Jones, very interesting story about Rancho Seco. I live in the Sacramento area and I moved here from Sweden in 1988. I could never understand that people voted to close a relatively new power plant, thanks for giving me an explanation. Poor design I guess. At that time in Sweden, "The Green: had pressed (and succeeded) to have a closing date for all Swedish nuclear plants. (Parliament decision ) In Sweden the closing date has been moved forward as nobody have found a replacement source. In my opinion the biggest problem with our nuclear power plants is the production of radioactive material, which we have no way to handle. Couldn't LENR take this waste material and fuse it to a more stable isotope? Sounds to me that already (relatively) high activity material should be easier to fuse. I admit poor knowledge of nuclear physics
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort." PJM On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > The new rankings of the World's "smartest" companies is out. I was > wondering > about alternative energy and energy in general. Is there any "smart" > company > in energy sector - one which takes into account ecological costs and real > taxpayer subsidies to nuclear and coal? > > Turns out, the largest solar power plant in the World, built by the top > ranked energy company in the World (according to MIT) which is named > BrightSource - was also in the News as well - as the plant started up on > time last week. > > BrightSource is located in Oakland no less (maybe there is a "there, > there"). > > This is not photovoltaics, but 3-axis mirrored thermal - and the solar heat > can be stored. BrightSource's 370+ megawatt facility is the first and more > of this type are on the way. It is claimed that although the initial > facility capital cost was pretty high, it is nevertheless competitive with > nuclear, based on real quotes and lack of need to refuel every 6 years. > > Do not fall for the disinformation of the nuclear industry on low cost. > None > of nuclear would not have been possible without large government loan > guarantees - and the one to BrightSource partially makes up for other solar > loans gone sour. Many nuclear loans went sour too. BTW - the tax credit and > loan guarantee is less than a comparable nuclear plant when one includes > the > real adjusted cost of fuel enrichment to the taxpayer. That is a massive > hidden cost. > > To be fair, there is controversy of course. Energy is political. The WSJ - > which has sadly degenerated into a Murdoch political tool on ecological > issues - even to the extent of supporting coal - quotes incorrect cost > numbers for this facility (and grossly overblown harm to wildlife)... and > the numbers show that this kind of solar power will cost a third of what > consumers are now paying in California. Three more facilities are underway, > which certainly rankles the fossil fuel industry. > > Jones > > BTW from a California perspective, for those who wonder why consumers here > do not trust nuclear in general, and will pay more for solar - here is what > the Nuclear industry does not want you to consider: the infamous Rancho > Seco > disaster. > > This was suppose to be a Gigawatt level - Babcock and Wilcox designed > pressurized water reactor plant which achieved initial criticality in 1974. > Four years later, a power supply failure led to steam generator "dry-out". > This could have been a mini TMI, Brown's Ferry or even Fukushima - but > fortunately without the perfect storm of Fuku. Few appreciate how close > Rancho Seco was to a gigantic catastrophe. > > The plant operated from 1975 to 1989 but had a lifetime capacity average of > only 39%. That's right over 14 years of operation - the net output was less > than 40% of faceplate! > > Rancho Seco was closed by public referendum in 1989 (despite its operating > license being good until 2008). Electric power from that plant cost more > than solar, even without the extreme risk of catastrophe - and when > everything is considered, there will probably never be another nuclear > plant > in this state until LENR is available. > > >
