Zstandard is an awesome piece of technology. Even the very low compression levels -1, 1 or 2 (IIRC the default of 0 is actually a much higher number) can be very effective, especially for more situations where CPU is a bottleneck.
It is particularly effective when you can 'rotate' the data to enhance compressibility; https://github.com/google/riegeli does this automatically for wire format protobufs by splitting data by protobuf field (well, recursively). It doesn't even have to know the message schema. Shame the project is not more widely known.
There's negative levels for faster decoding and compression. level -1 uses half the CPU of level 1 and with a custom window size can be really good for streaming compression. I think the negative levels go down to -7 if I remember correctly?
It would be good to see a techno-economic analysis of this. For instance, taken to the limit, if solar were free what would be the CAPEX and OPEX to produce the ammonia? In addition, the plant to consume the ammonia to produce electricity would not be free.
Ammonia does not require a plant to generate electricity. While fuel cells running on it require temperatures over 600 Celsius to get to 70% percent of efficiency and not exactly small, with cheap way to produce ammonia they would provide energy dense batteries that could run for months if necessary.
> Ammonia does not require a plant to generate electricity. While fuel cells running on it
OK, so it requires a plant of fuel cells. And the cost per kW (i.e. discharge capacity) is? And it requires some facility to produce the ammonia; what is the cost per kW of electricity consumed, and at what efficiency?
Numbers would help to assess the proposal, given the claim that a halving of the cost of electricity from solar would make all the economics for ammonia work.
> There is no way SMR could beat solar+battery power cost even now.
Not a particular fan of this paper, but it does illustrate a point ... https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8867359 showed that for the UK to go 100% solar it would need an energy capacity of 1/3 of the total grid energy demand over the year. Figure 6 A shows the big trend of 6 1/2 months of discharge and 5 1/2 months of charge (i.e. cycle perhaps once a year). Seasonal variations do matter.
It also seems like they are constraining the system to have no overproduction.
It’s like assuming that a fossil based system has all its producers generating the expected capacity factor and then smoothing out the season and daily demand changes with storage. Due to the difference between summer and winter demand such a fossil system would also need to have months of storage to compensate.
Which of course is absolute stupidity. When you can just overbuild production capacity and leave a far simpler problem to solve.
The underlying demand and production has not changed so much since then. The requirements for storage still exist, and strongly depend on when the power is delivered as well as needed.
> a fossil system would also need to have months of storage
Coal and gas also get produced in the winter at a relatively constant rate. Plus we know how to handle piles of coal, caverns full of gas, tanks full of LNG, and linepack for shorter duration gas storage.
> you can just overbuild production capacity and leave a far simpler problem to solve
Sure, you then have an economic problem. The effective capacity factor of the intermittents get driven down. How are they going to be paid for, if much of the time the market is saturated?
I find it telling that you call it an ”economic problem” and ”intermittents”. It seems like you have an axe to grind, but not much backing your standpoint anymore. So you’ve fallen to using derogatory.
Those same fossil fuels have the same economic ”crowding” out problem when cheaper sources in the same class delivers.
A single cycle gas turbine would love to get paid running at 100% all year around. It doesn’t because CCGT plants with higher efficiency undercut it.
Just like what happens in renewables. They start crowding out each other. Storage steps in and solves the peaks. More renewables come online until they ”crowd each other out” and around we go.
That’s called being a market. Which you nuke fans seems deathly afraid of given the economics of new built nuclear power.
It is interesting to see how large-scale nuclear is handled.
120% and 60% increase in cost for FOAK and NOAK (Table 2-1), plus no learning rate for nuclear construction beyond that (Table C.2).
Interest rates during construction unfairly penalise nuclear as "GenCost uses the simplest way which is to increase the capital cost by the assumed discount rate raised to the power of the construction time" (page 97)." This results in ~20% increase in capital costs against other simple scenarios like equal construction costs across each year.
30 year plant lifetime, rather than say 60 years. That results in ~10% increase in capital costs.
> Those same fossil fuels have the same economic ”crowding” out problem when cheaper sources in the same class delivers.
That line of reasoning only works if there is something to make one plant more expensive to produce electricity than another. For natural gas the cost of fuel is far greater than the CAPEX. For intermittents only the variable OPEX can distinguish between generators, which is mostly for wind and I guess most severely for offshore wind. Cannibalisation is the big problem for intermittents. The notion of succession doesn't work for them.
Now you’re desperately trying to rationalize new built nuclear power.
GenCost has an amazing FAQ section you evidently either ignored, or did not peruse.
For example here they discuss economic life vs operational life, when you live in reality rather than grasping for straws:
> Why is the economic life used in LCOE calculations instead of the fulloperational life?
> The LCOE calculation converts all upfront and ongoing costs to annual costs which is then divided
by annual production. The capital cost component of a technology is converted to an annual
repayment to the debt and equity providers. The annual repayment amount is determined using
the economic life and the weighted average cost of capital. The economic life is shorter than the
asset life for some technologies such as coal, nuclear and hydro. Some stakeholders have queried
why this is so.
> Debt and equity providers require a shorter payback period than the total asset life for some
technologies to avoid the risk that part of the equipment might fail or might need new investment
(sometimes called refurbishment or extension costs) to keep operating safely and reliably. To
determine the economic life, debt and equity providers might look to the warranties provided
with the equipment. They might also look at the typical timing of refurbishments or life extensions
for that technology. The economic life is an input provided by the engineering firm that AEMO
commissions each year as an input to GenCost.
> Some stakeholders suggested that coal and nuclear could access special financing arrangements to
move the economic life closer to the asset life. However, our preference is not to introduce special
arrangements for technologies where there is limited Australian evidence. A common approach to
the LCOE calculation is important to maintain comparability. The 2024-25 report does explore the impact of longer capital recovery periods in Section 2. It finds there is no significant benefit from
the longer operational life of nuclear relative to shorter-lived technologies whose costs have been
falling over time.
Even looking at China and South Korea they see essentially zero learning effects across plants after the FOAK build. Small ones at the same plant.
Crying about FOAK vs NOAK is not even close to solving the absolutely stupidly large subsidies new built nuclear power needs.
Again with the loaded terms. Sad. The market is limited until for example Jevons paradox expands it. Which will never happen with new built nuclear power due to how expensive the electricity is, that leads to energy poverty for generations instead. But I digress.
Look at Texas or California. About all new renewable projects in those markets are coupled with storage.
What you call cannabilisation, and try to paint like the end of the world, is simply the market working. Now pure renewable projects aren’t enough, instead you need to sell the electricity when the consumers demand it.
In just a year or two storage has massively smoothed out the price swings in Texas.
But again, that would require curiosity rather than desperately trying to poke holes the study already answered.
2.2 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 3.025x LCOE for the first nuclear power station.
1.6 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 2.2x LCOE for the second plant.
1.0 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 1.375x LCOE for remaining plant.
Wind/solar is heavily dependent on the required storage (which depends on matching supply and demand), additional transmission and backup generation prices.
Finding the price tipping points is the point of the exercise. When you catch someone's fingers on the scales you realise what the game is.
>For example here they discuss economic life vs operational life, when you live in reality rather than grasping for straws:
It's essentially just saying the market can't think long term enough leading to drastic differences in your calculations. But hence it's typically governments pushing these projects forward.
>The market is limited until for example Jevons paradox expands it. Which will never happen with new built nuclear power due to how expensive the electricity is
But it did happen for nuclear power in the past.
Now you see essentially the opposite.
>Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?
I'm not. I think it's a great set of technologies. But I think if one tries to get to 100% everywhere one's going to stub their toes on the scenarios where it's not all roses.
Why? Because the storage part is hard at scale in a lot of places and the intermitency more pronounced.
In Texas and Cali are incredibly sunny places in the south of the US.
Silicon valley where it's already an issue gets 3 times as much sunshine hours during winter as let's say berlin and those hours are far less usefull.
>Crying about FOAK vs NOAK is not even close to solving the absolutely stupidly large subsidies new built nuclear power needs.
Is this not intentionally sidestepping the ludicrous amount of subsidies that have been handed out to renewables in aggregate?
Berlin would need to overproduce insane amounts in summer to handle it's winters.
The flip side is that what you are saying is that nuclear power will be commercially viable into the 2100s. And betting the house on that. While knowing that the electricity they provide is expensive enough to lead to energy poverty for generations.
That seems absolutely insane.
Jevons Paradox did not happen for nuclear power. What happened was crazy cost overruns, cancellations and the industry collapsing into its current state.
Who cares if we get to 95%, 97, 99% or 100% carbon neutral electricity when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, aviation, chemicals, industry, construction and so on?
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. Transition that final firming to whatever carbon neutral sources we land on when their emissions matter in the late 2030s and 2040s.
We need to optimize decarbonization per dollar spent with the shortest time to market.
You do realize that renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world? They aren't needed anymore. Complaining about "equality" because your desired solution didn't deliver in time is a kindergarten level argument.
We've spent the past 70 years subsidizing nuclear power. It just never delivered on its promise.
The relevant question is: Where does Germany spend the next €100 billion today to avoid the most emissions?
And that is certainly not new built nuclear power.
>While knowing that the electricity they provide is expensive enough to lead to energy poverty for generations.
What are you on about?
>Jevons Paradox did not happen for nuclear power. What happened was crazy cost overruns, cancellations and the industry collapsing into its current state.
And the opposite happened in the past whilst europe was building bunch more of them.
>Who cares if we get 95%, 97, 99% or 100% when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, aviation, chemicals, industry, construction and so on?
Funny you say that when some of those are significantly harder. Are you going to turn on steel plants only in summer? Do you think that might have some effect?
>You do realize that renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world? They aren't needed anymore. Complaining about "equality" because your desired solution didn't deliver in time is a kindergarten level argument.
You should tell my government and the neighbouring governments.
>We've spent the past 70 years subsidizing nuclear power. It just never delivered on its promise.
It did exactly that?
>The relevant question is: Where does Germany spend the next €100 billion today to avoid the most emissions?
it has spent €700 billion to $1 trillion on the energywende (a metric which doesn't properly include a lot of private investment) and ends as one of the worst emitters in europe whilst deindustrialising due to high energy prices.
They jerk eachother off about how high their renewables share of the economy is every summer and then import and fire up the browncoal and gasplants again troughout the other seasons. When that solar panel is producing a 10th of it's average summer output (already below the capacity everyone loves to roll with for articles) in winter there's only one big winner possible.
People like to point out how france's electricity production is subsidised when they come out looking good even when the gov intentionally puts a stick in it's wheels by essentially forcing it to subsidise pricing to competition.
> You do realize that renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world?
CfD is going strong in the UK; it seems about the only way of deploying it, given the revenue uncertainty associated with market saturation/cannibalisation.
Of course, other subsidies exist. Feed in tariffs. Transmission charges. Capacity and ancillary service payments to provide services that solar/wind do not.
This tells me you are not serious. The easiest nuclear reactors to restart, as per that same nuclear lobby group, were those in the north.
Northern Germany is already overproducing electricity, leading to curtailment of renewables.
What problem are you solving with even more overproduction in the north leading to re-dispatch?
> CfD is going strong in the UK; it seems about the only way of deploying it, given the revenue uncertainty associated with market saturation/cannibalisation.
I love you now are trying to smear off-shore wind costs on everything. Of course not lookign at solar, storage or on-shore wind.
Lets lookat those. In Germany, which still do CFD bids for solar, even though a ton get built on pure market value, the CFD bids today are below the market price for the capture-rate of their electricity.
The CFDs are also structured to not pay out when electricity is zero or negative. They trade money for a tiny bit of certainty. That is how far we've come.
> Of course, other subsidies exist. Feed in tariffs. Transmission charges. Capacity and ancillary service payments to provide services that solar/wind do not.
Who pays when half the French nuclear fleet is offline? Who pays when the majority of the eastern european nuclear fleet is offline? Who pays for the N+1 requirements coming from nuclear power being enormous single points of failures leading to large reserves being necessary?
People like you love to complain about these things, but you can never formulate a solution where nuclear power is required to pay for the problem large single points of failures cause in the grid.
> Northern Germany is already overproducing electricity, leading to curtailment of renewables.
Overproducing some of the time. And pulling electricity from Sweden and Norway at other times.
> I love you now are trying to smear off-shore wind costs on everything.
Why is Denmark running the CfD auction if everything is so rosy for onshore wind and solar (plus batteries)?
> the CFD bids today are below the market price for the capture-rate of their electricity.
OK, they are betting on the future value of the electricity they produce being lower than today.
> The CFDs are also structured to not pay out when electricity is zero
So existing generators with older CfDs have priority over new generators with CfDs? Interesting.
> Who pays when half the French nuclear fleet is offline?
Why were they offline?
> Who pays for the N+1 requirements coming from nuclear power being enormous single points of failures leading to large reserves being necessary?
So the 1.X GW of standby is bad, but the whole-system sized standby required for intermittents is fine? Also let's not confuse the capacity factor of nuclear (including scheduled maintenance) with the odds of nuclear being offline unexpectedly.
> you can never formulate a solution where nuclear power is required to pay for the problem large single points of failures cause in the grid.
Wait, is this where I am meant to talk about SMRs? Or nuclear peaker power stations?
Does this mean we should be advocating for more intensive cattle rearing? Stockyards and special breeds may not be the worst way to meet demand and reduce environmental impact (measured by CO2/methane emissions as well as biodiversity loss, for instance).
Managed grazing along with other regenerative techniques can sequester carbon in the soil. Factory farms have the problem of concentrated dung disposal which usually leads to letting it sit in methane producing conditions and also feed for intensive operations usually comes from non-regenerative crop farming which uses more fossil-fuel fertilizer and depletes the soil.
Stockyards are the worst offenders. This is due to how the dung is processed, which releases a lot of methane. Grass-fed cattle have much lower net emissions of greenhouse gasses.
The "high level waste" is the stuff that takes 10k years to decay.
The big things that you get out of reprocessing nuclear fuel (other than usable uranium) are plutonium, Strontium, cesium ... the rest of the material left over (4%) gets embedded in glass and dumped in a deep pit and forgotten about.
The things we might use (plutonium, strontium) have some rather "questionable" applications:
> The big things that you get out of reprocessing nuclear fuel
You generally extract the trans-uranics from fission products. The former needs more specific treatment to deal with their longer half lives (or turning into MOX, which ends up more expensive than using normal uranium). The latter get vitrified (who needs the Sr or Cs, really).
> The things we might use (plutonium, strontium) have some rather "questionable" applications:
The Pu-238 for the RTG is generally produced in trace quantities in reactors, with reactor grade plutonium containing mostly Pu-239 and Pu-240.
I'm not a huge fan of these tiny RTG sources either. Spacecraft yes, otherwise ... proven to be somewhat dangerous when they become orphaned.
> if something is radioactive enough to be a hazard then it's radioactive enough to generate power
Only under certain circumstances is it financially worth harnessing this power. I think of space probes and their RTGs. They use alpha emitters like Pu-238, to minimize the shielding requirements.
As for the rest of the stuff, dry casks are good enough. Reprocessing isn’t currently economical while uranium is so cheap, although the vitrification of the fission products can help immobilize the worst radiation emitters, but really the UO2 structure does a decent job of keeping things put.
> It is a complex answer, and heavily depends on decay product chemistry.
The source you provided does not agree with that assessment. It is purely radiation damage. The Pu-238 (half life 87.7 years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,110 years) experiments.
plutonium-induced health effects are considered to be the result of energy deposited by alpha particle emissions in tissues that retain plutonium for extended periods (i.e., lung, bone, liver following inhalation exposure). Similar health effects would be expected from any alpha-emitting source that would result in similar cumulative tissue-specific radiation dose and dose rate.
They seem fairly certain that it is alpha particle damage, not chemistry.
The toxicology of soluble heavy-metal bioavailable material is a well understood area of research, and can bioaccumulate in humans several times higher than background if a food chain allows biomagnification of a contaminant. The publication assumes the reader has first year biology, and will understand test subject mortality data implications.
I would recommend studying the story of Polychlorinated biphenyls in whales, Mercury levels in salmon, and PFAS in the Veritasium hosts blood.
What do you mean "decay chains"? Po-210 decays to Pb-206 which is stable. So you mean Po-210 decay.
Let's shut down the chemical industry because someone attempted to poison The Skripals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_... .
> medical mistakes
Spent nuclear fuel is generally not used for medical isotopes. They specially prepare samples for irradiation to not have to use reprocessing, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60#Production .
> I could have a look for you
It would be illuminating to see what you find reasonable.
3. Plant operators within heavily regulated work areas are usually unaffected, and show an odd statistical wellness anomaly inconsistent with control groups. However, if one includes accidents/events with collateral impact:
4. Waste management incidents are difficult to quantify over 30000 year time scales. However, the industry has failed to even maintain containment for 30 years at some sites.
>It would be illuminating to see what you find reasonable.
Cheap distributed sustainable infrastructure more robust against conflicts/regulatory-capture/arms-proliferation, and leave a light footprint for those yet to live here. Good luck, =3
One person died in the criticality accident in a weapons research lab.
> Mayak Production Association in 2017 ... it was a huge release
https://inis.iaea.org/records/ndb3s-s5507 "In some regions, over 100 mBq/m³ were measured as one-day means. Although resulting exposure was far below radiological concern"
Prismatic (or cylindrical) TRISO also makes sense. There are lots of potential problems using pebble beds (circulation, grinding), whereas doing regular refuelling cycles avoids them, in exchange for down-time to refuel.
It is particularly effective when you can 'rotate' the data to enhance compressibility; https://github.com/google/riegeli does this automatically for wire format protobufs by splitting data by protobuf field (well, recursively). It doesn't even have to know the message schema. Shame the project is not more widely known.
reply