Science & Technology News

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Total change of subject .
https://www.power-technology.com/pro...ct-wyoming-us/
The demonstration plant will build a 345MW nuclear plant based on Natrium technology, a sodium fast reactor with integrated energy storage and flexible power generation. It is expected to be built at a retired coal plant in Wyoming.
They stated in another article approx 4 years from groundbreaking to in service .

Pardon me, if I’m just a little skeptical.
Has any Nuke power plant [even ‘conventional’] ever been built on schedule, and/or on budget?
It would be good news, though, if they can achieve their objectives.

Kemmerer, Wyoming has been selected as the preferred site, for the Natrium nuclear power plant demonstration project.
TerraPower said it anticipates submitting the demonstration plant's construction permit application, to the NRC, in mid-2023, with the plant expected to be operational within the next seven years, in line with the ARDP target mandated by Congress.
➥ https://www.terrapower.com/natrium-d...merer-wyoming/

"... Demonstration is to be at full commercial scale, as TerraPower hopes to deliver an NRC–licensed, grid-scale reactor ready for commercial service at the project’s end in 2028..."
➥ https://www.ans.org/news/article-344...trium-reactor/

We’ve been here before: Wyoming nuclear project echoes of past
"... Critics familiar with the technology and its history, however, doubt whether a commercially operating nuclear power plant will manifest in the next seven years — or ever — in Wyoming..."
More ➥ https://wyofile.com/weve-been-here-b...choes-of-past/

[GordMay]

How climate change may shape the world in the centuries to come

As 2100 looms closer, climate projections should look farther into the future, scientists say [1 & 2].

It’s hard to imagine what Earth might look like in 2500. But a collaboration, between science and art, is offering an unsettling window into how ongoing climate change might transform now-familiar terrain into alien landscapes, over the next few centuries.

These visualizations — of U.S. Midwestern farms overtaken by subtropical plants, of a dried-up Amazon rainforest, of extreme heat baking the Indian subcontinent — emphasize why researchers need to push climate projections long past the customary benchmark of 2100, environmental social scientist Christopher Lyon and colleagues contend September 24 in Global Change Biology. [1]

To visualize what that future world might look like, the researchers considered three possible climate trajectories — low, moderate and high emissions as used in past reports by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — and projected changes all the way out to 2500. The team focused particularly on impacts on civilization: heat stress, failing crops and changes in land use and vegetation.

For all but the lowest-emission scenario, which is roughly in line with limiting global warming to “well under” 2 degrees Celsius, relative to preindustrial times, as approved by the 2015 Paris Agreement, the average global temperature continues to increase until 2500, the team found.
For the highest-emissions scenario, temperatures increase by about 2.2 degrees C by 2100, and by about 4.6 degrees C by 2500.
That results in “major restructuring of the world’s biomes,” the researchers say: loss of most of the Amazon rainforest, poleward shifts in crops and unlivable temperatures in the tropics.

The team then collaborated with James McKay, an artist and science communicator at the University of Leeds in England, to bring the data to life. Based on the study’s projections, McKay created a series of detailed paintings representing different global landscapes now, and in 2500.

[1] “Climate change research and action must look beyond 2100" ~ by Christopher Lyon et al
➥ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15871

[2] “Looking to the (far) future of climate projection” ~ by Chris A. Boulton
➥ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15936

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Pardon me, if I’m just a little skeptical.
Has any Nuke power plant [even ‘conventional’] ever been built on schedule, and/or on budget?
It would be good news, though, if they can achieve their objectives.

Kemmerer, Wyoming has been selected as the preferred site, for the Natrium nuclear power plant demonstration project.
TerraPower said it anticipates submitting the demonstration plant's construction permit application, to the NRC, in mid-2023, with the plant expected to be operational within the next seven years, in line with the ARDP target mandated by Congress.
➥ https://www.terrapower.com/natrium-d...merer-wyoming/

"... Demonstration is to be at full commercial scale, as TerraPower hopes to deliver an NRC–licensed, grid-scale reactor ready for commercial service at the project’s end in 2028..."
➥ https://www.ans.org/news/article-344...trium-reactor/

We’ve been here before: Wyoming nuclear project echoes of past
"... Critics familiar with the technology and its history, however, doubt whether a commercially operating nuclear power plant will manifest in the next seven years — or ever — in Wyoming..."
More ➥ https://wyofile.com/weve-been-here-b...choes-of-past/

I have a feeling this one will be built and operational ahead of any schedules. It is entirely private with no government intervention except as actually required.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I have a feeling this one will be built and operational ahead of any schedules. It is entirely private with no government intervention except as actually required.

I don't know what you mean, by that, but: according to the TerraPower Press Release*:

“... Through the recently signed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, DOE worked with Congress to allocate nearly $2.5 billion in new funding for ARDP. This allocation, along with previous funding, will cover DOE’s commitment to TerraPower for the first five years of a seven-year, $2 billion agreement. TerraPower will match this investment dollar for dollar ...”

* ➥ https://www.terrapower.com/natrium-d...merer-wyoming/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don't know what you mean, by that, but: according to the TerraPower Press Release*:

“... Through the recently signed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, DOE worked with Congress to allocate nearly $2.5 billion in new funding for ARDP. This allocation, along with previous funding, will cover DOE’s commitment to TerraPower for the first five years of a seven-year, $2 billion agreement. TerraPower will match this investment dollar for dollar ...”

* ➥ https://www.terrapower.com/natrium-d...merer-wyoming/

As I said AS REQUIRED. Here the government wants to have its fingers in everything .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

As I said AS REQUIRED. Here the government wants to have its fingers in everything .

So, the government wouldn’t let TerraPower [et al] privately finance the project, on it’s own?
I suppose that TerraPower was just pandering, to the gov’t, when they noted: “... the importance of the infrastructure bill signed by President Biden on Monday ...”.

Eight countries, in the past 60 years, have collectively spent more than $100 billion, unsuccessfully trying to produce a commercially competitive sodium-cooled fast reactor, Allison Macfarlane wrote in a July column [1] in Foreign Affairs.

[1] ➥ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...climate-change

See also:
“Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status”

“... This report looks at the experience and status of breeder reactor programs in France, India, Japan, the Soviet Union/Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Germany also built two breeder reactors.
All were sodium cooled.
The problems described in the country case studies in the following chapters make it hard to dispute Admiral Hyman Rickover’s summation in 1956, based on his experience with a sodium-cooled reactor developed to power an early U.S. nuclear submarine, that such reactors are “expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair.” ...”

Here ➥ https://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf

But, as I said earlier, I wish them well.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

So, the government wouldn’t let TerraPower [et al] privately finance the project, on it’s own?
I suppose that TerraPower was just pandering, to the gov’t, when they noted: “... the importance of the infrastructure bill signed by President Biden on Monday ...”.

Eight countries, in the past 60 years, have collectively spent more than $100 billion, unsuccessfully trying to produce a commercially competitive sodium-cooled fast reactor, Allison Macfarlane wrote in a July column [1] in Foreign Affairs.

[1] ➥ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...climate-change

See also:
“Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status”
Here ➥ https://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf

But, as I said earlier, I wish them well.

The NRC is required by government regulations to be involved in any nuclear programs in the US.

The government would allow TerraPower to be fully self funded but look at it from Bill Gates III if you can get the taxpayer to pay for half of your project what would you do?

I know a lot about the admirals views and innovations wrt Nuclear power systems .
I carried a 4956 NEC welding certification a few decades ago .

[GordMay]

Increasingly Frequent Wildfires Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change

A new study [1], by scientists from UCLA and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, strengthens the case that climate change has been the main cause of the growing amount of land, in the western US, destroyed by large wildfires, over the past two decades.
And researchers say the trend is likely to worsen.

[1] “Quantifying contributions of natural variability and anthropogenic forcings on increased fire weather risk over the western United States” ~ by Yizhou Zhuang et al

Significance
The western United States (WUS) has experienced a rapid increase of fire weather (as indicated by vapor pressure deficit, VPD*) in recent decades, especially in the warm season. However, the extent to which an increase of VPD* is due to natural variability or anthropogenic warming has been unclear. Our observation-based estimate suggests ∼one-third of the VPD trend is attributable to natural variability of atmospheric circulation, whereas ∼two-thirds is explained by anthropogenic warming. In addition, climate models attribute ∼90% of the VPD trend to anthropogenic warming. Both estimates suggest that anthropogenic warming is the main cause for increasing fire weather and provide a likely range for the true anthropogenic contribution to the WUS trend in VPD...

Here ➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/118/45/e2111875118

* Vapor pressure deficit measures the amount of moisture the air can hold, when it is saturated, minus the amount of moisture in the air. When vapor pressure deficit, or VPD, is higher, the air can draw more moisture from soil and plants. Large wildfire-burned areas, especially those not located near urban areas, tend to have high vapor pressure deficits, conditions that are associated with warm, dry air.
The researchers analyzed the so-called August Complex wildfire of 2020, which burned more than a million acres in Northern California. They concluded that human-induced warming [likely] explains 50% of the unprecedentedly high VPD in the region, during the month the fire began.

See also:

“Warmer and Drier Fire Seasons Contribute to Increases in Area Burned at High Severity in Western US Forests From 1985 to 2017" ~ by S. A. Parks, and J. T. Abatzoglou
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2020GL089858

“Widespread regeneration failure in forests of Greater Yellowstone under scenarios of future climate and fire” ~ by Werner Rammer et al
➥ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15726

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The NRC is required by government regulations to be involved in any nuclear programs in the US.

The government would allow TerraPower to be fully self funded but look at it from Bill Gates III if you can get the taxpayer to pay for half of your project what would you do?

Nuclear power will always be a partnership between government and private industry, because you can't entrust a 25000 year commitment to an entity that's allowed to go bankrupt and avoid its obligations. Hell, private industry can't even be trusted with the shorter commitments to cleaning up old mines, oilwells and factories. How many abandoned and unremediated former industrial sites are there?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Increasingly Frequent Wildfires Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change

A new study [1], by scientists from UCLA and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, strengthens the case that climate change has been the main cause of the growing amount of land, in the western US, destroyed by large wildfires, over the past two decades.
And researchers say the trend is likely to worsen.

[1] “Quantifying contributions of natural variability and anthropogenic forcings on increased fire weather risk over the western United States” ~ by Yizhou Zhuang et al
Here ➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/118/45/e2111875118

* Vapor pressure deficit measures the amount of moisture the air can hold, when it is saturated, minus the amount of moisture in the air. When vapor pressure deficit, or VPD, is higher, the air can draw more moisture from soil and plants. Large wildfire-burned areas, especially those not located near urban areas, tend to have high vapor pressure deficits, conditions that are associated with warm, dry air.
The researchers analyzed the so-called August Complex wildfire of 2020, which burned more than a million acres in Northern California. They concluded that human-induced warming [likely] explains 50% of the unprecedentedly high VPD in the region, during the month the fire began.

See also:

“Warmer and Drier Fire Seasons Contribute to Increases in Area Burned at High Severity in Western US Forests From 1985 to 2017" ~ by S. A. Parks, and J. T. Abatzoglou
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2020GL089858

“Widespread regeneration failure in forests of Greater Yellowstone under scenarios of future climate and fire” ~ by Werner Rammer et al
➥ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15726

Wrong on all counts above .
They are the fault of humans directly. 80% if not more are actually set by humans.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Wrong on all counts above .
They are the fault of humans directly. 80% if not more are actually set by humans.

That's true, if a little lacking in subtlety.

Nationwide, humans are responsible for starting 84% of wildfires, according to a paper [1] co-authored by Jennifer Balch, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In California, the eastern United States, and the coastal Northwest, people are behind more than 90% of wildfires. And, by starting so many fires, humans are essentially lengthening the fire season, into times of the year when natural causes—such as lightning—don't play a major role.
Debris burning starts the most human-caused fires, at 29 percent, with arson the cause of 21 percent of fires. Equipment use causes 11 percent of fires, while campfires, and children playing with fireworks or matches, each cause 5 percent of fires. The Fourth of July, predictably, is the biggest day for wildfires, with 7,762 fires ignited on that date, over the 21-year study period.

[1] “Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States” ~ by Jennifer K. Balch et al
➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/114/11/2946

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

[Wildfires] are the fault of humans directly. 80% if not more are actually set by humans.

Gord's links argue that climate change has made many forested areas more "flammable" because of droughts and changes in rainfall patterns.

If that isn't the case, are you suggesting that there have been more and worse fires simply because people have recently become MORE careless and BIGGER a-holes?

I don't think I'm inclined to argue against that...

[newhaul]

I know I will get chastised for this but at least look at some of the peer reviewed studies linked in this article first.
https://electroverse.net/climate-mod...rom-our-blog_1

Here is the first one to get you started.

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9321/1/2/14/htm

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Gord's links argue that climate change has made many forested areas more "flammable" because of droughts and changes in rainfall patterns.

If that isn't the case, are you suggesting that there have been more and worse fires simply because people have recently become MORE careless and BIGGER a-holes?

I don't think I'm inclined to argue against that...

That and poor forestry management over the last few decades.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

That and poor forestry management over the last few decades.

...Thanks yet again to misguided eco warriors who lacked the iq to understand the reasons for said management.