Snow!Snow!Snow!

[Traveler]

 

We need more snow.  (Three of 4 brothers - the other is taking the picture)  I will leave it for the observer - which is me.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

Good video.

Surprising finds:

• Some nuclear plants went offline because of problems with their water supply freezing up.  I hadn't heard of any of those.  But according to the graphs that was shown, the percentage of nuclear power overall that was affected was pretty low.
• Texas was 4:37 (m:ss) away from a complete grid collapse.  Translation: No power for about a month for most of the state.
• Peak wholesale prices were about 100x the average retail cost throughout the year.  Producers spent about four years budget in that week.

BTW, the Railroad Commission oversees the oil & gas industry.  If I'm not mistaken, this is so in many states, not just Texas.

Anyone else leaning towards nuclear?

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Anyone else leaning towards nuclear?

Oh heavens yes.  Moving into nuclear full steam ahead should have started happening two decades ago.

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Good video.

Surprising finds:

• Some nuclear plants went offline because of problems with their water supply freezing up.  I hadn't heard of any of those.  But according to the graphs that was shown, the percentage of nuclear power overall that was affected was pretty low.
• Texas was 4:37 (m:ss) away from a complete grid collapse.  Translation: No power for about a month for most of the state.
• Peak wholesale prices were about 100x the average retail cost throughout the year.  Producers spent about four years budget in that week.

BTW, the Railroad Commission oversees the oil & gas industry.  If I'm not mistaken, this is so in many states, not just Texas.

Anyone else leaning towards nuclear?

I watched that first video a couple of nights ago with my son and daughter-in-law. Very informative. I may or may not watch the second one, because it's likely to be preaching to the choir. I watched a different video yesterday, maybe, about nuclear fusion reactors, that kind of torqued me off a bit. It was clear the guy didn't really understand what he was talking about, and his critical thinking skills were, for this topic, apparently abandoned. (Disclaimer: I actually have enjoyed a  lot of this guy's videos and have found him informative on many topics. But in this case, he's in way over his head.)

It's the same seductive line fusion advocates have been using since before I was born: Pollution-free, limitless power. But if that were the case, why are the technical issues so staggeringly confounding? Answer: Because there are fundamental physical reasons why nuclear fusion reactors are incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to construct. But the only response anyone ever gives is, "That's what they said about airplanes!" Barf. Impossible to have an intelligent conversation about that topic. Not that different from global warming, come to think about it.

[Vort]

Okay, I watched the other video. I've seen this guy before; very entertaining. That "1 kg of pure U-235" was nothing of the sort, of course; it was maybe 1 kg of uranium ore, which was likely about 10% uranium. And since only 0.7% (or, in fractional form, 0.007) of natural uranium is U-235, that chunk probably represented 1 kg x 0.1 x 0.007 = 0.0007 kg = 0.7 g of U-235.

The best part was the guy's exposition that nuclear power is far, far, vastly safer and less polluting than literally any other power source—yes, definitely including solar and wind power. (But I appreciate that he exploded the silly myth, shamelessly forwarded by 1970s TV commercials, that oil comes from ancient dinosaur remains.) I'm not particularly fond of his greenie "carbon emissions" line, but then again, he and the carbon scaremongers may be right. Since there is no disadvantage to getting rid of oil as a primary source of power, why not? On the other hand, he missed a primo chance to plug molten salt reactor technology. Bummer.

[Carborendum]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

Okay, I watched the other video. I've seen this guy before; very entertaining. That "1 kg of pure U-235" was nothing of the sort, of course; it was maybe 1 kg of uranium ore, which was likely about 10% uranium. And since only 0.7% (or, in fractional form, 0.007) of natural uranium is U-235, that chunk probably represented 1 kg x 0.1 x 0.007 = 0.0007 kg = 0.7 g of U-235.

The best part was the guy's exposition that nuclear power is far, far, vastly safer and less polluting than literally any other power source—yes, definitely including solar and wind power. (But I appreciate that he exploded the silly myth, shamelessly forwarded by 1970s TV commercials, that oil comes from ancient dinosaur remains.) I'm not particularly fond of his greenie "carbon emissions" line, but then again, he and the carbon scaremongers may be right. Since there is no disadvantage to getting rid of oil as a primary source of power, why not? On the other hand, he missed a primo chance to plug molten salt reactor technology. Bummer.

True, but you have to understand that, on both counts, he had to make it understandible by the masses.  And even in the interests of time, there are going to be things he left out.

It is supposed to be a "popular" video channel for the populous.  That's how they make money.

But the Molten salt reactors might be a good suggestion for another video.

[Vort]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

True, but you have to understand that, on both counts, he had to make it understandible by the masses.  And even in the interests of time, there are going to be things he left out.

It is supposed to be a "popular" video channel for the populous.  That's how they make money.

But the Molten salt reactors might be a good suggestion for another video.

I understand it's a channel for the non-specialist. I have no problem with his depth of coverage (or lack thereof). He stuck closely to the facts for the most part, which is more than you can say for the Two-Bit da Vinci video I posted.

But there's no reason to hold up a rock and say, "This is a kilogram of pure U-235." That is just silly. It's clearly a rock, not pure metal, and the abundance of U-235 constitutes only a small fraction of uranium anyway. It would not have been difficult for him to explain this. If he didn't want to explain this, he could simply have held up a golf-ball-sized ball of some white metal and claimed it was pure U-235, for illustrative purposes.

As for the MSRs, he spent his entire time talking about how solid-fuel-pellet, light-water reactors are the greatest thing in history, and how the development of microreactors might change everything. His overeffusive praise of solid-pellet light-water reactors is misplaced. The microreactors are a great idea, but they're still solid-fuel reactors. Most people who understand the issue and are not current employees of a nuclear plant or plant supplier agree that a molten-fuel reactor, operating at vastly lower pressures (thus safer) and much higher temperatures (thus more efficient), and also highly scalable, is simply the better long-term solution..

The two standard arguments against MSRs are:

• "We already HAVE the technology for solid fuel reactors!"
• "It will cost billions and take years before MSRs are commercially ready, and we already HAVE the technology for solid fuel reactors!"

The first argument is irrelevant. That we have one technology doesn't mean we should not invest in another, superior technology. And the second (which of course depends on the first) is ridiculous. The point is not up-front costs. The point is, What gives us the best value in the long run? About this, there can be no possible argument: It's MSRs, hands-down. And by the way, those "billions of dollars" are probably less than ten billion—less than one percent of Uncle Idiot's most recent handout, and with vastly greater upside. And the "years" are fewer than ten—fewer than five, if the NRC rewrites the regulations for MSRs to get rid of the extensive red tape that mostly doesn't apply to MSRs.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Vort

[JohnsonJones]

Well, another cold snap is supposedly hitting Texas.  Stay warm all of you Texas and if power goes out, hopefully you guys got generators and such this year.  Good Luck.

[NeuroTypical]

Yep, remember Texas, if it starts freezing, turn off your water at the source and open all your faucets.  Remember what happened last time.

[Traveler]

Just to let everyone know - Utah is having another very bad snow year.  If the current trend continues as it did last year our drought will be much worse than last year - because our water supply was depleted when we began this water year. 

 

The Traveler

[Ironhold]

Just had a bit of ice here in Central Texas again, but most of it is already melting. 

[Carborendum]

On 2/4/2022 at 5:22 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Yep, remember Texas, if it starts freezing, turn off your water at the source and open all your faucets.  Remember what happened last time.

Yeah, it wasn't all that bad.