Hydro is great if you can build it. Its really tough to get environmental report acceptance/permits, and its hard just to find a site where you can displace property owners. I doubt we'll see more than a few small projects, but I really don't know much about what potential sites are out there. More lakefront property might be an incentive for some!
Resolution based pricing, along maybe with audio quality (Stereo- low/hi bitrate - AAC/5.1 - DTS etc), is the only thing that makes sense. Simple rather than complicated.
If they sold newer movies at 480p stereo sound for $5 each, they eliminate a bunch of pirated downloads and likely not offset any existing sales, IMO.
I agree with that statement. Although it will most likely be a mix of those power sources, as it has been, which I am sure you meant. If coal is 'pushed out' for environmental reasons, and assuming hydro is basically fixed, then nuclear is the only one of those existing sources that has been able to produce power at the scale required and within traditional cost range. Gas will always be a key part of the mix due to its ability to handle the ups and downs of renewables like solar and wind.
I am not sure I understand your point. There certainly will be many cases where this ruling does not apply. I certainly was only speaking to the cases where it does apply. If it never applies, none of this matters to begin with.
This has both positive and negative impacts on the small guy. He is in better shape to defend his patent against big companies who try to stop him from entering the market via lawsuits. He has a greater risk when defending his patent against inf ringers. If his case is solid, it shouldn't matter.
So, you will just assume something great will come along? And accept the risks that come along with that assumption? Try getting that plan accepted by the masses.
Never do anything, because something cheaper may come along?
What is depressing the nuclear industry is price pressure due to cheap shale gas from fracking combined with a continued weak economy and lack of demand growth. It really is that simple. And maybe you missed it, but there are new plants being built right now. Yes, they are expensive to build. Valuable things commonly are. Despite their increased cost, nuclear plants have kept electricity prices low through the days of super high coal prices and rapid demand growth.
Once shale gas prices rise, and don't kid yourself thinking they won't, you are left with burning coal or running nukes to keep things stable and reasonable. Given the carbon concerns of the day, coal is not really an option.
Doing pretty well here in the USA. Nuclear plants are operating at capacity factors over 90%. No radiation releases of any significance with hundreds of units after 40+ years. Its been our lowest cost major source of clean power (after Hydro) for many years. Reliable and steady.
Lots of power generated over the last forty year, offsetting vast amounts of carbon contribution. More than you can imagine.
I also find it ironic that you propose Butanol as a solution. You are OK with spraying millions of acres of farmland with chemical fertilizers and pesticides to produce fuel for combustion engines, yet you are not willing to consider a few tiny storage facilities with nuclear material that can be easily contained and constantly monitored.
^and where are those solutions being implemented? What good is a solution that can't be implemented for cost, political, or other resons?
If you want to credit drawing table solutions, there are solutions to nuclear waste. Reprocessing is a proven one, and actually practical from a cost standpoint, its a political issue. Combined waste reduction techniques, vitrification, and repository storage are know to be technically feasible as well.
Nuclear power is also only cheap if you ignore the cost for decommissioned plants. But that's at least a cost you can dump on the taxpayer, as Germany proves currently.
You have not done the math, just assumed. D&D is a quite small percentage of total lifecycle cost of a nuclear plant.
Until we solve the carbon pollution issues of burning coal, burning coal is irresponsible in the extreme.
Until we solve the chemical and mining waste and damage from solar cell production, solar cell production is irresponsible in the extreme.
Until we solve the problem of emissions from gas burning automobiles, using gas burning automobiles in irresponsible in the extreme.
Is so easy to say......real problems are harder to solve and include cost impact as well. Looking at total risk and impact, nuclear stands tall compared to the alternatives.
Good reasoning. Most Units range from 400 - 1100 MW, with two units on many sites, so that changes your results significantly.
In the end, its a small cost adder to the lifecycle of the plant. Just because it comes at the end of life doesn't change the big total cost picture. It does present some financing issues, as the revenue source is gone...that's the pay up front reasoning.
In the end, customers foot the bill, either directly in the rate structure, or indirectly through taxes. Usually a combination of the two. No different than for any other power source, but folks complain more mostly because of FUD.
Yes, the costs are high, higher than originally predicted, but when averaged out per KWH produced by the plant, its really not that much. These articles always lack the perspective of scale and production life of the plant. D&D costs could go even higher and it would still be a good deal.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the Large reactors make more sense in some situations?
Yes, that would be more accurate. There may be global markets where the SMR makes more sense, and certainly if there were an easy path to permit an old fossil site for SMR, then that would be an option. However, the permit path is challenging and costly, and the global market is not clear.
I actually like some of the very small "battery" SMR designs better than the mid sized ones, as they may have enough niche market appeal to support them, but again regulatory constraints add to the challenges for success.
As a customer of Verizon FiOS, I'm happy that something is happening.
I don't disagree, and am not opposed to schemes where the biggest content providers pay some of the cost of infrastructure. But a large part of your poor NETFLIX performance was intently "allowed to happen" by Verizon in the first place, even though you were paying them for quality service. Regulations for connection fees should require a set pricing structure.
Last mile content differentiation should never be allowed as long as the customer is paying for a certain quality of access.
Monopolies aside, a great problem with the proposed changes is that ISPs can charge whatever they want for connection fees and don't have to disclose. That allows them to shut out anyone they desire. Way too much power.
Sadly, a customer class action suit might be the only chance for Net Neutrality.
Small reactors face a tough challenge. They become economical with a large production scale, but the initial market is not large enough to build that production pipeline, so it really is more expensive than large reactors.
Add the challenges of competition with natural gas bringing down electricity prices considerably along with a continued weak economy and therefore lack of demand growth, the high cost of building the first SMRs puts them out of reach.
Large reactors make more sense. They cost less per installed KW, and can offset the loss of more than one fossil plant. That is our best hedge against the likelihood of future wild price fluctuations in gas.
10CFR 50.70 contains reporting requirements for commercial nuclear plants.
Clearly the discussion and the focus of the article were on commercial nuclear power plants, as were the comments. The NRC did not always have authority over
DOE activities involving nuclear material, and still has very limited DOD involvement. The NRC does cover all commercial uses of radioactive material such as medical or industrial testing, as well as waste from those.
Slashdot Mirror
Efficiency and size/HP. A small one as a backup genny in an EV might be interesting, or larger ones in a hybrid.
If they are efficient, how about using them as portable generators as well? That nobody has used them in this manner before sparks my critical side.
If you look at market share for phones only, you get one thing, if you include tablets and other devices, lots more android.....
Hydro is great if you can build it. Its really tough to get environmental report acceptance/permits, and its hard just to find a site where you can displace property owners. I doubt we'll see more than a few small projects, but I really don't know much about what potential sites are out there. More lakefront property might be an incentive for some!
his underground Dallas restaurant, has a waitlist of 3,000
Do you get one of those buzzing alarm thingies while you are waiting?
Resolution based pricing, along maybe with audio quality (Stereo- low/hi bitrate - AAC/5.1 - DTS etc), is the only thing that makes sense. Simple rather than complicated.
If they sold newer movies at 480p stereo sound for $5 each, they eliminate a bunch of pirated downloads and likely not offset any existing sales, IMO.
I agree with that statement. Although it will most likely be a mix of those power sources, as it has been, which I am sure you meant. If coal is 'pushed out' for environmental reasons, and assuming hydro is basically fixed, then nuclear is the only one of those existing sources that has been able to produce power at the scale required and within traditional cost range. Gas will always be a key part of the mix due to its ability to handle the ups and downs of renewables like solar and wind.
I am not sure I understand your point. There certainly will be many cases where this ruling does not apply. I certainly was only speaking to the cases where it does apply. If it never applies, none of this matters to begin with.
This has both positive and negative impacts on the small guy. He is in better shape to defend his patent against big companies who try to stop him from entering the market via lawsuits. He has a greater risk when defending his patent against inf ringers. If his case is solid, it shouldn't matter.
So, you will just assume something great will come along? And accept the risks that come along with that assumption? Try getting that plan accepted by the masses.
Never do anything, because something cheaper may come along?
What is depressing the nuclear industry is price pressure due to cheap shale gas from fracking combined with a continued weak economy and lack of demand growth. It really is that simple. And maybe you missed it, but there are new plants being built right now. Yes, they are expensive to build. Valuable things commonly are. Despite their increased cost, nuclear plants have kept electricity prices low through the days of super high coal prices and rapid demand growth.
Once shale gas prices rise, and don't kid yourself thinking they won't, you are left with burning coal or running nukes to keep things stable and reasonable. Given the carbon concerns of the day, coal is not really an option.
Doing pretty well here in the USA. Nuclear plants are operating at capacity factors over 90%. No radiation releases of any significance with hundreds of units after 40+ years. Its been our lowest cost major source of clean power (after Hydro) for many years. Reliable and steady.
Lots of power generated over the last forty year, offsetting vast amounts of carbon contribution. More than you can imagine.
I also find it ironic that you propose Butanol as a solution. You are OK with spraying millions of acres of farmland with chemical fertilizers and pesticides to produce fuel for combustion engines, yet you are not willing to consider a few tiny storage facilities with nuclear material that can be easily contained and constantly monitored.
^and where are those solutions being implemented? What good is a solution that can't be implemented for cost, political, or other resons?
If you want to credit drawing table solutions, there are solutions to nuclear waste. Reprocessing is a proven one, and actually practical from a cost standpoint, its a political issue. Combined waste reduction techniques, vitrification, and repository storage are know to be technically feasible as well.
Nuclear power is also only cheap if you ignore the cost for decommissioned plants. But that's at least a cost you can dump on the taxpayer, as Germany proves currently.
You have not done the math, just assumed. D&D is a quite small percentage of total lifecycle cost of a nuclear plant.
Until we solve the carbon pollution issues of burning coal, burning coal is irresponsible in the extreme.
Until we solve the chemical and mining waste and damage from solar cell production, solar cell production is irresponsible in the extreme.
Until we solve the problem of emissions from gas burning automobiles, using gas burning automobiles in irresponsible in the extreme.
Is so easy to say......real problems are harder to solve and include cost impact as well. Looking at total risk and impact, nuclear stands tall compared to the alternatives.
Also, most plants are licensed to run up to 60 years.... further improving the cost picture for D&D.
Good reasoning. Most Units range from 400 - 1100 MW, with two units on many sites, so that changes your results significantly.
In the end, its a small cost adder to the lifecycle of the plant. Just because it comes at the end of life doesn't change the big total cost picture. It does present some financing issues, as the revenue source is gone...that's the pay up front reasoning.
In the end, customers foot the bill, either directly in the rate structure, or indirectly through taxes. Usually a combination of the two. No different than for any other power source, but folks complain more mostly because of FUD.
Yes, the costs are high, higher than originally predicted, but when averaged out per KWH produced by the plant, its really not that much. These articles always lack the perspective of scale and production life of the plant. D&D costs could go even higher and it would still be a good deal.
After QUARK, no sci-fi comedy stands a chance. Haven't they figured that out yet?
"Vision has no beauty" - Ficus.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the Large reactors make more sense in some situations?
Yes, that would be more accurate. There may be global markets where the SMR makes more sense, and certainly if there were an easy path to permit an old fossil site for SMR, then that would be an option. However, the permit path is challenging and costly, and the global market is not clear.
I actually like some of the very small "battery" SMR designs better than the mid sized ones, as they may have enough niche market appeal to support them, but again regulatory constraints add to the challenges for success.
As a customer of Verizon FiOS, I'm happy that something is happening.
I don't disagree, and am not opposed to schemes where the biggest content providers pay some of the cost of infrastructure. But a large part of your poor NETFLIX performance was intently "allowed to happen" by Verizon in the first place, even though you were paying them for quality service. Regulations for connection fees should require a set pricing structure.
Last mile content differentiation should never be allowed as long as the customer is paying for a certain quality of access.
As a customer, where is my rate cut?
Monopolies aside, a great problem with the proposed changes is that ISPs can charge whatever they want for connection fees and don't have to disclose. That allows them to shut out anyone they desire. Way too much power.
Sadly, a customer class action suit might be the only chance for Net Neutrality.
Small reactors face a tough challenge. They become economical with a large production scale, but the initial market is not large enough to build that production pipeline, so it really is more expensive than large reactors.
Add the challenges of competition with natural gas bringing down electricity prices considerably along with a continued weak economy and therefore lack of demand growth, the high cost of building the first SMRs puts them out of reach.
Large reactors make more sense. They cost less per installed KW, and can offset the loss of more than one fossil plant. That is our best hedge against the likelihood of future wild price fluctuations in gas.
Or maybe this is what they've found?
10CFR 50.70 contains reporting requirements for commercial nuclear plants.
Clearly the discussion and the focus of the article were on commercial nuclear power plants, as were the comments. The NRC did not always have authority over DOE activities involving nuclear material, and still has very limited DOD involvement. The NRC does cover all commercial uses of radioactive material such as medical or industrial testing, as well as waste from those.