They taxpayer is underwriting them. Did you not read the part about the DOE(Department of energy) buying 2 NuScale reactors? I think we should give the nuclear industry trillions in subsidies. Yes I said trillions.
The United States is about to take the lead again. Congress just passed bipartisan pro nuclear laws. The Department of Energy has agreed to purchase energy from 2 NuScale reactors. NuScale is building their first 12 reactors in Idaho. Their reactors will be factory built which will reduce their cost. They are also meltdown proof.
Given the realities of climate change, air pollution, and poverty it is immoral to oppose nuclear energy. Also assuming renewables can replace fossil fuels is the equivalent to believing in the toothfairy.
The only alternatives to fossil fuels are nuclear and hydro. Since hydro is location based and environmentally destructive that leaves nuclear for deep decarbonization. Solar and wind are to unreliable to replace baseload sources. Opposing nuclear means continued fossil fuel usage.
Efficiency can be good. It cannot solve climate change though. Efficiency is not going to significantly reduce emissions, and given global warming we need to reduce emissions significantly. You mentioned Ontario which gets most of its electricity from nuclear followed by hydro. My public utility, SMUD, is implementing efficiency measures. These measures consist of greatly increased electricity costs from 5 to 9. This is not going to reduce pollution, but it will increase poverty.
Efficiency? Thinking efficiency will stop climate change has always been a silly idea. The problem with efficiency measures is that you are still using fossil fuels. Efficiency without nuclear/hydro is making better use of fossil fuels. Increasing the efficiency of an office building by 1-2% is great, but when the power is generated from fossil fuels you are still releasing greenhouse gasses. Efficiency will not save us from climate change.
This is a foolish plan that is not viable and can have unintended consequences. It would be easier to build new nuclear reactors(and feasible) than spray enough sulphur in the atmosphere to make a difference.
How is this not insider trading? Buying real estate using information not known to the public should result in prosecution. Martha Stewart served jail time for less.
Insurance companies. So your argument against solving climate change is wall st made a bad bet 50 years ago? That is silly. If wall st insurance let energy companies by insurance they would have made nothing but money for decades.
Even if you eliminate meltdowns as a failure mode entirely that doesn't mean nuclear is 100% safe.
Nothing is perfect, but if you consider current nuclear is safer than solar and wind. That means next generation nuclear is safer than just about anything else.
Actually $28 billion which comes out to $14 billion per reactor. Not a bad deal considering the reactors will last 100+ years. Of course the Chinese built an AP 1000 in five years so it can be done. Nuclear energy should be thought of as a public works projects and should be subsidized(like solar and wind). The cost of the reactors in insignificant when compared to the cost of climate change or the costs of batteries.
NuScale is forced to wait years before they are even allowed to start construction. This is because the NRC implemented forced delays into all new nuclear projects in the 1970's. That is what happens when you let the nuclear industry be regulated by the coal industry. Congress has started to change these laws recently in a rare bipartisan effort.
We can't wait ten years to start producing clean energy.
You are right. We should have built our nuclear fleet out 30 years ago. "The best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago The second best time is right now." We need to start building more reactors right now. NuScale has a chance to change the calculus. It is a proven technology since it is basically a mass produced submarine reactor.
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal are all available now
Wind and solar are good, but they have low capacity factors. Solar produces 0 electricity when demand is at the highest level. New hydro is a no go because of environmental concerns, and it cannot be installed in less than a year. Geothermal is location based. I do not oppose of those options. New nuclear should also be in the mix along with keeping our current plants alive.
There were multiple tests. Shutting down the cooling system was just one of them. It cannot meltdown. They proved it. The reactor was designed to have a negative thermal coefficient of reactivity making meltdowns impossible. Comparing Chernobyl to the EBRII or any western reactor is disingenuous. It is a powerful rhetorical tool which is why you are using it as a crutch in this debate. It does mean you are correct.
Yeah his reply was an ad hominem attack followed by a lawsuit. Filing lawsuits against other scientists is why I started calling him a snake oil salesman. His reply did not address any of the criticism of the original article. Jacobson's and your opposition to nuclear energy is emotional.
MIT scientists just released analysis saying we will need nuclear energy. Climate scientist James Hansen called Nuclear energy "the only viable path forward on climate change." Maybe you should try to understand why a large number of scientists are on my side in this debate.
Citing Jacobson eh? You do know he is a snake oil salesman? The National academy of sciences has discredited his work. Read the article here
In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.
If you listen to the scientists at that lab they said the EBRII could not meltdown under any circumstances. They intentionally tried to cause a meltdown and failed. You are overstating the risks of nuclear energy
Then why has Germany failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production? They have spent a quarter of a trillion euros on renewables with very little to show for it(except of course the highest energy prices in Europe). Their electricity grid pollutes 10x as much as France does.
Nobody needs 100% grid storage anywhere.
If you do not have 100% grid storage it means you are running on something other than renewables. In germany it is coal, in California it is natural gas. We should be using nuclear since it is cleaner than coal/gas.
It is not wasting money on nuclear when they plants can run for a 100 years (Vogtle).
Also waste is red herring. Waste from nuclear energy has never harmed a single person in world history.
Solar and wind have capacity factors of 30%. They do not function 100% of the time. Solar produces nothing when demand is at its highest(see duck curve). If you count the cost of batteries the price will explode. If you take into account how much energy nuclear generates it much more competitive. If California or Germany spent their resources on new nuclear instead of renewables they would already be 100% clean.
Batteries to smooth production and protect the grid pay for themselves so no extra cost.
Nope. You are just looking at that tesla load balancing battery in Australia. Scale that up to 100% grid storage, and you get a cost ~$40 trillion just for the US. That is not feasible.
Solar and wind are proven technologies
Nuclear is also a proven technology. In the US it accounts for 60% of our clean energy. The only countries that have deeply decarbonized did it with a combination of hydro and/or nuclear. New hydro is a no go because of its danger and environmental impacts. That leaves nuclear for most locations.
Why even try?
You do know climate change is real. We need to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses we emit significantly. We are on pace for a 5 degree C increase. And you forgetting the second half of the problem--transportation. A large nuclear baseload source will make solving the transportation problem a lot easier. Basically if I am right, and we follow your path millions will die. So that is why we need to try.
Silly, the sun does not shine at night. And the problem is storage ("capacitance"). Scaling up the tesla battery from australia to a 100% renewable grid would take $40 trillion+ for just the us. That is why 95% of storage is pumped hydro. Maybe you should do your homework, silly.
Nuclear waste(from nuclear power) has never harmed a single person in human history. Waste has already been a red herring. Maybe you should learn something about it. Watch these videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvvIzH2W6g
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly a Jar Jar only film would have been better than the last jedi.
The best commercial was the mountain killing the bud knight.
without the taxpayer underwriting them.
They taxpayer is underwriting them. Did you not read the part about the DOE(Department of energy) buying 2 NuScale reactors? I think we should give the nuclear industry trillions in subsidies. Yes I said trillions.
Given the realities of climate change, air pollution, and poverty it is immoral to oppose nuclear energy. Also assuming renewables can replace fossil fuels is the equivalent to believing in the toothfairy.
The only alternatives to fossil fuels are nuclear and hydro. Since hydro is location based and environmentally destructive that leaves nuclear for deep decarbonization. Solar and wind are to unreliable to replace baseload sources. Opposing nuclear means continued fossil fuel usage. Efficiency can be good. It cannot solve climate change though. Efficiency is not going to significantly reduce emissions, and given global warming we need to reduce emissions significantly. You mentioned Ontario which gets most of its electricity from nuclear followed by hydro. My public utility, SMUD, is implementing efficiency measures. These measures consist of greatly increased electricity costs from 5 to 9. This is not going to reduce pollution, but it will increase poverty.
Efficiency? Thinking efficiency will stop climate change has always been a silly idea. The problem with efficiency measures is that you are still using fossil fuels. Efficiency without nuclear/hydro is making better use of fossil fuels. Increasing the efficiency of an office building by 1-2% is great, but when the power is generated from fossil fuels you are still releasing greenhouse gasses. Efficiency will not save us from climate change.
As for cost did you know if Germany or California had invested in new Nuclear instead of renewables they would already have a 100% clean electrical grid? The other problem is transportation. A large nuclear baseload will make it easier to charge EV cars and/or produce hydrogen/ammonia fuel.
This is a foolish plan that is not viable and can have unintended consequences. It would be easier to build new nuclear reactors(and feasible) than spray enough sulphur in the atmosphere to make a difference.
TIL
How is this not insider trading? Buying real estate using information not known to the public should result in prosecution. Martha Stewart served jail time for less.
This is a great idea, and I have already implemented similar ideas into my education products. There is evidence it works. Metacognitive Difficulty Activates Analytic Reasoning(PDF)
Find me a quote of any scientist claiming that meltdowns were impossible
Watch this silly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU Goto 4:25 to hear him say it cannot meltdown. Suck it.
insurance companies
Insurance companies. So your argument against solving climate change is wall st made a bad bet 50 years ago? That is silly. If wall st insurance let energy companies by insurance they would have made nothing but money for decades.
Even if you eliminate meltdowns as a failure mode entirely that doesn't mean nuclear is 100% safe.
Nothing is perfect, but if you consider current nuclear is safer than solar and wind. That means next generation nuclear is safer than just about anything else.
Watch this silly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU Goto 4:25 to hear him say it cannot meltdown.
Actually $28 billion which comes out to $14 billion per reactor. Not a bad deal considering the reactors will last 100+ years. Of course the Chinese built an AP 1000 in five years so it can be done. Nuclear energy should be thought of as a public works projects and should be subsidized(like solar and wind). The cost of the reactors in insignificant when compared to the cost of climate change or the costs of batteries.
NuScale is forced to wait years before they are even allowed to start construction. This is because the NRC implemented forced delays into all new nuclear projects in the 1970's. That is what happens when you let the nuclear industry be regulated by the coal industry. Congress has started to change these laws recently in a rare bipartisan effort.
We can't wait ten years to start producing clean energy.
You are right. We should have built our nuclear fleet out 30 years ago. "The best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago The second best time is right now." We need to start building more reactors right now. NuScale has a chance to change the calculus. It is a proven technology since it is basically a mass produced submarine reactor.
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal are all available now
Wind and solar are good, but they have low capacity factors. Solar produces 0 electricity when demand is at the highest level. New hydro is a no go because of environmental concerns, and it cannot be installed in less than a year. Geothermal is location based. I do not oppose of those options. New nuclear should also be in the mix along with keeping our current plants alive.
There were multiple tests. Shutting down the cooling system was just one of them. It cannot meltdown. They proved it. The reactor was designed to have a negative thermal coefficient of reactivity making meltdowns impossible. Comparing Chernobyl to the EBRII or any western reactor is disingenuous. It is a powerful rhetorical tool which is why you are using it as a crutch in this debate. It does mean you are correct.
Yeah his reply was an ad hominem attack followed by a lawsuit. Filing lawsuits against other scientists is why I started calling him a snake oil salesman. His reply did not address any of the criticism of the original article. Jacobson's and your opposition to nuclear energy is emotional.
MIT scientists just released analysis saying we will need nuclear energy. Climate scientist James Hansen called Nuclear energy "the only viable path forward on climate change." Maybe you should try to understand why a large number of scientists are on my side in this debate.
Citing Jacobson eh? You do know he is a snake oil salesman? The National academy of sciences has discredited his work. Read the article here
In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.
Jacobson is a con man.
Yes it does. They intentionally tried to cause a meltdown and failed. The scientists at that lab have said repeatedly that it could not meltdown.
If you listen to the scientists at that lab they said the EBRII could not meltdown under any circumstances. They intentionally tried to cause a meltdown and failed. You are overstating the risks of nuclear energy
I challenge you to back that "50 nuclear startups" with anything.
Third way mapped out 48 different startups. https://public.tableau.com/profile/third.way#!/vizhome/AdvancedNuclearIndustry_TheNextGeneration/Dashboard1 That took less than 30 second on google. I take it you cannot use google. 47 startups now that transatomic has shuttered.
You are wrong about several other statements in your crazy person rant.
NuScale just picked a manufacture. 83 companies expressed interest. That would not happen if it was not really going to be built. Also congress just passed a bipartisan law designed to help these startups. There are few more bills in the pipeline designed to help this initiative.
Face it NuScale is going to build those 12 reactors.
Then why has Germany failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production? They have spent a quarter of a trillion euros on renewables with very little to show for it(except of course the highest energy prices in Europe). Their electricity grid pollutes 10x as much as France does.
Nobody needs 100% grid storage anywhere.
If you do not have 100% grid storage it means you are running on something other than renewables. In germany it is coal, in California it is natural gas. We should be using nuclear since it is cleaner than coal/gas.
It is not wasting money on nuclear when they plants can run for a 100 years (Vogtle).
Also waste is red herring. Waste from nuclear energy has never harmed a single person in world history.
Batteries to smooth production and protect the grid pay for themselves so no extra cost.
Nope. You are just looking at that tesla load balancing battery in Australia. Scale that up to 100% grid storage, and you get a cost ~$40 trillion just for the US. That is not feasible.
Solar and wind are proven technologies
Nuclear is also a proven technology. In the US it accounts for 60% of our clean energy. The only countries that have deeply decarbonized did it with a combination of hydro and/or nuclear. New hydro is a no go because of its danger and environmental impacts. That leaves nuclear for most locations.
Why even try?
You do know climate change is real. We need to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses we emit significantly. We are on pace for a 5 degree C increase. And you forgetting the second half of the problem--transportation. A large nuclear baseload source will make solving the transportation problem a lot easier. Basically if I am right, and we follow your path millions will die. So that is why we need to try.
Silly, the sun does not shine at night. And the problem is storage ("capacitance"). Scaling up the tesla battery from australia to a 100% renewable grid would take $40 trillion+ for just the us. That is why 95% of storage is pumped hydro. Maybe you should do your homework, silly.
Yet we have had provable meltdown proof reactors since the 1980's. See Experimental Breeder Reactor II
Nuclear waste(from nuclear power) has never harmed a single person in human history. Waste has already been a red herring. Maybe you should learn something about it. Watch these videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvvIzH2W6g
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Approves Key Safety Aspect to NuScale Power’s Advanced Reactor Design