There's only about 85 years of uranium left at the current rate of use, which isn't high. Natural gas in the US has more than that and in Russia even more and it produces more power than nuclear.
"Weisenmiller holds a Doctorate in Chemistry and a Masters in Energy and Resources from University of California Berkeley and received his Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from Providence College." http://www.energy.ca.gov/commi... You walked right into that one....
California is adding so much solar that it is covering reduced hydro from the drought. Shouldn't be tough to cover this as well. http://grist.org/news/solar-is...
The article indicates consumers should see reduced rates as a result of the new power. Exporting natural gas will raise domestic electricity costs substantially. The competent thing to do is to treat natural gas as strategic. Build the export facilities but only use them when Russia tries blackmail.
Lovins did find that large scale renewables with extra transmission were the least expensive option. But, we pay extra for resilience now such as it is, and building it into neighborhoods might turn out to be cost shifting rather than more expensive.
New wind PPAs are going for 2.5 cents per kWh, http://www.greentechmedia.com/... new nuclear PPA's are going for 15.5 cents per kWh. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C... Looks like you've got you numbers wrong. You can get six times more wind power and have it delivered much sooner for the same cost so there is a large opportunity cost for nuclear power.
Robert Weisenmiller, chairman of the California Energy Commission, actually seems to be an expert, When you disagree with all the experts, perhaps what you need is to go back to school.
So, ignorance of the contents of an important work in the field you claim to be expert in supports that claim how? Is it a known unknown or an unknown unknown or a known by osmosis known? Here's some paint, and there is a corner. You know what to do.
Slashdot Mirror
There's only about 85 years of uranium left at the current rate of use, which isn't high. Natural gas in the US has more than that and in Russia even more and it produces more power than nuclear.
Is back from the grave. http://www.disclose.tv/action/...
"Weisenmiller holds a Doctorate in Chemistry and a Masters in Energy and Resources from University of California Berkeley and received his Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from Providence College." http://www.energy.ca.gov/commi... You walked right into that one....
You've been bamboozled. Nuclear power is quite deadly. http://www.chernobylreport.org...
California is adding so much solar that it is covering reduced hydro from the drought. Shouldn't be tough to cover this as well. http://grist.org/news/solar-is...
Turns out storage is not much needed at 80% renewable energy supply. http://www.engineering.com/Ele...
The article indicates consumers should see reduced rates as a result of the new power. Exporting natural gas will raise domestic electricity costs substantially. The competent thing to do is to treat natural gas as strategic. Build the export facilities but only use them when Russia tries blackmail.
Lovins did find that large scale renewables with extra transmission were the least expensive option. But, we pay extra for resilience now such as it is, and building it into neighborhoods might turn out to be cost shifting rather than more expensive.
Actually it is wind and hydropower coming from Canada. Should put Indian Point Nuclear out of business. http://westfaironline.com/6503...
New wind PPAs are going for 2.5 cents per kWh, http://www.greentechmedia.com/... new nuclear PPA's are going for 15.5 cents per kWh. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C... Looks like you've got you numbers wrong. You can get six times more wind power and have it delivered much sooner for the same cost so there is a large opportunity cost for nuclear power.
If the robotic overlord reads it to you, it'll make sense.
Since you don't know what is in the book, we'll just have to consider you a clown.
You should have read the parent. It was about the UK.
Robert Weisenmiller, chairman of the California Energy Commission, actually seems to be an expert, When you disagree with all the experts, perhaps what you need is to go back to school.
Actually, the opportunity cost of nuclear power delays climate mitigation. It's the wrong choice. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C...
Less that twice as much as a '68 camero.... These fiber body designs have some value.
Read the book. There are things being done about those issues.
So, ignorance of the contents of an important work in the field you claim to be expert in supports that claim how? Is it a known unknown or an unknown unknown or a known by osmosis known? Here's some paint, and there is a corner. You know what to do.
Would you agree that natural gas is energy storage?
"Somebody ought hand renewable energy a cape and be done with it...." http://grist.org/news/solar-is...
Seems like this project would help: http://westfaironline.com/6503...
Maybe you should read the book, to help your memory....
Ah, then you must mean the 313 miles per gallon Volkswagen XL1....
Do you mean this BMW? http://www.rmi.org/winter_2014...
I know you don't like to listen to what energy experts have to say. Would have helped with Katrina or Sandy though.