Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have heard that the Chinese have nearly a thousand engineers working on this full time.
It is not a technical question. 55 years ago I actually ran experiments on a sub critical reactor. I know a little about them... But we the proponents screwed up. We blew both Chernobyl and Fukushima. At this point there is no available recovery in North America or Europe. The Chinese might even succeed in China. But it will not be exportable to the west. And it really makes no difference how good it is.
Ohh and a thousand engineers is not a big deal. Westinghouse still probably has that many or more.
It's clear that you didn't even bother reading my posts, or that you don't grasp the very simple concept of intermittency and why it is a big problem.
I'm an electrical engineer with 35 years experience in the electric utility industry. You apparently have zero understanding of how the grid operates. That is why I didn't bother with your post.
Had you done your research, you'd have read (on their own website) that Basin Electric's wind turbines only generate electricity 30%-40% of the time. And that's in the extraordinarily windy Dakotas.
What about the other 60%-70% of the time? And what about the states where the wind ISN'T always blowing?
Also - and let's all admit it - wind generation wouldn't even be on the horizon were it not for billions of dollars of government subsidies.
30-40% capacity factor is also what one gets from most hydroelectric facilities. Not many people walk away from hydro. Wind in Basin's area costs about 2.5 cents per kWh, which is a major reason they have so much.
But let's revisit the assertion that reasonably large penetrations of wind can't be accommodated. I think we have show that to be bogus.
It is not a technical question. 55 years ago I actually ran experiments on a sub critical reactor. I know a little about them... But we the proponents screwed up. We blew both Chernobyl and Fukushima. At this point there is no available recovery in North America or Europe. The Chinese might even succeed in China. But it will not be exportable to the west. And it really makes no difference how good it is.
Ohh and a thousand engineers is not a big deal. Westinghouse still probably has that many or more.
It is cost not safety that kills nuclear. BTW a sub critical reactor might make an interesting school experiment, but it isn't a useful energy producer.
30-40% capacity factor is also what one gets from most hydroelectric facilities. Not many people walk away from hydro. Wind in Basin's area costs about 2.5 cents per kWh, which is a major reason they have so much.
But let's revisit the assertion that reasonably large penetrations of wind can't be accommodated. I think we have show that to be bogus.
Remove the hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies for wind generation. Then let's talk.
All aspects of energy have government subsidies. Current wind projects are competitive in many areas even without subsidies. In 50+ years there has never been a nuke built without subsidies. Even with them nukes like Vogtle and Summer are uncompetitive.
All aspects of energy have government subsidies. Current wind projects are competitive in many areas even without subsidies. In 50+ years there has never been a nuke built without subsidies. Even with them nukes like Vogtle and Summer are uncompetitive.
Obfuscation noted.
How about explaining this quote by Warren Buffett... "We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason we build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."
So... Saint Warren admits to half of the strategy. The other half - in addition to massive tax credits - is massive subsidies.
Warren Buffett is smiling all the way to the bank, and it's your money he has.
Last edited by Volvo Driver; 04-29-2017 at 08:14 AM..
How about explaining this quote by Warren Buffett... "We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason we build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."
So... Saint Warren admits to half of the strategy. The other half - in addition to massive tax credits - is massive subsidies.
Warren Buffett is smiling all the way to the bank, and it's your money he has.
He said it years ago. costs have changed. And the thread subject is nuclear, which doesn't make sense even with massive subsidies.
He said it years ago. costs have changed. And the thread subject is nuclear, which doesn't make sense even with massive subsidies.
2014 was "years ago"?
And actually, the subject of this thread is nuclear power in comparison to everything else. So yes, wind power and solar power absolutely DO figure into the equation.
It is cost not safety that kills nuclear. BTW a sub critical reactor might make an interesting school experiment, but it isn't a useful energy producer.
Both are utterly intertwined. It is achieving safe operation that drives up the cost of a reactor.
And it is the safety perception that effectively makes it impossible to invent a nuclear plant that would be cost competitive. The perception may not be real but it will still likely prevail. -
I am well aware of the nature of a sub-critical reactor. It was in a nuclear engineering course. I have been an EE some years more than you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
