Nuclear will have to be a large part of the solution since renewables
alone can't do it. Getting support for anything labeled nuclear is
difficult but, as you point out, there other far better nuclear
solutions than what we have. What we have was dictated by a government
that (at the time) was interested in producing plutonium as a
by-product. Time to move on to safer technologies such as thorium.
Chuck Norcutt
On 10/18/2016 10:40 PM, Michael Gordon via olympus wrote:
Not sure how I got lumped into the renewables could do the whole job
crowd. The point was the molten salt solar technique is a possible
nice contribution to making a renewable less intermittent. Speaking
of molten salt, molten salt reactors designed at MIT are less than
1/2 the cost of our conventional reactors and much safer. Doubt
there is much political will to fund them as a partial interim
solution however.
Molten Mike
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 18:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Since you're quoting IEEE
I'll give you this link
<http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change>
These Google engineers determined that switching entirely to renewables
was simply not doable using any kind of technology that we currently have.
Chuck Norcutt On 10/18/2016 6:55 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
Without perfect synchronous supply those in OZ will be as mad as a
cut snake and may reject increasing supply of renewables due to
blackouts when the system gets stressed. The Hot Salt solution looks
intriguing as one way to mitigate intermittent generation.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/a-tower-of-molten-salt-will-deliver-solar-power-after-sunset
Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|