Month: September 2024

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency Approves First Generation IV Nuclear Reactor

Reposted from Legal Insurrection

by Leslie Eastman

The last time we checked on the nation’s energy industry, the Biden-Harris administration banned drilling for gas and oil on 28 million acres of Alaska (rescinding the order signed by President Donald Trump).

However, there is better news on the nuclear energy front. This is good news given tht nuclear energy is the only rival to fossil fuels in efficiency and cost-effectiveness and is worthy of supplying power on a civilization-level.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved construction of the first fourth-generation nuclear reactor in the country.

According to Interesting Engineering, the new Hermes reactor will be the first one built in the United States in 50 years that won’t be cooled by light water. Instead, it will use a system of molten fluoride salt, and a TRISO (tri-structural isotropic particle) fuel pebble bed design will power the generator.

Molten fluoride salts have “excellent chemical stability and tremendous capacity for transferring heat,” per the report, meaning it stays cooler and dissipates heat much faster than the light water that has been used for so long in American reactors.

The fuel bed consists of hundreds of millimeter-sized particles of uranium encased in multiple layers of special ceramic, which allows each individual piece of fuel to have its own containment and pressure vessel, per Ultra Safe Nuclear. The ceramic casing is stronger and more resilient than the typical zirconium alloy, meaning it can withstand higher temperatures and neutron bombardment past the failure point of other types of fuel.

On top of that, because each individual piece of fuel is so small, in the event that one fails, the ensuing burst of radiation would be significantly lessened — and less likely to cause further damage, thanks to the coolant system.

Generation IV nuclear power utilizes a system of fuel fabrication plants and reprocessing facilities that together overcome some of the shortcomings of the previous generations of nuclear power plants.

To be classified as Generation IV, a system must meet, or at least have the ability to meet, the following criteria:

(1) it is much more fuel-efficient than current plants;

(2) it is designed in such a way that severe accidents are not possible, that is, plant failure or an external event (such as an earthquake) should not result in radioactive material release to the outside world;

[3] the fuel cycle is designed in such a way that uranium and plutonium are never separated (“diverged”) but only present in a mix and with other elements. This makes it more difficult to create nuclear weapons.

Construction is underway on the new nuclear power plant in Tennessee, in the iconic city of Oak Ridge (famous for its importance in World War Two’s Manhattan Project).

Kairos Power has begun building the Hermes Low-Power Demonstration Reactor in Oak Ridge, the first Gen IV reactor approved for construction by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Hermes reactor utilizes a fluoride salt-cooled, high-temperature reactor design, differing from conventional light-water reactors.

“Generation IV nuclear power plant designs are revolutionary, in that they are planned to use a very different set of technologies than the reactors we use today,” Ross Peel, a professor with King’s College London’s Centre for Science and Security Studies told Newsweek.

Unfortunately, we are behind China when it comes to the construction. It launched its construction of a Generation IV reactor late last year.

The Shidaowan nuclear power plant, which features the world’s first fourth-generation reactor, started commercial operations on December 6, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), one of the project’s developers, said.

“China’s independently developed high-temperature gas-cooled reactor demonstrator commenced commercial operation,” CNNC said in a statement.

“It signifies that China has completed the world’s first commercially operational modular nuclear power plant with fourth-generation nuclear technology, marking the transition of fourth-generation nuclear technology from experiments to the commercial market.”

Interestingly, more and more countries are rethinking their ban on nuclear energy, likely in light of the realities of “green energy” as well as the improvements being made in the Generation IV systems. Switzerland, for example, has reversed its outright ban of nuclear.

The Swiss government said on Wednesday it plans to overturn a ban on building new power plants to strengthen local energy supply at a time of increased geopolitical tension.

Energy Minister Albert Roesti said the government would submit a proposal to amend nuclear legislation by the end of 2024 so it can be debated in parliament next year.

“Over the long term, new nuclear power plants are one possible way of making our supply more secure in a geopolitically uncertain time,” Roesti told a press conference.

Failure to retain the option could be seen as a betrayal by future generations, Roesti argued.

All of these are positive developments for those of us who enjoy the perks of civilization, such a light at night and heat during the winter.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/ye0p5Nb

September 2, 2024 at 08:03PM

Antidote for Radiation Myopia

On a previous post a reader queried me about my position.  Taking him to be serious, I prepared a reply with resources that can serve anyone wanting to understand radiative GHG theory and reality.  The key is to escape radiation myopia, that is focusing on radiative energy transfers in earth’s climate system to the exclusion of the other transfers.  Energy in our world moves by conduction, convection and phase changes of H2O in addition to radiation.  And not surprisingly at any place and time, the most active mode is the one with the least resistance.

The post triggering the question was this one:

The Original Sin of GHG Theory

My Reply to Questioner

Thanks for your response. Your inital question sounded trollish, but I take your comment seriously.

Firstly, you said “I’ve never seen anyone outside of the anti-GHG crowd ever talk about “back-radiation”. Actually references to that notion are readily found since it is the primary way global warming/ climate change is explained to the public. Some examples:

“However, GHGs, unlike other atmospheric gases such as oxygen and nitrogen, are opaque to outgoing infrared radiation. As the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere increases due to human-caused emissions, energy radiated from the surface becomes trapped in the atmosphere, unable to escape the planet. This energy returns to the surface, where it is reabsorbed.” UNEP

“Greenhouses gases are atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and water vapor (H2O) that absorb and re-radiate heat, which warms the lower atmosphere and Earth’s surface. This process of absorption and re-radiation of heat is called the greenhouse effect. Although greenhouse gases only make up a small percentage of the atmosphere, small changes in the amount of greenhouse gases can greatly alter the strength of the greenhouse effect, which in turn, affects the Earth’s average temperature and climate. UCBerkeley

“As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’ ColumbiaU

The favored term now is “re-radiation” and it is central in the narrative everywhere, including among others, NASA, MIT and of course multiple UN agencies. So it is necessary to debunk the notion.

I know as well as you that back- or re-radiation is a caricature, and climate scientists make a different claim, namely raising the ERL which slows the cooling. That theory is also wrong for different empirical reasons. See:

Refresher: GHG Theory and the Tests It Fails

Secondly, the root issue is the abuse of Stefan-Boltzman law to create a fictious downward energy transfer, such as seen in energy balance cartoons, misleading and not funny. The equation calculates the transfer from the difference in temperature between two bodies in thermal contact, it does not attribute thermal radiation to each of them. Full explanation here:

Experimental Proof Nil Warming from GHGs

And regarding the failed energy balance diagrams:

Fatal Flaw in Earth Energy Balance Diagrams

For extra credit and insight, look at a Sabine Hosenfelder video to understand how current GHG theory goes astray. Link includes excerpts and critique.

Sabine’s Video Myopic on GHG Climate Role

Summary

“The Earth, a rocky sphere at a distance from the Sun of ~149.6 million kilometers, where the Solar irradiance comes in at 1361.7 W/m2, with a mean global albedo, mostly from clouds, of 0.3 and with an atmosphere surrounding it containing a gaseous mass held in place by the planet’s gravity, producing a surface pressure of ~1013 mb, with an ocean of H2O covering 71% of its surface and with a rotation time around its own axis of ~24h, boasts an average global surface temperature of +15°C (288K).

Why this specific temperature? Because, with an atmosphere weighing down upon us with the particular pressure that ours exerts, this is the temperature level the surface has to reach and stay at for the global convectional engine to be able to pull enough heat away fast enough from it to be able to balance the particular averaged out energy input from the Sun that we experience.

It’s that simple.”  E. M. Smith

 

See Also

New Wholistic Paradigm of Climate Change

 

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/RSswW8q

September 2, 2024 at 06:44PM

Aussie Green Economy Blame Storm Gathers Momentum

Essay by Eric Worrall

Australia’s federal treasurer has criticised the Reserve Bank for raising interest rates, instead of taking responsibility for the green inflation he and his fellow incompetents unleashed.

Jim Chalmers blames interest rate rises for ‘smashing’ the economy, expects weak economic growth

By political reporter Jake Evans

In short:

The treasurer has pointed the finger at successive interest rate rises for a stagnating national economy.

The federal government is anticipating further weak economic growth when figures are released this week.

What’s next?

Economic growth figures for the July quarter will be released on Wednesday.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has blamed successive interest rate rises for “smashing the economy”, as the government braces for more weak economic figures due this week.

Ahead of the release of the latest economic growth figures on Wednesday, Mr Chalmers said the government was focused on walking the tightrope of bringing down inflation without further pressuring people “already being hammered by higher interest rates”.

“With all this global uncertainty on top of the impact of rate rises which are smashing the economy it would be no surprise at all if the national accounts on Wednesday show growth is soft and subdued,” Mr Chalmers said.

Mr Chalmers later clarified at a press conference that “of course” his comments should not be interpreted as an attack on the RBA, but didn’t repeat the claim.

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-02/jim-chalmers-blames-interest-rate-rises-smashing-economy/104298162

The failure of Chalmers and his fellow incompetents to address grid instability, plummeting dispatchable capacity, and unpredictable price spikes is particularly reprehensible, given that all they need to do to fix this problem is ditch all their green energy mandates, and encourage the construction of enough new coal plants to stabilise the grid.

In my opinion Australia is now all but un-investable. With an uncertain electricity grid, spiralling prices, crumbling wage restraint, rampant inflation and soaring interest rates, and an incompetent government which is more focussed on shooting the messenger than addressing the underlying economic problems, who in their right mind would risk investing in Australia?

At least the USA can hope for a Trump / Vance victory. In Australia our choice is between the current incompetents or the slightly less green mainstream opposition. Let’s just say neither of them is getting my vote in the next election – none of the mainstream parties is focussed on what I believe are the most important issues facing the Australian economy, energy affordability and reliability.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/sk1nAlo

September 2, 2024 at 04:02PM

New Study: Human Emissions ‘Irrelevant’ In Determining Changes In Atmospheric CO2 Since 1959

“The main factor governing the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the SST [sea surface temperature] rather than human emissions.” – Ato, 2024

Another day, another new scientific paper has been published reporting efforts to curb anthropogenic CO2 emissions are “meaningless.”

In this study multiple linear regression analysis was performed comparing SST versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions as explanatory factors and the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 as the objective variable over the period 1959-2022.

The model using the SSTs (NASA, NOAA, UAH) best explained the annual CO2 change (regression coefficient B = 2.406, P = <0.0002), whereas human emissions were not shown to be an explanatory factor at all in annual CO2 changes (regression coefficient B = 0.0027, P = 0.863).

Most impressively, the predicted atmospheric CO2 concentration using the regression equation derived from 1960-2022 SSTs had an extremely high correlation coefficient of r = 0.9995.

Thus, not only is the paradigm that says humans drive atmospheric CO2 changes wrong, but “the theory that global warming and climate change are caused by human-emitted CO2 is also wrong.”

“SST has been the determinant of the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and […] anthropogenic emissions have been irrelevant in this process, by head-to-head comparison.”

Image Source: Ato, 2024

This is not the first study to have addressed this lack of correlation between annual changes in atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Wang et al. (2013) assessed that CO2 emissions derived from human activity (fossil fuel combustion and land use changes) only account for about +0.1 to 0.3 PgC/yr of the annual change in CO2 concentration. This is about “10% of the variance (σ²) of the CO2 growth rate.”

Image Source: Wang et al., 2013

Jones and Cox (2005) have pointed out that the changes associated with annual fossil fuel emissions are unlikely to explain CO2 growth rate anomalies.

“…it is unlikely that these anomalies can be explained by an abrupt increase in anthropogenic emissions, as the anomalies are much larger than annual increases in fossil fuel emissions.”

Image Source: Jones and Cox, 2005

Dr. Jari Ahlbeck (2009) also assessed the correlation between fossil fuel emissions and the increase in CO2 growth rates is “clearly statistically insignificant.” He therefore excluded this factor from consideration in his analysis of the mechanisms of CO2 variability.

A chart included in the body of the paper reveals 5-year periods where there was either a decline in the annual CO2 emissions trend (5.33, 5.17, 5.13, 5.11, 5.29 GtC/yr for 1980-1984) or a flattened trend (6.40, 6.53, 6.63, 6.59, 6.57 GtC/yr for 1995-1999).

Image Source: Ahlbeck, 2009

Even an analysis detailed in the Carbon Brief blog from a few years ago suggests “global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years.” This obviously does not support the conclusion that an increase in the CO2 growth rate has been driven by flat to declining human emissions.

Image Source: Carbon Brief

An additional side note found in the Ato paper addresses the lack of a link between human methane emissions and atmospheric methane growth rates.

Although human methane emissions have risen dramatically in recent decades, “atmospheric methane concentrations have declined since the 21st century.”

“…natural fluctuations are far more powerful than human emissions in terms of the influence on atmospheric methane levels.”

Image Source: Ato, 2024

So we not only have a lack of correlation between human emissions and annual variations in atmospheric CO2 (and CH4), we even have flat to declining trends in annual anthropogenic CO2 (and CH4) emissions in recent decades – the opposite explanatory directionality.

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/M0AzqBi

September 2, 2024 at 03:36PM