Carnival of Nuclear Energy 106

The Carnival of Nuclear Energy 106 is up at Atomic Power Review

Gail Marcus looks in detail at “Energy that could be too cheap to meter”

Firstly, too cheap to meter does not necessarily mean free or very cheap electricity.

Some pro-nukes today feel that “too cheap to meter” may yet be possible. Their point is that the cost of metering may not be worth the effort. By the way, this is also the case for hydro, solar, and wind systems, where the cost of the “fuel” is zero. But this does not mean that the utilities would go into the business of giving electricity away. They would charge a flat rate (or one of several flat rates, based on load).

The modern equivalent are some flat rate pricing for cellphone service. Previously there was charges for minutes of long distance phone usage and for minutes of other phone usage.

When could flat rate pricing work for energy ?

Nextbigfuture – Jackzo resigns but wants to leave only after a new appointment has been confirmed and there are calls for his immediate resignation

…and…

Nextbigfuture – Nuclear Famine Fears Based on Faulty Assumptions.

There was a 19 page report that claims that a billion people who are undernourished would die if there was a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. This is based on a series of wrong assumptions. Starting with the beginning that nuclear bombs would set off firestorms in Indian and Pakistan cities the way one was set off in Hiroshima. Nagasaki did not have a firestorm. Hiroshima did not have rain for 27 days prior to its bombing and they had paper and wood buildings and a high builtup coverage of land and breakfast cookers. India and Pakistan have mostly burnt brick buildings that are not as flammable. No big city fires then almost no material getting into the Stratosphere. Therefore no temperature effect. The other assumptions are also wrong. There was a temperature drop after Mount Pinotubo with 30 million tons of aerosol in the Stratosphere which had temperature effect for about two years but no impact on agriculture or starvation. There is no need to make stuff up. A full exchange of nuclear weapons between India and Pakistan would kill about 20-50 million people and injure many more. There is no need for some weird fairy tales about climate effect and then starvation.

If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks

logo

Don’t miss the latest future news

Subscribe and get a FREE Ebook

Carnival of Nuclear Energy 106

The Carnival of Nuclear Energy 106 is up at Atomic Power Review

Gail Marcus looks in detail at “Energy that could be too cheap to meter”

Firstly, too cheap to meter does not necessarily mean free or very cheap electricity.

Some pro-nukes today feel that “too cheap to meter” may yet be possible. Their point is that the cost of metering may not be worth the effort. By the way, this is also the case for hydro, solar, and wind systems, where the cost of the “fuel” is zero. But this does not mean that the utilities would go into the business of giving electricity away. They would charge a flat rate (or one of several flat rates, based on load).

The modern equivalent are some flat rate pricing for cellphone service. Previously there was charges for minutes of long distance phone usage and for minutes of other phone usage.

When could flat rate pricing work for energy ?

Nextbigfuture – Jackzo resigns but wants to leave only after a new appointment has been confirmed and there are calls for his immediate resignation

…and…

Nextbigfuture – Nuclear Famine Fears Based on Faulty Assumptions.

There was a 19 page report that claims that a billion people who are undernourished would die if there was a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. This is based on a series of wrong assumptions. Starting with the beginning that nuclear bombs would set off firestorms in Indian and Pakistan cities the way one was set off in Hiroshima. Nagasaki did not have a firestorm. Hiroshima did not have rain for 27 days prior to its bombing and they had paper and wood buildings and a high builtup coverage of land and breakfast cookers. India and Pakistan have mostly burnt brick buildings that are not as flammable. No big city fires then almost no material getting into the Stratosphere. Therefore no temperature effect. The other assumptions are also wrong. There was a temperature drop after Mount Pinotubo with 30 million tons of aerosol in the Stratosphere which had temperature effect for about two years but no impact on agriculture or starvation. There is no need to make stuff up. A full exchange of nuclear weapons between India and Pakistan would kill about 20-50 million people and injure many more. There is no need for some weird fairy tales about climate effect and then starvation.

If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks

logo

Don’t miss the latest future news

Subscribe and get a FREE Ebook