re: How would a non fossil fuel-based energy system handle this week's weather?

quote:

---

And much of that is excessive regulation. The same reason why alternate (and much safer) forms of nuclear power like thorium salt reactors are having a hell of a time getting traction.

---

I'm sympathetic to the over-regulation angle but there's a good reason to be cautious. The thorium salt reactors are an excellent improvement, and it'd be nice if fear of nuclear and over-regulation weren't as in the way.

quote:

---

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.

---

The average cost to build a nuke plant is around $6B. If nuclear power generation becomes "acceptable" then I am sure we can find ways to safely lower those costs with better plant design and materials.

quote:

---

I'm sympathetic to the over-regulation angle but there's a good reason to be cautious.

---

I'm definitely not denying this. Caution is good. It's just when over regulation caused by lobbying from parties with a vested interest to keep nuclear power off the grid (i'm looking at you environmental whackos AND oil and gas companies) keeps progress from happening that it becomes a problem.

quote:

---

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.

---

You see this event as something that should frighten people off of nuclear. I see it as even in one of the worst cases of human error, we still had a system that protected the plant and the environment preventing a chernobyl type of catastrophe.

Imagine what modern design could do.

quote:

---

Modern reactor designs are an order of magnitude safer yet aren't being built because we have too many uneducated people afraid of something they don't understand.

---

I agree with you here and I don't think we should stop building them. Also, I said strict regulation, not over regulation. When you have an accident at a nuclear facility, the catastrophic potential is far greater than other industries.

quote:

---

an accident that raised local background radiation levels to as you'd get staring at your microwaved gas station burrito

---

And made a incredibly large section of land uninhabitable.

What I see is a "not in my backyard" mentality.

Some of the deadliest surplus of nerve gas in the USA is in EKY. Very close to this is a town that went from nothing to being one of the bigger population areas in the state. Back in the 80's they wanted to build a plant in the west near no population to destroy them but it meant trains would have to carry the gas to this remote facility. So much opposition grew along the route that after a generation they had to abandon the idea.

While everyone thinks destroying the deadly nerve gas reserves is a good thing, nobody wants it to happen near them. Nuclear is similar in that while the probability of accident is low, there remains a probability it happens (like Three Mile Island or Cherynoble) and that triggers the "not in my backyard" response.



While folks have mentioned solar and wind, why no water discussion? I think dams account for around 15% - 20% of global energy consumption.


When built in the 30's the Grand Coulee was the biggest in the world and generates around 7,000 MW. since then it has dropped to 7th place and been surpassed by countries outside the US.

#6 2012 China, Jinsha River
#5 1984 Brazil, Tocantins River
#4 1978 Venezuela, Caroni River
#3 2013 China, Jinsha River (about 2x the power of Grand Coulee)
#2 ???? Paraguay, Parana River
#1 2008 China, Yangtze River (over 3x the power of Grand Coulee)

Of the 70 biggest dams in the world the USA only has 4 or 5 and the last one was built in the 1970's.

China has the uninhabited space on major Rivers to build these massive power producing dams.

quote:

---

While folks have mentioned solar and wind, why no water discussion?

---

Probably because of the long-term ecological effects from daming a river.

But then again I'm a white water kayaker so I'm a bit biased on that front.

We don't even have to go as far as whether alternate forms of production can handle it. I'm not so sure the grid itself could physically handle it and if you can't transmit it, it doesn't matter whether you can produce it or not. As it stands, the grid doesn't really handle the heating needs of the staggering numbers of homes and smaller buildings in the Midwest and the Northeast that are heated by furnaces, steam systems, etc.

And, that's another thing to consider on top of "can we generate and transmit enough power". Is it even feasible if you can produce and deliver enough power? In places where it gets "balls stuck to the porch" cold, heating is generally accomplished by burning something in a furnace to heat air or in a boiler to make steam. Simple heat pumps like we are able to use in Louisiana are physically not capable of keeping people alive in that kind of intense cold. What good is a heat pump that can raise the temperature of the air by 35 or 40 degrees above outside air temps when it's -20 outside? Without very specialized and expensive equipment, electrically derived heat just isn't adequate for heating homes in cold winters.