About 46% of US generation can be replaced by rooftop solar given available residential roof space. But, net metering policy which confiscates excess power generation without compensation probably limits this source to 22%. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.html Feed in tariffs would remove the artificial barrier. The price for panels now is about $2/Watt and will fall below $0.5/Watt before half of that capacity is installed. Installation may get down to $1/Watt as panels get lighter and more efficient. Inverters are about $0.5/Watt now and will go lower. So, a typical price for the bulk of installations will be below $2/Watt. Nuclear power plant construction costs $12/Watt and the cost is increasing. Not considering fuel costs and operating expenses for nuclear, and factoring in availability assuming similar life times, rooftop solar costs about 60% of the cost of nuclear. Desert solar likely costs less than half of nuclear.
We can anticipate a zone of exclusion in this case. When nuclear power breaks, it does so in an ungraceful manner. It poisons the surrounding land and makes it uninhabitable. It disrupts power supply by forcing the shutdown of plants around the world and within its own grid limits the ability to provide substitute power http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/04/nuclear-woes-boost-japanese-wind-but-supply-remains-limited These properties make nuclear power the most unreliable form of generation. It is not the whispers but the shrapnel that pose a problem for nuclear power.
That does not make a difference if the question is what kind of generation to do underground. But, you might want to look at the ratio of energy expended to get the fuel divided into energy produced. You'll find that especially with gas diffusion enrichment, the most common source for our fuel, nuclear power looks very poor compared with any other source.
I think you'd cool at the turbine exhaust below ground using a cooling water loop, not place the turbines at the surface. It is just that you need a river flow's worth of cooling water in that loop. That is why nukes are built at the ocean or on a river usually.
Yes, that is just right. The thermodynamic efficiency is quite low. Lots of waste heat, little power. Combined cycle gas generators are limited by the cooling capability of very tough turbine blades so they get up to about 60% conversion. Nukes are doing well for what they are at 30% owing to fragile fuel.
Nuclear power plants are very inefficient because they have to operate at low temperature to protect the fuel from damage. This means they need enormous amounts of cooling to dissipate waste heat. Trying to do that underground would be very difficult.
NHK World was reporting that water tanks will be installed next month to hold the water. I'm still not understanding why 50,000 tonnes does not become 100,000 before the tanks are installed since they can't get to the recirculation system until they remove the water. And they need to add more water until they do that.
Some of the reactor we not in use at the time of the earthquake. One of those is having a lot of trouble with its spent fuel pool and there is concern about the others. Order of construction has nothing to do with it.
You could be right, but there is no indication in the article how much of each isotope was found. Some tests can be sensitive to even residual amounts.
Basically, nukes are so expensive that they suck up resources for GHG emissions mitigation and slow things down. Renewables cost less even when you work in storage.
Fly ash is controlled and partly used in construction and partly dumped. The uranium is not airborne.
There is a significant difference between radioactive fission products and naturally occurring radioisotopes. Their bioavailability is different and their behavior in the body can be very different. For example, iodine concentrates in the thyroid.
I doubt it would be disastrous. You might see a premium on goods delivered by large truck, but it would be no more that what you pay for gas tax now. If trucks are discouraged a bit, roads will last longer and the fee should go down. For you bike, since you can put on knobby tires, you don't really need a road. In fact, roads just get in the way sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
I forgot to say that I think Hydro-Quebec is ready to sell power to Boston. That's always cheaper than nukes.
There has been some recent thought on causes of the high cost on nuclear power and it looks as though atrophy may not be a significant cause but rather a result. http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/06/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/
Nanosolar has an energy payback time of weeks for its panels. I appreciate your excitement for badmouthing solar but your numbers are incorrect.
You'll have to say how large a system you are considering and how recently you got a quote. New nuclear will cost you $0.15/kWh or more. http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly
Complete bunk: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/50985/wildlife-still-declining-in-chernobyl-exclusion-zone
Renewables are the most reliable because they don't run out. http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/02/18/0056241/Stanford-UCD-Researchers-Say-100-Renewable-Energy-Possible-By-2050 The wildlife dies of Chernobyl fallout so their capacity to care about that is a merely philosophical question.
About 46% of US generation can be replaced by rooftop solar given available residential roof space. But, net metering policy which confiscates excess power generation without compensation probably limits this source to 22%. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.html Feed in tariffs would remove the artificial barrier. The price for panels now is about $2/Watt and will fall below $0.5/Watt before half of that capacity is installed. Installation may get down to $1/Watt as panels get lighter and more efficient. Inverters are about $0.5/Watt now and will go lower. So, a typical price for the bulk of installations will be below $2/Watt. Nuclear power plant construction costs $12/Watt and the cost is increasing. Not considering fuel costs and operating expenses for nuclear, and factoring in availability assuming similar life times, rooftop solar costs about 60% of the cost of nuclear. Desert solar likely costs less than half of nuclear.
Speaking of brittleness, nice demonstration of embrittlement of fuel rods by a nuclear engineer: http://www.fairewinds.com/updates
We can anticipate a zone of exclusion in this case. When nuclear power breaks, it does so in an ungraceful manner. It poisons the surrounding land and makes it uninhabitable. It disrupts power supply by forcing the shutdown of plants around the world and within its own grid limits the ability to provide substitute power http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/04/nuclear-woes-boost-japanese-wind-but-supply-remains-limited These properties make nuclear power the most unreliable form of generation. It is not the whispers but the shrapnel that pose a problem for nuclear power.
That does not make a difference if the question is what kind of generation to do underground. But, you might want to look at the ratio of energy expended to get the fuel divided into energy produced. You'll find that especially with gas diffusion enrichment, the most common source for our fuel, nuclear power looks very poor compared with any other source.
By closing the Smithsonian.
I think you'd cool at the turbine exhaust below ground using a cooling water loop, not place the turbines at the surface. It is just that you need a river flow's worth of cooling water in that loop. That is why nukes are built at the ocean or on a river usually.
Yes, that is just right. The thermodynamic efficiency is quite low. Lots of waste heat, little power. Combined cycle gas generators are limited by the cooling capability of very tough turbine blades so they get up to about 60% conversion. Nukes are doing well for what they are at 30% owing to fragile fuel.
May congress be the first to welcome our new robotic overlords.
Nuclear power plants are very inefficient because they have to operate at low temperature to protect the fuel from damage. This means they need enormous amounts of cooling to dissipate waste heat. Trying to do that underground would be very difficult.
NHK World was reporting that water tanks will be installed next month to hold the water. I'm still not understanding why 50,000 tonnes does not become 100,000 before the tanks are installed since they can't get to the recirculation system until they remove the water. And they need to add more water until they do that.
http://www.eclipse-chasers.com/tseAllias.html
Some of the reactor we not in use at the time of the earthquake. One of those is having a lot of trouble with its spent fuel pool and there is concern about the others. Order of construction has nothing to do with it.
As I was coming down the stair
I saw a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away
Read the link and you'll see that a lot of the subsidies are historical including paying out on loan guarantees for bankrupt projects.
No, this is quite untrue. Nuclear power has very high subsidies so you are actually viewing a market distortion: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_summary.pdf
You could be right, but there is no indication in the article how much of each isotope was found. Some tests can be sensitive to even residual amounts.
The NYT has a nice summary of recent work on renewable energy on the large scale. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/renewing-support-for-renewables/
Basically, nukes are so expensive that they suck up resources for GHG emissions mitigation and slow things down. Renewables cost less even when you work in storage.
Fly ash is controlled and partly used in construction and partly dumped. The uranium is not airborne.
There is a significant difference between radioactive fission products and naturally occurring radioisotopes. Their bioavailability is different and their behavior in the body can be very different. For example, iodine concentrates in the thyroid.
Since the roads would last much longer, the nearly free period would go on indefinitely.
I doubt it would be disastrous. You might see a premium on goods delivered by large truck, but it would be no more that what you pay for gas tax now. If trucks are discouraged a bit, roads will last longer and the fee should go down. For you bike, since you can put on knobby tires, you don't really need a road. In fact, roads just get in the way sometimes.