Posted on 05/20/2008 3:23:58 PM PDT by Delacon
Power consumption is always changing moment by moment. If you ever get the chance, try to get a tour of your local electric utility’s control center. For Progress Energy in North Carolina, it’s the Skaale Center on Hillsborough St. in Raleigh.
Check out EDF.PA on Yahoo Finance.
If this is a financial disaster, then someone is going to have to explain what success means.
Sure, it was subsidized, but so are many US businesses in some way.
Plus, it would be a huge task just to get to 40% electric/nuke. Still would not have to worry about daily cycle excess.
C2K
There are many, many techniques for storing excess energy during non-peak hours. Nuclear may not be the best solution in all cases, but the fact it has to run “full out” doesn’t necessarily preclude its greater use. That’s why energy decisions should be made by experts in the energy industry as well as the free market and not by political hacks or media pundits.
The delays, unnecessary regulations run amok, no wonder it was more expensive.
There are also costs that transcend monetary, and we're paying those costs today.
“Power consumption is always changing moment by moment.”
I know that, but that does not change what I said about having the right mix of nuclear power and more flexible power which will not cause any wasted nuclear power.
I’m going to agree with the others. The writer is talking beyond his competency.
His main point is that, since nuclear plants don’t lend themselves to being peakers, that they are not the answer. This is his sleight of hand. We’re not looking for “the” answer, we’re looking for answers, of which nuclear power can be a key part of the answer.
This is a sleight of hand that is used to undercut any and every action we try to take; since its not “the” ultimate and definitive answer, we ought not do it. Is ANWR going to solve all of our energy needs? No? Then we’re kidding ourselves to drill there at all. Is drilling off California going to solve all our needs? No? Then best not drill at all. Is a new wind farm going to solve all our needs? No?
You can see how the game is played. The end result is always paralysis.
If nukes don’t make great peakers, that should stop us from building about a hundred of them to take up the base load. That will take a while, and the question of “surplus” nuclear energy isn’t going to be an issue for quite a few years.
And when we get to the day that surplus nuclear power is a “problem”, isn’t that what we want? How else are we supposed to power those electric cars we’re supposed to want? And when would they be charging? At night?
At night. Exactly. Build enough nukes to cover daytime requirements, and at night while we all sleep, we’ll all charge our cars. Nat gas plants will be our peakers, just as they are now. Its not a problem.
My answer to questions like this, nuke versus wind versus bio versus natgas versus coal is let a thousand blossoms bloom. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. But nuke is another basket we have hardly begun to use.
Excellent post. I agree with all of it. I wish I had wrote it myself.
Meant to say "that shouldn't stop us"
Hell EGD, no problem at all. How about the "costly, power hungry" political hacks in Congress? You know it is simply not possible to produce more power than this pack of hyenas can suck up...
I’ve mixed many a batch of boric acid in water to fill the boric acid storage tank.
Boron 10 absorbs a neutron to become boron 11, which then alpha decays to lithium 7. The lithium helps scavenge oxygen from the reactor coolant.
The power in a nuclear reactor is not wasted by running it at a reduced power level. And as I said in post 28, it’s fairly easy to change power level in a General Electric reactor.
It's probably because most of the ridiculous "alternatives" can't past either the economically feasible test, or violate the second law of thermodynamics, D-1... The oil company's dark conspiracy has NOT reached into the souls of FReepers who demand reality in alternative energy proposals... don't worry!!!
We just like physics, chemistry and other scientifically tested theories, rather than the baseless barrage of dreamy alternatives the simply won't do as flexible and safe and all-around feasable job as hydrocarbons, ok???
Some of us also feel the same way about "Big Pharma" and all the other "BIG's!" They bees big because they help people live better lives, by and large!!! (Oh! And they keep productive people actually employed, too!!!)
build enough nuke plants to operate all peak hour needs,
as demand decreases, power water de-salianation plants
AND WATER THE WILD FIRE AREAS
this creats a ton of jobs and a ton of solutions
Nuke plants are better used as “base load” generators — but then, so are coal plants.
That’s a far cry from the author’s assertion that they are “designed to run flat out, 24/7”.
See also post 28.
My rx was designed in 1965....i would hope things have improved :D
I still think his campaign is going down in flames worse than Dole/Kemp's did and I still won't vote for his miserable maverick carcuss, but he's right on nuclear power even if there ain't no man-made GW to resolve!!! This stance will nuke HIM!!! (even though he's half right)
Nuclear power as a piece of our energy puzzle sounds reasonable.
But I wonder what quantity of uranium reserves we have access to for the future? Also, have we actually found a feasible solution to removal of the waste - the old NIMBY argument always comes up.
Exactly the point I was about to make, except you said it a lot better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.