We tried /aeg/ (atomic energy general) for a while, kinda worked but was slow.

What if we just put all the energy, nuclear and climate bullshit in one big thread? It's all kinda interrelated.

Thread topic: China Targets 200 GW nuclear by 2040
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3314794/china-nearly-double-nuclear-power-capacity-2040-rapid-build

OPEC projects continued oil demand growth to 2050
https://www.investmentnews.com/alternatives/opec-says-oil-will-continue-to-expand-through-2050/261245

American Nuclear rocket project cancelled
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/draco-project-cancelled/

Texas flooding made more likely due to warmer waters
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/weather/2025/07/11/526185/climate-change-helped-fuel-heavy-rains-that-led-to-devastating-texas-flood/

nuclear > solar > fossil > wind

i want more nuclear and to see the first dyson harrop satellite

Satanic thread.

I've heard a lot of heated opinions about the relative cost of nuclear vs solar, and those opinions been all over the place. I tried making my own calculation based on Chinese costs (they have the lowest costs). Do you think they are reasonable?

I compared a nuclear power plant in a coastal Chinese province with utility-scale solar power sent from Inner Mongolia. These calculations are very simplistic, however they should give a rough indication. Only initial costs are considered, not operating costs, however the initial costs are the dominant cost for both nuclear and solar power.

To me it seems to explain why China is full speed ahead on both nuclear and solar. Nuclear might be slightly cheaper, however solar is easier to ramp up and deploy at scale. Solar also has the potential for significant further cost reductions.

Nuclear capacity cost is based on 3180MW thermal capacity and 1080MW net electrical capacity of HPR1000 at $2.8B per reactor. The capacity cost of a HPR1000 could conceivably be less in a thermal power application if it is decided to not include a turbine, generator, etc.
Nuclear capacity factor of 90% is based on the design target of HPR1000.
Capacity cost of solar (assume 17% decrease since 2022): https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202401/08/WS659bec21a3105f21a507b285.html
Assuming 12h of storage at 0.065$/Wh for solar and wind. Cost from: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/03/24/chinas-huadian-announces-winners-in-6-gwh-bess-tender-with-average-bid-at-65-kwh/
Assuming 1500km of UHVDC transmission lines at 0.00033$/(Wkm) for solar. Cost from: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chinas-state-grid-starts-construction-800-kv-8-gw-transmission-line.html
I have not made any assumption about the cost of a steam-based heat transmission system or the energy losses within it.

Fantastic thread

>>16722432 (OP)
>China Targets 200 GW nuclear by 2040
It could happen. Today they have 59GW in operation and 34GW under construction. So by 2030 they should have at least 93GW in operation. The state council has been approving reactors at a rate of about 11-12GW per year since 2021, so they might build 107GW in the 2030-2040 period.

I've heard a lot of heated opinions about the relative cost of nuclear vs solar, and those opinions been all over the place. I tried making my own calculation based on Chinese costs (they have the lowest costs). Do you think they are reasonable?

I compared a nuclear power plant in a coastal Chinese province with utility-scale solar power sent from Inner Mongolia. These calculations are very simplistic, however they should give a rough indication. Only initial costs are considered, not operating costs, however the initial costs are the dominant cost for both nuclear and solar power.

To me it seems to explain why China is full speed ahead on both nuclear and solar. Nuclear might be cheaper, at least in some cases, however solar is easier to ramp up and deploy at scale. Solar also has the potential for significant further cost reductions.

Nuclear capacity cost is based on 3180MW thermal capacity and 1080MW net electrical capacity of HPR1000 at $2.8B per reactor. The capacity cost of a HPR1000 could conceivably be less in a thermal power application if it is decided to not include a turbine, generator, etc.
Nuclear capacity factor of 90% is based on the design target of HPR1000.
Capacity cost of solar (assume 17% decrease since 2022): https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202401/08/WS659bec21a3105f21a507b285.html
Assuming 12h of storage at 0.065$/Wh for solar and wind. Cost from: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/03/24/chinas-huadian-announces-winners-in-6-gwh-bess-tender-with-average-bid-at-65-kwh/
Assuming 1500km of UHVDC transmission lines at 0.00033$/(Wkm) for solar. Cost from: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chinas-state-grid-starts-construction-800-kv-8-gw-transmission-line.html
I have not made any assumption about the cost of a steam-based heat transmission system or the energy losses within it.

(repost because of errors in previous post)

>>16722432 (OP)

>>16722432 (OP)
Is a reactor be designed with a negative void coefficient sufficient to let it moderate itself in the way depicted in this pic?
If so, why don't we have ultra-cheap to operate and build reactors like pic related?
Further, can this design be sized to use natural uranium, preferably burning more than half of the U235?

If yes to above, this seems a very cheap power source. No fancy enormous forgings for ultra high pressure vessels. Just 20th century steam train tech.

>>16723395
Imagine if we could harness the heat of Hell to power our society.

Thorium fuel cycle reactors can theoretically achieve up to 99% fuel utilization rates. When compared to conventional Uranium reactors which only utilize 1-5% of the fuel, this translates to Thorium fuel cycle reactors potentially outlasting Uranium fuel (augmented by it as well) by at least 700 years globally at current rates. Theoretically if done correctly globally, the maximum Thorium-Uranium augmented fuel cycle may be able to sustain global power generation for multiple thousands of years continuously.

>>16723658
China heavily subsidizes nuclear for weapons production and strategic defense purposes, the only actual customer for said reactor is Pakistan that purchased them at 4.5 billion a pop in 2013 (6.2 billion today), though those have gotten bit cheaper since in 2023 they purchased a 3rd unit for just 4.8 billion (5 billion today). That does not include the actual cost of financing the project which is very significant even with the generous loans they got from Chinese for this purpose.
You can buy solar panels of Temu at listed prices so that's not really an issue for those.

>>16724987
>at least 700 years globally
>multiple thousands of years
Fixed size pie socialist economy thinking. When fuel becomes expensive, people use something else. Peak oil is fake.

How to prove that carbon dioxide is the primary culprit of global warming? Explain it to a retard (me)

>>16725213
Don't care that it is. CO2 was 20 times what it is now and life was doing fine. We can burn all fossil fuels with no problems. The market resolves all.

>>16725222
checked and based

>>16723392
that concept is cool, how much would that type of satellite produce compared to an equivalent mass array of solar panels?

>>16723658
Solar load is weird because it is somewhat correlated with peak demand, but once you start trying to build enough batteries and mixing it with dispatchable plants to cover flat load the cost can vary wildly. You can also have solar power with batteries meet the fluctuating demand and use nuclear or something for flat demand, its very difficult to compare the two and actually nuclear and solar usually pair pretty well anyways.

>>16725213
CO2 absorbs infared our planet emits which keeps it from ejecting heat into space. So theoretically, more CO2 means more heat. When CO2 concentrations went up, heat went up, so idk if its a complete "gotcha!" but I mean its pretty obvious what happened.

>>16725352
OK, but
1. water molecule (in vapor form) absorbs more infrared than CO2 molecule
2. water vapor concentration in atmosphere is ranges from 0,2 to 4% (depends on the climate) while carbon dioxide concentration is about 426 ppm which is much less.
3. therefore water contributes to the global warming more than carbon dioxide

Where's a fallacy here?

>>16725721
a small increase in CO2 led to a small increase in temperature, I don't see what is weird about that.

Also clouds reduce global warming, so more humidity is going to cancel itself out.

>>16724994
PWRs are close to useless for nuclear weapons production. And commercial gigawatt scale PWRs have very little in common with naval PWRs, especially not the civil works which is a huge chunk of the cost of a commercial reactor

The FBRs they're building could theoretically be used for plutonium production, however they have special military reactors at Mianyang for that. The commercial FBRs are for commercial purposes

China doesn't really need to export reactors because there is enormous domestic demand. This is unlike Russia.

>>16724994
Exported reactors are usually more expensive because they use a lot of local labor which has less experience

CNNC HPR1000 reactors Fuqing 5 & 6 built in China cost 16¥/W = 2.3$/W

https://www.nengyuanjie.net/article/89951.html

>>16724994
PWRs are close to useless for nuclear weapons production. And commercial gigawatt scale PWRs have very little in common with naval PWRs, especially not the civil works which is a huge chunk of the cost of a commercial reactor

The FBRs they're building could theoretically be used for plutonium production, however they have special military reactors at Mianyang for that. The commercial FBRs are for commercial purposes

China doesn't really need to export reactors because there is enormous domestic demand. This is unlike Russia.

Exported reactors are usually more expensive because they use a lot of local labor which has less experience. CNNC HPR1000 reactors Fuqing 5 & 6 built in China cost 16¥/W = 2.3$/W

https://www.nengyuanjie.net/article/89951.html

>>16724994
PWRs are close to useless for nuclear weapons production. And commercial gigawatt scale PWRs have very little in common with naval PWRs, especially not the civil works which is a huge chunk of the cost of a commercial reactor

The FBRs they're building could theoretically be used for plutonium production, however they already have special military reactors for that. The commercial FBRs are for commercial purposes

China doesn't really need to export reactors because there is enormous domestic demand. This is unlike Russia.

Exported reactors are usually more expensive because they use a lot of local labor which has less experience. CNNC HPR1000 reactors Fuqing 5 & 6 built in China cost 16¥/W = 2.3$/W

https://www.nengyuanjie.net/article/89951.html

>>16723658
Thermal applications are so often overlooked in energy discussions

The Chinese are building a whole NPP at Xuwei, whose main purpose will be to supply process steam to the nearby Lianyungang petrochemical complex

>>16726170
>Fuqing 5 & 6 built in China cost 16¥/W = 2.3$/W
I think this is cost per watt of gross electrical power
Cost per watt of net electrical power should be about 10% higher, so around 2.5$/W

>heard about spent fuel depots for years
>dude we used this old mineshaft to put the fuel in and filled it up with concrete
>they're NEVER getting the fuel back out lmao
>later find out it's possible to recycle spent fuel
>molten salt reactors can even burn spent fuel
is it true a lot of spent fuel has been made inaccessible like this?
seems very silly to bury and trying to hide it

>>16725820
A small increase in temperature correlated with a small increase in atmospheric CO2 in the tiny timeframe we have good data for, you mean. I have yet to see anything be it the IPCC reports or papers actually address why this correlation is taken directly as causation. Put in how you assume the climate works to a climate model, tell it to apply your assumptions about CO2 as "forcing" and act like you've predicted something when your climate model tells you what you told it to say. I want to see more research into what is actually causing temperature rise as I've not seen any irrefutable proof CO2, human produced or otherwise, is the primary cause. And no, what climate models that use incomplete understanding of global climate as their basis say is not evidence.
There is evidence from ice cores that temperature has been much higher than now but CO2 concentration wasn't high enough to explain the temperature trends, and the temp changes seem to show no correlation with CO2. That this didn't spur more reasearch into why temperatures are increasing (or if this is a microscopic blip in the temperature record that we are freaking out about for no reason and thinking we can change) concerns me.

>>16726576
Because there are other factors that effect climate other than CO2. If you want me to list a bunch of them I can.

However all things being equal if you raise CO2 you will raise temperature. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and reemits it, because the reemission is not directed out of the atmosphere this causes infrared radiation to become trapped inside the atmosphere for longer periods of time.
The type of radiation that CO2 absorbs is also the same type that is produced by sunlight when it hits the ground, so the heating effect is felt over the entire atmosphere.

Some factors that could modulate and attenuate the warming effects of CO2:
The total albedo of Earth (higher = more radiation is being reflected by the earth). This is contributed to by ice coverage (long term) and cloud coverage (short term transient).

The condition and arrangement of the continents and their respective oceans can effect how ice forms for example large equatorial continental arrangements produce less ice coverage due to water being harder to freeze.

Ocean currents also play a roll, the current AMOC is responsible for Northern Europe having a relatively mild climate, This slows or stops the building of ice caps that could reflect more radiation.

>>16726428
It's always been known from the start of nuclear age that spent fuel is not really "spent"

Some of the first planned power reactors were fast neutron reactors, back when it was still thought that uranium ore was rare

>>16726428
It's always been known from the start of nuclear age that spent fuel is not really "spent"

In the early days, back when it was still thought that economically extractable uranium was rare, many thought power reactors would be FBRs (e.g. EBR-1 project)

>>16722432 (OP)
>OPEC reinforced its view — an outlier even within the petroleum industry — that global oil consumption will keep increasing to the middle of the century.

>The cartel’s perspective is a fringe one. BP Plc, Bank of America Corp., the International Energy Agency and Wood Mackenzie are among many forecasters who believe demand will stop growing at some point in the next decade as top consumer China shows signs of peaking.

>buy ARAMCO stock and Saudi sovereign bonds please

>>16725175
The has finite physical resources and an absolute total energy limit to sustain life. You can absolutely run out of space and resources. Even if those resources are naturally recurring/recycling.

>>16726838
*Earth

>>16726176
what temperature does steam need to be provided at

>>16722432 (OP)
The climate is always changing. Nature is resetting things changing the land so things can change. Nothing is ment to stay the same forever.


The Grand Canyon was thought to have a huge river

>>16722432 (OP)
I support this, btw nuclearfags, focus on that other nuclear that doesn't fuck shit up

>>16727284
Steam parameters:
5.1MPa, 480C, 1770t/h
3.8MPa, 340C, 779.5t/h
2.8MPa, 340C, 1552.5t/h

See the diagram of phase 1
Source (page 273)
https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywdt/gsgg/gongshi/wqgs_1/202307/W020230705398788877470.pdf

Phase 1 has two HPR1000 units (each with 1 reactor and 3 steam generators) and one HTR-PM600S unit (with 6 reactors and 6 steam generators). Phase 2 will be an identical copy of phase 1.

I think an ethylene cracker operates at temperatures in the range of 750-950C, however the gap can be bridged by other means of heating, and there will be other processes in the plant that require lower grade heat

The primary coolant circuit outlet temperature of a HTR-PM reactor is 750C, so that is the theoretical maximum temperature anything can be heated to. However, I think that in practice it is not feasible to heat steam to such high temperatures. As can be seen in the diagram, the steam coming out of the steam generators in the HTR-PM600S reactor building is at 536C

Xin'an NPP construction progress

2x HTR-PM600 670MWe high-temperature helium-cooled graphite-moderated TRISO pebble-bed reactor

Video
https://xcancel.com/realTZV/status/1924893690377466368

hydrogen, organic waste matter energy, solar, wind, maritime, dams
... non fucked up nuclear

>>16729444
*biomass energy facilities

>>16729425
What's the point of using HTR-PM for electricity generation? It's more expensive than a regular PWR. If CNNC wants a 600MWe class reactor in their portfolio, then why don't they build the ACP600?

Can HTR-PM600 can avoid refueling downtime?

>>16723658
>Solar also has the potential for significant further cost reductions.
As does nuclear I think. Just look at what's happening in China's nuclear construction sector.

(1) Increased modularization. The adoption of the highly modular (C)AP1000. The increased modularization of the HPR1000 family.
https://xcancel.com/realTZV/status/1946320563112181871
https://xcancel.com/realTZV/status/1934699561265897845

(2) Increased size. For example, the CAP1000 has been scaled up to the CAP1400, an 18% increase in thermal output, from 3415MWth to 4040MWth

(3) More reactors being built. China's state council is now approving units at a rate of 10-11 of per year, suggesting construction starts will reach 10-11 units per year in the near future, which will allow for extreme scale benefits in the supply chain.

(4) New better cranes
https://xcancel.com/realTZV/status/1876728002404364376
https://xcancel.com/energybants/status/1873852968065257792

>>16722432 (OP)
>American Nuclear rocket project cancelled
Book-Cover salesmen have informed me that 'marketing' is a big deal these days.
I have curious optimism towards the success of a program wielding a name with "Rogget" as a titular descriptor.
>*Just make sure it's not a "hard R"

>>16724977
Is that Nuclear Enginerator thing at the top wearing a Santa Hat?
How delightfully whimsical for a WMD, greatly adds to the sex appeal. You don't see that every day, a truly rare treat in July.