Interesting to read some debate around micro-nuclear, these are sub-100MW reactors being developed by several countries, designed to power a suburb not a city. R&D is happening in the USA, Japan, UK, France and Sth Korea, it may well be under way in China as well somewhere. These are the systems some refer to as "nuclear batteries", they can be small enough to be transported by crane or plane and fit on a suburban block or in a building basement, and delivery energies like 9MW at that scale, that's on average enough to feed 3ooo homes.
One of the big arguments against this micro-nuclear was the rising costs, the opponents claim the increased costs of materials has pushed the unit energy cost from $50 to $80 per Megawatt. The primary factor was the rising cost of copper, which up about 40% at the moment, and even higher increases in Europe. The they go on to claim SolarPV and Wind is getting cheaper, the price per Megawatt falling all the time! :o
What I'm really interested in is this, what are those magic and cheap materials that SolarPV and Wind have found to replace copper so they can achieve this fall in costs while competitor energy sources suffer increases?
As far as I know, Wind is the energy industries biggest user of copper, those turbines are basically 300T of CP(Commercially Pure) copper on a 80m high stick. Even the cables and cooling system use specially formulated copper alloys to get the energy out with minimal loss.
Even SolarPV uses a lot of copper, SolarPV generates DC not AC, the high voltage DC has to be converted to AC. High voltage DC needs heavier cables than AC, the invertor process uses copper, etc., etc., there is even copper in the heat stinks and panels!
So if you haven't worked it out yet, the claims that rising costs (primarily copper) are driving up the unit energy cost of micro-nuclear making it not viable versus SolarPV or Wind are bogus!
If they are going to oppose something then oppose it, it's all good that is how things get better by being challenged, but don't make up bullsh1t just to justify a political position.
One of the big arguments against this micro-nuclear was the rising costs, the opponents claim the increased costs of materials has pushed the unit energy cost from $50 to $80 per Megawatt. The primary factor was the rising cost of copper, which up about 40% at the moment, and even higher increases in Europe. The they go on to claim SolarPV and Wind is getting cheaper, the price per Megawatt falling all the time! :o
What I'm really interested in is this, what are those magic and cheap materials that SolarPV and Wind have found to replace copper so they can achieve this fall in costs while competitor energy sources suffer increases?
As far as I know, Wind is the energy industries biggest user of copper, those turbines are basically 300T of CP(Commercially Pure) copper on a 80m high stick. Even the cables and cooling system use specially formulated copper alloys to get the energy out with minimal loss.
Even SolarPV uses a lot of copper, SolarPV generates DC not AC, the high voltage DC has to be converted to AC. High voltage DC needs heavier cables than AC, the invertor process uses copper, etc., etc., there is even copper in the heat stinks and panels!
So if you haven't worked it out yet, the claims that rising costs (primarily copper) are driving up the unit energy cost of micro-nuclear making it not viable versus SolarPV or Wind are bogus!
If they are going to oppose something then oppose it, it's all good that is how things get better by being challenged, but don't make up bullsh1t just to justify a political position.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"