tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post5358036908997023909..comments2024-03-27T23:12:08.917-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Followup on Haiti, Science, Brinstuff and the Enlightenment!David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54522508675189029902010-03-21T02:39:06.401-07:002010-03-21T02:39:06.401-07:00I wonder if there's still more earthquakes wil...I wonder if there's still more earthquakes will come to other countries and destroying buildings, houses, and other establishments. All of this due to global warming. And I think because people of this country are far from GOD. Remember: This phenomena described before in the Bible.gihhttp://get-infoz.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50127289763134225922010-02-03T20:09:39.334-08:002010-02-03T20:09:39.334-08:00Oh dear, nukeeeees seems to take over every discus...Oh dear, nukeeeees seems to take over every discussion. May I recommend diverting such to Barry Brooks's hospitable site where this stuff can really be talked through instead of around and around and around?<br /><br />I've proposed renaming the IFR the Improved Fissionable Reduction system and promoting Gen4 waste processing plants _first_ then building the IFR reactors as an afterthought to the cleanup facility.<br /><br />But really, radioactivity isn't enlightenment.<br /><br />Re the actual essay, one nitpick:<br />dealy s/b deadly<br /><br />Wonderful essay. I'm quoting it widely; wish the comments were more on point, or will be next round.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85382994562969421242010-01-31T03:44:35.825-08:002010-01-31T03:44:35.825-08:00There is also 'hot rocks' geothermal extra...There is also '<a href="http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/home.html" rel="nofollow">hot rocks</a>' geothermal extraction, which is currently being piloted (another form of nuclear, I suppose!)<br /><br />A certain author and futurist once jokingly(?) referred to efforts that confidently expected a breakthrough in nuclear fusion in another twenty years... as of 2040!<br /><br />However, for a change, it appears they had a breakthrough <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8485669.stm" title="plasma from laser pulse does *not* impair fusion" rel="nofollow">in laser fusion last week</a>Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85923820944254618992010-01-31T02:46:40.642-08:002010-01-31T02:46:40.642-08:00I think the ultimate answer to much of the waste p...I think the ultimate answer to much of the waste problem will be finding profitable re-uses of it.<br /><br />It'd be great if we could extract isotopes for radiotherapy, for example,<br /><br />Or, as I said earlier, Betavoltaics.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaics<br /><br />Then too there's the Traveling Wave Reactor concept.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactorIanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8415361304575019752010-01-30T23:05:08.899-08:002010-01-30T23:05:08.899-08:00A much cited method for getting rid of nuclear was...A much cited method for getting rid of nuclear waste (sweeping it under the carpet at a subduction zone like the Marianas trench) is unlikely to work. The top couple of kilometres tends to ride on the top. I don't think we have the technology...<br /><br />We do have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc" rel="nofollow">synroc</a>, however.<br /><br />That said, I can probably live with a few more nuclear plants than coal plants (don't have to *like* it, though!)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69361893820460933362010-01-30T10:01:25.017-08:002010-01-30T10:01:25.017-08:00Re: The System. Large LWRs are perfect for places...Re: The System. Large LWRs are perfect for places like China and India. They need large amounts of reliable power fast. These also work if you're willing to do top-down management. Even better if you have both. There is no need to move beyond established LWRs yet in those places. However, in the US and the UK, I contend more flexible technologies are more appropriate. Unfortunately, the US nuclear regulatory and siting system (not sure about UK) is geared toward the old model.<br /><br />Re: Coal. Yes, newer technologies can essentially "solve" the SOX and NOX problems. CO2, not quite enough yet from what I've seen. Heavy metal pollution has always been the most serious problem to me. Last I heard, no solution for this.<br /><br />Also, I want rules in place (no grandfathering) to ensure a disaster like this has a very low probability of recurrence.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill<br /><br />Re: Japan. Kashiwazaki is probably poorly sited, which is an entirely different issue. Let's not divert the argument. The point is the US has plenty of geologically stable zones and 4-5 years is possible from the Japanese experience.<br /><br />Re: Regulatory Process. Yes, you reference the large parts of what needs to be done. It's complex and the energy industry likes it this way because it protects their assets.<br /><br />Re: Capacity Factor. Yes, you will see a decrease in capacity factor. Since we have learned a lot and can apply that, I doubt it will be as steep and as long. Furthermore, small modular reactors are designed with simplicity in mind. Much of this with US nuclear power has been the lack of standardization. You essentially have 100 different designs in the US. This mistake should not be repeated.<br /><br />***<br /><br />At the end of the day, the real problem today with building LWRs is securing reasonable interest rates. The experience in the 70s and the 80s was not forgotten and investors are, rightfully so, reluctant to finance a new generation of nuclear plants. Largely the cost overruns were because of government moving the goal posts. This drives up the costs significantly.<br /><br />Loan guarantees are essentially insurance against regulatory delays. What loan guarantees are not are checks cut by the government to an industry to build a reactor. This is suitable government assistance because it allows reasonable interests rates to be obtained by helping remove that large uncertainty. <br /><br />Should there be no regulatory-driven delays, the cost to the taxpayer will be small. The idea, and I hope it works in practice, is that once greater confidence is obtained, reasonable interest rates can be obtained without government backing.BCRionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04955960949670858365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90538892586218402692010-01-30T05:31:13.766-08:002010-01-30T05:31:13.766-08:00Finally (and I apologize for the multiple posts), ...Finally (and I apologize for the multiple posts), the current availability rate of existing power plants took decades to achieve, in the 60's and 70's the availability rate was around 30% fro many plants.<br /><br />There were two principal factors in the improvement, one was an enormous amount of hard work by the industry to standardise and streamline operating procedures.<br /><br />The other was (appropriately enough) the practice effect, operators got better at running those reactors simply because they had time to run them in and learn their specific attributes.<br /><br />If the industry shifts to radical new reactor designs then its almost inevitable that there will be a similar learning curve before they achieve the current utilisation rates.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86697734375175750922010-01-30T05:24:24.178-08:002010-01-30T05:24:24.178-08:00And construction is only one part of the developme...And construction is only one part of the development process - even using a standardized design there's design work to adopt the design to the specific site and specific operational needs, there's financing, there's environmental approval, there's the regulatory process (i.e. setting the initial price range).<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Boiling_Water_ReactorIanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71481095625216634612010-01-30T05:19:12.453-08:002010-01-30T05:19:12.453-08:00I don't know if I'd use the Kashiwazaki re...I don't know if I'd use the Kashiwazaki reactor complex as a model for expedited planning and design of a nuclear reactor:<br /><br />"It is the largest nuclear generating station in the world by net electrical power rating. It was near the epicenter of the strongest earthquake to ever occur at a nuclear plant, the Mw 6.6 July 2007 Chūetsu offshore earthquake. <b>This shook the plant beyond design basis and initiated an extended shutdown for inspection, which indicated that greater earthquake-proofing was needed before operation could be resumed.</b><br /><br />The plant was completely shut down for 21 months following the earthquake. On May 9, 2009, one unit (Unit 7) was restarted, after seismic upgrades. A second unit was restarted in August 2009, Unit 6."<br /><br />K-6 and K-7 are the reactors Neaclear International are referring too.<br /><br />One strategy that does seem to work is to cluster relatively large numbers of reactors together in a single complex.<br /><br />I agree that "the system" in the US does tend to work against this but I suspect this is more to do with the competitive nature of US utility industry and the reluctance of the US government to take the sort of heavy-handed planning role employed by the Japanese and the French.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_PlantIanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45653105420534368152010-01-30T05:09:10.984-08:002010-01-30T05:09:10.984-08:00"That still does not solve the problems of he..."That still does not solve the problems of heavy metal pollution. Back home, they recommend eating a very limited number of locally caught fish largely because of high mercury concentrations from coal emissions. Also, large amounts of fly ash sitting in pools does pose a potential environmental hazard. So no, coal still has big problems and rapid expansion, even with new technology, is still problematic."<br /><br />But I'm not advocating an expansion in coal, I'm advocating using coal more efficiently to get more power for the same CO2 emissions and with a reduction in at least some pollutants.<br /><br />(Anthracite produces a lot less less Nitrogen oxides and Sulphur oxides, not sure about Mercury or Radium.)Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83075533403744896792010-01-30T05:03:06.507-08:002010-01-30T05:03:06.507-08:00"Except that it's not the same system. Ru..."Except that it's not the same system. Russia and China are largely state controlled. They can make top-down decisions that the US cannot. Furthermore, China and India do not have a mature energy infrastructures so nuclear has a prime opening there."<br /><br />Actually that's my point,<br /><br />It's kind of hard to argue that these wondrous small, cheap, fast-to-build reactor designs are just sitting there with "the system" blocking their development when none of the other nuclear powers have picked them up and run with them.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-502850328762215392010-01-30T00:36:30.665-08:002010-01-30T00:36:30.665-08:00"The problem with arguing that the key barrie..."The problem with arguing that the key barrier to nuclear power is "the system" is that the same system appears to be at work in every single country with a civil nuclear power program including India, China and Russia."<br /><br />Except that it's not the same system. Russia and China are largely state controlled. They can make top-down decisions that the US cannot. Furthermore, China and India do not have a mature energy infrastructures so nuclear has a prime opening there.<br /><br />As for construction times, Japan seems to be able to do it in 4-5 years (source is World Nuclear, but I believe this specific number):<br /><br />"Long construction periods will push up financing costs, and in the past they have done so spectacularly. In Asia construction times have tended to be shorter, for instance the new-generation 1300 MWe Japanese reactors which began operating in 1996 and 1997 were built in a little over four years, and 48 to 54 months is typical projection for plants today."<br /><br />http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html<br /><br />Further, there are small modular reactor designs that could be brought to market. These will offer greater flexibility and lower construction times. Unfortunately, getting such designs through the regulatory process is nigh impossible in the US. The system is really stacked against anything except large light water-reactors.<br /><br />"...highest currently achievable levels of thermal efficiency and run them off the highest grade anrthracite coals - and use them to replace existing old, inefficient plants, especially those running off lignite..."<br /><br />That still does not solve the problems of heavy metal pollution. Back home, they recommend eating a very limited number of locally caught fish largely because of high mercury concentrations from coal emissions. Also, large amounts of fly ash sitting in pools does pose a potential environmental hazard. So no, coal still has big problems and rapid expansion, even with new technology, is still problematic.<br /><br />I should reiterate, I think we need a diverse energy portfolio. Coal, nuclear, gas, and renewables need to all be part of the mix.BCRionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04955960949670858365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48345030092579086772010-01-29T20:46:37.505-08:002010-01-29T20:46:37.505-08:00Re the energy storage requirements for wind power
...Re the energy storage requirements for wind power<br /><br />This goes away slightly when you have an effective grid<br />Its always windy somewhere!<br />Technologies like water pumping and now pumping air into reservoirs again contribute a piece,<br />Hydro power is normally constrained by storage, when linked to wind you can run the hydro plant harder in low wind and save water in high wind.<br />Finally electric cars will be providing a distributed electricity store "soon"<br />Not sure when?Duncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17057359547660401322010-01-29T19:18:14.510-08:002010-01-29T19:18:14.510-08:00I said that backwards - the world-nuclear.org numb...I said that backwards - the world-nuclear.org numbers DO seem off, since nuclear costs at least $5000/KW, versus this supposedly unusually expensive wind farm at the same.TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72844989236807731642010-01-29T19:16:46.155-08:002010-01-29T19:16:46.155-08:00The single cheapest, fastest way to reduce carbon ...The single cheapest, fastest way to reduce carbon dioxide from electricity generation would be to build more coal-fired power plants - but build them to the highest currently achievable levels of thermal efficiency and run them off the highest grade anrthracite coals - and use them to replace existing old, inefficient plants, especially those running off lignite (brown coal).<br /><br /><br />There's roughly a factor of two difference in carbon dioxide output per unit of power generated between the most efficient and least efficient coal-fired power plants.<br /><br />Even if we target an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, that doesn't mean we have to give up burning coal, we can continue burning quite a lot of coal, especially if we do it more efficiently than we do now.<br /><br />I'm not talking here abour carbon capture or other speculative clean coal technologies, I'm talking about an aggressive roll-out of the best technology on the market now.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58413315525607082562010-01-29T19:14:19.443-08:002010-01-29T19:14:19.443-08:00Another interesting data point - renovating a nucl...<a href="http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2528595" rel="nofollow"> Another interesting data point</a> - renovating a nuclear power plant costing under $2B to gain another 25 or more years of service, at 675MW. About $30B if projected to 10GW - so we can get a little bit of a bargain by keeping nuclear plants going.<br /><br />And there's also <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> (but consider the source) that shows lots of studies and concludes wind costs a lot more.<br /><br />And I found <a href="http://earth2tech.com/2008/12/01/gulf-of-maine-wind-proposal-could-cost-25b/" rel="nofollow">this</a> which seems to indicate a capital cost of $5000/KW for ocean wind farms - cited as 2x Picken's aborted wind farm on land, but with steadier ocean winds it probably would have a higher capacity factor. So maybe the world-nuclear.org numbers aren't too far off.TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70950842113163451572010-01-29T19:09:08.757-08:002010-01-29T19:09:08.757-08:00The problem with arguing that the key barrier to n...The problem with arguing that the key barrier to nuclear power is "the system" is that the same system appears to be at work in every single country with a civil nuclear power program including India, China and Russia.<br /><br />When I suggest it will take eight years to build nuclear plants from scratch I'm basing that on how it takes the French who are pretty much the leaders in the field.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51978510127335018112010-01-29T15:56:28.306-08:002010-01-29T15:56:28.306-08:00"I don't think any single power source is..."I don't think any single power source is The Answer.I just wish nuclear power advocates wouldn't be as blindly unrealistic as nuclear power opponents."<br /><br />Nuclear is definitely not the only answer, but will have to provide a majority of the power if we want to significantly reduce our carbon footprint. Really, doing what was done before in the 60s and 70s is not blindly unrealistic.<br /><br />"Since the 1980's, gas has kicked nuclear's arse in terms of adding new capacity."<br /><br />That's because you have a system that stifles construction of new nuclear capacity and prevents innovative, smaller designs from gaining a foothold. There are a lot of very good designs in sizes of tens of MW that would be competitive if only not for the massive regulatory hurdles that take into account nothing of a system's size. The regulatory context presumes large designs, and the traditional vendors like it this way.<br /><br />What is really needed more than anything is having these barriers in the system removed. Further, it would be nice if there was some uniformity in requirements on waste disposal and pollution controls with regards to all energy sources. For too long, fossil fuels have gotten a free ride at the expense of our health.BCRionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04955960949670858365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35510320326775806672010-01-29T15:13:31.409-08:002010-01-29T15:13:31.409-08:00"So about $55B, to match the CO2 reduction of..."So about $55B, to match the CO2 reduction of 10GW nuclear - plus whatever extra transmission costs wind needs."<br /><br />Which comes pretty close to the $54 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.<br /><br />Of course, the wind-related reductions kick in in year 2 not in year 8+.<br /><br />I'm not opposed to nuclear power not do I think wind is The Answer.<br /><br />I don't think any single power source is The Answer.<br /><br />I just wish nuclear power advocates wouldn't be as blindly unrealistic as nuclear power opponents.<br /><br />It's going to take a major effort just to maintain nuclear power output, much less increase it.<br /><br />A major reason for that is that even setting aside the NIMBY factor and excessive regulation, nuclear plants are big and expensive and require a high-risk long-term investment.<br /><br />Since the 1980's, gas has kicked nuclear's arse in terms of adding new capacity.<br /><br />That's not because of environmental or political factors, it's because <br />you can get economically viable gas-fired power generation from units as small as 50 megawatts which can be built in the same sort of time frame as wind farms at a comparatively low capital cost.<br /><br />If gas prices climb, that calculus may well change: but if you're the CEO of a utility are you going to bet the company (and your job) on it changing in the near future?<br /><br />Now get Betatronics or the Rubbiatron or the subcritical Thorium reactor design with an external neutron source working and that coudl all change.Ian Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07666385933765478081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17035461600925124652010-01-29T14:41:21.739-08:002010-01-29T14:41:21.739-08:00Wind : $1.75/W, 10GW = $17.5B installed as 5000 2M...Wind : $1.75/W, 10GW = $17.5B installed as 5000 2MW towers (Requiring about 1250 to 5000 sq-km based on spacing 5x to 10x rotor diameter of 100m - primarily an aesthetic and maybe ecological issue. 10GW of nukes would take up about 20sq-km.)<br /><br />30% capacity factor, requiring ~10GW of gas turbine backing, $10B at $1/W. Unclear how much more for transmission construction and losses, but $5B ought to cover that. Call it $30B total.<br /><br />Problem is - that'll never eliminate more than ~30% of CO2 from electricity production. (We could back it with nuclear instead of gas - but then why have wind turbines? - just use nuclear.)<br /><br />And if your focus is on how much CO2 reduction you get per dollar, you need to triple the amount spent on wind - though not the cost of the backing generators. So about $55B, to match the CO2 reduction of 10GW nuclear - plus whatever extra transmission costs wind needs.<br /><br />(Some independent wind opponents suggest that wind capacity might be closer to 15% than 30% - that could cut CO2 reduction in half again.)TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13978979249290416702010-01-29T13:36:13.864-08:002010-01-29T13:36:13.864-08:00"Getting 8-10 reactors up and running would c..."Getting 8-10 reactors up and running would change everything...."<br /><br />Mostly it'd just replace the reactors that reach the end of their operating life over the next decade or so.Ian Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07666385933765478081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22694254420234664582010-01-29T11:34:22.110-08:002010-01-29T11:34:22.110-08:00Getting 8-10 reactors up and running would change ...Getting 8-10 reactors up and running would change everything....David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62766886124551774242010-01-29T09:50:36.398-08:002010-01-29T09:50:36.398-08:00In response to nuclear, it really is the only sour...In response to nuclear, it really is the only source of power that can reliably cut into carbon emissions and can be deployed fast enough to do so. Remember, the US built around 100 nuclear plants in about 20 years. WIth the correct conditions, it is possible to do this again.<br /><br />The problem with wind is that it does not compete directly with coal. Energy has two "markets": baseload and peaking. Coal, hydro, nuclear, and some natural gas are baseload. The rest is peaking because of intermittency. Wind cannot be baseload (without radical advances in energy storage) because it cannot be reliably turned on and off. It's nice when you have it, but is not always there. More wind turbines result in more natural gas or coal plants to make up the gaps. That said, wind is a good thing and should be built where feasible. Nonetheless, we need more baseload power.<br /><br />The problem with nuclear is not inherent to the technology, but with an oligarchical system that effectively shuts out innovation and competition. The regulatory system is designed to license very large light-water reactors: that is the NRC's expertise and the industry paid fees are largely the same independent of the size of the reactor. It is very difficult to get a small modular reactor licensed in the US, despite them being safer, requiring less capital, and more deployable.<br /><br />While safety is a good thing, the system is set up that uses those rules to effectively discourage all new nuclear and protect the current markets. Coal does not have any radiation release standards for particulates, wind does not have the same safety requirements in terms of protecting people from shrapnel in catastrophic turbine failure, etc.<br /><br />Largely, this system has been supported by the energy industry. It is a pity that the well-meaning environmentalists have been duped into supporting a system that perpetuates fossil fuel use and the monied interests of their providers. Just about all large nuclear companies have significantly larger interests in fossil fuels. There are very few if any large pure nuclear firms.<br /><br />So yeah, loan guarantees are good, but there need to be systemic improvements before nuclear can become competitive.BCRionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04955960949670858365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84873938433472706582010-01-29T07:52:26.901-08:002010-01-29T07:52:26.901-08:00In re nukes:
I would hope that new plants would ...In re nukes: <br /><br />I would hope that new plants would be breeders that net less waste, rather than conventional designs that net more waste.<br /><br />If, as Dr. James Hansen and others persuasively argue, we need more nukes because, in the face of rising populations who have the both the right and the power to demand energy-use parity with we Westerners, the most optimistic wind/solar/tidal/etc projections are simply not enough to zero out net carbon emissions (... and reforestation is needed to dial back our already excessive atmospheric carbon levels ... and carbon sequestration is so inherently expensive that cheating is inevitable...) then I would hope we'd invest in doing it right rather than cheap.<br /><br />We need to be doing EVERYTHING we can to zero greenhouse gas emissions; comparing worst-case scenarios, a planet with one Chernobyl every 40 years supports human life better than a nuclear-free Venus-Earth hybrid.<br /><br />== About rebuilding Port-au-Prince, an anecdote:<br /><br />Rebuilding after Seattle's Great Fire (1889) was swift and incorporated many improvements, but one upgrade was contentious: correcting the street grid. <br /><br />Early settlers (Denny, Maynard, etc) had platted their land claims to suit themselves, resulting in serious issues at the interfaces ( some are obvious still in today's Seattle.) Henry Yesler (a person of huge qualities both good and bad) objected to the most important rectification because it cut through one of his (fire-flattened) blocks; while he ended up with the same amount of land either way, he used his land title to squeeze the city in court for an amount of money roughly equal to its entire budget for one year. <br /><br />While this was extremely inconvenient at the time for everyone except Yesler, now-a-days almost noone remembers it and the result of that particular rectification makes Seattle much more efficient today.<br /><br />I would suggest that this anecdote does not argue against Dr. Brin's thoughts as to Port-au-Prince, but to suggest that there will likely be, as in all human affairs, rough patches and unscrupulous advantage-takers (it is not coincedence that Bill Spiedel's history of early Seattle is titled "Sons of the Profits"). Keep the eyes on the prize.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15236948864509391452010-01-29T06:24:31.298-08:002010-01-29T06:24:31.298-08:00And how long does a wind turbine last? With that l...And how long does a wind turbine last? With that large number of turbines, how likely are you to have defects creep in and the loss of a turbine to catastrophic failure? What about the effect wind turbines have on migration patterns and the like? What is the wide-scale effect that that many wind turbines would have with air disruptions and weather patterns? <br /><br />Nuclear has problems, yes. However, it is an inexpensive form of power once it is up and running, and reliable as well. There are drawbacks, yes, but there was ways of dealing with the radioactive waste (and I am curious as to what the problem with placing sealed nuclear waste containers in the deepest parts of the Marianas Trench would be - they would be dragged underground and recycled into the Earth's magma, where radioactive decay will do some good and minimal harm). <br /><br />The big thing we need to do is increase the number of high temperature superconducting high tension wires out there (apparently they can run liquid nitrogen through cables now to keep the material superconducting and yet still hung from traditional towers) to reduce energy loss and in turn lower the amount of power we need to generate. Even if we were still using coal and natural gas, doing that alone would cause a reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.com