OT: unScientific American blows smoke

Hi Jim, Well leaving aside AGW (yeah, like that's going to happen.) Are you against nuclear power? The biggest problem with nuclear is the cost* and if we could reinvest in research in how to do it cheaper, I'd be all for it. Even if it was for what some people see as the wrong reasons.

George H.

Overall efficiency of nuclear is not that great, they do produce HUGE amoun ts of waste heat, hence the requirement to be located on a high flow volume river or big lake, and all the harmful environmental effects of that. It's not an answer, just a lesser evil.

Nope, I'm all for it. I've seen it all over France. And a major part of AZ's power comes from a nuclear facility (APS, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Wintersburg) west of Phoenix.

Shove it up Harry Reid's ass ;-) ...Jim Thompson

What solutions to what problems do not involve tradeoffs?

The problem is that the units are too big and located in wrong places (due to NIMBY). Smaller underground units close to larger industrial and population centers could supply steam, district heating/cooling in addition to or instead of electricity.

There are some quite long district heating networks in Europe from existing big NPPs, but transferring district heats too far away becomes unattractive.

Which part do you object to?

Nuclear fission power generation is at present the only credible low carbon method for generating electricity in bulk.

Would you prefer that it was American policy to go "green" like the Germans? Banning nuclear power and burn shitty grades of really nasty sulphurous lignite instead.

NB. They Germany takes electricity from neighbouring French nuclear.

UK is finally building a new nuclear power station (at last) using EdF French technology and money borrowed from the Chinese. It will generate power at usurious price that has already had Ineos CEO complaining.

They have been prevaricating about new nuclear build for decades and it would not surprise me if the lights went out here one winter soon.

on method for generating electricity in bulk.

Not strictly true. Thermal solar is no less credible, and doesn't have the radioactive waste problem that fission power has. It's easy enough to say t hat we are going to bury the radioactive waste, but nobody has actually set up a really long term repository yet, after fifty years, and it's starting to look as if we never will.

ans? Banning nuclear power and burn shitty grades of really nasty sulphurou s lignite instead.

The long term plan is solar power stations in the Sahara, and really high v oltage DC transmission lines from there to Germany.

Nuclear power, bitumenous coal and lignite contribute about 11% each - oil is the major source at 34.6%, and natural gas next at 21.7%. You can wash t he sulphur dioxide out of generating plant smoke stacks - it has been SOP f or a few decades now.

Germany does almost was well as Japan - see page 12.

French technology and money borrowed from the Chinese. It will generate po wer at usurious price that has already had Ineos CEO complaining.

would not surprise me if the lights went out here one winter soon.

The UK has got accountants in power in the same way that the US has lawyers . Neither has much of a grip on reality. Jim Ratcliffe trained as chemical engineer so he's still got some residual grasp of real world facts.

Umm. Utility-scale power plants are all big steam turbines. The only difference is what heats the water. Nuclear plants and fossil-fuel plants have about the same thermal efficiency, 33%, and thus the same amount of waste heat (66%).

The exception is critical and super-critical fossil fuel plants, which can go to about 50% thermal efficiency, but these are not yet common.

..

Joe Gwinn