Reply With Quote
Submarines are more complicated.
And taxpayers will be on the hook for any nuke that blows up and costs go above $11B, sorta like how the govt gurantees mortgages against failure.
Submarines are more complicated.
That's only one thing that differentiate naval reactors from civilian. And, it's the least relevant.
I'm going to guess that cities will never be able to order nuclear power plants in a box that are set up ready to go and purchased at the local Wal Mart.
I'm no expert, but I'd imagine they have to be custom designed due to different safety issues at each location.
I haven't followed along much, but a couple local talk show hosts here in Portland sometimes bring up the technology that one of the state colleges have developed. A design to be implemented anywhere, no possibility of meltdown, and produces power at a fair cost. If I recall, it's a pebble bed reactor, but I'm not sure if I remember that correctly.
This would be a cookie-cutter design. Sure, Wall mart's not going to sell it.
Doc Brown disagrees.
LOL...Doc Brown disagrees.
Maybe in the future. If we ever found the right stable catalyst, who know. Cold fusion may become a reality. It wouldn't surprise me if it required a T-metal catalyst in it's anatomical state pushed to a 4:3 (16:9) super-spin. I have wondered if the limited unrepeatable success there has been had to to with a small percentage of super-spin atoms in the catalyst.
Yeah, pebble bed reactors are pretty cool. The fuel, containment and moderator are all combined into a graphite coated sphere about the size of a bocci ball. Because the reaction is largely self-contained, they present a far smaller risk of releasing radioactive material. They also are comfortable at extreme temps....1600f is not uncommon. I think the downside is that the actual mass used to house the fuel remains after it's spent...in otherwords, you've got a zillion of these balls to store and apparently they take alot more room to do so. Still, it's a very elegant design by all accounts.
America corps, utilities have been pocketing profits rather than maintaining infrastructure.
People maimed and dead, homes are destroyed: San Bruno gas explosion, AFTER the CA PUC gave PGE its demanded $5M TWICE for pipeline maintenance.
West Texas wind farms have to be turned down when the wind is strong, wasting the energy, because the old, under-financed/maintained transmission network can't deliver the power to population centers.
American infrastructure that exploded after WWII is now 50 years old, and much is 100 years old, and needs maintenance and renewal. Corps won't pay for it, and there aren't enough taxes and revenues to pay for it. Americans would rather have a rotting infrastructure than pay taxes. The Free Market always delivers the Best Solution.
Obama had a golden opportunity to fix that infrastructure with huge public support for it and completely screwed the ing pooch with the Democrats in congress. Ultimately er better accomplish something or thats going to be his legacy.
I agree.
But then, whose design to choose?
Who gets to do the choosing?
What should the parameters of that choice be?
I also have little doubt that even so, there will be cost overruns. Efficiencies of scale will not avoid the lengthy court challenges that nukes will be prone to, and those challenges will add delay to any constructrion project.
All in all, I don't see nuclear as being all that cost compe ive even with all of this. I tend to take the optimistic claims of any cheerleader with some healthy skepticism.
That said, I think we should do exactly as nuclear proponents say, and devote some funds that way. Energy sources should be balanced. Just don't kid yourself that nukes won't require some big bad gub'mint funds, just like anything else.
In building up the country's nuclear capacity, I would also want some very valid concerns about security, liability and waste disposal addressed as well.
I would also want some solid funds sunk into renewable subsidies at least on the order of magnitude of what is sunk into nukes.
In ten to twenty years, we can then see the results of that spending, and get some good indication as to how much generating capacity you can get for each dollar and adjust spending priorities accordingly.
My gut says that renewables and distributed power generation will probably be far more efficient over the long run, though. Distributed power generation such as PV panels, win out in a big way once one factors in avoidance of power transmission losses, in my view.
Nah, it was Schroedinger's cat batting around the electrons.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
