Thermal efficency is a pretty standard concept that you should review. As an example, the Magnox reactor, a commercial gas cooled design, ran at about 19% efficiency. It's working fluid was steam and it had to be cooled with water. A combined cycle gas turbine runs at 60% efficiency. It also has to be cooled, but less so, and some are set up for air cooling.
No, the nuclear follies are very rich these days. It is just that the editors like stuff with potty humor possibilities. 'Remember how you used to say "do it again, flush me J."'
Not so. Nuke are about 30% efficient, coal plants around 45% and gas plants around 60%. Other forms of generation need less cooling. Gas can get away with air cooling.
Caostal nuclear power is very vulnerable to sea level rise. But, in Floral it is doubly so. Their customers all have too move away as well. http://news.nationalgeographic...
Nuclear power needs lots of cooling because the reactor and fuel arrangement is so complex and heat sensitive. Thus, these powerful intakes are needed to handle the waste heat.
So, nuclear is already the most expensive form of new generation and existing nukes can't compete with wind or gas in the midwest and northeast but you want to make it more expensive?
Oregon exports a lot of hydro to SoCal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... so your generalist point misses the mark here. With SoCal burgeoning in solar, likely the intertie will reverse.
A paper published last year demonstrates you are mistaken in this. In fact, it recently won an award from PNAS, the top US science journal. http://thesolutionsproject.org...
Slashdot Mirror
Not all. It does cost something to run the fans but air cooling is a selling point for combined cycle where cooling water is scarce.
Thermal efficency is a pretty standard concept that you should review. As an example, the Magnox reactor, a commercial gas cooled design, ran at about 19% efficiency. It's working fluid was steam and it had to be cooled with water. A combined cycle gas turbine runs at 60% efficiency. It also has to be cooled, but less so, and some are set up for air cooling.
Gas cooled and air cooled are two completely different things. You get that, right?
No, that would degrade the fuel and warp the control rods. There are engineering imparatives that keep the efficency so pitiful.
Gas plants can be air cooled. The are twice as efficient.
No, the nuclear follies are very rich these days. It is just that the editors like stuff with potty humor possibilities. 'Remember how you used to say "do it again, flush me J."'
Not so. Nuke are about 30% efficient, coal plants around 45% and gas plants around 60%. Other forms of generation need less cooling. Gas can get away with air cooling.
Caostal nuclear power is very vulnerable to sea level rise. But, in Floral it is doubly so. Their customers all have too move away as well. http://news.nationalgeographic...
Here, they could just ride in on the tide. Seems to lack physical security there.
Yup. http://www.upi.com/Archives/19...
Nuclear power needs lots of cooling because the reactor and fuel arrangement is so complex and heat sensitive. Thus, these powerful intakes are needed to handle the waste heat.
How sad for him.
Oh, wait...
So, nuclear is already the most expensive form of new generation and existing nukes can't compete with wind or gas in the midwest and northeast but you want to make it more expensive?
There is about 80 years of economically useful uranium left at the current rate of use. Not a great abundance.
You forget Humboldt Bay.
Technically, fossil fuel add to GHGs in the atmosphere. Biomass can be neutral.
California pays extra for building nuclear plants on seismic faults and then closing them because the retrofit won't work.
She was predeceased by her astrologer by more than a year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Your thoughts on this are behind the times. http://m.pnas.org/site/misc/co...
No, not at all. Check out realclimate.org
Oregon exports a lot of hydro to SoCal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... so your generalist point misses the mark here. With SoCal burgeoning in solar, likely the intertie will reverse.
A paper published last year demonstrates you are mistaken in this. In fact, it recently won an award from PNAS, the top US science journal. http://thesolutionsproject.org...
Nope. Fossil fuel add to GHGs in the atmosphere. Biomass can be neutral.
The math recently won an award from PNAS. http://thesolutionsproject.org...