Hello good sir. Of course, you need to compare development costs for wind then too, and the backup gas turbine that is needed for grid stability, and the pipeline for the gas, and the processing plant for the gas, and the drilling, rigging and fracking for the gas. Also, it should be noted, that there are lots of possibilities for the nuclear waste, like using traveling wave reactors or fast neutron reactors. We will not need to store this stuff forever, just long enough to develop the above.
@erkd1 1. Average cost per KWh for a nuclear plant is less then wind, natural gas, and solar, slightly more then coal, but that is only because of the large regulation costs. 2. Centralized power does not create rolling blackouts, lack of supply to meet demand does. This is especially a problem if your supply does not react to demand (renewables). 3. inefficiencies of transmission are much smaller then the efficency lost used to charge batteries (80% efficient), Not that this matters.
I was really sad when the oil ran out in 2010. Cos I used to use it to power my car. However, thankfully, the energy companies found something new which is compatible with my old car. I didn't have to convert it or nothing, how cool is that. This new stuff (they even decided to call it petrol, like the old oil-based fuel) is no cheaper than the old stuff, though.
He said peak oil would hit in 2010, not that petrol would already be an option. And it's true--Saudi Arabia is far overstating their reserves, as revealed by wikileaks in 2011. www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/09/saudi.arabia.wikileaks/ The fact that we need to turn Canadian tar sands reflects declining supply.
@daobagua its the most expensive and most dangerous way to produce steam. Alternatives are available right now. Its also highly centralized (which cause rolling blackouts) and is inefficient in itself as power is lost in transmission and more susceptible to disaster be it mother nature or terrorism. Cheers back at you.
@erkd1 And what you prefer they do. Pay $2 / kWh? I happen to work for a japanese company in the ibaraki prefecture (next to fukajima). Right now they are having rolling blackouts because their power can not keep up with demand. Energy is important, oil is running out, and renewable technology is not ready yet. So go ahead and sit in your ivory tower, but when you can't turn on your lights, or heat your house, you will be singing a different tune. Cheers.
@daobagua if you include all the costs, the mining costs, the storage costs for waste (that continues for generations) and security costs its easily the most expensive energy source. Of course its highly regulated because its highly dangerous. Just the cost of accidents alone, or whats called externalities in economics, is outrageously expensive. Japan for example is the most pro active country in the world re: earthquakes, there simply put is no such thing as completely safe nuclear power.
@erkd1 Never said their was anything as completely safe nuclear power. The costs of mining are included in the fuel price. Though money has been put aside for long term storage, getting government approval for these types of projects is impossible. None the less, it will not be necessary in the next generation of nuclear reactors that burn used fuel to create highly radioactive waste (half life only a few hundred years, allowing for much more realistic storage).
A bookworm extraordinaire! With charm, wit & charisma = Rob! Brilliant. . .
Hello good sir.
Of course, you need to compare development costs for wind then too, and the backup gas turbine that is needed for grid stability, and the pipeline for the gas, and the processing plant for the gas, and the drilling, rigging and fracking for the gas.
Also, it should be noted, that there are lots of possibilities for the nuclear waste, like using traveling wave reactors or fast neutron reactors. We will not need to store this stuff forever, just long enough to develop the above.
@erkd1 1. Average cost per KWh for a nuclear plant is less then wind, natural gas, and solar, slightly more then coal, but that is only because of the large regulation costs.
2. Centralized power does not create rolling blackouts, lack of supply to meet demand does. This is especially a problem if your supply does not react to demand (renewables).
3. inefficiencies of transmission are much smaller then the efficency lost used to charge batteries (80% efficient), Not that this matters.
I was really sad when the oil ran out in 2010. Cos I used to use it to power my car.
However, thankfully, the energy companies found something new which is compatible with my old car. I didn't have to convert it or nothing, how cool is that. This new stuff (they even decided to call it petrol, like the old oil-based fuel) is no cheaper than the old stuff, though.
He said peak oil would hit in 2010, not that petrol would already be an option. And it's true--Saudi Arabia is far overstating their reserves, as revealed by wikileaks in 2011. www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/09/saudi.arabia.wikileaks/
The fact that we need to turn Canadian tar sands reflects declining supply.
@daobagua its the most expensive and most dangerous way to produce steam. Alternatives are available right now. Its also highly centralized (which cause rolling blackouts) and is inefficient in itself as power is lost in transmission and more susceptible to disaster be it mother nature or terrorism.
Cheers back at you.
@erkd1 And what you prefer they do. Pay $2 / kWh? I happen to work for a japanese company in the ibaraki prefecture (next to fukajima). Right now they are having rolling blackouts because their power can not keep up with demand. Energy is important, oil is running out, and renewable technology is not ready yet. So go ahead and sit in your ivory tower, but when you can't turn on your lights, or heat your house, you will be singing a different tune. Cheers.
@daobagua if you include all the costs, the mining costs, the storage costs for waste (that continues for generations) and security costs its easily the most expensive energy source. Of course its highly regulated because its highly dangerous. Just the cost of accidents alone, or whats called externalities in economics, is outrageously expensive. Japan for example is the most pro active country in the world re: earthquakes, there simply put is no such thing as completely safe nuclear power.
@erkd1 Never said their was anything as completely safe nuclear power.
The costs of mining are included in the fuel price. Though money has been put aside for long term storage, getting government approval for these types of projects is impossible. None the less, it will not be necessary in the next generation of nuclear reactors that burn used fuel to create highly radioactive waste (half life only a few hundred years, allowing for much more realistic storage).
Little research is directed on establishing abiogenic petroleum or methane. I wonder why?
@daobagua yea, just ask anyone from Japan
@erkd1
Yep, you want power you need Nuclear.
Nuclear Power is the way.
Cheers.