- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How would a non fossil fuel-based energy system handle this week's weather?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 9:51 am
Posted on 1/30/19 at 9:51 am
For the energy baws out there, if money was no object would solar/wind/alt fuel current technology be able to cope in the midwest this week without the current grid as back up?
Or in the foreseeable future?
If so, at what cost?
Or in the foreseeable future?
If so, at what cost?
10
Posted on 1/30/19 at 9:51 am to DeCat ODahouse
quote:
if money was no object
quote:
If so, at what cost?
One of these things is not like the other
Posted on 1/30/19 at 9:53 am to DeCat ODahouse
quote:
if money was no object would solar/wind/alt fuel current technology be able to cope in the midwest this week
If money were no object, yes. But money is an object. So is land. Wind and solar farms need land and space to operate.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 9:53 am to DeCat ODahouse
quote:
For the energy baws out there, if money was no object would solar/wind/alt fuel current technology be able to cope in the midwest this week without the current grid as back up?
Or in the foreseeable future?
If so, at what cost?
Nuclear energy Baw.... If america ever gets over its fear of nukes, we would see a tremendous crash in demand of fossil fuels
We would still need oil for the non-fuel product it produces
This post was edited on 1/30/19 at 9:55 am
Posted on 1/30/19 at 9:55 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Nuclear energy Baw.... If america ever gets over its fear of nukes, we would see a tremendous crash in demand of fossil fuels
We have ~ 4,000 MW of nuclear power contributing to the grid
Nuclear power is more expensive than most people think, which is one of the main reasons it isn't more present.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 9:56 am to Powerman
quote:
Nuclear power is more expensive than most people think, which is one of the main reasons it isn't more present.
Quoting for truth. I'm a big supporter of more nuclear, but I'm aware it's one expensive proposition.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 9:57 am to DeCat ODahouse
Give me a windmill some thick blankets and a large woman and I could get through the worst of it.
This post was edited on 1/30/19 at 9:59 am
Posted on 1/30/19 at 9:57 am to Powerman
quote:
Nuclear power is more expensive than most people think, which is one of the main reasons it isn't more present.
Look into the reasons why it is expensive. Over regulation and NIMBYism is one of them
Posted on 1/30/19 at 9:59 am to Duke
quote:
Nuclear power is more expensive than most people think, which is one of the main reasons it isn't more present.
Quoting for truth. I'm a big supporter of more nuclear, but I'm aware it's one expensive proposition.
On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 10:03 am to Powerman
quote:
We have ~ 4,000 MW of nuclear power contributing to the grid
Nuclear power is more expensive than most people think, which is one of the main reasons it isn't more present.
This is all false.
And the fuel isnt the expensive part of nuke. The startup and maintenance cost is.
Ooooh, you meant WE have 4,000 MW. Not the collective we
This post was edited on 1/30/19 at 10:05 am
Posted on 1/30/19 at 10:03 am to DeCat ODahouse
Lots of jackets... 
Posted on 1/30/19 at 10:04 am to Tigeralum2008
Where does solar and wind fall in that?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 10:04 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Over regulation
Call me crazy, but after Chernobyl, I don't exactly mind strict regulation of nuclear power.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 10:07 am to Powerman
quote:
Nuclear power is more expensive than most people think, which is one of the main reasons it isn't more present.
Part of that expense is driven by fear. A big part.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 10:08 am to DeCat ODahouse
I thought Clean Coal would've gotten us out of this entire energy debate after 2 years. 
Posted on 1/30/19 at 10:08 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
quote:
Nuclear power is more expensive than most people think, which is one of the main reasons it isn't more present.
Quoting for truth. I'm a big supporter of more nuclear, but I'm aware it's one expensive proposition.
On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour.
I don't think that includes initial CAPEX, which is why nuclear can be expensive.
From my understanding, nuclear can be similar in total lifetime cost to cheaper fossil fuels, but the outlays are different. Much higher initial costs with much lower lifetime operating costs vs. lower initial costs with relatively higher lifetime operating costs.
There is an economic cost of risk embedded in that initial outlay as well, which is (largely) why nuclear has to be subsidized the way it is (as opposed to fossil fuel subsidies which tend to be flatter), not necessarily that it's more expensive over its total lifetime.
On the other hand, the marginal production costs of nuclear facilities comes down pretty quickly as you go from 1 to 2 to 5 to 10 to 50. Products that are infrequent, big, and bulky like nuclear facilities tend to be like that.
This post was edited on 1/30/19 at 10:16 am
Posted on 1/30/19 at 10:14 am to Powerman
quote:
if money was no object
quote:
If so, at what cost?
One of these things is not like the other
Appreciate the attention to detail.
To clarify: if the answer is an infinite amount of cost, then the answer is no, it couldn't handle it.
If there is a finite number, it would be good to know.
Ditto for amount of land devoted to wind power and solar panels.
Even if it is a ridiculous number it would be good to know for comparison.
i..e
(x) acres or (for example) every acre of land in the U.S. currently used for wheat production.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 10:18 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour.
It's the initial costs that get you. Since something going wrong has significant impacts, they have to be over engineered to address the risk.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 10:20 am to DeCat ODahouse
Bio fuels maybe, but my personal back-up systems burn gasoline, propane, and kerosene for heat and electricty. Reliable, high-quality heat and energy production systems that current solar and wind don't provide in bad weather.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 10:21 am to Cump11b
quote:
Call me crazy, but after Chernobyl, I don't exactly mind strict regulation of nuclear power.
:kige:
Closer to home - and for those a bit older that remember...
03/28/79 :: TMI-2 was the most significant accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history. The incident was rated a five on the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale.
Interesting the guy on the right does not have the shoe booties the others are wearing.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News