Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby theluckycountry » Sat 07 Aug 2021, 21:18:29

Tanada wrote:
Yup, the last innovative western design is the EPR a GEN III+ design first offered for construction in 1994 and having gone through several design "improvements"


I haven't been looking into this Tanada, but are the companies today generating power via nuclear making a profit in the clear or are they state supported as I believe many US reactors were?

Also have a look at this if you care. It describes how big oil is fully behind the push for renewables, knowing that to build them will require ongoing use of fossil fuels. A no-brainer really.


https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/04/11 ... f-its-ele/

Over the last three years, the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total invested a whopping one billion dollars into advertising and lobbying for renewables and other climate-related ventures.

Their ad blitz has targeted the global elite in airports and on Twitter. “Natural gas is the perfect partner for renewables,” say airport ads run by Norwegian oil and gas giant Statoil.
Oil & gas companies promote renewables because they know solar & wind lock-in their product.
theluckycountry
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sun 08 Aug 2021, 15:41:13

theluckycountry wrote:
dissident wrote:
People who claim that they are number one in everything clearly have issues. They are insecure in their supremacy. And judging by the US school system that is indeed something to be insecure about.


Another clown who thinks he's on facebook or twitter. Why do people like you always have to infest decent forums and become post whores? Now where's that foe button...

Reloads page... Ahhh, all peaceful again.


Another butthurt drone from the land of self-declared exceptionalism and monopoly on human intelligence.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6420
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sun 08 Aug 2021, 17:06:57

theluckycountry wrote:
Tanada wrote:
Yup, the last innovative western design is the EPR a GEN III+ design first offered for construction in 1994 and having gone through several design "improvements"


I haven't been looking into this Tanada, but are the companies today generating power via nuclear making a profit in the clear or are they state supported as I believe many US reactors were?



I don't know who shovelled you that propaganda but in the USA reactors from the end of the 1950's have been privately financed excepting those built by the TVA as part of the government Tennessee electrification project.
Of those reactors built by private industry with loaned money the financing is generally paid off within eight years of first power generation. After that period the power generated is massively profitable compared to fuel costs for fossil plants. The energy density compared to "renewable" sources is so large as to be several orders of magnitude better in terms of climate impact. Even better the power is 24/7 not cyclical and intermittently available.

https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY

https://youtu.be/c1QmB5bW_WQ
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4668
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 08 Aug 2021, 18:07:51

Funny that. They closed Vermont Yankee for economic reasons so it had become unprofitable. One factor was needed repairs or replacements of the cooling towers and an expansion of the spent fuel rod pool. Power coming from natural gas fired turbines and hydro power from Quebec replaced that power.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12409
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sun 08 Aug 2021, 18:16:44

vtsnowedin wrote:Funny that. They closed Vermont Yankee for economic reasons so it had become unprofitable. One factor was needed repairs or replacements of the cooling towers and an expansion of the spent fuel rod pool. Power coming from natural gas fired turbines and hydro power from Quebec replaced that power.


Ah, but the secret ingredient in this story is by closing Vermont Yankee the owners gained instant access to billions f dollars in decomishioning funds. Every KiloWatt of power a nuclear plant generates has a small decomishioning surcharge that they can not touch until they tell Uncle Sam they are closing the plant permanently. There gave been several recent cases of perfectly safe plants like Diablo Canyon and Vermont Yankee being scrapped because the company gets instant good news in their financial rports.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4668
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 08 Aug 2021, 21:16:13

True but they do have to decommission the plant. Last I knew they had all the spent fuel rods out of the pool and in on site dry casks. There is no approved place to dispose of them so they will probably sit there for decades. So having access to the money does not mean you can divert it to other uses.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12409
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 09 Aug 2021, 09:46:21

vtsnowedin wrote:True but they do have to decommission the plant. Last I knew they had all the spent fuel rods out of the pool and in on site dry casks. There is no approved place to dispose of them so they will probably sit there for decades. So having access to the money does not mean you can divert it to other uses.


Sure, but now that the funds are "activated" they get listed differently on the company balance sheet making certain other transactions much easier.

The simple fact that they have already moved all the fuel out of the pool into cask storage is what I consider very strong evidence that they had no actual need to expand the cooling pool. Instead they could have simply shifted the oldest spent fuel to cask storage and opened up pool capacity as they needed it for additional fuel cycles at a far lower cost. Claiming they had to spend large sums expanding the pool was just one more justification they could present to poorly informed decision makers to justify decomissioning.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4668
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 09 Aug 2021, 10:49:39

VT Yankee has been closed sense 2014 so it has taken seven years to get approval of the dry cask storage system and install them. The rest of the decommissioning work is ongoing and not expected until 2030 and the contents of the casks will not be picked up before 2052. The NRC does not make decisions about profitability but sticks to safety concerns.
Now perhaps some portion of the set aside funds could be used for collateral or other accounting purposes but as most of it will have to be spent as planned I expect all they get advantage from is the ongoing interest on the unspent deposits.
Understand that the plant was competing with Hydro Quebec which is now wholesaling 225MW to Vermont for six cents a KWH.
I am reasonably sure they closed the plant because it provided more income to their share holders then doing the cooling tower replacements and other things needed to keep thirty year old plumbing operating safely.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12409
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 16 Oct 2021, 13:49:27

China launches first commercial onshore small reactor project

China has started construction of the first commercial onshore nuclear project using its homegrown "Linglong One" small modular reactor (SMR) design, the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) said on Tuesday, about four years later than planned.

CNNC originally aimed to start building the project at the Changjiang nuclear reactor complex on the island province of Hainan in 2017, but it has been subject to regulatory delays.

The "Linglong One", also known as the ACP100, was the first SMR to be approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2016. Each unit has power generating capacity of 125 megawatts (MW).

It was designed to complement the state-run CNNC's larger third-generation 1,170-MW "Hualong One" reactors, which China is planning to roll out rapidly at home and promote overseas.

SMRs are cheaper and quicker to build than traditional reactors, and can also be deployed in remote regions and on ships and aircraft. Their "modular" format means they can be shipped by container from the factory and installed relatively quickly on any proposed site.

China has been looking into using small reactors to provide urban heating in the north and run desalination facilities along the coast. It is also using them to support construction activities in disputed parts of the South China Sea.


LINKY
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16407
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 16 Oct 2021, 13:53:03

Russia's integrated nuclear power player ‘Rosatom’ will make uranium-plutonium REMIX fuel matrix for India's VVER-1000 reactors

Chennai: Russia's integrated nuclear power player ‘Rosatom’ will make uranium-plutonium REMIX fuel matrix for India's VVER-1000 reactors, the company said.

According to Rosatom, the remix fuel will be made at the site of the Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC) -- part of TVEL Fuel Company, a group company.

The shop floor of SCC will be modernised and the Investment Committee of Rosatom has accorded the sanction.

India has two functional VVER-1000 reactors and two more under construction at Kudankulam in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.

Two more VVER-1000 units -- 5 and 6 -- will also come up at Kudankulam.

According to Rosatom, modernisation of the shop-floor will result in the launch of a new production line for assembling VVER-1000 fuel rods and fuel bundles of TVS-2M model, including the installations, ensuring multilevel quality control.

The uranium-plutonium fuel pellet project is expected to be accomplished in 2023.

Rosatom said the REMIX (regenerated mixture) fuel is a Russian innovative product for thermal light-water reactors which make up the backbone of the modern nuclear power industry.

Its fuel matrix is made from a mixture of reprocessed uranium and plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel, with addition of small volumes of enriched uranium.

This is distinct from uranium-plutonium fuels for fast reactors such as mixed nitride uranium-plutonium or MNUP and mixed oxide fuel or MOX fuel.

The Russian nuclear major said the REMIX fuel has low plutonium content up to 1.5%. Its neutron spectrum does not vary from common light water reactor (LWR) fuel with enriched uranium. Therefore, fuel assemblies behaviour in the reactor core and the amount of plutonium bred from uranium due to irradiation are generally similar.

For nuclear power plant (NPP) operators, this means that in perspective, REMIX fuel may be introduced without any changes in reactor design or additional safety measures.

"Introduction of such fuel would boost exponentially the feedstock for nuclear power plants due to closing of the nuclear fuel cycle, and to recycle spent nuclear fuel instead of its storage," Rosatom said.

Since 2016, three TVS-2M fuel assemblies, each containing six experimental REMIX fuel rods (among 312 rods in one fuel bundle), have been undergoing pilot operation programme at unit No. 3 of Balakovo NPP in Russia.

In 2020, the third 18-month cycle of their irradiation started.

According to Rosatom, the fuel bundles with the experimental REMIX fuel rods have successfully completed two micro-campaigns and continue the full irradiation cycle.

"The next step should be loading of full-fledged REMIX fuel assemblies in a reactor. For this purpose, it is planned to launch fabrication of such fuel at the Siberian Chemical Combine. The capacity of this production line will be sufficient to manufacture experimental REMIX fuel bundles for pilot operations in required numbers," Rosatom added.

This is the first stage necessary for testing the technology, afterwards, it will be possible to consider creation of industrial batch production facility of REMIX fuel in Rosatom.

According to Alexander Ugryumov, Vice President, Research and Development, TVEL Fuel, the prospects of this depend on the results of the pilot operations of the REMIX fuel that has been produced.

(IANS)


LINKY
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16407
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby theluckycountry » Sat 16 Oct 2021, 15:29:34

Subjectivist wrote:
theluckycountry wrote:

...are the companies today generating power via nuclear making a profit in the clear or are they state supported as I believe many US reactors were?



I don't know who shovelled you that propaganda but in the USA reactors from the end of the 1950's have been privately financed excepting...


Well I don't know who has been shoveling that Spin down your throat, but they are indeed subsidized, from the fuel they use to the taxes they don't pay. Oh and what were those youtubes? A couple of obscure professors rabbiting on. I deal in facts, not the ramblings of institutionalized dreamers promoting their pet schemes.

Since the nation began using nuclear energy, the federal government has provided billions in subsidies to the industry. More than $85 billion has been spent on the nuclear industry since 1948 (see Table 1). With such extensive support, one would hope that the industry would be financially strong enough to support its business costs. But despite the decades of generous support, nuclear power continues to be riddled with cost and risk concerns that keep private financial backers away and the industry relying more and more on federal taxpayers. https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural ... subsidies/

Five states have implemented programs to assist nuclear power plants
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41534

The federal government's major support to the commercial nuclear industry has been in the following areas: (1) nuclear research, development, and demonstration; (2) nuclear regulation to protect the public's health and safety; https://www.gao.gov/products/emd-79-52
theluckycountry
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 21 Oct 2021, 22:31:14

theluckycountry wrote:Well I don't know who has been shoveling that Spin down your throat, but they are indeed subsidized, from the fuel they use to the taxes they don't pay. Oh and what were those youtubes? A couple of obscure professors rabbiting on. I deal in facts, not the ramblings of institutionalized dreamers promoting their pet schemes.

Since the nation began using nuclear energy, the federal government has provided billions in subsidies to the industry. More than $85 billion has been spent on the nuclear industry since 1948 (see Table 1). With such extensive support, one would hope that the industry would be financially strong enough to support its business costs. But despite the decades of generous support, nuclear power continues to be riddled with cost and risk concerns that keep private financial backers away and the industry relying more and more on federal taxpayers. https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural ... subsidies/

Five states have implemented programs to assist nuclear power plants
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41534

The federal government's major support to the commercial nuclear industry has been in the following areas: (1) nuclear research, development, and demonstration; (2) nuclear regulation to protect the public's health and safety; https://www.gao.gov/products/emd-79-52


So I looked into the back ground information on the people at "taxpayer" advocacy group. Despoite repeated claims of being bipartisan blah blah blah several of their senior members have extensive linkage to different Democratic presidents and their positions on several topics ranging from nuclear technology, military defense, voting rights, and minority issues are all left to well left of center in American politics. Gosh it sure was a shock to discover an anti-nuclear report came from such an unfair and unbalanced advocacy group now wasn't it?

For whatever reason the left side of American politics has been opposed to nuclear technology in all its forms including energy production for the last several decades. No level of factual verification is ever sufficient proof of safety or financial viability, they always want things a little bit safer and then argue that safety costs make Nuclear nonviable as a power supply.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16407
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 22 Oct 2021, 07:50:10

Germany is probing to be a testing ground for nuclear free green energy.

IIRC the test isnt going so well.

I have completely canged my mind in nuclear. Not that it does not have problems, it has fewer problems. Or so it seems.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 16512
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 22 Oct 2021, 13:49:16

Newfie wrote:Germany is probing to be a testing ground for nuclear free green energy.

IIRC the test isn't going so well.

I have completely changed my mind in nuclear. Not that it does not have problems, it has fewer problems. Or so it seems.


No technology is now or can ever be the perfect solution to all our problems. The thing that frustrates me no end are the folks who decide first that they dislike a particular solution and then only cherry pick information that supports the position they have predetermined is correct.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16407
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sun 24 Oct 2021, 12:35:27

https://www.reuters.com/business/enviro ... 021-10-12/

Hysterical greeny weeny militants engage in rabid lying about nuclear energy once again. Without a shred of proof these criminal clowns run around claiming that France is exporting "waste" that is dumped in Siberia. These lunatics could care less that:

1) This is not waste. It is depleted Uranium:

https://rosatom.ru/en/press-centre/news ... m-reconve/

2) Russia beats even France in terms of spent fuel reprocessing. Idiot Carter killed this industry in the USA because he was a greeny weeny loon.

Even if France was exporting actual waste, Russia would be the country that could turn it into fuel for its fast neutron breeder reactor program. Russia has a long term interest in buying up such "waste" because its uranium ore reserves are small.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6420
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby JuanP » Sun 24 Oct 2021, 16:14:36

Newfie wrote:I have completely changed my mind in nuclear. Not that it does not have problems, it has fewer problems. Or so it seems.


I've changed my mind twice on this subject. When I was a minor I was all for it, then I was against it because of the waste problem, but now that I've learnt more about it, I am 100% in support of nuclear energy.

I wish it had never been needed, but in a warming world with 8,000 million people living in it, including more than 6,500 million consumers, I don't see any way out of our predicament without nuclear power.
"Only Americans can hurt America." Dwight D. Eisenhower
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 29 Oct 2021, 22:31:07

Michael Shellenberger wrote:Why The Pro-Nuclear Movement Is Winning

“Abandoning Nuclear Power Would Be Europe’s Biggest Climate Mistake,” screams Bloomberg today. “If Biden is serious about the climate crisis, he should put nuclear on the table,” opined a contributor to The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday. “The Dream Is Possible,” tweeted French President Emmanuel Macron, earlier this month.

Viewed as politically radioactive just a decade ago, after the Fukushima accident, nuclear power is today coming back in a big way. The pro-nuclear movement is growing like gangbusters in even hostile nations like Belgium, Germany, and Australia. The world’s largest economies including Japan, Britain, and France are returning to nuclear energy. And it is becoming increasingly clear to liberals and conservatives alike that only nuclear can achieve global prosperity and environmental sustainability.

Naturally, anti-nuclear activists are alarmed by all of this. This morning I received a menacing letter from an anti-nuclear university professor in Britain demanding that I tell him “why you maintain your own ostensibly ‘green’ advocacy of nuclear power, at a time when this case is more difficult to sustain.” Left-wing magazine Boston Review asked “Is Nuclear Power Our Best Bet Against Climate Change” that went out of its way to smear me as promoting “climate denial” for promoting our largest source of zero-emissions energy.

The main reason for the success of the pro-nuclear movement is the failure of renewables and the global energy crisis. The share of global energy from fossil fuels is unchanged since 1980 because solar and wind do not replace fossil fuel power plants, and, in fact, depend upon them. Only baseload hydro-electric and nuclear power plants can replace fossil fuels. And over-investment in unreliable renewables and underinvestment in nuclear, hydro-electricity, and natural gas, over the last decade, directly resulted in today’s energy shortages, skyrocketing electricity prices, and a return to coal around the world.

But there is another reason for the pro-nuclear movement’s success that may come as a surprise. For decades, nuclear energy supporters have promoted the idea that nuclear energy is a compliment to intermittent solar and wind energies. Pro-nuclear people have argued that we should emphasize the risk of climate apocalypse for why nations should build nuclear plants. And nuclear boosters have argued that, when educating policymakers, journalists, and the public about the technology, we should emphasize the deficiencies of existing nuclear plants, and promote next generation technologies.

As an outsider to the nuclear science and technical community, these arguments made increasingly little sense to me, as time passed. Natural gas and hydroelectric dams are compliments to intermittent solar and wind, because their output can be easily and efficiency turned up or down, whereas nuclear plants are most efficiently run at full-power. Climate change is real but climate alarmism is dishonest and alienates many people who support nuclear energy for other reasons. And futuristic nuclear plants are a long ways off, which means it’s misleading at best, and self-destructive at worst, to hype nuclear technologies that only exist on paper.

The most important thing is to tell the truth about nuclear, I argued to friends and colleagues, starting in 2016, and build an honest pro-nuclear movement worldwide around the truth. Anti-nuclear people have been lying about the technology for decades. For pro-nuclear people to have any credibility, we must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about nuclear power. And we must build our movement on the basis of the truth, and push back against those who exaggerate climate change, who suck up to the renewable energy industry like battered wives, and who sell fairy tales about magical nuclear reactors.

More than anything else, my colleagues at EP and I argued, we must humanize nuclear. How? By being like Marie Curie. She was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize and the first person, and only woman, to win two Nobel Prizes, one for physics, in 1903, and the other for chemistry. But more important than any of her many recognitions, Marie Curie was the first atomic humanist, someone who puts the power of the atom in service of the the world. When World War I broke out, she went to the French government with a plan: she would create and oversee 200 hundred mobile medical units — which would become known as “petites Curies” — to use x-rays to diagnose injuries and radium to sterilize infected tissue.

Not everybody agreed, and Environmental Progress and I paid a heavy price for telling the whole truth about nuclear. Many pro-nuclear people found that they were more welcomed by polite society, dominated as it is by Malthusian environmentalists and renewable energy advocates, by claiming to be pro-renewables and to favor only “advanced designs,” not “legacy nuclear plants.” Some ostensibly pro-nuclear people ridiculed us for organizing pro-nuclear demonstrations in places like Munich, Germany, where the vast majority of the public was against us. And others even went so far as to speak out against building new nuclear plants, with the idea that doing so would win over climate alarmists (spoiler alert: it didn’t).

It hasn’t been easy. In fact, it was often exhausting, which you can see in my eyes in various photos over the years. The renewable energy industry has financed misinformation efforts against us. We have been censored by Facebook. And we have lost some supporters. But through it all, EP kept up our work, directly supporting and championing the work of pro-nuclear advocates around the world, giving popular TED talks, and writing a best-selling book, Apocalypse Never, which has been translated into 15 languages

Now, our work is having impacts that we could never have imagined. Where five years ago there was just Environmental Progress building the pro-nuclear movement, today there are a dozen organizations around the world. EP has started a grants-making program to support them financially. One of our grants was to pro-nuclear activists in Germany, a nation that many pro-nuclear people felt we should abandon. Next month, they will hold yet another rally to protest plans by the German government to shut down three nuclear reactors in December, at a time of skyrocketing electricity prices and the growing risk of blackouts. Australia is seriously considering nuclear energy for the first time. And, as the Bloomberg article notes, we may be headed to yet another victory in Belgium, on top of the victories we have won in Illinois, South Korea, New York, and around the world.

As the world returns to nuclear, political leaders are telling the truth about the technology. Nuclear is a blessing, not a curse. We need it to address climate change, and protect the environment. But most of all we need nuclear to lift people out of poverty, and power our remarkable civilization, which is the point I will make in my next book, The War on Nuclear: Why It Hurts Us All, which I dedicate to pro-nuclear activists.

I was struck while watching the pro-nuclear video tweeted by French President Macron of old film footage of Marie Curie, which I hadn’t known existed. She was a beautiful person, inside and out. At various moments during her lifetime she was considered politically radioactive, and indeed sacrificed her health pursuing her dream. But a more truthful way to describe Curie, today’s pro-nuclear movement, and the truth upon which it rests, is radiant.


LINK
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16407
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 29 Oct 2021, 22:50:41

The other day I was asked what at first blush is a simple question,
The US once planned to build 2,000 nuclear power stations by the year 2000. What went wrong?


This is my answer.
First, the USA did not have a unified plan, there were just recommendations and projections from government agencies. The government Joint Committee for Atomic Energy in the Legislature in charge of all things nuclear was dissolved in 1976.

Regulatory powers were transferred to a new Executive division as part of the Energy Department. This put Nuclear energy in direct competition with all forms of Fossil and Renewable energy. Fossil energy forms require vast numbers of workers to find and exploit those forms of energy which in effect gives them a large built in population base to pressure Congress to make decision favorable to their forms of energy.

Nuclear on the other hand is an extremely dense energy source so once a plant is built it only requires a small total work force both in operation and in all the stages of providing the fuel for the plant to operate. This immediately put Nuclear Energy at a significant disadvantage. Fossil energy companies then began a continuing effort to heighten public fears about nuclear fission and to tacitly support renewable energy supplies as a “cleaner” alternative to either fossil or nuclear energy.

One of the first things the new Energy Department did under Presidential decision making was to stop all efforts to use recycling on Nuclear fuel to recover the Uranium and Plutonium for use in new fuel. By banning recycling fossil fuel companies were then able to pervert clean nuclear power into an energy source “without a waste solution” .

All spent nuclear fuel without recycling remains radioactive for billions of years because the natural uranium in the spent fuel has a half life of over 4 billion years. They then began a campaign from 1976 onward of emphasizing the Plutonium in spent fuel as a deadly poison that takes ten 27,000 year half life's "that it has to be stored" before it decays to U-235. They chose Plutonium because people identified it with the Nagasaki bombing on August 9, 1945 and the public already had a negative impression of the material. Many scare stories on what a deadly heavy metal poison Plutonium is were published as if substances like Arsenic and Lead were not toxic forever because they are stable isotopes.

The fact that 1/3rd or more of nuclear energy produced by a light water fission reactor comes from Plutonium was so de-emphasized that most people, even those interested in the technology, are not aware of its great benefit to society.

Hollywood as a community was already oriented to the belief that everything nuclear was potentially useful for making bombs that would wipe out the human species. There have been a number of nuclear scare films both about war (On The Beach, Panic In The Year Zero) and about nuclear power (The China Syndrome, Silkwood) that predisposed audiences with a poor science education to make the same false association and accept several myths as facts.

When the TMI accident took place in 1979 it was very expensive for the utility company but the containment system functioned as designed and no dangerous radioactive material was exposed to the general public. Instead of being emphasized as a triumph of the safety systems the accident was played up in scores of articles and reports as a near catastrophe that could have killed everyone in the state of Pennsylvania with radiation poisoning.

While this was all going on in the open a number of anti nuclear war and environmentalist groups started getting big donations any time they protested nuclear power. Naturally everyone likes more money so these groups started focusing more and more on protesting anything nuclear in North America. These protests and thousands of class action lawsuits filed on their behalf caused huge delays in construction and operation of any nuclear power station not already operating by 1977.

Utilities are in business to make money by selling energy to consumers and it was quickly observed that while existing plants were making an excellent income plants under construction that could be delayed endlessly by court injunctions due to lawsuits cost money. Almost every power station that was less than 50% complete or not yet under construction by 1978 was cancelled. Because of the relentless lawsuits and protests over time many partially or even mostly built units were also cancelled, often being replaced with a fossil fuel power station at the same location.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16407
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 30 Oct 2021, 09:03:23

Is there ANY nuclear support in the infrastructure or other pending legislation?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 16512
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 30 Oct 2021, 11:20:12

Newfie wrote:Is there ANY nuclear support in the infrastructure or other pending legislation?


This is from the "Fact Sheet" released about the new infrastructure legislation.
Power Infrastructure

As the recent Texas power outages demonstrated, our aging electric grid needs urgent modernization. A Department of Energy study found that power outages cost the U.S. economy up to $70 billion annually. The deal’s $73 billion investment is the single largest investment in clean energy transmission in American history. It upgrades our power infrastructure, including by building thousands of miles of new, resilient transmission lines to facilitate the expansion of renewable energy.

It creates a new Grid Deployment Authority, invests in research and development for advanced transmission and electricity distribution technologies, and promotes smart grid technologies that deliver flexibility and resilience.

It invests in demonstration projects and research hubs for next generation technologies like advanced nuclear reactors, carbon capture, and clean hydrogen.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16407
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests