Post AskDWcoeC09V4IG5dQ by Tallish_Tom@fosstodon.org
(DIR) More posts by Tallish_Tom@fosstodon.org
(DIR) Post #AsjxyV8Kkc2w5DjlKa by collectifission@greennuclear.online
2025-04-04T07:00:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Zijn de 'stopcontacten op zee' een perfecte infrastructuur voor kernenergie-op-zee?In 2019 werd het eerste 'stopcontact op zee' opgeleverd. Deze 'stopcontacten' dienen als knooppunten voor windparken op zee, om deze stroom vervolgens aan land te brengen. Deze infrastructuur kost een heleboel geld, vele tientallen miljarden.Nu gaan windturbines op zee vrij kort mee, ondanks hun imposante grootte. De Noordzee is een van de meest ruwe zeeën in de wereld, en ik vermoed dat een levensduur van 15 jaar al aan de optimistische kant is.Dat brengt de vraag op: moeten we deze units elke 15 jaar dan maar vervangen, tot in de eeuwigheid?Wat nou als we de infrastructuur op termijn gaan gebruiken voor kernenergie-op-zee? Dat is minder raar dan het misschien klinkt. In Rusland is de Akademik Lomonosov, een drijvende kerncentrale, al in gebruik. Dit is nog een vrij kleine centrale, met twee 35 MWe reactoren. Maar er is geen enkele reden om veel grotere units neer te zetten. Saltfoss Energy (onlangs hernoemd van Seaborg) ontwikkelt bijvoorbeeld containers op schepen van 200 MWe per reactor. Er is geen enkele reden om er niet tientallen aan elkaar vast te knopen. De infrastructuur op zee kan er straks 350 aan! Belangrijk voordeel is dat de zee een inherente veiligheidsgarantie geeft: niet alleen is het het 'ultieme' koellichaam, maar ook is water een extreem goede barrière tegen straling.Afhankelijk van het ontwerp gaan deze reactoren bovendien vele tientallen jaren mee. Bovendien kunnen we de opbrengst van de schone energie verdubbelen van 275 TWh per jaar met wind-op-zee naar 550 TWh per jaar met kernenergie-op-zee, omdat de capaciteitsfactor het dubbele is bij kernenergie. Bedenk: onze totale energiebehoefte gaat zo'n 700 TWh per jaar zijn tegen 2050.Ik zie mogelijkheden wanneer we de windturbines moeten gaan vervangen vanaf ongeveer 2035 😀 https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2019/09/05/eerste-%E2%80%98stopcontact-op-zee%E2%80%99-klaar-voor-gebruik
(DIR) Post #AsjxyWUhgvXCItD8q0 by Tallish_Tom@fosstodon.org
2025-04-04T07:24:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission Why on erath would you displace infrastructure that is location dependent (wind) with generation capacity that isn't (nuclear). Build nukes that are proven (large PWR/BWR) in places that they work best (the coast or by big rivers ideally near industrial centres) and have both.(The planned design life for offshore turbines is 25 years so we'll have to see if your 15 year 'recon' matches engineers' models and decades of real world data.)
(DIR) Post #AsjxyXQqCm2TDCPZSK by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2025-04-04T07:30:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Tallish_Tom @collectifission Everything I've seen shows that, so far, typical lifetimes of offshore wind turbines are in the 10—12 year range. That should improve a bit once the experience is a bit better digested. We've seen foundation scour, a whole lot of stress-corrosion problems and just physical damage due to the sea-air interface, very rapid blade erosion due to spray, and of course the usual cyclic loading effects.Nuclear plants belong near load centers, to supply heat plus power.
(DIR) Post #Ask0rJmiqVScintYPI by collectifission@greennuclear.online
2025-04-04T08:02:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Tallish_Tom In addition to this, I'm also not sure what your point is on 'location dependent' infrastructure. The infrastructure is going to be built: it'll be able to transport some 70 GW of peak load for offshore wind.My point is rather simple: why not repurpose that infrastructure, if it is going to be there anyway, for more efficient use? Instead of ~45% capacity factor, we can get 90%, resulting in more energy generated.If we have too much, we can sell it off to Germany, which is set to be a big net importer for the foreseeable future.All we need to do is purchase power barges from Saltfoss, or another supplier, and connect them to the offshore grid.@publius
(DIR) Post #Ask3eS9Ck5Ookuy4hc by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2025-04-04T08:33:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @Tallish_Tom That certainly makes a great deal more sense than what is still California's official plan, to decommission Diablo Canyon so that its associated switchyard and high-tension lines can be used to carry power from an off-shore wind installation… despite simultaneously having designated the area just offshort of DCPP as a marine wildlife sanctuary (the rationale for prohibiting once-through cooling and requiring cooling towers to be built, which has been deferred).
(DIR) Post #AskDWcoeC09V4IG5dQ by Tallish_Tom@fosstodon.org
2025-04-04T08:15:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @publius Then I misunderstood, are you going to decomission the wind turbines and replaces them with Nuke barges? or have both?Also, Yet Another new-tech reactor design? I can pretty much guarantee it wont be ready for significant deployment until the 2040s at the earliest (and at that point it will be expensive).(How many molten salt reactors are there in commercial operation again?)
(DIR) Post #AskDWdXJVvshIp9lFw by collectifission@greennuclear.online
2025-04-04T08:30:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Tallish_Tom The point I was making is that when wind turbines have to replaced anyway, you could replace them with power barges, which are going to be on the market in the next decade.@publius
(DIR) Post #AskDWe8XHXehAGZUH2 by Tallish_Tom@fosstodon.org
2025-04-04T08:34:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @publius But why not replace them? They generate a load of power and are cheap (they'll be even cheaper in 15 years).More your barges on the coast and have both.(Unless you point is we _shouldn't_ use renewables at all and go all in on Nukes)
(DIR) Post #AskDWesGXWEdS5y0YK by collectifission@greennuclear.online
2025-04-04T08:38:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Tallish_Tom My point has always been that solar and wind are a great transitionary energy source to a zero carbon future. Their sole selling point after all is that they can be deployed faster. In the long term though I do think we're going to be a nuclear powered species, with solar and wind fulfilling niche roles.I think we're going to disagree on that point. But as I've made my case - double the clean energy by using the same energy infrastructure - I think we have to seriously consider it.@publius
(DIR) Post #AskDWfd3jXfJnDrNUO by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2025-04-04T10:24:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @Tallish_Tom I can envision a world in which a substantial fraction of total energy used by global civilization — half, maybe even more — comes from solar and its derivatives such as wind. But the remainder absolutely has to come from nuclear sources, so that the diffuseness of the one is offset by the concentratedness of the other.I'm not confident that represents an optimal energy supply solution, but I tend to doubt there is a single well-defined optimum.