Posts: 371 +246
Concrete still doesn't need to be fired. Also you didn't look up how much cement is in high strength concrete you're being lazy and not doing any work to support your arguments. Finally concrete still lasts a very long time. Also concrete is widely used in making nuclear power plants.You edited out the first statement before I replied, so I assume you know it's incorrect. But the second statement -- the first Google link you found -- is equally wrong. Concrete used to make your driveway or patio is only about 10% cement, but the high-strength mix used for dams and bridges is many times higher.
Eh? Of course you can. This system can store the energy from any system that generates the electricity necessary to run its pumps. The point, though, is that you don't *need* to store electricity with traditional sources like coal or nuclear. That's a problem that exists only with wind and solar. They're always generating either too much power, or too little. Most people don't realize that the largest problem in commercial power generation isn't producing the energy, but instantaneously matching supply to the demand load on an instantaneous basis. Without enormous "batteries" like this, wind and solar can never produce more than a fraction of a grid's total energy demand.
Again, this is utterly false. For operating costs alone, nuclear power is far cheaper than any other source. Amortizing capital construction costs raises the price -- especially in the US and Europe, where rabid environmentalists force legal actions that mean plants take 30 years to construct, rather than four or five.
I looked up the range of how much a nuclear power plants cost and choose the cheapest value which was 6 billion to build and that excludes fuel, trained personnel, safety and policy adherence.
How are you comparing the operating costs? Why are you comparing operating costs? A water battery isn't the same thing as a power generation facility it's just a battery. Also you didn't get any figures you're just making statements based on how you feel as far as I can tell and I'm tired of spending my time looking up data to refute what you are saying when you aren't doing the same.
"For a typical 1,000 MWe BWR or PWR, the approximate cost of fuel for one reload (replacing one third of the core) is about $40 million, based on an 18-month refueling cycle"
Switzerland uses Nuclear, hydroelectric, biomass, wind and solar generation. At no time did anyone in the article say Switzerland was going to generate power using only renewable source, so I have no idea what you are arguing.
In Switzerland they produce more electricity in the summer than they do in the winter and they didn't like wasting energy which is why they built this battery. I don't understand the drama.