Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

26. Poor Nnads...

Reply to NNadir (Reply #23)

Tue May 21, 2013, 06:16 PM

May 2013

Still have your panties in a wad because no sane person wants nuclear, eh? I hate to break it to you but you aren't going to get a nuclear based system to work without either 1) inefficiencies on a scale we've never before encountered in the electric sector (building nukes for peaking plants), or 2) substantial storage or 3) peaking plants that have the same characteristics that a renewable grid could use.

Of course, with a renewable grid, you'd actually need less storage than you would with a nuclear based grid.

BTW, the same process works not only with natural gas but also with biofuels for Zero Carbon.

Poor Nnads.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Not just blowing in the wind: Compressing air for renewable energy storage [View all] OKIsItJustMe May 2013 OP

There are so many things about this that are bad. Gregorian May 2013 #1

Naturally there are losses… the question is whether they are acceptable or not OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #3

It's like hydro but with huge thermal losses. It might be good for special situations. Gregorian May 2013 #5

CAES figured prominently in Scientific American’s “Solar Grand Plan” in 2008 OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #6

No prob if it's solar. That's a whole different ballgame. I assumed worst case- fossil. Gregorian May 2013 #8

I was taught that everything was solar energy (at one time) OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #12

Hmmmm ... BlueStreak May 2013 #2

Your assessment of the availability of suitable locations isn't accurate kristopher May 2013 #10

And can they hold 100 PSI of pressure, for example? BlueStreak May 2013 #11

Well, if you don't believe it then all those academics and researchers must be wrong. kristopher May 2013 #13

We'll see how this works out. BlueStreak May 2013 #14

And by “working out” you mean… OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #15

That's interesting. Do you care to explain why BlueStreak May 2013 #17

By all means! Be skeptical! OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #18

There are more than two photovotaic installations in operation in the world BlueStreak May 2013 #19

"The fact that it has been around so long and never really established ..." kristopher May 2013 #20

Thanks for your financial advice BlueStreak May 2013 #21

"f I understand the facts correctly" kristopher May 2013 #22

I am in the presence of greatness. Sorry that it wasn't as obvious to me as it should have been. BlueStreak May 2013 #24

You're the one out of line. kristopher May 2013 #25

You don't know what you're talking about. kristopher May 2013 #16

Worth trying. silverweb May 2013 #4

Theoretical this, theoretical that... wtmusic May 2013 #7

Poor little nuclear loving wtmusic... kristopher May 2013 #9

Denholm was writing "studies" about this years ago. Lovins was handing out this bull in the 1970's NNadir May 2013 #23

Poor Nnads... kristopher May 2013 #26

What a surprise... NNadir May 2013 #27

The larger problem has been dipshits pretending that a few nuclear plants will do anything... kristopher May 2013 #28