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 dohboi » Tue 02 Aug 2016, 20:42:18

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/ ... ut-package

New York's Woeful $7.6 Billion Nuclear Bailout Package

Without these subsidies, nuclear plants cannot compete with renewable energy and will close.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16469
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 03 Aug 2016, 01:27:01

When you look at the long term expenses for nuclear energy, the highest cost has been litigation expenses related to permitting, licensing, and license renewals. The primary cause of this is fear mongering ignorant anti-nuclear fools.

Nuclear energy remains the safest power generation we have. Fukushima hasn't killed anybody with radiation. Two workers received burns on the feet when they walked through contaminated water, and missed a few days work.

Even if the Fukushima ice dam fails, the Japanese people will be exposed to less radiation than the A-bomb fallout from Nagasaki and Hiroshima and all the H-bomb tests in the Pacific.

The most up-to-date numbers I could find are from 2015, deaths by Pwh (peta watt hour) of electricity generated:
Image

Nuclear number includes Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island accidents, plus uranium mining, plus disposal of spent fuel, and extrapolates deaths from the (demonstrated to be false) Linear No Threshold model of radiation exposure.

Original chart and post archived here: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3ug7ju/deaths_per_pwh_electricity_produced_by_energy/

It just doesn't mean a damned thing when the fearful public is getting input from dozens of classic anti-nuclear "B" movies from the 1950's through the 2010's (including the latest Marvel Comic "mutants", Godzilla, etc.).

The numbers do not lie. Now the question is, how many of you can overcome your Hollywood-induced hysteria?
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3974
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Thu 04 Aug 2016, 19:55:33

KaiserJeep wrote:The numbers do not lie. Now the question is, how many of you can overcome your Hollywood-induced hysteria?
Existing nuclear power plants that over came Hollywood-induced hysteria and got built are being slain by an even more potent enemy: economics.

Since the end of 2012, the U.S. has lost an astonishing eight nuclear reactors to premature retirements. Several other reactors are on life support. Industry observers see anywhere from five to 10 other plants as being at risk of premature retirement.

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. As my colleague Kennedy Maize has noted, observers now strongly suspect that Entergy is planning to exit the merchant nuclear business altogether—because it’s clearly become a big money-loser.

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.

Cheap gas is not going away. Greater state-level regulatory support seems highly unlikely. Even if the CPP survives in its current form, it won’t substantially change the economics of merchant nuclear.
Cheap Gas Is Killing Nuclear Power, and the Outlook is Grim

Two more nuclear plants in Illinois, run by Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear utility, are slated for closure due to the combined effects of record low natural gas prices and a sputtering US economy. Exelon Corp. has announced that it will close its Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear reactors in Illinois after losing $800 million over the past seven years.

Four other reactors elsewhere in the U.S. have also closed or are slated for closure due to their inability to compete with low natural gas prices in the generation of electricity. The price of the fuel has dropped from over $7/Mbtu in 2008 to between $2-$ in 2016. The so-called “nuclear renaissance” that occurred in 2007-2010 was throttled by this development.

Economics Play a Key Role
There is another side to the closure of the high cost reactors. The U.S. economy is still in the dumps. Demand for electricity, which would boost prices in unregulated markets, is stagnant. There is so much excess capacity that the PJM Interconnection LLC, which manages the Midwest’s electricity grid, as well as portions of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. told the Bloomberg wire service on 6/2 that even if Exelon goes ahead with its plan to close the two reactors in Illinois, there will be more than enough generation capacity to keep the lights on. Electricity demand follows the growth or decline of the nation’s economy overall. In the seven years since the onset of the great recession, US economic growth per year has averaged around 2%. That’s hardly enough to produce the kind of competition for electricity in unregulated markets to keep reactors competitive with other fuels. The decline in the size of the labor force has a direct effect on demand for electricity. Fewer people working means fewer lights on and machines running in all kinds of industries.
Low price of gas, stagnant economy, are killing off US nukes
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 04 Aug 2016, 22:15:07

Which, when you think about it, is an environmental disaster. Nukes emit only about 15% of the carbon dioxide of coal power plants, and only about 32% of the carbon dioxide of natural gas power plants.

NO, they don't emit any carbon when operating. The nuclear carbon emissions all occur because oil-derived fuels are used to mine uranium and to transport spent fuel in casks. Then electricity from 33% FF sources is used in the uranium hexafluoride gas centrifuges used to enrich the fuel.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3974
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 04 Aug 2016, 23:30:02

"Cheap" gas from Money Printing Shale drilling.

Show me a small island successfully operating with only solar and wind.

The Nuclear proponents have nothing better to offer than that co2 crap.
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby sjn » Tue 09 Aug 2016, 12:11:40

sparky, you're no doubt right, but I think they're underestimating the effect this will have on UK energy security. We're unable to produce sufficient of our own NG anymore, let alone coal or sufficient biomass to run those pseudo-green wood-pellet plants. I think they're gambling on fracking, I believe they will be disappointed, and we will be cold and in the dark... well definitely the latter!
User avatar
sjn
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 09 Aug 2016, 12:49:12

A good bit more riding on the decision:

China has issued its sternest warning yet to the UK that bilateral ties stand at a “crucial historical juncture” over London’s deferral of an £18bn nuclear power project. Liu Xiaoming, China’s ambassador to the UK, drew a clear link between Beijing’s desire to see an early go-ahead for the controversial Hinkley Point power project and the future of the UK-China relationship. “Right now, the China-UK relationship is at a crucial historical juncture . . . I hope the UK will keep its door open to China,” Mr Liu wrote in the Financial Times.

He hoped the British government would “continue to support Hinkley Point — and come to a decision as soon as possible so that the project can proceed smoothly.” The UK’s move last month to review the landmark deal, under which a Chinese consortium is due to part-finance the power station to be built by France’s EDF, threw into doubt a “golden era” of ties proclaimed during a visit to the UK by Xi Jinping, China’s president, last year.

Any cancellation of the Hinkley deal would be likely to jeopardise other planned Chinese investments in the UK, according to Chinese officials, who declined to be identified. Nearly £40bn in investment deals and contracts were secured for the UK during Mr Xi’s visit. Noting that over the past five years, Chinese companies have invested more in the UK than in Germany, France and Italy combined, Mr Liu said that trust and respect needed to be “treasured even more” as the UK decides on the Hinkley plan. " If Britain’s openness is a condition for bilateral co-operation, then mutual trust is the very foundation on which this is built,” Mr Liu said.

The deferral of the Hinkley Point project by Theresa May’s new government marked a shift in attitudes toward China. Chinese officials had regarded her predecessor, David Cameron, and his chancellor, George Osborne, as a “dream team” leadership that elevated relations to unprecedented heights.
Mrs May’s joint chief of staff, Nick Timothy, has previously voiced security, human rights and trade concerns about China, and said state-owned companies involved at Hinkley and other planned nuclear plants could “build weaknesses into computer systems which will allow them to shut down Britain’s energy production at will”.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10444
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Tue 09 Aug 2016, 13:24:05

The British government may be deferring a decision on the Hinkley nuclear power project but they at least have a proposal prepared. I really have to wonder what's going to happen here in Ontario. We get 60% of our power from our nuclear reactors but there is no plan whatsoever to replace them. The six oldest reactors still in service at Pickering are scheduled to be taken out of service between 2022 and 2024 and that assumes they receive a license extension. All of Ontario's reactors were originally Canadian designed and built but the capability to do that has been thrown away. Construction of new reactors would require contracting with Chinese, French or US companies or some combination thereof.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby sparky » Tue 09 Aug 2016, 18:37:34

.
That's the whole issue ,
decarbonation is possible only with a nuclear base load
..but the Greenish consider nuclear to be evil on principle
when faced with this conundrum , they close the debate and spout techno-absurdity or don't even answers
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 10 Aug 2016, 00:04:19

Sparky - And that's back to the point I've made before about the "all or nothing" attitudes on all sides of the energy issue. Such as no frac'ng anywhere to frac anywhere you want however you want; no nukes or a lot of nukes with no good plan for waste disposal; everything renewable or forget all the too expensive renewables; ban all offshore drilling or no offshore restrictions; ban all coal consumption or eliminate clean air regs; etc, etc.

There will never be a perfect one size fits all solution to our energy predicament. That altitude is particularly counterproductive for the greenies since in the end the consumers will vote in favor of their pocket books. And we'll get little help from the political parties as they try to utilize every wedge issue they can in order to foster the "us against them" dynamic.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10444
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby sparky » Wed 10 Aug 2016, 02:14:28

.
Well , I concur ,
politician edge their bet talking of "an optimal mix " to try to wriggle out of their blinkered electoral base certainties
most people do not grasp that , should there be no oil available,
countries would synthetise distillates, at high cost, as it is the optimum energy medium for heavy transport machinery
including planes , farm tractors and emergency electrical generators
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby Synapsid » Wed 10 Aug 2016, 17:50:43

yellowcanoe,

Chinese, French and US companies (Toshiba owns Westinghouse) aren't the whole story. Russia builds reactors, and (off the top of my head) I believe South Korea does too. There may be others.

A rich array of choices...sort of. It would have been nice if Canada had retained her own capability, though.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 10 Aug 2016, 22:03:11

China has issued its sternest warning yet to the UK


“build weaknesses into computer systems which will allow them to shut down Britain’s energy production at will”.


Trojan Horse. There is no economic case for being a vendor of nuclear reactors. They all have to be trojan horses otherwise whats the point? They are not an electricity generating device. They are an annexation device.

Why aren't those dipshit programmers in the City of London building their own reactors to power their funny money games?

Answer: "The Smartest Guys in the Room" can't do it.
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 10 Aug 2016, 22:26:06

ROCKMAN wrote:Sparky - And that's back to the point I've made before about the "all or nothing" attitudes on all sides of the energy issue. Such as no frac'ng anywhere to frac anywhere you want however you want; no nukes or a lot of nukes with no good plan for waste disposal; everything renewable or forget all the too expensive renewables; ban all offshore drilling or no offshore restrictions; ban all coal consumption or eliminate clean air regs; etc, etc.

There will never be a perfect one size fits all solution to our energy predicament. That altitude is particularly counterproductive for the greenies since in the end the consumers will vote in favor of their pocket books. And we'll get little help from the political parties as they try to utilize every wedge issue they can in order to foster the "us against them" dynamic.


Good lordy, what a display of stunning naivete.

The problem is: I N S O L V E N C Y

not climate change, nuclear disposal, epa regulations, politics, etc. Idiotic trade policies of the past 40 years have created imbalances that have led to financial ruin. The politicos are running around looking for an energy system that costs nothing because the "consumers" (where the hell did that word come from) are bankrupt.
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 10 Aug 2016, 22:38:12

sjn wrote:sparky, you're no doubt right, but I think they're underestimating the effect this will have on UK energy security. We're unable to produce sufficient of our own NG anymore, let alone coal or sufficient biomass to run those pseudo-green wood-pellet plants. I think they're gambling on fracking, I believe they will be disappointed, and we will be cold and in the dark... well definitely the latter!


In other words, those "geniuses" called university professors and finanshual parasites have left you with:

ZERO ECONOMY

as in the USA, etc. Can't afford a pair of shoe laces never mind import ng.

And the only solution is to somehow turn shitty rocks into the Ghawar oilfield through the magic of [insert miracle technology here].
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 10 Aug 2016, 23:18:29

A rich array of choices...sort of


France: Broke
USA: Broke
Japan: Broke

The rest you don't want to do "business" with.

"sort of" = ZERO choices.
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby sparky » Thu 11 Aug 2016, 00:00:02

.
The British government doesn't put up on dime on it
the British consumers will foot the bill , eventually

China is advancing one third of the money up front , the other two third are financed by EDF
much to the chagrin of its trade unions and some of its managers
EDF and the building master Areva are French government guaranteed
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 11 Aug 2016, 00:52:02

sparky wrote:.
The British government doesn't put up on dime on it
the British consumers will foot the bill , eventually

China is advancing one third of the money up front , the other two third are financed by EDF
much to the chagrin of its trade unions and some of its managers
EDF and the building master Areva are French government guaranteed


The British government doesn't put up on dime on it


Because they don't have a dime.

the British consumers will foot the bill , eventually


eventually as in never.

the other two third are financed by EDF

EDF and the building master Areva are French government guaranteed


Since EDF is going belly up, so is the French government I guess.

The apathy is appalling. The smell of insolvency is everywhere and yet people just bluster on about the right energy policy.
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 11 Aug 2016, 01:24:48

I really have to wonder what's going to happen here in Ontario. We get 60% of our power from our nuclear reactors but there is no plan whatsoever to replace them.


There is no point in doing so because the candu's aren't cheap electricity generators either. I don't know why the hell people are now wasting their efforts on "advanced" msr's. The number of nuclear engineers I have come across that are even familiar with eroei is exactly zero. None of the people in the universities are serious about making nuclear a commercial success, they just think money grows on trees.

The last 40 years have been a mass hallucination of medicine and law.
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby sparky » Thu 11 Aug 2016, 09:31:01

.
@ starving lion
lets make this clear , do you believe there is a power base line option for nuclear power plant ?
this is a yes or no with arguments for or against
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests