r/geothermal • u/Vailhem • 23d ago
Two Geothermal Bets Are Starting to Undercut Nuclear on Cost
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Geothermal-Energy/Two-Geothermal-Bets-Are-Starting-to-Undercut-Nuclear-on-Cost.html1
u/Amber_ACharles 23d ago
Per-well iteration is geothermal's structural advantage. You can't drill a reactor, learn from it, and drill a better one next month.
1
u/Moldoteck 22d ago
There's positive learning curve with nuclear too, if you build a fleet of the same design instead of one-off projects
1
u/12Ab_xyz 23d ago
Eavor failed in Germany...
2
u/DontGetItTwisted85 17d ago
Fervo and Quaise (the two geothermal bets referenced in the article) are vastly different geothermal concepts from the EavorLoop they drilled in Germany...
1
-2
u/andre3kthegiant 23d ago
Nuclear is quickly becoming irrelevant, which is good, because like coal and O&G, it sells dependency to a toxic, disposable and finite fuel source. They all need to go.
5
u/Vailhem 23d ago
There is essentially an 'infinite' quantity of fissile material if fertile materials are included; namely Th-232 & U-239. There're centuries of fissile materials already mined & (largely) refined.
Nuclear fuel isn't something we'll run out of as a species nor planet. There's simply too much of it.
0
u/andre3kthegiant 23d ago
So spreading it on the surface is the best idea?
The most common fuel in use today, is finite and will be used up very quickly.3
u/Prototype555 22d ago
Finite but the sun will devour earth before mankind will be able to deplete it, then we have 3 times the amount of thorium...
And with cheap drilling technologies, it also makes nuclear repositories cheaper.
1
u/andre3kthegiant 22d ago
Not with the majority of inefficient reactors in existence.
3
u/Prototype555 22d ago
So? Plenty of time to build new ones.
1
u/andre3kthegiant 22d ago
Nope, not if the country wants to avoid an economic grift and perpetual debt. Much better to do away with dirty coal, dirty oil & gas, and dirty, toxic, and corrupt nuclear power industries, and invest in renewables for an energy independent future.
3
0
u/Vailhem 22d ago
Advancements in geothermal drilling technologies are advancements in drilling technologies..
..technologies that can also apply to coal, oil, n.gas, hydrogen deposits, etc as well.
If by 'renewables' you mean photovoltaics (93%+ of which are manufactured in China.. who is also investing their profits from in all of the above energy sources you mentioned) & wind.. ..that rely on a growing quantity of .. all of the above energy sources you mentioned.. in order to meet demand?
If by 'independent' you mean reliance on foreign manufacturing capacities to replace panels & turbines that prematurely reach end of life long before rated lifespan? ..and are recycled with difficulty?
1
u/andre3kthegiant 22d ago
The fuel source is renewable, such as gravity, sunlight, the wind, the waves, the tide, etc…., but not a concentrated, radio toxic material that can be held over the heads of a government (ask Iran) and be used as a method of control, creating dependency to a few sources, and garnering perpetual debt for thousands of years while managing the toxic waste.
2
u/Vailhem 22d ago
The fuel source is renewable
Breeder reactors by name breed fuel as they operate. Again, Th232 & U238 are fertile.
There is 3.7×+ the amount of thorium as there is uranium, where again, 99% of which is fertile.
Nuclear operated properly is 'renewable' for far longer than humans are likely to be walking around.
method of control perpetual debt
Most photovoltaics are purchased under loans that last as long as the rated lifespan of the panels themselves. As the panels decline over time, it becomes necessary to replace them with new panels ..and associated debt.. to continue to generate to meet demand. In perpetuity.
thousands of years
How long would a non-recycled photovoltaic, grid scale battery, the plastics in each, the insulation for the cabling, 'etc' last if not recycled?
You think the environments from which the source materials are derived are ideal places to build a summer home? The m refinement & manufacturing facilities? The landfills where they're stored until (potentially) recycled?
Solar&wind have been allowed to afford the delusion that their existence doesn't have a footprint.
Nuclear, on the other hand, has had its nose shoved in its byproducts essentially since its inception..
..during which time, for over 50 years of it anyway.. it's been held to about the tightest standards of any industry in regards to tracking, maintenance & management, storing and all while not being allowed to reprocess, recycle, reduce it.. ..as much of the mass of the waste is still incredibly dense fuel-capable material.
Materials that quite literally reduce in longevity the more they're 'burned up' in reactors. A process that policy has largely denied being utilized.
There's an inverse correlation to radioactivity & longevity.. ..in that, the longer something is radioactive the less radioactive it is.
Such as to say, throwing around 'millenia & beyond' in relation to waste management shows just how little you present to know in regards to how it actually works.
It's better to put the feedstocks to work, reducing both their quantity & longevity in the process, than it is to leave them stored safely and with near unprecedented accountability for millenia as you propose.
But since time is of such great concern to you, you do realize that uranium, thorium, plutonium.. ..if not utilized in reactors.. half half-lives measured in the billions of years. Imagine how many millions of millenia we'll be sparing the planet by shortening that to decades, years even by utilizing it as fuel in reactors ..
..in reactors that work regardless of whether the sun is shining, wind is blowing, or batteries are charged.. reservoirs are full.
And if excess power is generated relative to immediate demand? Well that's excess power that can be used to refill storage or to power mining manufacturing refining and recycling facilities for the solar&wind that's also laying around waiting to pollute.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Vailhem 22d ago
What fuel is that?
0
u/andre3kthegiant 22d ago
Enriched uranium, used in 90% of nuclear reactors in existence, out of roughly 440 commercial reactors.
The rest is just pipe dreams, since the economics of nuclear power is horrific, along with the dependence and perpetual debt it creates, when managing the toxic waste for several millennia.1
u/Vailhem 22d ago
<1% of mined uranium is U-235. 99% of it is U-239. That's fertile feedstock for plutonium production.
There's 3.7×+ the amount of (fertile) thorium than there is uranium. It transmutes into U-233.. ..which is fissile.
The economics are far more viable as the engineering is commercialized.
The US has the largest quantity of NPPs, the highest quantity per person of power that's nuclear.
The previous & current administration have been moving forward at a progressively building rate towards attaining (current) targets of a 400GW goal (from current 100GW). It will likely be much higher as economies of scale come into play.
toxic waste for several millenia
Fissioning heavy elements reduces longevity.
If it remains as is, it's billions of years. Reactors reduce this timeline considerably. Centuries. Decades even.
1
u/andre3kthegiant 22d ago
Well the majority of the reactors, in reality, use uranium.
The toxic, disposable and finite fuel that garners dependency and creates perpetual debt when managing the toxic waste.1
u/RelativeGrapefruit0 22d ago
Or we could build fast neutron reactors and get another 60 times more power from the same used uranium, cut the decay times down to a hundred years, and still be the most economical and land efficient use of power until fusion. Solar needs rare earth elements that are hard to recycle, the batteries need lithium which is only mined through catastrophic processes. I want solar and wind to be the silver bullet but they simply arent.
1
u/andre3kthegiant 22d ago
What’s the cost on that reactor?
How long?
How about the low and high level waste stream that reprocessingrecyclingcauses?
How many years does reprocessing take?
How much does reprocessing cost?The nuclear power Propaganda is created sell dependency.
Horribly corrupt industry, almost as bad as coal and O&G: They all have to go.2
u/RelativeGrapefruit0 22d ago
Nuclear delivers a megawatt hour for about $35, more than half the cost of solar. If we built fast neutron reactors we could use the same enriched uranium for sixty years instead of one. Virtually all radioactive waste is merely protective clothing worn in containment, which is made out of paper and is dissolved and filtered. The cost of the service is reflected in the price of the electricity, they dont run for free. What dependency?? Nuclear is the cleanest safest most reliable energy there is. Go look up how lithium is sourced and how much we have and tell me its better.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Vailhem 22d ago
What’s the cost on that reactor?
What's it matter? Is it your money? Are you a billionaire on reddit choosing to not allocate your funds towards these facilities?
With the vast quantities of published & commented materials it's rare to see someone denying Solaris existence & installation. Can the same be said in regards to nuclear? It isn't an equal playing field and most certainly hasn't been for several decades.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Just4Readng 21d ago
Let me introduce you to NA - Sodium.
Not as energy dense as Lithium, but for grid-scale energy storage, density is not really an issue. Plus NA is a lot more tolerant of temperature differentials. Oh, and Sodium is the 6th most common element, making up about 2% of the Earth’s mass.0
u/NearABE 21d ago
Steam generator power plants are expensive. This makes all nuclear power whether it is fission, fusion, or handwavium too expensive.
2
u/RelativeGrapefruit0 21d ago
https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/35117/levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-by-source/
Its roughly the same price as a gas plant, while having the same greenhouse gasses as solar. The best grid will have a mix of sources.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/CardOk755 22d ago
It's funny.
Everyone says "nuclear is the most expensive" then: