I don't even get a nod? How many rants does it take?
condensed version: The French have pretty much figured this out (they started 40 years ago). Multiple medium sized reactors of the exact same design. This makes maintenance, operation, training and nearly everything else easier and more efficient than out hodgepodge of designs and implementations designed to keep contractors and utility operators in the black.
They recycle their fuel getting a much better yield (we only use about 5% of the fuel we mine), and they have a plan for storage of the waste that involves buy in from the remote communities impacted. They also have a requirement that the stored materials are retrievable for several hundred years in case they come up with a better treatment solution.
We use a lot of power. New tech is helping curb the usage, but adoption and growth is simply too much. If even half of the people of the world get near our standard of living, there simply isn't enough solar/wind/coal/hydro/oil/tidal/whatever to absorb/catch/burn/spin/burn/sway/whatever to make energy for everyone. Nuclear is the ONLY answer that has capacity. I'm all for Ms various smaller designs and I think thorium has some real potential (with some associated scaling problems). But no matter what flavor, the only option is turn stuff off, and convince everyone else to do the same, or go nuclear.
your rants are fine
this is a union seniority issue (see bylaws)
however there is an amendment recently adopted (article 21, section 4e) that gives constitutional authority to represent one another in any and all circumstances of conflabulation* when present
*argument, argumentation, argy-bargy, back-and-forth, beef, bitch, colloquy, chit-chat, conference, consult, consultation, council, counsel, debate, deliberation, discussion, dialogue (also dialog), duel, give-and-take, palaver, parley, schmooze, spank, talk and verbally body slam
The PDF breaks everything down and explains it (much better than I could).
Won't open here for some reason.
I'll totally cede the point that Nuclear isn't perfect. But I really don't see any alternatives. I'm in an industry that counts building loads in MegaWatts. I see a lot of stuff about loads and planning from utilities. We have made great strides in efficiency, better insulation, LED bulbs, refrigerators that use pennies a day in electricity... And yet the larger TVs and more USB chargers keep the household loads creeping up. Businesses make progress with more efficient equipment, but then add more features and give all employees two monitors and a laptop, and then back everything up to NAS in teh basement....
And that's just us. Wait until the rest of the world gets on the 2 TVs, a laptop a phone and a kindle bandwagon. Less usage (not likely), fewer people (unpleasant process), or more electrical generation. We need one of these. If we don't do it with Nuclear, we won't keep up with anything environmentally friendly. If we burn coal/gas/oil to keep up, we may wind up with fewer people that are plugging stuff in, but that seems a pretty ugly way to reach the goal. Pick your poison. Good, Fast, Cheap, you can't have them all.
and the US is something like 20% of electrical generation. Yes that is only electrical, but electrical demand is expanding and has fewer alternatives (some of the other energy sources are switching to electrical). They do export because their cost of production is low. I'd like to see where you get that it is a loss - The (state) power company does lose money frequently, but that's not from selling electricity. If it was sold at loss, I doubt they would keep selling it.
The PDF breaks everything down and explains it (much better than I could).
Maybe not always at a loss, since energy prices fluctuate. The report is also from 2008, based on 2007 data, so it may be a bit outdated.
~77% of electricity is generated by nuclear, which ends up as 15% in final energy use (as not everything runs on electricity). A chunk of it has always been exported, and at a loss.
and the US is something like 20% of electrical generation. Yes that is only electrical, but electrical demand is expanding and has fewer alternatives (some of the other energy sources are switching to electrical). They do export because their cost of production is low. I'd like to see where you get that it is a loss - The (state) power company does lose money frequently, but that's not from selling electricity. If it was sold at loss, I doubt they would keep selling it.
Certainly, not without problems is a phrase that can be used for nearly every major construction/engineering problem ever. I can't open the PDF, but the first article is mostly about construction issues and delays with some real questions about vessel integrity that are being tested. Then it mentions similar construction problems in the US and says that the French have a credibility problem.
The French are currently generating 3/4 of their energy from nuclear. Substantially more than anyone else.
I stand by my statement that there is no other alternative. Either we use less energy (I just don't see this happening), or we figure out how to produce more. Nuclear is the only possible source that can supply the need. I'd like to supplement with as many other green(ish) technologies as we can, and keep looking for others, but for now it's time to start cracking atoms.
~77% of electricity is generated by nuclear, which ends up as 15% in final energy use (as not everything runs on electricity). A chunk of it has always been exported, and at a loss.
condensed version: The French have pretty much figured this out (they started 40 years ago). Multiple medium sized reactors of the exact same design. This makes maintenance, operation, training and nearly everything else easier and more efficient than out hodgepodge of designs and implementations designed to keep contractors and utility operators in the black.
They recycle their fuel getting a much better yield (we only use about 5% of the fuel we mine), and they have a plan for storage of the waste that involves buy in from the remote communities impacted. They also have a requirement that the stored materials are retrievable for several hundred years in case they come up with a better treatment solution. (...)
Certainly, not without problems is a phrase that can be used for nearly every major construction/engineering problem ever. I can't open the PDF, but the first article is mostly about construction issues and delays with some real questions about vessel integrity that are being tested. Then it mentions similar construction problems in the US and says that the French have a credibility problem.
The French are currently generating 3/4 of their energy from nuclear. Substantially more than anyone else.
I stand by my statement that there is no other alternative. Either we use less energy (I just don't see this happening), or we figure out how to produce more. Nuclear is the only possible source that can supply the need. I'd like to supplement with as many other green(ish) technologies as we can, and keep looking for others, but for now it's time to start cracking atoms.
condensed version: The French have pretty much figured this out (they started 40 years ago). Multiple medium sized reactors of the exact same design. This makes maintenance, operation, training and nearly everything else easier and more efficient than out hodgepodge of designs and implementations designed to keep contractors and utility operators in the black.
They recycle their fuel getting a much better yield (we only use about 5% of the fuel we mine), and they have a plan for storage of the waste that involves buy in from the remote communities impacted. They also have a requirement that the stored materials are retrievable for several hundred years in case they come up with a better treatment solution. (...)
I don't even get a nod? How many rants does it take?
condensed version: The French have pretty much figured this out (they started 40 years ago). Multiple medium sized reactors of the exact same design. This makes maintenance, operation, training and nearly everything else easier and more efficient than out hodgepodge of designs and implementations designed to keep contractors and utility operators in the black.
They recycle their fuel getting a much better yield (we only use about 5% of the fuel we mine), and they have a plan for storage of the waste that involves buy in from the remote communities impacted. They also have a requirement that the stored materials are retrievable for several hundred years in case they come up with a better treatment solution.
We use a lot of power. New tech is helping curb the usage, but adoption and growth is simply too much. If even half of the people of the world get near our standard of living, there simply isn't enough solar/wind/coal/hydro/oil/tidal/whatever to absorb/catch/burn/spin/burn/sway/whatever to make energy for everyone. Nuclear is the ONLY answer that has capacity. I'm all for Ms various smaller designs and I think thorium has some real potential (with some associated scaling problems). But no matter what flavor, the only option is turn stuff off, and convince everyone else to do the same, or go nuclear.
I don't even get a nod? How many rants does it take?
condensed version: The French have pretty much figured this out (they started 40 years ago). Multiple medium sized reactors of the exact same design. This makes maintenance, operation, training and nearly everything else easier and more efficient than out hodgepodge of designs and implementations designed to keep contractors and utility operators in the black.
They recycle their fuel getting a much better yield (we only use about 5% of the fuel we mine), and they have a plan for storage of the waste that involves buy in from the remote communities impacted. They also have a requirement that the stored materials are retrievable for several hundred years in case they come up with a better treatment solution.
We use a lot of power. New tech is helping curb the usage, but adoption and growth is simply too much. If even half of the people of the world get near our standard of living, there simply isn't enough solar/wind/coal/hydro/oil/tidal/whatever to absorb/catch/burn/spin/burn/sway/whatever to make energy for everyone. Nuclear is the ONLY answer that has capacity. I'm all for Ms various smaller designs and I think thorium has some real potential (with some associated scaling problems). But no matter what flavor, the only option is turn stuff off, and convince everyone else to do the same, or go nuclear.
In my own considerable experience with watching humans "evolve," it seems we have gone far astray from flourishing and have indeed placed the entire planet's ecosystem in jeopardy. This in a relative minuscule amount of time. Until we dispense with greed, the addiction to personal power, and our problems with overpopulation, I don't see that working. Nuclear might be fine if there was a safe way to deal with the very very dangerous nuclear waste problem
a few random thoughts...
there are many types of reactors and they all produce waste
some are relatively wasteful, some are very efficient
the run the gamut, like automobiles
and the waste is toxic, no question about that
imho nuclear has been neglected and politically positioned/leveraged to suit certain purposes
in the early days the political incentives were for war (stuff that goes boom)
those weren't concerned about waste or energy
now we have designs that are much safer and could actually burn the waste from the old reactors
and the new designs make it very difficult to produce weapons and the waste is minuscule
they're great for energy, desalination, etc.
you might watch pandoras promise on netflix (which isn't perfect but it can give you an overview to start) and/or check out this youtube channel
as i understand it nuclear is much safer than anything we have (that can scale) and can appease the CO2/green acolytes
solar, wind and hydro have some scale issues
solar has a lot of potential (see exponential growth like swanson's law)
the planet needs a lot more energy availability to lift the masses out of poverty (which curbs population growth)
short answer: the more energy we have, the better off we are
In my own considerable experience with watching humans "evolve," it seems we have gone far astray from flourishing and have indeed placed the entire planet's ecosystem in jeopardy. This in a relative minuscule amount of time. Until we dispense with greed, the addiction to personal power, and our problems with overpopulation, I don't see that working. Nuclear might be fine if there was a safe way to deal with the very very dangerous nuclear waste problem
I don't necessarily disagree, but given the scale of the issue, much resources will have to be spent on adapting. Earth is like a huge ship that will take literally thousands of years to turn around.
In my own considerable experience with watching humans "evolve," it seems we have gone far astray from flourishing and have indeed placed the entire planet's ecosystem in jeopardy. This in a relative minuscule amount of time. Until we dispense with greed, the addiction to personal power, and our problems with overpopulation, I don't see that working. Nuclear might be fine if there was a safe way to deal with the very very dangerous nuclear waste problem
still think this guy is the funniest guy on the planet, barring my uncle.