Slashdot Mirror
Only Nuclear Energy Can Save the Planet (wsj.com)
Joshua S. Goldstein, a professor emeritus of international relations at American University, and Staffan A. Qvist, an energy engineer and consultant, writing for The Wall Street Journal: Climate scientists tell us that the world must drastically cut its fossil fuel use in the next 30 years to stave off a potentially catastrophic tipping point for the planet. Confronting this challenge is a moral issue, but it's also a math problem -- and a big part of the solution has to be nuclear power. Today, more than 80% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels, which are used to generate electricity, to heat buildings and to power car and airplane engines. Worse for the planet, the consumption of fossil fuels is growing quickly as poorer countries climb out of poverty and increase their energy use. Improving energy efficiency can reduce some of the burden, but it's not nearly enough to offset growing demand.
Any serious effort to decarbonize the world economy will require, then, a great deal more clean energy, on the order of 100 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, by our calculations -- roughly equivalent to today's entire annual fossil-fuel usage. A key variable is speed. To reach the target within three decades, the world would have to add about 3.3 trillion more kilowatt-hours of clean energy every year. Solar and wind power alone can't scale up fast enough to generate the vast amounts of electricity that will be needed by midcentury, especially as we convert car engines and the like from fossil fuels to carbon-free energy sources. Even Germany's concerted recent effort to add renewables -- the most ambitious national effort so far -- was nowhere near fast enough. A global increase in renewables at a rate matching Germany's peak success would add about 0.7 trillion kilowatt-hours of clean electricity every year. That's just over a fifth of the necessary 3.3 trillion annual target.
Any serious effort to decarbonize the world economy will require, then, a great deal more clean energy, on the order of 100 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, by our calculations -- roughly equivalent to today's entire annual fossil-fuel usage. A key variable is speed. To reach the target within three decades, the world would have to add about 3.3 trillion more kilowatt-hours of clean energy every year. Solar and wind power alone can't scale up fast enough to generate the vast amounts of electricity that will be needed by midcentury, especially as we convert car engines and the like from fossil fuels to carbon-free energy sources. Even Germany's concerted recent effort to add renewables -- the most ambitious national effort so far -- was nowhere near fast enough. A global increase in renewables at a rate matching Germany's peak success would add about 0.7 trillion kilowatt-hours of clean electricity every year. That's just over a fifth of the necessary 3.3 trillion annual target.
A guy with a PhD in Nuclear Physics (and a consultant) thinks we should use nuclear power. Amazing stuff.
> Solar and wind power alone can't scale up fast enough to generate the vast amounts of electricity that will be needed by midcentury, especially as we convert car engines and the like from fossil fuels to carbon-free energy sources.
The last 30 years have proven otherwise. Solar has continued to improve despite the incessesant pushback from short-sighted scientists and lobbyists. There's no reason we can't scale solar and wind. Looking to the future, the economics of wind and solar are the only ones that make any sense.
As long as we put them all near the oceans and great lakes we should be completely safe. Ground floor backup generators and everything.
The only reason nuclear is "viable" is because we've dumped thousands of dollars of research into nuclear reactors.
Geothermal and wave would be viable if we would do the same -- plus they don't leave that bullshit radiation nonsense WHEN(*) they fail.
But let's keep investing into archaic unsafe technology and pollute the environment when they fail while we 50+ years for the short-sighted consequences to go away! /s
(*) Anyone who rides motorcycles quickly learns it is NOT a matter of IF you will go down but WHEN.
Cue the NIMBYs and cowards ... nuclear bad! Braaaaaaaaawk!
That's the impetus, that's the necessity. Whether replaced by nuclear or renewable wind/solar/tidal/wave/geo/pizio/decay is less defined. Nuclear is expensive beyond all others, and dangerous beyond all others.
This can be changed, new designs can make it safer, but we have a HORRIBLE track record of doing this and there are thousands of spent fuel pools around just waiting to be a massive un-dealt-with problem.
IF the nuclear waste problem and the safe reactor building were going apace with the growth of renewables, which are exploding, then this would be more plausible.
Right now we can't even get the coal-fired morons to agree to follow existing emissions-reductions guidelines, so we may never get past this idiocy in time for reduction to stop the runaway warming feedbacks.
It's going to get much worse before it gets better, assuming it ever gets better.
I am sorry, but this is not correct. Wind and solar can be scaled up and completely take over. What is needed is very large transmission lines such as between Europe and the USA/Canada and from the North Dakota and West Texas to the East Coast and California. All the technology for this already exists and wind and solar are ultimately cheaper than nuclear when accounting for all the subsidies and costs of nuclear such as waste storage.
Apart from the dangers
a/ do we have enough uranium ?
b/ where do we store the waste ?
What was posted in the abstract is not enough to justify the conclusion. Battery storage, wind and PV are dropping on a curve that now makes energy much cheaper than that provided by fossil fuels and much cheaper than nuclear, who's cost have been going up. I'm actually a fan of nuclear and think while it needs to be carefully regulated we could use more of it. But there's no clear reason other sources can't grow at a fast enough pace. We do need to commit to do required items. For example, we need to build a newer smarter grid than the US, which will require some work that's not just engineering. 10 years ago it would have been sensible to say we could not replace fossil fuels without nuclear. That's no longer a reasonable position to have. Saying that nuclear is a good component to be in a mix is reasonable but is not what the abstract states.
...says the nuclear industrial complex
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
To displace and stop fossil fuels, we need to quickly and efficiently replace the global energy power plant system that is running on coal and gas... we need something that can do so at high efficiency of land use and high energy output. Without depending on covering a few percentage of the entire surface of the planet with solar cells â" which should be done in addition to nuclear but I am talking about twenty years and no more coal or gas powered electricity plants.
Personally, I think and hope humanity could actually do a better job about energy utilization and energy storage and energy capture for each person alive. But until we teach and educate every person about the energy that every thing they use requires to be manufactured and to be recycled or disposed of, yeah we need a centralized power system for cities and large scale manufacturing that is more efficient than what is going up now...
Even better than nuclear would be for companies that understand long term investments to all go off grid for their energy and utilize solar exclusively, because they are all wasting investorsâ(TM) money when they fail to secure their best value over 10 or 20 year time frames when they are going to be using electricity for the entire existence of their company.
Geothermal and wave would be viable if we would do the same
Those are great answers for a small percentage of where people actually live.
Not everyone lives in Iceland though. How are people in Nevada supposed to take advantage of wave and geothermal energy? You can transmit power from the coasts but then you are dealing with large transmission losses.
Not to mention that while maybe if your poured a lot of money into those technologies, maybe in ten years they would be advanced enough to be widely usable. But what about NOW?
As the article says, if you do the math the hard cold fact is that if you are really serious about CO2 production a large part of the solution simply has to be nuclear. We can wean ourselves off that eventually but you need to be building more nuclear plants now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To the UN
To Ted Turner!
Corporatism != Free Market
there's no doubt it's capable of recycling itself with or without us..
Don't try to distract us with mere math!
We woke types know that the real solution is actually driving cars with really tall tail lights, and also of course sneering at Republicans!
A guy with a PhD in Nuclear Physics (and a consultant) thinks we should use nuclear power.>
In other words:
A guy who actually knows what the hell he is talking about comes up with great clean solution, is ridiculed by armchair pundit who apparently would rather watch the planet die than admit nuclear power was ever a good idea.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Finally someone that understands the problem on the level of scale rather than virtuous gestures. Unfortunate the article is behind a paywall.
The swath of nuclear enegy's death toll per terawatt tell a different story. It is in a bloody category to its own compared to every other form of energy out there, even solar.
1st renewables 2nd everyone cal also really save more, just switch stuff off you do not need! 3rd fusion
Unfortunately the environmentalist fake news machine has been in high gear for nearly forty years convincing millions of otherwise intelligent people that nuclear power equals three-eyed fish and glow-in-the-dark babies. Same people who want to shut down coal-fired power plants but also don't like natural gas pipelines or LNG terminals to replace the electricity. Same people who demand solar on every roof but would flip a shit if they knew how "dirty" solar panel and power electronics manufacturing is.
As usual, I blame society. For real this time. Too many people seem to have grown up with the idea that it's possible to have all the good stuff without paying for it in some way, either with cash, lack of reliability, pollution of one form or another, and usually some combination of all of the above.
For the record, I'd prefer to live down the street from a nuclear plant than a gas or coal or oil-burning power plant. And I did the math: if I covered my roof in solar panels, I'd lower my electric bill by at most 50-60% on sunny days, and only 30% averaged year round. If I covered my whole property in solar panels and battery energy storage, I might reduce my electric bill to zero, but with the money it would cost to do that (batteries being the biggest drain), I could buy enough electricity, even at inflated Taxachusetts rates of close to 25cents/kWhr, to last me more than a lifetime, and certainly way more than the lifetime of the batteries. Aggregating this stuff in centralized facilities won't make it cheaper by any significant amount.
... till they have to decide where they're going to dispose the waste and then all bets are off. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a vault to build and a Pip Boy to construct.
So it can have the victimstance its white male GOP crybaby ass so desperately craves.
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES AND PROPAGANDA NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL UNTIL YOU DIE BITCH TRAITOR
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
There are alternative nuclear technologies under development. They need better support and investment.
Traveling Wave Reactor can run on depleted uranium, which already exists in massive quantities. See Terra Power.
Then there is liquid fluoride thorium reactor. See Flib Energy.
Both or either would take us beyond the limitations and problems of the reactors built half a century ago.
Want to save the planet/ Try consuming less resources and energy. Nicole Foss on renewables (and nuclear) http://bit.ly/2rzS5Pq
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
no, not nuclear,
either fusion,
or if we must, then thorium!
...or maybe we could go back to arguing about GamerGate
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nuclear technology safety is too vulnerable to business and budgetary decisions, political maneouvering and human error, and impact can end us all.
If you can find something to do with the waste I would be for it.
http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES AND PROPAGANDA NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL UNTIL YOU DIE BITCH
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
I've read a semi-plausible mid-21st-century scenario where the US military (in a conflict situation) under pressure figures out how to beam energy from large solar panels in the Earth's orbit to the surface of the planet. Then of course over time it is commercialized for civilian use.
(It's from "The Next 100 Years" by George Friedman of Geopolitical futures.)
1. When you have a viable (politically and otherwise) solution to long term waste storage.
2. Proper funding of costs for decommissioning of private reactors as they reach the end of their useful life.
3. A rational emergency fund pool.should, dear god, catastrophic failure occur to a private facility.
Individuals or persons not counting themselves among the number of those who refer to themselves as "the Sith", would be hard-pressed to make a statement as utterly categorical, and not admitting, upon mature reflection, of views which, at the end of the day, would have to be said to be more balanced (in an, of course, non-epistemological fashion) and, frankly, more sophisticated.
I wish I could take credit for it... but it's not mine.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The Sun in nuclear.
1. We do have workable fusion reactors. They were developed here, and are now in use in places we're not supposed to talk about. How do you think we power those weapons systems? You will not see them in commercial use before 2040, they're still being worked on. Kind of like fax machines and laptops, which existed in non-commercial usage way before they were in commercial usage.
2. Fission reactors are an absolute nightmare on the cradle to 250,000 year grave cycle, and a security nightmare. Stop. Just stop.
3. It's easy to replace fossil fuel energy today:
A. Implement 120 percent Renewable Portfolio Standards for every nation and state and province. For every new KWHr you need you have to decommission 20 percent existing grandfathered fossil fuel energy, and all new energy is renewables. If you mix renewables (many scientific papers show this) you get a power yield curve that closely matches the actual energy usage. It also makes you resilient and easier to recover from massive storms, massive floods, and other natural disasters.
B. End all tax subsidies for all fossil fuels: depreciation, exemptions, exclusions, incentives, fleet requirements. Period. No exceptions.
C. Stop whining. It's actually cheaper to use renewables than fossil fuels. It's why the West Coast is a cheap energy powerhouse. Adapt. Wind and solar jobs are way better than coal mining.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Unfortunately you don't know what you're talking about. You don't do math, no. Your roof isn't what we're talking about, nor your electric bill as it actually charges you for putting energy in the grid. You're a disingenuous moron.
Go figure, your name is spot on, dishonest faggot. Enjoy watching the traitor Drumpf hang though! Aww, society is fucking you again, awwwwww.
You've already got a fusion power plant at a safe 93,000,000 miles distance. Learn to use it correctly you damn dirty apes.
Only using less energy can save us. But failing that, nuclear will buy us some time.
The Free Market has spoken. It doesn't like the finances of nuclear power. It considers it too risky, too long-term. (It does however like the finances of wind and solar).
That's fine! There are many things we do (such as nationalized health care and military defense) which the free market is bad at. Nuclear is another one. We should just be explicit that it will mean governments spending large amounts of taxpayer money to push it through.
Of not "consuming" energy other than by converting it into heat ...
To reach the target within three decades, the world would have to add about 3.3 trillion more kilowatt-hours of clean energy every year.
It takes about 30 years to build one nuclear power plant.
When arguing that an alternative is too slow to construct, you really shouldn't be pushing something that is even slower to construct.
Back in the '70s and '80s these self righteous tree hugging soy boys with their man boobs screamed and bitched and moaned and held back nuclear progress by 3 or 4 decades. I say HA! You little buggers sowed the wind and now you are reaping the whirlwind! HA!
Drill, baby, drill! Burn, baby, burn! Shovel some more coal on the fire. Ha ha ha ha. You nasty little vegan prigs, see what you have wrought. You could have had clean nuclear power but you all were too smart by half. HA!
It takes longer than 3 decades to get through the red tape to even start building a new Nuclear plant.
Christ, you don't even see energy companies wanting to buy already built plants. This article is complete utter bull shit.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
nt
Do the math.
As someone who lives in Massachusetts and has solar, depending on your home, it may be completely practical to eliminate your electric bill with solar roof panels. First you do the stupidly simple stuff like switching all your lights to LEDs to minimize your electric use, but aside from that, if you have a good sunny roof, you can easily eliminate your summer and possibly even winter electric bills. Even with two electric cars, we don't have electric bills in the summer.
It's entirely practical even in regions as far north as Massachusetts to build homes with a net-zero electric usage, especially if the builder takes the roof orientation into account. Older homes can be more tricky depending on the architecture, shading, vents, and such.
All that said, I agree that nuclear is a fine option for the base of the grid.
I don't see why nuclear is the only solution when renewable + storage is on the verge of being cheaper than fossil fuels in $/kwh, and is far cheaper to build in the first place. How can land use be such a dire limitation when there's tidal power, offshore wind/solar, and rooftop solar?
But solving global warming would be much easier if people would drop their stupid illogical opposition to nuclear power. They're scared to death of extreme localized disasters from wildly unlikely scenarios, but show zero concern for the much more likely if slightly less damaging localized disasters from fossil fuels, or the inevitable slow-motion worldwide trainwreck of global warming that fossil fuel use creates.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Diamagnetism is the way to go, but no one will do anything for innovation.
They are like Trump, stick with what used to work and try nothing new!
Size of a 2 liter bottle with no vacuum can produce 23 kwh continually.
Within a vacuum, 40 kwh.
If you keep looking inside the box, you will only find walls.
If anyone is interested in helping me get the prototype built, you can always donate.
PayPal.me/homelessadvocate
Germany's effort was intended to get technologies going, and it did just that. You can thank us later. We're still paying for it with every kWh we consume. The guaranteed kWh price paid to solar, biomass, wind and some other renewable electricity producers come out of a surcharge which is currently at ~0.064€ per kWh.
It is quite unfair and misleading to compare that effort during an early phase of the technology to a future manufacturing ramp up. Nuclear was afforded many more decades to get the technology sorted, but it hasn't, despite massively higher subsidies. Instead nuclear power becomes more expensive all the time, and still defers the majority of the cost into the future, because of an unsolved waste problem. Nuclear fuel sourcing is an environmental and safety nightmare, which just like the waste problem would also need to be scaled up.
You just need to look at this discussion here on Slashdot to find the never changing arguments: "New nuclear power plants will finally be safe and not produce waste. We'll use thorium and pebble bed reactors." Well, talking about Germany, there was the THT-300 in Hamm-Uentrop, Germany. Was, as the problems with the technology couldn't be solved and it has been dismantled. A research reactor of the same type in Juelich has radioactively contaminated the groundwater and can currently not be dismantled because of the unexpectedly high radioactive contamination. Yeah, let's scale that up to replace fossil fuels. "But AC, we'll use some other new reactor type." Listen to yourselves. After many decades of strong financial and political support for nuclear power, you're still peddling some future as yet undeveloped technology that will finally make nuclear deliver on its promises, promises that were made about every generation of reactors, and have been broken every time. Meanwhile the disasters keep on coming. At the current scale, there is roughly one uncontained meltdown every 30 years. Would you like to multiply that accident count by the scale factor that would be required if we were to replace fossil fuels with nuclear power. Will annual meltdowns be news or will we get bored of that?
Besides, how do you think scaling up nuclear power will work technically? You do know that nuclear power plants need huge amounts of cooling water, don't you. That's why they're all built next to rivers or oceans. You can't build many more on rivers, because that kills the rivers. At the required scale, you would have to litter the coasts with them. There are no such problems with solar. You can put that stuff everywhere. It works in Germany, which is further north than Quebec.
Somebody is already doing that
The nuclear industry continues to pitch the idea of power too cheap to meter. But I think in the real world we don't have time to wait for nuclear power plants to be built. Rolling out solar and wind along with energy conservation is much more likely to eliminate coal and other fossil fuels for electricity and reduce carbon emissions in the immediate future.
The long term solution is to reduce our energy footprint, but that isn't politically sustainable. In fact, we are doing the opposite. There is a whole movement to switch the land transportation industry to electricity with electric vehicles and people are even pitching electric heat as somehow "green".
The same people who are warning of a global crisis are flying off to conferences to discuss what to do about it. If you talked about capping air flights instead of carbon they would tell you it isn't "politically realistic." Which is true. "Politically realistic" means that the wealthy and powerful are held harmless. No one is going to raise the cost of flying high enough to prevent Bill Gates from flying any time he wants. So you can sacrifice entire coal communities to solve the problem, but not wall street bankers' vacations.
There's no political will to even recognize that there's a problem much less attempt to solve it.
The only reasonable course of action for scientists is to stop making dire predictions and recommending drastic action we all know aren't going to happen and start thinking about ways to fix it once it does happen. Time to stop trying to warning about the impending problems and start working on ways to deal with it. Forget about how to prevent 5 degrees in temperature increases by a concerted world effort. It's not happening. Start thinking about ways to farm Siberia... Greenland.... Canada... Antartica even. Maybe start thinking about how to lower the temps AFTER we hit +10 degrees. As a species... we're not going to do anything until it smacks us in the face.
We're just not that smart.
5. Reopen Yucca Mountain. Fuck Harry Reid.
Surely the latter half of step 5 can be done in parallel with steps 1-4, right?
Still, I'm not exactly sure why that's a requirement anyway...
When "The Nuclear Option" is a good thing.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
What you can do is put a permanent magnet at the end of combustive cylinder. When the piston bottoms out, an electromagnet is turned on (positive pole to positive pole), and the piston is thrown back to where it came from. This will increase the efficiency of a combustive motor TREMENDOUSLY, and the exhaust can be cleaned up much, much more easily. As a diesel-type motor, you'd have many, many fuel options.Motor sizes will shrink, and miniscule amounts of fuel will be spent. Power generation will be much more efficient as well.
Build the thing. They only thing I ask in return is for a free meal, a cup of coffee every once in awhile, and maybe a nice, free place to stay. It's NOT about money -- it's about happy!
Screw nuclear power. Complete and utter waste of time and a threat to society.
73,
AB5NI
Remember all those times Kendall got caught lying and marked Troll? That's who this faggot is.
Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (BANANA): Each Greeny has their pet solutions for the problem. And for each solution, there is a highly vocal group that will shout down the solution. The result is, every solution is shouted down and we get mired in our inertia. Hydro, wind, tidal, nuclear, solar, geo all have their detractors when the solutions are mentioned. Save the fish, the birds, the Oregon Orange Stinky Ground Owl. Meanwhile, we sit and idle waiting for someone to do something and blaming others for the problem. I'm done, build the nuclear power plants, install the infrastructure for fast electric charging, do it NOW.
Has its flaws.
I'm so sick of all this BS from nuclear industry (connected to our defense industry since they struggle to maintain nuclear talent for weapons from same). Renewables with storage are cheaper, many orders magnitude faster to roll out worldwide (nuclear is a joke and can't scale fast enough), orders of magnitude safer and cleaner over the lifecycle, etc. How many decades do we have to fight these fuckers?
Given that pollution and climate change is caused by too many human beings burning too much fossil fuel, I would like to suggest that replacing "Nuclear Energy" with "Vasectomy" would be far more appropriate.
The benefits would be far more than just reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Reduced pressure on housing stocks would make home ownership more affordable. The M25 would operate properly at all times of the day not just 03:00. Just two examples.
Before anybody asks, I have just the one child and will not be having any more.
Indeed, solar electric cannot save the day. Here's a handy rule of thumb:
Any energy policy proposal that fits on a bumper, or in a tweet, is wrong.
I wrote a short summary of an energy mix proposal that could work. It's over 30 pages, and doesn't go into detail.
No single technology is going to work for the United States. The US is a big country, with widely varying geography and population density. Various energy sources have different strengths and weaknesses at different times. Delaware might be able to rely on a single source and get away with it, though it would probably be expensive and / or dirty. The US needs to come me many. Nuclear has a key role to play.
I said more or less the same thing recently, and got shouted down for it. Here we have a couple PhDs saying the same thing; you all going to shout them down, too?
They're right and people need to come around to that truth. We need to stop using fossil fuels, use more renewables to tide us over, design safer nuclear reactors (YES, IT'S POSSIBLE, DAMNIT), devise better and safer methods to deal with spent fuel (YES, IT'S POSSIBLE, DAMNIT), and in the meantime keep up the R&D for practical FUSION REACTORS. Then, maybe, JUST MAYBE, we can save ourselves from extinction.
Battery storage, wind and PV are dropping on a curve that now makes energy much cheaper than that provided by fossil fuels
BULLSHIT!
My retail price for grid electricity is 11 cents per kilowatt hour. Average for the continental United States.
No grid tie PV system can match that price. No off grid PV battery system can come even remotely close to that price.
If it were possible, I'd be ALL over it. But, it isn't and you're full of shit like a PV salesman.
Yes the same PG&E that dumped approximately 370 million gallons of chromium-tainted wastewater into unlined wastewater spreading ponds around the town of Hinkley, California, which eventually killed and maimed many residents of Hinkley and made Erin Brockovich famous.
Moderate-sized solar panel factories (500Wp or more production per year) routinely cost around $500m-$1bn, and take around 3-5 years from bare dirt to first panel shipped (let alone full production output). The one I helped build up took 3-1/2 years and cost $500m - starting from an existing-but-empty complex of buildings and infrastructure.
Also, note that solar panel prices (around $0.80/Wp) are artificially depressed due to Chinese market-dumping and subsidization - it normally costs far more to build a panel that's going to still work 25+ years later (around $1.50/Wp or so.)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I'll use easy numbers...
Say a small 3.8 GW Nuclear reactor. Takes 30 years to build, but will exist for 60.
A very large (80m) wind turbine is 3.8MW. So it will take 1000 of them to match what the reactor does. But is doesn't because it isn't always windy. Then there is storage and efficiency loss and construction cost. I'll not even get into base electrification of the grid. Suffice it to say It'll actually take about 2000 of them to replace the reactor. But it won't, because after 25 or 30 years they will have to be replaced, so double it again, so 4000 turbines... Now compare and contrast how much that will cost, how long that will take to build, how much physical space etc...
For perspective I know of one built 10 years ago probably now that did 80 2.3 GW and it cost about 500,000,000 dollars. Which I don't think includes the cost sharing agreements to be signed with landowners... So grabbing a calculator and assuming that land actually exists for this (which it likely doesn't), that would be about 6.25 million a turbine, so multiple that by 4000, wow interesting an even 25 Billion. Now compare that again to what a nuclear reactor costs? Not so different now...
Anyway the main benefits to both wind in solar is the fact that the are high maintenance (of middle wage employment), and low initial capitol investment in comparison to nuclear, that is about it. Nuclear also employees a lot of people, but wages are typically higher, and also the initial investment is such, length of construction times, and lifespans, make money behave funny so to speak. When things like inflation and whatnot actually can play a serious role in outcomes. The problems with wind (other than the obvious), is the the best locations are on the water where all the most expensive and influential real estate is, and the problem with solar is that flat open farmland is where it likes to exist.
Anyway I love renewables, but they have some fundamental problems. Nuclear has to nationalize it is as simple as that. It is not something that is reasonable to do by commercial enterprise.
No, BH is not investing in power plants that I know of
Berkshire Hathaway Energy owns all of the following:
BH is actively investing in utility companies that own power plants, in power plant supply chain (both fossil and RE), and its utility companies are actively building power plants (both fossil and RE).
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Unfortunately the environmentalist fake news machine has been in high gear for nearly forty years convincing millions of otherwise intelligent people that nuclear power equals three-eyed fish and glow-in-the-dark babies.
There's already been several nuclear disasters, Fukushima the most recent large one that literally made a city uninhabitable. So how exactly is that "fake news" when it literally happened?
There is huge concern in the US as most of the US reactors are ancient and should be decommissioned, the longer they are open the more likely an accident is to occur. And unlike Fukushima, which was along a huge ocean, US reactors are along rivers, many of which are used for agriculture and drinking water. Even if the reactor doesn't melt down, spent fuel is being kept in storage tanks along those rivers and there is huge concern of leaks that can really decimate entire regions of the country. There is a huge disaster looming that no one is addressing, except for the environmentalists that you are putting down.
Same people who want to shut down coal-fired power plants but also don't like natural gas pipelines or LNG terminals to replace the electricity.
Where exactly is the contradiction here? "Environmentalists that oppose coal also oppose gas as both contribute to pollution and climate change! ... News at 11". Gas is NOT a replacement for coal even though the gas lobby of course would love for you to think that. Gas extraction, fracking, and pipelines are destroying communities, ruining drinking water, and burning gas still contributes to climate change and air pollution. It shouldn't be considered any sort of long-term solution, yet politicians are digging in to support the fracking industry. Environmentalists of course oppose this and ask: why not more renewable energy?
Same people who demand solar on every roof but would flip a shit if they knew how "dirty" solar panel and power electronics manufacturing is.
Nothing is perfect, the laws of physics say so. Environmentalists understand that. The thing is, in comparison, solar is much better than fossil fuel usage -- and wind, hydroelectric, geothermal are even better than photovoltaics.
But you do bring up a good point -- keeping up manufacturing at today's levels is unsustainable. This is why environmentalists also call for a reduction in waste -- reduce, reuse, recycle. Keep our impact and carbon footprint as low as possible, and we're not going to be able to do that if we're stuck on fossil fuels for energy.
As usual, I blame society. For real this time. Too many people seem to have grown up with the idea that it's possible to have all the good stuff without paying for it in some way, either with cash, lack of reliability, pollution of one form or another, and usually some combination of all of the above.
Again, environmentalists are very aware of trade-offs and costs. An ecological economics that factors this in is one that says society needs to develop energy efficiency and reduce waste, meaning we only build as much as we absolutely need for a good life putting people first instead of business profits, but that sort of economics is very incompatible with the capitalist model of production that says "build as much as you can all the time to sell on the market!". Some people have brain meltdowns when you question the basic tenets of capitalism, but that's the real stance of wanting good stuff without paying for it. You are paying for it, in human costs of pollution and effective slavery, as well as climate change. So what sort of future do you want?
For the record, I'd prefer to live down the street from a nuclear plant than a gas or coal or oil-burning power plant. And I did the math: if I covered my roof in solar panels, I'd lower my electric bill by at most 50-60% on sunny days, and only 30% averaged year round. If I covered my whole property in s
Climate scientists tell us that the world must drastically cut its fossil fuel use in the next 30 years to stave off a potentially catastrophic tipping point for the planet
If you actually plan on replacing most or all of the electrical production facilities and vehicles world wide without a large military taking over the world and dictating policy to every nation , I'm afraid you will be disappointed.
Not that I oppose the idea of getting rid of dependence on fossil fuels, but if you plan on producing approx 1 billion passenger cars ( and somehow forcing people to scrap the existing ones). http://www.worldometers.info/c...
Replacing nearly 900,000 power plants https://www.carbonbrief.org/ma...
Replacing 2 to 3% of the global economy https://www.investopedia.com/a...
My guess would be you are already way behind, regardless of what method you choose because you first have to convince those in control to take action on a massive scale and most of them are no where near doing that.
So IF the first preposition is correct ( and I hope it's not), there isn't much hope of going beyond that tipping point. If the chaos and wars it generates doesn't lower our carbon output , we will probably fix the problem over the coarse of 100 years or so.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Most modern nuclear plants can be constructed in 42-60 months, or 4-5 years.
That obviously doesn't include the 25 years of tooth-and-nail opposition by psuedo-environmentalists....
The problem with nuclear is that it can be sabotaged, just like in Japan happened... So unfortunately without destroying the deep state first, forget about it, there is no real solution to save our environment....
We already will have 10 billion people within about 20 years. THEY ARE ALREADY BORN, years ago! They will grow up and have kids at predictably lower rates = 10 billion. The best hope is to keep the kids already born from having more kids. Really, we should be fixing all boys at birth for free without permission. It can be undone, but not by mistake.
Leveling off at 10B is a poor goal. Naturally, this goes against all current forms of capitalism which depends upon endless growth and religions who are still in "an arms race" in birthing newly indoctrinated members... and their attempts to keep members from thinking too much while being educated in STEM...
We shouldn't waste time on these Nuclear BS distractions which attack and always underestimate and distort the others. Solar scaled more than expected and far exceeded skeptical nuclear propaganda ALREADY and it is still growing. Nuclear takes a decade to build; is centralized, cost prohibitive, needs heavy subsidies forever, and is so dangerous wars are threatened as each 3rd world nation gets into the business. I'd rather they build on a fault line than with a weak government.
Next generation nuclear is 5 years off... it'll solve all that... when it gets solved in 5 years ... as we've been promised for 30+ years! No credibility to make plans around it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
There seems to be some common "pro-nuclear" memes here:
1. We need to "short-circuit" the law (to avoid delays due to environmental issues and/or frivolous tort claims) (because we can "intuit" what is frivolous and what isn't - we don't need a unbiased 3rd party to judge the evidence presented (after a discovery phase))
2. We need to invent a standard (perfect) design. (a new design is needed since no one claims the current technology is without serious issues, often discovered long after start-up)
3. The public (mob of ignoramuses) has to be required not to fear nuclear waste/pollution. (What's the worst that could happen? After all, we're all dead in the long run)
4. We need to all agree on whose backyard the waste will be dumped in.(As long as it's not mine.)
5. The human race has NOT overrun the planet and so, by definition, any large scale technological roll-out will not have large environmental impacts. (i.e. we are not the elephant in the room, so when we fart no one will notice.)
6. More research will solve all of our nuclear power issues.
I am a nuclear agnostic. I see little evidence we are capable of doing nuclear "right" but I don't see clear evidence that we can't, either. (But it doesn't seem like we've figured it out) The problem is, that given the gap between the way we do it now and the "right way" I see no way to get there from here... (At least not without a program of "education" (propaganda) similar to what we did in the 50's & 60's when the US military realized how far ahead of them the USSR was in space and what a threat that posed.) My best guess is that we are unable to design and operate a system of nuclear power plants for their lifetimes without experiencing the occasional (serious) "excursion/event". And if we expect the public to be ok with that, (while it is reasonable, nothing is without risk, we are a (mostly) risk-adverse species) then we'll need to "reeducate" them - a project which will take decades (and require a lot of pissing into the wind). ( and some black-ops to silence the most effective critics).
What fraction of the public knows which power plant type (coal or nuclear) spews more radioactive waste per terrawatt? Do you?
No matter what the source be it nuclear, fusion, solar, or any fossil fuel entropy and the rule of 7 will win. At 2.3% energy consumption growth we run into impassible physical restraints very soon. How can otherwise smart people be so ignorant of basic arithmetic?
"Physicist: Before we tackle that, we’re too close to an astounding point for me to leave it unspoken. At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence."
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
The technology was invented here by Tesla, commercialized by Westinghouse and has been used for over 100 years.
that used to be public. In the process they tend to make them worse (go look at privatized school buses sometime) but that doesn't stop them because we really, really hate paying taxes. Most of us (60-80% depending on how you run the numbers) live paycheck to paycheck. So a 2% tax raise could push a lot over the edge to bankruptcy, homelessness, etc.
I'd argue this is all by design, but it doesn't matter. We live in the world as it is, not the way we want it to be.
I don't trust nuclear because of crap like Fukushima. There's an outside chance in hell the 70+ year old CEOs might spend the last few months of their lives in jail. I don't know the Japanese legal system but in America if a CEO did that it likely wouldn't make it to trial before they died of old age; and that's assuming you could find a prosecutor to take the case.
Sooner or later we'll privatize it and make it unsafe. We'll run the plants too long or cut a corner or two. The consequences from a nuclear meltdown last decades and kill people with cancer. Worse they kill slowly over time, so you can end up in battles over whether the meltdown "really" caused your cancer. Battles you'll be fighting while dying of cancer...
Find a way to make a nuke plant cheaper to run safely than dangerously. Do it now with tech we have that's ready for production. I've heard and seen a lot of companies that claim they can do it but I haven't seen a reactor built for testing let alone production that meets that bar. Or find a way to convince Americans that government is the solution, not the problem, and that privatizing things doesn't fix them.
Until then go right ahead and have all the nuke plants you want in saner countries like France and Germany. I'll oppose nuclear until in America until one of those two conditions is met. So far I'm still waiting...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Cost is what kills nuclear power. Not hippies, not regulations, not politicians.
1) You simply cannot justify spending $20 billion and 20 years building a new nuclear power plant when wind and solar can be rolled out in far less time.
2) No other power sources requires plans to rapidly evacuate everyone in a 20 mile radius if there's a meltdown. No other power source (aside from hydro) poses an imminent risk of death to surrounding populations.
3) You cannot justify forcing hundreds of future generations to deal with your waste. Imagine if the last neanderthals had nuclear power 40,000 years ago - and people were still having to deal with the radioactive waste today, like Europe has to deal with unexploded ordinance from WWII.
4) The "baseload power" FUD that is always levied at wind and solar applies much moreso to nuclear power. Nuclear power plants shut down on a regular basis for planned (or worse, unplanned) maintenance. For days, months, or even years at a time, blowing a gigawatt sized hole in your grid. That means that for N nuclear power plants to power said grid, you need at least N+1, to step in for the one that's shut down. Which is no different from needing to build excess wind and solar generation across your grid to provide for dark or windless days.
From http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
Lifecycle emissions (gCO2eq/kWh)
Nuclear, 12
Coal, 820
Also worth considering the volume. Nuclear waste volume is much lower per tonne than for coal.
Wind and solar passed it in cost effectiveness years ago, and that's even allowing coal to externalize all its environmental and health effects. Nuke fans sure like pretending it's either coal or nuclear, though.
Again we see those who pretend to believe that industrial/technological civilization can be run entirely on "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy are continuing to engage in arithmetic denialism.
At this point, solar power costs less than coal power delivered in most of the US, to the point where it's cheaper to build new solar power capacity (and cover the capital costs) and operate it than to keep operating the coal plants.
And nuclear power costs more than that - $112/MWh, compare to $40 for industrial scale solar power or $29 for wind power. Coal is $60. (All best-case numbers, from https://www.lazard.com/media/4... ).
And if you look at the costs over time, nuclear power is not only extremely expensive, but the cost has increased dramatically over time, while in contrast the real world cost of wind and solar has dropped dramatically over time.
Cost is relevant because for $X that can be invested in capacity, a strategy that generates 1/4th as much power for the same investment is 1/4th as effective in shifting current capacity away from coal and oil to a clean source.
So while if I were a nuclear power plant salesman, I would certainly try to sell nuclear power as "clean" - because "radioactive" and "expensive" aren't much of a sales pitch - if you are looking for clean energy sources, the most effective clean energy sources are wind and industrial scale solar, because they can produce clean power for 1/4th the cost. And you don't have to figure out how to safely dispose of radioactive waste.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
We had a recent article about concrete being a huge source of atmospheric CO2. Nuke plants use a LOT of concrete. Has that been accounted for? Maybe it has, but it seems worth mentioning.
.
Even older plant took at most 10 years not fucking 30. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The first nuclear plant were NOT done in 45+30=74, they were done in the 50ies (first was 1954). Even without googling that should have been readily apparent to mods....
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The biggest issue with nuclear isn't safety (at least in the G20). The biggest issue is development and deployment time. If we started a massive nuclear plant building program, the first plants would be coming on-line in 15 to 20 years. In the meantime we will have had to build solar, wind, and hydro to fill in the gap. Long term, nuclear can be part of the mix. But energy solutions need to arrive faster than nuclear can.
Support SETI@home
We aren't going to stop using fossil fuels. We aren't going to build thousands of nuclear plants.
We are going to have to live with climate change. It's a done deal. We have 7.5 billion people and are still growing.
If the "west" cuts back on fossil fuel use it will just make it cheaper for Africa and Asia to burn it.
Don't buy waterfront property.
https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use
So, you typed a lot but one of your main arguments was either a lie or a mistake.
Lynewood, you piece of garbage. I can always count on seeing disinformation from you. Guess what the mysterious unknown reasons you cite are? The reasons are that the residents of the state do not fucking want to live in a nuclear waste dumping ground(https://www.usatoday.com/amp/664153002). These are R senators mind you. I can't really blame the citizens.
Here is a modest proposal, how about you volunteer your own backyard?
Doubleplus good story comrade.
You should really rename the site. Nobody outside of your bubble gives a crap about California, nor do they think as you do. The earthquake can't come soon enough.
Well you've convinced me, private companies are bad so let's just burn all the goddam fossil fuels we can and drastically reduce the habitability of this planet in short order!
A nuclear engineer tells us that nuclear energy is the solution. Who could have guessed.
I suppose that there is valid information in his claims and conclusions, but it is important to consider his training when interpreting his recommendations. I find it a bit disingenuous that this is not identified in the summary and what little of the article I can see from this side of the paywall doesn't mention it.
I can't believe this has idea has reared it's head again. You're substituting one problem for a whole other set of problems. Here are some pertinent facts: There is only enough accessible Uranium ore to supply reactors for at most 80 years .
It can take 40 years to completely decommission a reactor, longer than it's useful life.
Nuclear waste can be unsafe for 10,000 years.
This is not to mention the extraordinary build costs, which are only viable with government backing, nor the seemingly inevitable construction delays. That's not even touching on the accidents. In Japan old people are volunteering to clean up Fukashima because they know they're going to die anyway.
For the price of one reactor, you could probably build a wind farm of much higher capacity. Hook it to a huge battery, and you're sorted. There are 441 reactors in the world, we don't need any more.
Kinda ironic, don'tchathink?
It's why Chernobyl and Fukishima are once-in-a-couple decades events, instead of an annual occurrence. This Randian phobia of having to operate by rules is as reasonable as a communist shitting his pants at the sight of a for-profit business.
Once construction starts. The site selection/planning phase can take much longer than that. You know, so you don't build your plant on a fault line, or in an area that could be taken out by a 500 year flood, etc.
Tweedle Dee: Oh noez, the sky is falling! Carbon, carbon, carbon! The skyyyyyyy is falling!
Tweedle Dumb: Quick, we must build dangerous, uninsurable, uneconomical, preposterously expensive machines that produce tons of hypertoxic radioactive waste!!
Tweedle Dee: OMG you saved the environment!!!
In 1985 a guy came into our 5th grade class ...
The first dog I saw was black, therefore all dogs are black ... especially the one's who look like they are some other colour.
it demotivated me considerably ... It's all bullshit. Don't listen to it.
And in your demotivated (and clearly unreasonable) state we are supposed to accept your prefab assessment over and above actual observations? Naaah ...
The single biggest threat to the national security of the United States is all that highly radioactive, hypertoxic, barely contained nuclear waste that's sitting around in spent fuel pools. Thousands of tons spread out across the entire country. Just waiting for an enterprising terrorist, a war, a natural disaster, or our good old friend human error.
When the nuclear industry fixes this godawful horrible situation they have already created... then and only then can we discuss building more nuke plants. Until then - WTF are you thinking? Your existing operations currently today endanger the state itself and every man woman and child therein. No, of course you can't expand.
Is there way to read the one article without getting a subscription to the whole newspaper?
That may have been true 50 years ago but it's not not.
Wind, solar, efficiency and storage capabilities these days make the nuclear argument laughable.
Turn on my Stellarator and stfu.
This is where the deception starts Rick. This is where the poorly thought out idealism is started so that people will pick up a cognitively cheap idea about nuclear power that they can simply repeat. They're refer to these supporters as useful idiots, because they are despised by the very people who created them in the first place, the Nuclear Industry's PR machine.
You're being manipulated and deceived into displaying contempt for people who have valid concerns, which are your concerns too, to reduce their effectiveness. They do it by hi-jacking your good intentions, that you want the best for everybody. Keep reading and slowly it will dawn on you why Nuclear power doesn't solve anything.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
He's suggesting A nuclear meltdown or similar is a design or mechanical failure. (much like yourself).
Nuclear power is the best thing ever because I think its great. Nuclear power runs on fairyfloss and the waste product is unicorn farts. Everyone knows that Unicorn farts are a popular beauty cream. So you should like nuclear power too because who doesn't like fairy floss?
Only getting rid of humans will save the planet.
Pretty minds caged with desperation. Don't believe what they are telling you.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Winners take all. Losers perish. Conflict likelihood to increase if no global action.
is because more and more they're not being allowed to do that. Even in China they're trying to rein it in.In America our president and his EPA chief tried to eliminate rules about coal waste dumping and got blocked by the courts. They then tried to expand subsidies to make an otherwise unprofitable business profitable (it's not socialism when they do it) and again got blocked by the courts (The tried to declare a national emergency so they could spend emergency funds and the courts called them on it).
That said, coal is being replaced largely by Wind and Solar right now. At first it was Gas plants but even those are falling by the wayside at the moment (that might not last though, it's only in the last year that use of Natural Gas is down and it might be down to a rush to get wind & solar subsidies in before the end of 2019).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Current nuclear designs are outdated and have hazards.
There are new designs that are safer.
LFTR reactors, Thorium reactors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVSmf_qmkbg
30 years? We can look at the change over the last 30 and then compare populations. We gain around 1 Billion people per decade. All of those people consume resources and give off waste. So 30 years? Nope. We may be toast already.
What if oil runs out in 2038 like projected?
Nuclear (breeder reactors that will not exhaust the world's nuclear fuel in 60 years) and solar are great ideas. World wide BIRTH CONTROL, is the only thing that will save the planet. Of course you are not allowed to say that with out going to down vote hell so scientists will always dance around that and throw distractions. As soon as you threaten "MOAR BABBIES!!!" you are hated.
If the world stopped having babies today in a decade we would still have over 7 billion people, 2 decades brings us to over 6 billion. 3 decades brings us down to around 6 billion. When it is estimated the planet can support 4... But but but once women in 3rd world countries get educated their birth drops.. to the point that they will be replaced 8-12x by the time they die. Infinite growth is not a thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... brings up a lot of interesting points