Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 15, 2018 10:50 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Feb 16, 2014 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2246
Let us hope that they get a lot of battery operated cars and flow batteries, powered by solar in summer and wind in winter. By that time they will be ready to supplement it with nuclear.
The Japanese seem to be ready to go back to nuclear in three years!


Last edited by jagdish on Feb 17, 2014 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 17, 2014 12:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
fab wrote:
What do you think about the fraunhofer institute's plan : energy storage by converting the electricity of renewables into synthetic gas (power to gas, methane I guess) and inject this gas into the already available gas system (with additionnal storage capabilities), and then use central gas power plants (some with heat cogeneration) ? Economically unrealistic ?


this sounds nuts. Producing H2, CH4 or CH4O from H2O and CO2 just to burn it later back into grid electricity.
If you are going to do that, use those to offset gasoline. Brazil has millions of cars burning natural gas right now, and they still have gas tanks, so they can operate most of the time on natural gas and do long range trips on a mix of petrol and natural gas.

the only somewhat logical solution is to put half of their investments on electric vehicles, do a smart grid, such that the vast majority of EV charging happens only when the grid is overproducing. But that's not a quick solution, since EV production is 100% li-ion battery constrained. It would have to be a 20 year plan, and the first step must be to build huge li-ion battery pack plant capacity. Tesla alone is planning to build a li-ion plant that will double current worldwide li-ion battery pack production. We'll need dozens such factories to migrate 20% of worldwide auto production to EVs.

But then, why bother with all of this solar and wind, if you can nudge economically EV charging to be done overnight, than you can use nuclear far more effectively.

If this plan was sane, they would have already migrated Hawaii 100% to solar, wind and biomass, since they do baseload with low efficiency oil thermal. Yet, there are still far away.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 17, 2014 4:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2246
Producing fuel from CO2 putting in fossil fuel or other energy is definitely a waste of effort and energy. If you have to produce the liquid fuels necessary for transport, particularly air transport, start from Bio-wastes like farm or forest wastes or plastics and paper from municipal wastes. It already has some energy content.
Electric vehicles are a good idea but existing limited use proves that batteries are really too heavy and limited in energy storage capacity. Thy have to be replaced by fuel cells and solar panels so that one or the other is available..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 17, 2014 5:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
jagdish wrote:
Producing fuel from CO2 putting in fossil fuel or other energy is definitely a waste of effort and energy. If you have to produce the liquid fuels necessary for transport, particularly air transport, start from Bio-wastes like farm or forest wastes or plastics and paper from municipal wastes. It already has some energy content.
Electric vehicles are a good idea but existing limited use proves that batteries are really too heavy and limited in energy storage capacity. Thy have to be replaced by fuel cells and solar panels so that one or the other is available..


Tesla is nearing 40000 (2000 roadsters plus model s vin 38000 should rollout by the end of the month) vehicles delivered. They are expected to deliver over 40000 in 2014. I fully expect production to increase by at least 50% year of year until 2020, limited only by li-ion cell availability.
Demand is so high they are telling shareholders they can't do any active marketing to avoid customer frustration.
They have a 6 week production backlog.
I know, it's an upper middle class car.
But most of your assumptions have been dis proven, very clearly.
400 km / 260 mile range. Astonishing acceleration. BWM had to come up with a faster car after the top model S beat the fastest BWM it in acceleration when it came out.
You can now travel the eastern and western seaboard of USA and the first east-west corridor using their superchargers that are able to go from a fully drained battery to 80% in less than 45 minutes.
And your garage is your home gas station.
They are cash flow positive, even considering the insane reinvestment level to increase production.
25% gross financial margin on the car.
The bottleneck to make electric cars take over is investment money.
If they had a US$ 10 billion loan guarantee, they could jump production to 250000 cars / year, with the current factory space plus building one giga li-ion cell factory, with the main bottleneck the li-ion cell factory coming online.

And li-ion battery tech is dropping in price 8% per year in real terms, non stop, that huge battery pack factory would accelerate that drop. There is no raw material shortage.

Elon Musk is changing the world. I just hope he does something for nuclear power. He has stated the USA should be building more nuclear plants, regardless of his billion dollar stake in Solar City.

Also, the Nissan Leaf has been increasing range every year for new models, with 200Km in ultra economic driving for the 2013 model. It's already selling 47000 / year.

The real problem with EVs is traditional car manufacturers don't want to advertise EVs as superior to gasoline cars. Huge conflict of interest. That's why Tesla is so successful, they have no such conflict.

I'm certain by 2020 at least 10% of new car sales will be pure electric, regardless of fuel cell cars.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 17, 2014 8:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2246
60-85 kWh battery is really beyond my knowledge. What does it cost?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 17, 2014 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
jagdish wrote:
60-85 kWh battery is really beyond my knowledge. What does it cost?


Tesla model S costs from 60000 and 115000 USD.
They offered a 40kWh battery, and only 5% of customers ordered the little battery.
So little they found it more economical to deliver 40kWh orders with the 60kWh pack with a software limitation so the customer can latter upgrade.
It is estimated the 85kWh pack is costing Tesla around USD 15000. But Tesla is purchasing about 50% of worldwide li-ion cell production, that's a price only Tesla gets. The other EV manufacturers use custom designed battery cells, while Tesla uses the same battery cell a laptop or notebook uses, the 18650 type.

This car isn't the end game.
They are planning to introduce a model E car when the next battery chemistry comes out in a few years (making li-ion obsolete).
Its expected to cost 35000 USD.

BTW, people that drive lots every day and are willing to keep the model S for the 8 years it's estimated the battery lasts would pay for the car completely just on maintenance and fuel savings. Like driving 200 Km / day or over 50000 Km / year. With USA gasoline and electricity cost difference, a Tesla costs about 1/5th per mile than a gas car excluding purchase costs.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 30, 2015 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 511
Germany's Grafenrheinfeld reactor, the country's oldest remaining nuclear plant, has been decommissioned.

Service start: 1981, 1.345 GW, Average capacity utilisation, 86%

http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-oldest-re ... a-18546033

According to this:
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/elect ... e-26006789

In 2014, Germany added:
- 5GW of wind. They have dreadful capacity factors (offshore, starting this year, will be better there), so probably equivalent to 1GW.
- 2GW (only) of solar, equivalent to 200MW.

So well done on renewables, but the entire 2014 effort was undone last Saturday evening!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 08, 2016 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 28, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 355
There was a very interesting article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) yesterday, one of the most important German newspapers, if not the most important, about nuclear energy in eastern Europe, discussing the opinions in eastern Europe about Germany's "Energiewende". This German energy transition is not held in very high regard in the countries east of Germany and the Eastern Europeans also moan the loss of German know-how in the nuclear arena.

The article also discussed the Russian AES-2006 reactor, which could be a formidable competitor to the French-designed EPR and which has similar active and passive safety features. This reactor will also be built in Finland. To important things are mentioned that may have benefited the Russians:

- The Russians kept on building nuclear power plants during the past decades, despite economic difficulties sometimes, enabling them to maintain the engineering know-how

- The structure and offering of Rosatom, which can offer all-in-one solutions which prevents difficult dealings with all kinds of sub-contractors

See:

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/d ... ticle=true

Google Translate (English):

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... t=&act=url


Last edited by camiel on Jul 10, 2016 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 08, 2016 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 359
Location: Florida
German scientists first discovered and characterized nuclear fission. No other nation is more senior in fission technology. Such a puzzle.

Several non-German companies in the world have discovered the Achilles heel of most nuclear power technology. Unfortunately, regulations do not cover the new specifications and investors cannot absorb the one-time startup costs. If the German government could cover the startup, their machine version would probably be the best on planet Earth.

Germany is missing an opportunity that does not reflect well on the home of the original German nuclear scientists.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 09, 2016 9:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 511
camiel wrote:
There was a very interesting article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) yesterday, one of the most important German newspapers, if not the most important, about nuclear energy in eastern Europe, discussing the opinions in eastern Europe about Germany's "Energiewende". This German energy transition is not held in very high regard in the countries east of Germany and the Eastern Europeans also moan the loss of German know-how in the nuclear arena.

The article also discussed to Russian AES-2006 reactor, which could be a formidable competitor to the French-designed EPR and which has similar active and passive safety features. This reactor will also be built in Finland. To important things are mentioned that may have benefited the Russians:

- The Russians kept on building nuclear power plants during the past decades, despite economic difficulties sometimes, enabling them to maintain the engineering know-how

- The structure and offering of Rosatom, which can offer all-in-one solutions which prevents difficult dealings with all kinds of sub-contractors

See:

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/d ... ticle=true

Google Translate (English):

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... t=&act=url


Thanks.
Quote:
could be a formidable competitor to the French-designed EPR


What isn't? EDF is trying to decide whether to commit to Hinkley C. The alternative is in effect, to abandon the EPR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 09, 2016 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 359
Location: Florida
"News from the German department of I-told-you-so" started on August 22, 2012 when . . .
Speedy wrote:
The ‘energy turnaround’, advertised as replacing nuclear with renewables is in reality replacing clean and safe nuclear with dirty and dangerous fossil fuel, with a little bit of renewables for greenwashing. This time they are celebrating the opening of two new lignite (!) fired units at Neurath:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.no/2012 ... manys.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-1 ... nergy.html
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/12068/rwe ... h-boa-2-3/

The most disgusting part is that this plant is advertised as an enabler for renewable energy due to its ability to quickly respond to varying demand, while the Germans are destroying their by far biggest source of clean energy.

The picture of the two new units at the Neurath power plant at the RWE site is a perfect illustration of Germany’s broken energy policy. A brand spanking new lignite plant, with some windmills in the background for greenwashing. To make matters worse, the hill the windmills are built on, Vollrather Höhe (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vollrather_H%C3%B6he), is a spoil tip from the nearby Garzweiler open pit lignite mine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garzweiler_open_pit_mine).

I also recommend the video on this plant, but take your blood pressure medicine before you start watching it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ehJoLd6Zs&feature=youtu.be [2016, NB: This link appears to be dead.]

Note that I’m not directly opposed to wind and solar, they certainly have niches were they are very useful, I just think that the idea of powering an industrial society with diffuse and unreliable power sources is as likely as me riding a unicorn to work every day.

[See Sep 17, 2012, post by SteveMoniz: Re: NNL Reports on Advanced Reactors and Thorium Fuel Cycle]


Speedy's above observations with references began a lengthy 13-page discussion so far that went dormant with macpacheco's February 17, 2014, post. Alex woke this topic up (June 2015) with the news of the decommissioning of Germany's Grafenrheinfeld reactor. The following discussion between Camiel (July 2016) and Alex (my historical observation is relevant) continues the discussion of the German situation. A year after this discussion began in 2013, a German experience with the promotion of molten salt reactors (MSR is best for the thorium fuel cycle; technology invented in the U.S. openly shared with the whole world) was reported:
A funny thing happened on the way to the final round of Germany’s prestigious GreenTec Awards. A molten salt reactor that the public had voted into the August 30th gala gathering vanished from the competition, muscled out by none other than the contest’s organizers.

It seemed like an odd turn of events, considering that GreenTec exists to honor “ecological and economic consciousness and commitment,” as it says on its website.

What could be more ecologically sound than the Dual-Fluid Reactor, an MSR entered into the contest by Berlin’s Institute for Solid-State Nuclear Physics. MSRs and other advanced nuclear designs auger a CO2-free energy future and represent clear improvements in nuclear safety, efficiency, and waste management when compared to conventional nuclear. The Dual-Fluid Reactor (DFR) is no exception. . . .

Clearly, a significant portion of the German public understands this. The Dual-Fluid Reactor (DFR) made it to the finals on the strength of an open, online voting round. Under the rules of the competition, GreenTec judges select two finalists in each of the contest’s eight categories, and the public selects the third.

PUBLIC APPROVAL

While the judges did not send the DFR to Berlin, some sensible common folks did, bestowing the DFR as one of the three shortlisted contenders for the vaunted Galileo category, a science-oriented award sponsored by German media company Pro-Sieben.

But this is Germany, where the energy lords extol renewables like solar and wind, and where the government decided two years ago to walk away from nuclear in the aftermath of Fukushima. GreenTec, backed by clean technology company VKPartners GmbH, counts Germany’s energy minister Peter Altmaier as its patron. Altmaier will be participating on the Berlin awards stage (where it might have been a tad uncomfortable for an anti-nuclear government to potentially salute a nuclear energy technology).

So GreenTec took swift action, and disqualified the DFR. Airbrushed it right out of the picture.

Image

Economic case. The DFR compared to conventional reactors, or “LWRs” (light water reactors), according to developer Daniel Weibach.

The development stunned the Institute.

“On June 4, we have been disqualified and denominated by the jury, with no explanation,” it wrote on its website. “Rules have been changed afterwards to allow for a denomination of the online voting.”

Outrage ensued, as DFR supporters accused GreenTec of changing the voting rules to suit their own interests.

German blogger Rainer Klute – a regular commenter on Weinberg blogs – noted:

“People who had campaigned for the award and for the DFR were heavily shocked. Not only they found the decision as such completely incomprehensible, but also the procedure to make it. Changing rules in the course of the game is something that is usually considered less than fair. Most of us (but obviously not all) learned this early in our childhood. No wonder the award’s makers were criticized violently in blogs and social media, especially on their own Facebook page.”

GreenTec has posted an explanation on Facebook. It’s in German which I unfortunately don’t read. I asked GreenTec to clarify its actions for me in English. A spokeswoman replied via email that, “Indeed, it is true that our jury disqualified the project Dual Fluid Reactor (DFR) in the Galileo category. However, it is not true that we in any way changed the rules of participation for this specific case!”

VIOLATION

The spokeswoman said that the Institute had violated a clause in the application process “which obliges participants to provide truthful information about their projects, ensuring an objective evaluation process.” She also noted that “The organizers are authorized to disqualify the applicant as well as take away his/her rights to the title.” They also stripped another finalist, called Care Energy.

She did not elaborate on the violation in the DFR application. I asked her to provide more details, which had not arrived at the time of publishing this blog.

Meanwhile, GreenTec is looking forward to its glitzy Aug. 30 evening, sans nuclear, when they will anoint winners in the Galileo category as well as in production, energy, mobility, aviation, recycling, communication, and building and living.

On that night, GreenTec says, stars will step out “demonstrating their enthusiasm for climate protection.”

The present German position (don't fund research, DFR?) on using nuclear fission for non-emitting, reliable, highly available, maintainable, baseload electrical power and direct industrial thermal can, must, and will change. Recent developments in the U.S. effort are on the verge of changing this game. If the Germans wanted to bear down on a thorium MSR, who doubts their abilities?

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 11, 2016 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Iowa, USA
macpacheco wrote:
Elon Musk is changing the world. I just hope he does something for nuclear power. He has stated the USA should be building more nuclear plants, regardless of his billion dollar stake in Solar City.

I believe that Elon Musk is changing the world for nuclear power. An electric storage system suited for utility level use would serve nuclear power just as well as any other electricity source. The battery doesn't care if the electrons come from wind, solar, coal, or nuclear. If battery storage can make solar power cheaper then it can make nuclear power cheaper too.

This is where I believe a lot of people fail to comprehend the problems with solar power. Solar power is not undesirable just because it is unreliable, it is undesirable because it is expensive. Battery storage may solve the intermittency problem but adds to the expense problem. Making solar power cheap does nothing for the intermittency. If batteries and solar power combined can be made cheap enough to compete with coal, nuclear, and natural gas then those same batteries paired with just about anything but solar will be cheaper yet.

macpacheco wrote:
The real problem with EVs is traditional car manufacturers don't want to advertise EVs as superior to gasoline cars. Huge conflict of interest. That's why Tesla is so successful, they have no such conflict.

I believe the issue is more complex than that since traditional car makers already see competition from other manufacturers and from their own products competing with each other. Tesla does not just threaten the gasoline vehicle but also many other aspects of how cars are made, sold, and supported.

If Tesla proves successful then they will have blazed a trail for other small auto makers to follow. They don't necessarily fear Tesla as much as what might follow. These big auto makers have not seen a new competitor in decades and they are not prepared to compete with others that are not similarly constrained by regulation, unions, and general inertia and stagnation as their current competition.

Of course that is my opinion, and it's worth only as much as you paid for it.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 11, 2016 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 359
Location: Florida
Nice post, Kurt. I agree with your view on the storage tech.
Kurt Sellner wrote:
Of course that is my opinion, and it's worth only as much as you paid for it.
If you saw The Shawshank Redemption, "We're all innocent in here. Don't you know that?"

Why is the Space X Falcon 9 funded and the Flibe Energy LFTR isn't? (Major assumption. If I were FE, I'd need to be real good at Texas Hold'em.)

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 12, 2016 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Iowa, USA
Tim Meyer wrote:
Why is the Space X Falcon 9 funded and the Flibe Energy LFTR isn't?

That's easy, SpaceX has a license to launch its vehicles while Flibe has no license to build its reactors.

If you want to get into why SpaceX has a license and Flibe does not then that gets a bit more complicated. One way to put it is that NASA has finally found itself following a regulatory model closer to that of the FAA and FCC. NASA used to be the only agency that would launch spacecraft but it has evolved. It took decades but they started with building the spacecraft, then buying components, then buying complete spacecraft, then taking on the role of a regulatory agency. It's not quite where it should be just yet since they still operate their own spacecraft but in time they will look more like the FAA and FCC.

The DOE has been doing much of the same, they are effectively designing the nuclear reactors yet. They claim to be "advising" or "regulating" but in reality no design will get licensed until someone submits something that looks like what they would have designed themselves. The DOE funds the building of reactors, and the law requires all fuel to be purchased from the one DOE approved fuel provider. I assume the DOE could approve another fuel provider but they haven't for many of the same reasons.

Essentially the DOE needs to go through a reformation. We've seen this in other government agencies and the nation is better for it. Had the DOE done this decades ago then we'd be a nuclear powered society now, perhaps even driving Ford Nucleons.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 12, 2016 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 359
Location: Florida
Good points, Kurt. On Germany and "we told you so . . . " I just saw this on facebook Energy from Thorium:

Germany has spent $US100bn on solar technology and it represents less than 1 per cent of their electricity supply.

The good news, it is possible to reduce fossil fuel use in electricity generation — through hydro-electricity and nuclear fuel. Plenty of countries have done it — Canada 60 per cent hydro and 15 per cent nuclear; Sweden 45 per cent hydro and 48 per cent nuclear; Switzerland 54 per cent hydro and 41 per cent nuclear; France 11 per cent hydro and 79 per cent nuclear.


In the U.S., 6% hydro, 20% nuclear. (U.S. DOE Energy Information Agency)

With that kind of cheddar, a $100 billion U.S., the Germans could have beat the world to the thorium cycle in fluid fluoride molten salt (FLiBe) by now. Perhaps, with IAEA permission to posses U-233?

This article shows what happens when trans-science fails.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group