Cooling is radiative post-shock. The denser plasma cools more efficiently, proportional to the square of the electron density for a hydrogen plasma cooled by free-free radiation.
There is an omission in the summary, that is a build out by 2050. But, their fig. 8 does have substantially more nuclear power in 2020 than in 2010 and that seems quite unrealistic.
There is a problem with the high nuclear scenario in the report. It has a seven fold increase in nuclear power using Gen III reactors but with sea level rise eliminating tidewater sites, there may not be enough cooling available for that large an increase. Nuclear needs extra cooling because it is only about 30% efficient. A number of reactors are shut down already to avoid over heating rivers. Artificial lakes like lake Anna or the South Texas project might work, but you still need a water source to feed them.
The report also explores renewable and carbon capture scenarios so the problem with nuclear may not be a show stopper.
It is actually mid-century, not 15 years for that, but a seven fold increase over 2010 begs the question of where such reactors might be sited. Tidewaters are out owing to sea level rise and rivers are already under heat stress. So, Lake Anna cools not just twelve new reactors to boost its output, but another dozen to cover for Calvert Cliffs? The lake will be boiling.
A portion was left out of the summary. It is by mid-century that we'd see a big change over it the type of generation, not in 15 years. For the US, a renewable heavy, carbon capture heavy and nuclear heavy scenario were looked at. The energy security heavy scenario developed in "Reinventing Fire" by Amory Lovins was not explored. http://www.rmi.org/electricity
Didn't mention global warming here. I was discussing the link between subsidies and energy security. However, solar power lighting is much less expensive than kerosene powered lighting, so renewable energy helps with that as well in addition to opening up the possibility of cell phone changing.
Energy is a lot like roads an bridges in the way it promotes prosperity by its very existence. One can imagine a world where energy does not need military protection or special tax treatment, but it would be a world where national rivalries in power and economics are much subdues compared to the present. We're not there yet, but a rapid transition to renewable energy could probably get us closer more than just about any other move. Let's make the switch.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/s... "New Scientist reports that, faced with global warming and potential oil shortages, the US Navy is experimenting with making jet fuel from seawater by processing seawater into unsaturated short-chain hydrocarbons that with further refining could be made into kerosene-based jet fuel.
His treatment sort of worked. He ended up with a lot of bad health effects, but kept alive until he was 75, eleven years later. You read about old people living near Chernobyl and now Fukushima. Perhaps their age related decline leads to fewer ways for radiation to be lethal. The quick onset of leukemia seems to affect children more, for example. http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/late...
It is nice to see an upside. A lot of companies are not disclosing the down side risk from climate change to investors though. https://mninews.marketnews.com...
The corporations are established by the government to have a special relation with a particular religion on which they profit. Basically the money changers of the temple all over again.
This is a mistake. The generator is not added, it is already there. It just gets used less and less, extending its life and reducing fuel costs for electricity.
No, I think you are pretty confused. If you want to spread things so thin, then money does not work. Wind displaces coal and thus reduced the energy cost of caring for people with lung disease, but your measure misses that. Better to do the math correctly with understood boundaries than use to your short cut and fool yourself into thinking you are getting the same result. Obviously you will want to consider money before you break ground. They just are not the same tools. They both have advantages and drawbacks.
No, I didn't assume. It is well known that removing boundaries leads to that result. So, you want money to muddy boundaries. Fine, but it isn't a proxy that teaches us about technical feasibility and so it is not a useful tool for that purpose.
Technical feasibility is only one aspect. Right now, I most like big turbines because they make Dodge truck commercials interesting during the World Cup. That is esthetic and slightly ironic. Wind turbines are symbols of guts and glory it they are big enough.
Well, ROI is not EROEI. For example, you can have ROI above unity for making widgets, but you can't get EROEI above unity for that. It is a different measure and serves a different use.
I don't click on that website because it makes such a big deal about traffic, but did that link actually cite the present study? Does it address the subject of the study at all? Timothy linking there boosted this from a 50 comment story to a 300 comment story, but I don't know it there was anything relevant there to the fairly nerdy subject of energy payback time which more of a TOD thing than a climate kook thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Cooling is radiative post-shock. The denser plasma cools more efficiently, proportional to the square of the electron density for a hydrogen plasma cooled by free-free radiation.
There is an omission in the summary, that is a build out by 2050. But, their fig. 8 does have substantially more nuclear power in 2020 than in 2010 and that seems quite unrealistic.
For the US a high Renewable, a high CCS and a high Nuclear scenarios are considered. Look at p. 180 and forward.
There is a problem with the high nuclear scenario in the report. It has a seven fold increase in nuclear power using Gen III reactors but with sea level rise eliminating tidewater sites, there may not be enough cooling available for that large an increase. Nuclear needs extra cooling because it is only about 30% efficient. A number of reactors are shut down already to avoid over heating rivers. Artificial lakes like lake Anna or the South Texas project might work, but you still need a water source to feed them.
The report also explores renewable and carbon capture scenarios so the problem with nuclear may not be a show stopper.
It is actually mid-century, not 15 years for that, but a seven fold increase over 2010 begs the question of where such reactors might be sited. Tidewaters are out owing to sea level rise and rivers are already under heat stress. So, Lake Anna cools not just twelve new reactors to boost its output, but another dozen to cover for Calvert Cliffs? The lake will be boiling.
RTFA: 'the technological paths available for the world's 15 main economies'
RTFA
A portion was left out of the summary. It is by mid-century that we'd see a big change over it the type of generation, not in 15 years. For the US, a renewable heavy, carbon capture heavy and nuclear heavy scenario were looked at. The energy security heavy scenario developed in "Reinventing Fire" by Amory Lovins was not explored. http://www.rmi.org/electricity
Didn't mention global warming here. I was discussing the link between subsidies and energy security. However, solar power lighting is much less expensive than kerosene powered lighting, so renewable energy helps with that as well in addition to opening up the possibility of cell phone changing.
Energy is a lot like roads an bridges in the way it promotes prosperity by its very existence. One can imagine a world where energy does not need military protection or special tax treatment, but it would be a world where national rivalries in power and economics are much subdues compared to the present. We're not there yet, but a rapid transition to renewable energy could probably get us closer more than just about any other move. Let's make the switch.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/s... "New Scientist reports that, faced with global warming and potential oil shortages, the US Navy is experimenting with making jet fuel from seawater by processing seawater into unsaturated short-chain hydrocarbons that with further refining could be made into kerosene-based jet fuel.
More here: http://blogs.discovermagazine....
Should work at Fukushima or reactor decommissioning or this present clean up be done by people over 60?
The article indicates he was no longer able to go hunting. That seems like a loss.
His treatment sort of worked. He ended up with a lot of bad health effects, but kept alive until he was 75, eleven years later. You read about old people living near Chernobyl and now Fukushima. Perhaps their age related decline leads to fewer ways for radiation to be lethal. The quick onset of leukemia seems to affect children more, for example. http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/late...
A special license has been established for them.
It is nice to see an upside. A lot of companies are not disclosing the down side risk from climate change to investors though. https://mninews.marketnews.com...
It does establish a special relationship between the government and the money changers for a particular religion. Very cozy.
The corporations are established by the government to have a special relation with a particular religion on which they profit. Basically the money changers of the temple all over again.
This is a mistake. The generator is not added, it is already there. It just gets used less and less, extending its life and reducing fuel costs for electricity.
No, I think you are pretty confused. If you want to spread things so thin, then money does not work. Wind displaces coal and thus reduced the energy cost of caring for people with lung disease, but your measure misses that. Better to do the math correctly with understood boundaries than use to your short cut and fool yourself into thinking you are getting the same result. Obviously you will want to consider money before you break ground. They just are not the same tools. They both have advantages and drawbacks.
No, I didn't assume. It is well known that removing boundaries leads to that result. So, you want money to muddy boundaries. Fine, but it isn't a proxy that teaches us about technical feasibility and so it is not a useful tool for that purpose.
Technical feasibility is only one aspect. Right now, I most like big turbines because they make Dodge truck commercials interesting during the World Cup. That is esthetic and slightly ironic. Wind turbines are symbols of guts and glory it they are big enough.
So, I just made an exception. He did cite the study. He just did not understand it and made an error as a result.
Well, ROI is not EROEI. For example, you can have ROI above unity for making widgets, but you can't get EROEI above unity for that. It is a different measure and serves a different use.
I don't click on that website because it makes such a big deal about traffic, but did that link actually cite the present study? Does it address the subject of the study at all? Timothy linking there boosted this from a 50 comment story to a 300 comment story, but I don't know it there was anything relevant there to the fairly nerdy subject of energy payback time which more of a TOD thing than a climate kook thing.
Or, France has substantial rate subsidies.