Sure. But let's stop throwing my kids money up a hogsbutt chasing the solar dream.Wind and solar may be a loser to nuclear, but that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. Every power source we can imagine should be developed and used. We just need to be practical about its viability. Wind and solar do not provide reliable steady power, but they both can be used to supplement other power sources. We only have a problem with wind and solar when we put too much reliance on those unreliable sources. There are peak times during the day when the grid is used more often than other times. It is during those peak hours when wind and solar can be included with the rest of the grid to help offset the load.
Nuclear is also not the panacea that it was made out to be in the video either. You only want to place nuclear on stable ground, beyond the reach of any tsunami. Which eliminates coastal areas and places like Alaska, California, Italy, Turkey, southeast Asia, and any other geologically active location.
We should also be looking into using thorium (Th-232) molten salt reactors. They present a higher risk of gamma radiation and could potentially result in producing U-233 if protactinium (Pa-233) is not removed during the fission process, but produces radioactive waste with a much shorter half-life than uranium nuclear reactors. They is also have no possibility of "melting-down" a thorium molten salt reactor, like there is with uranium nuclear reactors.
Hydroelectric and geothermal power sources also should be included where ever it is practical to build them. The city of Anchorage, Alaska, for example, is primarily powered by three natural gas power plants, a hydroelectric dam, a wind farm, and a coal power plant. No solar is used, however, there are plans to construct a 5 MW tidal generator in Cook Inlet that will be used by the city. Anchorage is using every energy source at its disposal that is practical.
The point, however, is to develop stable, reliable, and cheap power sources, while using renewable energy sources - where they are cost effective - to supplement the reliable sources. Renewable energy sources should never be allowed to become the primary energy source, like California, Germany, the Netherlands, and other nations are attempted to do.
Solar has its uses.Sure. But let's stop throwing my kids money up a hogsbutt chasing the solar dream.
Purdue University, the University of Colorado, and MIT have been working that issue for more than a decade now. MIT is saying they won't have anything practical until at least 2025.Well, get on that, Glitch. Stop wasting time here.
Except that uranium nuclear reactors should not be used in geologically active locations, or within 10 miles of the coast. That would be courting with disaster.I personally think the right answer is nuclear as base load with a combination of solar, wind and natural gas peakers adjusting to demand.
I personally think the right answer is nuclear as base load with a combination of solar, wind and natural gas peakers adjusting to demand.
I'm not terribly enthusiastic about wind but solar is dirt cheap, extraordinarily reliable in terms of hardware and maintenance, and where it works it works extremely well. I have personally participated in the setup of some grid solar PPEs and can attest to the economics being highly attractive. The one downside is offset nicely by local storage and natural gas peakers, the former still being expensive but rapidly improving in cost due to vehicle electrification, and the latter being highly flexible.Or why not just have nuclear base load only and forego unnecessary expensive duplication of power grids ?
Renewables consume vast areas of land per GwH of electricity generated, so in a sense its them that become the environmental blight on the land. I know my native Scotland has destroyed nearly all its beautiful countryside by festooning every hill or loch with countless ugly expensive windmills
I'm not terribly enthusiastic about wind but solar is dirt cheap, extraordinarily reliable in terms of hardware and maintenance, and where it works it works extremely well. I have personally participated in the setup of some grid solar PPEs and can attest to the economics being highly attractive. The one downside is offset nicely by local storage and natural gas peakers, the former still being expensive but rapidly improving in cost due to vehicle electrification, and the latter being highly flexible.
I don't understand the "unnecessary duplication of power grids" - does your native Scotland have multiple independent power grids? How many different grid interconnections do you have within your household?
Ah I see the problem. You don't understand how power grids are architected.The power grids for renewables and fossil fuels have to be duplicated due to geography and the physical unreliabilty of renewables by fossil fuels hence hugely increasing their cost and try selling solar in Scotland
I agree. The cost of each energy source needs to be taken into consideration. We should always be looking to employ the cheapest method for generating the most energy whenever possible. Not just factoring in the cost of delivery, but also the cost of making emissions cleaner, and the cost of disposal when at the end of their useful life.Sure. But let's stop throwing my kids money up a hogsbutt chasing the solar dream.