[Joe367]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Question No. 5:
If more and more cars are powered by electricity, won't it result in additional electricity demand? To cover for this new demand, one has to again

I feel like these are the same kind of questions being asked over and over when it comes to electrification. 🤔

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Apparently, solar & wind plants have a capacity utilization of just 20% to 25%, because sun is not shining and wind is not blowing all the time. Does it really mean a 1,000 MW solar farm will only generate as many power units as a 250 MW coal or natural gas power plant?

I had another question regarding solar plants. How much water is used to keep the solar panels dust free? We know that the efficiency of a panel goes down if there is dust on it. So how often do they need to clean it? How environmental friendly is this?

[ferrarirules]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

I had another question regarding solar plants. How much water is used to keep the solar panels dust free? We know that the efficiency of a panel goes down if there is dust on it. So how often do they need to clean it? How environmental friendly is this?

Panels need to be cleaned once or twice an year. Majority of the plants currently use water to wash the panels but there are new water less ways being invented for cleaning the panels

[GTE]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Question No. 3:

Apparently, solar & wind plants have a capacity utilization of just 20% to 25%, because sun is not shining and wind is not blowing all the time. Does it really mean a 1,000 MW solar farm will only generate as many power units as a 250 MW coal or natural gas power plant? If yes, the narrative that solar plants now cost the same as coal plants per MW is not being honest.

Attachment 2505081

Tesla sort of solves this issue by installing energy storage (lithium ion batteries) for Tesla solar roof. Can such a solution be applied to large scale solar & wind farms too, so that capacity utilization of solar/wind farms goes up from 20%?

Attachment 2505080

A 1000mw solar plant will generate anywhere between 3000 to 5000 mw per day depending on latitude, time of year etc.

[woodstock3001]

Quick question to expert here -

We have a family land (approx 6 acres) near Najafgarh, Delhi which is vacant with only boundary wall and gate done. I've been contemplating converting it into Solar land and selling power to discoms.

Post incurring all the installation cost, do you guys think it can be a profit generation business ? What subsidy & other support does government provide ?

[On4Wheels]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Question No.1:
Now logically, this large renewables portfolio should have reduced global CO2 emissions. However, global CO2 emissions is chugging along in an uptrend as usual. Why?

The comparison based on installed capacity of renewable and non-renewable power plants is misleading. You may need to consider the other factors viz., capacity utilization, geography of installed power plant and economics. Most of the renewable power plants are having very low utilization factor due to availability of power source and technology limitations. The geography of the installed plant also plays a role in utilization factor. For example, the western countries like, EU and USA require more power in winter to heat up their living space. However, solar energy production would be lowest for them in winter. In case of fossil fuel power plants, traditionally they are considered as base load power sources especially coal and oil power plants. Nuclear power is considered as base load power in India where as in counties like France, it is considered as load following power plants. Generally, the gas power stations are peak load power sources. Further, the economics also play a pivotal role in deciding whether a particular power plant is base load one or not.

Further, IEA has listed the plausible reasons for increase in CO2 emissions in 2022.

• Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 0.9% or 321 Mt in 2022, reaching a new high of over 36.8 Gt. Following two years of exceptional oscillations in energy use and emissions, caused in part by the Covid-19 pandemic, last year’s growth was much slower than 2021’s rebound of more than 6%. Emissions from energy combustion increased by 423 Mt, while emissions from industrial processes decreased by 102 Mt.
• In a year marked by energy price shocks, rising inflation, and disruptions to traditional fuel trade flows, global growth in emissions was lower than feared, despite gas-to-coal switching in many countries. Increased deployment of clean energy technologies such as renewables, electric vehicles, and heat pumps helped prevent an additional 550 Mt in CO2 emissions. Industrial production curtailment, particularly in China and Europe, also averted additional emissions.
• Specific challenges in 2022 contributed to the growth in emissions. Of the 321 Mt CO2 increase, 60 Mt CO2 can be attributed to cooling and heating demand in extreme weather and another 55 Mt CO2 to nuclear power plants being offline.
• CO2 growth in 2022 was well below global GDP growth of 3.2%, reverting to a decade-long trend of decoupling emissions and economic growth that was broken by 2021’s sharp rebound in emissions. Improvements in the CO2 intensity of energy use were slightly slower than the past decade’s average.
• Emissions from natural gas fell by 1.6% or 118 Mt, following continued tightening of supply exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Reductions in emissions from gas were particularly pronounced in Europe (-13.5%). The Asia Pacific region also saw unprecedented reductions (-1.8%).
• Increased emissions from coal more than offset reductions from natural gas. Amid a wave of gas-to-coal switching during the global energy crisis, CO2 emissions from coal grew by 1.6% or 243 Mt, far exceeding the last decade’s average growth rate, and reaching a new all-time high of almost 15.5 Gt.
• Emissions from oil grew even more than emissions from coal, rising by 2.5% or 268 Mt to 11.2 Gt. Around half of the increase came from aviation, as air travel continued to rebound from pandemic lows, nearing 80% of 2019 levels. Tempering this increase, electric vehicles continued to gain momentum in 2022, with over 10 million cars sold, exceeding 14% of global car sales.
• The biggest sectoral increase in emissions in 2022 came from electricity and heat generation, whose emissions were up by 1.8% or 261 Mt. In particular, global emissions from coal-fired electricity and heat generation grew by 224 Mt or 2.1%, led by emerging economies in Asia.
• A strong expansion of renewables limited the rebound in coal power emissions. Renewables met 90% of last year’s global growth in electricity generation. Solar PV and wind generation each increased by around 275 TWh, a new annual record.
• Emissions from industry declined by 1.7% to 9.2 Gtlast year. While several regions saw manufacturing curtailments, the global decline was largely driven by a 161 Mt CO2 decrease in China’s industry emissions, reflecting a 10% decline in cement production and a 2% decline in steel making.
• China’s emissions were relatively flat in 2022, declining by 23 Mt or 0.2%. Growing emissions from combustion were offset by declines from industrial processes. Weaker economic growth, declining construction activity, and strict Covid-19 measures led to reductions in industrial and transport emissions. Power sector emissions growth slowed compared with the average of the past decade but still reached 2.6%.
• The European Union saw a 2.5% or 70 Mt reduction in CO2 emissions despite oil and gas market disruptions, hydro shortfalls due to drought, and numerous nuclear plants going offline.Buildings sector emissions fell markedly, helped by a mild winter. Although power sector emissions increased by 3.4%, coal use was not as high as anticipated. For the first time, electricity generation from wind and solar PV combined exceeded that of gas or nuclear.
• US emissions grew by 0.8% or 36 Mt. The buildings sector saw the highest emissions growth, driven by extreme temperatures. The main emissions reductions came from electricity and heat generation, thanks to unprecedented increases in solar PV and wind, as well as coal-to-gas switching. While many other countries reduced their natural gas use, the United States saw an increase of 89 Mt in CO2 emissions from gas, as it was called upon to meet peak electricity demand during summer heat waves.
• Emissions from Asia’s emerging market and developing economies, excluding China, grew more than those from any other region in 2022, increasing by 4.2% or 206 Mt CO2. Over half of the region’s increase in emissions came from coal-fired power generation.

The answer to your question can be found from here (source IEA):

Greater deployment of clean energy technologies helped prevent further emissions growth amid crises.

• In an exceptionally turbulent year with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, energy price shocks, rising inflation, and major disruptions to traditional fuel trade flows, global growth in emissions was lower than anticipated.
• Impressive growth of solar PV and wind generation helped prevent around 465 Mt CO2 in power sector emissions. Other clean energy technologies, including other renewables, electric vehicles, and heat pumps, helped prevent an additional roughly 85 Mt CO2. Without this increased growth in clean energy deployment, the annual increase in energy-related emissions would have been almost triple. Emissions reductions also resulted from economic slowdowns, including 155 Mt CO2 from decreases in energy-intensive industrial production, mainly in China, the European Union, Japan, Korea and North America.
• Specific challenges in 2022 also contributed to the global increase in emissions. Of the overall increase of 321 Mt CO2, extreme temperatures contributed 60 Mt from heating and cooling for buildings. The decline in nuclear power generation, due to both maintenance and continued phase-outs, led to another 55 Mt CO2.

Also, the source wise energy consumption by countries can explain why CO2 emission continue to raise despite of deployment of green energy resources.

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Question No. 3:
Apparently, solar & wind plants have a capacity utilization of just 20% to 25%, because sun is not shining and wind is not blowing all the time. Does it really mean a 1,000 MW solar farm will only generate as many power units as a 250 MW coal or natural gas power plant? If yes, the narrative that solar plants now cost the same as coal plants per MW is not being honest.

This is one of the key research are in energy sector to increase the specific power output of the renewable energy resources. At present, the wind and solar farms have a utilization factor of 25-50 % only. The development of fractal solar power panel is one such area. Like our eye, if a solar panel able to collect all the light that falls upon it, the theoretical efficiency of solar panel can go up to 3.7 times. May be in future, comparing apple to orange would be possible.

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Question No. 5:
If more and more cars are powered by electricity, won't it result in additional electricity demand? To cover for this new demand, one has to again manufacture more solar panels/wind turbines than one would normally need. Approximately, if 10% of fossil fuel cars are replaced with EVs, that would result in how much increase in electricity demand?

Yes, more EVs require more electricity. This would be one of the biggest hurdle for energy sector in future. Further, it may not yield the required outcome of reducing the CO2 emission. For example, if the EV is used in Asian countries where most of the electricity is derived from fossil fuels, the CO2 emission would go up. Moreover, in general, EVs cannot reduce CO2 emissions unless it is utilized to offset its CO2 emission in the manufacturing and recycling stages. I think, most of the cars sold today are under utilized (Am I right?). So, in my opinion, electrifying the public transport should be the first priority rather than electrifying high end cars.

[Carguy9902]

There are no solutions, only trade-offs -
said an often ignored wise man in the west. Nuclear energy is often ignored as it is politically incorrect and the perception of danger on the heels of Chernobyl and Fukushima is still widely prevalent. But safety standards have improved vastly and they can provide the energy needed to power any country's needs. Sadly they are being given up at an alarming pace.

Solar and wind are not dependable throughout the year. Besides, both are a significant threat to native and migratory bird populations. Coal will remain the primary source of power in developing countries for the foreseeable future no matter however many climate accords these countries sign.

[ads11]

Right, been meaning to chip in to this thread.

Wearing my old offshore wind hat, wanted to add a few points:
Yes, there's a valid criticism about offshore wind (and solar) being intermittent and thus not really capable of meeting baseload energy supply.
The sexy solution is energy storage, either in the form of batteries or potential energy to name but a few (pump water up into a reservoir at a higher elevation to release later when you need to backfill the grid).
One that gets overlooked is that we've not fully tapped the potential of offshore wind, that'll come with floating offshore wind most likely. The benefits of these are that they essentially allow you to have your turbines tethered to the seabed further out to sea where you have more persistent winds that the shallow ~50 m depths of current offshore wind where you need to be able to mount the turbine foundations on the seafloor. Thus not only do you get the benefit of being able to have ever bigger turbines that don't run afoul of NIMBYism and cries of ruining someone's view, but they avoid busy shipping lanes and fishing waters typically close to the coast. Furthermore, the lack of needing to physically embed the turbine foundations means you can avoid the costly ground engineering work for the build stage, not to mention the sort of pre-installation scoping studies (geophysical, geological, geotechnical) that you'd need. Going by my old consultancy rates, that's a hefty old cost saved, plus the floating turbines themselves are not that far off cost wise to existing fixed offshore turbines.

You do raise a good point about many of the earliest turbines coming to the end of their service life. This is true, and it's not a problem that got much thought because it wasn't a large scale issue till now. That being said there is work already being done and some coming to fruition in terms of how to repurpose those turbine components. Check out this article a few days ago:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66735712
Take this excerpt for eg:

Finding solutions to that challenge gave PhD student Angie Nagle her doctorate and also a start-up business plan reusing blades.

"The potential is huge to repurpose these items, I mean people pay a fortune to get a bridge made from this glass fibre reinforced polymer material - GFRP.

"It's very expensive material, it's incredibly durable, it's incredibly strong.

"They have been basically cyclically loaded for 20 to 30 years, but when put in static applications, such as using them as girders for pedestrian bridges, they can last for another 60 years.

Make no mistake, economically, wind and solar are the two low hanging fruit for cleaner energy sources. We need both to be an ever larger part of the grid and increasingly you are seeing this. From what I remember offshore wind hasn't taken off quite as much in India yet but that should only be a matter of time. You need only look at the number of global offshore wind from this dataset for eg:
https://www.mapstand.com/mapstand-datasets-renewables/


Baseload power generation is a big issue granted. Right now that's still powered by thermal powerplants, typically coal. However proponents for nuclear will argue that with our current options, there's no other clean option that can meet that requirement. A problem with big nuclear projects that is still an issue is the fact they cost absolute mountains of money, and that they take a long time (take Hinckley Point C in the UK for eg). You can argue then that nuclear will be too late to make an impact. But what if we could standardise production of nuclear powerplants?

It's fitting then that barely a week on from the death of the architect of France's nuclear power grid that I get to cite the incredible example of said country. France's decision to go all in on nuclear is the main reason they've consistently had the lowest per capita carbon footprint of their electricity grid in Europe and well up there globally amongst other clean national power grids. The French essentially picked a standard design and then went to town mass producing all the components for it. What that meant is that they were afforded veritable decades of clean power for their entire national grid.

For those wanting a video explainer, Brian McManus of the Real Engineering Youtube channel has a great video I'd encourage you to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF9kkB0UWYQ

Another field being pursued is small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). There's a fair few groups pursuing this at scale. At their simplest, we have the tech already, if you think about it you'll recognise them in all the world's nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. Sure enough, speak long enough to anyone working in the defence space and they'll be very matter of fact about saying so. But the main benefit of the SMR is that it brings down the prohibitive cost of nuclear energy and the long lead time as well.
Here's another great primer from Brian McManus on the same:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INl3pCXm6Tw

I realise that I've not even delved into nuclear waste. I'm mindful that I've already written a pretty long treatise thus far so I'll be succinct. Modern nuclear fuel sources for the latest powerplants produce quite a lot less waste than you probably are picturing right now in your head. That being said, there's a number of projects globally pursuing geological waste storage. Simply put the best options are to store either ultra deep in a granitic body (what the Scandinavians are pursuing, so Sweden and Finland) or explore the use of salt caverns in the subsurface (being studied in the US and the UK). Happy to share some resources on these if anyone wants more info.

Before I sign off, one area being missed SmartCat is that a Huge chunk of the energy budget of northern hemisphere countries goes towards their heating bills. Space heating uses conservatively a quarter of total energy. Finding ways to mitigate this can vastly reduce our carbon footprint. Therein lies the potential to exploit heat networks (at district scale ideally) connected to clean heating solutions like geothermal waters. Typically when you think of geothermal one imagines the powerplants in Iceland but to generate electricity from geothermal you need a particular combination of geology and geography (Iceland for eg sits above a mantle plume - think a blow torch somewhere below the crust pointing right up). Instead we can make use of the fact that the deeper down you go, the warmer it gets to exploit warmer waters in the subsurface. Coupled to ground source heat pumps, you could then conceivably have lukewarm waters available under many urban centres becoming the source for clean heating energy. (Shameless plug) This is essentially what my research boils down to (pun intended). Oh and for the energy storage afficionados on here, there's also the prospect of seasonal heat and cooling, where in summer we recharge the heat in the subsurface to exploit in the winter.

(I probably lost most of you long ago - I'll do a TLDR at some point)

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by ads11

Another field being pursued is small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). There's a fair few groups pursuing this at scale. At their simplest, we have the tech already, if you think about it you'll recognise them in all the world's nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.

There is a startup that is working on even smaller capacity nuclear power (called 'nuclear battery'). EV car batteries will be fully charged all the time, without needing external electricity.

https://ndb.technology/.

NDB, or Nano Diamond Battery, is an innovative energy generator and storage that redefines and revolutionizes the battery as we know it. Its long-lasting properties and longevity are ensured by converting the radioactive decay energy from nuclear waste into energy. NDB is tiny, modular, cost-effective, and scalable from chipset to industrial applications.



The technology is actually quite old. Spacecraft that NASA sends to jupiter or pluto or out of the solar system are powered by similar tech.

I realise that I've not even delved into nuclear waste. hat being said, there's a number of projects globally pursuing geological waste storage.

Another advantage of this tech is that its raw material is nuclear waste. So disposal of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants is taken care of, giving a fillip to nuclear power too (assuming all this works out)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_P1VNh3Wt4

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by ferrarirules

raising concerns is good but finding solutions to a problem is the key to success. It is always easy to ask questions, it is 100 times more difficult to provide solutions.

Your approach is totally wrong and counter-intuitive. You should encourage asking questions, not discourage it, especially on TeamBHP.

Wikipedia articles or random news articles about "global warming" is simply not enough to understand all the issues and solutions that are being worked by people in this field to solve such issues. That's because one article or few articles will not cover the entire topic.

[NomadSK]

All is not bad. Engineers/Scientists do their job at the back end. You will be able to see a drastic change (hopefully) in the graphical representation from 2024 onwards.

I Have been indirectly involved on a project "Carbon capture and storage", its a state of the art project, Norway (equinor) is leading from the front and other players are following, in short, the process is like,

1. Capture the CO2 at the source. (Atmosphere/refineries/Thermal Power Plants/Cement Plants etc.)

2. Once captured will be transported to a geological storage facility.

3. CO2 will be injected deep into rock formations and stored there forever (Safely). The depth can range from 1-3kms under earth’s crust

I don't know how bad is it to store CO2 deep within the earth's crust (I bet a lot of brain storming must have done prior to reaching to this idea). But I feel All is not bad, it’s a work in progress to undo the damage which have been done due to the industrialization over hundreds of years. Catch 22 situation.

Environmentally speaking, this is the new "in-thing" for the coming decades. Countries having developed this technology and storage facilities will have the upper hand. Subjected to people at higher ups are actually serious about global warming and it' s not only a lip service. Also, such large-scale offshore/onshore CO2 storage is a viable means to help meet net-zero carbon emissions over a period of time. I hope the world has sufficient technical prowess and commitment to achieve this.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Along the Norwegian coast, Northern Lights is the first cross-border value chain project to offer European industrial companies a solution for safely and permanently storing their CO2 emissions 2600 meters under the seabed. Operational from 2024, the Phase 1 installations are scheduled to come on stream in 2024, with the ability to handle 1.5 million tons of CO2 per year. Our ambition is to extend to 5 million tons by 2026. This project, the first of its kind worldwide, is a major milestone in the decarbonization of heavy industry in Europe.

Cheers

[ferrarirules]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Your approach is totally wrong and counter-intuitive. You should encourage asking questions, not discourage it.

You got my intention wrong. I am not saying don't ask a question or i discourage to ask a question. Asking questions is nothing but providing a problem statement. But the problem statement doesn't get you anywhere problem solving does. I encourage problem solving more than problem stating. Problem stating is the easiest task where as problem solving is a complex tedious task.

Simple example - 5 why approach for root cause analysis. The emphasis is not on the questions, questions are way to reach the cause so that a solution can be found.

I am stating my intention again as I wrote in my previous post

While your analysis raised some pertinent questions about the "green" implementation and its future but it didn't divulge on what is need to make the "green" dream a success.

We as the world need to make the "green" dream a success. So rather than questioning the effectivity of the implementation till date, we should talk about ways to increase the effectivity of current solutions or devise more effective solutions

[bibhash13]

It should be MWh per day not MW per day.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by NomadSK

I Have been indirectly involved on a project "Carbon capture and storage", its a state of the art project, Norway (equinor) is leading from the front and other players are following, in short, the process is like...

Oh wonderful! I did some modelling on the Northern Lights Project for my first paper funnily enough. At the time Equinor had just finished drilling the EOS well so I thought I'd model the temperature field in it. CCUS, Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage, is a hugely in vogue topic in the geoscience and engineering community currently and for good reason.

The Northern Lights consortia actually has two project components as shown in this schematic below. Longship, which is centred around collecting and transporting the captured CO2 from industrial processes, and the actual injection and storage


Here's a cartoon schematic of what the subsurface looks like vaguely for those interested

I don't know how bad is it to store CO2 deep within the earth's crust (I bet a lot of brain storming must have done prior to reaching to this idea).

It's unsurprising that the leaders in CCUS have been centred around the North Sea given the concentration of sector expertise and pre-existing infrastructure, not to mention the fact that the subsurface here is understood to a degree of detail very few other places are. It's why other North Sea facing countries have projects analogous to Northern Lights as well. The UK has a similar project in Net Zero Teeside, in what I term a farm to table approach to the carbon chain, basically having carbon emitting industry placed close enough to existing transport infrastructure to take it to a nearby storage site offshore. Similarly the Danes are folding in CCUS into their ambitious 'Energy Islands'!
For more on Denmark's Energy Islands:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwkVL8A-8t4

Well actually we've been injecting CO2 into depleted reservoirs for decades now. The Sleipnir project in the North Sea has had CO2 injected into it since 1996, with the behaviour of the CO2 plume within this subsurface reservoir being monitored closely since. There's absolute reams of data regarding this.

Sleipner was the world's first offshore CCS facility. The natural gas extracted at Sleipner contains around 9% CO2, which is separated using amine scrubbers and injected into Utsira saline formation 800m below the seabed. Approximately 2,800 tonnes of CO2 are seperated and injected daily. Sleipner passed its 20th anniversary in 2016 and over 17 million tonnes of CO2 have been injected and stored to date (2017), with extensive monitoring of the CO2 plume carried out. CO2 from the nearby Alfa Nord field is also separated in the Sleipner system and the Gudrun field was added to the cluster in 2014. (Updated 07/12/17)

Put simply, CCUS is essentially the reverse of hydrocarbon extraction. In the latter we work to extract fluids out of the ground as efficiently as possible leaving behind as little in the reservoir, whereas in the former, our goal is to inject as much fluid as possible with next to no leakage.

Environmentally speaking, this is the new "in-thing" for the coming decades. Countries having developed this technology and storage facilities will have the upper hand. Subjected to people at higher ups are actually serious about global warming and it' s not only a lip service. Also, such large-scale offshore/onshore CO2 storage is a viable means to help meet net-zero carbon emissions over a period of time. I hope the world has sufficient technical prowess and commitment to achieve this.

CCUS isn't conceptually new, it's obviously now taken on a great deal more credence given the pressures of the Energy Transition. Now there's a familiar criticism that the proponents of CCUS always seem to be companies and people involved in the hydrocarbon industry and when you think about what I said earlier about the processes for CCUS being underpinned by the same skills and principles in hydrocarbon extraction, then this is no surprise. But I always like to use the testimony of Prof Myles Allen, the guy who coined and made famous the term 'Net Zero', and that is, we absolutely need large scale CCUS in order to meet our climate commitments. CCUS schemes particularly in the North Sea aren't a convenient way to repurpose the existing O&G infrastructure and reskills the talent base (which, undoubtedly, it is), but it's a way to start making a dent in anthropogenic carbon emissions and start taking some of it off the board.

Thinking big picture, if we could make a carbon value chain, a carbon economy of sorts, then it could be industrially beneficial as well for say India to explore setting up similar schemes whereby it too exploits its offshore to sequester carbon produced by its growing economy. I'm not familiar as to where India is in this domain but it's definitely a sector that deserves leaving simmering on the back burner at the very least, less we get caught playing catch up when CCUS is mature.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

There is a startup that is working on even smaller capacity nuclear power (called 'nuclear battery'). EV car batteries will be fully charged all the time, without needing external electricity.

Oops, meant to reply to this earlier. I'm sorry, but that NDB video clip is so laughably bullish. They fully lost me at the block chain bit. Americans, bless them, always swing for the moon with their sales pitches - I'm reminded of the early days of the nuclear era when similarly people figured nuclear technology would penetrate every level of our lives. Didn't pan out but jokes aside, there is room for a revival of nuclear options. This though seems worrisome. Given the widespread caution with nuclear energy, something this distributed, therefore with risk being exponentially increased as a result of the spread in failure points, is going to be a non starter. Realistically our best bets are still with modularisation options in terms of SMRs. The Americans I believe are pursuing a truck mounted portable nuclear power source for Pentagon use. Similarly the Russians have suggested that their giant nuclear powered ice breakers could connect to the power grid of small Arctic circle towns to act as powerplants in essence.

To bring it back to the nuclear waste issue, the last time I came across such a seemingly ludicrous sounding proposal as the NDB was at a nuclear waste conference. Rather predictably the speaker was American, and he was proposing utilising the latent heat emitted by the stored nuclear waste in it's first level containment (think large oil drums, except lead and cement lined). What this speaker seemed to miss that this nuclear waste powered geothermal energy solution would compromise the very integrity and purpose of the geological disposal facility (GDF).

The technology is actually quite old. Spacecraft that NASA sends to jupiter or pluto or out of the solar system are powered by similar tech.

For those who've seen or read The Martian, you'll remember Mark Watney fetching the decaying radioactive power source of an old Mars lander as his space heater!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cvz...aW9hY3RpdmU%3D

Another advantage of this tech is that its raw material is nuclear waste. So disposal of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants is taken care of, giving a fillip to nuclear power too (assuming all this works out)

Now this is beyond my wheelhouse so please step in to correct me but I seem to remember reading somewhere that thorium fuelled reactors would be key due to the fact they can use naturally occurring unenriched thorium, produce very low level & low quantities of waste, and can't be used for producing weapons grade fissile material (thereby alleviating proliferation concerns). It seems however due to expense this technology hasn't yet taken off yet. Which is a shame because India has abundant natural thorium reserves.