301 comments on Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
k Nation (Jim Kunstler)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Cheapest solution is to manage Great Lakes within natural ranges and lower them during calm spell (as well as Lake Winnipeg, build out 5 more GW of hydro in Manitoba). Also drain reserviors on Columbia River, etc.
Geothermal could be made into peaking & emergency power rather than baseload. Drill 4x more wells, add turbines and use resource 25% of the time, including during calms.
I can easily design limited pumped storage that can run for one month. Long tunnel with several thousand feet differential. Large upper reservior.
No high/calm hits the entire continent. Perhaps a majority of population but not majority of land area. Sea breezes peak in summer for example and there is no stopping them.
More in my incomplete plans (53% wind, 23% nuke, 20% hydro, -19% & +15% pumped storage, etc. when I post them here.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Ontario is looking at using disused mines.
Alan:
As a native Floridian, I wonder where you plan to find a "several thousand feet differential" in my home state? (The highest point in the whole state - which had a population of nearly 16 Million people in 2000 - is less than 400 feet above sea level.)
I also wonder how the people who live and work on the Great Lakes feel about your plans to make their levels fluctuate even more than they do currently.
Rod Adams
Editor, Atomic Insights