Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Bearcatbob who wrote (62895)	5/2/2008 4:59:49 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541936

>>"Besides, power consumption isn't flat around the clock, so running at full rated power at all times is not necessarily an advantage." Nuclear power is approximately 20% of US supply. As the day turns to night you get to base load. That load is met by nuclear and then coal. As load builds you bring on other sources - eg natural gas fired power. So Allen - nukes can run 24/7. I hope new knowledge will someday impact your strongly held positions.<< Bob - Again with the condescension. I laugh merrily. I could say the same thing to you, except that in your case I would guess that it isn't a lack of information that prevents you from changing your mind, but of being unwilling to consider that you could, just possibly, be wrong. If one doesn't realize that one doesn't already know everything, one can never learn. With that in mind, do feel free to supply new information. I'm always happy to learn something new. I even enjoy finding out that something I thought was true isn't. I'm well aware, by the way, that nukes can run 24/7. I was pointing out that since demand is not static 24/7, the fact that nukes generate power 24/7 doesn't constitute a big advantage over sources that supply power on a curve that matches demand. You're helping to make my argument for me. If the 20% nuclear power already meets most of the base load, we would probably be able to get along with solar and wind supplying 60% or more of our power, with fossil fuels only having to fill in the remaining 20% or less. All without having to build a whole bunch of new nuke plants. I am not totally opposed to nukes, of course. I just think that if you can build a five hundred megawatt solar thermal plant in less than two years, which you can, for less money than an equivalent nuclear plant costs, which you also can, then the solar plant makes a lot more sense to build than the nuclear plant. This assumes that you do have the space for the solar plant. If you don't, well, maybe the nuclear plant is a good idea. But one should also consider the value of distributed solar and wind power generation for areas where concentrated solar isn't practical. That could really take a lot of the load off the grid. - Allen