mobius217 comments

Posted in: Japan adopts plan to push clean energy, nuclear to cut carbon emissions See in context

@HonestDictator

do some land reclamation to set up wind farms

That is prohibitively expensive and meaningless. Fixed support turbines exist for max 60m depths and anywhere deeper needs floating plaatform wind turbines.

Japan has deep coasts so floating platforms it is. Unfortunately this tech is still immature and in development.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan adopts plan to push clean energy, nuclear to cut carbon emissions See in context

@kurisupisu

No those are for homes and they are location specific. I think what you were referring to was probably the Hornsdale Battery storage centre in South Australia that was built by Tesla. Those battery storage facilities are expensive, made of toxic and rare earth metals and like Lithium ion batteries, suffer degredation and are sensitive to climatic conditions.

No, what you need is something like Ambri.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNCC8QGy_u0

These are liquid metal batteries are made of cheap, abundant and non-toxic metals. They do not degrade, have much longer lifespans than Li batteries and they are scalable. They are the best option I have seen so far. But still the company is in its early stages. Only time will tell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan adopts plan to push clean energy, nuclear to cut carbon emissions See in context

@wipeout

probably becuase jiangsu and beijing is closest to inner mongolia and they are going to need a lot more HVDC lines. Even HVDC lines suffer losses, making them inefficient over long distances. That is why China is building nuclear reactors at the coasts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan adopts plan to push clean energy, nuclear to cut carbon emissions See in context

@kurisupisu

I have yet to see any practical energy storage solution for solar and wind power that can be scalable globally. If we did, Europe would not be having an energy crisis right now.

And what about a energy transmission solution to go along with it?

For example China's Inner Mongolia region has enough wind energy density to meet all their electricity needs. But they can't effectively transmit that energy to their coastal cities where 90% of their population lives. So they are forced to build the bulk of their wind turbines offshore near the coasts which have much less wind.

One solution that they are experimenting with is to use the plentiful and excessive wind energy from Inner Mongolia to creat green hydrogen and transport it to their cities for use as part of a hydrogen economy.

But then problems arise becuase Inner Mongolia does not have a lot of water sources. Then there is the issue of transporting hydrogen itself, which is difficult to handle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan adopts plan to push clean energy, nuclear to cut carbon emissions See in context

while windmills and solar panels are expensive boodoggles for virtue-signalling

They are not expensive. Not anymore. The costs of wind and solar have fallen considerably and are cheaper than coal and gas. Coal plants in North America and Europe are being decommissioned in droves becuase they are more expensive now, and not becuase of politics. The main weakness of solar and wind is intermittancy and they can be unreliable. This is why the UK still operates gas turbines even though they are blessed with a very windy climate.

Due to rising costs, France aims to reduce nuclear from 70% to 50% by 2025 and replace it with renewable energy. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the light of the energy crisis France has decided to scrap that plan and they are now comitted to building Gen 4 reactors and and Advanced SMR's.

@wipeout

Knowing J-gov I take any commitment's thay make with a grain of salt. Didn't Japan get busted as one of the countries that lobbied against emissions targets? I have far more faith in Korea's renewable energy plans.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Japan adopts plan to push clean energy, nuclear to cut carbon emissions See in context

@wipeout

But you are missing some key details. You really cannot compare UK and Japan.

Firstly the UK, Ireland and other north European countries have the benefit of shallow waters in the North Sea (less than 60 meters deep) which makes it easy for the construction of fixed support wind turbines. Japan does not have that luxury. Japan's coasts are very deep and drop off massively into the continental shelf and within a couple of kilometers the depths reach in excess of 1000 meters. This means you need floating rig wind turbines which are expensive to build and maintain. Another advantage of shallow coasts are that the UK and others can build fixed support offshore sub-stations to better transfer electricty from wind farms to the national grid. As in the case of Hornsea 2. Denmark is going the land reclmation route to build an "energy island" sub-station and energy storage facility to enhance integration of North Sea wind power into the European super grid.

Secondly wind speeds in Japan's EEZ are not as plentiful as that of Europe.

https://globalwindatlas.info/

And the windiest parts are far out in the Pacific ocean at depths of 2000 ish meters.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Posted in: Climate: Removing CO2 from the air no longer optional See in context

https://theconversation.com/what-europes-exceptionally-low-winds-mean-for-the-future-energy-grid-170135

if wind speeds in Europe continue to stay low due to the changing climate then we have to build many more wind turbines to meet baseload supply. Like three times as much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Climate: Removing CO2 from the air no longer optional See in context

@ zichi

nope. I am a first year civil engineering student.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Climate: Removing CO2 from the air no longer optional See in context

@ zichi

You seem far too fixated on the costs. What matters more to the energy grid? Costs or reliablity.

The world spends $2 trillion every year on military expenditure. With that money we can easily fund commericalisation of Gen 4 reactors, especially since the technology is mature and has been tested since 1967.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Climate: Removing CO2 from the air no longer optional See in context

Thanks for the response zichi

When will Gen IV reactors become available.

That is when the first commercial LFTR reactor in China will come online. The prototype at Wuwei will acheive first criticality this month. The first one was built at Oak Ridge National Laboratories in the US in 1967. It was cancelled becuase it had no use for the military. Probably one of the worst decisions made in history.

The current costs are high. $10,000 per kW. Times that by 1000MW and then by 400 reactors.

For which country is this price. Have you compared this to nuclear kWh prices in France and China which are much cheaper than prices in North America and other European countries due to overregulation.

iii. Where are the trained resources to construct and operate them?

Currently only in China.

 Who will pay for the poor countries to construct them?

It is not the poor countries that need them. Its the developed and highly industrialised countries that need them as they are the biggest CO2 emitters.

Which countries will be allowed to produce the high-assay, low-enriched uranium, or HALEU for those reactors?

Can you elaborate more on this point?

Coal-fired plants are operating and can be converted to ammonia. Gas-fired plants can run in hydrogen.

Your kidding. You know what else can fill that role? Nuclear power. Add to that nuclear seawater desalination, nuclear based methanol production, fertiliser production etc.

Still no answer to the energy storage and transmission problem.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Climate: Removing CO2 from the air no longer optional See in context

Currently, in the world, there are about 440 operating reactors with a combined electrical capacity of 390 GW. Additionally, there are 55 reactors under construction and 109 reactors planned, with a combined capacity of 63 GW and 118 GW, respectively, while 329 more reactors are proposed.

Only 30 countries have reactors. 20 of them have less than 10 reactors.

This is unfortunate but the way our nuclear industry is today is becuase it was born and bred through the cold war. Governments wanted uranium thermal reactors becuase they could work in tandem with nuclear weapons programs to get the bomb. If circumstances were diffrent in the 1950's we could have gone the route of LFTR reactors which are safer, more effective, cheaper and ploriferation resistant. That is the struggle that the nuclear industry is going through today. They are trying to recreate that panacea that should have been taken 70 years ago. If LFTR became the mainstream back in the 60's then 60% or more of the worlds electricity mix could have been nuclear. We would not be talking about global warming becuase a solution to that problem would be right in our hands. But alas, that is in another time, in another life.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Climate: Removing CO2 from the air no longer optional See in context

Hey zichi

Germany wants to temporarily burn more coal this year. Shutting down all those nuclear powerplants may not have been a good idea in hindsight right? And just think. This is happening in Europe, which already benefits from a bounty of very windy climate and shallow North Sea coasts that make it easy to build offshore fixed support wind turbines. If wind rich Europe is struggling to wean off its dependance on coal and gas how do you expect India, China, South Korea and Japan to go coal/gas free whilst decomissioning nuclear power plants?

Awaiting you answer zichi

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Climate: Removing CO2 from the air no longer optional See in context

Hydrogen and ammonia might be a quicker intermediate stage. Many companies looking at those.

We have yet to develop fuel cell technology to efficiently convert excess renewable energy and store it as chemical fuel like ammonia. And then it begs the question, what are the practicalities of transporting ammonia fuel from countries like Australia and North Africa which have excess renewable energy and getting them to rapidly industiralising countries like China, India as well as the US. Why go to all that trouble when you could build a LFTR reactor in the middle of the desert or pretty much anywhere in the world, even next to a volcano.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Climate: Removing CO2 from the air no longer optional See in context

@zichi

Your entire statement can be summarised as what I replied earlier: lack of political will to fund and build them.

All those reactors would have to be replaced.

No zichi we only need to replace the ones that are at the end of their service life.

Those 440 reactors will need replacing and if new built to increase the numbers to 1,000, still less than 25% of world power demand will be generated.

Hey that's good enough. I would prefer if it was 40%. But that is a good enough proportion of baseload nuclear power to sustain future civilisation. The remaining 60% can be supllied by a combination renewable energy coupled with advanced energy storage systems (that have yet to be developed) and maybe 10% natural gas.

But yes we need to make GEN IV reactors but it won't help with the current CO2 problem for many decades and might be too late.

So this is what I have been trying to ask from you in other threads as well. What is the plan for renewable energy supporters to acheive 100% green energy? Especially in light of the recent events taking place in the world today. Unlike all theoretical concepts like fusion, all Gen 4 nuclear concepts are proven, they only need go ahead for funding and commercial operation.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Climate: Removing CO2 from the air no longer optional See in context

Yours is an impossible and expensive pipedream.

Which part are you reffering to? Completely remove all CO2 in the atmosphere? Or the part about achieving carbon nuetral goals by replacing aviation fuels with processed methanol derived from excess nuclear power?

There are none in operation.

Becuase of the lack of political will to fund and build them. But maybe a global energy crisis will force people to reconsider?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Energy crunch hits global recovery as winter approaches See in context

The good news resulting from this calamity is that Europe and China are bringing nuclear power back as the forefront of their plans to realistically acheive carbon neutrality. France which derives 75% of its electricity from nuclear power has been the least affected by the energy crisis. Meanwhile the German Green party is begrudgingly forced to bring online more coal plants to save up on gas reserves for the winter as the North Sea is not windy enough for them to rely on wind power to fill the demand gap. Yes they are willing to burn more coal rather than admit they were wrong about nuclear energy.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Climate: Removing CO2 from the air no longer optional See in context

@zichi

There is a better way. A VHTR (very high temperature nuclear reactor) uses helium coolant that enables it to operate at temperatures of upto 1000 degrees celcius. This high temperature allows us to efficiently produce hydrogen from seawater using the sulfur-iodine cycle. We can then combine H2 with CO2 sequestered from air using excess baseload power from another reactor to produce methanol very economically. This methanol can be processed to completely replace aviation fuels and and deisel fuels for heavy vehicles.

But alas money is being wasted away on the renewable pipe dream that is failing spectacularly in Europe right now. It's a shame but people have to suffer painfully for them to fully realise the consequences of ditching nuclear power.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: Toyota to invest $3.4 bil in U.S. battery production See in context

@Desert Tortoise

Yeah your right. The effects of climate change are having an impact of dams and hydro, but this is very recent. For the most part they are still more reliable than wind and solar. China recently brought online another 10GW dam. China's windiest regions are in the Gobi desert and Inner Mongolia, which is far away from its populous coatal cities to meaningfully transfer power. Europe is lucky that they have lots of wind close to their cities, and the North sea is shallow so it's easier to install fixed support wind turbines. Compare that to Japan which have very deep coasts, that necessitate expensive floating wind turbine platforms.

So you build more wind turbines, their power is intermittent so you build more gas power plants to fill the demand gaps. Keep repeating this process and you will never meet emissions targets that have been set.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: Toyota to invest $3.4 bil in U.S. battery production See in context

Precisely! That is what millions of EVs with their large batteries will be able to do: just plug them into a smart grid. The technology is already here.

Renewable supporters have talked the talk for years now, yet they are nowhere near to having a viable energy storage and transmission solution that is scalable glabally.

What do you make of the commitments by China and an alliance of European nations led by France to build more advanced reactors to combat energy crisis?

Germany seems to be the only country that is hostile to this. They seem to have wishful thinking that winds in the North Sea will pick up so that more wind power can be used to save up on gas reserves. Meanwhile they are still trying to burn more coal with the 2030 phaseout deadline looming.

https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-power-never-imaging-it-would-one-day-stop-blowing/

Meanwhile China has given the go ahead for construction of commercial LFTR reactor due 2030, that can be built anywhere in the world including in desert regions.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Posted in: Toyota to invest $3.4 bil in U.S. battery production See in context

Why would Japan every throw all its eggs in one 'end producer' basket again when it will never be able to compete with slave labour in China?

Does the semiconductor/ chip industry and high end battery manufacturing need slave labour or low wage workers? These industries are highly automated and they employ engineers and technicians who are paid six figure salaries anyway. You are comparing apples and oranges. Making 5nm chips and EV batteries is not the same as manufacture of rice cookers and fridges. Before 2019 Taiwan made half the worlds chips. Is this becuase Taiwan has low wage workers? No.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Posted in: Toyota to invest $3.4 bil in U.S. battery production See in context

@Peter Thiel

Wind and solar energy was never meant to power modern, industrial, high income and high growth economies.

No matter how cheap wind and solar power gets, it will never go mainstream as long as there is an equally effective energy storage and transmission solution to go along with it.

Case in point, the most dominant renewable energy source as of 2020 is Hydro, NOT solar and wind. Becuase Hydro power is reliable.

How many more blackouts and global energy crunches will it take for people to recognise this simple and plainly obvious fact?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: Climate justice: Rich nations dodge finance pledge See in context

Wind and solar energy was never meant to power modern, industrial, high income and high growth economies.

No matter how cheap wind and solar power gets, it will never go mainstream as long as there is an equally effective energy storage and transmission solution to go along with it.

Case in point, the most dominant renewable energy source as of 2020 is Hydro, NOT solar and wind. Becuase Hydro power is reliable.

How many more blackouts and global energy crunches will it take for people to recognise this simple and plainly obvious fact?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Nuclear option: Earth's climate panacea or poison? See in context

Nuclear power will not replace all other forms of energy within this century.

Replacing ALL other forms of energy is not the intention of the nuclear industry. The goal of the nuclear indsutry is to replace the role of coal and gas power plants. There are even plans in the works for Gen 4 designs to have supplementary roles as desalination plants, using excess baseload power to synthsise methanol fuels (can be used for aviation) by carbon capture and creating ammonia ( for fertiliser as an example, as currently we use fossile fuels to make them).

As for the rest of your comment, this stagnation in the nuclear industry is due to high cost, nuclear paranoia and lack of political will. Did you watch the video I recommended?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Here is a more updated one. It may change your mind.

Also, zichi, what is the solution to Europe's energy crisis?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Nuclear option: Earth's climate panacea or poison? See in context

Only 7 GEN 3 reactors have been constructed.

Due to the prolonged period of stagnation in the construction of new reactors and the continued (but declining) popularity of Generation II/II+ designs in new construction, relatively few third-generation reactors have been built. Generation IV designs are still in development as of 2020.

Well I adressed this in my previous comment. Feel free to add any other reasons why.

I think this is not quite correct. The nuclear plant lost all external power. The emergency power generators were located in the basements of the generation building which was below sea level and was flooded from the tsunami. They tried to use batteries for the control and instrument systems but there were not enough of them.

Yes you are correct. Still proves that it was a flawed, outdated system.

BTW zichi, what do you make of the commitments by China and an alliance of European nations led by France to build more advanced reactors to combat energy crisis?

Germany seems to be the only country that is hostile to this. They seem to have wishful thinking that winds in the North Sea will pick up so that more wind power can be used to save up on gas reserves. Meanwhile they are still trying to burn more coal with the 2030 phaseout deadline looming.

https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-power-never-imaging-it-would-one-day-stop-blowing/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Nuclear option: Earth's climate panacea or poison? See in context

@Sal Affist

Please do some more research on the developements made in the nuclear industry.

But they can't be on a major seismic fault.

Not a problem with modern Gen 3+ models in operation and upcoming Gen 4 models. They have passive safety designs that Gen 2 and Gen 1 did not have. I am assuming your worry is based of Fukushima. That was a 40 year old design that should have been decomissioned in the early 2000's. And let's not forget that the insideous malpractice and incompetence of TEPCO led to this disaster as the backup pumps that should have pumped water out of the containment building was placed under the facility. They got inundated. That kind of malpractice is what happens when Japan Inc has no independant regulatory comissions.

They can't be in an unstable country where the fission process or waste products could be weaponized.

Please watch this video by engineer Kirk Sorensen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

Firstly, the actual proprortion of nuclear waste that is dangerous is Transuranics which forms about 5% of nuclear waste. The rest is recyclable metals and unused uranium. Secondly about ploriferation. This is unfortunate but the way our nuclear industry is today is becuase it was born and bred through the cold war. Governments wanted uranium thermal reactors becuase they could work in tandem with nuclear weapons programs to get the bomb. If circumstances were diffrent in the 1950's we could have gone the route of LFTR reactors which are safer, more effective, cheaper and ploriferation resistant. That is the struggle that the nuclear industry is going through today. They are trying to recreate that panacea that should have been taken 70 years ago. If LFTR became the mainstream back in the 60's then 60% or more of the worlds electricity mix could have been nuclear. We would not be talking about global warming becuase a solution to that problem would be right in our hands. But alas, that is in another time, in another life.

And they can't be anywhere near a mass of developed and fearful Westerners who don't want it in their backyards.

Human ignorance and irrationality get in the way of progress. I wonder, are there any "100%" wind and solar supporters or anti-nuclear supporters taking note of what is happening right now in europe? Will those same people be willing to be held accountable 50 years from now when we fail to meet emissions targets because they are unwilling to admit they are wrong about nuclear power.

And we have to make sure that the operators have more intelligence than Homer Simpson.

I am not kidding when I say that Gen 4 reactor can be run by a bunch of monkeys and nothing would happen. It will not blow up. It's a little something called passive safety design. In a molten salt reactor this consists of a freeze plug. If a runaway reaction occurs, the freeze plug will melt and gravity will dump all that fuel into a storage tank. The reaction stops. It's a simple, elegant and extremely effective safety feature.

Are there any locations left?

With Gen 4 models? Anywhere on the planet. Previously nuclear reactors were limited to being built near water sources for cooling. With LFTR you can build them in a desert. That is exactly what China is doing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Nuclear option: Earth's climate panacea or poison? See in context

Now too expensive to build new reactors at a cost of $6000 to $8000 per kW. Most reactors are 1,000MW.

I don't know about that zichi. The recent energy supply crunch is forcing EU countries to reconsider their nuclear phase out plans. Oh and Germany is planning to burn more coal to save up their gas reserves for the winter and they cannot rely on wind power because the North Sea is not as windy as it was before. Where is wind power when you need it? How could we has possibly have failed to foresee this? /s

After more than 70 years, nuclear energy has only managed to generate 14% of total world power demands.

As you pointed out high cost vs energy output is one issue. Nuclear paranoia is another. But also nuclear is good at baseload supply, but coal and gas plants output can be throttleable, making them very realiable. Also they cost less than nuclear.

But this is being worked on by the Chinese. The success or faliure of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) in Wuwei will have great implications on the future of nuclear power and the global energy mix.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

This is a great video I found on LFTR. It's an hour long but well worth the watch.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: LDP seeks defense spending boost beyond 2% of GDP See in context

If they can afford more money for the defense budget, surely they could do the same for Japan's welfare system for the youth. $50 billion a year could net $3000 per annum for every Japanese kid about to enter the job market. And given the state of the Japanese gig economy for the past 30 years and the rise of temp work, they will need that money more then ever.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

Posted in: 'Squid Game': South Korea's latest cultural phenomenon See in context

@1glenn

It will last as long as the Korean film industry prioritises giving unhindered control and power to actual artists to execute their creative talent, instead of corporate bureaucrats. The Korean government recognises the benefits of the soft power factor of Hallyu, so they will continue to support Korean artists.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Posted in: 'Squid Game': South Korea's latest cultural phenomenon See in context

Korean dramas excel with tenseness and hints of the ‘bigger picture’

Japanese films just don’t do it for me…

Japanese drama's need better actors and actresses. A lot of them just overdo their acting and that just kills the immersion, even if the story and production quality is great. At least in my opinion.

Japan's strength is its anime industry but anime is just so oversaturated. There are like 200 or more releases every year and the overwhelming majority of them are garbage. Quantity over quality. Not to mention the slave like work conditions that animators have to deal with. Even as the industry grows its is slowly destroying itself from within.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Posted in: 'Squid Game': South Korea's latest cultural phenomenon See in context

@BackpackingNepal

It's not the Korean's fault that Japan's TV and film industry cannot market their products to a wider global audience. The golden age of Japanese cinema has long ended. Japan should just stick to making better anime.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.