That report does eschew a much larger role for transmission which may explain its failure to find the greater economy found in the Lovins "Renew Scenario" (fig. 5-28 in Reinventing Fire) but it is the first to include renewably synthesized methane from electricity as a big storage mode. We apparently don't require storage, but it could be useful, especially in that drop in kind of form. Lovins does seem to have his facts straight on wind and nuclear costs that you object to taking 1.68 dollars to the pound we get about 2.3 cents/kWh which is mid-range for recent wind contracts in the Midwest.
More whole system studies are coming out. Here, for example: http://arstechnica.com/science... but Lovins has paid more attention to the effects of increased transmission as studied, for example, by Mark Jacobson at Stanford. You should notice also that the video is based on an NREL study, so government scientists are also working this. By my calculation. the cast off batteries from the electrification of transportation give half a day's power use in storage at the low cost of merely delaying their trip to the recycler. So, while the need for storage may be a myth, there will be plenty of it regardless.
Nader's sister, at least, opposes nuclear power because it is anti-Jeffersonian. It requires uninterrupted police powers to have a chance at remaining safe. Look how the failed state in Iraq has lost control of nuclear materials. Jefferson thought interruptions might be a requirement from time to time. Nader is better known for automobile safety, which has saved lives and money.
Maybe I should explain what opportunity cost is here. Wind is less expensive than nuclear power. Because of atoms-for-peace, we pursued the more expensive energy source. But, that hit a train wreck as financing collapses in the 70's. Had we followed a more balanced course, we'd have greater carbon free generation from wind power than from nuclear power and health effects from coal would be reduced. So, we missed an opportunity by putting too much money into nuclear power. So, nuclear power has cost the lives that a more balanced approach could have saved.
Breeders blow up pretty often so you don't want to use those. But, transmutation without recycling looks pretty feasible as the cost of renewable energy plummets. Think of nuclear energy as borrowed energy which has to be payed back when the waste is transmuted to sable elements with an accelerator.
The spent fuel is going to just be sitting there. So, they won't really be finishing the job of decommissioning. The waste at Humboldt Bay is vulnerable to sea level rise so the story there is even less complete.
Slashdot Mirror
You may not have read the link. "the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history" And it turns out that just using sodium is a problem as well.
That report does eschew a much larger role for transmission which may explain its failure to find the greater economy found in the Lovins "Renew Scenario" (fig. 5-28 in Reinventing Fire) but it is the first to include renewably synthesized methane from electricity as a big storage mode. We apparently don't require storage, but it could be useful, especially in that drop in kind of form. Lovins does seem to have his facts straight on wind and nuclear costs that you object to taking 1.68 dollars to the pound we get about 2.3 cents/kWh which is mid-range for recent wind contracts in the Midwest.
More whole system studies are coming out. Here, for example: http://arstechnica.com/science... but Lovins has paid more attention to the effects of increased transmission as studied, for example, by Mark Jacobson at Stanford. You should notice also that the video is based on an NREL study, so government scientists are also working this. By my calculation. the cast off batteries from the electrification of transportation give half a day's power use in storage at the low cost of merely delaying their trip to the recycler. So, while the need for storage may be a myth, there will be plenty of it regardless.
Here's a recent incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... In the US, the sodium reactor experiment melted down as did Enrico Fermi-1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... and the BN-600 has been leaking sodium recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... That comes to a 100% trouble rate apparently.
An advantage to the accelerator approach is that it could be carried out at each former nuclear site rather than transporting the waste.
Turns out the dream is reality. http://www.stormlakepilottribu...
We're seeing large wind contributions in parts of the country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Nader's sister, at least, opposes nuclear power because it is anti-Jeffersonian. It requires uninterrupted police powers to have a chance at remaining safe. Look how the failed state in Iraq has lost control of nuclear materials. Jefferson thought interruptions might be a requirement from time to time. Nader is better known for automobile safety, which has saved lives and money.
Maybe I should explain what opportunity cost is here. Wind is less expensive than nuclear power. Because of atoms-for-peace, we pursued the more expensive energy source. But, that hit a train wreck as financing collapses in the 70's. Had we followed a more balanced course, we'd have greater carbon free generation from wind power than from nuclear power and health effects from coal would be reduced. So, we missed an opportunity by putting too much money into nuclear power. So, nuclear power has cost the lives that a more balanced approach could have saved.
You can't build nuclear power in California until there is a place to put the waste.
Nuclear, CCS, renewables are all gone into in the book. It gets to an 80% cut in emissions by 2050.
Try reading the book. Regarding biofuels, cellulosic methods could produce that kind of increase.
It you are interested in cost, read "Reinventing Fire" Renewables with transmission are the least cost system. http://www.rmi.org/reinventing...
RTFA
Breeders blow up pretty often so you don't want to use those. But, transmutation without recycling looks pretty feasible as the cost of renewable energy plummets. Think of nuclear energy as borrowed energy which has to be payed back when the waste is transmuted to sable elements with an accelerator.
Actually, it turns out not to be an issue at all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
The falling cost of renewable energy seems to be an impediment for nuclear having a future.
Owing to the high opportunity cost of nuclear power, it more likely interfered with preventing even more deaths. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C...
High levels of renewable energy integration are going on now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
4th generation is much more expensive than once through and nuclear power is in decline so the wait will be forever. http://www.vox.com/2014/8/1/59...
The spent fuel is going to just be sitting there. So, they won't really be finishing the job of decommissioning. The waste at Humboldt Bay is vulnerable to sea level rise so the story there is even less complete.
`Leave off that!' screamed the Queen. `You make me giddy.' And then, turning to the rose-tree, she went on, `What HAVE you been doing here?'
`May it please your Majesty,' said Two, in a very humble tone, going down on one knee as he spoke, `we were trying--'
`I see!' said the Queen, who had meanwhile been examining the roses. `Off with their heads!'
jigawatts
Bigger than a breadbox, smaller than an olfactory.
RTFA
Which is what makes it stylized and useless. Which is the point of the report.