tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post3073277758606806314..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: Using our brainsCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-88389634648869187492008-11-05T05:48:00.000-06:002008-11-05T05:48:00.000-06:00Well of course nuclear power is the answer, And w...Well of course nuclear power is the answer, And we have to very publicly think through why nuclear will work and why renewables won't or people won't see it.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-18070713728491379632008-11-05T01:36:00.000-06:002008-11-05T01:36:00.000-06:00Nuclear power works. It can deliver the power nee...Nuclear power works. It can deliver the power needed to light, cool, warm, and operate our cities and transportation systems without pollution. It is useful. Solar, wind, and combustion dont work. Solar and wind have too much entropy, and combustion is too filthy. These technologies are useless. Does anyone really think I should decide to employ a useless technology because it is cheaper than a useful one?<BR/><BR/>Now, if you want to compare one form of nuclear fission with another, then it may be the case that one is less expensive and yet still useful. So I may be interested in making that choice. Lets start there at least, ie discussing technologies that have a hope of working, and perhaps consider the wilder ideas later on if we have some idle moments. Cheap and useless is not a good starting point.<BR/><BR/>So which is better - LFTR or Hyperion?Randal Leavitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-83801809073349238002008-11-04T23:07:00.000-06:002008-11-04T23:07:00.000-06:00Ben, although you have a PhD, I have been, to a ce...Ben, although you have a PhD, I have been, to a certain extent educating you in the school of hard knocks. My hope was that you would learn from the lessons I have been teaching you, and your latest work shows signs of improvement. You have raised your grade to a B. You should understand that citing outliers is not considered the best approach of making a plausible case. But you show much more flexibility than you have shown in the past. You stick more closely to what your sources say, and that is progress. You next step is to learn how to question both your own assumptions, and the assumptions of your sources.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-75609099961911123112008-11-04T20:22:00.000-06:002008-11-04T20:22:00.000-06:00Greetings, Charles:I appreciate that you do indeed...Greetings, Charles:<BR/><BR/>I appreciate that you do indeed do your homework, and also invite readers of your blog to scitizen.com where our debate over nuclear power continues.<BR/><BR/>As for the numbers from the Keystone Center, perhaps we are reading different versions of the report. The results from a Keystone analysis were reprinted in an article in "EnergyBiz Insider," at http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-3-may-jun/Financial_Front_Prices.pdf. <BR/><BR/>Here is what that article says:<BR/><BR/>"“There’s a lot of sticker shock,” said Jim Harding, an<BR/>energy consultant who helped the Keystone Center<BR/>develop its June 2007 report, “Nuclear Power Joint<BR/>Fact-Finding.” That report concluded that overnight<BR/>estimates for a new reactor would be $2,950 per<BR/>kilowatt-hour, or between $3,600 and $4,000 per<BR/>kilowatt-hour with interest. That estimate, generated<BR/>with the input of 27 participants, including power<BR/>companies and nuclear contractors, is already<BR/>outdated because of the rapidly rising cost of metals,<BR/>forgings, other materials and labor needed to build a<BR/>new nuclear unit, Harding said."<BR/><BR/>And:<BR/><BR/>"Harding said he estimates that operating cost<BR/>per kilowatt-hour for a new nuclear plant will be 30<BR/>cents per kilowatt-hour for 12 or 13 years until construction<BR/>costs are paid down, at which point operating<BR/>costs will drop to 18 cents. Harding said those<BR/>costs are a tough sell when concentrated solar power<BR/>and wind power can be had for about 14 cents per<BR/>kilowatt-hour. He said he believes that those renewable<BR/>resources, as well as natural gas — perhaps LNG<BR/>— might prove competitive to a new nuclear plant."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com