- #981
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
Travis_King said:I believe mfb's point was that while it may appear a compelling argument that government regulation causes stagnation in technological progress, that is not a sound conclusion as correlation does not imply causation...
See the following sentence in the post you quoted.mheslep said:What do you mean by in the other direction?
This is still the same correlation. "Some technology branch is developing fast => the government does not catch up with regulations" is a well-known reason for this correlation. If you suggest that the other direction is important (so technological development depends on regulations in some way), you need evidence independent of the correlation.I agree there that correlation is not causation, never proof, but depending on the fact set it can be persuasive. We have not only a strong positive correlation between regulation and new hardware (e.g. transportation, biotech, energy), but also a strong negative correlation between regulation and computers/the internet.
mheslep said:...
The reigning king of storage is pumped hydro, at something like $0.04/Wh for a big project like Bath County, and it should be coming up on 10000 cycles soon with the end of life still far in the future.
...
fill the place up with water—up to 35 million cubic feet of it...
Renewable power would pump some of the water back to the surface, and then gravity would take care of the rest, draining the water back into the mine through an energy-producing turbine. Altogether, the system would have enough storage capacity to power up to 410 typical German homes.
...
Sure, it is not a US-project, there is no need to use exotic inconsistent unit systems.(I'm assuming the original units were SI, as the volume and depth values were suspiciously, um, easy to work with...)
I found the original image on the paper written by Prof. André Niemann, which indeed lists everything in metric units. Though he does not list a volume.mfb said:Sure, it is not a US-project, there is no need to use exotic inconsistent unit systems.
The only other numbers he lists in the original paper are:That number of 410 looks very low. Did they divide 160000 home*days by 365? Would fit.
I guess the energy storage would be designed for storage periods of the order of one week, which leads to ~20 000 homes.
First valuations show a predicted power rage from 200 to 600 MW.
Event
Nutzung von Anlagen des Bergbaus zur Speicherung regenerativer Energie
(Use of facilities of the mining industry for the storage of renewable energy)
Am 30. November 2011
...
russ_watters said:We always have threads on various pieces of the puzzle, but what I want here is for people to post a coherent plan of how to fix the energy problems we have in the US (and critique what others propose). Some groundrules:
First, though most would agree there are issues, people won't necessarily agree on what they are/what the most important are. So define the problem as you see it before proposing the solution. The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence. Obviously, feel free to modify that list.
Second, I want specific, coherent plans. Don't just say 'reduce CO2 emissions' or 'increase production' - tell me how.
Third, money is important, but not critical (for this thread), so don't let it constrain your ambition. I want solutions that will work - paying for them is another matter. Obviously, any solution will require making tough choices and (in the short term, anyway) spending a lot of money. No need to build a new budget to support it. If you say you want to spend a trillion dollars a year, fine (but the benefit had better be big).
http://www.agmrc.org/markets/info/energyoverview.pdf [Broken] is a site from another thread with some background info on what we use for what.
I'll go first...
Wes Tausend said:After all the suspected extraneous off topic info probably posted ad infinitum here, I'd be surprised if Russ even continues to read his own thread anymore. That may be my sorrow, as the following PBS video (53:42) documentary link is very, very good (in my opinion), and well worth seeing.
If some folks have not already seen this, there is an excellent treatise on how to fix the climate, "a coherent plan of how to fix the energy problems we have in the US". It is located on the PBS website and called http://video.pbs.org/video/1855661681/ [Broken].
A geologist named Richard Alley not only describes the present greenhouse problem, but if it's the same unmodified program I saw, I believe he calculates what combination of energy varieties can reduce emissions to reverse the warming trend and yet exceed the future energy requirements of earth. While I'm sure no comprehensive plan is without flaw or controversy, this is the best public presentation I've ever seen to date and does not differ entirely from your own.
If you read this, Russ, and the above PBS video has been mentioned before, I apologise. I did not read all 55 pages of this thread, but I did search it for terms: Richard Alley, Earth: The Operators Manual.
Thanks,
Wes
...
Wes Tausend said:After all the suspected extraneous off topic info probably posted ad infinitum here, I'd be surprised if Russ even continues to read his own thread anymore. That may be my sorrow, as the following PBS video (53:42) documentary link is very, very good (in my opinion), and well worth seeing.
If some folks have not already seen this, there is an excellent treatise on how to fix the climate, "a coherent plan of how to fix the energy problems we have in the US". It is located on the PBS website and called http://video.pbs.org/video/1855661681/ [Broken].
A geologist named Richard Alley not only describes the present greenhouse problem, but if it's the same unmodified program I saw, I believe he calculates what combination of energy varieties can reduce emissions to reverse the warming trend and yet exceed the future energy requirements of earth. While I'm sure no comprehensive plan is without flaw or controversy, this is the best public presentation I've ever seen to date and does not differ entirely from your own.
If you read this, Russ, and the above PBS video has been mentioned before, I apologise. I did not read all 55 pages of this thread, but I did search it for terms: Richard Alley, Earth: The Operators Manual.
Thanks,
Wes
...
As a global warming documentary it's pretty good (a heckuva lot better than "An Inconvenient Truth"!), but I do also find it a little hand-wavey and naive/idealistic on the solutions.Wes Tausend said:If you read this, Russ, and the above PBS video has been mentioned before, I apologise. I did not read all 55 pages of this thread, but I did search it for terms: Richard Alley, Earth: The Operators Manual.
russ_watters said:As a global warming documentary it's pretty good (a heckuva lot better than "An Inconvenient Truth"!), but I do also find it a little hand-wavey and naive/idealistic on the solutions.
-I agree that the lack of discussion of nuclear power is particularly glaring, since they target it at increasing from 5% to 20% of our power needs. That would make it the biggest or second biggest of our energy sources in their proposed mix (they don't break-out the different forms of alternate energy -- wind might end up bigger in their mix). Based on that, it should get at least as much treatment as solar and wind did...though the unstated subtext of the Navy fossil fuel reduction piece is probably an increase in nuclear power for large ships.
-They say hydro can go from 6% to 12% while also backing-up solar power (note: most if not all of their numbers are given in power, not energy). That doesn't compute. When one form is backing-up another, you can have one or the other, but you can't add both together. What hydro does is give you some storage capacity: so you add enough capacity to generate 24% of our power, while only running it at an average of 12%. Essentially, you double-up on all of the generators in the dams. That's a viable way to do it (the alternative is building a natural gas power plant next to every solar plant), but it was a misleading way to present the capacity.
-They gave geothermal power a couple of minutes of discussion, while saying we can triple it's current capacity. Wow, triple? That's...triple almost nothing is still almost nothing. Including a source of basically nothing is particularly glaring considering the absence of any discussion of nuclear power.
One good point, though, is I definitely like what the military is doing with alternate energy...notwithstanding the joke last month about generating fuel from seawater that got a lot of airtime.
edward said:...The sensors for the thermostats were located in the return air stream.
...
I spent three days in the same motel recently.
...
OmCheeto said:I do believe, I've dug myself a new hole.
How on Earth do you know that?
google google google
You took it apart.
You were only going to spend one night, but you decided to take the air conditioner apart.
And it took you two days, to put it back together.
Ehem:edward said:Perhaps we need to take a closer look at the little things we may be missing. I spent three days in the same motel recently. This was unusual because I am usually arriving after dark and leaving early in the morning.
It was a typical mid priced motel. The A/C units were the typical through the wall heat pumps mounted under the window. I sat in a chair reading a magazine in the early afternoon and noticed that the A/C would run about three minutes then go off for about two minutes.
I immediately spotted the reason, the blasted air was blowing up behind the window curtains, then dropping back down and into the return. The curtains came down to the top of the A/C. I pushed the curtains back and set a book in front of them.
Now the unit ran for fifteen minutes straight and shut down for 18 minutes.
The units also need better insulation between the condenser (outdoor) section and the (interior) evaporator section. I say this because in the morning when the sun hit the east facing condensers the units would kick on for short runs. I walked around to the west side of the building in the afternoon and the same thing was happening.
The sensors for the thermostats were located in the return air stream. This wouldn't need a rocket science fix. The 50 room motel is only two years old.
Ehem:OmCheeto said:Quote by edward
"...The sensors for the thermostats were located in the return air stream."
How on Earth do you know that?
Can't speak for edward, but I was staying in that hotel room for business and I had some after-hours testing to do at a client's site that was picking-up again in the morning, so I arrived at the hotel at about midnight and wrote the note at quarter after one, to drop off at the front desk when I ckecked-out in the morning.google google google
You took it apart.
You were only going to spend one night, but you decided to take the air conditioner apart.
And it took you two days, to put it back together.
:thumbs:
--------------------------
[1] Speculation.
Good way to kill a boring hour on an exercise bike.Wes Tausend said:I don't have many friends or family that are willing to watch such documentaries...
I agree with all of your perception. But I don't like it: if a subject is serious enough to treat seriously, then it should be treated seriously.I did think it was a bit vague, but assumed that was a consequence of squeezing the vast array of info into a one hour segment that would appeal to general PBS type audiences. Considering this, I kind of wonder if Dr. Alley didn't somewhat avoid nuclear power to appease some of the paranoid fringe element. He may be much more amenable to it than he initially let's on.
While we're at it, some mention was made of clean coal in the video, but nothing about fracking. Fracking is currently the only thing causing a significant reduction in coal use anywhere in the world. The US didn't even sign the Kyoto protocol and ignored it's carbon emission requirements, yet met them easily due to the sharp drop in coal use as power has switched to natural gas.I live in a major energy producing state, North Dakota. The huge Bakken oil reservoir is only the latest segment offering and does finally reduce our dependence on OPEC with the possible compromise of fracking damage to groundwaters.
russ_watters said:Ehem:
Before:
After:
Can't speak for edward, but I was staying in that hotel room for business and I had some after-hours testing to do at a client's site that was picking-up again in the morning, so I arrived at the hotel at about midnight and wrote the note at quarter after one, to drop off at the front desk when I ckecked-out in the morning.
Relief in Every Window, but Global Worry Too
...
Commercial interests foster the stalemate. Though the protocol aggressively reduces the use of HCFC-22 for cooling, it restricts production on a slower, more lenient timetable, and as a result, output has grown more than 60 percent in the past decade. Even in the United States, HCFC-22 is still profitably manufactured for use in older appliances, export and a few other industrial purposes that do not create significant emissions, like making Teflon.
...
Well, they care enough to meet the federal efficiency standards. They don't have a choice. Unfortunately, efficiency is a function of heat exchanger size, which is limited by sleeve size, so that type of air conditioner is significantly less efficient than a residential, free-standing condenser.OmCheeto said:And your first image confirmed another suspicion I had, as to why edward's air conditioner was so poorly designed, yet were only two years old. They're made in China. What do they care about how efficient they are for the American market. And the contractors who build the hotels probably don't care either, as long as it's the cheapest thing on the market.
The total demand is rising, a slightly reduced fraction can still mean a larger absolute value.Hydro...5% (reduced from 6%??)
This would mean we have to use electricity to heat buildings on a large scale. That is possible, but it will further increase the total consumption. And I guess we need a lot of electric cars as well to get that.Solar.....26%
Wind.....13%
Nuclear...26%
This point has been made before, but it's worth asking the question again:Solar.....26%
Wind.....13%
Nuclear...26%
mfb,mfb said:The total demand is rising, a slightly reduced fraction can still mean a larger absolute value.Wes said:Hydro...5% (reduced from 6%??)
mfb said:This would mean we have to use electricity to heat buildings on a large scale. That is possible, but it will further increase the total consumption. And I guess we need a lot of electric cars as well to get that.Wes said:Solar.....26%
Wind.....13%
Nuclear...26%
Nuclear power is quite unpopular in many countries, I don't see how this is supposed to happen (to have it available in 2030, site-specific planning would basically have to start now).
russ_watters said:...
One good point, though, is I definitely like what the military is doing with alternate energy...notwithstanding the joke last month about generating fuel from seawater that got a lot of airtime.
Synthesized 'solar' jet fuel: Renewable kerosene from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide
Date: May 3, 2014
Source: ETH Zürich
Summary: With the first ever production of synthesized "solar" jet fuel, the EU-funded SOLAR-JET project has successfully demonstrated the entire production chain for renewable kerosene obtained directly from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide, therein potentially revolutionizing the future of aviation. This process has also the potential to produce any other type of fuel for transport applications, such as diesel, gasoline or pure hydrogen in a more sustainable way.
A High-Renewables Tomorrow, Today: El Hierro, Canary Islands
FEB 13, 2014
...
El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores over 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW.
The entire project, expected to come online this year, is projected to generate three times the island’s basic energy needs—for residents, farming cooperatives, fruit and fish canneries, and the 60,000 tourists who visit every year. Any excess electricity will be used to desalinate water at the island’s three desalination plants, delivering almost 3 million gallons of water a day, enough for drinking water and to cover part of the irrigation needs.
...
Двигатель Измененией; I followed this page for the cool off-grid living tips you USED to post. Lately, all I've seen is uncorroborated pseudoscience and it's driving me crazy. Consider yourselves unfollowed.
Like · Reply · 29 April at 09:50
Jay Kanta; Well, Bye.
Like · 29 April at 11:51
It's even cheaper, when you're more than 100% efficient:Wes Tausend said:...
The point is that electric heat is not expensive if one does not use much of it. Once it enters the dwelling, it is 100% efficient. All the energy is converted to heat and none is vented out as in combustion systems.
Let's see... 24 watts of electrical input over 3.5 hours yields 84 watt hours consumed.OmCheeto said:Aug25-10, 08:09 AM
...
I did an experiment last summer using 1/2 inch 100' long black irrigation hose and a $22 bilge pump. The system collected ~2.3 kwh of thermal energy in about 3.5 hours.
...
Some numbers:
flow: 1.6 gpm (~ 24 watts pump)
area of hose: 0.27 m^2
system fluid capacity: 32 gallons
max delta T / hr: 11 'F
To = 61.7'F
Tf = 90.9'F
Eek! Late for work. BBL.
wiki said:Efficiencies may not exceed 100%
Thanks,
Wes
...
OK. I finally had to look for what joke Russ was talking about. It is obvious that water and CO² are the byproducts of carbohydrate combustion, and the combustion process could theoretically be reversed. So my first thought was that it was simply one of the sensational claims often found on "propoganda airwaves" to influence the unwary. There is often an element of truth to these claims, the problem being that the fuel is not free, but requires an input of more than a gallon to make a gallon. The worst ones make use of the automobile alternator to form hydrogen which may then be burned by the attached combustion engine. The wit-challenged that believe this is helpful, do not recognise that the drag of the alternator cancels the tractive power produced, plus adds whatever efficiency losses are wasted getting there.OmCheeto said:It seems the Europeans are doing their own version of this comedy routine. :tongue2:Russ said:...
One good point, though, is I definitely like what the military is doing with alternate energy...notwithstanding the joke last month about generating fuel from seawater that got a lot of airtime.Synthesized 'solar' jet fuel: Renewable kerosene from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide
Date: May 3, 2014
Source: ETH Zürich
Summary: With the first ever production of synthesized "solar" jet fuel, the EU-funded SOLAR-JET project has successfully demonstrated the entire production chain for renewable kerosene obtained directly from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide, therein potentially revolutionizing the future of aviation. This process has also the potential to produce any other type of fuel for transport applications, such as diesel, gasoline or pure hydrogen in a more sustainable way.
Thanks for providing an example of hydro storage at work. It appears to be the most likely practical candidate for mega energy storage, although I have heard of a small power station using lead-acid batteries as an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS). An acquaintance bought discounted used batteries for his own off-grid project from the source.OmCheeto said:Ironically, I found this on EARTH-The Operators' Manual's Facebook page. It's actually quit good. I've shared many of their findings:http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_02_13_high_renewables_tomorrow_today_el_hierro_canary_islands
FEB 13, 2014
...
El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores over 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW.
The entire project, expected to come online this year, is projected to generate three times the island’s basic energy needs—for residents, farming cooperatives, fruit and fish canneries, and the 60,000 tourists who visit every year. Any excess electricity will be used to desalinate water at the island’s three desalination plants, delivering almost 3 million gallons of water a day, enough for drinking water and to cover part of the irrigation needs
I am not on Facebook and am unaware of this, but I can appreciate the humor in the terms, "uncorroborated pseudoscience". I do know the U.S. Navy is quite concerned about rising sea-levels since 100% of their bases will eventually flood world-wide. For myself, I will move my fuel-thirsty camper, and drag my fishing boat anchor up the beach to a dry spot.OmCheeto said:Though some people are upset by some of the stuff he posts, as in the one regarding predicted sea level rise:Двигатель Измененией; said:I followed this page for the cool off-grid living tips you USED to post. Lately, all I've seen is uncorroborated pseudoscience and it's driving me crazy. Consider yourselves unfollowed.
Like · Reply · 29 April at 09:50
Jay Kanta; Well, Bye.
Like · 29 April at 11:51
I tend to ignore uncorroborated pseudoscience.
According to the video the Chinese are way ahead of us here. They have solar hot water heat devices on many roofs now.OmCheeto said:It's even cheaper, when you're more than 100% efficient:Wes said:...
The point is that electric heat is not expensive if one does not use much of it. Once it enters the dwelling, it is 100% efficient. All the energy is converted to heat and none is vented out as in combustion systems.
Cheater.OmCheeto said:Let's see... 24 watts of electrical input over 3.5 hours yields 84 watt hours consumed.
Energy gained by the system was 2300 watt hours.
2300 - 84 = 2216 net watt hours
system efficiency: η = Pout / Pin
= 2216/84 = 2338% efficiency
Ha! Take that wikipaedia!
OmCheeto said:Dullards have apparently never heard of the Kobayashi Maru. When in doubt, cheat.
Now I feel as though I have been pre-welcomed for my thanks in my signature. It is something like pre-retaliation, only on the friendly side of the scale.OmCheeto said:You're welcome.Wes said:Thanks,
Wes
...
Wes Tausend said:...It is obvious that water and CO² are the byproducts of carbohydrate combustion...
OmCheeto said:You are the first person to have ever used the word "carbohydrate" in this 9 year old thread.
hmmmm...
-----------------------------
ps. I have a full time job, and my responses are usually very short, M-F.
pps. I responded to someone on the NRL site, regarding "carbohydrate" production from seawater. They allow user comments. I did some math, and showed that a 500 megawatt nuclear reactor, could theoretically, create enough fuel, for all the planes on the ship, in ≈24 hours. In the back of my mind though, my lizard brain was laughing.
Wes Tausend said:...
So we could make food from seawater and CO² also.
...
Yupwiki on cellulosic ethanol said:The French chemist, Henri Braconnot, was the first to discover that cellulose could be hydrolyzed into sugars by treatment with sulfuric acid in 1819. The hydrolyzed sugar could then be processed to form ethanol through fermentation. The first commercialized ethanol production began in Germany in 1898, where they used acid to hydrolyze cellulose. In the United States, the Standard Alcohol Company opened the first cellulosic ethanol production plant in South Carolina in 1910 during WWI. Later a second plant was opened in Louisiana. However, both plants were closed after WWI due to economic reasons.
wiki on the automobile said:The year 1886 is regarded the year of birth of the modern automobile - with the Benz Patent-Motorwagen, by German inventor Karl Benz. Motorized wagons soon replaced animal-drafted carriages, especially after automobiles became affordable for many people when the Ford Model T was introduced in 1908.
Research of cleanup...
At TEDxDelft2012, Dutch Aerospace Engineering student Boyan Slat unveiled a concept for removing large amounts of marine debris from the five oceanic gyres. With his concept called The Ocean Cleanup, he proposes a radical clean-up that would use the surface currents to let the debris drift to specially designed arms and collection platforms. This way the running costs would be virtually zero, and the operation would be so efficient that it may even be profitable. The concept makes use of floating booms, that won’t catch the debris, but divert it. This way by-catch would be avoided, and even the smallest particles would be extracted. According to Boyan Slat's calculations, a gyre could realistically be cleaned up in five years' time, collecting at least 7.25 million tons of plastic combining all gyres. He however does note that an ocean-based cleanup is only half the story, and will therefore have to be paired with 'radical plastic pollution prevention methods in order to succeed'.
...
omcheeto said:well, from what I've read, we've had a similar technology in use for over 10,000 years. It's called agriculture. And some smart people, as recently as 200 years ago, figured out how to turn wood into automobile fuel. Though i don't think the automobile existed back then. Probably why it took nearly another hundred years for there to be a market for the stuff.wes said:so we could make food from seawater and co₂also.
omcheeto said:wiki on cellulosic ethanol said:the french chemist, henri braconnot, was the first to discover that cellulose could be hydrolyzed into sugars by treatment with sulfuric acid in 1819. The hydrolyzed sugar could then be processed to form ethanol through fermentation. The first commercialized ethanol production began in germany in 1898, where they used acid to hydrolyze cellulose. In the united states, the standard alcohol company opened the first cellulosic ethanol production plant in south carolina in 1910 during wwi. Later a second plant was opened in louisiana. However, both plants were closed after wwi due to economic reasons.
yup
wiki on the automobile said:the year 1886 is regarded the year of birth of the modern automobile - with the benz patent-motorwagen, by german inventor karl benz. Motorized wagons soon replaced animal-drafted carriages, especially after automobiles became affordable for many people when the ford model t was introduced in 1908
hmmm... I just had a great idea. But like all my great ideas, someone else beat me to it.
omcheeto said:the spouse of one of my coworkers, works for a company called agilyx. I don't think i'd ever heard of the process that they used, but it sounded like it solved several problems, all at once.
They turn waste plastic, into fuel. I don't know where you are from, but in these parts, we recycle everything, with the possible exception of certain types of plastic. It sometimes takes me 3 months to fill my 20 gallon garbage can.
Anyways, my idea merged three things together.
Aircraft carriers not at war looking for fuel
plastic to fuel
the great pacific garbage patch
and maybe some nets...
But...
research of cleanup... said:at tedxdelft2012, dutch aerospace engineering student boyan slat unveiled a concept for removing large amounts of marine debris from the five oceanic gyres. With his concept called the ocean cleanup, he proposes a radical clean-up that would use the surface currents to let the debris drift to specially designed arms and collection platforms. This way the running costs would be virtually zero, and the operation would be so efficient that it may even be profitable. The concept makes use of floating booms, that won’t catch the debris, but divert it. This way by-catch would be avoided, and even the smallest particles would be extracted. According to boyan slat's calculations, a gyre could realistically be cleaned up in five years' time, collecting at least 7.25 million tons of plastic combining all gyres. He however does note that an ocean-based cleanup is only half the story, and will therefore have to be paired with 'radical plastic pollution prevention methods in order to succeed'.
i think i like boyan's idea better.
Sounds like Alley is dabbling in social policy more than geology. Known land based reserves, today, are 5 million tons of Uranium; consumption is 68,000 tons/year or 73 years. Likely reserves are 7 million tons, or 102 years, and that is with no increase in reserves. Yet reserves have increased ~0.1 million tones per year on average over the last 35.Wes Tausend said:As a token of on-topic compliance, I should mention that I was disappointed to find we only have a thirty year supply of recoverable fissionable nuclear material at current production rates... according to Richard Alley and his sources.
Uranium exploration is certainly ongoing, as indicated by the steady increase in known reserves.We are now using surplus cold-war materials, not actively searching for more, ...
...
mfb said:The costs of uranium are a small part of the overall costs - I remember something like 5%. Give or take a factor of 2 for this value, a doubling of the uranium price would still be a small effect on the costs of nuclear power and change the amount of available uranium significantly.
NEI said:...This is the total annual cost associated with the "burnup" of nuclear fuel resulting from the operation of the unit. This cost is based upon the amortized costs associated with the purchasing of uranium, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services along with storage and shipment costs, and inventory (including interest) charges less any expected salvage value.
For a typical 1,000 MWe BWR or PWR, the approximate cost of fuel for one reload (replacing one third of the core) is about $40 million, based on an 18-month refueling cycle.
The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2012 was 0.75 cents / kWh.
What are we doing to to Russ's thread?Wes Tausend said:...
P.S. I'm kind of new here. Are we supposed to be doing this to Russ's thread?
Thanks,
Wes
...