researchers designed a model that could generate 753 MWh of energy annually. That's enough to power roughly 753 homes for about five weeks
Why can't the writers of these articles make useful comparisons? Can they just not do basic math? Each tower can generate enough electricity for about 72 homes... period. Just say that. No apples and oranges required.
because saying you'd need to build a power plant for every 72 homes would not make the technology very attractive
Power plants that are insufficient for powering a single home are quite popular right now
cries in ITER
Right. Like damn, get real. We gonna have 50-story towers decorating the landscape for every 73 homes?? It doesn't even make sense for extremely remote and impoverished locations due to the amount of materials it needs (cost).
Exactly. If you're going to build an incredibly tall structure to generate power in the desert, wind makes much more sense.
The TTSS works out efficiently in a hot, dry climate.
[...]
researchers also note that reliance on a continuous supply of large quantities of water is an issue that needs to be addressed.
These two things don't really add up.
I suppose you could feed it with saltwater if you're on the coast, but there's a reason why you don't pump that stuff around unless you really have to.
I missed the part where they pump water up to generate power from the downdraft (of cooled air). I don't want to shit on cool ideas. Maaaaybe there's are range of parameters where this works, but I'm holding my breath.
photovoltaic has the same problem tho
Photovoltaic doesn't require water. What are you talking about?
Also PV does neither require heat nor dryness.
All these pseudo innovations because challenging consumerism and capitalism is not even an afterthought. The size of this shit...
Nuclear fanbois hate this one simple trick
It uses a ton of material to power 73 homes annually (652 feet high and 45 feet in diameter), works best in a desert but requires a lot of water. Yeah, nuclear energy is really threatened by that. Modern microreactors in development make, for example, 1.5 MWe at let's say 90% capacity factor. Assuming about 1000 kWh/mo for a house, that microreactor, which can fit on the back of a semi truck and be transported down the highway that way, can power 985 homes anually and doesn't require cooling water (will require water for electrical steam generation).
Yeah, I will stick with nuclear, thanks.
Nuclear energy isn't threatened by this. It's threatened by the fact that it's impossible to build one at a profit.
That's why factory fabricated microreactors are such a cool concept!
And by the time that concept becomes reality we'll either be running 100% renewable energy or dead from climate change
Nope. Deployment of factory fabricated microreactors is planned for the 2030s.
Ah, plans! Well then, that's a guarantee! No way they'll hit unexpected roadblocks and go massively overbudget like every other nuclear project
You should educate yourself about GenIV reactors (designs, supply chains, costs...) before you embarrass yourself.
I don't need to add to the embarrassment that is the nuclear industry
The cost of electricity from those is even more expensive than from conventional nuclear.
There are technology (reactor) demonstrations planned within the next 2-3 years, so not quite but very close. A lot of active R&D work going on right now for specific designs at a lot of companies.
So you admit they do not exist?
The technologies on which these reactor designs are based have been demonstrated previously. The specific designs are in progress and well on their way. AGR, EBR-II, and MSRE are examples.
So that's a no, then?
WTF is it with nuclear bros and their war on reality?
From how they argue, I get the impression that most of them are victims of astroturfing campaigns by the nuclear lobby tbh. The nuclear industry hates the idea to become redundant because of renewables, so they spread lies about being the solution to climate change. Like they ever gave any shits about the ecosystem, lol.
Maybe, but I've had plenty of conversations where I've bought evidence, facts, used reliable sources, etc. and I see the same people still lying their asses off.
Maybe those are the ones running the astroturfing campaigns?
Good call. Who are they shilling for though?
More or less directly for the nuclear lobby I would assume. Or did I somehow misinterpret your question?
Why can't the writers of these articles make useful comparisons? Can they just not do basic math? Each tower can generate enough electricity for about 72 homes... period. Just say that. No apples and oranges required.
because saying you'd need to build a power plant for every 72 homes would not make the technology very attractive
Power plants that are insufficient for powering a single home are quite popular right now
cries in ITER
Right. Like damn, get real. We gonna have 50-story towers decorating the landscape for every 73 homes?? It doesn't even make sense for extremely remote and impoverished locations due to the amount of materials it needs (cost).
Exactly. If you're going to build an incredibly tall structure to generate power in the desert, wind makes much more sense.
Or a mirror based solar power tower.
These two things don't really add up.
I suppose you could feed it with saltwater if you're on the coast, but there's a reason why you don't pump that stuff around unless you really have to.
I missed the part where they pump water up to generate power from the downdraft (of cooled air). I don't want to shit on cool ideas. Maaaaybe there's are range of parameters where this works, but I'm holding my breath.
photovoltaic has the same problem tho
Photovoltaic doesn't require water. What are you talking about?
Also PV does neither require heat nor dryness.
All these pseudo innovations because challenging consumerism and capitalism is not even an afterthought. The size of this shit...
Nuclear fanbois hate this one simple trick
It uses a ton of material to power 73 homes annually (652 feet high and 45 feet in diameter), works best in a desert but requires a lot of water. Yeah, nuclear energy is really threatened by that. Modern microreactors in development make, for example, 1.5 MWe at let's say 90% capacity factor. Assuming about 1000 kWh/mo for a house, that microreactor, which can fit on the back of a semi truck and be transported down the highway that way, can power 985 homes anually and doesn't require cooling water (will require water for electrical steam generation).
Yeah, I will stick with nuclear, thanks.
Nuclear energy isn't threatened by this. It's threatened by the fact that it's impossible to build one at a profit.
That's why factory fabricated microreactors are such a cool concept!
And by the time that concept becomes reality we'll either be running 100% renewable energy or dead from climate change
Nope. Deployment of factory fabricated microreactors is planned for the 2030s.
Ah, plans! Well then, that's a guarantee! No way they'll hit unexpected roadblocks and go massively overbudget like every other nuclear project
You should educate yourself about GenIV reactors (designs, supply chains, costs...) before you embarrass yourself.
I don't need to add to the embarrassment that is the nuclear industry
The cost of electricity from those is even more expensive than from conventional nuclear.
There are technology (reactor) demonstrations planned within the next 2-3 years, so not quite but very close. A lot of active R&D work going on right now for specific designs at a lot of companies.
So you admit they do not exist?
The technologies on which these reactor designs are based have been demonstrated previously. The specific designs are in progress and well on their way. AGR, EBR-II, and MSRE are examples.
So that's a no, then?
WTF is it with nuclear bros and their war on reality?
From how they argue, I get the impression that most of them are victims of astroturfing campaigns by the nuclear lobby tbh. The nuclear industry hates the idea to become redundant because of renewables, so they spread lies about being the solution to climate change. Like they ever gave any shits about the ecosystem, lol.
Maybe, but I've had plenty of conversations where I've bought evidence, facts, used reliable sources, etc. and I see the same people still lying their asses off.
Maybe those are the ones running the astroturfing campaigns?
Good call. Who are they shilling for though?
More or less directly for the nuclear lobby I would assume. Or did I somehow misinterpret your question?
You realize that the thing you're describing doesn't actually exist and likely never will, right?
Pro-nuclear folks are so weird.