Still OccupiedMy previous posts in defense of IFR breeders. I leave it to the reader to decide. Back on topic, I'm curious if they can do energy storage to handle changes in weather and more importantly changes in climate. Just because they're going green doesn't mean everyone else is quickly enough, and it's gonna get hotter before it gets cooler.
What's your response to the nuclear proliferation concern, again?
You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
More like giant cherries
Annnnnd the problem of fuels would be solved by 4th gen reactors, since they would create fissile material from stable one (99.3 % of the world's uranium is 238, useless today since non-radioactive, so, those reactors would just multiply our fuel reserves by more than 140, which, I don't think I have to add, would solve our problem the time fusion is finally on-line).Actually, Uranium 238 is radioactive. It just can't sustain a chain reaction like U235 can.
edited 1st Jun '11 7:36:21 AM by storyyeller
Life is simple: it has no nontrivial normal subgroups.
Still OccupiedThere'll be LESS weapons if we start burning existing stockpiles for fuels. Proliferation is a concern, I'll admit, but not moreso for breeders than for existing nuclear power as far as I can tell. A lot of proliferation/security concerns tie ultimately into problems of corruption, and making the nuclear industry honest is frankly a harder task than inventing fusion.
Well, I guess I won't bother posting any citations, if the argument is over politics and engineering, not physics, it's not worth doing, because it won't be resolved.
Best Of: Since I don't recall the numbers from the article and they're probably different now (because of advances in technology and experience) anyway, how well does compressed air compare to water pumps as a means of energy storage?Pretty favorably, they're both ~80% efficient, CAES construction is ~$500/kWe versus hydro's ~$1000/kWe, and storage is $1-2/kWhe to hydro's $10-80/kWhe (6.7MB PDF). Efficiency should come up quite a bit once they integrate thermal storage so they don't have to waste energy heating it back up during decompression. As the PDF notes, suitable locations cover 80% of the continental USA (aside: It also notes combined wind/CAES construction at $1250/kw, in 2005.)
Rufus Shinra: "A storage time measured in minutes"? That's pretty useful to lighten up your country for the whole night... (Sarcasm Mode)Aside from my disbelief at the idea of a lead acid battery blowing most or all of its charge in a matter of hours, I'm sure you know perfectly well that instantaneous storage and longer-term storage are different markets with different technical implementations. Fast high-efficiency systems (like ultracapacitors, nearly 100% efficient with huge wattage, but insanely expensive both in terms of throughput and storage volume) and slow moderate-efficiency systems (like fuel cells, which are already ~60% efficient round-trip (≥90% combined-cycle, ) ~$3000/kWe (already well under $1k/kWe for automotive systems, ) and almost nothing per kWhe since it can be compressed or liquefied in any suitable container just like other gasses) appeal to completely different applications. Also, while I still insist batteries are not suitable for long-term grid storage, the very paragraph you pointed to describes lithium-ion as only slightly more expensive per watt, and the link directly above that paragraph notes that commercial NaS installations are already ~$400/kWe, ~$400/kWhe, and ~90% efficient.
edited 1st Jun '11 11:50:20 AM by EricDVH
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.