Sure... except when a foreign power uses dirty tricks to try to control the outcome of an election. Then the issue is less who said what to whom in some email and whether a country can afford to have its enemies pick its leaders.
Hillary and the DNC thank you for seeing it the way they want you to see it, and helping them spread it. Particular thanks for not even questioning it at all.
The mainstream media is already being selective about what they discuss with regards to these emails. In fact, not one single revelation of controversial statements in emails was brought forth initially by the mainstream media. Not a single one. Every thing we've heard about was from other investigative efforts.
The media is already ignoring it. The question about whether they should is only being brought up because of the liberal attitude that the ends justify the means, be it biased journalism or lies.
Active plants have safety features that passive plant lack. Passive is not a standard, not by any means.
And your subsequent description of passive plants need for Diesel Generators shows you really don't understand. The whole point of passive is you don't need emergency power to keep the reactor cool. In fact, the AP1000 doesn't even have safety related emergency diesels.
That's not a standard, that is just an advancement. A standard is a set basis. There is no standard that requires plants to be passive. Passive in and of itself does not even make a plant safer than active.
Again, you are picking out hydro just because it has a huge footprint. Hyrdo is the outlier, and if you want to compare against energy sources in general it really is of no help to point out its less than hydro. That's true for just about everything.
Growth for hydro is severely restricted due to its footprint.
But were YOUR comparisons based on J/m^2-s? Meaning, did you consider capacity factors? Its not clear with your generalizations, and if you didn't then 'who cares' because the numbers are useless.
You said whole lot of nothing. Just describing transactions. No, there is clearly a benefit to having a significant portion of the money flow into the community and support economic activity. The economy is not a zero sum game, it grows and to participate in that growth people need to get paid. If we consider a solar farm, for example, the largest portion of the cost is capital, much of which goes to Asia for supply.
People having jobs is of major importance to an economy.
Tax revenue depends on the economy too, and jobs, and production of saleable goods. It is also not a zero sum game.
You are right, it is not design. It is partially project management, it is also supply chain and experience. These are first of a kind builds, even the suppliers are being 'created' to support it. Korea shows what you can do after you get going;
Define "energy density". If you are talking simply KW/area, who cares? Now, if you include actual production of energy for a given footprint, as MWH/Area/Year, that would be useful comparison. Of course hyrdo is unique in that the reservoir will take up a large area, but those reservoir have multiple uses beyond power generation.
All it takes is building Nth of a kind and they can be built at a lower cost and quite quickly. Korean has proven this, China is as well. Pointing to a couple of first builds where there is no supply chain or infrastructure in place is misleading as to what can be accomplished. Plenty of proof out there;
As for all that "toxic materials" talk. There are some extremely nasty toxic chemicals produced for PV manufacture or other industrial productions, and there is a much higher chance of human exposure due to the ways they are used. Where are the worries about that? Meanwhile, used nuclear fuel is relatively inert, particularly compared to many of the industrial wastes we produce. Add that fact that the real volume of nuclear waste is so small from a global perspective, that the problem is really quite manageable. It is easily confined and tracked. We have the technology to easily monitor, clean up, etc nuclear fuel if that were a problem. It is not like the cold war nuclear waste that so many confuse it with. No, there is not an excessive corrosion challenge.
Actually, it would also then require then passing to the cooling loop, then passing through to the cooling pipes to the raw water.
There are detectors in place that detect even the slightest amount of leakage from primary to secondary. The plant is shut down if that happens, and that rarely occurs due to steam generator PM and inspections.
The only reason anybody is worried is the FUD mongers and ignorance.
I wonder how many wind and solar plants could be built for a mere 6.8 Billion?
A lot, but their collective energy output would be much much less than the nuclear plant of the next 60 years. In fact, the windmills would need to be replaced 2 or 4 times, the solar panels 2 or 3 times.
We have a reactor who's steam can be seen for many miles being emitted from the cooling towers that caused a lot of concern over the contamination it was spreading from many people, for the first few years.
So much ignorance. smh.
Care to explain how cooling tower emission would be contaminated?
Nuclear power has a capacity factor of about 0.9. So a 1 GW plant will generate on average 900 MW throughout the year after taking into account downtime for maintenance and refueling.
8766 hours in a year (taking into account leap years), so that's 7889 GWh per year.
At a U.S. average rate of 12 cents/kWh = $120/MWh = $0.12 million/GWh, that's $947 million worth of power generated per year.
Nuclear plants are licensed to operate for 40 years. So that's $37.9 billion worth of power generated over 40 years.
Most of the older plants have had their license extended to 60 years. Some are requesting an extension to 80 years because everything is working just fine. So the actual power generated over the lifetime of the plant will likely be 1.5x to 2x higher.
So yeah, the $4.7 billion construction cost is tiny compared to the return you'll get. For your example of a 3.2 GW output plant that costs £24.5 billion ($30 billion) including financing, at the UK average rate of US$0.22/kWh, the expected power generated over 40 years would be worth $222 billion.
Not only that, but nuclear plants employ a large number of well paid, skilled, and educated people for that entire duration. They also pay huge amounts in local and state taxes. The contributions back to the tax base and the economy from that is worth billions more.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure... except when a foreign power uses dirty tricks to try to control the outcome of an election. Then the issue is less who said what to whom in some email and whether a country can afford to have its enemies pick its leaders.
Hillary and the DNC thank you for seeing it the way they want you to see it, and helping them spread it. Particular thanks for not even questioning it at all.
The mainstream media is already being selective about what they discuss with regards to these emails. In fact, not one single revelation of controversial statements in emails was brought forth initially by the mainstream media. Not a single one. Every thing we've heard about was from other investigative efforts.
The media is already ignoring it. The question about whether they should is only being brought up because of the liberal attitude that the ends justify the means, be it biased journalism or lies.
Since he never claimed that every gun owner is responsible, what is your point?
They've invented the perfect chastity belt, and don't even realize it.
I think this sort of thing might actually encourage mischievous kids who would not have any interest in the bike to cut the thing open on a dare.
Active plants have safety features that passive plant lack. Passive is not a standard, not by any means.
And your subsequent description of passive plants need for Diesel Generators shows you really don't understand. The whole point of passive is you don't need emergency power to keep the reactor cool. In fact, the AP1000 doesn't even have safety related emergency diesels.
That's not a standard, that is just an advancement. A standard is a set basis. There is no standard that requires plants to be passive. Passive in and of itself does not even make a plant safer than active.
The poor should be able to stream 4K porn just like everyone else.
You mean Apple doesn't ship genuine parts via E-packet from China? Whooda thunk it.
Again, you are picking out hydro just because it has a huge footprint. Hyrdo is the outlier, and if you want to compare against energy sources in general it really is of no help to point out its less than hydro. That's true for just about everything.
Growth for hydro is severely restricted due to its footprint.
But were YOUR comparisons based on J/m^2-s? Meaning, did you consider capacity factors? Its not clear with your generalizations, and if you didn't then 'who cares' because the numbers are useless.
You said whole lot of nothing. Just describing transactions. No, there is clearly a benefit to having a significant portion of the money flow into the community and support economic activity. The economy is not a zero sum game, it grows and to participate in that growth people need to get paid. If we consider a solar farm, for example, the largest portion of the cost is capital, much of which goes to Asia for supply.
People having jobs is of major importance to an economy.
Tax revenue depends on the economy too, and jobs, and production of saleable goods. It is also not a zero sum game.
Is not design but project management.
You are right, it is not design. It is partially project management, it is also supply chain and experience. These are first of a kind builds, even the suppliers are being 'created' to support it. Korea shows what you can do after you get going;
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/ww...
Build a few, get the experience and work out the kinks in the process and supply chain, apply experienced workers, and things improve dramatically.
Larger windmills are generally more efficient than smaller ones as well.
Define "energy density". If you are talking simply KW/area, who cares? Now, if you include actual production of energy for a given footprint, as MWH/Area/Year, that would be useful comparison. Of course hyrdo is unique in that the reservoir will take up a large area, but those reservoir have multiple uses beyond power generation.
All it takes is building Nth of a kind and they can be built at a lower cost and quite quickly. Korean has proven this, China is as well. Pointing to a couple of first builds where there is no supply chain or infrastructure in place is misleading as to what can be accomplished. Plenty of proof out there;
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/ww...
As for all that "toxic materials" talk. There are some extremely nasty toxic chemicals produced for PV manufacture or other industrial productions, and there is a much higher chance of human exposure due to the ways they are used. Where are the worries about that? Meanwhile, used nuclear fuel is relatively inert, particularly compared to many of the industrial wastes we produce. Add that fact that the real volume of nuclear waste is so small from a global perspective, that the problem is really quite manageable. It is easily confined and tracked. We have the technology to easily monitor, clean up, etc nuclear fuel if that were a problem. It is not like the cold war nuclear waste that so many confuse it with. No, there is not an excessive corrosion challenge.
Likely, the $370M was in 1973's dollars, which would be around $2B in 2016 dollars.
It certainly was. Of course trying to convey that fact was never the intent of the author.
Actually, it would also then require then passing to the cooling loop, then passing through to the cooling pipes to the raw water.
There are detectors in place that detect even the slightest amount of leakage from primary to secondary. The plant is shut down if that happens, and that rarely occurs due to steam generator PM and inspections.
The only reason anybody is worried is the FUD mongers and ignorance.
I wonder how many wind and solar plants could be built for a mere 6.8 Billion?
A lot, but their collective energy output would be much much less than the nuclear plant of the next 60 years. In fact, the windmills would need to be replaced 2 or 4 times, the solar panels 2 or 3 times.
We have a reactor who's steam can be seen for many miles being emitted from the cooling towers that caused a lot of concern over the contamination it was spreading from many people, for the first few years.
So much ignorance. smh.
Care to explain how cooling tower emission would be contaminated?
Nuclear power has a capacity factor of about 0.9. So a 1 GW plant will generate on average 900 MW throughout the year after taking into account downtime for maintenance and refueling. 8766 hours in a year (taking into account leap years), so that's 7889 GWh per year. At a U.S. average rate of 12 cents/kWh = $120/MWh = $0.12 million/GWh, that's $947 million worth of power generated per year. Nuclear plants are licensed to operate for 40 years. So that's $37.9 billion worth of power generated over 40 years. Most of the older plants have had their license extended to 60 years. Some are requesting an extension to 80 years because everything is working just fine. So the actual power generated over the lifetime of the plant will likely be 1.5x to 2x higher. So yeah, the $4.7 billion construction cost is tiny compared to the return you'll get. For your example of a 3.2 GW output plant that costs £24.5 billion ($30 billion) including financing, at the UK average rate of US$0.22/kWh, the expected power generated over 40 years would be worth $222 billion.
Not only that, but nuclear plants employ a large number of well paid, skilled, and educated people for that entire duration. They also pay huge amounts in local and state taxes. The contributions back to the tax base and the economy from that is worth billions more.
Yes, they overbuilt 40 years ago and had to halt construction. That has nothing to do with today.
True, but on the other hand, I'd argue that Watts Bar 2 is an example of ignoring modern safety standards to accelerate building.
Can you name one single modern safety standard that was ignored? Or are you just making an uninformed assumption?
Make love-bots not war-bots.
When all armies are made of robots, it will be senseless for them to fight each other. They will then be used to attack civilians.