tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post6742514307845130759..comments2024-03-29T06:09:37.749-04:00Comments on The Slack Wire: Fukushima Update: How Safe Can a Nuclear Meltdown Get?JW Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10664452827447313845noreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-4446882623511767482021-06-03T09:37:19.719-04:002021-06-03T09:37:19.719-04:00Excellent Blog with so much useful information, th...Excellent Blog with so much useful information, thank you so much for your work.<a href="https://losangelessolarcompanies.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.losangelessolarcompanies.com/</a> Astridhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16552790756768014744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-43761730681815905902021-06-03T09:36:30.079-04:002021-06-03T09:36:30.079-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Astridhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16552790756768014744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-1038366972864292472018-01-29T01:42:18.251-05:002018-01-29T01:42:18.251-05:00For locksmith this site very helpful.I think this ...For locksmith this site very helpful.I think this is one of good blog because all service found here.<br />To see this video click <a href="https://youtu.be/h08EXynRaFQ" rel="nofollow">lockmith Twin falls</a>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18384549276371217129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-29142458869862801742018-01-29T01:22:17.343-05:002018-01-29T01:22:17.343-05:00For locksmith this site very helpful.I think this ...For locksmith this site very helpful.I think this is one of good blog because all service found here.<br />To see this video click <a href="https://youtu.be/h08EXynRaFQ" rel="nofollow">lockmith Twin falls</a>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05711267956133346997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-57547805757072927542018-01-25T03:56:42.507-05:002018-01-25T03:56:42.507-05:00WELCOME TO BETTERMENT FUNDINGS {bettermentfunding@...WELCOME TO BETTERMENT FUNDINGS {bettermentfunding@gmail.com}<br /><br />our aims is to provide Excellent Professional Service.<br /><br />Our loans are well insured for maximum security is our priority, Our leading goal is to help you get the services you deserve, Our program is the quickest way to get what you need in a snap. Reduce your payments to ease the strain on your monthly expenses. Gain flexibility with which you can use for any purpose – from vacations, to education, to unique purchases<br /><br />Are you a business man or woman? Are you in any financial mess or do you need funds to start up your own business? Do you need a loan to start a nice Small Scale and medium business? Do you have a low credit score and you are finding it hard to obtain capital loan from local banks and other financial institutes?.<br /><br />We offer a wide range of financial services which includes: Personal Loans, Debt consolidation loans, Business Loans, Education Loans, Mortgage Secured Loan, Unsecured loan, Mortgage Loans, Payday off Loans, Student Loans, Commercial Loans, Car Loans, Investments Loans, Development Loans, Acquisition Loans, Construction Loans, with low interest rate at 2% per annul for individuals, companies and corporate bodies. Get the best for your family and own your dream home as well with our General Loan scheme.<br /><br />If you are interested to get a loan then kindly write us with the loan requirement.Please, contact us for more information: bettermentfunding@gmail.com<br /><br />We look forward to hear from you ASAP<br /><br />Interested applicants should Contact us via email: bettermentfunding@gmail.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16614153461539826882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-89368894080236392862018-01-24T14:12:41.301-05:002018-01-24T14:12:41.301-05:00This blog is best for this service.I think this is...This blog is best for this service.I think this is one of good blog.<br />To see this video click <a href="https://youtu.be/Q4YQKp7I_Bo" rel="nofollow">car lockout</a>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17702326681088378977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-56867126005771320502017-10-25T08:51:10.250-04:002017-10-25T08:51:10.250-04:00This blog is best.All information i found here whi...This blog is best.All information i found here which i wanted.for visit my website click<a href="http://www.economysafes.com" rel="nofollow"> safe service </a>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10450404228662992502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-32152065571543588802016-07-24T02:34:08.257-04:002016-07-24T02:34:08.257-04:00thanks for sharingthanks for sharingFrack tank containmenthttps://containmentcorp.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-73814355070925791232014-12-03T08:43:04.003-05:002014-12-03T08:43:04.003-05:00As far as the uranium shortage, beyond the price x...As far as the uranium shortage, beyond the price x reserves issue, let me add that there are alternatives to fast breeder reactors.<br />1 - Reduced moderation reactors - Still use water cooling, but just enough water to properly cool the reactor. Reducing moderation greatly increases plutonium production and plutonium consumption in the reactor, which allows for much higher utilization of U-238 (99.3% of mined Uranium, 97% of Low Enriched Uranium). Some designs achieve iso breeding (for each U-235 atom fissioned, a Plutonium atom is made, slowly migrating from fissioning U-235 to fissioning Plutonium). This type of reactor could achieve 90% utilization of mined uranium compared to current utilization of just 1% of mined uranium.<br />2 - Thorium fuel (either in water cooled or molten salt reactors) - Thorium is like U-238, it doesn't fission directly. It is a fertile fuel, Thorium becomes U-233 upon getting a neutron then U-233 gets fissioned (like U-238 -> Plutonium -> fission). Except that Th-232 -> U-233 -> fission produces more neutrons than Plutonium thermal fission, plus when U-233 doesn't fission it becomes U-234 then U-235, which is exactly the preferred fuel we use today, so it has a much better fission probability than U-238 -> Pu-239 which when it doesn't fission it tends to buildup Pu-242, Americium and Curium. Fuel made of 90% Thorium and 10% Plutonium experiment is underway at the Halden demonstration reactor in Sweden, and commercial 90% Th, 10% Pu fuel is expected to be loaded on a full scale reactor before 2020. This opens up a brand new fuel source. Thorium is 4x more common than Uranium in general, but more importantly its 200% more common than U-235 in nature. Thorium doesn't need enrichment (all mined Thorium is Th-232). It does have some challenges in fuel fabrication as it needs higher temperatures to melt (challenge for fuel fabrication, but an advantage for reactors, Thorium resists melting and is a better thermal conductor than Uranium and Plutonium).<br /><br />3 - Molten Salt Reactors fueled with Uranium or Plutonium - MSR reactors have similar advantages to reduced moderation reactors, the most rational, simplest MSR design right now is the IMSR from Terrestrial Energy. It is expected to take about the same Uranium for its initial fuel load, but then need just 1/6th the extra fuel per year. And once an IMSR is fueled, the fuel can be recycled into a replacement reactor once it needs replacement. So long term the reactor uses 1/6th the uranium of a conventional reactor. Current reactors produce about 1GW per year with 250 tons of mined uranium, then IMSR would produce 6GW per year with 250 tons of mined uranium.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11477212274849606138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-9303231293087974202014-12-02T15:33:50.811-05:002014-12-02T15:33:50.811-05:00I'm a bit more optimistic about MSR reactors, ...I'm a bit more optimistic about MSR reactors, minus Thorium. Just look up Terrestrial Energy Inc and their IMSR. They did maximum simplification, giving up Thorium breeder for a uranium burner that still uses 1/6th the anual uranium of a water cooled nuke, and could continuously recycle the plutonium and other transuranics inside the reactor permanently (recycle to a new reactor once the old one needs retirement), this recycling is a form of nuclear reprocessing, except that since the reactor doesn't get poisoned with too much plutonium, and has overall much better neutron economy the core materials just need a fairly simple pyro reprocessing (remove only fission products). That would mean with reprocessing the reactor will loose just 1% the transuranics of a regular water cooled nuke (in the form of impurities in the pyro reprocessing system).<br />Add to that the fact that the CNSC (Canadian counterpart to the NRC) appears to have a sensible regulatory framework toward small/modular reactors (they don't have the prescriptive regulatory model of the NRC, instead they allow the nuclear designer to convince them their reactor is safe, essentially writing its own regulatory requirements, with the CNSC just validating and improving the work, instead of the NRC that works by mandating their regulatory view onto the nuclear designer).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11477212274849606138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-526962726787068512014-12-02T15:25:52.521-05:002014-12-02T15:25:52.521-05:00Obama pro nuclear ? Are you crazy ? Obama did noth...Obama pro nuclear ? Are you crazy ? Obama did nothing to help the nuclear industry in the USA, nothing at all. As president Obama was in a unique position to change the NRC management with a bunch of pro nuclear goons that cared nothing about nuclear safety. Instead Obama left the same anti nuclear guys running the show. What I'm saying is there are many sensible middle ground people to put no the NRC top management, neither the anti nuclear nor the pro nuclear goons. The basic NRC economic structure rewards the NRC itself with being as slow as possible, taking as long as they can to get their job done. They bill those requesting a nuclear certification by the hour. Actually its more like by the year, since most regulatory jobs take forever. It is estimated that licensing a new nuclear station uses hundreds of thousands of hours of NRC labor, adding up to a hundred millions dollars just in NRC fees. Then you must add the cost of the people on the nuclear operator side preparing the materials for the NRC to certify. It is insane, cause there is not standardization mechanism where multiple reactors could be made exactly the same, allowing those multiple nuclear sites to be certified simultaneously. Just insane.<br />I have tremendous respect for the times when the NRC did good work, before the TMI, the NRC was great. Then between TMI and Chernobyl half of what the NRC did was overboard, after Chernobyl it went into full anti nuclear mode, adding regulatory costs in exchange for no rational increase in safety.<br />Its important to notice that Chernobyl couldn't happen on any western reactor. People never realize that. Chernobyl was the similar of constructing a building with really crappy materials, with a weak structure, and then when the building crumbles full of people blaming buildings in general for being unsafe, say let's stop doing buildings, lets go back only to houses/flat structures, much safer.<br />Then Fukushima happens. If anything we can prove the Japanese govt tremendously overreacted cause they had show they were doing something. Plus the nuclear accident took place on the back of one of the deadliest tsunamis in the world, yet the bad rap went to the nuclear accident. TEPCO could have avoided the accident, the Japanese govt trying to downplay the radiological consequences of the nuclear accident would have been interpreted as Japanese govt whitewashing TEPCO incompetence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11477212274849606138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-84248292891671272792013-08-05T06:14:56.108-04:002013-08-05T06:14:56.108-04:00I wish I had study this when initially published. ...I wish I had study this when initially published. I believe the fact with everything. I would like to publish a weblink to this in my three-times-weekly Fukushima Up-dates weblog.health service providershttp://www.healthopinion.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-19351503552581169092012-11-23T07:42:44.767-05:002012-11-23T07:42:44.767-05:00I feel the same ways as Leslie. Just came upon thi...I feel the same ways as Leslie. Just came upon this article, very good. Your arguments in the comment section are excellent as well, so much valuable information.<br /><br />Thank you!Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11496281983799044435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-1220392468789440642012-11-19T22:07:22.094-05:002012-11-19T22:07:22.094-05:00Thanks, Leslie, go ahead and post a link.Thanks, Leslie, go ahead and post a link.Will Boisvertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-39363227989616422692012-11-19T08:04:18.106-05:002012-11-19T08:04:18.106-05:00Wow! I wish I had read this when originally posted...Wow! I wish I had read this when originally posted. I agree with everything. I would like to post a link to this in my three-times-weekly Fukushima Updates blog. May I? Also, if you are on Facebook, check out the Fukushima Mythbusters, Nuclear Power Plants, Nukes, and Pronuclear Friends pages...I think everyone there would be interested in your piece, too.Leslie Corricehttp://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-32579642791734151462012-11-19T00:48:40.361-05:002012-11-19T00:48:40.361-05:00Great post and excellent detailed handling of ques...Great post and excellent detailed handling of questions/criticisms. We need stuff like this in the mainstream media. How the hell do we get that to happen? geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18159405396769051652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-55350457866867471272012-10-02T14:09:33.735-04:002012-10-02T14:09:33.735-04:00@ root_e, on rooftop solar and transmission losses...@ root_e, on rooftop solar and transmission losses:<br /><br />--The fundamental mode of rooftop solar, like all wind and solar generators, is surge and slump. Panels produce a lot of juice in full midday sunlight—so much that a household can’t use anywhere near all of it--especially because people are at work or school, not at home using electricity. But then when the sun goes behind a cloud, or at night when people are home and using household electricity, the panels produce next to nothing, so the household has to draw juice from the grid. The more panels you put on a house, the worse the problem gets—the overproduction in full midday sunlight that has to be exported to the grid grows, but the extra panels are still producing little to nothing for the house to use under cloud or darkness.<br /><br />You could eliminate the overproduction by restricting the capacity of the PV system so that it only meets midday household usage, but then, given rooftop PV’s dismal capacity factors, you would be getting very little of your total household consumption from the panels. Or you can mitigate the problem with storage, but that adds a lot to the cost of solar PV, and storage systems can still be exhausted or overflowed by persistent weather systems.<br /><br />Surge and slump isn’t just a household effect, because solar production is highly correlated across large regions. Vast continental areas under high pressure systems will hugely overproduce from their panels in midday sunlight, while other vast regions will see their panels all producing little or nothing under cloud cover or darkness. These regional, and even continent-sized, correlations can persist for weeks on end. For solar to be an efficient part of the power system, local and regional surpluses have to be transmitted to areas of deficit—but that entails massive long-distance transmission. The need for long-distance transmission will only grow as all solar generation, rooftop PV included, rises—and so will the consequent transmission losses.<br /><br />Dispatchable generators, by contrast, can match their electricity output to local or regional demand, throttling up when demand rises and throttling back when it falls. They do not all overproduce electricity that then needs to be exported from an area, and then all underproduce so that electricity suddenly needs to be imported. So long-distance transmission of electricity with a grid of dispatchable generators may be much less than what’s needed with a solar and wind grid.<br /><br />We can’t say for sure just how transmission losses will fare until we have empirical data for a large-scale renewables grid, but it’s not obvious, and is indeed quite unlikely, that adding large-scale rooftop PV will reduce system-wide transmission losses.<br />Will Boisvertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-41984275854294581162012-10-02T13:50:23.648-04:002012-10-02T13:50:23.648-04:00@ root¬_e, on the unreliability of nuclear power i...@ root¬_e, on the unreliability of nuclear power in Japan:<br /><br />--So by your count 14 reactors “turned off” with the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. That was 26 percent of Japan’s fleet of 54 reactors. But only the 6 Fukushima Daiichi reactors—if you assume units 5 and 6 will be written off—were seriously damaged, a long-term loss of 11 percent. Another of Japan’s reactors was recently damaged by sea water, leaving 47, give or take, fit for service. Yet only 2 are actually functioning, because of political decisions to shut down the remainder (by not permitting them to restart after scheduled maintenance outages).<br /><br />What these facts clearly show is that most of Japan’s reactor fleet has been laid low by politics, not the tsunami or any intrinsic problem with the technology. If the anti-nuclear movement would relent and allow those 40-odd reactors to “turn back on,” Toyota would have lots of clean, no-carbon electricity to run its factories, instead of the polluting fossil-fueled electricity that greens tacitly prefer.<br /><br />And that clean nuclear electricity would continue round the clock, month in and month out, unlike solar power that conks out every night and with every passing—or loitering—cloud front. The only thing that’s reliable about solar is its unreliability. Every day you can count on it surging and slumping chaotically between zero and nameplate, if you’re lucky, or some small fraction of nameplate.<br /><br />With its mediocre solar resources, Japanese solar might perhaps struggle up to 15 percent capacity factors, which would mean that on average 85 percent of nameplate capacity is not producing. Compare that with the 26 percent hit that nuclear capacity took from the tsunami, only 11 percent of it long-term damage. Even when nuclear plants have been decimated by an act of God, their reliability is drastically better than the everyday routine of solar.<br /><br />Again, the main cause of Japan’s nuclear shutdowns is needless political hysteria, which can be instantly reversed by people listening to reason. The main cause of solar’s intermittency is the laws of physics; they don’t hold noisy protests, but they are much harder to get around.<br />Will Boisvertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-86572671713384602682012-10-02T03:40:10.899-04:002012-10-02T03:40:10.899-04:00No. You are wrong.
Onagawa - all three reacto...No. You are wrong.<br /><br /> Onagawa - all three reactors shut down automatically<br /> Fukushima Daiichi - reactors 1,2 and 3 shut down automatically; reactors 4,5 and 6 were not in operation; reactor 1 was not cooling as expected<br /> Fukushima Daini - all four reactors shut down automatically<br /> Tokai - single operational reactor shut down automatically<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12711707<br /><br />So your claim "They did not “turn off” by themselves; they were deliberately turned off by political leaders under pressure from unwarranted anti-nuclear hysteria." ?<br /><br />And this: " It’s very misleading to conflate the politically motivated shutdown of nuclear plants with the intrinsic unreliability of wind and solar." <br />just seems to be a bit of not so true political propaganda.<br /><br />"Even if panels were 100 percent efficient, they would still put out just a small fraction of nameplate capacity under cloud cover, and nothing at night."<br /><br />No? Really? They don't generate power at night?<br />And similarly, when nuclear power plants automatically shutdown or are shutdown for safety reasons, they produce nothing. The fact is that the fukashima disaster permanently removed 4GW of production from the grid, necessitating inefficient transmission of electricity and turning on all those temporary generators you find so painful for solar. The difference is that when the sun came out, the Fukashima reactors were still draining power from the grid, not producing. <br /><br /><br />"Moreover, it’s unlikely that rooftop solar panels actually will have lower transmission losses. I cannot stress enough that wind and solar generators are not local: the electricity produced by rooftop panels is not earmarked for the house, the neighborhood or even the country where they are located"<br /><br />Oh come on. You are transparently shifting from rooftop solar to wind and solar generators. Of course the power is not earmarked for the house, but its first use is the house and only the excess is transmitted back into the grid - very little ends up being transported cross country.<br /><br />"All grids are to some extent delocalized, but because wind and solar are so locally unreliable, grids dominated by them will require much more long-distance transmission than do grids with dispatchable generators."<br /><br />Non sequitor. <br /><br />root_ehttp://krebscycle.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-2113446797072008842012-10-01T20:29:53.431-04:002012-10-01T20:29:53.431-04:00@ carambol, on whether the Chernobyl exclusion zon...@ carambol, on whether the Chernobyl exclusion zone was necessary:<br /><br />Chernobyl was a much bigger, scarier spew than Fukushima. In the roughly 10 sq km area known as the Red Forest, for example, fallout was so heavy that the trees died—clearly an unhealthy place. But fallout was quite variable within the exclusion zone, an area of about 1660 sq. miles including a radius of 30 km around the nuclear plant and other areas of heavy contamination. (Chernobyl was also different from Fukushima in that the authorities had less understanding of the consequences of nuclear spews back then.)<br /><br />In light of what we know now, I do think the forced evacuation of most of the EZ was probably an overreaction. But to establish that we would have to answer the counterfactual—what would the health consequences have been with no, or limited, evacuations? It’s hard to say for sure, but I’ll note that thousands of people continued to live and work in the EZ after the spew, and still do. The Chernobyl nuclear plant itself kept operating with hundreds of workers until 2000, 14 years after the accident, with no notable health problems. Studies of the “liquidators” who did recovery and cleanup work in the EZ for months to years after the accident estimate modest health effects stemming from their radiation exposures. Some studies show elevated cancer risks among the workers who got the heaviest doses, but the effect waivers on the brink of statistical significance, and may be overstated by methodological flaws. (www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf.)<br /><br />So would the population living in the EZ have suffered from more cancer had they stayed put? The best answer, I think, is “maybe, a little.”<br /><br />I don’t think that scale of risk justifies forced relocation, (especially because evacuation itself causes much hardship and many deaths). The Chernobyl risks are in the same ballpark as other risks that we blithely accept, like living in cities with substantial air pollution. The pollution in a Beijing or a Mexico City is undoubtedly a greater threat to ones health than the radiation in most of the Chernobyl EZ, yet we don’t evacuate those cities; we assume that people are competent to decide whether they want to endanger their lungs by living there.<br /><br />In one crucial respect, though, the Soviet authorities underreacted at Chernobyl by failing to warn the peasants not to drink milk from their cows. Children drinking milk tainted with radio-iodine was the main pathway for thyroid exposures and resulted in some 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer, the worst health problem civilians incurred from the spew. (Fortunately, thyroid cancer is readily treatable and only 15 deaths resulted.)<br /><br />Instead of mandatory evacuations, what people need after a nuclear spew is sound advice—Don’t drink the milk!—and reliable information about radiation levels and likely risks. If they get those things, there will be time for them to make considered decisions about what to do, and those decisions will be a lot calmer and saner.<br />Will Boisvertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-82453919650395462532012-10-01T10:58:11.765-04:002012-10-01T10:58:11.765-04:00What's your opinion on the exclusion zone arou...What's your opinion on the exclusion zone around Chernobyl? I take it that you rate this also as an overreaction? Or do you think it was at least initially/partly justified?carambolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-69997137554314647732012-10-01T03:15:50.080-04:002012-10-01T03:15:50.080-04:00@ root_e
--The vast majority of Japan’s nuclear r...@ root_e<br /><br />--The vast majority of Japan’s nuclear reactors were undamaged by the big earthquake and tsunami. They did not “turn off” by themselves; they were deliberately turned off by political leaders under pressure from unwarranted anti-nuclear hysteria. (And they can be turned on again.) That’s a starkly different thing from the low capacity factors and chaotic intermittency of wind and solar, which are inherent limitations of those technologies. It’s very misleading to conflate the politically motivated shutdown of nuclear plants with the intrinsic unreliability of wind and solar.<br /><br />--It’s important not to confuse the “efficiency” of solar panels—the fraction of incident solar energy they convert into electricity—with their capacity factor, the ratio of average power production over time to peak nameplate capacity. Rising efficiency makes the nameplate wattage cheaper, but does nothing to raise the capacity factor. Even if panels were 100 percent efficient, they would still put out just a small fraction of nameplate capacity under cloud cover, and nothing at night.<br /><br />--Rooftop solar panels’ low capacity factors will not be compensated for by lower transmission losses. Transmission losses average about 6-7 percent in the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses) So if rooftop panels had no transmission losses at all, that would save at most 7 percent of the produced electricity that would be lost over normal transmission distances. Discrepancies in capacity factors have a much larger impact on electricity production. For example, if a badly sited, poorly maintained rooftop panel has a 10 percent CF compared with the 15 percent CF it might have in a well-sited, well-maintained solar farm, that’s a reduction of 33 percent in the panel’s electricity production. In Germany, rooftop panels have average CFs of 8 percent or less, compared with the 11-12 percent CFs of the best German solar farms—a reduction of 27 percent or more in their potential electricity production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany)<br /><br />Moreover, it’s unlikely that rooftop solar panels actually will have lower transmission losses. I cannot stress enough that wind and solar generators are not local: the electricity produced by rooftop panels is not earmarked for the house, the neighborhood or even the country where they are located. Very often, the excess electrons generated on sunny days will be wired across the continent to cloudy regions. All grids are to some extent delocalized, but because wind and solar are so locally unreliable, grids dominated by them will require much more long-distance transmission than do grids with dispatchable generators. So transmission losses are likely to rise, not fall, with a higher penetration of rooftop solar.<br />Will Boisvertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-78448351722784444912012-09-30T17:33:02.931-04:002012-09-30T17:33:02.931-04:00The most odd part of your argument is to counterpo...The most odd part of your argument is to counterpose those terrible intermittent wind and solar producers with nuclear. I'm sure Toyota wishes it had been able to switch to unreliable wind while all that stable source baseline nuclear plant in Japan turned off and 4GW went off permanently. <br /><br />The argument about the inefficiency of rooftop solar is revealing though. The slightly lower efficiency of rooftop solar is compensated for by the low costs of transmission and in any case, this industry is not based on retrofitted 1950s military technology and is rapidly improving yields.<br /><br />root_ehttp://krebscycle.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-27320007263032519452012-09-30T04:09:41.457-04:002012-09-30T04:09:41.457-04:00On the other hand, there are no examples that I kn...<i>On the other hand, there are no examples that I know of of modern economies of basically any size running on half or more renewables. Boisvert might certainly be wrong about the difficulties of renewables to hack it on a major scale, but there definitely is a qualitative difference in the basis for predictions of nuclear capacity and predictions of renewable capacity.</i><br /><br />According to the IEA, as of 2009 Canada, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, Albania, Croatia, Latvia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Brazil, New Zealand, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Venezuela get more than 50% of their electricity from renewables. Most of that is hydroelectricity. France, Belgium, Lithuania, and the Slovak Republic get more than 50% from nuclear. Also according to the IEA, in 2008 world hydroelectric production was about 3208 terawatt hours and nuclear electric production was 2731 terawatt hours.<br /><br />There is certainly more technical scope to expand nuclear power than to expand hydroelectricity; most of the world's best hydroelectric resources have already been tapped. There are few technical limits to expand nuclear energy or non-conventional renewables, with renewables facing higher cost on average and nuclear facing higher political resistance. But in terms of absolute growth rates, coal and gas outpace them both combined :-(Matthttp://www.sciencemadness.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154389358831836369.post-43060567199999514332012-09-29T19:48:20.005-04:002012-09-29T19:48:20.005-04:00neroden, what's with all the snark? Boisvert i...neroden, what's with all the snark? Boisvert is answering every challenge to his data and logic with data and logic. Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right. For myself, when I see folks on one side of a debate act like insecure twelve year olds, I start thinking the other side must definitely be right.<br /><br />So which reality are you talking about? The reality of something like 500 commercial nuclear reactors in the past half century with 1 Chernobyl and 1 Fukishima to date. (Unmentioned that I've seen here are 1 Three Mile Island [with extremely little radiation released] and 1 Sellafield event]. Or the "reality" of no long-term history anywhere of a modern economy relying on majority-renewable power? Nearly "all the nuclear plants" in the world have existed for quite some time, and they self-evidently don't "all" go up like Fukishima. Boisvert's predictions for nuclear have a basis in 50'ish years worth of actual data. We have the example of France to look at that shows that a large, industrial economy is capable of functioning on nuclear power without triggering a new Chernobyl or Fukishima with any kind of regularity. Predictions are still predictions, but there's nothing starry-eyed in this case. On the other hand, there are no examples that I know of of modern economies of basically any size running on half or more renewables. Boisvert might certainly be wrong about the difficulties of renewables to hack it on a major scale, but there definitely is a qualitative difference in the basis for predictions of nuclear capacity and predictions of renewable capacity.<br /><br />I think your point above about lost farmland is a worthy contribution to the debate. How many acres were lost from Chernobyl? Pretty much everyone else here has been taking the debate seriously and pushing Boisvert to make his case. If you want to stick to actually debating, bring it on and let's see if you can out-data and out-logic him. If you think the world will be saved by snark, you have more stars in your eyes than the giddy engineers who claimed "too cheap to meter."jtehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17318378188704219078noreply@blogger.com