That is Gen III, not IV and has been pointed out "the Westinghouse AP1000 has a weaker containment, less redundancy in safety systems, and fewer safety features than current reactors" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02... so we're really looking at putting lipstick on a pig in much of this.
It is not just inert, but screened by the ash. The ash is (slightly) vitrified soil from the forest where the coal came from. It is like other low carbon soil in its uranium concentration. So there just is no increase in background radiation. The claim that there is is like saying using a bulldozer exposed new uranium. It does, but it buries just as much as it exposes.
Fossil fuels are depleted in carbon-14 so when they are burned, the amount of carbon-14 in our food is reduced. So, fossil fuels use cuts our radiation exposure. Not a good reason to use them, but the effect is opposite claimed in that paper, which is really a disgrace for ORNL.
"The estimated start of the fuel melting is roughly consistent with when neutrons were detected near the front gate of the nuclear plant, according to the officials."
I understand the there are a lot of fanbois out there for this stuff, but it was tried and it failed. Working out the kinks does not describe what one does with a fundamentally flawed design concept.
Your complaint was with Lovins saying there was a factor of seven in there regarding Midwest wind and UK nuclear. Turns out he is correct. Regarding subsidies in the US, the Price Anderson subsidy for nuclear is about the same as the production tax credit for wind. It is rare to see a power purchase agreement for new nuclear. Usually there are huge cost overruns and you don't know much about what the power will cost until the plant is complete. So, it was wise of Lovins to take advantage of this one to gain a clearer understanding of the cost of new nuclear power. It seems very, very expensive.
So, Lovins is comparing a power purchase agreement (PPA) price for new nuclear power with the same for new wind power. A factor of seven looks correct. Now, accident liability is more restricted in the UK so they've got a bigger subsidy for nuclear power than in the US. In the US, the 1991$ subsidy was about $30 million per reactor per year according the the EIA. With inflation and real estate development since then, that comes to around $0.02/kWh as an insurance subsidy here in the US. Another aspect is that PPAs signed this year commence delivery the next year for wind but for nuclear it will be more than a decade. With the cost of wind falling, the fairer comparison would be for future wind PPA's where we might see a factor of 12 or 14 rather than seven.
Coal seems to be in decline too in the US. Exelon has its hand out for state subsidies from Illinois thinking the decline of coal may be a chance for nuclear, but that won't last long even if Illinois says yes initially. So, it won't be nuclear replacing coal if even existing plants can't stay open. And it definitely won't be breeders.
Yes, unpleasant surprises seems to be the fate of breeders in general. For that matter, the accident rate for once through reactors, though lower, is unacceptably high. Urging moving to an even more accident prone and unstable technology is irresponsible.
Worse and worse. Think of the Hamm-Uentrop accident or the huge clean up costs for the failed molten salt experiment. Sodium cooled is least worse though still not good enough.
Slashdot Mirror
That is Gen III, not IV and has been pointed out "the Westinghouse AP1000 has a weaker containment, less redundancy in safety systems, and fewer safety features than current reactors" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02... so we're really looking at putting lipstick on a pig in much of this.
Gen IV are often fast breeders. People can happen to those in a very very nasty way.
slashdot makes sense.
Is scale invariant.
Getting the computations right tells us to phase out nuclear power as too expensive. http://www.forbes.com/sites/am...
It is not just inert, but screened by the ash. The ash is (slightly) vitrified soil from the forest where the coal came from. It is like other low carbon soil in its uranium concentration. So there just is no increase in background radiation. The claim that there is is like saying using a bulldozer exposed new uranium. It does, but it buries just as much as it exposes.
Fossil fuels are depleted in carbon-14 so when they are burned, the amount of carbon-14 in our food is reduced. So, fossil fuels use cuts our radiation exposure. Not a good reason to use them, but the effect is opposite claimed in that paper, which is really a disgrace for ORNL.
They were built but they blew up or cracked or got a pebble stuck. All of these are old designs that failed.
Isn't that what they said about these reactors?
"The estimated start of the fuel melting is roughly consistent with when neutrons were detected near the front gate of the nuclear plant, according to the officials."
So, read the fine article and notice they are getting enhanced oil recovery and improved feed quality as a part of what they are doing.
Doesn't sound like a big worry then.
Not quite sure what you mean.
Well, since the feedstock increases, the production could increase, so Lovins appears to be correct.
The technology cracked. The whole on the fly repossessing thing was a fool's errand as well.
I understand the there are a lot of fanbois out there for this stuff, but it was tried and it failed. Working out the kinks does not describe what one does with a fundamentally flawed design concept.
Your complaint was with Lovins saying there was a factor of seven in there regarding Midwest wind and UK nuclear. Turns out he is correct. Regarding subsidies in the US, the Price Anderson subsidy for nuclear is about the same as the production tax credit for wind. It is rare to see a power purchase agreement for new nuclear. Usually there are huge cost overruns and you don't know much about what the power will cost until the plant is complete. So, it was wise of Lovins to take advantage of this one to gain a clearer understanding of the cost of new nuclear power. It seems very, very expensive.
So, Lovins is comparing a power purchase agreement (PPA) price for new nuclear power with the same for new wind power. A factor of seven looks correct. Now, accident liability is more restricted in the UK so they've got a bigger subsidy for nuclear power than in the US. In the US, the 1991$ subsidy was about $30 million per reactor per year according the the EIA. With inflation and real estate development since then, that comes to around $0.02/kWh as an insurance subsidy here in the US. Another aspect is that PPAs signed this year commence delivery the next year for wind but for nuclear it will be more than a decade. With the cost of wind falling, the fairer comparison would be for future wind PPA's where we might see a factor of 12 or 14 rather than seven.
Coal seems to be in decline too in the US. Exelon has its hand out for state subsidies from Illinois thinking the decline of coal may be a chance for nuclear, but that won't last long even if Illinois says yes initially. So, it won't be nuclear replacing coal if even existing plants can't stay open. And it definitely won't be breeders.
Look at the purple circles. They got lower in 2013.
Perhaps these numbers will help you. http://www.awea.org/Resources/... Mounting turbines higher is helping with capacity factor.
Perhaps just read the fine article. They explain how it is they are going into commercial production.
Apparently, the real world works differently form the way you insist it must. Perhaps your calculations are in error.
Yes, unpleasant surprises seems to be the fate of breeders in general. For that matter, the accident rate for once through reactors, though lower, is unacceptably high. Urging moving to an even more accident prone and unstable technology is irresponsible.
Worse and worse. Think of the Hamm-Uentrop accident or the huge clean up costs for the failed molten salt experiment. Sodium cooled is least worse though still not good enough.
So, you admit the the situations are different. No amount of ethanol is going to achieve you dream, but just a little more will do the job in Iowa.