Feed Sign in with OpenID OpenID

Simon Willison’s Weblog

United Nuclear (via) Gotta love an online store that stocks both “Misc Radioactive Items” and “Anti-Radiation Pills”.

Tagged ,

3 comments

  1. hey Simon - I think you may be suffering the same problem that my wife suffers from - fear of the unknown!

    I have only recently read into all things radioactive - and have learned 2 things:

    1. EVERYTHING on earth is radio active - the question is how radioactive (the soil and rocks in your garden/ yard contribute to backround radiation we all are exposed to.)

    2. fot those who believe that there is a major climate crisis on earth right now the best alternative is the further use of nuclear power (as controversial as it is).

    Andrew English - 8th April 2007 11:41 - #

  2. There is absolutely no need for nuclear power in the US because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.

    I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.

    CSP works best in hot deserts and it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US "could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or about seven times the current total US electric capacity".

    In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.

    Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .

    Robert Palgrave - 9th April 2007 08:17 - #

  3. CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy!

    Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.

    Inefficient
    According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_ power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and are therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.

    Expensive
    According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_c osts.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity, hands down. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.

    Environmental impact
    Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this would disrupt the ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf ), these systems are "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!

    Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation. Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources. In the medium term, we cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer. To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=11 and http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNuclear/TheBasics/tabi d/66/Default.aspx

    Michael Stuart
    http://www.na-ygn.org/

    Michael Stuart - 19th April 2007 19:37 - #

Sign in with OpenID

Auto-HTML: Line breaks are preserved; URLs will be converted in to links.

Manual XHTML: Enter your own, valid XHTML. Allowed tags are a, p, blockquote, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, em, strong, dfn, code, q, samp, kbd, var, cite, abbr, acronym, sub, sup, br, pre

A django site