Solar panel manufacturing plant 25mw/year

[Sunking]

Nuclear simply cannot be built to the scale that's needed. Period.

That is not true, all it takes is the will to do it and get the government out of the way.

[russ]

Didn't hear about French reactors shutting down - was in India at the time where it was hot - that 'horrible' heat wave was only in the mid 30

[greenHouse]

Reactors can be placed near the coast and have the same cooling water supply as the subs - not as cool but all the flow they need. Green fools will cry about sea temperature then though.

Russ

Near the coast? Near =which= coast?

[greenHouse]

That is not true, all it takes is the will to do it and get the government out of the way.

Do you know how few welders with the skill to weld on nuclear power plants exist? And the amount of concrete needed? And steel?

No, it's not a matter of "will", it's a matter that anyone with any skills as a project planner knows that there are too many things on too many critical paths to build enough nuclear plants in a short enough time to make a difference.

Navy nukes, while pretty phat, aren't enough power, and then it's a question of available skills. The time for moving to nuclear was 40 years ago. The only power technologies that can be built on assembly lines are all renewable sources.

[russ]

I think Julie has never been around large scale construction. That is what I did for many years around the world.

The amount of concrete is large but no big deal - around the clock pouring allows you to pour immense volumes.

Project planner skills not available? Come on!

Welder skills? Of course people can be qualified - providing there is a demand.

The concern over the Navy reactors being too small to count - scale it up - come on.

Or are you saying the Indians and Chinese can build nuclear plants but Americans are not capable.

You seem to want a few giga watt yesterday? Not going to happen with solar either - distributed solar is not going to make a significant difference in the overall power supply. Coal, nuclear, existing hydro and gas will be supplying virtually all of the power for years to come.

Russ

[greenHouse]

I think Julie has never been around large scale construction. That is what I did for many years around the world.

The country that seems to have the best nuclear power program, France, has barely enough nuclear capacity to power Texas, and it's been at it for 40 years.

We don't have twice as many reactors.

We need dozens of times more.

[russ]

Kind opposite the Seabees motto - seems you are stuck on:

1) Can't do for nuclear
2) Can do for distributed solar - which I seriously doubt will ever come into existence for many reasons - such as when Uncle Sam stops passing out free money.

The French haven't been building reactors at a fast rate - just continuing on with their program.

Russ

[greenHouse]

Kind opposite the Seabees motto - seems you are stuck on:

1) Can't do for nuclear
2) Can do for distributed solar - which I seriously doubt will ever come into existence for many reasons - such as when Uncle Sam stops passing out free money.

The French haven't been building reactors at a fast rate - just continuing on with their program.

Russ

I'm not married to anything other than actually being able to be done. I see no evidence that nuclear power plant production can happen at the needed level.

We disagree. Amazing!

[Sunking]

The country that seems to have the best nuclear power program, France, has barely enough nuclear capacity to power Texas, and it's been at it for 40 years.

France started its Nuclear Program in 1974 during the oil crisis. USA did nothing. Since that time France has build up the nuclear power generation to supply roughly 80% of their electrical power. France generation capacity is 14,400 TW which includes 91 reactors. Texas has roughly 10,000 TW in generation capacity

France is the worlds largest electrical Exporter and has the least expensive fuel cost of 3.3-cent per Kwh euro, about 4 cents USD, and the lowest cost power plant construction cost

We don't have twice as many reactors.

We need dozens of times more.

Texas has 2 nuke plants which produce 11% of th estates electrical power. There is an upgrade at one plant which will boost total production another 2% for a total of 13%. However our nuke plants are fairly small. If using the 1.5 Tw units, it would only take a half dozen plants in TX to replace all existing gas, coal, and wind in Texas not to mention thousands of high paying jobs.

[greenHouse]

Texas has 2 nuke plants which produce 11% of th estates electrical power. There is an upgrade at one plant which will boost total production another 2% for a total of 13%. However our nuke plants are fairly small. If using the 1.5 Tw units, it would only take a half dozen plants in TX to replace all existing gas, coal, and wind in Texas not to mention thousands of high paying jobs.

Texas has no such thing as a terawatt reactor. NO ONE has a TERAwatt reactor. South Texas #1 and #2 are a pair of 1,280 MEGAwatt reactors, which is 1.28 GIGAwatts.

[Sunking]

Texas has no such thing as a terawatt reactor.

It was a typo on my part transposing a years worth ofwatt hour production vs generator size. I meant 1.5 GW

[greenHouse]

It was a typo on my part transposing a years worth ofwatt hour production vs generator size. I meant 1.5 GW

That's also not a year's production at 98% up-time, which is what STP runs at. 1.5GW x 24 hours x 365 days = 13.14GWh. I'm sure the production figures for STP are lying around somewhere.

I'm struggling with the weirdness of accounting so I don't have time to go look them up -- flunked Managerial Accounting because I was too buy writing business software (obviously didn't pay attention!) and building houses my Senior year ...

[Sunking]

That's also not a year's production at 98% up-time,

Yes I know that, no generator runs at 100 output at 100% of the time. If they did we would be blacked out a lot. All I am pointing out is nuclear generators are some of the largest ever made.

[greenHouse]

Yes I know that, no generator runs at 100 output at 100% of the time. If they did we would be blacked out a lot. All I am pointing out is nuclear generators are some of the largest ever made.

Uh, the number I gave is, I think, the FERC reported uptime relative to capacity. STP is one of the most reliable (I think it's #1) of the twin reactor plants in the country. As the single largest plant, it's also responsible for much of the spinning reserves requirement.

I'll have to see if I can find the ERCOT report from a while back when 2,600MW from STP dropped off the grid. The response was very interesting -- instantly losing that much generation is always fun to watch.

[Sunking]

I'll have to see if I can find the ERCOT report from a while back when 2,600MW from STP dropped off the grid. The response was very interesting -- instantly losing that much generation is always fun to watch.

Heck with that, go to ERCOT and see what happened in Dallas and northwest texas when th ewind died and we lost all the wind generator capacity and no conventional plant was running hot standby.