Since the US only pruduced 48 kilos through the 1980s, it will be a very long time before you can power a single house. Nuclear is definitely not cheap enough to idle. In many places it is too expensive to keep using.
RTGs are not cheap. Can't possibly contribute to civilian power in any meaningful way. The factory concept sounds like dirty bombs on rails. Not secure at all.
The forges was a reference to the failed Great Leap Forward. China has been shutting coal mines. http://www.mining.com/china-to... and recently announced a moratorium on new mine approvals.
OK, so new nuclear costs $0.14/kwh assuming 90% capacity factor. Now you want to switch to 60% capacity factor. That raises the cost to $0.19/kwh? Maybe the batteries would be cheaper.
You are right that nuclear does not do small well. Naval reactors do well but need dangerously enriched fuel for civilian use. Small is extra expensive for nuclear. But nuclear does not do large very well either. The cooling requirements become too great. Nuclear it thermally inefficient because the fuel needs to be protected from itself. So a gigawatt is about as big as it gets.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean?
Since the US only pruduced 48 kilos through the 1980s, it will be a very long time before you can power a single house. Nuclear is definitely not cheap enough to idle. In many places it is too expensive to keep using.
They were watching the inverse Laplace Transform of subliminal porn.
School band or orchestra, piano lessons are better.
RTGs are not cheap. Can't possibly contribute to civilian power in any meaningful way. The factory concept sounds like dirty bombs on rails. Not secure at all.
Enlighten me, what designs are there that do that?
My son, who decided to ace the math portion of the SAT, spends time with a Rubik's cube.
Right, so what vast supply of energy allows RTGs to scale and replace reactors? Does not exist. Just dregs from reactors....
Ah, it can be done but not safely. I recall Chernobyl had a large fluctuation like that....
You can chew that cudd but it won't have the freshness or veracity of the original.
Think this through again. Why don't they just use the spent fuel and never refuel? Is the after heat really enough to do anything useful?
So there are no designs that can....
GW scale reactors don't do that. Small reactors do but not for $0.30/kwh the way gas peakers do. Small reactors are a poor fit for civilian use.
Military reactors are very expensive. French reactor costs are tough to estimate but are known to have a negative learning curve.
Think of how reactors work on reactions, not waste. The energy is not there.
There is a new HVDC breaker that avoids that issue. http://news.nationalgeographic...
The forges was a reference to the failed Great Leap Forward. China has been shutting coal mines. http://www.mining.com/china-to... and recently announced a moratorium on new mine approvals.
I still have a large supply of cfls from a home gardening project.
Can't think of one example of that. Current hold up is some supplier in Chicago. They really do screw it up all by themselves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
RTGs don't scale at all. Where would you possibly get the fuel for an energetically significant deployment?
OK, so new nuclear costs $0.14/kwh assuming 90% capacity factor. Now you want to switch to 60% capacity factor. That raises the cost to $0.19/kwh? Maybe the batteries would be cheaper.
You are right that nuclear does not do small well. Naval reactors do well but need dangerously enriched fuel for civilian use. Small is extra expensive for nuclear. But nuclear does not do large very well either. The cooling requirements become too great. Nuclear it thermally inefficient because the fuel needs to be protected from itself. So a gigawatt is about as big as it gets.
Nukes are federally licensed. They go way over budget seemingly automatically. Hugely expensive and they do it to themselves.
Glad you are cowering in a corner. Transmission has a low carbon cost.