Don't need much maintenance and since he is not thinking of a roof at this point, installation costs are not very high. Your time value of money applies to nuclear as well I think so it is a little silly to raise it.
There was another report that the generators were being used tonight but not enough detail to tell if it was just a missed bit of info on the new external connection. The news seems to come out slow. The berm broke early Sunday morning but no news reports until Sunday afternoon. I suppose that opening a switch to avoid a short is controlled in a manner of speaking, but it is still forced by the out-of-control situation.
You have pump storage in Scotland right? How much? A week? OK, so how much power do you want to use? Once you know that kind of thing you can use this tool to estimate: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php
"Some sort of machinery came in contact with the berm, puncturing it and causing the berm to deflate, said Mike Jones, a spokesman for the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), which owns the Fort Calhoun plant." http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/nebraska.flooding/
I'm surprised Cooper continues to operate since the NRC identified escape route problems in 1994.
"The elevated river
level caused the closure of several area roads including a portion of
Interstate 29 and Route 136 in the State of Missouri which isolated one of the
planned emergency evacuation routes."
in its place: on submarines defending our country. It makes no sense on a commercial scale since accidents are inevitable, it is too expensive, and there is no place to put the waste or even a safe means of transporting it at the required volume. The Thresher was an acceptable loss given the mission but no commercial accident is acceptable.
One of the sad things about our approach to nuclear safety is that we do shoddy work at each level because we thing the other levels will save us. The 2 km water berm was fragile so it is not too surprising it failed. It lead to loss of external power. Luck the emergency generators worked, but they don't always.
That reactor never worked well. Many components were seriously damaged after only a short run. And the clean up was hugely expensive. That one is a dead end.
Perhaps if they had not been holding back water for future electricity generation, there would be adequate capacity for both the Spring pulse and flood control. Seems silly blame the fish for the water.
Exponential growth in wind and solar deployment suggests we may have a period of excess capacity just as happened with nuclear power in the 1980's. However, there is no reason not to find a use for the generation since there is no fuel cost. For pure CO2 streams such as one gets from cement production, it may be worthwhile to strip the oxygen away to produce either a stockpilable fuel or a soil amendment that sequesters the carbon. Most fuel cells will run backwards with electric input so this technology may be useful for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Haven't seen the studies on how freezing rain impedes performance. It's kind of transparent though.
"In response to the berm collapse, the NRC has activated its Incident Response Center." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576410083499886642.html
Or, if shoddiness can't be avoided, avoid using technology with such high consequences in the case of failure.
Don't need much maintenance and since he is not thinking of a roof at this point, installation costs are not very high. Your time value of money applies to nuclear as well I think so it is a little silly to raise it.
There was another report that the generators were being used tonight but not enough detail to tell if it was just a missed bit of info on the new external connection. The news seems to come out slow. The berm broke early Sunday morning but no news reports until Sunday afternoon. I suppose that opening a switch to avoid a short is controlled in a manner of speaking, but it is still forced by the out-of-control situation.
Nothing wrong with over producing if the stuff is cheap. Just turn the things off. Snow is not a problem for a winter optimized pitch angle.
You have pump storage in Scotland right? How much? A week? OK, so how much power do you want to use? Once you know that kind of thing you can use this tool to estimate: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php
Not in Scotland I think. Not $10,000. That's not thrifty at all.
Here are panels for $1.40/Watt. http://www.sunelec.com/sv-solar-panel-190-watts-1740-vmp-p-1652.html Use them five hours a day peak equivalent for 30 years and that is $0.025/kWh. Wonder where you get your numbers?
You don't consider the Thresher worth mentioning?
"Some sort of machinery came in contact with the berm, puncturing it and causing the berm to deflate, said Mike Jones, a spokesman for the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), which owns the Fort Calhoun plant." http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/nebraska.flooding/
Seems like the flood preparations at the operating plant Cooper have made it very difficult to access emergency equipment. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27nuke.html
I'm surprised Cooper continues to operate since the NRC identified escape route problems in 1994.
"The elevated river level caused the closure of several area roads including a portion of Interstate 29 and Route 136 in the State of Missouri which isolated one of the planned emergency evacuation routes."
http://cryptome.org/0004/cooper-npp-flood.htm
Don't raft down stream I guess.
Solar power is getting cheap. Just use enough to work in winter.
How are your escape routes doing? Is I-29 open all the time?
When it comes to nuclear safety no shoddiness can be tolerated.
in its place: on submarines defending our country. It makes no sense on a commercial scale since accidents are inevitable, it is too expensive, and there is no place to put the waste or even a safe means of transporting it at the required volume. The Thresher was an acceptable loss given the mission but no commercial accident is acceptable.
One of the sad things about our approach to nuclear safety is that we do shoddy work at each level because we thing the other levels will save us. The 2 km water berm was fragile so it is not too surprising it failed. It lead to loss of external power. Luck the emergency generators worked, but they don't always.
"The berm's collapse didn't affect the reactor shutdown cooling or the spent fuel pool cooling, but the power supply was cut after water surrounded the main electrical transformers, the NRC said. Emergency generators powered the plant until an off-site power supply was connected Sunday afternoon, according to OPPD." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwsIdVXW-V7xE60P0dUnI_qSIaIw?docId=252989d1dda94c1d83ee47ba8907e484
How rude.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/25/244122/three-mile-island-accident-nuclear-power/
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110626/NEWS01/706269898/1003211
That reactor never worked well. Many components were seriously damaged after only a short run. And the clean up was hugely expensive. That one is a dead end.
Perhaps if they had not been holding back water for future electricity generation, there would be adequate capacity for both the Spring pulse and flood control. Seems silly blame the fish for the water.
Exponential growth in wind and solar deployment suggests we may have a period of excess capacity just as happened with nuclear power in the 1980's. However, there is no reason not to find a use for the generation since there is no fuel cost. For pure CO2 streams such as one gets from cement production, it may be worthwhile to strip the oxygen away to produce either a stockpilable fuel or a soil amendment that sequesters the carbon. Most fuel cells will run backwards with electric input so this technology may be useful for that.
Your control of your fuel cycle leaves much to be desired I think. I'll admit you have shut down some very poorly designed plants.