Thread: Nuclear

A "battery" doesn't have to be L-ion, Li Po, etc, it can be pumped hydro, molten salt, etc.

Originally Posted by RANDLOVER

A "battery" doesn't have to be L-ion, Li Po, etc, it can be pumped hydro, molten salt, etc.

Not much pumped hydro or molten salt on the side of your house or powering your future EV I hope.

Molten salt - is also mined.

Having just spent a significant amounts of time working with the Government on a potential Pumped Hydro Project - let’s look at the implications....
3.2Mega litres of Potable water will be used to initially set up the dam.
Concrete use is astronomical.
To make an optimum design set up the Mine being used is being mined larger. 25,000l of Diesel a day is going into those machines.
Total run time - 10-12hrs
These “batteries” are being built because they can cash in when demand is high and prices are up.

Originally Posted by RANDLOVER

A "battery" doesn't have to be L-ion, Li Po, etc, it can be pumped hydro, molten salt, etc.

i would like to see more pumped hydro. australia doesnt have the best geography for it, but we can do better.

This might be interesting to some:

I heard Imgur Likes Math - Album on Imgur

Wind has approx 25% efficiency, with a 12-15 year life span.
Nuclear is 100% efficient (operating at approx 90% of it’s capacity) for a design life of 70 years.

We have space, we have the raw materials, we should strongly consider it on merit.

Originally Posted by Toxic_Avenger

This might be interesting to some:

I heard Imgur Likes Math - Album on Imgur

Wind has approx 25% efficiency, with a 12-15 year life span.
Nuclear is 100% efficient (operating at approx 90% of it’s capacity) for a design life of 70 years.

We have space, we have the raw materials, we should strongly consider it on merit.

Not sure how you're measuring or defining efficiency here but nuclear is not 100% efficient. Heat from nuclear is converted to electricity in exactly the same way as heat from coal is converted to electricity. That conversion process is ~30 - 40% efficient in terms of converting available heat energy to electrical energy.

I believe nuclear power stations deliberately run a little lower on efficiency so as not to push the bounds of the envelope for safety reasons.

Not against nuclear myself but to say it's 100% efficient is not correct.

I was paraphrasing a 3rd party’s opinion off the internet. I’m no expert. Perhaps they were referring to fuel efficiency from new rods to end of life? We may never know.

Nuclear is hugely expensive, takes up to a decade to build, creates highly dangerous wastes which are a threat for thousands of years and can't be insured, meaning only governments can underwrite it. No government is going to choose nuclear over renewables. Its just a dead duck. Or, as Monty Python might have said, it is expired, karked it, gone to heaven - it is an ex option. Just forget it. It can't happen.

Well not with that attitude... 😆