Nuclear power is subsidized by the Price-Anderson Act. During the last recession, if Indian Point had had an accident, the federal government would have ended up in receiveship. Nuclear does not have costs covered at all.
Turned out that the data for Yucca was irredeemably falsified. We'll never be able to use that site because of corruption polluting the knowledge base.
You just can't do power purchase agreements under 4 cents/kwh with nuclear as you can with solar. http://www.utilitydive.com/new... Nukes are just too expensive.
The only thing alarming about National Geographic is that the accumulated weight of back issues in attics may sink Manhattan before sea level rise gets a chance.
That was a Department of Energy plan for waste. The NRC is responsible for individual sites. Storage at Humboldt Bay will be innudated, and they have not addressed this.
Wind and solar turn out to be so much cheaper, that really it is the opportunity cost of nuclear power that has delayed climate action. The politically promoted and protected nuclear industry has slowed progress for decades.
Nukes need a longer planning horizon. First, they are so costly that they need long license periods to hope to break even. Second, they are so radioactive that decommissioning is very dangerous and has to be taken slowly. Yes, we'll lose other coastal infrastructure, but that will shift inland more gracefully than nukes.
Solar panels have an albedo of about 0.11 http://journal.frontiersin.org... but for a farm, they transfer energy out of the area, so rather than turning 89% of sunlight into local heat they turn about 71% into heat locally, less than a desiduos forest which turns more than 80% of incoming sunlight into heat.
Solar energy is projected to be dirt cheap so using power from arid regions to grow plants in multistory structures using LED lights may become common. Such grow houses are already used for medical pot. Very cheap electricity may make the same happen for other less pricy crops as well. And yes, growlights have a tailored spectrum.
To get a patent, your invention must be novel. Journals also ask for novel results in their instructions to authors. Not suprising then that authors include it in their titles and abstacts.
Slashdot Mirror
Which leaves us even more uncertain. We're the reviewers also corrupt?
Nuclear power is subsidized by the Price-Anderson Act. During the last recession, if Indian Point had had an accident, the federal government would have ended up in receiveship. Nuclear does not have costs covered at all.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... You've got the wrong dump.
It turned out to be corrupt. USES scientists falsified data.
Turned out that the data for Yucca was irredeemably falsified. We'll never be able to use that site because of corruption polluting the knowledge base.
You just can't do power purchase agreements under 4 cents/kwh with nuclear as you can with solar. http://www.utilitydive.com/new... Nukes are just too expensive.
https://youtu.be/S34hOJE-DpU
The only thing alarming about National Geographic is that the accumulated weight of back issues in attics may sink Manhattan before sea level rise gets a chance.
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
That was a Department of Energy plan for waste. The NRC is responsible for individual sites. Storage at Humboldt Bay will be innudated, and they have not addressed this.
Wind and solar turn out to be so much cheaper, that really it is the opportunity cost of nuclear power that has delayed climate action. The politically promoted and protected nuclear industry has slowed progress for decades.
Florida is much more porous.
Nukes need a longer planning horizon. First, they are so costly that they need long license periods to hope to break even. Second, they are so radioactive that decommissioning is very dangerous and has to be taken slowly. Yes, we'll lose other coastal infrastructure, but that will shift inland more gracefully than nukes.
That is a thought. Perhaps we should also consider the convective cooling over the solar farm.
The fashionable retirement plan for nukes is sixty years in mothballs before decommissioning. Soggy mothballs are an issue for these plants.
Learning nuclear lessons is so enjoyable.
The NRC has pretty much ignored this in relicensing decisions. And they've made no plan for the waste stored at Humboldt Bay in northern California.
Sounds like a great way to hurt the US economy and end on-shoring. Natural gas has be our advantage recently.
Solar panels have an albedo of about 0.11 http://journal.frontiersin.org... but for a farm, they transfer energy out of the area, so rather than turning 89% of sunlight into local heat they turn about 71% into heat locally, less than a desiduos forest which turns more than 80% of incoming sunlight into heat.
US producers have US markets. It's multinationals that wanted this.
Solar energy is projected to be dirt cheap so using power from arid regions to grow plants in multistory structures using LED lights may become common. Such grow houses are already used for medical pot. Very cheap electricity may make the same happen for other less pricy crops as well. And yes, growlights have a tailored spectrum.
Congress is giving away all the oil to multinationals. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
To get a patent, your invention must be novel. Journals also ask for novel results in their instructions to authors. Not suprising then that authors include it in their titles and abstacts.
When a computer causes pseudo random numbers to be displayed, would there be a correlation to suggest the cause?