2023 07:32:40 PM CST
Just put the motorcycle away after winter riding.
Seven ways climate change is already hitting Texans - Extreme weather events, water scarcity, risks of illness: Climate change is here, and it’s already affecting Texans.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05...-change-texas/
https://www.axios.com/local/austin/2...-central-texas

Those Waco whakies even got their own “Climate change in Texas – Wikipedia” and they still don’t get it…! Truly shocking web page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Texas

Texas was ranked second by GDP across the U.S. in 2020 and had a fast growing economy. According to U.S. Energy Information Administration, a large portion of Texas economic growth from 2005 to 2016 came from conventional energy production. Yup – Fossil Fuel dinosaurs of our modern age

Yet these Waco crazies; climate change denial guys still use gross inefficient motorcycles and cars or should I say trucks….

https://www.compare.com/auto-insuran...lar-texas-cars

….. Ford F-150, Ram 1500, Chevy Silverado. Some have a 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 doing as little as 14miles to the gallon or 6.7L Cum Turbo Diesel I6 Engine struggled to hit 12 mpg, and dropping the hammer drops fuel consumption into single digits – Wo! nearly as inefficient as Pop-OS – Joke

Do we think those Texican Waco crazies will wake up any time soon? Nah

Watch the video - https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/208/texas/
 
Old 01-23-2023, 08:17 PM   #590
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,515

Rep: Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184
Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
Are you allergic to me, enorbet?
Of course not. I don't really know you, business_kid. If you are referring to the frequency of my responses to your posts that isn't at all personal. It's ideology. I find your views to be commonly anti-Science while I have confidence in Logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
I'm sure Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, & Fukishima were "Totally safe." I hear all this one sided publicity and glaze over. Nuclear pollution does not go away. The acid question is - Would you welcome one in your locality?
I would want to know some specifics but most schematics I've seen don't frighten me at all and I would welcome such an installation of SMRs... especially if they reduced my electricity bill, but way more importantly, because Humanity needs Nuclear power.

Fukishima was a design failure from the jump largely based on what I posted earlier about older designs depending on ocean water as a coolant, not required with SMR. Even in such a natural disaster caused catastrophic failure the numbers are telling. The earthquake/tsunami event caused 15,000 casualties and deaths. There were ZERO deaths from the nuclear event and there has been no evidence of long term negative health effects even after greatly elevated scrutiny.

Chernobyl was the worst nuclear catastrophe to date yet immediate deaths numbered roughly 60. That said recent updated estimates are roughly 60,000 negatively affected. Considering, whether from a lab lerak or odd dietary habits, Covid has killed millions yet millions of others, including yourself IIRC, are so blase about it's danger or rate the dangers of vaccines (some with good reasons, some, not so much) refuse basic safeguards.

I actually visited 3 Mile Island on a High School Physics field trip just before it was completed. I can never forget that day because on the bus ride home, we were the first in our school to hear JFK had been shot and by the time we pulled into the school, was dead. It, too, naturally was that submarine inspired legacy design so dependent on sensors, deep complexity and especially, human supervision. Despite 3 Mile Island being the largest nuclear disaster in the US, ZERO died. 40 years later deep studies were conducted to determine long term effects. Even the closest residents were exposed to less radiation than from a dental Xray. You can look up the various independent studies results. They are through and voluminous and the negative effects were all but non-existent.

It should be noted that despite those facts fear levels were so high the WAY over the top fantasy movie "China Syndrome" was a result adding phony fuel to the fantamagoria.


All that noted, SMRs are entirely different design and not just safer but VASTLY safer.

Worrying about SMR reactor damage emissions is akin to worrying one might get a splinter from an electric car. if you have such concerns, I suggest you do some deep research so you can respond instead of just knee-jerk react. It isn't as if you don't have immediate access to the results of decades of research as well as, most importantly, the fundamental design difference between submarine based design and SMRs.

Last edited by enorbet; 01-23-2023 at 08:18 PM.
 
Old 01-24-2023, 07:00 AM   #591
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware, Slarm64 & Android
Posts: 14,719

Rep: Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029
I think we can say that Fukishima was a design failure where it was. If it had been on a mountaintop it might have been different. Chernobyl was a design (specification) and maintainance failure. I know a bit more about that one. None knew that either were failures until the respective catastrophes happened. They could be (and probably were) held up as examples of safe nuclear power.

I suppose I would classify our differences as Human Wisdom & Divine Wisdom. My belief is in Divine Wisdom.
 
Old 01-24-2023, 10:47 AM   #592
rokytnji
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: antiX 22, MX 21 Fluxbox
Posts: 6,808
Blog Entries: 21

Rep: Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388
Well. Here is hoping folks re think things.

Tidal Generators in Fuskishima instead of nuclear.
We have tons of Wind Farms here in Texas
We are only smart enough to use very little of what the sun gives out.

https://news.mit.edu/2011/energy-scale-part3-1026
 
Old 01-24-2023, 11:56 AM   #593
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 6,661
Blog Entries: 17

Rep: Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976Reputation: 3976
The problem with solar and wind energy is that they are intermittent. What do you do when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? Actually with wind turbines, it's a double whammy because you can't currently run them when the wind blows really hard either, unless you want them to shake themselves to pieces. You need additional sources that are steady and reliable, and that means either nuclear reactors or some kind of really efficient storage technology.

For example, if we could bleed off and store every bit of wind energy beyond immediate needs, then the turbines could be run in higher winds than they can at present because friction would prevent them from turning too fast. Present-day batteries won't cut it although we can probably expect some technological advances here once people realise how essential this is. Repurposing old coal mines as underground hydroelectric plants might be an idea too. We already have one or two but there seems to be no impulse to develop this on a wider scale.

And we need gas as a transitional fuel while we get the rest of the required infrastructure into place. Yes, it generates CO2 but much less per kWhr than oil does, because oil has only two hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom and gas has four. Furthermore it's much greener to frack our own gas than to import liquefied gas from abroad. Gas tankers use large amounts of fuel oil both to drive the engines and to keep the gas cargo liquefied. Not fracking may make us feel good but it's less green if we just import the gas instead.

In the same way, we need to stop pretending that we are reducing planetary emissions by closing down our industries and having everything made in China. Quite apart from the political aspects of putting ourselves at the mercy of the Chinese government, there is also the simple fact that they use more coal (the dirtiest carbon fuel) than any other country!

Last edited by hazel; 01-24-2023 at 11:57 AM.
 
Old 01-24-2023, 12:38 PM   #594
rokytnji
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: antiX 22, MX 21 Fluxbox
Posts: 6,808
Blog Entries: 21

Rep: Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388Reputation: 3388
Hazel. We have electric companies out here that are only wind based.

https://www.energybot.com/blog/bigge...-in-texas.html

So your concerns seem to be addressed out here.

I still say we are wasting free sunshine. More out of lack of know how than being able to store a charge.
 
Old 01-24-2023, 12:52 PM   #595
wpeckham
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Continental USA
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat, DSL, Puppy, CentOS, Knoppix, Mint-DE, Sparky, VSIDO, tinycore, Q4OS,Manjaro
Posts: 4,723

Rep: Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303
Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
Guys, you're spot on with your assessments.

But this was all foretold over 1900 years ago. This will be solved. But humans are not going to solve it, it will take bigger forces. And we appear to be the generation that's going to see it. If not us, certainly Greta Thunberg's. But this is hardly a forum topic, so we'd better move to PM if you want to go there.

I've kind of taken a mental snapshot of all the Invincible Idiocy that's being talked so as to pass it on to future generations. I'm sure they'll be incredulous.
I have examined all of the writings I can find from between 1800 and 2000 years ago and find no mention of British Petroleum. Not one.
 
Old 01-24-2023, 12:59 PM   #596
wpeckham
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Continental USA
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat, DSL, Puppy, CentOS, Knoppix, Mint-DE, Sparky, VSIDO, tinycore, Q4OS,Manjaro
Posts: 4,723

Rep: Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303Reputation: 2303
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
The problem with solar and wind energy is that they are intermittent. What do you do when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? Actually with wind turbines, it's a double whammy because you can't currently run them when the wind blows really hard either, unless you want them to shake themselves to pieces. You need additional sources that are steady and reliable, and that means either nuclear reactors or some kind of really efficient storage technology.

For example, if we could bleed off and store every bit of wind energy beyond immediate needs, then the turbines could be run in higher winds than they can at present because friction would prevent them from turning too fast. Present-day batteries won't cut it although we can probably expect some technological advances here once people realise how essential this is. Repurposing old coal mines as underground hydroelectric plants might be an idea too. We already have one or two but there seems to be no impulse to develop this on a wider scale.

And we need gas as a transitional fuel while we get the rest of the required infrastructure into place. Yes, it generates CO2 but much less per kWhr than oil does, because oil has only two hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom and gas has four. Furthermore it's much greener to frack our own gas than to import liquefied gas from abroad. Gas tankers use large amounts of fuel oil both to drive the engines and to keep the gas cargo liquefied. Not fracking may make us feel good but it's less green if we just import the gas instead.

In the same way, we need to stop pretending that we are reducing planetary emissions by closing down our industries and having everything made in China. Quite apart from the political aspects of putting ourselves at the mercy of the Chinese government, there is also the simple fact that they use more coal (the dirtiest carbon fuel) than any other country!
New generation solar cells generate some power at midnight. Even during a rainy , overcast day they generate power. Solar power is used at the polar scientific stations where they get 6 months of no direct sunlight, and that power is dependable.

There was a record year (in 1976 if I recall, but I could be wrong) when Minot North Dakota actually recorded FIVE FULL DAYS with periods of no (under 5KPM) winds for more than four hours per day. It had never happened before.
Anywhere near an ocean or inland sea (lake Michigan for example) you get onshore and offshore winds daily. Most of the world has prevailing winds that can be counted on, and in fact climate change is making them STRONGER.

Geothermal power is not available everywhere, just everywhere on the surface of the planet.


I am more worried about how undependable fossil fuels will become than about the dependability of green energy sources.
 
Old 01-24-2023, 05:06 PM   #597
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,515

Rep: Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184
Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
I think we can say that Fukishima was a design failure where it was. If it had been on a mountaintop it might have been different. Chernobyl was a design (specification) and maintainance failure. I know a bit more about that one. None knew that either were failures until the respective catastrophes happened. They could be (and probably were) held up as examples of safe nuclear power.
What you are referring to is a basic engineering problem. There is a vast difference between possible failure modes in say an inclined plane and an automobile, let alone an space exploring rocket. The odds of an inclined plane failing are astronomically low, while that of an automobile, considerable. The complexity of the numerous systems in an automobile pale in comparison to the required complexity to monitor and control nuclear fission, especially the hitherto most common style (submarine based) requiring servo controlled absorption rods and water cooling.

Most importantly, and a fact you conveniently sidestep, is that even in those worst case scenarios, the actual damage was relatively slight and they were important lessons as examples of what not to do, namely rely on a basic design from the early 1950s and try to transpose that design into a completely different and far less reliable environment. It's akin to expecting an internal combustion automobile to drive across the ocean floor from New York to London.

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
I suppose I would classify our differences as Human Wisdom & Divine Wisdom. My belief is in Divine Wisdom.
I prefer to bank on odds. Being aware that "Human Wisdom" can be qualified by ever improving odds, but subject to both Chance and poor application of possibly improper or inconsistent design or based on low levels of experience and understanding of basic principles, it's still "betting with The House".

"Divine Wisdom"? We know of no definable odds of that. With the exception of a few totally crackpot hoaxes like LDS and Scientology, all of what even classifies as speculation in that area comes down to us from superstitious books written thousands of years ago by superstitious people. Each is free to believe what they prefer in spiritual matters, but there literally are no odds to bank on. So, I see no hard evidence that Divine Wisdom even exists. At least and though by no means perfect Human Wisdom provably does actually exist.

Fundamentally the difference in our positions is that between Reason and Logic versus Blind Faith. What's more important is application. Everyone is free and welcome to refer to ancient speculation for spiritual matters, but in practical matters, like the design of power sources and monitoring climate, Science is clearly the winner.
 
Old 01-24-2023, 07:05 PM   #598
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,515

Rep: Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184Reputation: 4184
Here's a little hopeful news https://www.technologyreview.com/202...eid=017411622d
 
Old 01-25-2023, 06:26 AM   #599
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware, Slarm64 & Android
Posts: 14,719

Rep: Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029Reputation: 2029
I won't argue Fukishima - I don't care.

Divine Wisdom always had it's groundless armchair critics. You dodge the entire thrust of my case, fail to answer the fundamental points and instead try to denigrate me by associating Divine Wisdom with the lowest of the low. I expected better from you, enorbet.
 
Old 01-25-2023, 07:42 AM   #600
Soadyheid
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2010
Location: Near Edinburgh, Scotland
Distribution: Cinnamon Mint 20.1 (Laptop) and 20.2 (Desktop)
Posts: 1,625

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 470Reputation: 470Reputation: 470Reputation: 470Reputation: 470
As an add on to Hazel's post #593,
Quote:
...or some kind of really efficient storage technology.
I found an article related to energy storage which looks relevant albeit a bit dated, from about 2016. Things must have improved since then. Check out "Energy Storage in the UK; an Overview." A bit lengthy but very interesting reading non the less.

Play Bonny!

 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Energy infrastructure platform uses open source to fight climate change LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-22-2021 05:52 PM
Digital Ocean API, and an IdeDigital Ocean API hunterjoz1996 Programming 0 09-30-2015 02:45 AM
LXer: Linux-based home energy gateway supports ZigBee Smart Energy 2.0 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-31-2012 08:00 PM
LXer: Solutions for the Energy Crises -- Part 1: Alternate Energy and Conservation LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-03-2006 11:16 AM
Help, energy crisis kt_leohart Linux - Laptop and Netbook 0 11-17-2004 06:35 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration