Threadjacking

Hydrogen is awfully wastefull to produce. I think fuel cell has been so heavily funded cause it sounds futuristic. You can buy a Toyota Mirai for next to nothing in Denmark since the closed all Hydrogen stations. Its a thing of the past.

You can now get an electric conversion from 10000 dollars here in Europe. I gather its cheaper in the us like most things.

Mazda is making a 2 stroke compressor feed + injection engine. Punps in fuel while the exhaust valve is open. Brilliant!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yeah Fission. Fusion is a thing of the past too. For the last 40 years ive heard every engineer type i meet going on about it being right around the corner. Is no problem making fusion power as long as you have a coalplant and wind turbines to put in twice as much power as you get out in the other end.

2 problems with fission. Its f ing expensive. Who wants to pay for it? Besides that I dont trust any company plus subcontractors not to cut corners when building reactors. The neighbooring nuclear plant to Copenhagen has had 1000s radioactive emissions in its lifetime. Its being dismantled now.
Cheers!
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: 1 user
Member
Joined 2019
Paid Member
hasn’t the US Navy been in the business of selling spin-offs of the power supplies in the big ships
Rolls Royce who make the reactors in British subs are also involved. Plan is to site them in the grounds of nuclear plant that's due to be decomissioned over the next decade. Site already suited for them and with excellent grid connections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Member
Joined 2019
Paid Member
The neighbooring nuclear plant
Yes, but fission is getting closer
The recent generations of super powerful magnets and changes in bottle shape appear to have got us to a point where they have, finally managed to get close to a reaction that's outputting more energy than was put in.

Remember, unlike fusion there's no waste, no possibility of runaway. It's a big gain.

There are fission reactors that actually use the waste from earlier generations of reactors.

None of the solutions to net zero are cheap. Wind, solar, tidal, fission. Wind is unreliable, intermittent and requires massive changes to the distribution grid. Solar is intermittent and needs tons of storage. Tidal probably has environmental issues and is stupidly expensive. Fission has real issues with waste.

For me, fission wins because we know we can do it, it requires almost no infrastructure change, almost no additional mining and provides baseload.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Member
Joined 2019
Paid Member
A while back I got interested in the Neodymium (rare earth) in the magnets used in these turbines and found it's ~30% of the total magnet weight and a 3MW (I initially wrote 3mW rofl) turbine can have a magnet weighing ~1000kg. Multiply that up for one windfarm and then multiply by one or two orders of magnitude for the turbines needed by the UKs net zero plans. Then add to that the requirements for the electric cars. Then multiply it by the similar requirements of other EU countries all planning on doing much the same as the UK. That's a lot of neodymium.

Then think that an offshore turbine has a working lifetime of 20-25 years...

The magnets can be recycled but need to be crushed, then dissolved. The Neodymium extracted by ion exchange, electrolysis or precipitation. It's energy and chemically intensive.

Which is why I wonder how any of this is actually going to be done...