Actually, in the US, most nuclear units have had their licenses extended beyond the initial 40 year term. In fact, there are over 70 units that have done so. Only a few have shut down, each for different reasons and each near the end of their original design life.
Erh no. They reach 90% in the summer but throughout the year they tend to run at 60-70% capacity.
90% is the annual capacity factor for US plants. Nuclear typically runs 100% except when shut down for refueling or maintenance. Don't just say stuff if you don't know what you are talking about.
If nuclear was far superior, we'd be installing more of it.
We are. The global nuclear capacity is increasing. And, if it were not for base sources such as nuclear, gas, & coal, wind would not even be a viable option.
So, here is another indication of the ignorance of reporters and those who push the agenda, as capacity does not equate to electrical output. With nuclear capacity factors close to 90%, and avg global wind capacity is closer to 30%, you need about 3 or 4 times wind capacity in GW to produce an equivalent amount of electrical output in MWh.
And, of course, without base generation like nuclear, wind would not yet even be a realistic option. Wind and solar ride on the backs of traditional sources of power.
They also don't talk about how much this PR "victory" cost, and will continue to cost as the windmill replacement cycle begins.
If a company can't afford to deliver the product as sold, and they aren't bound to a contract to deliver that product as sold for more than one billing period, then what do these users think is going to happen
It appears they did deliver what was sold, they just could not keep delivering it, so they changed what they were swelling. But they never sold any promises the plan would continue to be offered as is. It seems they tried, but it just didn't work financially due to those who's usage model was basically downloading a full bandwidth constantly.
It actually seems to me this company is trying to offer an option for heavy users, but the cost model just doesn't work due to a certain slice of users, and they are trying to find a plan that accounts for those impacts.
Yes, you could try to poison water source with something like this, but even if one were to devise a method to dissipate this in a water supply, it would likely have zero measurable health effects on those who consume the water.
As far as bomb building, the bomb itself is what might be deadly, and again, the spread contamination would no likely result in any measurable health impacts to anyone.
Dirty bombs are simply not practical. Those smart enough to make an effective one know that there are much easier ways to harm masses of people, so they wouldn't waste their time. The only ones putting forth the dirty bomb scare are the ignorant and the fear mongers.
The UN has made itself irrelevant by wallowing in its own self interests for way too long. They have become a joke. They are willing to let tragedies unfold with no action and then expect us all to get up in arms about the fate of one guy who found himself in a tight spot as a result of his own decisions and actions.
The title is just wrong. They did not improve the efficiency by almost 12%. They said the THINK THEY CAN do it, and the have demonstrated some improvement. Why are we afraid of accurate headlines?
That is, if you're near a large supply of readily accessible water.
The use case for this system is where you need to desalinate seawater. If you take that out of the need list, this system makes zero sense. If you have saltwater nearby only, and no local power source, and need potable water, this could be used.
Of course 70% is optimal electrolysis efficiency, not average. Also, the article says they compress the hydrogen for storage, so that is another efficiency hit in the system.
So, everyone knew this information already? I did not say it was good or bad, just an "interesting tidbit", meaning trivia. Your super defensive response strikes me as being more out of place than my mention of a fact that some might not know.
And as far as projections, NOOR1 was projected to complete for much less than $3.9.
And you must know that even with molten-salt storage, the plant does not produce at its peak all day. In fact, it produces at peak only for a few hours a day, and ramps down in the evening. On a winter day it may not even reach peak, and of course cloudy days as well. So an optimistic $9B for 580MW peak does not sound so good at all to me.
Wow, $3.9 Billion for a plant that can produce only up to 160MW, and less than that for a good part of the day. It seems they would have saved money going with solar panels and batteries.
An interesting tidbit. Despite its desert location, this plant needs 1.7 million m3 of water per year to keep the reflectors clean.
This CSP plant appears to be even more expensive than Ivanpah, which is still not running to its promised capacity, and requires the burning of natural gas keep operating. Has Ivanpah even reached much more than 50% of its promised output yet?
According to Stratasys, for small runs and development, 3D-printed plastic molds are faster to make and cheaper than CNC-milled aluminium or steel molds.
Well, of course SSS will claim that, after all they sell 3D printers. How about comparing molds of similar materials.
After a bit more thought, I could see how CNC produced molds might require a lot more material to start with, if the blade has a very curved shape. But I'm not sure why just doing it in sections that fit together would be a big disadvantage either.
You can make a negative mold with CNC, you just do it in two halves. It is done all the time. I do see how you might produce a continuous enclosed mode with 3D, but its hard to see why that method is advantageous regarding the final product.
"what will be the effect at different latitudes, what will be the effect on precipitation, what will be the effect on storms"
We know already. Just read the headlines we see all the time. Its all going to be catastrophically bad, everywhere, for everyone. Cold snaps will be colder. Dry places will be dryer. Wet places will be wetter. Floods will be bigger. Hot places will be hotter. Shorelines will be underwater. Extinctions will be accelerated. Heck, even earthquakes will be quakier.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, in the US, most nuclear units have had their licenses extended beyond the initial 40 year term. In fact, there are over 70 units that have done so. Only a few have shut down, each for different reasons and each near the end of their original design life.
We generate much more electrical output from nuclear than wind.
Erh no. They reach 90% in the summer but throughout the year they tend to run at 60-70% capacity.
90% is the annual capacity factor for US plants. Nuclear typically runs 100% except when shut down for refueling or maintenance. Don't just say stuff if you don't know what you are talking about.
If nuclear was far superior, we'd be installing more of it.
We are. The global nuclear capacity is increasing. And, if it were not for base sources such as nuclear, gas, & coal, wind would not even be a viable option.
So, here is another indication of the ignorance of reporters and those who push the agenda, as capacity does not equate to electrical output. With nuclear capacity factors close to 90%, and avg global wind capacity is closer to 30%, you need about 3 or 4 times wind capacity in GW to produce an equivalent amount of electrical output in MWh.
And, of course, without base generation like nuclear, wind would not yet even be a realistic option. Wind and solar ride on the backs of traditional sources of power.
They also don't talk about how much this PR "victory" cost, and will continue to cost as the windmill replacement cycle begins.
My spelling of selling was also swelling.
If a company can't afford to deliver the product as sold, and they aren't bound to a contract to deliver that product as sold for more than one billing period, then what do these users think is going to happen
It appears they did deliver what was sold, they just could not keep delivering it, so they changed what they were swelling. But they never sold any promises the plan would continue to be offered as is. It seems they tried, but it just didn't work financially due to those who's usage model was basically downloading a full bandwidth constantly.
It actually seems to me this company is trying to offer an option for heavy users, but the cost model just doesn't work due to a certain slice of users, and they are trying to find a plan that accounts for those impacts.
They actually executed a man in Georgia instead of arresting those responsible for the CA gas leak.
Yes, you could try to poison water source with something like this, but even if one were to devise a method to dissipate this in a water supply, it would likely have zero measurable health effects on those who consume the water.
As far as bomb building, the bomb itself is what might be deadly, and again, the spread contamination would no likely result in any measurable health impacts to anyone.
Dirty bombs are simply not practical. Those smart enough to make an effective one know that there are much easier ways to harm masses of people, so they wouldn't waste their time. The only ones putting forth the dirty bomb scare are the ignorant and the fear mongers.
The UN has made itself irrelevant by wallowing in its own self interests for way too long. They have become a joke. They are willing to let tragedies unfold with no action and then expect us all to get up in arms about the fate of one guy who found himself in a tight spot as a result of his own decisions and actions.
The title is just wrong. They did not improve the efficiency by almost 12%. They said the THINK THEY CAN do it, and the have demonstrated some improvement. Why are we afraid of accurate headlines?
That is, if you're near a large supply of readily accessible water.
The use case for this system is where you need to desalinate seawater. If you take that out of the need list, this system makes zero sense. If you have saltwater nearby only, and no local power source, and need potable water, this could be used.
Of course 70% is optimal electrolysis efficiency, not average. Also, the article says they compress the hydrogen for storage, so that is another efficiency hit in the system.
Minute Ricen
Me Sad
So, everyone knew this information already? I did not say it was good or bad, just an "interesting tidbit", meaning trivia. Your super defensive response strikes me as being more out of place than my mention of a fact that some might not know.
And as far as projections, NOOR1 was projected to complete for much less than $3.9.
And you must know that even with molten-salt storage, the plant does not produce at its peak all day. In fact, it produces at peak only for a few hours a day, and ramps down in the evening. On a winter day it may not even reach peak, and of course cloudy days as well. So an optimistic $9B for 580MW peak does not sound so good at all to me.
^FYI, the above refers to the completed NOOR1 phase, in case that was not clear.
Wow, $3.9 Billion for a plant that can produce only up to 160MW, and less than that for a good part of the day. It seems they would have saved money going with solar panels and batteries.
An interesting tidbit. Despite its desert location, this plant needs 1.7 million m3 of water per year to keep the reflectors clean.
This CSP plant appears to be even more expensive than Ivanpah, which is still not running to its promised capacity, and requires the burning of natural gas keep operating. Has Ivanpah even reached much more than 50% of its promised output yet?
I thought I saw unborne children for a moment.
According to Stratasys, for small runs and development, 3D-printed plastic molds are faster to make and cheaper than CNC-milled aluminium or steel molds.
Well, of course SSS will claim that, after all they sell 3D printers. How about comparing molds of similar materials.
After a bit more thought, I could see how CNC produced molds might require a lot more material to start with, if the blade has a very curved shape. But I'm not sure why just doing it in sections that fit together would be a big disadvantage either.
You can make a negative mold with CNC, you just do it in two halves. It is done all the time. I do see how you might produce a continuous enclosed mode with 3D, but its hard to see why that method is advantageous regarding the final product.
Why are 3d printed molds going to be so much better than CNC produced molds?
And that's just what it will take to clean up Hillary's email.
"what will be the effect at different latitudes, what will be the effect on precipitation, what will be the effect on storms"
We know already. Just read the headlines we see all the time. Its all going to be catastrophically bad, everywhere, for everyone. Cold snaps will be colder. Dry places will be dryer. Wet places will be wetter. Floods will be bigger. Hot places will be hotter. Shorelines will be underwater. Extinctions will be accelerated. Heck, even earthquakes will be quakier.