[a response to all the comments I've not responded to as of now] Duen pulling sound bites off the internet is hardly enlightening or expanding our understanding of the issues. Jakzco was *appointed* by Harry Reid (Senator from Nevada) to kill Yucca Mountain. He was and remains an anti-nuclear hack. It is like appointing a vegan to head the FDA's meat inspection program. It is like appointing RFK, jr to be head of Health and Human Service (which is what has happened). This is the IDIOT who purveys radiophobic fear such that he seriously poised "evacuating Tokyo" after the Fukushima incident ( no one should of been evacuated surrounding Fukushima since at *no point* did the radiation levels ever come close to being unhealthy...the several thousands who did die died from the radiophobic imposition of being forcefully evacuated, and that is on Jakzco and all anti-nuclear activists whose only selling point is fear).
Instead of actually researching the causes and effects of Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island you simply repeat memes about them or suggest pro-nuclear activists like me are ignoring them. I highly recommend "Atomic Accidents" which is a course on all the major accidents involving nuclear material. The author is James Mahaffey. Do yourself a favor and learn something (or anything) about the effects of nuclear accidents so you stop wallowing in your ignorance. I'm sorry to be harsh but it really looks like you are only commenting to score some points based on your totally false understanding of nuclear energy. On the other comment about costs. Now, that is a far more serious discussion. The problem with the articles (Bush, et al) is that a slight of hand is used in determining this by confusing "energy" and "power". Power is measured in kw/mw/gw as and usually is reflection of a generators (nuclear, wind, etc) capacity to produce watts. Energy is is measures in kwhrs (kilowatt hours)/MWhrs/GWhrs. Costs (and prices, not the same thing) are usually measured in energy (watt hours), that is over given period of time (minutes, hours, months, years) which one can read on anyone's electric utility bill. Costs to build are measured in its capacity or "name plate" rating like a generator, if producing energy, is rated at 1 MW, it is a sign that at the best of circumstances, a generator could produce x-amount of power. All well and good. So...it is announced that a solar farm is going in and will product 1MW of energy. That is the capacity to produce power is "1 MW, enough to supply 1 thousand homes". We see this all the time. It at best factually inaccurate and at worst, an outright lie. Why? Because the capacity FACTOR for most solar in the northern hemisphere is only about .18 or 1/5th of the *rated power*. Because that nameplate capacity is only good for a few hours a day and is less than the 1 MW in question by a huge factor. An on demand generator like a gas turbine, hydro, coal, natural gas plant, or nuclear has capacity factor close to its rated capacity. That is they usually can produce about 5 times the number of MWhours...in this case 24MWhrs...because it is not subject to the rotation of the solar panels as the night reduced the capacity factor to zero. So "costs" get tricky here. In order to get the same amount of energy (measured in real quantities in terms of "hours") one would need to build about 5 times the number of "1 MW solar farms" to really provide the energy to those "1,000 homes" one reads in articles written by the scientifically illiterate "energy" journalists. So now the cost goes up by a factor of about 5 times! But wait! There's more! To get energy storage one has to build a LOT of expensive storage to store more than the 5 times rated capacity of the solar farm. Those costs are not every included in most articles about how "cheap" solar energy is. Nor, for the most part, are the grid upgrades necessary to absorb and distribute. In every case of a national or regional expansion of wind or solar there is a huge expansion of fossil fuel (natural gas, usually but also coal) generators since enough storage to last a day or more has never been built though to be honest, Australia is trying to do this at great expense). That means for every MWhour produced, a double-digit percentage of this power has to be siphoned off the grid in order to charge these very expensive battery packs. More... Besides all of that most solar cell start losing efficiency after 10 years are almost not worth the cost of maintaining them after 20 years. On the other hand, nuclear which doesn't need any storage at all, can produce carbon free energy around the clock for *decades* longer than solar or wind. ALL plants under construction today have a minimum of 60 years lifespan and likely will be able to out to 80 or even a 100 years. So NOW, if one adds up all the real costs, nuclear comes out cheaper than solar and wind. It IS a huge debate but the only real one that is effective in getting us to understand the real costs of energy production. David -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#35217): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/35217 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/111104123/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
