As you'll see in the link to the meeting, California has already done what you ask.
On a time scale choice, how about the Moore's Law scale since it is silicon after all. Remember also that
a fabrication plant produces more capacity every year so this year's built GW of capacity means 25 GW over
25 years after which is has to change over to recyling what it previously produced, though at lower cost.
Current research from CIGRE,(7) (International Conference on Large High Voltage Electric Systems), indicates that long-distance transmission can be made reliable and economically successful up to 7000 kilometers with HVDC, (High-Voltage Direct Current), and 4000 kilometers with HVAC, (High-Voltage Alternating Current). This permits inter-regional and even intercontinental power delivery from remote sites where large renewable energy sources are found.
Granted, they are thinking of large remote hydro and pulling together resources from a dispersed grid for long distance transmission
might be a problem. I'm not so sure though that if we consider an intercontinental interconnect carrying enough power to cover night time
use that we really want to use the same thinking about depreciation as we would for a 200 mile run of transmission. One might want to
build it to last a few hundred years, in which case thicker conductors might be justified allowing much lower losses. We seem to be willing
to build intercontinental oil and gas pipelines that will only last 30 years before the fields are exhausted. That is quite a bit of
material to put out for such a short return. However, energy storage is likely going to be important and I'm not sure what the
balance will be. You'd want a large over capacity before you start sending power to your benighted neighbors on the other side of the world.
Here is a better link for ethanol yields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethanol#Yields_of_ common_crops_associated_with_ethanol_production.
I don't disagree that biodiesel has a lot of advantages. It can be used in home heating in a B20 mix for example. But the yield
per acre is not as high as for ethanol and the higher energy density does not make up for this. The lower energy input might
in some cases. It is true that you can make biodiesel from almost any oil, but plants don't make that much oil.
The big problem for biofuels from rooted plants is that the watt per square meter ourput is pretty low compared to silicon photovoltaics
so you end up needing a lot of area to match our energy use whereas the area needed for solar power is about the same as our roof area,
space we are not otherwise using. The much larger areas needed for biofuels lead to a competition between food and fuel that does not
make a lot of sense from the point of view of trying to live well. Putting too much land under cultivation also has water use and
ecological consequences. But, there is likely some role for both ethanol and biodiesel from rooted plants. Algae can approch the
efficiency of silicon with adequate CO2 input. This might be a way to avoid the land use issues to some extend though you're tied
to a CO2 source. The concentration of N2 for this process http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/iecred/as ap/abs/ie061550u.html
might, as a by-product, also concetrate CO2 at the same time in which case there could be some synergy. But, for now the high efficiency
algae appear to be tied to consumption of fossil fuels.
I thought it strange that I was asked if I was a nuclear engineer. It seemed a strange question given that my profile
is available. As to qualifications to comment, nuclear safety is really everyone's business because it poses a threat to all of us. I can express concern whether I know how he abbreviates quality assurance or not. I asked Aglassis a question which
was relevant to the discussion despite his rather rude opening. This was not a personal attack but rather a
request for information. I would like to know how much the nuclear industry is covering up accidents that it is obligated to report.
I take him at his word that he has not been involved in such activity. I apologized when he took offence at my question which was
phrased provocatively in response to his apparant attitude that the reported accidents were of no significance.
He clearly mischaracterized the existing list of nuclear accidents and has not responded to me on this issue, so basically I figure
he's all hat.
I'm not too surprised people in the nuclear industry would react defensively to this news. So, his rude tone does not
bother me much.
Your tone, on the other hand, does not appear to have much to excuse it.
I agree that energy storage is a key issue, though it is not impossible to follow Bucky Fuller's vision and simply extend the
grid so that the Sun is always shining on it and the wind is always blowing over it.
You might be interested in some of the slides linked here which show that if we follow California in efficiency there is really no
need for more coal plants http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/trimming.html. My state is looking at some of those programs now.
If this happens, then it is just a matter of making the coal plants produce less and less. Once they are down to nothing from time
to time, the nuclear plants will be decommissioned.
Wait, the depression from the collapse of the housing market hasn't happened yet. How can you be sure he is always right? I mean left,
I mean... You know what I mean.
I've listed some representative yields for ethanol and biodiesel production here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html
along with where they come from. From what I can see the ethanol yield is substantially higher on a gallon per acre basis. This makes some sense since plants
tend to produce more sugar and starch than oil. But, it may well be that biodiesel production is more effective since the squeezed soy
or peanuts still contain useful proteins that are incorporated in food and feed. -- Use the Sun better: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
That is what we are all waiting for I think. Batteries that last longer than the car with high energy density.
This is an intermediate kluge. What you are looking for in hidden costs is in plain sight though: Low range and low speed. That's
three bucks to go 200 km so to compare with a regular car you need to fill it three or four times. And, you can't go far from your
filling station if you want round-the-clock operation. On the other hand, this also means that the side of the road you're stuck on
won't be far from an electric plug and you can charge up in four hours with that. The things will be easy to push as well. Yabbadabbadoooo!
I think Krugman picks up his leftish reputation from supporting single payer health care and also regulation of finacial markets.
He sees a charter role for government in promoting the general welfare and so is not so antsy about governemnt stepping in when it
could save some money or avoid a depression. For those who consider the preamble of the Constitution to be window dressing, these
positions seem leftist.
Sorry to say, I'm trying to catch up with Micheal Moore's films and "Bowling for Columbine" put me to sleep the other night despite
it being very popular at Slashdot. I have not seen the film that followed but I've heard that it suggests that Bush is very freindly
with the Saudis. Maybe he'd have a hard time doing what you suggest. -- Rent American: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
I've been thinking about energy crops recently because my state Senator Mac Middleton is not on board with the Global Warming
Solutions Act currently before the Maryland State Legislature. There was a tobacco buy out some years ago that really put a damper
on the economy of southern Maryland because farming activity fell off. People farm just enough to get the buyout money but they can't
make much on the replacement crops.
I came across this site which claims that tobacco makes a good energy crop: http://home.ktc.com/bdrake/altengy.html. And, there is
still a lot of know-how here about growing tobacco which might come in handy if the encouraging preliminary studies cited there pan out.
I've really only suggested that Senator Middleton attach a buy Maryland provision to the Act that would have state fleets buy Maryland
produced biofuels at $3.50 a gallon, the level Tom Freidman suggests as a base price for gas. And, this would likely favor soy or rapeseed based
biodiesel rather than ethanol, but the idea of tobacco as an energy crop in Maryland is intriguing.
Actually, solar is set to take a big bite out of coal because it can compete on price. In the US, oil is used less for power
generation but the price competition is even more obvious. Because the cost shifting on the nuclear power front is so entrenched,
particularly with inadequate insurance and no costing of waste disposal, nuclear power appears to be competitive with coal and oil
as well, but this is not the case. On the other hand, while solar will reduce coal use, in terms of facilities it will likely
shut down nuclear plants first. The reason is that in a distributed renewable grid, base loads become ill-defined. The emphasis
has to be on flexibility and low cost energy storage while nuclear power is really only good at constant power output. You can
read more about this here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewables -displace-nukes-first.html.
I take your point on lobbying, but to me the most important aspect is reliability. Had every fourth house been solar powered
after Rita and Katina, our response might have been much more effective and less dependent on federal coordination because food and medicine could have been preserved and water pumped. It is that base level reliability that makes decentralized power generation so attractive.
Electric cars are also cheaper to run. You get regenerative braking as a help but basically it is more efficient to have high delta T
at the power generating plant and coal is also cheaper than oil. --
Solar is cheaper still: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Or... What was your name again, Oh Yeah, Dear Bill,
I'm so sorry to let you know this way that I just can't, can't... can't keep from laughing
at the way you come crawling in this demeaning way.
OK, here's what you do. Declare linux users a charitable cause, pay them to use windoz and
write it off your taxes.
Come on John, I mean Bill, you know that's the next step after free and only you could pull it off.
The shut down was for the secondary coolant, not the primary.
Interestingly, folks at SPAWARS have recently developed a method to preload deuterium into pladium which might
make the screen in the old style fusor more useful than in the past. They seem to be getting high energy
particle tracks without so much effort though. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#apsr eport.
I think we might be able to agree about the desirability of distributed power generation. Substituting
such sources into the distribution network that solar power creates should be a fairly straight forward
market development.
I think I'm going to wait for batteries in a car because that solves my back up power needs but this gets to my speed needs better than the
zebra: http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=188.
Unlike the majority of traditional cars on the market, MDIs vehicle's have fibreglass bodies which makes them light, silent urban car. The car's body is tubular, light weight, and is held together using aerospace technology.
Thanks for the link. They also claim a low cost of operation (1.5 eruos for 200 km).
The recharging of the car will be done at gas stations, once the market is developed. To fill the tanks it will take about to 2 to 3 minutes at a price of 1.5 euros. After refilling the car will be ready to driver 200 kilometres.
Sodium fires don't produce any neutrons. Neither is meltdown a runaway reaction the way a bomb is. It is basically normal
operation in the absence of coolant. The fuel cannot sustain the heat, melts, flows together and continues to react as is pools
generating more heat. The mess stops if the heating produces sufficent kinetic energy to end the reaction. If enough heat
has been produced, containment won't hold and things will be very bad. Kinetic energy can be provided by, for example, the vaporization of
nearby material.
The issue with sodium as a coolant is that is can oxidize very rapidly if there is an oxygen leak, leaving no coolant while at the
same time producing quite a bit of kinetic energy of its own, leaving little confidence that specially arranged reactor geometries
could be preserved.
The distrust that people have for nuclear power is well founded. The early promises from the industry have never materialized. This
goes for cost as well as safety. I don't really think we should think of Chernobyl as a large accident because yes, meltdown is a risk
for any reactor and the close proximity of many nuclear plants to regions with high population density make a Chernobyl sized event
potentially much more deadly. Perhaps you don't understand the energies involved. Containment is for moderate screw ups, it cannot
be engineered to handle a full scale meltdown.
In the area of design improvements, it is pretty clear that these are needed and that the relic plants should be shut down. But, sodium
has a pretty obvious failure mode that makes it pretty unsuitable as a primary coolant. This is quite different from the idea of
using lithium as a coolant for fusion because failure in this case does not lead to meltdown. Fission really does depend on controlling
geometry and failure to do so leads to disasterous results. Violently oxidizing coolant (or cladding) is very unlikely to allow
for that measure of control.
Somehow we ended up in two threads and I didn't reply here.
I guess I would not characterize insisting on better safety as hysterical. As we can see, may people have died owing to
nuclear power. I'm not so sure that the specific leasons from Chernobyl have really been learned though. The one I see is that
plant operators are going to think what they are doing is safe even when it isn't. This is the nature of operator error.
In the present cover up, it sounds like even recognizing operator error after it has happened is not so easy to do.
This is why you find people involved in the nuclear power industry to be so defensive. People, naturally, don't trust
their competence all that much and insist on regulation. Operators feel insulted and then push the envelope, further eroding
any confidence in their competence.
To me, getting around this problem is very very difficult because it is deeply rooted in human nature. We need calm, competent
operators to maintain safety but we need to second guess them as well because no one is perfect and this creates disgruntled
operators who are not so calm. With nuclear power, we are in a situation where making it foolproof is not adequate, we have to make
it smartproof too since smart people make more complex mistakes that have broader consequences because they've gained greater
responsibility.
It seems to me that safe, reliable power generation will benefit greatly from distributed renewable generation. The smartproof
requirements are much lower and, because the base systems are much less complex, the foolproof aspects are much easier to handle.
There are still problems that need to be addressed such as what sort of emergent behavior might show up in a smart energy grid, but
these problems seem much more tractable than, say, nuclear sabotage which arises from the vunerability to single point human failure.
On thing that is helpful here is to seek wisdom. There are two sides to the seventh generation priciple that began to regain currency in
the 2000 election. The first side is that we should use foresight to consider the interests of the seventh generation and not do things
which harm those interests. The other side is the recognition that foresight is limited. You might be able to guess what the interests
of the seventh generation might be, but those of the 70th generation are a little hard to discern. Given that, leaving boobytraps in the form of nuclear waste, for the 70th generations is pretty irresponsible. But, we can look towards to seventh generation and see that creating a realiable, safe and sustainable power generation system now based on renewable energy would serve their interests rather well.
So, the main lesson of Chernobyl may ultimately be to keep it simple and sustainable as a basis for best practices in power generation.
In the interim, it highlights the problems with lessons learned systems in the context of highly complex, regulated systems. On the
small government conservative side, the basic thing to see is that small goverment requires limiting the amount of activity that needs
regulation. Granting licenses to operate very big complex endevors implies a willingness to provide a complex and costly regulatory system.
It will be interesting to see how this sinks in among those who look to Jefferson and Madison's opposition to Hamilton's risky schemes for understanding and wisdom.
Switching to nuclear power quickly is very difficult. Obtaining permits for new plants is pretty time consuming.
I wonder it you could post you envelope. I get about forty 500 MW per year production capacity plants as a ballpark number.
To me this does not seem so hard.
Why do you discount existing nuclear accidents? That seems a bit strange to me.
Slashdot Mirror
On a time scale choice, how about the Moore's Law scale since it is silicon after all. Remember also that a fabrication plant produces more capacity every year so this year's built GW of capacity means 25 GW over 25 years after which is has to change over to recyling what it previously produced, though at lower cost.
There is an organization that is working of Fuller's vision called GENI. Here is a quote from this link http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/geni/sim
Granted, they are thinking of large remote hydro and pulling together resources from a dispersed grid for long distance transmission might be a problem. I'm not so sure though that if we consider an intercontinental interconnect carrying enough power to cover night time use that we really want to use the same thinking about depreciation as we would for a 200 mile run of transmission. One might want to build it to last a few hundred years, in which case thicker conductors might be justified allowing much lower losses. We seem to be willing to build intercontinental oil and gas pipelines that will only last 30 years before the fields are exhausted. That is quite a bit of material to put out for such a short return. However, energy storage is likely going to be important and I'm not sure what the balance will be. You'd want a large over capacity before you start sending power to your benighted neighbors on the other side of the world.
Some of the biggest solar fabrication plants are going in in China http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/chinas_ri
Here is a better link for ethanol yields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethanol#Yields_of_ common_crops_associated_with_ethanol_production.
s ap/abs/ie061550u.html
might, as a by-product, also concetrate CO2 at the same time in which case there could be some synergy. But, for now the high efficiency
algae appear to be tied to consumption of fossil fuels.
I don't disagree that biodiesel has a lot of advantages. It can be used in home heating in a B20 mix for example. But the yield per acre is not as high as for ethanol and the higher energy density does not make up for this. The lower energy input might in some cases. It is true that you can make biodiesel from almost any oil, but plants don't make that much oil.
The big problem for biofuels from rooted plants is that the watt per square meter ourput is pretty low compared to silicon photovoltaics so you end up needing a lot of area to match our energy use whereas the area needed for solar power is about the same as our roof area, space we are not otherwise using. The much larger areas needed for biofuels lead to a competition between food and fuel that does not make a lot of sense from the point of view of trying to live well. Putting too much land under cultivation also has water use and ecological consequences. But, there is likely some role for both ethanol and biodiesel from rooted plants. Algae can approch the efficiency of silicon with adequate CO2 input. This might be a way to avoid the land use issues to some extend though you're tied to a CO2 source. The concentration of N2 for this process http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/iecred/a
I thought it strange that I was asked if I was a nuclear engineer. It seemed a strange question given that my profile is available. As to qualifications to comment, nuclear safety is really everyone's business because it poses a threat to all of us. I can express concern whether I know how he abbreviates quality assurance or not. I asked Aglassis a question which was relevant to the discussion despite his rather rude opening. This was not a personal attack but rather a request for information. I would like to know how much the nuclear industry is covering up accidents that it is obligated to report. I take him at his word that he has not been involved in such activity. I apologized when he took offence at my question which was phrased provocatively in response to his apparant attitude that the reported accidents were of no significance.
He clearly mischaracterized the existing list of nuclear accidents and has not responded to me on this issue, so basically I figure he's all hat.
I'm not too surprised people in the nuclear industry would react defensively to this news. So, his rude tone does not bother me much.
Your tone, on the other hand, does not appear to have much to excuse it.
I agree that energy storage is a key issue, though it is not impossible to follow Bucky Fuller's vision and simply extend the grid so that the Sun is always shining on it and the wind is always blowing over it.
. My state is looking at some of those programs now.
If this happens, then it is just a matter of making the coal plants produce less and less. Once they are down to nothing from time
to time, the nuclear plants will be decommissioned.
You might be interested in some of the slides linked here which show that if we follow California in efficiency there is really no need for more coal plants http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/trimming.html
Wait, the depression from the collapse of the housing market hasn't happened yet. How can you be sure he is always right? I mean left, I mean... You know what I mean.
I've listed some representative yields for ethanol and biodiesel production here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html
along with where they come from. From what I can see the ethanol yield is substantially higher on a gallon per acre basis. This makes some sense since plants
tend to produce more sugar and starch than oil. But, it may well be that biodiesel production is more effective since the squeezed soy
or peanuts still contain useful proteins that are incorporated in food and feed.s -selling-solar.html
--
Use the Sun better: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
That is what we are all waiting for I think. Batteries that last longer than the car with high energy density. This is an intermediate kluge. What you are looking for in hidden costs is in plain sight though: Low range and low speed. That's three bucks to go 200 km so to compare with a regular car you need to fill it three or four times. And, you can't go far from your filling station if you want round-the-clock operation. On the other hand, this also means that the side of the road you're stuck on won't be far from an electric plug and you can charge up in four hours with that. The things will be easy to push as well. Yabbadabbadoooo!
This method of producing biofuels looks as though it might enhance soil as well. Looks a bit like a bison ecology: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314 /5805/1598.s -selling-solar.html
--
Graze the Sun: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I think Krugman picks up his leftish reputation from supporting single payer health care and also regulation of finacial markets. He sees a charter role for government in promoting the general welfare and so is not so antsy about governemnt stepping in when it could save some money or avoid a depression. For those who consider the preamble of the Constitution to be window dressing, these positions seem leftist.
Sorry to say, I'm trying to catch up with Micheal Moore's films and "Bowling for Columbine" put me to sleep the other night despite it being very popular at Slashdot. I have not seen the film that followed but I've heard that it suggests that Bush is very freindly with the Saudis. Maybe he'd have a hard time doing what you suggest.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent American: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I've been thinking about energy crops recently because my state Senator Mac Middleton is not on board with the Global Warming Solutions Act currently before the Maryland State Legislature. There was a tobacco buy out some years ago that really put a damper on the economy of southern Maryland because farming activity fell off. People farm just enough to get the buyout money but they can't make much on the replacement crops.
s .html in an entry on biofuels.s -selling-solar.html
I came across this site which claims that tobacco makes a good energy crop: http://home.ktc.com/bdrake/altengy.html. And, there is still a lot of know-how here about growing tobacco which might come in handy if the encouraging preliminary studies cited there pan out.
I've really only suggested that Senator Middleton attach a buy Maryland provision to the Act that would have state fleets buy Maryland produced biofuels at $3.50 a gallon, the level Tom Freidman suggests as a base price for gas. And, this would likely favor soy or rapeseed based biodiesel rather than ethanol, but the idea of tobacco as an energy crop in Maryland is intriguing.
I notice that TFA misses the Earth Policy Institute's warning that new ethanol production facilites are seriously undercounted. That is linked at my blog http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesi
--
Solar: it beats corn for power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Actually, solar is set to take a big bite out of coal because it can compete on price. In the US, oil is used less for power generation but the price competition is even more obvious. Because the cost shifting on the nuclear power front is so entrenched, particularly with inadequate insurance and no costing of waste disposal, nuclear power appears to be competitive with coal and oil as well, but this is not the case. On the other hand, while solar will reduce coal use, in terms of facilities it will likely shut down nuclear plants first. The reason is that in a distributed renewable grid, base loads become ill-defined. The emphasis has to be on flexibility and low cost energy storage while nuclear power is really only good at constant power output. You can read more about this here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewables -displace-nukes-first.html.
I take your point on lobbying, but to me the most important aspect is reliability. Had every fourth house been solar powered after Rita and Katina, our response might have been much more effective and less dependent on federal coordination because food and medicine could have been preserved and water pumped. It is that base level reliability that makes decentralized power generation so attractive.
Electric cars are also cheaper to run. You get regenerative braking as a help but basically it is more efficient to have high delta T at the power generating plant and coal is also cheaper than oil.s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar is cheaper still: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Or... What was your name again, Oh Yeah, Dear Bill, I'm so sorry to let you know this way that I just can't, can't... can't keep from laughing at the way you come crawling in this demeaning way.
OK, here's what you do. Declare linux users a charitable cause, pay them to use windoz and write it off your taxes.
Come on John, I mean Bill, you know that's the next step after free and only you could pull it off.
The shut down was for the secondary coolant, not the primary.
r eport.
Interestingly, folks at SPAWARS have recently developed a method to preload deuterium into pladium which might make the screen in the old style fusor more useful than in the past. They seem to be getting high energy particle tracks without so much effort though. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#aps
I think we might be able to agree about the desirability of distributed power generation. Substituting such sources into the distribution network that solar power creates should be a fairly straight forward market development.
But I did find this improved model from the good old days. http://www.buychoice.com/prodDetail.cfm/23261,Bugg y%20Heater,MX2. Back
then you just packed hot stones from the hearth.
I blogged on this a while back. Kyoto was modeled on the Montreal Protocol and now both are in bad shape. Here's a fresh link in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/business/worldbu siness/15warming.html to look at if you want to read the
blog which links to an older and now subscription only article http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/heir-of-leader ship.html.
Barney, what says we get some borontosaurus ribs.
Ehhh sounds good to me Fred, coming Dino?
--
How could they be funny without any flatulence jokes?
You don't have to put the panel on the car, you can put it on your home roof http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html. The cars take about 4 hours to charge with their
on board compressors if that fits your driving habits.
You can get on a wait list for a car here http://www.theaircar.com/models_iwantone.html. NB, the solar link is also a wait list.
I think I'm going to wait for batteries in a car because that solves my back up power needs but this gets to my speed needs better than the zebra: http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=188.
http://www.theaircar.com/thecar.html
--
Get renewable: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
This seems in line with the cost of running an electric vehicle. Presumably the engine is used for braking.
--
Now run it on solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Sodium fires don't produce any neutrons. Neither is meltdown a runaway reaction the way a bomb is. It is basically normal operation in the absence of coolant. The fuel cannot sustain the heat, melts, flows together and continues to react as is pools generating more heat. The mess stops if the heating produces sufficent kinetic energy to end the reaction. If enough heat has been produced, containment won't hold and things will be very bad. Kinetic energy can be provided by, for example, the vaporization of nearby material.
The issue with sodium as a coolant is that is can oxidize very rapidly if there is an oxygen leak, leaving no coolant while at the same time producing quite a bit of kinetic energy of its own, leaving little confidence that specially arranged reactor geometries could be preserved.
The distrust that people have for nuclear power is well founded. The early promises from the industry have never materialized. This goes for cost as well as safety. I don't really think we should think of Chernobyl as a large accident because yes, meltdown is a risk for any reactor and the close proximity of many nuclear plants to regions with high population density make a Chernobyl sized event potentially much more deadly. Perhaps you don't understand the energies involved. Containment is for moderate screw ups, it cannot be engineered to handle a full scale meltdown.
In the area of design improvements, it is pretty clear that these are needed and that the relic plants should be shut down. But, sodium has a pretty obvious failure mode that makes it pretty unsuitable as a primary coolant. This is quite different from the idea of using lithium as a coolant for fusion because failure in this case does not lead to meltdown. Fission really does depend on controlling geometry and failure to do so leads to disasterous results. Violently oxidizing coolant (or cladding) is very unlikely to allow for that measure of control.
Somehow we ended up in two threads and I didn't reply here.
I guess I would not characterize insisting on better safety as hysterical. As we can see, may people have died owing to nuclear power. I'm not so sure that the specific leasons from Chernobyl have really been learned though. The one I see is that plant operators are going to think what they are doing is safe even when it isn't. This is the nature of operator error. In the present cover up, it sounds like even recognizing operator error after it has happened is not so easy to do.
This is why you find people involved in the nuclear power industry to be so defensive. People, naturally, don't trust their competence all that much and insist on regulation. Operators feel insulted and then push the envelope, further eroding any confidence in their competence.
To me, getting around this problem is very very difficult because it is deeply rooted in human nature. We need calm, competent operators to maintain safety but we need to second guess them as well because no one is perfect and this creates disgruntled operators who are not so calm. With nuclear power, we are in a situation where making it foolproof is not adequate, we have to make it smartproof too since smart people make more complex mistakes that have broader consequences because they've gained greater responsibility.
It seems to me that safe, reliable power generation will benefit greatly from distributed renewable generation. The smartproof requirements are much lower and, because the base systems are much less complex, the foolproof aspects are much easier to handle. There are still problems that need to be addressed such as what sort of emergent behavior might show up in a smart energy grid, but these problems seem much more tractable than, say, nuclear sabotage which arises from the vunerability to single point human failure.
On thing that is helpful here is to seek wisdom. There are two sides to the seventh generation priciple that began to regain currency in the 2000 election. The first side is that we should use foresight to consider the interests of the seventh generation and not do things which harm those interests. The other side is the recognition that foresight is limited. You might be able to guess what the interests of the seventh generation might be, but those of the 70th generation are a little hard to discern. Given that, leaving boobytraps in the form of nuclear waste, for the 70th generations is pretty irresponsible. But, we can look towards to seventh generation and see that creating a realiable, safe and sustainable power generation system now based on renewable energy would serve their interests rather well.
So, the main lesson of Chernobyl may ultimately be to keep it simple and sustainable as a basis for best practices in power generation. In the interim, it highlights the problems with lessons learned systems in the context of highly complex, regulated systems. On the small government conservative side, the basic thing to see is that small goverment requires limiting the amount of activity that needs regulation. Granting licenses to operate very big complex endevors implies a willingness to provide a complex and costly regulatory system. It will be interesting to see how this sinks in among those who look to Jefferson and Madison's opposition to Hamilton's risky schemes for understanding and wisdom.
Switching to nuclear power quickly is very difficult. Obtaining permits for new plants is pretty time consuming.
I wonder it you could post you envelope. I get about forty 500 MW per year production capacity plants as a ballpark number. To me this does not seem so hard.
Why do you discount existing nuclear accidents? That seems a bit strange to me.