You are likely right. Electrifying transportation in the US gives us about half a day of average power consumption in used battery storage. So, while we probably don't need that much storage it may be considered so inexpensive that we'll use it all. To me, that means some awesome really big power draws, like a space catapult, will be easy to run.
Actually, he has that covered. His preferred system is a bit overbuilt to cut reliance on transmission. You'd enjoy his book "Reinventing Fire" available through most libraries. http://www.rmi.org/
In fact, this is not needed, just as storage does not seem to be needed. More transmission, yes, but conventional HVDC will do the job. http://www.rmi.org/
Doing you homework is what makes you an expert. Pretty clearly, Lovins has done his as you would know if you had done yours. http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-pre...
This idea has the lowest overall cost of four possible scenarios to cut carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2050. So, invest in storage if you like. But it is unclear you'll have customers.
France has probably done worse than most countries. They suffered from central planning and so could not react quickly as the learning curve proved to be negative. http://www.nirs.org/neconomics...
"It has long since turned into politics" In a way, nuclear power is suitable to totalitarian systems that believe they will exist forever. There is no problem with nuclear waste in an eternal police state. In a Jeffersonian democracy, the possibility of a hiatus in police power is needed to rescue the liberty that authority is normally constituted to preserve. That does not really fit with being able to permanently guard nuclear waste.
I support nuclear propulsion in naval applications. Commercial nuclear power is rather obviously a poor technology choice with a high catastrophic accident rate, no waste disposal solution and is way too expensive.
Except that this would be a way to lose the war, not win it. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C... And, when nuclear builds were common, factor of three overruns were common as well.
The rivers have low flow a lot of the time so you'd need a cooling pond in a flood plain which would get washed away fairly regularly. Not a good environment for nuclear.
Getting the facts completely wrong seems to be the main defining feature of nuclear fanbois. These delays are self-inflicted. http://www.thestate.com/2014/0...
Slashdot Mirror
So you didn't like that is was fully referenced? Maybe you didn't read it after all.
You don't like institute research, you don't like university research. Basically you are just like a climate change denier.
You are likely right. Electrifying transportation in the US gives us about half a day of average power consumption in used battery storage. So, while we probably don't need that much storage it may be considered so inexpensive that we'll use it all. To me, that means some awesome really big power draws, like a space catapult, will be easy to run.
Or read here: http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R...
Quite a few peer reviewed publications here. http://scholar.google.com/scho... Seems you got that wrong.
The Pacific intertie seems to have worked for a while now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... Sunshine does seem to instill timezones here...
You can see why nuclear power can't compete: http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C...
Actually, he has that covered. His preferred system is a bit overbuilt to cut reliance on transmission. You'd enjoy his book "Reinventing Fire" available through most libraries. http://www.rmi.org/
In fact, this is not needed, just as storage does not seem to be needed. More transmission, yes, but conventional HVDC will do the job. http://www.rmi.org/
Read his book and you'll find you are incorrect. http://www.rmi.org/
RTFA
Have an odd sense of humor.
Perhaps you should look over this NREL study. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/r... The things you worry about seem pretty well worked out there.
Long history of publications... http://www.rmi.org/
RTFA. AC is covered.
Doing you homework is what makes you an expert. Pretty clearly, Lovins has done his as you would know if you had done yours. http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-pre...
This idea has the lowest overall cost of four possible scenarios to cut carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2050. So, invest in storage if you like. But it is unclear you'll have customers.
France has probably done worse than most countries. They suffered from central planning and so could not react quickly as the learning curve proved to be negative. http://www.nirs.org/neconomics...
That is very silly. GE, Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox and Combustion Engineering designed most reactors and reused their designs.
"It has long since turned into politics" In a way, nuclear power is suitable to totalitarian systems that believe they will exist forever. There is no problem with nuclear waste in an eternal police state. In a Jeffersonian democracy, the possibility of a hiatus in police power is needed to rescue the liberty that authority is normally constituted to preserve. That does not really fit with being able to permanently guard nuclear waste.
This is not really an issue: http://science.slashdot.org/st...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
I support nuclear propulsion in naval applications. Commercial nuclear power is rather obviously a poor technology choice with a high catastrophic accident rate, no waste disposal solution and is way too expensive.
Except that this would be a way to lose the war, not win it. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C... And, when nuclear builds were common, factor of three overruns were common as well.
The rivers have low flow a lot of the time so you'd need a cooling pond in a flood plain which would get washed away fairly regularly. Not a good environment for nuclear.
Getting the facts completely wrong seems to be the main defining feature of nuclear fanbois. These delays are self-inflicted. http://www.thestate.com/2014/0...