I assume the technology is for export, because line of sight in China should be good for, oh, about twenty feet or so.
other energy sources are already cheaper [than nuclear]
That depends on how you account for the strip mining, fracking, CO2 and things like radiation (from coal plants) spewing into the atmosphere (which we all share). There aren't low carbon sources that are both cheaper than nuclear and suitable for base load.
safety is still somewhat lacking (accidents, like Fukushima, still happen)
And for perspective, coal plants emit more radiation when working normally, 24x7.
Safer and cheaper nuclear reactors should be possible.
Are possible, and much safer technology (than was in place at any of the high-profile incidents) exists today.
Killing someone is cheaper than letting them rot for life in prison, feeding them, housing them, guarding them and perhaps even risking parole at some later date.
Your statement confirms that Americans care only about one thing - money.
Actually, it also confirms that the GP is wrong about the financial arguments, since it's exceedingly well documented that executing prisoners costs about an order of magnitude more than the alternative.
We basically flipped the sh#t sandwich over and are eating it from the other side now.
Alas, it was an open-faced sandwich.
While I'm all for squishing child molesters feet first using a steam roller in the lowest gear [...]
Pedophiles are mentally ill, and while it's common to equate mental illness with criminality, I don't understand it. Pedophiles find children attractive, and they need to be stopped, but this is a social problem and not a criminal one.
The rest of us who don't "molest" children don't refrain because we're simply in better control of our urges, it's that we don't find children sexually attractive.
Micro-USB, while ubiquitous, is rather fragile and has orientation.
Agreed. Mini-USB, on the other hand, is way more robust, and is not significantly larger.
What is the 30 year estimate to run an oil/coal plant? Don't forget fuel costs and negative externalities like water pollution from strip mining and fracking. You don't seem to want to talk about that
This was a discussion about the costs of solar thermal vs. solar photovoltaic, so you're correct: I'm not much interested in your oil/coal tangent. You're way off topic.
The $7/watt figure here includes storage of 6 hours at maximum output. So for a 300 watt PV panel, exactly what is the fully installed and warrantied price of each 1.8KWh battery pack, including a 30+ year warranty at 365*100% discharge cycles/yr?
The answer is "irrelevant" because we're not within a factor of 100 of having more solar energy online than we can use in real time. The only people who back their PV with battery systems are 1) fools willing to pay a fortune for the privilege of thinking they're giving the utility company "the finger", and 2) people who absolutely can't get a grid connection (and are thus paying a fortune for their battery-backed PV).
It's also "irrelevant with prejudice" because the $7/watt thermal plant in question most obviously does not come with a 30-year warranty either. In fact, no one seems to want to talk about its operating costs, which are probably staggering.
Hmm, maybe you should think before speaking next time.
I'm thinking and typing. And you're acting like an asshole in public.
Make it bigger and those costs come down.
How much and by what means? It's pretty well accepted that PV will be at $2/watt in 3-4 years. Thermal needs at least a 4x improvement in power/$ to be even worth considering unless it provides some unique benefits. (Storage is not one of them--we're not within a factor of 100 of having more solar online than we can use in real time.)
It's not big but it's big enough for a proof of concept.
And at three square miles it's not exactly small, either. PV has the advantage of being arbitrarily scalable, and not requiring dedicated land, which means it can be sited closer to the point of use.
So in other words this thing makes perfect sense and bitching about it [...]
It might make sense under some very specific criteria, but that is far from conclusively established. And using the brain for critical thinking and asking reasonable questions is not "bitching".
The capital costs of most central collector designs also favor going bigger.
Yeah, people keep saying that, while sidestepping the fact that this thermal plant cost >$7/watt, while photovoltaics are around $4/watt and falling fast.
Base load is the easy stuff in power generation. The peaks are vastly greater than the minimum demand at night.
Absolutely. The whole thing about the sun not shining at night is a total red herring, because that's not a problem until the day we produce more solar energy than we can use in real time, and we're a couple orders of magnitude away from that good problem too have.
PV does not scale well since if you double the size you only double the output. With thermal solutions of all types you can get a lot more heat out of stuff if you have a lot of hot stuff
No, not really. The energy available is directly proportional to the collector area, be it PV or thermal.
Besides, installed PV is around $4/watt (and falling fast), while this thermal plant was over $7/watt.
Code that's successful tends to last a lot longer than its creators anticipated, so lay that foundation carefully. It's usually worth investing effort to do it as right as possible the first time. Doing it "quick and dirty" is the equivalent of mailing somebody a bomb, and often the recipient of that bomb will be you.
That said, there are some fantastic programmers in the quick-n-dirty catagory. Use them effectively--to throw together proofs of concept and demos, to explore alternate implementations, etc. Just don't let them manage the whole damn project.
As the codebase gets larger and older, collecting dependencies along the way, it gets exponentially more expensive to redesign/rework components. Sometimes those are the only good ways to fix bugs, so you'll end up with not-so-good band-aid fixes instead. Then, your technical debt is growing exponentially along with your codebase.
This word is thrown around so many times I can only think of the famous line spoken by the Inigo Montoya character in The Princess Bride.
What, prepare to die?
obviously gasoline cars never catch on fire
Sarcasm detected successfully, but for the record: According to the National Fire Protection Agency, there were an estimated 184,500 conventional highway vehicle fires in 2010. That's an average of 505 fire per day.
Do you have a link to more recent data.