Quote:
Originally Posted by ecomodded
If they are going to use Nuclear Power this New method sounds like the way to go.
|
Unfortunately this is not new tech. It was being developed in the 1950s then was abandoned in favor of nuclear reactors that could make plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecomodded
I did notice the program had a fair amount of sensationalism and slight of hand , for instances it was claimed that wind power only generates wind 15% of the time .. hogwash I think most of us understand that they put windmills in windy places and likewise solar in sunny places.
|
I saw that too. Where I am we get up to 40% to 50% utilization.
Unfortunately most windy places don't meet the requirements to justify building a wind farm:
1 A windy site. Self explanatory.
2 Roads. Not just any roads. You have to be able to get tractor trailers to the site, modular cranes and wind turbine components such as 100 foot long blades.
3 Grid tie in point. Building transmission lines can double the cost of a wind project, plus the NIMY crowd can shut down a wind project by blocking the transmission lines. So the wind farm needs to be located near transmission lines that are not normally ran at capacity or can have their capacity expanded to accommodate the wind farms output with out having to expand right of way (problems due to NIMBY jerks).
4 Transmission losses. You have to put the wind farm near the market. Where I am they could easily build more wind turbines than the market can consume and more power than what the transmissions lines that interconnect markets can move. With this scenario it can actually be cheaper to build wind turbines that are closer to say Oklahoma city and have them produce less, as opposed to building a 1 billion dollar power line that will still see 20% or 30% losses.