Post by engineerpoet on Apr 11, 2019 21:48:15 GMT 9.5
Of course storage will save the day. The energy stored in actinides is wonderfully dense; the high-burnup core configuration proposed for the S-PRISM only replaces about 1/8 of the fuel per year.
Oh, they mean storage for RUINABLES! Low-energy chemicals or gravity, take your pick. Pumped hydro is so weak, the entire volume of Lake Erie wouldn't suffice to buffer the USA's electric demand. These people are innumerate and/or delusional.
Post by Roger Clifton on Jul 20, 2019 11:17:40 GMT 9.5
Renewables can go nowhere without gas, Big Gas. It infills with power when renewables cannot. However they do have a public voice strong enough to protect their monster ally from a carbon tax.
Evangelizing tracts put out by the renewables faithful carefully avoid using the words "and gas". Inserting the phrase where gas is used in reality, we read: a grid can be wholly powered by a wind and gas, variations can be wholly backed up by batteries and gas, and so on. In particular, they declare the enemy of the greenhouse to be coal but avoid saying "coal and gas". At the end of each tract we are led to believe that installing 100% renewables and gas will save the greenhouse by completely eliminating the use of coal and gas. That's a contradiction, blatant to all but the silliest of us.
It is quite likely that the faithful will be urged that because a surely-tolerable usage of gas is essential to the rescue of the greenhouse, they must not tolerate a carbon tax applying to anything that includes the unspeakable phrase, and gas. But are they silly enough to be persuaded?
Again in Germany we observe the extremely high prices which occur at the limit of reserves. But more, the McKinsey report warns of more serious consequences for Germans when the remaining nuclear reactors are turned off.
Yes, eliminating coal burning has great health benefits. But the so-called renewables aren't being installed in the upper Midwest and Great Lakes regions for a reason. These locations would do better to have more nuclear power plants instead.