Yes, but economic break even is also an important concept. For example; PV economic break even will come far sooner for the off-grid person who is presently converting gasoline to kilowatt-hours than it would for someone contemplating a grid-tie syestem in an area with cheap electricity.
Again, maintenance is mostly an economic issue, it has less to do with net energy. That said, I agree that maintenance is an important and often overlooked factor.
Yes, but demand, and the competition that demand generates, is a main driver for improving technology. If we just fold our arms and wait for technology to improve in the absence of demand, technology improvement is unlikely to ever happen.
And rightly so. It is far safer to store high-level nuclear waste on-site and postpone moving it until it naturally decays to at least medium-level waste.
The problems with Yuca Mountain are far more political than scientific. The great irony is that the highly-trumpeted "nuclear waste problem" has been made insolvable my the anti-nukes. They have been very effective! Further, they refuse to realistically compare the dangers of nuclear power to the dangers of the alternatives.
In the interim, the world is subjected to the ecological horror of more and more coal plants, and (statistically speaking) humans are dying form the emissions from those plants. Further, those plants also have an insolvable waste problem.
But what's your opinion worth? Frankly, I consider being hated by the likes of you to be high praise.
Michael, that hatred of me that you're carrying around in your heart has precisely zero effect on me, but it's eating you up from the inside out. And you make no bones about announcing the symptoms manifested by the hatred in your heart.
Hatred doesn't affect the one who is hated, but it kills the one doing the hating.
Umm, reprocessing would eliminate 90% of the "waste", including the water-soluble Actinides and Lanthanides. Using the the Integral Fast Reactor, (or an updated version thereof), that was designed specifically to meet President Carter's request/order for a proliferation-proof reactor design would perform the reprocessing on- site. If I'm not mistaken, the "spent" fuel transfer could be performed almost entirely by remote control.
But, of course, a Presidential Executive Order forbids reprocessing. Why? Precisely because it is so cheap already that the United State uranium mining industry is shutdown. Fuel in the Integral Fast Reactor, (solid rods in a design that cannot cause a core meltdown, by the way), can be reprocessed until 90% of their initial radioactivity has been "burned up" in the generation of power instead the 9% that is used in "conventional" light water reactors that throw away the remaining 91% of the available radioactivity as (only very slightly considering it very small volume) problematic "waste".
Nuclear power plants do occasionally have to release a tiny amount of radioactive gas, (usually tritium IIRC), - one day I spent 10 minutes getting some cleaned off of my new and statically-charged plastic "bump" cap. But you're right, it is infinitesimal when compared to the constant radioactive releases in the smoke from from coal-burning power plants.
I like hydro-electric and wind power solutions, too. I especially like smaller, individual-sized options. But I agree that those massive dams could provide equally massive amounts of electricity for many decades while causing less environmental damage that the coal, oil, or gas-fired power plants required to provide an equal amount of electricity.
I won't claim to have seen every nuclear site. But of all those I have seen, not one had spent fuel outside of the multi-layer casks that have something like 55 tons of shielding. Walking and working around these storage buildings and/or "pads", my dosimeter never went over 0.01 millirads per hour dose rate. You'll get more exposure than that just walking on the sidewalk beside by the granite-faced walls of the bank downtime.
Expensive, yes. But define "short lived". With proper care, 10 years or more is not unheard of for a good set of lead acid batteries. In the past, I have been lucky enough to "scrounge" good used batteries from large UPS systems. In my home system I typically get another 5 years service from them.
breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.
confusing energy break even with economic break even. I
the real world.
the road,
energy surplus.
go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of
For a laptop, printer and a couple of 15 watt compact florescent lights? Hardly a huge expense, with 1000watt inverters $100.00 on ebay, a couple of Sams' club deep cycle batteries ?
Umm, reprocessing would eliminate 90% of the "waste", including the water-soluble Actinides and Lanthanides. Using the the Integral Fast Reactor, (or an updated version thereof), that was designed specifically to meet President Carter's request/order for a proliferation-proof reactor design would perform the reprocessing on- site. If I'm not mistaken, the "spent" fuel transfer could be performed almost entirely by remote control.
But, of course, a Presidential Executive Order forbids reprocessing. Why? Precisely because it is so cheap already that the United State uranium mining industry is shutdown. Fuel in the Integral Fast Reactor, (solid rods in a design that cannot cause a core meltdown, by the way), can be reprocessed until 90% of their initial radioactivity has been "burned up" in the generation of power instead the 9% that is used in "conventional" light water reactors that throw away the remaining 91% of the available radioactivity as (only very slightly considering it very small volume) problematic "waste".
Well Helen seems a little short on numbers when it doesnt suit her. But then, she also writes "facts" from unnamed dead people, which makes some of her "facts" a little hard to check up on. She talks about Depleted uranium in bombs... I've never heard of a bomb with DU in it (which doesnt mean there isnt one of course. anyone?). And "Contrary to accepted norms of wartime behavior, the U.S. attacked colums of retreating Iraqi soldiers-" accepted?. by who? when? which war was that?
Nuclear power plants do occasionally have to release a tiny amount of radioactive gas, (usually tritium IIRC), - one day I spent 10 minutes getting some cleaned off of my new and statically-charged plastic "bump" cap. But you're right, it is infinitesimal when compared to the constant radioactive releases in the smoke from from coal-burning power plants.
I like hydro-electric and wind power solutions, too. I especially like smaller, individual-sized options. But I agree that those massive dams could provide equally massive amounts of electricity for many decades while causing less environmental damage that the coal, oil, or gas-fired power plants required to provide an equal amount of electricity.
breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.
confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
the real world.
the road,
energy surplus.
Cheap deep cycle batteries with a 15 year guarantee are available
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.
confusing energy break even with economic break even. I
the real world.
the road,
energy surplus.
go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of
Depends on the size of the PV installation. Above 1kW and it doesn't add that much cost % wise
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.