4 ms·
> spends power just getting through the wire. Eventually its all gone. No, transmission losses for such concentrated power generation could be kept acceptable
by effie 7y ago
> spends power just getting through the wire. Eventually its all gone.
No, transmission losses for such concentrated power generation could be kept acceptable single digit percent by building a proper power transmission system. Just use higher voltage, thicker wires. It would be expensive, but if Nevada was a great energy source, it could be worth it long term.
> This is why you can't just cover 1/3 of Nevada with PV solar cells and power the grid from that one state.
I can think of more substantial problems with that - fragile panels exposed to harmful environment, manufacturing and maintaining panels generates too much waste per kWh, unreliable operation dependent on weather. If Nevada was to be used as a primary center for energy generation, I suggest uranium/thorium reactors. They are better in every possible way.
- ncmncm 7y agoBetter, except that they take too long to build, cost too much to operate, and have proven incompatible with sound public policy.
- effie 7y agoNuclear energy has these problems, but these are human society problems. The technological difficulties can be overcome if STEMs are given enough power. From the standpoint of environment, safety, reliability there is a strong case to try harder.
- effie 7y agoThe median time to build a nuclear reactor is 7.5 years [1]. That is not too bad. [1] http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle...