Jump to content

[Update: Confirmed] Unlimited* Powaaa! – Scientists achieve net positive nuclear fusion reaction

Lightwreather
Go to solution Solved by Lightwreather,

Well, it appears it has been confirmed by the Department of Energy,

Quote

On Tuesday, the US Department of Energy (DOE) confirmed information that had leaked out earlier this week: its National Ignition Facility had reached a new milestone, releasing significantly more fusion energy than was supplied by the lasers that triggered the fusion. "Monday, December 5, 2022 was an important day in science," said Jill Hruby, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration. "Reaching ignition in a controlled fusion experiment is an achievement that has come after more than 60 years of global research, development, engineering, and experimentation."

Quote

In terms of specifics, the lasers of the National Ignition Facility deposited 2.05 megajoules into their target in that experiment. Measurements of the energy released afterward indicate that the resulting fusion reactions set loose 3.15 megajoules, a factor of roughly 1.5. That's the highest output-to-input ratio yet achieved in a fusion experiment.

Although there is a bit of a snag here, it appears that the lasers that produced the 2 MJ, used about 300MJ.

Quote

As we noted above, the 3 MJ released in this experiment is a big step up from the amount of energy deposited in the target by the National Ignition Facility's lasers. But it's an enormous step down from the 300 MJ or so of grid power that was needed to get the lasers to fire in the first place.

But many speakers emphasized that the facility was built with once-state-of-the-art technology that's now over 30 years old. And, given its purpose of testing conditions for nuclear weapons, keeping power use low wasn't one of the design goals. "The laser wasn't designed to be efficient," said Herrmann, "the laser was designed to give us as much juice as possible to make these incredible conditions happen in the laboratory."

However she noted

Quote

Tammy Ma leads the DOE's Inertial Fusion Energy Institutional Initiative, which is designed to explore its possible use for electricity generation. She estimated that simply switching to current laser technology would immediately knock 20 percent off the energy use. She also mentioned that these lasers could fire far more regularly than the existing hardware at the National Ignition Facility.

And there are a host of other issues with Intertial Confinement.

Quote

Kim Budil, director of Lawrence Livermore National Lab, mentioned the other barriers. "This is one igniting capsule one time," Budil said. "To realize commercial fusion energy, you have to do many things; you have to be able to produce many, many fusion ignition events per minute. And you have to have a robust system of drivers to enable that." Drivers like consistent manufacturing of the targets, hardware that can survive repeated neutron exposures, and so on.

Therefore, despite the fact that laser-driven fusion has achieved significant energy milestones, a long list of issues still need to be resolved before it can be commercialised. An alternate strategy, magnetic confinement in tokamaks, is considered to primarily deal with difficulties of scale and magnetic field intensity and, as a result, to be considerably closer to commercialisation.

Quote

"There's a lot of commonalities between the two where we can learn from each other," Ma said optimistically. "There's burning plasma physics, material science, reactor engineering, and we're very supportive of each other in this community. A win for either inertial or magnetic confinement is a win for all of us." But another speaker noted that magnetic confinement works at much lower densities than laser-driven fusion, so not all of the physics would apply.

But Ma also suggested that, for laser-driven fusion to thrive, it may need to break away from its past in weapons testing. "Where we are right now is at a divergent point," she said. "We've been very lucky to be able to leverage the work that the National Nuclear Security Administration has done for inertial confinement fusion. But if we want to get serious about [using it for energy production], we need to figure out what an integrated system looks like... and what we need for a power plant. It has to be simple, it has to be high volume, it needs to be robust." None of those things had been required for the weapons work.

My thoughts

So while this has indeed confirmed that there was indeed a net positive energy output, this is only in relation to the power outputted by the lasers. Furthermore, it appears the NIF is having some difficulty reproducing what happened here, so yea. But there is hope that this milestone will be able to be carried forth to more efficient designs and bring commercial reactors. Although it is certainly some time away, this has certainly reduced the time that we will be waiting. Until it happens though, I seriously hope that governments start investing not only in fusion but fission and other renewables as well.

Sources

ArsTechnica

30 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

@CommanderAlexthat's probably closer to what happened than what i said but the Scott Manley video mentions all that too, i think. he also explained the lead up (the "experiment" or test) really well, and that one shift didn't really know what the prior shift was doing,  also the top down hierachy... and i don't remember if it was control rods, or cooling rods, or both, point is according to him they panicked and at some point there were only 1 or 2 "cooling rods" in the reactor and that then led to several chain reactions as you explained.  pretty fascinating,  and more so pretty stupid actually (he definitely put most blame on the operators, who didn't really understand how the reactor works, and the top down hierachy, to be fair, but you could also say due to poor training,  the end result is the same)

 

ps: also mentioned that prior accident,  but the operators may not have known about this in detail due to soviet "secrecy"... 

For the most part, yeah especially operator error. In the day shift, electrical grid operators needed the extra juice to supply factories in order to meet their 5 year goals (Soviet "quotas" I guess you can say) so they had to run at 100% power throughout the day and into night shift. The experiment was tried on other reactors but were either incomplete or failed during testing. Dyatlov (who was overseeing the operators that night), may have had a political goal on going up the rank in completing the experiment that night, but I don't want to divest into that due to the no politics rule on the forum. Daytime operators read details on the experiment, but night time not so much as most of these procedures would be happening at daytime, not nighttime. 

CPU Cooler Tier List  || Motherboard VRMs Tier List || Motherboard Beep & POST Codes || Graphics Card Tier List || PSU Tier List 

 

Main System Specifications: 

 

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X ||  CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 Air Cooler ||  RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB(4x8GB) DDR4-3600 CL18  ||  Mobo: ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero X570  ||  SSD: Samsung 970 EVO 1TB M.2-2280 Boot Drive/Some Games)  ||  HDD: 2X Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB(Game Drive)  ||  GPU: ASUS TUF Gaming RX 6900XT  ||  PSU: EVGA P2 1600W  ||  Case: Corsair 5000D Airflow  ||  Mouse: Logitech G502 Hero SE RGB  ||  Keyboard: Logitech G513 Carbon RGB with GX Blue Clicky Switches  ||  Mouse Pad: MAINGEAR ASSIST XL ||  Monitor: ASUS TUF Gaming VG34VQL1B 34" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

ok, that wasn't what i wanted to hear, lol, but still interesting... i guess thats some good points.

 

but i think I've also read to just make really small thorium reactors to mitigate the risks, or was that something else?  kinda hard to keep up...

 

i also just read france is going all in on npps... as of last year at least,  and india and others apparently have working "prototype" thorium reactors... thats to say im not sure fision is dead (not at last because of no good suitable alternatives) 

 

ps: yeah, i know the history of uranium power plants, but it seems we're kinda stuck with it, with nuclear at least. the alternatives (like wind power) are just progressing way too slow in my impression.  🤔

One of the theories with Thorium Reactors is that you don't even need to make them small to prevent meltdown.  If you start getting too hot they melt a special plug and drain into a holding tank.  The other benefit is that it's supposed to created less waste, since there's no U-238 involved, although the proof really will be in the pudding. (I think they were talking about uranium being the initial source...so maybe U-238 would slip in there in some designs...not sure)

 

Biggest downside though being that we really haven't made a full-scale plant yet.

 

The "small" reactor concept is with Uranium style power plants which in theory prevents meltdown.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Anyway it's not like Thorium can't be done, as you know actually working reactors existed in the 60's from memory. Around that sort of time anyway. There is also strong current interest in them, China I believe is building at least one for actual power generation I think. Not sure about others since been a while since I looked at who was doing it.

Apparently the construction on it started around 2020, honestly I hope that it works as intended.  I think China is the only one building anything that is large enough to measure the feasibility of it, I could be wrong.  It would be nice to see the advancement of it, as Thorium reactors is something that would be easier to sell to the general public.  You could make the splashy headlines proclaiming the design prevents meltdown (especially meltdowns by operator error) and the design helps make the nuclear waste last less time.

 

2 hours ago, CommanderAlex said:

All of things are avoidable...yet operator training and terrible engineering lead to these disasters. 

And this is sort of the crux of the issue, avoidable.  The question in the publics mind becomes, what other "avoidable" situations are currently waiting in the wings.  A plant that was rated for 40 years maybe getting pushed to 60 years without proper maintenance.

 

Fukushima taught us, even though we know a disaster is possible and known about the governing bodies can and sometimes will take actions that make their job easier than addressing the issue.

 

I still think Nuclear is safe, and we need realistically to spread electrical generation amoungst all types of renewables and nuclear.  It is a major statement though that when things go wrong, things can go terribly wrong.

3735928559 - Beware of the dead beef

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And this is sort of the crux of the issue, avoidable.  The question in the publics mind becomes, what other "avoidable" situations are currently waiting in the wings.  A plant that was rated for 40 years maybe getting pushed to 60 years without proper maintenance.

 

Fukushima taught us, even though we know a disaster is possible and known about the governing bodies can and sometimes will take actions that make their job easier than addressing the issue.

 

I still think Nuclear is safe, and we need realistically to spread electrical generation amoungst all types of renewables and nuclear.  It is a major statement though that when things go wrong, things can go terribly wrong.

That's the thing that I agree with you with that nuclear can be safe, it's just how much time/capital are we willing to invest into implementing. Personally, I believe that nuclear [fission] will be the stopgap that will fill the void between fossil fuels (nonrenewable) and renewables (solar/CSP, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and the list goes on) in providing the energy we need today and going into the future. Yes, nuclear is not exactly a renewable energy (thousands of years of decay and only a limited number on Earth). The last coal plant in my state closed down years ago and finally the last demolition was just completed a month ago, mainly investing into natural gas and renewable energy in the meantime. 

 

Public opposition to nuclear, in the U.S., at least has been since TMI incident and public opinion on the coverups that occurred there both by the NRC and electric company that owned TMI-2, build up that opposition. It also didn't help that The China Syndrome was just in theaters a couple weeks before TMI occurred.  That'll probably be the one biggest hurdle that faces nuclear today, besides Chernobyl and Fukushima following TMI. 

CPU Cooler Tier List  || Motherboard VRMs Tier List || Motherboard Beep & POST Codes || Graphics Card Tier List || PSU Tier List 

 

Main System Specifications: 

 

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X ||  CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 Air Cooler ||  RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB(4x8GB) DDR4-3600 CL18  ||  Mobo: ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero X570  ||  SSD: Samsung 970 EVO 1TB M.2-2280 Boot Drive/Some Games)  ||  HDD: 2X Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB(Game Drive)  ||  GPU: ASUS TUF Gaming RX 6900XT  ||  PSU: EVGA P2 1600W  ||  Case: Corsair 5000D Airflow  ||  Mouse: Logitech G502 Hero SE RGB  ||  Keyboard: Logitech G513 Carbon RGB with GX Blue Clicky Switches  ||  Mouse Pad: MAINGEAR ASSIST XL ||  Monitor: ASUS TUF Gaming VG34VQL1B 34" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Don't dismantle them 🤷‍♂️

 

Huge cost overruns and many year delays seems to be common for basically every large project now days. Same thing probably would have happen for any other power plant project renewable or not.

 

Here we can't even build motorways on time, at least 2 years overdue and minimum double the cost.

 

A lot of it is lack of experiance doing that stuff. Because no one's done it for decades or more they're having to rediscover and find solutions to little issues that were solved allready on the older designs. This is actually one of the economy of scale factors i was talking about. Royal Navy has had the same issues with building the new Astute class submarines. The shipyard had gone so long since building a sub that people who knew where some of the trouble could turn up had retired and they had to rediscover it all the hard way.

 

@Dracarris That economy of scale stuff applies to everything every built, and your counterargument would have applied historically to fossil fuel plants, yet there's no question they saw significant advantages from the sheer numbers built. The reality is economies of scale would apply, thats just how the real world actually works, the more you do somthing the better you get at it.

 

You also conveniently skipped over my point about how this would apply to Fusion and battery banks as well. Until one of those is available going full non-fossil fuel simply isn't possibble. As noted by other's Europe's doing pretty well on renewables %, (Uk was up over 40% last i looked and the dutch are working on a massive offshore windfarm project to supply several times their needs), but with no storage or fission baseload plants it's only going to do so much because a lot of that is wind, and that goes offline anytime there's galeforce winds, which aren't that uncommon in Europe. Those same conditions generally include clouds that severely degrade Solar and there's only so much Hydro can be put in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to pick nits but to nitpick a bit, what the UK considers a renewable is a bit loose. Burning wood pellets from Canada it considers renewable because the trees grow back and recover some of the carbon emissions... eventually. I don't know if they're taking into account the carbon of logging and shipping the pellets. Also it was found that the contracted company was logging old growth, not new growth forest so there's that too. I don't know what percentage those pellets account for but I personally can't call that renewable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2022 at 2:12 AM, mr moose said:

Well of course if your country has no fossil fuels or access to Uranium then solar and wind would be cheaper.  that's like saying sand is cheaper in Africa than Brazilian rain forest timber.

 

Another thing is not to confuse future possibilities with current actual abilities,  batteries are getting better, but they aren't there yet and I am told we need a solution today. 

We actually have uranium, http://www.jumco.com.jo/index. Nuclear just is too expensive for us, Nuclear is fine but renewables will be the main energy source for a clean energy transition to occur anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

works for italy! 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montalto_di_Castro_Nuclear_Power_Station

 

i can actually see this from one of my favorite beaches (but it doesn't look like on these photos... its black and very ominous looking, which im not sure why i cant find pictures of that... gladly was never in operation) 

 

but seriously,  yeah, i agree, its not necessary to completely "dismantle" a npp... make it a museum or something!  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

OOF, they canceled a Nuclear plant that was 80% completed and replaced it with a massive 3600 MW Oil/Natural Gas power plant? Yikes. I can't even imagine (though I'm sure it's calculable) how much carbon emissions that plant has pumped out since it was built, compared to what the Nuclear Plant would have.

 

I have to ask though - why are you glad it was never in operation?

1 hour ago, Bitter said:

Not to pick nits but to nitpick a bit, what the UK considers a renewable is a bit loose. Burning wood pellets from Canada it considers renewable because the trees grow back and recover some of the carbon emissions... eventually. I don't know if they're taking into account the carbon of logging and shipping the pellets. Also it was found that the contracted company was logging old growth, not new growth forest so there's that too. I don't know what percentage those pellets account for but I personally can't call that renewable.

Just an FYI but Renewable and Carbon Neutral are not the same thing. Sometimes - often, even - they apply to the same thing, but they are separate things.

 

Wood pellets are renewable exactly because you can grow more wood. They're not necessarily carbon neutral though because growing another tree doesn't necessarily offset the same carbon emissions 100% (depends on a lot of factors). Trees are kind of like a carbon battery, but I'm sure there are losses in the system. Plus, as you noted, logging equipment usually runs on diesel or gasoline, plus transportation.

 

There would be ways to mitigate those extra emissions, but I doubt many loggers are doing so, and transportation-wise, they're definitely not doing so.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

OOF, they canceled a Nuclear plant that was 80% completed and replaced it with a massive 3600 MW Oil/Natural Gas power plant? Yikes. I can't even imagine (though I'm sure it's calculable) how much carbon emissions that plant has pumped out since it was built, compared to what the Nuclear Plant would have.

 

I have to ask though - why are you glad it was never in operation?

Just an FYI but Renewable and Carbon Neutral are not the same thing. Sometimes - often, even - they apply to the same thing, but they are separate things.

 

Wood pellets are renewable exactly because you can grow more wood. They're not necessarily carbon neutral though because growing another tree doesn't necessarily offset the same carbon emissions 100% (depends on a lot of factors). Trees are kind of like a carbon battery, but I'm sure there are losses in the system. Plus, as you noted, logging equipment usually runs on diesel or gasoline, plus transportation.

 

There would be ways to mitigate those extra emissions, but I doubt many loggers are doing so, and transportation-wise, they're definitely not doing so.

UK, parts of Europe, and the US we're trying or have classes them in with solar and wind power as a renewable, which frankly is cowcrap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

That economy of scale stuff applies to everything every built, and your counterargument would have applied historically to fossil fuel plants, yet there's no question they saw significant advantages from the sheer numbers built. The reality is economies of scale would apply, thats just how the real world actually works, the more you do somthing the better you get at it.

Due to its sheer complexity and many local, national regulations, there's quite a limit as to how far economy of scale applies to NPPs. As I said before, what is "of scale" for plants that cost double-digit billions per unit? 100, 1000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bitter said:

UK, parts of Europe, and the US we're trying or have classes them in with solar and wind power as a renewable, which frankly is cowcrap.

I mean, they're not inherently wrong. Wood is a renewable resource if it's managed properly. The big reason why logging is not good is due to unsustainable practices. Loggers clear cutting areas, not re-planting, stripping too much and damaging the underlying ground, etc.

 

However, if done properly, Wood could remain a renewable resource basically forever.

 

The source of the wood is really important as to whether I would personally consider it renewable or not.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CommanderAlex said:

The design of the core follows a positive void coefficient, whereas Western reactors follow a negative void coefficient. This resulted in loss of control of the reactor as water in an RBMK-1000 is both a neutron moderator and neutron absorber, and "bubbles" form due to the vaporization of water from liquid to gas inside. 

RBM-1000 was even back at this time banned in the West, exactly for it's negative void coefficient. Chernobyl needs to be taken out entirely and completely of every current NPP safety discussion. It was plain nuts what the Soviets were doing back then, starting with the reactor design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

OOF, they canceled a Nuclear plant that was 80% completed and replaced it with a massive 3600 MW Oil/Natural Gas power plant? Yikes. I can't even imagine (though I'm sure it's calculable) how much carbon emissions that plant has pumped out since it was built, compared to what the Nuclear Plant would have.

yeah, in hindsight it was probably a stupid decision... on the other hand its one of the most touristic areas in italy and therfore was *never* a good idea tbh (there are definitely more suitable places, more north)

 

47 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

have to ask though - why are you glad it was never in operation?

because I swim there (well few km from there... can see it on the horizon)

The direction tells you... the direction

-Scott Manley, 2021

 

Softwares used:

Corsair Link (Anime Edition) 

MSI Afterburner 

OpenRGB

Lively Wallpaper 

OBS Studio

Shutter Encoder

Avidemux

FSResizer

Audacity 

VLC

WMP

GIMP

HWiNFO64

Paint

3D Paint

GitHub Desktop 

Superposition 

Prime95

Aida64

GPUZ

CPUZ

Generic Logviewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah, in hindsight it was probably a stupid decision... on the other hand its one of the most touristic areas in italy and therfore was *never* a good idea tbh (there are definitely more suitable places, more north)

Building a power plant of any kind in a tourist area where the visible structure is unsightly is kind of bad planning.

 

The fact that they replaced it with a Fossil Fuel plant is... just... idiotic? Completely stupid?

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

because I swim there (well few km from there... can see it on the horizon)

I'm not sure I follow - are you concerned about radiation in the water or something? Generally there would be some kind of safety exclusion zone, where you're not supposed to get within a certain distance. Aside from that, depending on what kind of Fission reactor they used, the water was likely used for cooling. In all likelihood it would probably have remained safe to swim where you swim.

 

Granted, again - if it's right beside a tourist beach, maybe it was stupid place to put it.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

RBM-1000 was even back at this time banned in the West, exactly for it's negative void coefficient. Chernobyl needs to be taken out entirely and completely of every current NPP safety discussion. It was plain nuts what the Soviets were doing back then, starting with the reactor design.

100% agree with that. 

CPU Cooler Tier List  || Motherboard VRMs Tier List || Motherboard Beep & POST Codes || Graphics Card Tier List || PSU Tier List 

 

Main System Specifications: 

 

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X ||  CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 Air Cooler ||  RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB(4x8GB) DDR4-3600 CL18  ||  Mobo: ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero X570  ||  SSD: Samsung 970 EVO 1TB M.2-2280 Boot Drive/Some Games)  ||  HDD: 2X Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB(Game Drive)  ||  GPU: ASUS TUF Gaming RX 6900XT  ||  PSU: EVGA P2 1600W  ||  Case: Corsair 5000D Airflow  ||  Mouse: Logitech G502 Hero SE RGB  ||  Keyboard: Logitech G513 Carbon RGB with GX Blue Clicky Switches  ||  Mouse Pad: MAINGEAR ASSIST XL ||  Monitor: ASUS TUF Gaming VG34VQL1B 34" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Building a power plant of any kind in a tourist area where the visible structure is unsightly is kind of bad planning.

 

i mean its italy... they do this all the time... decision... 2 months later complete 180... and so on... always... and the thing is... it's still a really wealthy country and everything just works - somehow-  Rome airport is also one of the most modern I've ever seen (they definitely have a knack for architecture lol...)

 

42 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Granted, again - if it's right beside a tourist beach, maybe it was stupid place to put it.

exactly... it was an incredibly stupid place, trust me... one of the most beautiful coastlines in the world... there would be no tourism anymore whatsoever... but the thing is,thats not why they canceled it... that was because of chernobyl, apparently...(a referendum) 

 

edit: actually its not just 1 beach, its the entire coastline... you can say there would be no harm a couple of km/miles away, but that doesn't interest anyone,  its a "npp" in your dream vacation area... that would be hundreds of kilometers without tourists lol (and im pretty sure thats italys biggest income source...) 

 

.

 

btw... really weird... not too far from there (30km maybe) I've seen one of those huge yellow barrels with the nuclear warning sign... not that i thought its from that plant (impossible) but it was *surreal* like in 2m deep water... i even dived down a little because I couldn't believe it lol... i think its probably from a sub or something... no idea, but it looked brand-new... thats why i wasn't overly worried but yeah... that just reminded me,  i wouldn't want to swim near a npp, decommissioned or not... 

 

42 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The fact that they replaced it with a Fossil Fuel plant is... just... idiotic? Completely stupid?

the thing is italy is highly industrialized... they usually hide it well , in certain regions,  but this area around civita vechia and mont alto di castro is extremely industrialized... 

 

Again, in any case, im not against npps... but in this case i think its really good that italy has abandoned them long ago... as i said... rules and regulations (and governments) change constantly... its not an ideal environment for something like that at all.

 

 

 

 

 

The direction tells you... the direction

-Scott Manley, 2021

 

Softwares used:

Corsair Link (Anime Edition) 

MSI Afterburner 

OpenRGB

Lively Wallpaper 

OBS Studio

Shutter Encoder

Avidemux

FSResizer

Audacity 

VLC

WMP

GIMP

HWiNFO64

Paint

3D Paint

GitHub Desktop 

Superposition 

Prime95

Aida64

GPUZ

CPUZ

Generic Logviewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

OOF, they canceled a Nuclear plant that was 80% completed and replaced it with a massive 3600 MW Oil/Natural Gas power plant? Yikes.

welcome to Italy. were buying votes is more important than anything else

 

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Building a power plant of any kind in a tourist area where the visible structure is unsightly is kind of bad planning.

 

again: welcome to Italy. were nepotism reigns supreme

 

One day I will be able to play Monster Hunter Frontier in French/Italian/English on my PC, it's just a matter of time... 4 5 6 7 8 9 years later: It's finally coming!!!

Phones: iPhone 4S/SE | LG V10 | Lumia 920 | Samsung S24 Ultra

Laptops: Macbook Pro 15" (mid-2012) | Compaq Presario V6000

Other: Steam Deck

<>EVs are bad, they kill the planet and remove freedoms too some/<>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

OOF, they canceled a Nuclear plant that was 80% completed and replaced it with a massive 3600 MW Oil/Natural Gas power plant? Yikes. I can't even imagine (though I'm sure it's calculable) how much carbon emissions that plant has pumped out since it was built, compared to what the Nuclear Plant would have.

There are worse cases in Austria and Germany. Fully constructed NPPs, never gone online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Well at some point you have to. For the NPPs in question they are simply not up to safety standards anymore, cracks in containments or even the reactor vessel.

True, but not to that extent, like 3x or so. It also helps that renewable plants are usually far less complex. So far haven't heard from any cost overruns that are close to that league.

For Christs sake, how many times do you repeat that utter nonsense, bullshit claim?? How deluded are you? Do I have to repeat the same explanation now for the 4th time? Will you continue to simply ignore it? Do I have to extract the external sources of that report that are basically reprinted in there, for you??? Is it too hard for you to do that yourself?

image.png.0b5c695d8f7fee8761db29ae98105d

See that thing there that says "Source: Lazard estimates"? As we all now, Lazard is part of the German government.

That "biased article" is a fucking collection of several independent studies, but you are absolutely imcapable of digesting that. You also utterly fail to proof that the report is invalid or biased. Your whole argument is "German gov === wrong about nuclear". Great effort, really.

Say christ a few more times, it might make you right.🙄

 

I'm done, you have only provided one article and nothing even remotely logical to support it.

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm done, you have only provided one article and nothing even remotely logical to support it.

Not all articles are created equally, quality over quantity, and I have explained to you 4 freakin times why it applies to the article I cited.

Also, if data quality is bad, it is pretty irrelevant how many articles one provides, and again, quantity is not indicative of quality. I have gone through the effort of looking at your latest two sources in detail in regards to that matter and you can see the result above.

 

I have provided a buttload of supporting information and explanations but in your utter narrow-mindedness you fail to recognize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Not all articles are created equally, quality over quantity, and I have explained to you 4 freakin times why it applies to this article here. If data quality is bad, it is pretty irrelevant how many articles one provides, and again, quantity is not indicative of quality. I have gone through the effort of looking at your latest two sources in detail in regards to that matter and you can see the result above.

 

I have provided a buttload of supporting information and explanations but in your utter narrow-mindedness you fail to recognize it.

I'm not even going to read that reply, I don't know what is says and I don't care.  you have had several pages to cite better/more evidence and you haven't.  thus you either can't find it or are just out for an argument.

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, oali24 said:

We actually have uranium, http://www.jumco.com.jo/index. Nuclear just is too expensive for us, Nuclear is fine but renewables will be the main energy source for a clean energy transition to occur anytime soon.

That's actually a smart way to utilize a resource you can't immediately use domestically.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

 

personally i think this is not a very interesting debate tbh , i would much rather know where are the billions we invest in thorium reactors,  a much more efficient alternative to everything else, including most "renewables" imho.

 

 

I heard a story that it took a back seat to straight up Uranium because it wasn't helpful in making weapons.   If we didn't need nuclear weapons then majority of our reactors would be thorium.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I'm not even going to read that reply, I don't know what is says and I don't care.  you have had several pages to cite better/more evidence and you haven't.  thus you either can't find it or are just out for an argument.

Your behavior of outright refusing to read about how poorly you engange with counter arguments speaks bands.

 

You cannot even be arsed to have a proper look at sources people give you but outright dismiss them because of some political/ideological BS - yet you demand moAr sources and get fixated on this nonsense that more sources make a better argument.

 

At the same time, when people engange with your sources, you ignore the criticism brought up.

 

You claiming to „not even read“ replies is just the cherry on top. This is a new low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

I heard a story that it took a back seat to straight up Uranium because it wasn't helpful in making weapons.   If we didn't need nuclear weapons then majority of our reactors would be thorium. 

The stories that I've heard over the years are plenty, with the primary being that Uranium was the first one that really was really set into motion because the money for weapons allowed our understanding of it which in turn allowed for powerplants to be created (while also being funded by the military).

 

There's also the whole concept of material science being better now, as molten salt reactors have a tendency to corrode things.  I also watched a nuclear researcher before, but can't remember so details are sketchy, but I thought that there was a funding freeze on MSR's back in the day as well, and approval freeze due to the failures of previous MSR's (non thorium).  Could be wrong.

3735928559 - Beware of the dead beef

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The stories that I've heard over the years are plenty, with the primary being that Uranium was the first one that really was really set into motion because the money for weapons allowed our understanding of it which in turn allowed for powerplants to be created (while also being funded by the military).

 

There's also the whole concept of material science being better now, as molten salt reactors have a tendency to corrode things.  I also watched a nuclear researcher before, but can't remember so details are sketchy, but I thought that there was a funding freeze on MSR's back in the day as well, and approval freeze due to the failures of previous MSR's (non thorium).  Could be wrong.

As it is with most things of a controversial nature, history often gets either manufactured or re-written.  I tend to keep these things in mind as highly probable given the human condition,  but not absolute as a fact.

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×