Interesting articles on EV, utilities, renewables and their impacts

[kwilcox]

Why pay twice? A nuke can generate 24 hours a day every day for 50 years and more fuel than man will ever use. . Why pay to add expensive solar or wind with unreliable output only a few hours in a day. You are not saving money and a strong argument for wasting resources.

Based on empirical data, PWR = disaster every 20 years followed by a worldwide Nuke scare that crushes the technology.

[kwilcox]

Nukes are baseline - you are stating it backwards.

You're stuck in that paradigm Russ.

[bcroe]

Why pay twice? A nuke can generate 24 hours a day every day for 50 years and more fuel than man will ever use. . Why pay to add expensive solar or wind with unreliable output only a few hours in a day. You are not saving money and a strong argument for wasting resources.

I am for Nukes, but have issues with the safety of present methods. It seems
like US technologies are directly driven by what it took to produce "the bomb"
in 1945, and subsequent cold war weapons. We have plants sitting on fault
lines, subject to the ocean and here, tornadoes. Everyone else seems to
have found ways to deal with spent fuel. We just keep it in a pool, waiting for
a big tornado to pick up fuel rods and scatter them over this end of the state.

"They are safe", if nobody makes a mistake, nothing breaks, and nature
doesn't do anything radicle. The money should be spent to develop another
generation where you can just pull the plug, and it will default to a safe,
stable state, without help from anybody. No more dangerous spent fuel just
collecting forever. Some already claim this is possible, and what about
THORIUM fuel? Bruce Roe

[Sunking]

I'd like to see them go back to Nukes with fail-safe, adjustable output designs that can pick up the slack when their renewable generation is low. That's a valid way forward IMHO.

Why pay twice? A nuke can generate 24 hours a day every day for 50 years and more fuel than man will ever use. . Why pay to add expensive solar or wind with unreliable output only a few hours in a day. You are not saving money and a strong argument for wasting resources.

[russ]

I'd like to see them go back to Nukes with fail-safe, adjustable output designs that can pick up the slack when their renewable generation is low. That's a valid way forward IMHO.

Nukes are baseline - you are stating it backwards.

[russ]

Germany is already seeing issues where the cost is going up for electricity due to them having to import it from other countries. Depending on when it becomes election time over there I wouldn't be surprised if the "non nuke" decision is changed.

As soon as the government can handle the greens throwing a tizzy fit they will go back to nuclear.

[kwilcox]

I'd like to see them go back to Nukes with fail-safe, adjustable output designs that can pick up the slack when their renewable generation is low. That's a valid way forward IMHO.

[SunEagle]

I am very interested to see how this plays out in Germany...

Germany is already seeing issues where the cost is going up for electricity due to them having to import it from other countries. Depending on when it becomes election time over there I wouldn't be surprised if the "non nuke" decision is changed.

[kwilcox]

Plants are being built, yes, but even more are being decommissioned due to public fear based on spectacular failure events every 20 years or so. So, the net nuclear energy contribution is going down worldwide. For the net to go up, PWR/containment tech has to be banned in favor of better designs that we all know are out there.

[russ]

We all talk about the superior fail-safe Nuke designs available (I've talked my share too over the years), but almost nobody seems to do anything about it when it comes to actually building something that can fail safe. I guess that's why I got off the nuclear bandwagon after the Fukishima disaster hit. People will start coming around to Nukes again, then another PWR somewhere in the world will melt down and the investment time/money will be wasted.

The object is that plants are being built despite all the whining that they can't be due to popular opinion.

I haven't bothered to see the design - it is far away where any radiation has to travel around the world to get here.

Plants can be built if people get off the defeatist attitudes that have been brought about by green peace and similar.

Same with protecting the environment (so called climate change) - the attitudes various of the warmer bunches have managed to make popular and harp on 24 * 7 tend to make real progress more difficult than need be. Such as trying to insist on RE as a major part of the solution rather than as a minor one.

[kwilcox]

4 kW that others helped pay for and it works? Come to Turkey and watch roofs. You will see many, many solar thermal units (water heaters) and zero PV.

There are no incentives or freebies here. A nuclear plant is being built though.

Russ, your plant in Akkuyu is a Russian VVER unit, a PWR. While safer than the older RBMK reactor that powered Chernobyl, it still depends on a containment dome for failure containment purposes and cannot fail safe. The newer plant in Sinop is a Mitsu design; also a PWR but unclear if it can fail safe. The Akkuyu reactor at least, is another piece being added to the set of Nukes where potential disaster is waiting to happen. While it may not be the one that fails, it adds to the overall list, thus increasing the probability that one, somewhere in the world will fail again in the short-term (10 yr) future.

We all talk about the superior fail-safe Nuke designs available (I've talked my share too over the years), but almost nobody seems to do anything about it when it comes to actually building something that can fail safe. I guess that's why I got off the nuclear bandwagon after the Fukishima disaster hit. People will start coming around to Nukes again, then another PWR somewhere in the world will melt down and the investment time/money will be wasted.

[kwilcox]

I am very interested to see how this plays out in Germany...

[SunEagle]

The pessimist says that the glass is half empty.
The optimist says that the glass is half full.
The appropriate technology advocate says that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Sounds like the 4th dimension. I say drink up while there is still something in the glass.

[russ]

That's why I put 4KW on my roof and that's why I'm evangelizing this tech.

4 kW that others helped pay for and it works? Come to Turkey and watch roofs. You will see many, many solar thermal units (water heaters) and zero PV.

There are no incentives or freebies here. A nuclear plant is being built though.

[inetdog]

Using less while wasting as little as possible of what is needed is the original appropriate technology and is still the most cost effective.

The pessimist says that the glass is half empty.
The optimist says that the glass is half full.
The appropriate technology advocate says that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.