Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 27 Mar 2016, 19:16:07

C8 wrote:
dohboi wrote:And lies...??


You mean like all the nuclear power safety scare lies that you are constantly posting? (maybe nuclear power safety deniers should be prosecuted).

I honestly think that you do not really care about global warming at all- that its all hypocritical BS. I think that you are more anti-nuke than anti-global warming- I think your are posing as something you are not.

But then all religion causes people to lie in order to protect their faith- its no different with fundamentalist pagan greens: solve GW only the way we want it solved or not at all!


The problem is that we face not only GW but also environmental damage and supply issues for resources in general:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

The basis of this view is neither "fundamentalist" nor "pagan" but physics. In which case, one should expect similar to Model As to come back.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 27 Mar 2016, 21:11:45

ralfy wrote:
C8 wrote:
Yes- they were two biggest nuclear disasters ever- of very old reactor designs. One costs the lives of a handful of people (Chernobyl) and the other cost NO LIVES (Fukushima).

France gets over 80% of their electricity from nukes and they outlive us (Japanese do to despite years with old nuke plants).

New reactors wouldn't even have these issue BTW. Do you still drive a Model A Ford? Man its a dangerous car.

So... got any more questions?


Japan is considered one of the best examples of safety overall worldwide, and yet the accident happened. Not only were there deaths, we're not even sure about the extent of environmental damage.

I think the average age of reactors in France is around 30 years, similar to that of Japan. For Russia, the U.S., and other countries, it's more.

Even Model As will be affected by peak oil.


Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain...err I mean pay no attention to the massive Earthquake and resulting Tsunami that devastated hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure including the Fukushima Daichi power plants.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13760
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sun 27 Mar 2016, 22:27:09

Spot on, Tanada. I am sick and tired of all these anti-nuclear zealots spewing their BS and thinking they have total moral authority on the subject. The tsunami killed 23,000 people and the Fukushima disaster it triggered killed zero. Even if we add in future cancer deaths they will be confined to the clean up crews so the total numbers will be less than 50. If the back up generators were placed properly on the hill behind the plant (less than 300 feet away) then there would not have been any failure whatsoever. The loss of backup power was the one and only reason for the meltdowns. The earthquake did not manage to damage the reactors and their cooling systems.

And Chernobyl was not an accident. It was subjected to an unauthorized experiment that in all likelihood was politically motivated putting it in the category of terrorism. Key people later died by suicide. Very convenient. I guess we should ban municipal water systems because terrorists can poison the water supply.

I see none of these anti-nuclear hysterics ever bring up coal power. Coal power contaminates the countryside with mercury, other heavy toxic metals, and radioactive heavy metals (isotopes of uranium and thorium). Coal power kills tens of thousands of people every year due to direct pollution (aerosol, NOx, O3). Yet the world is supposed to worry about nuclear power.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4869
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 28 Mar 2016, 00:09:25

dissident wrote:Spot on, Tanada. I am sick and tired of all these anti-nuclear zealots spewing their BS and thinking they have total moral authority on the subject. The tsunami killed 23,000 people and the Fukushima disaster it triggered killed zero. Even if we add in future cancer deaths they will be confined to the clean up crews so the total numbers will be less than 50. If the back up generators were placed properly on the hill behind the plant (less than 300 feet away) then there would not have been any failure whatsoever. The loss of backup power was the one and only reason for the meltdowns. The earthquake did not manage to damage the reactors and their cooling systems.

And Chernobyl was not an accident. It was subjected to an unauthorized experiment that in all likelihood was politically motivated putting it in the category of terrorism. Key people later died by suicide. Very convenient. I guess we should ban municipal water systems because terrorists can poison the water supply.

I see none of these anti-nuclear hysterics ever bring up coal power. Coal power contaminates the countryside with mercury, other heavy toxic metals, and radioactive heavy metals (isotopes of uranium and thorium). Coal power kills tens of thousands of people every year due to direct pollution (aerosol, NOx, O3). Yet the world is supposed to worry about nuclear power.


See, we have here another deindustrialization fanatic whose only interest in Nuclear is to get rid of dirty coal. Another brainwashee.

The underlying problem is the complete desertion of competent science by even the brightest minds. Probabilistic mumbo jumbo (ex. AI deep learning, Quantum Mechanics formalism, Social Engineering) has replaced knowledge and progress in partial difference equations and beyond. Tragically, the best mathematicians can't get out of the 18th century of classical mechanics and the pathetic ordinary differential equations. They don't even really care about physics at all. The hapless physicists are happy with 18-19th century continuum mechanics utilizing partial differential equations. 20th Century Mechanics (plasticity, turbulence, quantum effects, etc) requires mathematical tools beyond partial differential equations. And Nobody cares because they deeply believe in fake money, not progress

We cannot build an effective 21st Century Energy System to combat Peak Oil based on an Entertainment Driven Idiocracy that has deserted even the obsolete partial differential equations. The Smartest Guys in the Room at Google are really just a bunch of pathetic incompetents in physics slinging code to shitcan workers. They implement deindustrialisation on the financial rackets of constant change and pump and dump bubble economics. This is progress?

How is a Nuclear reactor sustainable in this bloody mess? Or even a coal plant. Anything requiring an ensemble of competent scientists will be shut down. Too expensive...just good Bidness Decisions like that geologist kook rambles on about.

Show me anyone who correctly understands the meaning of several example PDE's. They don't exist at Google, or Princeton, or ANYWHERE.
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Mon 28 Mar 2016, 07:53:44

Image

Planned nuclear capacity in Russia, gigawatts vs. time. There is supposed to be a factor of seven increase in capacity with half and half coming from VVER-TOI and BN-1200 reactors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER-TOI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4869
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 28 Mar 2016, 08:40:44

The BN-1200 design is one of my great hopes for the future. Burn the waste down to where it has a 600 year or less half life, harvest energy in the process. Its a win-win situation, unfortunately there are many who refuse to accept a rosier picture of the possible future.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13760
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby C8 » Mon 28 Mar 2016, 09:35:48

In a sad replay of what happened in Japan and Germany, as nuke plants shut down, CO2 emissions go up


http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/a ... shuttered/

New England’s CO2 Emissions Rise as Vermont Yankee is Shuttered

When Vermont Yankee was set to close, activists such as Bill McKibben claimed that Vermont “is completely capable of replacing (and far more) its power output with renewables, which is why my roof is covered with solar panels.”[i]

This isn’t what happened. Instead, natural gas generation expanded in New England. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions increased 7 percent in 2015.

Vermont Yankee Closed in 2014

Vermont Yankee, a 604-megawatt nuclear plant, provided New England with 42 years of reliable, carbon dioxide-free power before its closure at the end of 2014. The plant’s capacity factor exceeded 80 percent over its lifetime—more than double the capacity factor of the most efficient solar or wind plant in the United States, which were expected by some to replace it. But, in reality wind and solar power cannot replace the generation from Vermont Yankee, because a nuclear plant can operate 24/7 and is not dependent on the wind blowing or the sun shining. As a result, natural gas generation increased in New England by 5.5 percentage points (from 43.1 percent of generation in 2014 to 48.6 percent of generation in 2015)[ii], and with it, carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions increased in New England by about 7 percent in 2015, increasing from 28 million tons to 30 million tons, according to data from EPA.[iii]

This increase is despite the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)—an agreement among nine states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. RGGI is a cap and trade system where the greenhouse gas emissions from these states are capped and emission allowances can be purchased if an entity has problems meeting its cap.

Nuclear Generation in New England—Pilgrim on the Chopping Block

While natural gas and wood generation in New England increased their share in 2015, nuclear generation declined from a 34 percent share in 2014 to a 29.5 percent share in 2015. That share will decline further as Entergy is planning to shutter its Pilgrim nuclear plant in Massachusetts by mid-2019 despite having its license renewed 3 years ago, allowing it to operate until 2032. New England will then have only three nuclear generators–the Seabrook plant in New Hampshire and the two-unit Millstone plant in Connecticut.[iv]

Pilgrim, a 680-megawatt nuclear plant operating for 43 years, employs over 600 people with an annual payroll of $55 million, and pays nearly $10 million in town and state taxes, providing power for more than 500,000 homes. Entergy has a fund to decommission the plant totaling $870 million, but believes that amount is $240 million more than it needs to comply with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) standards for shutting down the plant and storing radioactive waste. [v]

Entergy is decommissioning the plant because it expects Pilgrim to lose $10 million to $30 million-a-year through 2017 because of low-cost, gas-fired electric power that is depressing wholesale market prices and because of regulatory expenses. The NRC is forcing Entergy to invest at least $45 million to $60 million to upgrade Pilgrim to respond to a recent NRC safety downgrade of the plant–an expense that could make Pilgrim “not economically viable.” So, Entergy decided to close it.

The retirement of the Pilgrim nuclear plant will likely lead to greater reliance on natural gas in New England, increasing carbon dioxide emissions and putting more pressure on natural gas pipelines already facing bottlenecks. The Independent System Operator (ISO) in New England cautioned that “Pilgrim’s closing will undermine the region’s diversity of fuel sources and could make it harder for power plants in the coldest months to deliver power in the quantity and at prices expected by consumers.”

According to the ISO-New England, New England is expected to retire about 4,200 megawatts of oil, coal, and nuclear plants by June 2019, replacing them with 11,000 megawatts of proposed new power sources–two-thirds using natural gas and the rest mainly using wind to generate electricity. New England also expects to import more hydroelectric capacity from Quebec and expand the capacity of pipelines to bring more natural gas to the state.

The closure of Pilgrim will likely make it significantly harder to meet Massachusetts’ goals of cutting its carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below by 2050.[vi]

Conclusion

Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing as New England is shuttering its non-carbon dioxide-emitting nuclear plants due to competition from natural gas generation and regulation by the NRC. Despite environmentalists wanting wind and solar power to replace the shuttered nuclear power plants, the reality is that intermittent technologies (wind and solar) cannot replace plants that can operate 24/7. Natural gas will provide most of the replacement power, increasing carbon dioxide emissions. If the state intends to meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals, it will most likely have to rely on RGGI, which did not seem to provide the necessary reductions when Vermont Yankee was shuttered.
User avatar
C8
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 08:02:48

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby tita » Mon 28 Mar 2016, 10:52:35

dissident wrote:Spot on, Tanada. I am sick and tired of all these anti-nuclear zealots spewing their BS and thinking they have total moral authority on the subject. The tsunami killed 23,000 people and the Fukushima disaster it triggered killed zero. Even if we add in future cancer deaths they will be confined to the clean up crews so the total numbers will be less than 50.

The main issue is not exactly the deaths. It's just that we can't easily dump the place and say "okay, everything is allright"... In facts, we just don't know how to do it. And the costs of doing something we don't know how to do is unknown. For the next generation of japanese, the tsunami will be a souvenir... Fukushima will be a legacy.

dissident wrote:If the back up generators were placed properly on the hill behind the plant (less than 300 feet away) then there would not have been any failure whatsoever. The loss of backup power was the one and only reason for the meltdowns. The earthquake did not manage to damage the reactors and their cooling systems.

Thank you with your "if" and your "properly". Actually not solving the problem of Fukushima, and neither solving the other "if" we did this "properly" of any other nuclear disaster of the future.

dissident wrote:And Chernobyl was not an accident. It was subjected to an unauthorized experiment that in all likelihood was politically motivated putting it in the category of terrorism. Key people later died by suicide. Very convenient. I guess we should ban municipal water systems because terrorists can poison the water supply.

So what? Whatever it is terrorism, alien strike, conspiracy of the cockroaches or whatever, the catastrophe is still there. You can write all the gibberish you want, but the beliefs of your fucked-up brain won't change the facts.

dissident wrote:I see none of these anti-nuclear hysterics ever bring up coal power. Coal power contaminates the countryside with mercury, other heavy toxic metals, and radioactive heavy metals (isotopes of uranium and thorium). Coal power kills tens of thousands of people every year due to direct pollution (aerosol, NOx, O3). Yet the world is supposed to worry about nuclear power.

Yes, coal is dirty. But nuclear is also dirty, and on another level, because of the hazard legacy of it. Dismantling centrals cost a lot, nuclear waste is a problem, central accidents happen. You can't just praise nuclear power without talking about the bad sides of it!
User avatar
tita
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Mon 28 Mar 2016, 13:27:15

tita wrote:
dissident wrote:Spot on, Tanada. I am sick and tired of all these anti-nuclear zealots spewing their BS and thinking they have total moral authority on the subject. The tsunami killed 23,000 people and the Fukushima disaster it triggered killed zero. Even if we add in future cancer deaths they will be confined to the clean up crews so the total numbers will be less than 50.

The main issue is not exactly the deaths. It's just that we can't easily dump the place and say "okay, everything is allright"... In facts, we just don't know how to do it. And the costs of doing something we don't know how to do is unknown. For the next generation of japanese, the tsunami will be a souvenir... Fukushima will be a legacy.


Your attempt at semantics can be turned around and applied to the coal industry. It not only kills in the short term via pollution but also kills in the long term via cancers. Given the scale of the direct deaths, the cancer deaths are vastly larger than anything originating from the nuclear power industry.

dissident wrote:If the back up generators were placed properly on the hill behind the plant (less than 300 feet away) then there would not have been any failure whatsoever. The loss of backup power was the one and only reason for the meltdowns. The earthquake did not manage to damage the reactors and their cooling systems.

Thank you with your "if" and your "properly". Actually not solving the problem of Fukushima, and neither solving the other "if" we did this "properly" of any other nuclear disaster of the future.


More lame semantics. Human idiocy is not a characteristic of nuclear power. Even with the idiocy in regards to stationing of the generators, Fukushima did not and will not (cancer) produce the deaths of single coal power plant.

dissident wrote:And Chernobyl was not an accident. It was subjected to an unauthorized experiment that in all likelihood was politically motivated putting it in the category of terrorism. Key people later died by suicide. Very convenient. I guess we should ban municipal water systems because terrorists can poison the water supply.

So what? Whatever it is terrorism, alien strike, conspiracy of the cockroaches or whatever, the catastrophe is still there. You can write all the gibberish you want, but the beliefs of your fucked-up brain won't change the facts.


You have no argument and resort to an ad hominem. You are a joke.

dissident wrote:I see none of these anti-nuclear hysterics ever bring up coal power. Coal power contaminates the countryside with mercury, other heavy toxic metals, and radioactive heavy metals (isotopes of uranium and thorium). Coal power kills tens of thousands of people every year due to direct pollution (aerosol, NOx, O3). Yet the world is supposed to worry about nuclear power.

Yes, coal is dirty. But nuclear is also dirty, and on another level, because of the hazard legacy of it. Dismantling centrals cost a lot, nuclear waste is a problem, central accidents happen. You can't just praise nuclear power without talking about the bad sides of it!


You are 100% wrong in every aspect of the religion you try to foist on humanity. Coal kills more people and contaminates more in the long run than the fallout from a few nuclear power accidents. Your lame apples and oranges drivel misses basic facts: coal kills and contaminates without accidents. Nuclear power plants are clean and death and contamination on any significant scale only occurred in the case of Chernobyl incident. Humans can survive the loss of some real estate contaminated with long lived corium isotopes. Humans will not survive the global warming cataclysm that is the real fallout of coal power generation.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4869
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 28 Mar 2016, 21:22:35

Tanada wrote:
Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain...err I mean pay no attention to the massive Earthquake and resulting Tsunami that devastated hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure including the Fukushima Daichi power plants.


Yes, I'm sure that earthquake and tsunami also caused radiation. That's why the affected places will be safe in no time, right?
Last edited by ralfy on Mon 28 Mar 2016, 21:35:08, edited 1 time in total.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 28 Mar 2016, 21:34:37

dissident wrote:Spot on, Tanada. I am sick and tired of all these anti-nuclear zealots spewing their BS and thinking they have total moral authority on the subject. The tsunami killed 23,000 people and the Fukushima disaster it triggered killed zero. Even if we add in future cancer deaths they will be confined to the clean up crews so the total numbers will be less than 50. If the back up generators were placed properly on the hill behind the plant (less than 300 feet away) then there would not have been any failure whatsoever. The loss of backup power was the one and only reason for the meltdowns. The earthquake did not manage to damage the reactors and their cooling systems.

And Chernobyl was not an accident. It was subjected to an unauthorized experiment that in all likelihood was politically motivated putting it in the category of terrorism. Key people later died by suicide. Very convenient. I guess we should ban municipal water systems because terrorists can poison the water supply.

I see none of these anti-nuclear hysterics ever bring up coal power. Coal power contaminates the countryside with mercury, other heavy toxic metals, and radioactive heavy metals (isotopes of uranium and thorium). Coal power kills tens of thousands of people every year due to direct pollution (aerosol, NOx, O3). Yet the world is supposed to worry about nuclear power.


Anything connected to the disaster should be included, including deaths due to forced evacuation. Most important is the point of making the place livable once more. How long will that take? And what is the effect of such disasters on various ecosystems?

About Chernobyl, are you implying that "unauthorized experiments" and "political motivation" can be avoided completely by human beings?

The analogy to water systems is questionable because they do not operate the same way as nuclear reactors. Perhaps you should be looking at poisons.

Finally, the world should worry about nuclear and coal power, but that will not stop it from using both for various reasons.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 28 Mar 2016, 21:41:19

dissident wrote:Image

Planned nuclear capacity in Russia, gigawatts vs. time. There is supposed to be a factor of seven increase in capacity with half and half coming from VVER-TOI and BN-1200 reactors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER-TOI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor


FWIW, even Hubbert stated the same in his peak oil report, i.e., the use of nuclear energy to solve problems caused by peak oil. The catch, as pointed out in this thread, involves low energy quantity and quality for nuclear power:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786

as well as lag time:

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-year ... il-2010-11

And then there's Chernobyl, Fukishima, disposal of nuclear waste, etc.

None of these will stop countries from constructing more plants, as a global capitalist economy requires continuous economic growth for a growing population and a growing middle class:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22956470

There's just one more catch, though, which I will mention in my next post.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 28 Mar 2016, 21:46:24

Tanada wrote:The BN-1200 design is one of my great hopes for the future. Burn the waste down to where it has a 600 year or less half life, harvest energy in the process. Its a win-win situation, unfortunately there are many who refuse to accept a rosier picture of the possible future.


And here's the catch:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Ulenspiegel » Tue 29 Mar 2016, 08:34:51

Nuclear power dies because of simple economic reasons, to dispute this is funny. As long as new reactors produce a kWh with much higher costs than onshore wind (plus netintegration), NPPs are econommically dead as dead can be. The current projects are not even sufficient to replace retired reactors.

The Russian numbers are, when we take the history as bar, hot air, only a small percentage of the announced projects are realised.
Ulenspiegel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 02:15:29

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby C8 » Tue 29 Mar 2016, 08:37:24

ralfy wrote:
Tanada wrote:The BN-1200 design is one of my great hopes for the future. Burn the waste down to where it has a 600 year or less half life, harvest energy in the process. Its a win-win situation, unfortunately there are many who refuse to accept a rosier picture of the possible future.


And here's the catch:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse


1. Newer technologies are producing much less nuclear waste (stop using 50 year old reactor designs as representing what new reactors do)

2. Even if I accept your nuclear waste argument, it is such a trivial risk that I can only conclude that you are more ant-nuclear than anti- global warming- which is to say you really don't give a shit about global warming then. If a father quibbles about a ladder bonking somebody on the head and doesn't use it to save his kids from a burning house, then it is safe to assume he really doesn't care much for his kids.

It is safe to assume that you really don't give a crap about GW- so drop the pretense. Everybody can see where your priorities are.
User avatar
C8
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 08:02:48

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby C8 » Tue 29 Mar 2016, 08:43:31

Ulenspiegel wrote:Nuclear power dies because of simple economic reasons, to dispute this is funny. As long as new reactors produce a kWh with much higher costs than onshore wind (plus netintegration), NPPs are econommically dead as dead can be. The current projects are not even sufficient to replace retired reactors.

The Russian numbers are, when we take the history as bar, hot air, only a small percentage of the announced projects are realised.


Actually no- costs have mainly to do with the legal system and tons of lawsuits by greens. YOU are making nuclear expensive (and moving us faster to global warming disaster- but its all good- right!)
User avatar
C8
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 08:02:48

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 29 Mar 2016, 18:19:52

C8 wrote:
1. Newer technologies are producing much less nuclear waste (stop using 50 year old reactor
designs as representing what new reactors do)

2. Even if I accept your nuclear waste argument, it is such a trivial risk that I can only conclude that you are more ant-nuclear than anti- global warming- which is to say you really don't give a shit about global warming then. If a father quibbles about a ladder bonking somebody on the head and doesn't use it to save his kids from a burning house, then it is safe to assume he really doesn't care much for his kids.

It is safe to assume that you really don't give a crap about GW- so drop the pretense. Everybody can see where your priorities are.


Stop referring to "new technologies" to represent what is currently in place.

Your second point even makes less sense, unless you are arguing that the purpose of using nuclear power is simply to produce electricity. Obviously, that electricity has to be used, and those who invest in such power expect high, continued returns and growing use. Figure out how that will affect global warming, or how electricity can be used to produce more oil, coal, iron ore, and other material resources to build the infrastructure and consumer goods that will distribute and make use of electricity generated by nuclear power.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 29 Mar 2016, 18:25:05

C8 wrote:
Actually no- costs have mainly to do with the legal system and tons of lawsuits by greens. YOU are making nuclear expensive (and moving us faster to global warming disaster- but its all good- right!)


Given what just took place in Japan, obviously not.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 29 Mar 2016, 18:35:48

C8 wrote:
Ulenspiegel wrote:Nuclear power dies because of simple economic reasons, to dispute this is funny. As long as new reactors produce a kWh with much higher costs than onshore wind (plus netintegration), NPPs are econommically dead as dead can be. The current projects are not even sufficient to replace retired reactors.
Actually no- costs have mainly to do with the legal system and tons of lawsuits by greens. YOU are making nuclear expensive (and moving us faster to global warming disaster- but its all good- right!)
Ulenspiegel is right - economics are playing their part in the dearth of new nuclear generators and the retirement of old ones. In the US cheap natural gas is hurting the case for nuclear. It's just not worth it to invest the money to keep these old plants running or build new ones with gas this cheap. They are making changes to allow for the increase of renewables and the intermittency they bring as well. The natural gas glut won't last forever and prices will come back up eventually. But for now and the foreseeable future cheap gas is the biggest enemy of US nuclear, not the evil green zealots.

Since the end of 2012, the U.S. has lost an astonishing eight nuclear reactors to premature retirements.

Death Knell?
What’s remarkable about this trend is how it’s come about not from government pressure or mandates as in Germany or Japan—where nuclear is also in retreat—but from pure market pressures. In mid-2013, I wrote a post asking, “Is Cheap Gas Killing Nuclear Power?” Two years later, I’m prepared to answer that question in the affirmative. In the case of Pilgrim, FitzPatrick, and Vermont Yankee, Entergy specifically named wholesale power prices driven to record low levels by cheap shale gas as one factor in its decisions (Figure 1). Entergy is planning to exit the merchant nuclear business altogether—because it’s clearly become a big money-loser. If you look at the list of retired and most at-risk plants, one common element jumps out immediately. Most of them exist in deregulated markets where power prices are largely set by the price of natural gas.

Killing Nuclear
The problem for nuclear is that momentum in the electricity markets over the past couple of decades has been toward flexibility and competition and away from monopolies and subsidies. At the state level, attempts by Exelon and others to secure changes in the law to provide greater support for nuclear have been given the cold shoulder.

Cheap gas is not going away. Greater state-level regulatory support seems highly unlikely. The impending loss of nuclear generation presents a problem for a variety of reasons. Loss of generation diversity is never a good thing, and the loss of low-carbon electricity will complicate efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. But the solution remains elusive.
Cheap Gas Is Killing Nuclear Power, and the Outlook is Grim

Nuclear Power Is Waning
Energy prices in the wholesale electricity markets may be too competitive for some nuclear resources because of the shale gas boom— particularly those facing rising operating and capital costs related to age and Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. And the building of new nuclear resources in the region is unlikely.

The Evolution of a Greener Grid
42% of the proposed projects for development in the region are wind-powered. To balance the variable output from wind and solar resources, the power system must hold more fast-start capacity in reserve. The types of units that can come on line quickly are typically natural gas generators and large-scale pumped storage.

Preparing the System for More Renewables
Integrating a signifi cant percentage of variable resources requires wide-ranging changes across the transmission system, grid operations, markets, and system planning.

The ISO is working to develop more sophisticated forecasting and dispatch tools to help system operators manage resources with swings in output. The ISO is already publishing daily, week-long wind power forecasts that provide greater situational awareness and allow for more efficient use of wind resources.

Market enhancements have been made—such as increasing the operational reserve requirements and enhancing performance incentives—to better attract and retain a flexible fleet that can balance renewable resources, and to incentivize fleet performance to ensure responsiveness to rapid changes in system conditions.

Green Energy’s Effect on Prices
Significant additions of wind and solar resources in New England could have complex effects on prices. With no fuel costs and falling project-development costs, these weather-dependent resources tend to drive down wholesale energy market prices.

Grid Modernization Supporting Greener Energy
State efforts to modernize the grid open up new approaches to demand resources (including energy efficiency, demand response, and distributed generation) and for coordinating planning, operations, and pricing between the wholesale and retail sectors. Such efforts and their benefits include:
Improving distribution system reliability by helping electric utilities immediately pinpoint problems requiring service and by enabling “self-healing” (automatic re-routing of service around system faults)
Promoting state-funded microgrid pilot programs to help communities maintain critical services during major storms. Microgrids are mini power systems that can disconnect from the regional grid to run on their own, if necessary.
Integrating behind-the-meter resources to allow more efficient use of control systems (for heating, cooling, lighting, and ventilation), of energy from distributed generation (such as on-site wind and solar resources), and of energy storage (including electric vehicles)
Reducing customer energy costs and stress on the grid with service rates that vary by time of day like wholesale electricity prices do. The initiative adopted in Massachusetts in late 2014 is one example. These dynamic retail pricing efforts incentivize consumers to switch to a less expensive source of energy or to conserve energy when power system prices are higher.
New England 2015 Regional Electricity Outlook
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3841
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Tue 29 Mar 2016, 21:46:21

Death of nuclear power in the west. Thanks to short-lived cheap gas and BS regulations designed to pacify hysterical rabble worked over by Hollywood fiction. Who cares. The NATO west is 11% of the world. So don't talk as if you are the whole world.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4869
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests