TheEEStory.com

News, Reviews and Discussion of EEStor Inc.
Fission is OUT...yeah, right. « Open Forum « News, Reviews & Misc
 
Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 8:20am #1
Robw
EEndearing
Stooges_facepalm
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Mon, 28 Jan 2013
Posts: 978

For all you who think this way (you know who you are), I guess the world's largest country thinks just the opposite.

Fission is IN...get use to it.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/03/china-plans-to...


Offline


Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 9:46am #2
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Pretty sad when the leaders of Communist China show more economic sense regarding the future of energy production than the leaders of Germany, Denmark, Spain, the UK, and the USA!


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 10:41am #3
Fibb
EExhilarating
Head_asplode_plus
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 20 Dec 2013
Posts: 3401

hmmmmm.... at least 8 billion in public subsidies for that new nuclear plant in the USA and that's OK with you. seems very anti free market to me.

edit - een told me to lighten up.

Last edited Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 11:11am by Fibb


The time has come to demonstrate that ZENN is on the right path Romney/Ryan 2012

Dick Weir will not go quietly in the night.... - FMA

My grandkids won't know what it means to put gas or diesel in a car.

Offline
Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 11:47am #4
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 days ago
Posts: 4011

This is about capacity targets, not the economic viability of competing technologies.

PRC has mid-term targets and discovered it is further ahead than anticipated in solar and wind capacity. Emphasis was then logically shifted to meeting the targets for shale gas, hydro, nuclear fission, etc. Main point of the targets is to increase usable capacity to meet anticipated needs.

I recall reading of unused solar and wind capacity due to grid tie-in issues. Idea was the PRC grid is not as flexible as some western grids are. Haven't confirmed that in either direction. A product from Isentropic, as advertised, could help with this.

It's worth noting the speed with which the course was corrected in achieving the PRC's capacity goals. Having the capacity for decisiveness is useful in many scenarios. One hypothetical scenario that comes to mind here, is PHES systems from Isentropic coming onto the market.


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 7:43pm #5
AD2
EEcclesiastical
Eestortoise
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 05 Feb 2013
Posts: 1136

Robw wrote:

For all you who think this way (you know who you are), I guess the world's largest country thinks just the opposite.

Fission is IN...get use to it.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/03/china-plans-to...

Uranium fission is IN, because crony capitalism is IN, because kleptocracy is IN, because fascism is IN.

In a truly free and libertarian society, fission would be nowhere because you can't insure against the risks, and to force that cost/risk upon the general public knowing full well that if the worst happened (no matter how unlikely) nobody would be compensated is about as anti-free market as you can get.

Hooray for fission. Hooray for fascism.


It's time for EEStor to come out of its shell.

Offline
Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 8:01pm #6
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

AD2:

In a pure Libertarian society, with no central guv'mint, there would be no nationwide electric grid. Just like there would be no nationwide highway system, public schools, public water, sewer systems, and natural gas distribution, land-line phones and cable TV, or immunization programs and other public health services.

I'm glad I don't live in that world, and I'm proud to be a moderate "small-l" libertarian.

I'm also very happy to live about 80 miles downwind from the Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant, 'cuz far too much of Kansas' power (about 75%) comes from dirty coal. I certainly wish Wolf Creek would add a few reactors! Or several.

Everything in moderation... including moderation.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 9:15pm #7
AD2
EEcclesiastical
Eestortoise
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 05 Feb 2013
Posts: 1136

Lensman wrote:

AD2:

In a pure Libertarian society, with no central guv'mint, there would be no nationwide electric grid. Just like there would be no nationwide highway system, public schools, public water, sewer systems, and natural gas distribution, land-line phones and cable TV, or immunization programs and other public health services.

I'm glad I don't live in that world, and I'm proud to be a moderate "small-l" libertarian.

I'm also very happy to live about 80 miles downwind from the Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant, 'cuz far too much of Kansas' power (about 75%) comes from dirty coal. I certainly wish Wolf Creek would add a few reactors! Or several.

Everything in moderation... including moderation.

Collectivism is not anti-libertarian if a majority of people actually want what they are combining to afford or organise, be that electric grids or the space race or going to war, or unions or public schools or phone lines or whatever you want to think of.

That is called democracy. Albeit a tyranny of the majority, maybe, but such a state of affairs would be about giving a majority of people things that they want.

Uranium nuclear fission is almost always foist upon people who for the most part don't want it, and with absolutely no regard to who would pay for a disaster.

If your beloved nuclear power plant has a meltdown, your home will be worth nothing and you will not get a penny in compensation.

That is fascistic, not libertarian, and it represents a severe market failure for those who believe in free markets in any way at all.

Should such an abhorrence happen, you might accept it.

But anyone else who did not buy into the "too cheap to meter", clean and green sales pitch would be rightly upset at having been so awfully abused.

Should you want to talk thorium, well perhaps that's a different debate.

But uranium nuclear is championed by fascists and by those who do not realise they are supporting fascism.


It's time for EEStor to come out of its shell.

Offline
Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 9:54pm #8
Robw
EEndearing
Stooges_facepalm
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Mon, 28 Jan 2013
Posts: 978

c'mon, AD2, give in to the dark side. It might be evil, but at least the lights will always be on, unlike your pixie dust, fairy-tale world of windmills and solar cells.

Maybe it's not the 'dark side' after all.


Offline
Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 9:58pm #9
WalksOnDirt
EESUrient
Ctenucha
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1749

AD2 wrote:

If your beloved nuclear power plant has a meltdown, your home will be worth nothing and you will not get a penny in compensation.

Over 20,000 people died from the quake and its aftermath. They will get next to nothing in compensation. Those displaced by the nuclear disaster are in better shape. If it had been a newer power plant most of the long term contamination would have been avoided.


Deasil is the right way to go.

Offline
Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 10:31pm #10
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

Chinese needs electricity now, not 10 years from now. In 10 years they will be like "What the frack were we thinking building all these nukes?!"


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Thu, 15 Mar 2012, 11:58pm #11
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

AD2 wrote:

But uranium nuclear is championed by fascists and by those who do not realise they are supporting fascism.

Gee, I didn't realize "fascist" was a compliment. But clearly, coming from you, it is! http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g194/Lensman03/Smileys/SmileySmlGrin.gif

Now more nukes!


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Fri, 16 Mar 2012, 6:00am #12
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 days ago
Posts: 4011

WalksOnDirt wrote:

Over 20,000 people died from the quake and its aftermath. They will get next to nothing in compensation.

Only if they opted to not purchase tsunami and earthquake insurance.

Nuclear catastrophe, on the other hand, is uninsurable.

WalksOnDirt wrote:

Those displaced by the nuclear disaster are in better shape.

No.

WalksOnDirt wrote:

If it had been a newer power plant most of the long term contamination would have been avoided.

It is surprisingly easy to correct many of the mistakes of the past. Correcting all mistakes before they occur is a bit more challenging. Fission experts have failed at it and will continue to.

Y_Po wrote:

Chinese needs electricity now, not 10 years from now. In 10 years they will be like "What the frack were we thinking building all these nukes?!"

I would tend to agree with that assessment.


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Sat, 17 Mar 2012, 1:57pm #13
wcushman
EESUrient
Cisne-negro2
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 10 Jan 2013
Posts: 2385

Power companies in the USA are switching their plans from nuclear to natural gas purely based on the economics.

"The U.S. nuclear industry seemed to be staging a comeback several years ago, with 15 power companies proposing as many as 29 new reactors. Today, only two projects are moving off the drawing board.

What killed the revival wasn't last year's nuclear accident in Japan, nor was it a soft economy that dented demand for electricity. Rather, a shale-gas boom flooded the U.S. market with cheap natural gas, offering utilities a cheaper, less risky alternative to nuclear technology."

From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023...


"All I want to know is where I will die so that I will never go there." Unknown wise man

Offline
Sat, 17 Mar 2012, 2:28pm #14
WalksOnDirt
EESUrient
Ctenucha
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1749

student wrote:

WalksOnDirt wrote:

Over 20,000 people died from the quake and its aftermath. They will get next to nothing in compensation.

Only if they opted to not purchase tsunami and earthquake insurance.

Nuclear catastrophe, on the other hand, is uninsurable.


No more so than tidal wave insurance. No insurance company will write a policy that they can't cover. An individual can be covered, but not all of Japan.

student wrote:

WalksOnDirt wrote:

Those displaced by the nuclear disaster are in better shape.

No.


You'd rather be dead? Ok, but I'd rather not, and I doubt that many Japanese would feel that way.


Deasil is the right way to go.

Offline
Sat, 17 Mar 2012, 2:40pm #15
EEventually
EExhilarating
Ninjaneer
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 13 Dec 2013
Posts: 3696

there are more site building approvals coming in the US, stay tuned. They are doing exactly as I had hoped. They are using low cost debt and upgrading to AP1000 on existing sites. It won't be a big expansion of nuclear but the beginning of a wholesale upgrade to safer technologies.

the NRC is also working very hard on approval for a particular traveling wave design.


“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”- Michael Crichton

Offline
Sat, 17 Mar 2012, 8:06pm #16
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 days ago
Posts: 4011

WalksOnDirt wrote:

No more so than tidal wave insurance. No insurance company will write a policy that they can't cover. An individual can be covered, but not all of Japan.

Your wishing it otherwise won't change the matter. Tsunamis and earthquakes are insurable events. Nuclear catastrophe is not.

unfortunately, nuclear explosions and radiation are not among the items that homeowners insurance covers . . . [and] there are no discussions of nuclear insurance becoming available in the near future. goinsurancerates.com

WalksOnDirt wrote:

You'd rather be dead? Ok, but I'd rather not, and I doubt that many Japanese would feel that way.

I assumed you made a typo and were referring to survivors . . . You'd be surprised.

Last edited Sat, 17 Mar 2012, 8:14pm by student


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Sat, 17 Mar 2012, 9:31pm #17
energy investor
EESUrient
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 1763

Uranium production is some 20 million lbs per year less than useage at this time but until 2013 the shortfall will be made up by Russia via the megatons to megawatts prgramme. But when it comes to an end, then what? Thorium? Plutonium?

The British are worried (despite never seeming to know whether they want nukes or not) as evidenced by this debate...

http://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/uk-use-nu...

I am long uranium miners because the supply/demand stats don't add up.

kind regards
ei

Offline
Mon, 19 Mar 2012, 3:43pm #18
TLee
EExtensive
Registered: Apr, 2011
Last visit: Thu, 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 39

student wrote:

WalksOnDirt wrote:

No more so than tidal wave insurance. No insurance company will write a policy that they can't cover. An individual can be covered, but not all of Japan.

Your wishing it otherwise won't change the matter. Tsunamis and earthquakes are insurable events. Nuclear catastrophe is not.

unfortunately, nuclear explosions and radiation are not among the items that homeowners insurance covers . . . [and] there are no discussions of nuclear insurance becoming available in the near future. goinsurancerates.com

WalksOnDirt wrote:

You'd rather be dead? Ok, but I'd rather not, and I doubt that many Japanese would feel that way.

I assumed you made a typo and were referring to survivors . . . You'd be surprised.

Offline
Mon, 19 Mar 2012, 3:49pm #19
TLee
EExtensive
Registered: Apr, 2011
Last visit: Thu, 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 39

I'll insure anyone's home in the US against nuclear plant catastophes. I'll put up my home (free & clear) to pay a claim of up to $1.5m.

Offline
Mon, 19 Mar 2012, 4:41pm #20
whatEVer
EExpert
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 238

Maybe nobody is insuring, because the probability of nuclear catastrophe is so low that A. there is no data to set insurance parameters B.nobody would care to buy the insurance anyway? Asteroid impact is "not insurable", too.

Offline
Mon, 19 Mar 2012, 7:06pm #21
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 days ago
Posts: 4011

whatEVer wrote:

Maybe nobody is insuring, because the probability of nuclear catastrophe is so low that A. there is no data to set insurance parameters B.nobody would care to buy the insurance anyway? Asteroid impact is "not insurable", too.

A few scenarios were studied by Versicherungsforen Leipzig GmbH (these are not every possible scenario). Here's an excerpt:

If consumers of electricity generated by nuclear power were to carry the cost of remedying the damage caused by such an event (internalisation of external costs), the apportionment of costs (based on the insurance premium) would require a net price increase for atomic energy of €0.139 to €2.36 per kWh for a duration of 100 years, based on a payout period of 100 years. With a payout period of ten years this net price increase would range from €3.96 to €67.3 per kWh.

It's worth remembering US homes often use 1-2 MWh each month, or 1000-2000 kWh each month; or even more.

Last edited Mon, 19 Mar 2012, 7:12pm by student


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline