You are some decades back with your "knowledge".
Modern windmills last minimum 30 years... no idea what was installed in the US during the 1970s and early 1980s. Germany started pretty late... around 1985. The windmills in the area where I grew up, are all still running. They are all older than 30 years.
You must have been sleeping when they replaced the generators. Just because the same base is used, doesn't mean they were not replaced.
Like I said, you parrotted them with out any insight as to their significance or applicability. All you can do is repeat the claim of someone who called them-self and expert.
Does it matter if the drone operator was in the wrong? That does not give the hillbilly permission to shoot it.
How about the next time his pickup truck exceeds the speed limit or parks illegally, we set it on fire. Is that OK?
If he is remotely operating a large vehicle in such a dangerous fashion on your property, you might be we within your rights to do so.
But if we allow this, the next thing ya know we'll be shooting at drone operators. That will inevitably lead to rounding them all up and putting them in gas chambers.
This is the dumbest thing I have read so far today. Nukes have historically been about twice the cost of coal. If they were "obviously" cheaper, they wouldn't require subsidies, and they would have replaced coal plants long ago.
This link shows the relative cost of operating a fossil vs nuclear plant through 2014. When fuel and O&M costs are considered, nuclear comes out cheaper.
Windmill lifespans are generally estimated at 10-15 years, in which time they will need complete replacement, save the tower. That's an issue many don't want to talk about. In the 80+ year lifespan of a new nuclear plant, a windmill will be 5 or more times.
Solar (the standard panels sold today) is estimated at about 25 to 30 years. It depends on location, as they don't last as long in Arizona as Seattle. So they must be completely replaced three times during the life of the nuclear plant.
Nuclear does need to do significant component replacements during its life, so that must also be considered, but the most expensive items will last the full life.
Germany's wind industry costs will start rising in the not too distant future when more and more windmills need to be replaced. That will slow the addition of new wind capacity. Their solar will probably last longer than average because they have very low solar radiance, and so PV across the country only has an average capacity factor of about 10%, where as in good locations you expect closer to 20%.
That's the problem. Many think there were actually people who were hurt by radiation from the Fukushima event. It is the result of ignorant and often agenda driven press, and the average persons belief in what they read. These same people have completely written of the tens of thousands that died because of the tsunami. That tragedy was completely ignored because it did not serve a purpose.
Meanwhile, I'm amazed at how many people never heard of Bhopal. Why..., because it doesn't serve an agenda drive purpose.
Erm no. The anti-nuclear lobby is huge, backed by irrational science, a public mindset thanks to movies like the China Syndrome which came out right before three mile island, and... wait there was another small insignificant thing... oh yes political parties in nearly every country in the world.
The oil and gas industry has pushed the anti-nuke agenda since the 70s. There is huge influence behind it and the FUD they pushed forth still shapes public ignorance today. When it came to nukes, the greens were the oil and gas industry's best tool.
Yes, because other energy sources don't receive subsidies?
So what is your point, that because EVERY energy source in the US has been subsidized that makes one better or worse? All power has been subsidized because there is an economic benefit to having reliable, abundant, low cost energy in the country. It has never been to pick winners or losers until renewables. Solar and Wind get more help per MWH, by a huge margin, than any other source has ever seen. Solar is intermittent AND unreliable AND requires backup to be viable. That is why it is expensive systemically.
Batteries are no where close to being cheap enough to be a large scale solution for solar intermittancy. Solar thermal is a disaster, and is pretty much dead in the US due to the Ivanpah bungle, which is woefully under-performing and they don't really have any solutions.
So you'll forgive me if I don't want something like a nuke plant with a 50 year life cycle in my neck of the woods when I've got to worry about a few changes in political winds undoing all those regulations...
You can ignore our history which has shown that regulation tightening consistency under every president. And since it is congress, not the president, that is required to make those changes, you are worried about the wrong thing. And, BTW, newer plants will have 60 to 100 year lifespan.
No possibility to place standard measurement equipment in the pebble-bed core, i.e. pebble bed = black box
Contamination of the cooling circuit with metallic fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137) due to the insufficient retention capabilities of fuel pebbles for metallic fission products. Even modern fuel elements do not sufficiently retain strontium and cesium.
improper temperatures in the core (more than 200 C above calculated values)
necessity of a pressure retaining containment
unresolved problems with dust formation by pebble friction (dust acts as a mobile fission product carrier, if fission products escape the fuel particles)
And so you repeat those without really understanding any of them, their significance, or how they may or may not apply to the Chinese pebble bed. You are simply a parrot.
No, Hinkley Point will not produce at double the cost of UK's power. The first EPRs are still in construction, to saying that they haven't come down in cost yet based on 'many of a kind' projections is quite a false argument, but hey what do little facts matter.
Aside from the EDF influence, the EPR is chosen largely because of the size. There are not many places to build new plants in the UK, so when you do it makes sense to build the biggest ones with the most output.
The nuclear industry has never asked for not having a regulator. But nice way to quote something that was never said. That's the kind of stuff we have come to expect from the anti-nuke lobby.
Nuclear is already cost effective. Existing plants are producing reliable energy at cost competitive with coal. Gas is the reason nuclear is struggling. Yes, the construction of first of a kind next generation designs is very expensive, but even those first plants will wind up making money, just like the first fleet we built, and building at scale brings down the cost. But you want to subsidize new solar technologies but not nuclear? Solar PV and wind have been around for a long, long time, so your criteria doesn't hold up.
2.99c per KWH in OPTIMAL CONDITIONS and after big construction tax credits, it is not a raw production cost. Few, or no, real world installations are providing power at anywhere near that cost, but nice job repeating the solar lobby marketing line.
Even with net metering and huge tax credits solar barely moved the meter. Now you can make excuses after excuses but its just not happening. In fact, Germany is already cutting back on solar subsidies because they finally realized how much it was costing them.
Solar's intermittent requires it to ride on the backs of other power sources to be feasible at all. There is a cost associated with that, but I'm sure the folks at cleantechnica don't talk about it much.
China is diversifying, building multiple reactor types. There pebble bed project has no bearing on the UK project at all. The EPR is being built in UK because EDF is the utility and they own the EPR design and will be the operator. The Chinese are a financial backing partner with EDF in UK so they are involved. The EPR issues are with component manufacturing quality, not design.
I don't like Nuclear because America doesn't have the balls to properly regulate and punish businessmen who flaunt safety.
Nuclear power is the most tightly regulated industry in the US by far. And the history of penalties and added oversight to poorer performers, and fines and even jail sentences for violations of the law is pretty clear. I guess you just haven't looked for that information.
The NRC has public meetings almost every day. You are welcome to join and learn.
Solar if flailing with by far the largest subsidies ever seen for any power technology on a per MWH basis. After a decade still only about 1% of US generation. At least wind in making some impact.
Metal roofing is relatively low cost, not as low cost as asphalt, but I can't see any solar product coming close. It would make more sense, as you say, to mix and not put high cost solar on lower exposure areas. It might be hard to make it look good.
I think this product, if it ever really even hits the market, will be limited to high end customers kind of like the Tesla, but for certain architectural applications and not common rooftops. The unknown is what are the prep and structural requirements beneath the panels.
Slashdot Mirror
You are some decades back with your "knowledge". Modern windmills last minimum 30 years ... no idea what was installed in the US during the 1970s and early 1980s. Germany started pretty late ... around 1985. The windmills in the area where I grew up, are all still running. They are all older than 30 years.
You must have been sleeping when they replaced the generators. Just because the same base is used, doesn't mean they were not replaced.
I am not an expert but I listen to experts. Do you not believe in science, engineering, maths?
You may not be listening to the right experts then, because nothing you stated is a problem that can't be managed.
Like I said, you parrotted them with out any insight as to their significance or applicability. All you can do is repeat the claim of someone who called them-self and expert.
Does it matter if the drone operator was in the wrong? That does not give the hillbilly permission to shoot it. How about the next time his pickup truck exceeds the speed limit or parks illegally, we set it on fire. Is that OK?
If he is remotely operating a large vehicle in such a dangerous fashion on your property, you might be we within your rights to do so.
But if we allow this, the next thing ya know we'll be shooting at drone operators. That will inevitably lead to rounding them all up and putting them in gas chambers.
Was he sued before?
Sounds like a lawyer is using this as a way to get his name in the papers. I'd bet he contacted the drone owners and convinced them.
This is the dumbest thing I have read so far today. Nukes have historically been about twice the cost of coal. If they were "obviously" cheaper, they wouldn't require subsidies, and they would have replaced coal plants long ago.
This link shows the relative cost of operating a fossil vs nuclear plant through 2014. When fuel and O&M costs are considered, nuclear comes out cheaper.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity...
Windmill lifespans are generally estimated at 10-15 years, in which time they will need complete replacement, save the tower. That's an issue many don't want to talk about. In the 80+ year lifespan of a new nuclear plant, a windmill will be 5 or more times.
Solar (the standard panels sold today) is estimated at about 25 to 30 years. It depends on location, as they don't last as long in Arizona as Seattle. So they must be completely replaced three times during the life of the nuclear plant.
Nuclear does need to do significant component replacements during its life, so that must also be considered, but the most expensive items will last the full life.
Germany's wind industry costs will start rising in the not too distant future when more and more windmills need to be replaced. That will slow the addition of new wind capacity. Their solar will probably last longer than average because they have very low solar radiance, and so PV across the country only has an average capacity factor of about 10%, where as in good locations you expect closer to 20%.
Perhaps that is the response of one who can't argue with the facts.
That's the problem. Many think there were actually people who were hurt by radiation from the Fukushima event. It is the result of ignorant and often agenda driven press, and the average persons belief in what they read. These same people have completely written of the tens of thousands that died because of the tsunami. That tragedy was completely ignored because it did not serve a purpose.
Meanwhile, I'm amazed at how many people never heard of Bhopal. Why..., because it doesn't serve an agenda drive purpose.
Erm no. The anti-nuclear lobby is huge, backed by irrational science, a public mindset thanks to movies like the China Syndrome which came out right before three mile island, and ... wait there was another small insignificant thing ... oh yes political parties in nearly every country in the world.
The oil and gas industry has pushed the anti-nuke agenda since the 70s. There is huge influence behind it and the FUD they pushed forth still shapes public ignorance today. When it came to nukes, the greens were the oil and gas industry's best tool.
Yes, because other energy sources don't receive subsidies?
So what is your point, that because EVERY energy source in the US has been subsidized that makes one better or worse? All power has been subsidized because there is an economic benefit to having reliable, abundant, low cost energy in the country. It has never been to pick winners or losers until renewables. Solar and Wind get more help per MWH, by a huge margin, than any other source has ever seen. Solar is intermittent AND unreliable AND requires backup to be viable. That is why it is expensive systemically.
Batteries are no where close to being cheap enough to be a large scale solution for solar intermittancy. Solar thermal is a disaster, and is pretty much dead in the US due to the Ivanpah bungle, which is woefully under-performing and they don't really have any solutions.
So you'll forgive me if I don't want something like a nuke plant with a 50 year life cycle in my neck of the woods when I've got to worry about a few changes in political winds undoing all those regulations...
You can ignore our history which has shown that regulation tightening consistency under every president. And since it is congress, not the president, that is required to make those changes, you are worried about the wrong thing. And, BTW, newer plants will have 60 to 100 year lifespan.
No possibility to place standard measurement equipment in the pebble-bed core, i.e. pebble bed = black box Contamination of the cooling circuit with metallic fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137) due to the insufficient retention capabilities of fuel pebbles for metallic fission products. Even modern fuel elements do not sufficiently retain strontium and cesium. improper temperatures in the core (more than 200 C above calculated values) necessity of a pressure retaining containment unresolved problems with dust formation by pebble friction (dust acts as a mobile fission product carrier, if fission products escape the fuel particles)
And so you repeat those without really understanding any of them, their significance, or how they may or may not apply to the Chinese pebble bed. You are simply a parrot.
No, Hinkley Point will not produce at double the cost of UK's power. The first EPRs are still in construction, to saying that they haven't come down in cost yet based on 'many of a kind' projections is quite a false argument, but hey what do little facts matter.
Aside from the EDF influence, the EPR is chosen largely because of the size. There are not many places to build new plants in the UK, so when you do it makes sense to build the biggest ones with the most output.
The nuclear industry has never asked for not having a regulator. But nice way to quote something that was never said. That's the kind of stuff we have come to expect from the anti-nuke lobby.
Nuclear is already cost effective. Existing plants are producing reliable energy at cost competitive with coal. Gas is the reason nuclear is struggling. Yes, the construction of first of a kind next generation designs is very expensive, but even those first plants will wind up making money, just like the first fleet we built, and building at scale brings down the cost. But you want to subsidize new solar technologies but not nuclear? Solar PV and wind have been around for a long, long time, so your criteria doesn't hold up.
2.99c per KWH in OPTIMAL CONDITIONS and after big construction tax credits, it is not a raw production cost. Few, or no, real world installations are providing power at anywhere near that cost, but nice job repeating the solar lobby marketing line.
Even with net metering and huge tax credits solar barely moved the meter. Now you can make excuses after excuses but its just not happening. In fact, Germany is already cutting back on solar subsidies because they finally realized how much it was costing them.
Solar's intermittent requires it to ride on the backs of other power sources to be feasible at all. There is a cost associated with that, but I'm sure the folks at cleantechnica don't talk about it much.
China is diversifying, building multiple reactor types. There pebble bed project has no bearing on the UK project at all. The EPR is being built in UK because EDF is the utility and they own the EPR design and will be the operator. The Chinese are a financial backing partner with EDF in UK so they are involved. The EPR issues are with component manufacturing quality, not design.
But those were nice assumptions/guesses you made.
I don't like Nuclear because America doesn't have the balls to properly regulate and punish businessmen who flaunt safety.
Nuclear power is the most tightly regulated industry in the US by far. And the history of penalties and added oversight to poorer performers, and fines and even jail sentences for violations of the law is pretty clear. I guess you just haven't looked for that information.
The NRC has public meetings almost every day. You are welcome to join and learn.
Solar if flailing with by far the largest subsidies ever seen for any power technology on a per MWH basis. After a decade still only about 1% of US generation. At least wind in making some impact.
Lets just subsidize it at half the level that we are for solar and wind on a construction cost and per mwh basis.
Or lets just take away all subsidies and let gas rule.
My point was that the roof underneath is so much cheaper, anything save from that aspect is irrelevant.
Metal roofing is relatively low cost, not as low cost as asphalt, but I can't see any solar product coming close. It would make more sense, as you say, to mix and not put high cost solar on lower exposure areas. It might be hard to make it look good.
I think this product, if it ever really even hits the market, will be limited to high end customers kind of like the Tesla, but for certain architectural applications and not common rooftops. The unknown is what are the prep and structural requirements beneath the panels.