One thing to consider is the strange location of the proposed nuclear power plant.
Power plants are generally built NEAR LARGE CITIES that use the power. It's really inefficient to generate power and then transmit it hundreds of miles away to the end users. Traditionally, the power plant is placed as close as reasonably possible to the users.
In this case, they haven't announced the exact location of Bill Gates' TerraPower, but there are only a few possibilities. They said it will be built at the site of a closed coal plant. In Wyoming, most of the coal mining is in the NE corner of the state, close to South Dakota and Montana borders. There is also coal mining in the SW corner of the state, but not nearly as much.
Where are the nearest big cities?
Omaha, Nebraska is 500 miles away.
Denver is 325 miles away.
Sioux Falls, SD is 425 miles away.
Minneapolis, Mn is 600 miles away.
Boise Idaho is 550 miles away.
Spokane, Washington is 625 miles away.
Salt Lake City, Utah is 425 miles away.
San Francisco, San Diego and L.A. are each about 1000 miles away.
Seattle is 850 miles away.
Power losses over 500 miles of transmission lines is roughly 4.5% and all-in delivered cost of electricity is extra 10%.
Power losses over 1000 miles of transmission lines is about 9% and all-in electricity deliver cost is extra 20%.
If I didn't know better... I'd say that they were placing this power plant the furthest away possible from any population centers. The electricity losses may seem minor, but 4.5% loss in high-power transmission is a LOT.
That leads to the next question. If the reactor site is being isolated so far away for safety reasons... then is the reactor really safe? This seems to indicate lack of confidence. :>(
I understand that you don't want to build a nuclear power reactor near a fault line or on the West coast... but there are plenty of reasonable sites available that aren't 1,000 miles away from the largest major cities.
Why place electricity generation in a remote area of Wyoming?
Sorry for the bad spelling. Phone fagging ATM, plus I just woke up.
Should say, "TerraPower (a Bill Gates owned nuclear power corp...)
Warren Buffet is involved in the project, too.
Apparently, it'll be an advanced tech Natrium reactor. HOWEVER, haven't we learned, yet, that anything Gates of Hell has his hands in is inherently bad and should be avoided? Apparently not, I guess.
One thing to consider is the strange location of the proposed nuclear power plant.
Power plants are generally built NEAR LARGE CITIES that use the power. It's really inefficient to generate power and then transmit it hundreds of miles away to the end users. Traditionally, the power plant is placed as close as reasonably possible to the users.
In this case, they haven't announced the exact location of Bill Gates' TerraPower, but there are only a few possibilities. They said it will be built at the site of a closed coal plant. In Wyoming, most of the coal mining is in the NE corner of the state, close to South Dakota and Montana borders. There is also coal mining in the SW corner of the state, but not nearly as much.
Where are the nearest big cities?
Omaha, Nebraska is 500 miles away. Denver is 325 miles away. Sioux Falls, SD is 425 miles away. Minneapolis, Mn is 600 miles away. Boise Idaho is 550 miles away. Spokane, Washington is 625 miles away. Salt Lake City, Utah is 425 miles away. San Francisco, San Diego and L.A. are each about 1000 miles away. Seattle is 850 miles away.
Power losses over 500 miles of transmission lines is roughly 4.5% and all-in delivered cost of electricity is extra 10%. Power losses over 1000 miles of transmission lines is about 9% and all-in electricity deliver cost is extra 20%.
If I didn't know better... I'd say that they were placing this power plant the furthest away possible from any population centers. The electricity losses may seem minor, but 4.5% loss in high-power transmission is a LOT.
That leads to the next question. If the reactor site is being isolated so far away for safety reasons... then is the reactor really safe? This seems to indicate lack of confidence. :>(
I understand that you don't want to build a nuclear power reactor near a fault line or on the West coast... but there are plenty of reasonable sites available that aren't 1,000 miles away from the largest major cities.
Why place electricity generation in a remote area of Wyoming?
It's still near a fault kind of if you consider the Yellowstone caldera
Vax biz not panning out like you hoped, Bill? Just not fast enough for you? Only seven billion more Bill, Woohoo!!!
Letting this dude any where near fissionable materials is totally insane. Only our Idiocracy could ever think this a good idea!
Ol'Bill is engaged in a multi-front war against the Earth's population.
Sorry for the bad spelling. Phone fagging ATM, plus I just woke up.
Should say, "TerraPower (a Bill Gates owned nuclear power corp...)
Warren Buffet is involved in the project, too.
Apparently, it'll be an advanced tech Natrium reactor. HOWEVER, haven't we learned, yet, that anything Gates of Hell has his hands in is inherently bad and should be avoided? Apparently not, I guess.
Oh that makes sense, put nuclear material in that ?s control.... Wyoming, are you crazy?
People of Wyoming should speak out against this. Minus the Jackson Hole part-time residents, this state is as red as they come!
I'm sure the Cheney's helped make this happen. Like anywhere else, there are very corrupt politicians and elite in Wyoming.