Net Zero Collapses

[Meekly_Anna]

There need to be a comprehensive approach to our energy needs especially with the onset of AI.

Pretty please, if you have no idea what you are talking about, don't talk about.

 

[bijedi]

That's another thing -- how come nuclear power plants exist on submarines, but nothing that small is ever built on the ground?

Because nuclear is not profitable at that scale. The US Navy doesn't use nuclear power on its submarines because it saves them money, it is because it makes them more effective, increasing range, endurance, speed and stealthiness. None of these things benefit a stationary ground based installation, at least not enough to justify the costs. I also suspect that ground based military nuclear facilities would be subject to more civilian safety and environmental regulations than ship based nuclear facilities.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Because nuclear is not profitable at that scale. The US Navy doesn't use nuclear power on its submarines because it saves them money, it is because it makes them more effective, increasing range, endurance, speed and stealthiness. None of these things benefit a stationary ground based installation, at least not enough to justify the costs. I also suspect that ground based military nuclear facilities would be subject to more civilian safety and environmental regulations than ship based nuclear facilities.

I disagree on the stealth part.
Compared to a fuel cell, these reactors are louder than hell.

 

[Politruk]

I disagree on the stealth part.
Compared to a fuel cell, these reactors are louder than hell.

That's only because they use steam-driven turbines to convert heat to electricity. A nuclear reaction by itself is not noisy.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

That's only because they use steam-driven turbines to convert heat to electricity. A nuclear reaction by itself is not noisy.

And your point is what?
Is there another way to obtain large-scale electrical power from nuclear decay heat?

 

[Baztrachian]

None of that is a collapse. Lots of companies shuttering as they consolidate. That happens as markets sort themselves out. That time article is laughable.

My neighborhood has seen four houses in the last month get new solar panels

What we have seen is old solar get replaced with new as technology advances.

You should put your money where your mouth is and invest in solar stocks. Note that the decline started well before the 2024 elections.

 

[Rightguide]

Totally Fact Free RightGuide.

Just because critical thinking isn’t your strong suit doesn’t mean reality needs your permission to exist.

 

[icanhelp1]

Pretty please, if you have no idea what you are talking about, don't talk about.

Don't see much coming out of you other than insults. Don't spend so much time talking out of your *ARSE*. Nobody cares.

 

[bijedi]

But compact modular nuclear powerplants can provide for grid size energy needs at a cost effective price.

That remains to be seen. CMRs tradeoff decreased startup costs for increased long term operational costs. We are still some ways off from commercial installations of CMRs, but already we have seen NuScale double their estimated cost per MWh. Most industry watchers expect that number to continue to increase. You also need to have a significant unit volume to make CMR production cost effective (I have seen estimates anywhere from 2000 to 5000 units). It is unlikely that CMRs will be profitable for at least 20 years (I know at least one University of Michigan study projected 2050).

 

[ll74]

You should put your money where your mouth is and invest in solar stocks. Note that the decline started well before the 2024 elections.

View attachment 2549319

I have no desire to invest in energy stocks. They are still well above what they've been in the last decade and well above any "collapse" that was referred to in the original post.

If you don't like renewable energy, then don't invest in it

 

[bijedi]

I disagree on the stealth part.
Compared to a fuel cell, these reactors are louder than hell.

They are stealthier not because they are quieter, they are stealthier because they can remained submerged for significantly longer. Fuel cell powered submarines are severely lacking in range and duration.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Don't see much coming out of you other than insults. Don't spend so much time talking out of your *ARSE*. Nobody cares.

I stated a fact. If you are insulted by your 'not knowledge' then that's hardly my fault.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

They are stealthier not because they are quieter, they are stealthier because they can remained submerged for significantly longer. Fuel cell powered submarines are severely lacking in range and duration.

That is a fallacy. Just because you've been diving for a long time doesn't mean you can't be found.
You only have to be found once and then you're dead.
And for the sake of completeness: diesel-electric boats are also quieter than those with nuclear propulsion.

 

[Politruk]

And your point is what?
Is there another way to obtain large-scale electrical power from nuclear decay heat?

Nuclear-powered space probes don't use steam turbines -- but perhaps whatever process they do use does not scale up.

 

[icanhelp1]

That remains to be seen. CMRs tradeoff decreased startup costs for increased long term operational costs. We are still some ways off from commercial installations of CMRs, but already we have seen NuScale double their estimated cost per MWh. Most industry watchers expect that number to continue to increase. You also need to have a significant unit volume to make CMR production cost effective (I have seen estimates anywhere from 2000 to 5000 units). It is unlikely that CMRs will be profitable for at least 20 years (I know at least one University of Michigan study projected 2050).

The US still has a public perception problem when dealing with nuclear power. Many large corporations in my opinion are going to contribute to the production and deployment of SMRs at the corporate level. SMRs are suffering from growing pains, there's still a robust distrust for nuclear in general. The advantage to smaller units (300 mw(e) per unit ) is their versatility, utility and their ability to provide power for a large manufacturing plant and networked into the main grid. I haven't been keeping up on nuclear power generating plant for some time but I do know the Russians have an SMR active and the Chinese have something similar.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Nuclear-powered space probes don't use steam turbines -- but perhaps whatever process they do use does not scale up.

You are talking about a radionuclide battery. In short, plutonium decays there and the heat is converted into electricity using a thermoelectric effect. The energy is not constant, but continues to decrease. The batteries used in voyager have about 145kW.
Firstly, they are dangerous as shit and secondly, they are far too weak to power a submarine.

 

[icanhelp1]

I stated a fact. If you are insulted by your 'not knowledge' then that's hardly my fault.

That is a fallacy. Just because you've been diving for a long time doesn't mean you can't be found.
You only have to be found once and then you're dead.
And for the sake of completeness: diesel-electric boats are also quieter than those with nuclear propulsion.

Some are, that being said, they have a limited range, are quieter in electric mode but all bets are off once they start their diesel engines to charge their batteries. Give me a Virginia class any day.

 

[icanhelp1]

That is a fallacy. Just because you've been diving for a long time doesn't mean you can't be found.
You only have to be found once and then you're dead.
And for the sake of completeness: diesel-electric boats are also quieter than those with nuclear propulsion.

He's correct, you're making yourself look stupid. Ya don't have to surface, you can outrun a diesel electric, a Virginia class has superior firepower over a diesel and unlimited range. A diesel has to surface to recharge batteries which leaves it vulnerable to satellite imagery.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Some are, that being said, they have a limited range, are quieter in electric mode but all bets are off once they start their diesel engines to charge their batteries. Give me a Virginia class any day.

A carrier group consists of an aircraft carrier, a few destroyers and up to two cruisers and supply ships. And there is a nuclear submarine at the front and one at the rear. The Americans are the good guys, of course. Some Europeans with their tiny fuel cell submarines get to play bad guy. At the end of the manoeuvre, it's “all submarines surface”. And practically every time, a small European submarine appears right next to the aircraft carrier and asks if it has been detected. The answer is always 'Bloody hell, where did you come... Yes, of course."
A single torpedo is enough to destroy the carrier. Or more, if a nuclear warhead is used.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

He's correct, you're making yourself look stupid. Ya don't have to surface, you can outrun a diesel electric, a Virginia class has superior firepower over a diesel and unlimited range. A diesel has to surface to recharge batteries which leaves it vulnerable to satellite imagery.

Virginia can't outrun a torpedo. And a torpedo has a range larger than 100km.
Good luck.
And again, you are clueless.
One of us is on shipyards on a regular base. And it's not you.

 

[icanhelp1]

Virginia can't outrun a torpedo. And a torpedo has a range larger than 100km.
Good luck.
And again, you are clueless.
One of us is on shipyards on a regular base. And it's not you.

Cleaning out porta potties.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Cleaning out porta potties.

You got it in one...
What 'potties' are and what 'cleaning' is, in not allowed to tell and I don't want to tell.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Just because critical thinking isn’t your strong suit doesn’t mean reality needs your permission to exist.

Totally Fact Free RightGuide, you have provided zero proof for your claims in this thread.

 

[icanhelp1]

A carrier group consists of an aircraft carrier, a few destroyers and up to two cruisers and supply ships. And there is a nuclear submarine at the front and one at the rear. The Americans are the good guys, of course. Some Europeans with their tiny fuel cell submarines get to play bad guy. At the end of the manoeuvre, it's “all submarines surface”. And practically every time, a small European submarine appears right next to the aircraft carrier and asks if it has been detected. The answer is always 'Bloody hell, where did you come... Yes, of course."
A single torpedo is enough to destroy the carrier. Or more, if a nuclear warhead is used.

Depending on the scenario. I've read that diesel electrics have snuck up on carrier groups, I'll give you that. I've watched a documentary on diesels and we've always held a high regard and respect for them, their are an impressive unit and a great addition to European defense. They do play a large role in NATO's defense, that's why we play wargames with them. That being said the advantages of a Virginia sub is substantial. A Virginia sub can take out multiple surface ships from 1,500 miles away. Tactics are changing and improving every day. Carrier missions like when dealing with the MIDEAST are much different than dealing with advanced nuclear powers. We don't know what Virginia Class submarines are fully capable of.

Don't torpedoes make noise? The Diesel may be quiet but torpedoes aren't. SSNs do have some pretty sophisticated anti torpedo countermeasures. Rumor has it that SSNs are being outfitted with smaller interceptor torpedoes.

 

[RobDownSouth]

A cursory glance at that site's welcome page will suffice to demonstrate why anything you read there should be dismissed with contempt. One of the front-page articles is by Steven Milloy, FFS!

Junkman Steve Milloy!

<Ben Kenobi voice>
"Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time!"
<Ben Kenobi voice>

He's the perfect guy to spoon feed octogenarian Ishmael and septuagenarian Vetteman their daily outrage.
They won't even need to put their dentures in to swallow the pablum he's serving up.