Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the cars are anything but boring golf carts. A stigma electric cars have had for a long time. These might even get you laid.
For the price they better not be anything close to a golf cart.
More like a gold cart.
To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
541–550 of 666 posts
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except, he's missing quite a few facts. Like, that there's still unsolved engineering problems with finding naterials that survive the corrosive environment within of molten salt reactors. Like, that he didn't inckude waste storage at all. Like, that he calculated prices for renewables based on buying the most expensive panels, but for nuclear, based on the lowest estimates. In reality, the ROI level of renewables ha…
Your point about the materials challenge for MSRs is very true: for the designs I've seen the 'solution' is super corrosive. However, I don't think it's an insurmountable challenge, and its more a question of durability over time (and then subsequent maintenance costs). Our water plumbing systems will eventually succumb to the rigours of time; it will just be a very long time... On waste storage, MSRs product much mu…
Yeah the:
- We could do it for less than $3 Trillion ...
- We could do it for $1 Trillion with liquid-fueled Molten Salt Reactors
Seems very dubious. The first successful MSRs were built over 60 years ago. The reason none are in commercial use is probably because the costs would work out higher than conventional reactors.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would prefer to live near a nuclear plant than within sight of a wind farm.
What's wrong with a wind farm, out of curiosity? I personally love driving by a windmill farm that's near a local highway.
Driving by it to see a novelty is different from living next to an eyesore.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial co…
Except people also forget that renewables' are also highly subsidized. You can't use a double standard here. And cost should anyway be the least of concern as global warming costs will be higher no matter what if we fail to control it.
Where there are renewable subsidies, they are out in the open. Nuclear subsidies are hidden, so when people do the math, they make huge mistakes.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would prefer to live near a nuclear plant than within sight of a wind farm.
As long as we're exploring hypothetical choices, would you prefer to live near a nuclear plant over living in a house with energy provided by solar tiles on the roof?
Still nuclear. And it would be easier to take the solar advocate more seriously if they weren't also opposed to mining for the very materials they made from.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#546Solar don't have the power density needed by US. Do a simple calculation of current energy levels plus 1% YOY, turns out that you would need to cover the world with panels in just a few decades. There are proved new technology on nuclear (like molten salt and front advancing reactors) that is orders of magnitude safer. The light water reactor design from the 50-60th used in this aging plants was funded by Navy and wa…
Nah. Less area than that http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08...
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all, and sorry I guess I misspoke. Whatever works: pumping water up hill, spinning flywheels etc. all sound fine to me. It's simply a question of whether it meets current energy demand, environmental impact, and cost. Come to think of it, I've only ever looked at the per KW hour cost of batteries (lead-acid seems to be the clear winner). You wouldn't happen to have references for other energy storage methods?
Other than Wikipedia, no; I was hoping you would. That's why I asked. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage I think it's an interesting field though.
David Mackay's "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" has good numbers comparing many different forms of energy storage:
http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/.
It's a "hard-headed" engineering look at our energy options written by a physicist. It might be a bit outdated (published in 2008), but when it came out it was the best compendium I'd seen.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#548My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…
Do people lose faith and trust because of the accidents, or does it just uncover existing perspectives? From a rational perspective, people should lose faith in technology when it spactacularly fails, or rather, we should prefer sober risk assessment over "faith" in the first place. I'm just not sure about the political capital argument.
The problem is that people take the accidents as reasons to retreat into pre-scientific beliefs in gods and goblins. One step forward, two steps back is still a step back.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn't want a plant from the 60s Me neither. Unfortunately, that's all we have, since we're not building any more :(
Realistically, even 60s-era plants are expensive enough to construct that the existing plants are going to continue to operate for as long as possible.
That's exactly how Fukushima happened: "these plants will be so expensive to decommission, we can't afford NOT to keep extending their lifetime!"
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are identical scenarios. The only difference is the scale. In both scenarios I am "rolling the dice" on a catastrophic failure in exchange for energy - and if I am home when it happens it will shorten my lifespan significantly.
Saying the scenarios are identical doesn't make them so. And scale matters. But... I'd say with truly modern nuclear power, safety is less of an issue. Perception of safety is still an issue. So your home value will go down. No biggie; you may be ok with that. The issue that really bugs me though is that with nuclear, a large government or corporate entity has decided to roll the dice for you on your behalf. With som…
The scenarios are the same.
Gas explosion: house destroyed, possessions gone, death if I am home, move to a new home.
Nuclear incident: house is uninhabitable, possessions gone, possibility of shortened lifespan if I receive excessive radiation, move to a new home.
Actually you are right: they aren't the same because the nuclear incident has a better outcome.
>I prefer local control. Nuclear is too centralized.
I'm willing to bet that you don't actually believe this about any other type of government.