RE: Scientists: Nuclear power isn't viable without corporate welfare
@klassman6
The reason that nuclear attracted so much attention and so
much investment is that it has such incredible capability that the
very smartest people on the planet decided that solving its
problems would lead to machines with amazing capabilities that
could not be achieved any other way.
Just think about the "magic" involved in operating a powerful,
fast machine deep underwater for years at a time without
needing new fuel. I used to be the engineer officer of a nuclear
powered submarine - I will grant you that there was a significant
amount of money invested in making the technology work
reliably, but the the shining potential was always there and
understood.
Today, the Navy is building submarines that do not even have
any provisions to allow them to be refueled. The initial core -
something that could easily fit into a suburban walk in closet - will
power those ships as long as the hulls will last. Can you imagine?
33 years without producing any emissions and without needing
any new fuel. Those ships will be able to go wherever the
national command authority tells them to go.
Think about the fact that a 1000 MWe power plant can run for
about 13,000 hours in a row at full power and then only need to
replace one third of its core - a shipment that requires only 3
truckloads. Then compare that to the fact that a similarly
powered coal plant needs a train pulling 100 cars each weighing
100 tons EVERY single day!
I stand by my characterization of wind and solar energy as weak
and intermittent. Those are facts that cannot be denied. If you
invest a huge quantity of money into very large and capital
intensive collection systems that will be idle 70-80% of the time,
you can produce some electricity, but can you drive a ship,
provide the heat required to melt metal, or produce power inside
city limits from an underground power station?
Why spend money on working hard to capture 20% of the
electric power market if that is close to the absolute maximum
penetration that the system can accept from power sources that
cannot be controlled? What good does it do?
No matter how much money you paid me, you could never train
me to dunk a basketball. Consider me a weak and intermittent
basketball player not worthy of investment if you want to win an
NBA championship.
When it comes to energy - the USA needs to invest in sources
that can win championships, not try to level a playing field in a
competition where nature gave uranium 2 million times as much
energy per unit mass as oil and made wind powered ships
uncompetitive with ships driven by primitive coal fired engines in
the 1850s.
