I just received an unsolicited link campaigning for more nuclear power plants in the US, signed by the Secretary of Energy.
OK, build more!
Anybody else get this?
OK, build more!
Anybody else get this?
Build Nuclear Now!
- Thread starter The-Hack
- Start date
Some newer nuclear technology is becoming more cost effective like the molten salt technology which produce energy at about half the total cost of the older light-water reactors, and they don't have the spent fuel rod problem.
Still just a 500 MW unit which is comparatively small is $1.7 Billion. That's a very big investment for utilities. It boils down to where utilities want to invest their money for their future capacity needs or to replace ancient polluting coal-fired steam plants.
Still just a 500 MW unit which is comparatively small is $1.7 Billion. That's a very big investment for utilities. It boils down to where utilities want to invest their money for their future capacity needs or to replace ancient polluting coal-fired steam plants.
Or, we could keep burning fossil fuels to generate electricity for EVs.
If the government, the scientific community, and environmentalist concerns REALLY want clean and abundant energy. Then nuclear power plants are the only effective option at this point.
An aggressive shift away from coal powered generation of electricity in favor of modern nuclear generators is the only GENUINE action we can take that will make a measurable difference in our carbon emissions.
The fact that we are not doing this, in earnest, only confirms what I've long suspected; They don't really care about carbon emissions.
An aggressive shift away from coal powered generation of electricity in favor of modern nuclear generators is the only GENUINE action we can take that will make a measurable difference in our carbon emissions.
The fact that we are not doing this, in earnest, only confirms what I've long suspected; They don't really care about carbon emissions.
I agree that nuclear is the best reliable carbon free source for energy today. However, converting coal powered plants to natural gas reduces carbon emissions by roughly 50%. That is a measurable difference and is cost effective.
Meanwhile, China is building 200 or so new coal plants around the world. They are not serious about reducing emissions. Russia and India are doing next to nothing either. All are top 5 polluter nations.
Last edited:
I'm for any form of creating electricity, including nuclear, that doesn't involve burning stuff which is 19th century technology.
However ultimately generating electricity from free energy sources like sunlight, blowing air, and moving water will prove to be economically superior to any method that requires manufacturing the energy. That should just be intuitive.
These alt energy systems are still evolving.
However ultimately generating electricity from free energy sources like sunlight, blowing air, and moving water will prove to be economically superior to any method that requires manufacturing the energy. That should just be intuitive.
These alt energy systems are still evolving.
It can’t be said better than this.
Unfortunately many of these climate clowns believe that current renewables can supply our needs. They are getting ready to destroy this economy when they shut down coal with no way to replace that energy.
as long as Dr Manhattan doesn't get too cocksure I'm down with nuclear.
I don't like the current burial site for spent reactor waste. Vitrify the waste and bury it in salt deposits beneath the water table in Arizona. As the "rooms" carved for storage fill, seal them with salt and move on. There's a lot of stable craton in Arizona. The current Nevada site is geologically unstable.
Current non-fossil fuel technologies top out below requirements.
Current non-fossil fuel technologies top out below requirements.
The climate scam will continue forever
Disagree. There is no way that renewable sources are ever going to be as reliable as nuclear. At their best, panels are about 45% efficient. Yes, I agree that technology will improve but it could be many decades before it is anywhere as efficient as nuclear (or, for that matter, coal and natural gas-fired generators). There are always going to be periods when the sun doesn't shine enough and the wind doesn't blow enough. The number and efficiency of batteries capable of storing many hours of sufficient power to keep the lights, heat, industry, hospitals, etc. running is an astronomical number. There are also tornados, ice storms, heavy snow, very cold temperatures, etc. that severely hamper these sources from producing. The logistics of mining enough materials to support only renewables worldwide is mathematically not feasible (many mineral raw materials would need to increase their production > 3000% to meet the demand).
Anecdotally, a client of mine just installed solar panels on their home in 'sunny' CO (>250 sunny days/yr). During one of our recent meetings, he said his panels produced ZERO electricity for 3 days due to stubborn overcast skies. What would he have done if there were no other sources? Sri Lanka, Australia and Germany have, to varying extents, gone all in on renewables and all 3 are finding out that the amount of sunlight and wind is a variable over which we have no control.
I'm more of an 'all of the above' kind of guy with the emphasis being on nuclear and using renewables in certain areas to supplement a constant supply of energy generated by other means.
That's simply not true, while there all other costs associated with alt energy sources especially distance and grid issues (which will eventually be worked out) the cost of nuclear power from a light water reactor is $6695 per kW compared to $1337 per kw for photovoltaic solar (solar panels) and $1718 for wind. The newer yet not fully developed and approved nuc technology would be twice as efficient as the existing light water reactors but still much greater than alt sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
There will be times when nuc plants have unscheduled outages too just like coal and gas plants do. When you plan your load requirements you account for that. Historical meteorological data can determine what percent of time wind or solar function would be limited. Just like you have backup for conventional systems you have backup for alt sources as well. If you need X amount of peak power you don't plan for X you plan for X + 10-20%. We may well need some nuc or gas turbine in the mix to round up the load requirements but to nix alt energy on reliability is to miss the mark.
Battery technology is improving rapidly and costs are coming down.
There are issues with alt power no argument there which is why I used the word "ultimately". Right now alt energy provides about 20% of electrical power nation wide. I can foresee a time in the next 20 years when that could be upwards of 50-60% which would be a win for human and animal health, the environment, and at a lower overall price.
This is the problem with “climate change activism”. It really misses the mark on the problems the planet really faces. Climate change isn’t the problem. The problem is the waste from humans. We build all this toxic stuff without a thought where it’s gonna go. The carbon problem is a sliver of that but: plastic (who knows the longterm environmental impact there’s no where for it to go), human bio waste, toxicity of components for electronics especially these massive battery’s for cars, . The planet is over populated and out of space for all this waste. Yet humanity is concerned with a cool planet heating up. It’s pretty absurd to overlook all the real environmental issues to focus on one thing. I mean hell another, clean air and water. But no pound that desk climate change, climate change, climate change. Sounds so hip and virtuous. 
Bad timing. Apparently we just hit 1.5C of warming with an El Niño just beginning.This is the problem with “climate change activism”. It really misses the mark on the problems the planet really faces. Climate change isn’t the problem. The problem is the waste from humans. We build all this toxic stuff without a thought where it’s gonna go. The carbon problem is a sliver of that but: plastic (who knows the longterm environmental impact there’s no where for it to go), human bio waste, toxicity of components for electronics especially these massive battery’s for cars, . The planet is over populated and out of space for all this waste. Yet humanity is concerned with a cool planet heating up. It’s pretty absurd to overlook all the real environmental issues to focus on one thing. I mean hell another, clean air and water. But no pound that desk climate change, climate change, climate change. Sounds so hip and virtuous.
Whatever energy form(s) is developed, the grid system must have affordable, reliable, on demand electricity. One might also note that it is generally beneficial to have onsite, at demand fuel source(s) that aren’t subject to disruption of fuel supply.
I have no problem with renewables (solar, wind, … ) as a source to use to provide electricity to the grid, I believe we should continue to develop these sources, however they are currently not well equipped to provide base load power on demand … so we need to supplement with other fuel sources..
That said, coal, gas, nuclear, … are generally better as base load power sources. Coal and gas have built this nation, while nuclear has had an eventful past. However, the newer nuclear sources have a lot of upside that should be developed, and can provide that reliable, on demand, base load power.
I have no problem with renewables (solar, wind, … ) as a source to use to provide electricity to the grid, I believe we should continue to develop these sources, however they are currently not well equipped to provide base load power on demand … so we need to supplement with other fuel sources..
That said, coal, gas, nuclear, … are generally better as base load power sources. Coal and gas have built this nation, while nuclear has had an eventful past. However, the newer nuclear sources have a lot of upside that should be developed, and can provide that reliable, on demand, base load power.
If we continue on our current path of development of renewables and nuclear and natural gas, we will become the World’s Saudi Arabia X 2!!
My family has a Solar contract (option) on one farm, and next week will sign an easement for an 8 inch gas transmission line 4,200 feet across another farm to supply several communities that have never had such access.
Miami Herald is currently running a series of articles on the effects of extreme heat in South Florida (for example on construction and agriculture workers). In 1960, there were an average of 85 days of 90 degree weather or hotter. Today, the average is 133 days, by 2050, estimates will be 187 days. Something has to give. All of the above for alternate energy is my vote. But you have to first agree that global warming is a problem, which obviously many on this thread basically reject out of hand, presumably because Al Gore wrote a book 25 years ago. Thereafter, their arguments are aimed at disproving any notion that Al Gore may have been on to something.
As just one example, saw one proposal to encourage big box stores to put solar panels on the roof, like covering all of Fayette Mall with solar, surely could supply a lot of electricity for retail, and a lot of those stores close in the evening, when power has to be stored by batteries. It is hard . . . but not impossible.
As just one example, saw one proposal to encourage big box stores to put solar panels on the roof, like covering all of Fayette Mall with solar, surely could supply a lot of electricity for retail, and a lot of those stores close in the evening, when power has to be stored by batteries. It is hard . . . but not impossible.
The Miama Herald ? Did they run out of Trump material for a day and thought let’s get some attention to the global warming scam ? But I believe you about Gore, he did invent the internet and also knows the whereabouts of man bear pig after all
Meh. I can find climate change to be mildly concerning while also thinking that many vested interests have an incentive to catastrophize the issue in order to gather more power.
I'm far more worried about government interests using climate change as just the latest excuse to cramdown thinktank policies than I am about the actual effects of climate change. Like with COVID, I believe in individuals' abilities to intelligently respond to problems without the government getting involved.
I also believe the free market is fully capable of addressing the issue and, in fact, already is doing so. Also, whatever we do in America is largely window dressing. The overwhelming cause of man-made climate change comes from developing economies like China, India, parts of Africa, etc. The quicker those area reach economic maturity, the better off we all are. That will likely require governments in those areas to release control.
Free energy sources aren't necessarily economically superior plus there are/can be environmental costs such as wildlife destruction, sound pollution, visual pollution, land use issues, and disposal costs.
Well I'm not agreeing Miami warming, not the same as global warming, is a problem. More people GLOBALLY by far die of cold than heat.
And I'm fine with Miami flooding a lot. It's a known issue yet people keep moving there. Net, why is it a problem?
There was a climate post a week or so ago about a buildup of sea ice around Antarctica. I was tempted to ask the person what they imagined had caused that. Ice is, of course, just frozen water. What could cause it to increase? I didn't ask then and I regret that. So, I'll ask you. What could cause an increase in sea ice around Antarctica?
Check out the graph on your link. Notice the CF capacity factor. Also take into account who concocted those numbers.
In 20 years, if we are getting 60% of our electricity from renewables, we will spend winters cold and hungry and summers hot and hungry. They would be providing 60% of generated power, but only about 30% of needed power. At most.
Within Antarctic sea ice, there is variation from place to place around the continent. Sea ice extent has increased somewhat in the eastern Ross Sea sector, while it has decreased in the seas around the Antarctic Peninsula. In short, Antarctic sea ice shows a nearly flat trend, but large-scale variations make the trend very noisy.
We've been studying the sea ice in Antarctica with satellites since 1979. That's about 44 years of data for a planet that is about 4.5 billion years old. Ice there is at the maximum in Sept. (winter) and minimum in Feb. (summer) You tell us why it fluctuates.
The major reductions have been in Greenland and the North Pole.Wait I thought the polar ice caps were bare now ?
The South Pole has been pretty stable, balancing the two portions, one of which has gained as the other lost.
The first are few & far between & occupy little space vs. the second. All the power needs of of the 2M+ people around Cincy were met by three of those. How much space is required for same power amount with those?Which one would you want to live next to:
This?
or this?
