Solar power

[aerohead]

Presently:
Solar PV = $0.80
Onshore Wind = $1.00
Small Modular(nuclear)Reactor = $16.00

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Presently:
Solar PV = $0.80
Onshore Wind = $1.00
Small Modular(nuclear)Reactor = $16.00

Now, let's include output factor. A nuke will output 95% of rated power over its life (which can be a hundred years).

My particular solar installation is 6.4 kW, and I achieve 12.5% of the nameplate generation capacity. Hopeful it lasts 25 years.

[Piotrsko]

Afaik, nukes can go to + 100% rated, but I don't offhand know the length of time at that output, might be generator heat dissipation limited. Do know TMI ran periodically 105 to 107 per Scientific American on their investigation. Ditto for Chernobyl. ( hmmm trend?) However every so often you need to refuel. Also know Stanford lab at Lawrence Livermore in Sacto has some that are 40+ years operation, same for the one here in reno that just got refueled.

Point is: they don't run 100 years and you DON'T do that hot.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Afaik, nukes can go to + 100% rated, but I don't offhand know the length of time at that output, might be generator heat dissipation limited. Do know TMI ran periodically 105 to 107 per Scientific American on their investigation. Ditto for Chernobyl. ( hmmm trend?) However every so often you need to refuel. Also know Stanford lab at Lawrence Livermore in Sacto has some that are 40+ years operation, same for the one here in reno that just got refueled.

Point is: they don't run 100 years and you DON'T do that hot.

There are nukes that have been in operation for 55 years now, and it seems they usually get extended service authorization in 20 year increments whenever they reach the end of permission to operate.

The reason nukes have an actual output of 95% is due to maintenance and refueling that brings them offline briefly, whereas all solar goes offline at least half of the time, and spends 99.99% of the rest of it at varying degrees of less than maximum output capability.

[oil pan 4]

Hey aus how's the netzero changeover going?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qaZiLd...ature=youtu.be

JC

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Afaik, nukes can go to + 100% rated, but I don't offhand know the length of time at that output, might be generator heat dissipation limited. Do know TMI ran periodically 105 to 107 per Scientific American on their investigation. Ditto for Chernobyl. ( hmmm trend?) However every so often you need to refuel. Also know Stanford lab at Lawrence Livermore in Sacto has some that are 40+ years operation, same for the one here in reno that just got refueled.

Point is: they don't run 100 years and you DON'T do that hot.

The tmi melt down had nothing to do with running over 100%.. it was faulty pressure relief valves and locked out emergency cooling pumps.

[Piotrsko]

No where did I mention running above 100% design power was responsible for those meltdowns. It wasn't. Much like saying unilaterally: exceeding redline very slightly on your gasser will cause instant spontaneous disassembly with newly created view ports.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Now, let's include output factor. A nuke will output 95% of rated power over its life (which can be a hundred years).

My particular solar installation is 6.4 kW, and I achieve 12.5% of the nameplate generation capacity. Hopeful it lasts 25 years.

What planet was that reactor designed for?
As your dry-bulb heat-sink ambient temperature continues to climb, your delta-T for heat rejection continues to narrow.
There's a point where you must curtail generation to thermally protect the fuel rods.
As the latent heat in the atmosphere continues to increase, cooling tower efficiency falls.
Does you engineering design take 'historic', non-linear temperature increases into account?
Ever been a boiler operator?
Do you know how long it takes to re-tube a nuke? Or any other steam-turbine operation? Coal? Natural gas ?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Hey aus how's the netzero changeover going?

I do believe net-zero could eventually be achievable, but it won't ever be as simply as the bureaucrats pipe-dream about.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I do believe net-zero could eventually be achievable, but it won't ever be as simply as the bureaucrats pipe-dream about.

Net zero is the simplest, which is why we don't do it. Nobody wants to be simple cave-people, hoping food wanders nearby, and dying in our 20s with no internet.