Canada / Germany Hydrogen

[OVERKILL]

One of the big bogeymen is the fear of a train derailment or roadway accident when transporting waste to the final depository (Yucca mtn). Of course nuclear proliferation has always been a hurdle with regards to reprocessing.

People would lose their minds in the event of a derailment.

Anybody who has seen the transport canister durability tests wouldn't be concerned about a derailment, but you are quite right, that this gets all fired up and sensationalized by media pundits and green advocacy groups that paint it as some insurmountable boogeyman that's going to detonate like Little Boy and make large swaths of land uninhabitable.

 

[SC Maintenance]

You posted: “Compress natural gas enough and you get LNG - a liquid - easy to transport.”

That’s not “compress, cool, whatever”. That’s a misunderstanding of basic thermodynamics which for me at least brings into question any other technical point you might try and make. It shows you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. You had a whole infrastructure built around this liquefication method. It’s not “easy to transport” either just as any other cryogenic liquid is not easy to transport.

Yes, you corrected it the first time then flamed me the second time. I Hope you enjoyed it. No, not but hurt, just pointing it out since It seems to bother you.

You also taken it out of context. Easy to transport in context to hydrogen - easy meaning can be done in volume profitably - which it is. In liquid form. Thermodynamics was not important to the topic at hand.

I guess I will need to consult my English language dictionary and write a book and have it professionally edited in the future.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

That's the claim, anyways. When we look at projects like Ocean Wind however, it seems some of those claims are rather vapid. Offshore wind requires considerable capital (significantly more than onshore) and expensive undersea transmission. The turbines are also higher maintenance.

Saltwater environments are incredibly more corrosive than anything land-based. This requires either much more frequent and deeper levels of maintenance, or significantly more expensive materials to combat the corrosion.

 

[PandaBear]

Jesus Christ guy, I didn't take great offence, I simply pointed out the Greenpeace use of term "barrels" is factually incorrect, but they use it on purpose, in their media to mislead people, like I showed in those pictures. THAT is why using the correct terminology is important. If you want to get all butt-hurt over it, go right ahead, but I wasn't out of line in correcting you. And, if you notice, I ALWAYS write long posts. I type 140+wpm, I can afford to be verbose.

No, Finland is building the DGR to store their own waste, just like we are getting ready to build one in Ontario here for ours (once site selection is complete). The US will have to overcome its own issues with Yucca Mountain or another site if that ends up being the choice made. In the interim, it would make far too much sense to pursue something like PUREX to reprocess the SNF and turn it into more fuel like France is doing (they even import SNF from Japan and reprocess it for them).

But the earth is better off in the latter scenario. SNF decays over time, as I explained, quite unlike other waste streams which are perpetually toxic. Building more nuclear IS doing something about it, curbing pollution and abuse of the planet is the goal.

The problem is that the same folks fighting any new nuclear, and pushing for existing sites to be shutdown, are fighting against DGR's and any form of long term waste disposal. They know that if the waste problem gets solved, then they'll lose a significant component of their argument. It's far better for them that no solution is built, because then they can continue to rail against it.

Politicians are weak-kneed and cave to these extremist demands. If they didn't, Yucca Mountain would be operational. The best that Average Joe can do is rally and drown out the voices of these nutters/"cookers" (to borrow an Aussie phrase) so that politicians no longer feel obligated to listen to them. We've had very good luck doing this in Ontario against groups like the OCAA.

Politics will always be where energy is. There is no way around it.

Regarding to nuclear waste, my opinion is from my limited knowledge: you have fission product and those will be short and medium half-life waste, then you have long half-life ones from the "contaminated" stuff absorbing neutrons but didn't fission.

Short half-life waste would be gone by the time it leaves the cooling storage on site, after 5-10 years.

Medium half-life waste is still dangerous for like 30-100 years, you need some sort of facility to hold them for like 200-500 years unless future technology can continuously reprocess them to reduce their space, cost effectively, if people complain. It is a problem that money can solve.

Long half-life waste is really not dangerous, probably less radioactive than holding a banana or your granite countertop. They are good fuel for breeder reactors, we should use them after reprocessing take them out of the raw waste.

Most wastes are long half-life ones, and if you reprocess more and use the fuel from reprocessing, you have very little long half-life waste. Since short and mid half-life wastes are fission products, the more nuke we use the more they'll be around. Since short half-life ones will be no problem after a few years, it is really just the mid half-life ones that we need to worry about.

Come on now, just invest our future in mid half-life waste reprocessing and keep their volume under control, and we will be fine.

 

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

Interesting........ I am NOT anti EV per say. Just so many unknowns, unanswered and unprepared things involved in the "cart before horse" some are trying to push down everyone else throats. I am more anti-anything that pollutes in order to kill off another polluting industry.
Something like that is usually the focus of investors with pots of gold in their eyes with no care what so ever what their dream will destroy.
So I am deeply interested in ALL forms of new energy that is being researched and invented.

Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles: Everything You Need to Know

They’re related to electric cars, but have pros and cons that make them very different.

www.caranddriver.com

 

[JHZR2]

Interesting........ I am NOT anti EV per say. Just so many unknowns, unanswered and unprepared things involved in the "cart before horse" some are trying to push down everyone else throats. I am more anti-anything that pollutes in order to kill off another polluting industry.
Something like that is usually the focus of investors with pots of gold in their eyes with no care what so ever what their dream will destroy.
So I am deeply interested in ALL forms of new energy that is being researched and invented.

Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles: Everything You Need to Know

They’re related to electric cars, but have pros and cons that make them very different.

www.caranddriver.com

Carnot isn’t particularly efficient. Battery cycle charging is ok if done right but also has losses. Using wind power which is stochastic and doesn’t always align to demand, to make a relatively stable form of stored energy in a somewhat usable medium isn’t the worst idea ever.

Ammonia has its downsides like every other stored energy media. It also can be processed to hydrogen easily, should hydrogen become useful. Recall that fuel cells have been five years off for the last 40 years.

 

[oil pan 4]

Saltwater environments are incredibly more corrosive than anything land-based. This requires either much more frequent and deeper levels of maintenance, or significantly more expensive materials to combat the corrosion.

Yeah and lately it seems like they're looking for any excuse to cancel off shore wind.

 

[OVERKILL]

Yeah and lately it seems like they're looking for any excuse to cancel off shore wind.

The projects aren't viable without insanely low cost of borrowing. When that goes away, then the per kWh cost, which has to be tied to a PPA, since there's no way in a market with low rates like the US, they would be competitive, is no longer attractive.

 

[oil pan 4]

The projects aren't viable without insanely low cost of borrowing. When that goes away, then the per kWh cost, which has to be tied to a PPA, since there's no way in a market with low rates like the US, they would be competitive, is no longer attractive.

So the interest rate goes up a few percent and all of a sudden they aren't "cheaper". Makes me think they never were cheaper and taking a few percent off the top is cutting into profits too much.