The value of resilience

[nwdiver]

It's a limit, not an achievable cycle.

That's my point. Thermal Nuclear power isn't economically viable because of the laws of physics. If it's not economically viable it's not worth pursuing. Nuclear power is only worth considering if it's non-thermal.... which as far as I know no one has discovered.

[bcroe]

. I feel bad for those people that are affected by the smoke and fires. It is much more
likely than ash from a volcano. I just hope people are stay safe and find any way to get electrical power.

It is a sad situation, no end in site. Seems like the state of California needs to get really serious about
limiting this problem. I know not the answer, but in the past earthquake damage has been controlled.
After the 19th century fires of London (and Chicago locally) the core city was rebuild to standards limiting
the spread of fires. That is why the Germans could never torch London, Hamburg was not so fortunate.

Here in the Wild West the drought ended, in a week or so we got 4 inches, 1.5 inches, today 2 so far. Guess
there is no way to get some of that to the left coast. My PV solar manages to make power even in the rain,
but Tues was so dark my motion det light were on. If there is smoke, it is still too cloudy to tell. Bruce Roe

[nwdiver]

Seems like the state of California needs to get really serious about
limiting this problem.

Global CO2 emissions are 40B tons. CA is 0.4B tons/yr. Even if they went to zero that's ~1% of the problem. We need more fools fuel addicts globally to kick their pathetic addiction.

[bcroe]

That's my point. Thermal Nuclear power isn't economically viable because of the laws of physics. If it's not
economically viable it's not worth pursuing. Nuclear power is only worth considering if it's non-thermal....
which as far as I know no one has discovered.

I guess solving that problem presents an opportunity to become the richest person on earth. Another is
figuring out how to make gasoline from electricity. Apparently some people who want the lights to work
all the time thought nuke power was worth considering, the 4GW plant down the road has been doing it
for 4 decades.

Somewhat lower efficiency numbers are not the only factor of what can be made to work. Just look at
what a teensy fraction of the suns radiation hits the earth, and what a small fraction of that industry
manages to collect. Nuke has already been shown to work, I see using it as a safety and pollution
problem, and suspect we can solve those with thorium. Bruce Roe

[nwdiver]

Somewhat lower efficiency numbers are not the only factor of what can be made to work. Just look at
what a teensy fraction of the suns radiation hits the earth, and what a small fraction of that industry
manages to collect. Nuke has already been shown to work, I see using it as a safety and pollution
problem, and suspect we can solve those with thorium. Bruce Roe

Lower efficiency matters a lot more when you have to pay for the fuel AND pay to get rid of the waste heat. My solar panels are only ~20% efficient but I'm not paying for the photons and I don't have to build $700M cooling towers to get rid of the 80% that isn't harvested.

Nuclear 'worked'. Past tense. It simply cannot compete with solar and wind that cost <$20/MWh; And renewables are STILL getting cheaper! $5/MWh is probably achievable by 2030. The best most Thermal Plants can hope to achieve is ~$30/MWh. And that's operating costs. Even if the heat is free and building a nuclear plant costs nothing wind and solar are STILL cheaper. It's crazy.

My point is simple. Until someone discovers a way to go from fission => electricity with needing to go liquid => gas => liquid... nuclear power isn't worth a second thought.

[SunEagle]

Lower efficiency matters a lot more when you have to pay for the fuel AND pay to get rid of the waste heat. My solar panels are only ~20% efficient but I'm not paying for the photons and I don't have to build $700M cooling towers to get rid of the 80% that isn't harvested.

Nuclear 'worked'. Past tense. It simply cannot compete with solar and wind that cost <$20/MWh; And renewables are STILL getting cheaper! $5/MWh is probably achievable by 2030. The best most Thermal Plants can hope to achieve is ~$30/MWh. And that's operating costs. Even if the heat is free and building a nuclear plant costs nothing wind and solar are STILL cheaper. It's crazy.

My point is simple. Until someone discovers a way to go from fission => electricity with needing to go liquid => gas => liquid... nuclear power isn't worth a second thought.

Maybe and maybe not.

If you depend only on higher efficient energy there may come a time when your lights go out due to lack of source power.

All I am saying is to at least add nuclear into the mix so you can keep the lights on so most people. Either that or start to learn to make candles again..

[nwdiver]

All I am saying is to at least add nuclear into the mix so you can keep the lights on so most people. Either that or start to learn to make candles again..

That's what gas turbines are for. You don't spend $15/w on a nuclear plant and leave it sitting until needed. You spend $1/w on gas turbines for that.

The only reason to add nuclear into the mix is if you hate money.... do you hate money?

[SunEagle]

That's what gas turbines are for. You don't spend $15/w on a nuclear plant and leave it sitting until needed. You spend $1/w on gas turbines for that.

The only reason to add nuclear into the mix is if you hate money.... do you hate money?

I guess I do hate money because I would vote for nuclear energy in a heartbeat.

[nwdiver]

I guess I do hate money because I would vote for nuclear energy in a heartbeat.

That's just weird. Think of all the problems we could solve instead of burning $$$ on nuclear boondoggles. We lost $30B on Vogtle. That would buy ~30GW of wind or solar. That's A LOT of clean energy. If it even gets completed Vogtle will produce ~16TWh/yr. 30GW of renewables would produce ~80TWh/yr. I would chose to produce 80 over 16 because numbers.

If you hate $$$ why not spend on something that can do more good?

[J.P.M.]

Looking through this thread leads me to the conclusion that meeting some of the demand by reduction of wasteful practices and more sane conservation of energy are dead issues on this forum.
All is more generation and no use reduction.
Some things never change.

[nwdiver]

All is more generation and no use reduction.
Some things never change.

Maybe I'm being too hopeful but if you're on a solar forum you should have already plucked the low hanging fruit. I reduced my overall consumption by >50% before I got solar. I know ~roughly how much electricity the previous owners of my house were using since my PV system size was restricted based on that use. They were using ~13,000kWh/yr... AND they had gas. I'm using ~7,000kWh/yr, and I went 100% electric... AND I charge an EV. It's amazing what LEDs a HPWH and mini-split HVAC can do.

[J.P.M.]

Maybe I'm being too hopeful but if you're on a solar forum you should have already plucked the low hanging fruit. I reduced my overall consumption by >50% before I got solar. I know ~roughly how much electricity the previous owners of my house were using since my PV system size was restricted based on that use. They were using ~13,000kWh/yr... AND they had gas. I'm using ~7,000kWh/yr, and I went 100% electric... AND I charge an EV. It's amazing what LEDs a HPWH and mini-split HVAC can do.

Is that 7,000 kWh/yr. gross usage before PV generation or net annual draw from the POCO after reductions for PV generation ?
Sometimes the usage waters get muddied by mixing up gross usage and net draw from a utility.

I appreciate what you write but your motivations and mine, or at least our usage, are not necessarily what is common in the U.S.

You and I are quite a bit below average with respect to average U.S. residential electric energy use which, according to the EIA, averages somewhere around 11,000 kWh/yr., depending on region, climate, the price of electricity and other things. I'd cite your 13,000 kWh/yr. number from previous owners as more typical.

Given my experience and from what I've gathered over close to the last 50 years, I believe there is a lot of fruit left on the tree of energy conservation. Most of it rots in place or on the ground.

I wouldn't describe what you feel as hopeful as much as the result of maybe being a bit naive. Most in the U.S. are not like you with respect to residential energy use.

[solardreamer]

If nuclear fission is being considered then why not consider energy from Earth's rotation? Free energy and safer than anything nuclear.

In the meantime, make sure you have backup generators for days like these.

[J.P.M.]

If nuclear fission is being considered then why not consider energy from Earth's rotation? Free energy and safer than anything nuclear.

In the meantime, make sure you have backup generators for days like these.

Besides wind and tidal power, just how would that be accomplished ?

Also, what days like these are you referring to ? You on fire, or getting flooded out or something ??

[bcroe]

Can we use earthquakes? Bruce Roe