Solar Roadways...

[bryant.coleman]

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

[Harley997]

"Solar panels that you can drive, park, and walk on. They melt snow and... cut greenhouse gases by 75-percent?!!!"


https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways#home

Very bad idea. This will be much more expensive then using cement as is used now.

If this was really a profitable venture then they could simply build a little bit of "solar roadways" then use the money generated by electricity to build more roads.

[vokain]

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

How come Big Coal doesn't just take over nuclear and enjoy a more profitable revenue stream? yes their old market might be cannabalized but I just don't understand...is it to milk what they can over their investment in coal lobbying before doing so? 

[KonstantinosM]

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

How come Big Coal doesn't just take over nuclear and enjoy a more profitable revenue stream? yes their old market might be cannabalized but I just don't understand...is it to milk what they can over their investment in coal lobbying before doing so? 

Nuclear is really expensive and difficult to start.

A factory takes a long time to become operational, and starting up a nuclear factory takes months even after completion until the reaction reaches a good level.

It's also a regulatory nightmare and there is always the difficulty of finding the right people to run a nuclear factory. It's not like you can find them with a job search on craigslist overnight.

Plus your dealing with something that poops out potential bomb grade plutonium, not something you do without the government fondling your privates.

[Cranky4u]

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

Nuke power then put it on a one way rocket to the sun every 50 years or so...

[Cranky4u]

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

How come Big Coal doesn't just take over nuclear and enjoy a more profitable revenue stream? yes their old market might be cannabalized but I just don't understand...is it to milk what they can over their investment in coal lobbying before doing so? 

There is still several hundred years of known coal in the ground and given the general public's appetite for nuke versus dirty coal, for some weird reason they keep picking dirty coal....

[vokain]

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

Nuke power then put it on a one way rocket to the sun every 50 years or so...

could you imagine another columbia?? 

[Ron~Popeil]

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

Nuke power then put it on a one way rocket to the sun every 50 years or so...

could you imagine another columbia?? 

Or Challenger? Hurtling nuclear waste into the sky on top of a controlled explosion makes me a bit nervous.

[Ron~Popeil]

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

How come Big Coal doesn't just take over nuclear and enjoy a more profitable revenue stream? yes their old market might be cannabalized but I just don't understand...is it to milk what they can over their investment in coal lobbying before doing so? 

Nuclear is really expensive and difficult to start.

A factory takes a long time to become operational, and starting up a nuclear factory takes months even after completion until the reaction reaches a good level.

It's also a regulatory nightmare and there is always the difficulty of finding the right people to run a nuclear factory. It's not like you can find them with a job search on craigslist overnight.

Plus your dealing with something that poops out potential bomb grade plutonium, not something you do without the government fondling your privates.

They could cut down the red tape dramatically. Sadly it would make sense to do so therefore it will not happen.

[bryant.coleman]

Nuclear is really expensive and difficult to start.

Absolutely wrong. Even if all the costs (capital expenses, maintenance and disposal) are taken in to account, nuclear energy remains much cheaper when compared to other forms of energy.

[Ron~Popeil]

Nuclear is really expensive and difficult to start.

Absolutely wrong. Even if all the costs (capital expenses, maintenance and disposal) are taken in to account, nuclear energy remains much cheaper when compared to other forms of energy.

Yes, the up front costs are high but when you spread that cost out over the life of the facility this kind of power makes a lot of economic sense.

[bryant.coleman]

Yes, the up front costs are high but when you spread that cost out over the life of the facility this kind of power makes a lot of economic sense.

Exactly. And here is a graph which supports the argument.

[Schleicher]

Yes, the up front costs are high but when you spread that cost out over the life of the facility this kind of power makes a lot of economic sense.

Exactly. And here is a graph which supports the argument.

Does this include subsidies?
Does this include the costs of 'accidents', like in Fukushima?

[niothor]

Does this include subsidies?
Does this include the costs of 'accidents', like in Fukushima?

The combine "costs" for the Chernobyl disaster are enough to build 40 new nuclear plants .
Just the latest shell that needs to be build on top of the current crumbling sarcophagus is worth around 1 billion.

Nuclear power may be the solution but with advances in nuclear fusion .

[Wilikon]

OK people. Any thoughts on this?
------------------------------------

http://terrapower.com/

http://youtu.be/T49r6tmcayI

[niothor]

The TWR’s economic benefits stem from its ability to breed and burn metallic fuel comprised of initial starter fuel of U-235 and U-238. TerraPower’s ability to develop new fuels and materials that can breed and burn U-238 could enable a TWR to get up to 50 times more energy out of every pound of mined uranium than can a conventional light water reactor.

50x more energy using the byproduct u 238 ?

Too good to be entirely true?

[Wilikon]

The TWR’s economic benefits stem from its ability to breed and burn metallic fuel comprised of initial starter fuel of U-235 and U-238. TerraPower’s ability to develop new fuels and materials that can breed and burn U-238 could enable a TWR to get up to 50 times more energy out of every pound of mined uranium than can a conventional light water reactor.

50x more energy using the byproduct u 238 ?

Too good to be entirely true?

Well... Is it to good to be true?

http://youtu.be/ieX88nBFVS4

[bryant.coleman]

Does this include subsidies?
Does this include the costs of 'accidents', like in Fukushima?

Subsidies are not included in this. And talking about accidents, they happen to other energy providers as well. They can even happen to the coal or gas based electricity generators. The difference with nuclear reactors is that the accidents are extremely rare.

[beetcoin]

Does this include subsidies?
Does this include the costs of 'accidents', like in Fukushima?

The combine "costs" for the Chernobyl disaster are enough to build 40 new nuclear plants .
Just the latest shell that needs to be build on top of the current crumbling sarcophagus is worth around 1 billion.

Nuclear power may be the solution but with advances in nuclear fusion .

nevermind the cost, it's human life that  gets fucked over from the radiation poisoning. the more nuclear reactors you have, the more likely it's going to explode in your face. in the past 35 years, we've had at least 2 of them.. and almost a case in philadelphia as well.

and if you have a population that has been exposed to the radiation, you'd need to quarantine them.. otherwise they'd mix genes with other people and make babies with 3rd eyes.

[Swordsoffreedom]

I would say that is a great idea and I'm glad it got funded by 200 % and more (Video made me go bah though)
There is one problem though intermittency the Sun is not always shining
Edit three problems
One it has to connect to the grid and retain power
Two we don't have enough materials to do it everywhere
Three How much energy and pollution is used to create the unit and what is B/E energy input energy used to produce the product over its lifecycle
That said I would love to see a future sci fi world where there are solar roadways that can generate energy on the grid and also somehow gain energy whenever a car moves.

Intelligent roadways are the future, especially in regard to cabling they made a good point about the overhead cables electric roads have good intelligent applications if you can link it to an electric car that said I like their hard work and perseverance story so its neat.
Not sure how many jobs it can replace though but a paradigm shift interesting i'm conflicted at it working but at the same time want someone to try it