Comparing Costs for Energy, and More Energy News
Brian Wang looks at a study of the comparative costs of different forms of power production for the UK. Offshore wind is particularly bad. It is not clear whether the authors of the report took into account the lifetime of the different power plants. Wind turbines are particularly bad about requiring costly replacements and maintenance, and having to be retired early due to exposure to the elements.
Brian Westenhaus looks at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and its shocking inability to certify even one new nuclear plant design over the past 35 years.
US NRC looks at small modular designs -- and takes its own sweet time about it.
Competition for Next Gen Nuclear Plant
Using solar energy for biomass gasification
Co-firing biomass with coal becoming more common in US
Co-firing eucalyptus and coal in NSW Australia
Biomass power from sawmill residue in British Columbia, Canada
There is no single energy answer. Bioenergy is extremely important due to the ability to grow biomass over most of the Earth's surface -- both land and ocean. This ubiquitous nature of biological growth will allow localities and regions to have more control over essential power and other economic possibilities on the small and regional scale.
Coal, oil sands, oil shale, heavy oils, and unconventional gas are extremely important bridge technologies -- between the oil age and the post-fossil age. The sooner humans get past the dieoff.org carbon hysteria of leftist greens and enter the real world of scientific proof, the sooner they can advance toward a higher level.
Nuclear fission is scalable up to very high levels of power production. It is safer than most forms of power production, but it could be much safer if the safe new designs were given the support by government that they deserve. Modular nuclear power can be distributed and made far more robust and resistant against external attempts to cut off power to large parts of a nation.
Labels: energy news