tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post8074055429306140590..comments2023-11-02T00:33:00.040-07:00Comments on Sowell's Law Blog: Nuclear Power Highly Impractical for FutureRoger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-4470246043600906152014-05-25T07:16:28.286-07:002014-05-25T07:16:28.286-07:00To M. Simon, fusion is a non-starter, for several ...To M. Simon, fusion is a non-starter, for several reasons. Even if we accept your figure of 100 years for spent fuel storage (which I don't - the long-lived transuranics are a serious problem and cannot be dumped in a landfill), managing waste for 100 years each and almost 500 new sites each year creates an unimaginable problem. Finally, there are more than enough sites with good wind to power the planet. The USA has the entire Great Plains plus the offshore sites. Other countries have offshore sites. The intermittency problem has been solved with underwater storage as described recently by MIT. The future energy problems are solved, and they will not involve nuclear.Roger Sowellhttp://sowellslawblog.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-26477679450636222932014-05-25T03:47:19.599-07:002014-05-25T03:47:19.599-07:00A salient reminder is that
as of 2010, the world i...<i>A salient reminder is that<br />as of 2010, the world installed generation capacity of solar plus wind exceeds that of nuclear power</i> <br /><br />There is a fallacy here. And that is capacity factor. For well sited wind it is .3 and for a good solar site it is .25. But that does not factor in the 90% hot back up requirement due to temporary fluctuations in solar and wind. Or the fact that solar is only good for about 4 to 6 hours a day. Or that wind installations can go windless for days. Without very low cost storage intermittent sources are near useless. <br /><br />I really wish that people commenting on these things were more sceptical. <br /><br />There is no utopia. <br /><br />BTW do a survey of wind sites similar to what was done for nuke sites. The short answer - there are not enough. M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-65828681720031207452014-05-25T03:31:21.008-07:002014-05-25T03:31:21.008-07:00Waste - well everyone against nukes (I'm not a...Waste - well everyone against nukes (I'm not a real big fan) talks about the 1,000 year storage problem. But it is really only a 100 year problem. <br /><br />The very short lived isotopes decay in 10 days. The very long lived isotopes don't emit much radiation. It is the intermediate lived isotopes that are the problem. And after 100 years they are not much of a problem. And neither is the volume of such waste. <br /><br />Focus on the real problems. they are daunting enough. M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-33164777483478337262014-05-25T03:22:18.688-07:002014-05-25T03:22:18.688-07:00Neutron Embrittlement. Much less of a problem for ...Neutron Embrittlement. Much less of a problem for the Polywell Fusion Reactor - which is currently under development. Its rate of neutron production is 1000X less that all other fusion methods and fission reactors for a given energy level. It does not change the shielding rqmts much. But it drastically reduces embrittlement.<br /><br />Intermittent sources will not become viable until we get very low cost electrical storage. And much lower costs of collection. M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-69934040219370407232014-05-25T03:05:53.328-07:002014-05-25T03:05:53.328-07:00The 15,000 GW vs 5,000 GW issue looks suspiciously...The 15,000 GW vs 5,000 GW issue looks suspiciously like the difference between thermal and electrical output. <br /><br />It is usually made explicit by GWth vs GWe. <br /><br />BTW I was a Naval nuke back in '66. Near half a century ago. How time flies. M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.com