XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, sac.politics   
   XPost: sci.chem.electrochem.battery   
   From: noone@nospam.com   
      
   On 13/3/2017 5:37 μμ, BruceS wrote:   
   > On 03/12/2017 06:01 AM, Alan McKinley wrote:   
   >> In article    
   >> Sylvia Else  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> On 12/03/2017 6:09 AM, BruceS wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most   
   >>>> economical fuel over here.  Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for   
   >>>> its decline, but the real cause is simple economics.  At some point,   
   >>>> the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will   
   >>>> be king again.  With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it   
   >>>> doesn't burn more coal.  Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a   
   >>>> market.   
   >>>   
   >>> Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is   
   >>> singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by   
   >>> either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind   
   >>> taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building   
   >>> peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has   
   >>> been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to   
   >>> supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to   
   >>> fix it.   
   >>   
   >> Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the   
   >> end result is something based on methods and technology that is   
   >> no longer optimal.   
   >   
   > Yes, it sounds like the usual government screwup.  Solar and wind   
   > should never be counted on for supply.  AIUI, here we always have   
   > reliable backup to match any claimed production ability of those.  We   
   > have some large wind farms in areas that are fairly consistently windy,   
   > but still don't count on them.  Things like coal provides a solid,   
   > dependable level of power (yes, not quickly adjustable) and things like   
   > natural gas easily handle sudden need.   
   >   
   >>>>> Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is   
   >>>>> now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even   
   >>>>> leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves   
   >>>>> are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but   
   >>>> at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas.  Of course, the   
   >>>> coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in   
   >>>>> nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY   
   >>>>> effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of   
   >>>>> thousand kilometres."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than   
   >>>> is usual for the U.S.  Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.   
   >>>> Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly.  I for   
   >>>> one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant.  I   
   >>>> just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,   
   >>>> and that's been shut down for years.   
   >>>   
   >>> Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the   
   >>> environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of   
   >>> uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.   
   >>   
   >> But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until   
   >> substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.   
   >   
   > The biggest nuclear accident in the U.S., Three Mile Island, never did   
   > any real harm.  The highest radiation levels released were less than   
   > the background radiation levels in places like my state, CO.  The   
   > disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima did release a lot of radiation,   
   > but it's hard to make any generalization from such a small sample set.   
   >   
   >> Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are   
   >> always in the larger facilities.   
   >   
   > It seems to me the big problems are from poor designs that aren't   
   > updated as we learn more.  There isn't much accountability when a   
   > disaster does happen, and the damage easily crosses political   
   > boundaries.  Then there's the problem of waste disposal.   
   You can't compare US nuclear reactors to soviet ones, as the latter   
   didn't even have a containment building, were boiling water reactors,   
   had a graphit moderator, the fuel elements were exchanged on the fly   
   (without shutting the reactor down, obviously).Also after the accident   
   on the 4th unit, the other 3 units continued in normal operation until,   
   I think 2000 when they were shut down for good. Also in Fukushima the   
   company who build the rector tried to cut corners to increase profits.   
   For a couple of bad apples we shouldn't denigrate peaceful nuclear   
   energy.IMHO I prefer nuclear energy than more nuclear bombs.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)