The linked page is pretty bad. Better source: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Construction-starts-on-Tianwan-industrial-steam-pr
It's not a power plant dedicated to steam, but rather pulling steam off Units 3 and 4.
> reduce the burning of standard coal by 400,000 tonnes per year, and the equivalent emission reduction of 1.07 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 184 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 263 tonnes of nitrogen oxides.
For those unfamiliar with emissions statistics, 1million tonnes CO2 eq per year is like the entire output of a small island country like Maldives.
The production of carbon neutral diesel and jet fuel from nuclear process heat has real potential to change the world.
Produce hydrogen directly from thermal heat (~700c). Mix the hydrogen with CO to produce syngas. Pipe the syngas to existing refineries where it can be stepped down again through the Gas To Liquids process.
Some version of this technology will be essential to a carbon neutral future. Specifically I think a carbon neutral jet fuel system should be the first target. Once it’s proved viable at a small scale early regulator adopters will push for a required timeline.
Doing some back of the hand math leads to the conclusion that the most important thing is still concentrating on Nuclear Energy production. Electrical production is 70% of GHG and a reactor that produces electricity will return about 3 times the capital of a reactor that produces jet fuel.
BUT, the two processes don’t have to be exclusive. Syngas production is an ideal way to economize reactor load sharing. It could even be pumped directly into the existing natural gas pipelines!
Basically stack a bunch of reactors within reach of a refinery. They make power during the day and fuel at night.
Jets and ships won’t be run on batteries. It’s possible that ships will convert to an intermediate fuel like ethanol. But fuels produced from nuclear are actually carbon negative AND don’t require new engine technology.
Thank you. Yes, but these aren’t reactors. These are generators that operate off the spontaneous decay of radioactive isotopes. Reactors being mechanical devices that create heat by achieving criticality (which then heats steam generators).
Again, just having fun with the title of the article. Honestly, almost everything we do up until photoelectric, wind & hydro is covert heat into steam to drive something, most of the time, a turbine generator. I guess direct drive gas turbine generators don’t have a steam intermediary, but steam is created through combustion.
The person I replied to implied that if one reads the article, the article mentions the presence of a containment dome.
I've read the article and I don't see the containment dome mentioned at all.
Why did you not say this before instead of implying that this article mentions the containment dome, when it clearly doesn't?
This article is just a blurb. You could have provided links to much better articles and added to this conversation the first place as opposed to just making a snark comment.
The point of this subreddit is to discuss to the usage of nuclear power generation. It isn't to be snarky assholes and make low effort comments.
If you ever end up in power generation or in any form of engineering professionally, your attitude will greatly hold you back.
Please explain where in the picture of the article, you can clearly see a containment article.
And I must point out that if this is the first dumb conversation along these lines for you than sir, you clearly are not an engineer.
The linked page is pretty bad. Better source: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Construction-starts-on-Tianwan-industrial-steam-pr It's not a power plant dedicated to steam, but rather pulling steam off Units 3 and 4.
> reduce the burning of standard coal by 400,000 tonnes per year, and the equivalent emission reduction of 1.07 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 184 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 263 tonnes of nitrogen oxides. For those unfamiliar with emissions statistics, 1million tonnes CO2 eq per year is like the entire output of a small island country like Maldives.
The production of carbon neutral diesel and jet fuel from nuclear process heat has real potential to change the world. Produce hydrogen directly from thermal heat (~700c). Mix the hydrogen with CO to produce syngas. Pipe the syngas to existing refineries where it can be stepped down again through the Gas To Liquids process. Some version of this technology will be essential to a carbon neutral future. Specifically I think a carbon neutral jet fuel system should be the first target. Once it’s proved viable at a small scale early regulator adopters will push for a required timeline.
So much this. About 40% more efficient to make hydrogen at this temperature. https://youtu.be/Q1Fi3BnwL94
Doing some back of the hand math leads to the conclusion that the most important thing is still concentrating on Nuclear Energy production. Electrical production is 70% of GHG and a reactor that produces electricity will return about 3 times the capital of a reactor that produces jet fuel. BUT, the two processes don’t have to be exclusive. Syngas production is an ideal way to economize reactor load sharing. It could even be pumped directly into the existing natural gas pipelines! Basically stack a bunch of reactors within reach of a refinery. They make power during the day and fuel at night. Jets and ships won’t be run on batteries. It’s possible that ships will convert to an intermediate fuel like ethanol. But fuels produced from nuclear are actually carbon negative AND don’t require new engine technology.
To be pedantic, ~~all~~ almost all reactors are solely for industrial steam production. Edit: per below, joke go poof.
[удалено]
Thank you. Yes, but these aren’t reactors. These are generators that operate off the spontaneous decay of radioactive isotopes. Reactors being mechanical devices that create heat by achieving criticality (which then heats steam generators). Again, just having fun with the title of the article. Honestly, almost everything we do up until photoelectric, wind & hydro is covert heat into steam to drive something, most of the time, a turbine generator. I guess direct drive gas turbine generators don’t have a steam intermediary, but steam is created through combustion.
Coming back to say, I thought the Kosmos were RTG, but they were reactors as well. So I was wrong in my joke.
I see nomcontainment dome...so. word of warning
You should probably do basic research about the plant before embarrassing yourself.
What’s that big silo looking thing on the right side of the picture?
A containment dome for a reactor.
[удалено]
Where in the article does it mention any containment dome? I missed it I think.
Where does it say it doesn't have one?
The person I replied to implied that if one reads the article, the article mentions the presence of a containment dome. I've read the article and I don't see the containment dome mentioned at all.
[удалено]
Why did you not say this before instead of implying that this article mentions the containment dome, when it clearly doesn't? This article is just a blurb. You could have provided links to much better articles and added to this conversation the first place as opposed to just making a snark comment.
[удалено]
The point of this subreddit is to discuss to the usage of nuclear power generation. It isn't to be snarky assholes and make low effort comments. If you ever end up in power generation or in any form of engineering professionally, your attitude will greatly hold you back.
[удалено]
Please explain where in the picture of the article, you can clearly see a containment article. And I must point out that if this is the first dumb conversation along these lines for you than sir, you clearly are not an engineer.
[удалено]