SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cogito who wrote (62682)4/30/2008 8:13:11 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 541878
 
I wouldn't recommend nuclear energy as the only solution, or even the only non-fossil fuel solution. But it is much denser (takes up a lot less space to generate the same amount of electricity) than solar or wind.

Nuclear scales up rather well, you can build more plants, and you don't need vast areas, or grossly disproportionate resources to do so. Solar may scale well, but it hasn't really been demonstrated. Wind not so much.

My point was not that solar can't be more than a niche source, but that wind can't be more than a niche source.



To: Cogito who wrote (62682)5/1/2008 9:40:19 AM
From: Triffin  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541878
 

So nuclear energy is not the panacea some would like to believe it is.


Except for the fact that the plants run 24/7 at full rated
power ..

I'd prefer a nuke build out to replace the existing fleet
and all the present coal plants as they are decommissioned ..
Gas/CSP solar/wind/geothermal/hydro can hopefully provide
the rest ..

Assuming you want to keep the lights on and provide enough
power for an eventual transition of the transportation
infrastructure from fossil fuels to electric ( BEVs,PHEVs,
EVs ) .. We're going to need all of it and then some ..

Realistically, we'll eventually have to go 75% nukes and 25%
renewables; otherwise it's going to be a long ugly slide down the
backside of the fossil fuels depletion curve ..

Triff ..