It is the smaller reactors that are being shut down mostly. You need more people per MW capacity to run these which makes them too expensive. To build, they are also more expensive per MW capacity. It is big reactors that get economies of scale, but demand growth is curtailed owing to new light bulbs and better appliances so there is no demand for huge new plants. And, even so, these are too expensive as well compared to wind or solar coming on line in the same year.
Strangely, you can get real Coke made with sugar from Mexico. There are lots of places in the world to do nuclear experiments, China, India, Iran.... When they get it figured out, we can buy it from them. For now, it does not seem to be economical here.
Check the book out from the library if you can't afford it. It is better than just babbling when someone has already done the work. You should remember that wind power is the reason one of the other nukes closed. So, it is not just natural gas that is cheaper than nuclear power.
Compared to the nuclear weapons industry, regulations are quite light. For example, there are large quantities of missing fuel and spent fuel that would never be tolerated under Nunn-Lugar.
It is kilowatts times hours, not divided by hours. Converting euros to dollars gives $0.1646/kwh which is higher than in New York based on your figures. Don't think you've got the whole picture though.
You are incorrect. Amory Lovins has done the detailed analysis on this. Large scale renewables with extensive transmission is the absolute cheapest possible system. He prefers more local generation for (esthetic) efficiency and robustness in the face of certain natural disasters and enemy attacks. But, moneywise, big renewbles are the cheapest generating system. http://www.rmi.org/reinventingfire
That is likely going to come to an end. Synthesis of methane using ultra-cheap renewable energy such as stranded wind will likely stabilize gas prices at a low level going forward.
At Vermont Yankee, they tried all three, cutting staff, getting out of requirements to install sirens and deferred maintenance that led to a cooling tower collapse and radioactive materials leaks.
When this term is used for stocks it has a different sense because the statistics are far from normal. To quote the WP link above,
"In finance, the term mean reversion has a different meaning. Jeremy Siegel uses it to describe a financial time series in which "returns can be very unstable in the short run but very stable in the long run." More quantitatively, it is one in which the standard deviation of average annual returns declines faster than the inverse of the holding period, implying that the process is not a random walk, but that periods of lower returns are systematically followed by compensating periods of higher returns."
You are not the first person to suggest that a non-linear term should be included in the fitting function for this.
The term is used correctly, but it bugs me that in 2150, when the mean will be pretty much pinned near zero for the satellite period, 2012 will be a movement towards the mean and 2013 a movement away yet the statistical behavior will not have changed in this time neighborhood.
The idea that this year, following an extreme year, can be formally called regression toward the mean seems OK but it seem clearer to say something like a return to closer to the trend line. Anybody got a better description than that?
It is water that is contaminated with fission products. A minor component is tritium, a form of hydrogen, but that is not the main worry. Filtering and chemical treatment might draw the contaminants out of solution, but they are overwhelmed by the volume of contaminated water produced daily.
The radionuclei are temporarily immobilized in the dry casks, but they are still radioactive. So, when they decay, some energetic decay products escape.
This is the fate of all nuclear power plants. This one was unsafe and too expensive to fix, but the fuel will run out for all the rest even if somehow they become economic again. Exhaustible resources just have these sorts of problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, burning coal produces no nuclear waste at all and cuts the cabon-14 burden in your body. In terms of radiation hazard it is better than benign. http://slashdot.org/journal/279815/fossil-fuel-use-cuts-bodys-internal-radiation-burden
Infinite in fact. Stranded wind is free.
It is the smaller reactors that are being shut down mostly. You need more people per MW capacity to run these which makes them too expensive. To build, they are also more expensive per MW capacity. It is big reactors that get economies of scale, but demand growth is curtailed owing to new light bulbs and better appliances so there is no demand for huge new plants. And, even so, these are too expensive as well compared to wind or solar coming on line in the same year.
No, wind power's effect on wholesale electricity prices is indeed a threat to nuclear power as detailed here. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/RenaissanceinReverse7.18.2013.pdf
I think you have a lack of understanding of electricity markets that will be hard for you to remedy with doing some reading.
Strangely, you can get real Coke made with sugar from Mexico. There are lots of places in the world to do nuclear experiments, China, India, Iran.... When they get it figured out, we can buy it from them. For now, it does not seem to be economical here.
Check the book out from the library if you can't afford it. It is better than just babbling when someone has already done the work. You should remember that wind power is the reason one of the other nukes closed. So, it is not just natural gas that is cheaper than nuclear power.
The analysis is quite detailed and covers the questions you raise.
Compared to the nuclear weapons industry, regulations are quite light. For example, there are large quantities of missing fuel and spent fuel that would never be tolerated under Nunn-Lugar.
Why not urge your representatives to pass legislation to require Indian Point to close before any others?
It is kilowatts times hours, not divided by hours. Converting euros to dollars gives $0.1646/kwh which is higher than in New York based on your figures. Don't think you've got the whole picture though.
You are incorrect. Amory Lovins has done the detailed analysis on this. Large scale renewables with extensive transmission is the absolute cheapest possible system. He prefers more local generation for (esthetic) efficiency and robustness in the face of certain natural disasters and enemy attacks. But, moneywise, big renewbles are the cheapest generating system. http://www.rmi.org/reinventingfire
Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
That is likely going to come to an end. Synthesis of methane using ultra-cheap renewable energy such as stranded wind will likely stabilize gas prices at a low level going forward.
At Vermont Yankee, they tried all three, cutting staff, getting out of requirements to install sirens and deferred maintenance that led to a cooling tower collapse and radioactive materials leaks.
Oops. Allen left the Marines, not the Army.
Petraeus left the CIA not long ago. Allen left the Army as well. The "unusual" claim seemed strange to me as well.
When this term is used for stocks it has a different sense because the statistics are far from normal. To quote the WP link above,
"In finance, the term mean reversion has a different meaning. Jeremy Siegel uses it to describe a financial time series in which "returns can be very unstable in the short run but very stable in the long run." More quantitatively, it is one in which the standard deviation of average annual returns declines faster than the inverse of the holding period, implying that the process is not a random walk, but that periods of lower returns are systematically followed by compensating periods of higher returns."
You are not the first person to suggest that a non-linear term should be included in the fitting function for this.
The term is used correctly, but it bugs me that in 2150, when the mean will be pretty much pinned near zero for the satellite period, 2012 will be a movement towards the mean and 2013 a movement away yet the statistical behavior will not have changed in this time neighborhood.
The idea that this year, following an extreme year, can be formally called regression toward the mean seems OK but it seem clearer to say something like a return to closer to the trend line. Anybody got a better description than that?
It is water that is contaminated with fission products. A minor component is tritium, a form of hydrogen, but that is not the main worry. Filtering and chemical treatment might draw the contaminants out of solution, but they are overwhelmed by the volume of contaminated water produced daily.
The radionuclei are temporarily immobilized in the dry casks, but they are still radioactive. So, when they decay, some energetic decay products escape.
This is the fate of all nuclear power plants. This one was unsafe and too expensive to fix, but the fuel will run out for all the rest even if somehow they become economic again. Exhaustible resources just have these sorts of problems.
No, there are only 100 commercial reactors and only 93 of them are running right now. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-status/ps.html
The announcement comes from an academic institute using commercial satellite data. That seems a little nerdy.
Read the link I provided. That was controlled in the study.
Nuclear accidents kill just like natural disasters. However, they are entirely preventable.
You seem to have a fanciful view on this that is quite far detached from what has actually happened. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201301110086