Nuclear power is not and never will be perfectly safe but what people fail to realise is that neither is any of the alternatives.
Nuclear power is not and never will be perfectly safe but what people fail to realise is that neither is any of the alternatives.
QuoteNuclear power is not and never will be perfectly safe but what people fail to realise is that neither is any of the alternatives.That's perfectly true.
The best, cheapest, and safest way to use nuclear power is to use the big fusion power installed over our heads and to install massive quantities of PV panels, and storage devices.
Ummm, the waste is not depleted. If it was depleted we would know about it.
In May 1972 at the Pierrelatte uranium enrichment facility in France, routine mass spectrometry comparing UF6 samples from the Oklo Mine, located in Gabon, showed a discrepancy in the amount of the 235 U isotope. Normally the concentration is 0.72% while these samples had only 0.60%, a significant difference.[5] This discrepancy required explanation, as all civilian uranium handling facilities must meticulously account for all fissionable isotopes to ensure that none are diverted for weapons purposes.
The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit. I think PV makes the most sense for a power strategy, with storage technology improvements especially.
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.
The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit.
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.
As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.
The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit. I think PV makes the most sense for a power strategy, with storage technology improvements especially.
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.
Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.
The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit.
I understand your concern in theory, although the real risk of ever using them (again) is pretty low for the time being IMO. I admit the storage of those weapons itself is a concern though. Even if we never use them purposefully, they are still there, requiring a constant surveillance.PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.
Storing energy in this "mechanical" way is actually used worldwide, and there are a few recent ongoing projects to make them more efficient. One of them I've seen is about exactly that: pumping water to a large reservoir on a hilltop and storing it there. When it's needed, the water is released and flows down due to gravity alone, which can then power a generator. In another project of this kind, water is not directly used, but huge concrete blocks instead, underseas. Although this energy storage approach is still not very efficient, it doesn't matter much at this point since it's all about storing energy that would be lost if not stored anyway. In terms of cost, environmental friendliness and safety, it seems to compare favorably to battery-based systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Storing energy in this "mechanical" way is actually used worldwide, and there are a few recent ongoing projects to make them more efficient. One of them I've seen is about exactly that: pumping water to a large reservoir on a hilltop and storing it there. When it's needed, the water is released and flows down due to gravity alone, which can then power a generator.
Storing energy in this "mechanical" way is actually used worldwide, and there are a few recent ongoing projects to make them more efficient. One of them I've seen is about exactly that: pumping water to a large reservoir on a hilltop and storing it there. When it's needed, the water is released and flows down due to gravity alone, which can then power a generator.We have a system here in Missouri (US) that pumps water up an 800 foot hill at night, and then it runs down hill at the peak time of the day. They recently had an accident and the wall of the upper reservoir collapsed, sending 1.5 billion gallons of water crashing into a state park. They rebuilt the reservoir with better technology, so the electric utility must think it really helps.
Jon
The reality today is that whenever a nuclear power plant is decommissioned it is replaced by a coal/gas power plant.
That's not true at all.
And it makes no sense.
Wind and utility PV are now much cheaper than fossil, so why replace expensive nukes with expensive fossil ?
Makes no economic sense at all, it's more of a legend.
An exemple is germany:
The decomissioning of nukes is ongoing, and they are replaced by renewables.
Of course that hindered their reduction in coal, but that's their next big target after all nukes are gone.
. Unfortunately, coal has also increased to about 30%
Solar is provides 3% of Germany’s power ams wind 12%.
As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.
As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.
Hey, beware: 30 MPG USA = 36 MPG UK
Just out of curiosity what percentage of Germany’s electricity over the past two months was from solar?
Hey, beware: 30 MPG USA = 36 MPG UKIs that because a kg is no longer a kg anymore with the new IPK?