Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Yanik on 10 Aug 2010 08:58 Winston <Winston(a)bigbrother.net> wrote in news:i3qit902b00(a)news1.newsguy.com: > On 8/7/2010 9:16 PM, Jim Yanik wrote: > >> and one hailstorm will put your solar plant out of operation. > > Then you need to hire a rad shielded hazmat crew to > transport the shards for storage in an underground storage > facility for many many tens of thousands of years... > > No, wait..... > >:) > > --Winston > so you have to store nuclear waste for 1000's of years,so what? (just the high level stuff,of course) France and Japan do it,no problem. you STILL get safe,reliable electric power(LOTS of it,not dribbles) 24/7/365,and not have to worry about hail,hurricanes,tornados,or any sort of weather. No need for converters and battery storage,either. Plus lots of good paying jobs. And there's always the possibility that we can reuse that high level waste in the future. Heck,we could even collect it's waste heat and use that. That's how a RTG works. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Jim Yanik on 10 Aug 2010 09:00 Koning Betweter <Koning(a)Stumper.nl> wrote in news:2010081001595068674-Koning(a)Stumpernl: > On 2010-08-07 23:35:07 +0200, John Doe said: > >> And then there is the amount of surface area required to produce >> the same amount of power, it is unrealistic. The idea of windmills >> and solar panels as a primary source of power is sold to na�ve >> people. > > I don't have a garden on my roof, so there is many room for a > solar-system! So do it,then.Show us how it's done. On your own dime,of course. > Nuclear energy need uranium. I don't like the > governements of countries who are selling uranium. > > The sun delivers much more energy as all nuclear systems in the world, > it's only a matter of getting better equipment to make energy out of > sunlight. > I gues with Nano-technology Solar systems will gonna have much more > efficiency in the near future. It will be cheaper to produce > solarpanels too. Utopian dreaming. > > Nuclear-energy will always be dangerous, besides it needs a network > for transport, solar systems make consumers independent when they > generate their own energy. > > That's not na�ve, that's clever!!! Show me. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Sylvia Else on 10 Aug 2010 09:15 On 10/08/2010 9:59 AM, Koning Betweter wrote: > solar systems make consumers independent when they generate > their own energy. Let's see them disconnect themselves from the grid, and then we'll see how independent they are. Sylvia.
From: keithw86 on 10 Aug 2010 10:11 On Aug 9, 6:59 pm, Koning Betweter <Kon...(a)Stumper.nl> wrote: > On 2010-08-07 23:35:07 +0200, John Doe said: > > > And then there is the amount of surface area required to produce > > the same amount of power, it is unrealistic. The idea of windmills > > and solar panels as a primary source of power is sold to naïve > > people. > > I don't have a garden on my roof, so there is many room for a solar-system! That must be one big building! > Nuclear energy need uranium. I don't like the governements of countries > who are selling uranium. Yeah, Canuckistan has always been a trouble spot. > The sun delivers much more energy as all nuclear systems in the world, > it's only a matter of getting better equipment to make energy out of > sunlight. "Make" energy out of sunlight? > I gues with Nano-technology Solar systems will gonna have much more > efficiency in the near future. It will be cheaper to produce > solarpanels too. That's what they've been saying for fifty years. Fusion will be here RSN, too. > Nuclear-energy will always be dangerous, besides it needs a network for > transport, solar systems make consumers independent when they generate > their own energy. Except it doesn't. It makes them dependent on my tax money *and* my electric rate. > That's not naïve, that's clever!!! Ripping off the taxpayer? I suppose you could call that "clever".
From: Tim Williams on 10 Aug 2010 10:13
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote in message news:Xns9DD05B8447173jyaniklocalnetcom(a)216.168.3.44... > so you have to store nuclear waste for 1000's of years,so what? > (just the high level stuff,of course) > France and Japan do it,no problem. Well, they obviously haven't stored it for "thousands of years". Remember, almost all waste today is stored at the site it was made at, in power plant cooling ponds. I don't know if even a gram of waste is actually officially interred anywhere on the planet. There isn't a large scale storage facility in operation, so it can hardly be considered a closed case. It is true those countries only store the high-level stuff -- they reprocess their fuel, which about triples the fissionable supply (the process is quite expensive and energy intensive, so it's not the ~50x you would expect by fissionable content alone), while reducing the amount of end product significantly (of course, the waste is much more dangerous, and there's still an awful lot of it). It's not true that they do it "no problem". The French have been putting it off just as long as we've been putting off Yucca mountain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse/Haute_Marne_Underground_Research_Laboratory Locations proposed in the 90's, repository licensed by 2015, operation expected by 2025 (as if). Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |