Solar cheaper than nuclear

True.

Very true. Unfortunately some people are too thick to be able to account for those externalities.

Yet, it is also important to mention that solar power is far from the be all end all power source. Just like wind power, it suffers from production fluctuation problems, which in some cases makes it practically unusable as a main source of power and is therefore relegated to a complementary role. Thankfully, there are also other power generation technologies that can fill up that job, such as hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, etc..

Indeed. Nuclear energy fundamentalists keep ignoring those costs for whatever reason.

Unfortunately that's also true. People tent to go for the quick fix and fast profit but are unable to account for externalities.

Rui Maciel

I'm reading this now:

You wouldn't like it. I bet you aren't even willing to read it.

John

I said "imagine."

Try it some time.

John

Let us know what you think of it...

I think a major problem with society today is that we have this bizarre combination of...

When in actuality it's more like...

---Joel

I'm only a third into it, but it's a revelation how much research and publication, even in the "hard" sciences, is just plain wrong. The author cites examples, but the book is more about why.

John

You've also claimed that "It makes coal mining and offshore rig roughnecking look safe by comparison", which indicates that you have a morbid imagination but also are capable of picturing outlandish scenarios which are completely detached from reality.

Rui Maciel

look safe by

capable of picturing

Do you design electronics? Tell us about it.

John

Well, I don't know who taught YOU about 'spontaneous decay' but when I studied it, there were several types, depending on the radiation released and the end products. One type of spontaneous decay that proved very useful was fission, where a nucleus split, releasing neutrons and creating new end products. If you got a bunch of these together, you could get a chain reaction with induced fission as the released neutrons induced other nuclei to also fission.

Hence my statement that, if it has a half life of less than 100 years, use it for power! Glad you agree with me!

Charlie

Ah Rui, Because we have hashed this out so many times over the last few years, with all the Warmingists eventually going somewhere else to sell their snake oil.

Simple answer - Grant proposals that promise to detect AGW are funded. Those that question (or, get data that COULD question) that proposition are not funded. Any study that is not publicly funded is branded as industry propoganda. Any study that IS publicly funded (and as such, had its conclusion controlled) is simple truth.

Any one with real knowledge and an open mind that looks at the studies and their conclusions realizes that AGW is just a scam to allow certain groups political power and control.

Charlie

And, such plants are Solar Thermal, no solar panels around! That is what makes them an actual money maker for private industry!

Yep, was involved in such a blockage myself. City of Los Angeles decided it needed a 'redundant' route for green power, so decided that they would route it right past a few thousand homes, with large towers, across twenty mile vistas because that was where it would be cheapest. Ran it just outside the city limits, so that they could avoid any 'local' restrictions, with the only agency they had to get aprovals for were the PUC! Friends of mine that had bought homes withing the last few years were suddenly going to have their views obscrued (sp?) with no notice or approval process. Finally, we 'persuaded' them that the existing power corridor had more than enough room to put in their additional lines, rather than running an additional couple of hundred of miles out of the way.

Charlie

Thanks. I do not have an outlet big enough for that. How about a 5 kW unit for us folk without really heavy duty outlets?

nearby Centralia Coal

Washington, until it closed

Powder River Basin.

How about that, a transient situation made temporarily economical by proximity. Please do not overgeneralize from an exceptional case.

Over a year ago i said he was worse then Shrub the lesser, i should not make such gross understatements.

The ratio per mole versus per kilogram is right there in the atomic weight. U235 translates cleanly to a little more than 4 to 1. Moreover a lot depends on exactly just what is comming out and what the next few steps are.

Please see:

That is actually the stuff that is one of the real problem makers, just radioactive enough to be a real disposal nuisance and not high enough to be useful.

Wasn't that just stated?

your statement is? I

Where was the fraud

keep up with the silly

Silly, some people realize that they are funny sometimes.

Wow. I could really like that analysis (it corresponds with my own). Could you please do us all the great favor of including a some links to better support this.

What kind of outlets do you have, 30A stove/AC?

The annoying part about lower ampacity outlets is, the s***ty power factor you get from a cap-input rectifier really cuts into your power output. For typical values, it's about -3dB! There's this special 1-10kW range, where single phase is reasonable, where power factor correction is required for best results. That's a big PFC. And unfortunately, I don't have much PFC experience.

Three phase, on the other hand, doesn't need PFC, and if your power factor sucks, presumably you can just upgrade the circuit.

Anyways, the circuit is quite scalable -- I wouldn't bother using it down at 1kW, I'd use a simpler circuit for that. 5kW (or even 5kVA) is just fine, and heck, if you get a bigger circuit, it could be upgraded. I'd guess it can be scaled up to 50kW by changing only the output network (transistors, capacitors, transformers).

Tim