Skip to main content

View Diary: IPCC report shows action on climate change is not spending, it's investing (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Old reactor designs cost more (0+ / 0-)

    Newer designs could be built faster, less expensively, don't need vast amounts of water for cooling (no need to be near lakes, rivers or oceans). Much greater energy density per acre of land use compared to wind or solar.

    One project (dauvergne.com) estimates production at $0.04 per kilowatt/hour.

    My δόγμα ate my Σ

    by jubal8 on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 04:07:09 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Newer designs are always sold as being (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      flowerfarmer

      cost effective.

      Then people try to build them, and the cost over-runs are generally four to ten fold.

      Much greater energy density per acre of land use compared to wind or solar.
      That's clearly very important, since there is so very little land on planet Earth.

      "High deductibles kill low income patients." FishOutOfWater

      by JesseCW on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 04:33:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course there will be overruns (0+ / 0-)

        But aren't we about to be overrun by waves of ill effects from climate change?

        That's clearly very important, since there is so very little land on planet Earth.
        It's important when NIMBY is a factor. It's also important in that the designs can be so compact that they could be build on land already used by other generating facilities. This would allow them to use existing power lines to distribute electricity, and even feed steam into already existing turbine plants.

        My δόγμα ate my Σ

        by jubal8 on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 04:43:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. NIMBY won't be a factor at all with (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jds1978, flowerfarmer

          thorium fuel reactors.

          This diary isn't about the failed and extremely expensive nuclear boondoggle.  

          It's about the challenges of achieving real action on climate change in a time frame that will save lives and, just maybe, save modern civilization (and hopefully improve it).

          China doesn't even hope to put a commercial thorium design on-line until 2025.  And they're on a crash course.  In China, that means largely dispensing with safety considerations.

          We haven't got that long, and we haven't got the resources to throw away.

          "High deductibles kill low income patients." FishOutOfWater

          by JesseCW on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 04:55:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  see my previous post (0+ / 0-)

            about the project that has finished their design phase.

            Boondoggle applies to failed designs. read the Wikipedia blockquote I posted.

            My δόγμα ate my Σ

            by jubal8 on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 05:15:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site