USA Say Bye-bye Nuclear, changing to Solar, Wind energy- Renewable Energy by 2025, 2030, that plans proceed! Dangerous, high cost, not environment energy is Nuclear! Indeed! Badman Nishioka/rainforest action group/HUTAN Group/
https://theconversation.com/as-us-shutters-aging-nuclear-plants-cutting-emissions-will-become-more-costly-50047
Mr. Bong! Thanks! Share! Badman
ReplyDeleteMs Holmes! Thanks! Badman
ReplyDeleteNishioka Yoshio you do realise that article says that now it will be harder to decrease GHG emissions because of this? Why are you so happy ?
ReplyDeleteMr. Wikus! Thanks! Badman
ReplyDeleteHahaha! Mike! Thanks! joint to think more ambitious actions! Battle! You must act! Thanks!
ReplyDeleteNishioka Yoshio I don't understand whatever you're trying to say . Ha,ha . bla, bla, different words. .
ReplyDeleteMike Rotch Because the claim "But nuclear power is by far the most important source of non-CO2-emitting electricity in the United States" is false. Nuclear has never been carbon neutral. Nuclear plants aren't delivered by fairies. Fossil-fuel powered machines are used to build them, fossil-fuel powered machines are used to mine the nuclear fuel and other exotic materials required, copious amounts of concrete and high grade steels are needed, both of which emit large amounts of CO2. All of this emissions-producing activity would have to be restarted anew to replace the aging nuclear plants.
ReplyDeleteThe existing plants cannot continue to operate. Neutron radiation irreversibly degrades steel and concrete. You can't reuse any of it. They must be retired, which means continued generation of electricity with nuclear requires CO2-emitting new construction.
Mike Crews I read a study on Swedish nuclear reactors, and contrary to what is often said in the debate, nuclear power is far from "carbon neutral". Over their full lifetime they're better than coal, but far from by as much as is generally believed.
ReplyDeleteAnother important factor is time. Replacing an old nuclear plant ready for decommissioning with a new one takes a lot of time, ten or fifteen years. Choosing something that can be deployed much faster, such as wind or solar, saves carbon emissions almost from day one of construction.
Higher temperature and water shortage is yet another factor that in some cases makes new nuclear ill suited to replace old ones.
Mike Crews Per Siden Nuclear power has one of the lowest GHG emission of all energy sources and cheap.
ReplyDeleteYou can see this in IPCC report :
https://plus.google.com/113453651866010094689/posts/4tS6gqfRQCc
Mike Rotch i suppose it depends on how you measure and over how long time. It's easy to find both comparably low and higher figures. But it's far from zero at least.
ReplyDeleteI think we can agree it's not carbon emissions that is the main problem of nuclear energy.
We know IPCC report! Badman
ReplyDeleteMr. Per Siden! I think too! Arigatou! Badman
ReplyDeleteMr. Mike Crew! Thanks! Badman
ReplyDeleteMs Littlebricksfusion! Many thanks! BM
ReplyDeleteMr. Ron, Arigatou! Badman
ReplyDeleteMr. Suraphol, Thanks! Badman
ReplyDeletePer Siden That's IPCC we're talking about. They have aggregated many different studies. to come up with these numbers.
ReplyDeleteSo when people don't belive in AGW IPCC is good enough to prove that it's happening, but when the same body report shows that nuclear us the best solution for the problem we currently have , they, suddenly, become less authoritative. I see..
I haven't cited the IPCC.
ReplyDeletePlease tell to Obama directry!? Hahaha! The WH send to me Obama Live speech, already I send comment to Obama! Thaaanks! Both Mike! Baaadman
ReplyDeleteClosed!? Baaadman
ReplyDeleteMike Rotch I don't dispute the study. But I doubt the study claims that nuclear power is carbon neutral.
ReplyDeleteI used to be a proponent of nuclear power back in the 70'sand 80's, but for my life I cannot see a future where nuclear is going to make more than a marginal impact. Carbon emissions is not its Achilles heel, but everything else is; cost, time to deploy, overcomplexity, poor scalability, inability to ramp up and down, centralized production model, decommissioning costs, waste treatment, etc. etc.
Arigatou! Great! Mr. Per Siden! Badman
ReplyDeletePer Siden There is no carbon neutral power source if consider the full cycle without carbon capturing. Who said anything about carbon neutrality at all ?
ReplyDeleteNuclear power costs less than solar and offshore wind. ( again according to IPCC)
"poor scalability, inability to ramp up and down" - the only power source that is better in these parameters is gas turbine, but what about GHG emissions ?
"centralized production model" - what's wrong with this ?
decommissioning costs, waste treatment, - Every energy plant requires this. On the plus side you need this only once every 60-70 years for nuclear plant and every 20-25 years for solar and wind
Hahaha
ReplyDeleteMike Rotch nuclear cheaper than solar and wind? What year is that? It's not for the nuclear plants built with massive government subsidies in the 70's, they're being phased out now as more and more wind power is pushing the energy prices down. Is it today, for a nuclear plant that has has just been put online after 15 years of construction? Is there any example of that out there? Or is it in 15 years time, if construction begins today? And for how long then does it stay cheaper, for the entire 60 or 70 years of operation, with LCoE of solar and wind dropping every year?
ReplyDeleteI respect your knowledge on nuclear, but to me it seems nuclear is going the same way steam engines went. At least in its current form it's simply a much too overcomplex solution to a simple need. If there had only been a "solid state" nuclear power, without moving parts, easily distributed, that can be scaled up fast, that fits into a modern distributed, multidirectional grid. But I can't see anything like that on the horizon. Solar PV is probably the closest, and in a sence that too is nuclear power.
Maybe we should simply agree that we disagree on the prospects of nuclear power plants? To me it looks like nuclear is in decline rather than the opposite. My judgement is that it's badly fit for modern, more diverse grids where the shelf space for traditional base load power is shrinking, and I think that their very long life cycle of a hundred years (not counting waste management) makes them less plausible for private investors too, especially in an energy business that is changing at a very rapid speed. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe a radically different kind of nuclear power will be presented tomorrow and turn everything on its heads, who knows? But judging from history and trends I don't give nuclear much chance. Development in other areas are too fast, while nuclear is showing hardly any progress except in terms of higher costs.
Per Siden Yes nuclear is cheaper than solar .and on par with wind. That's not my data, that's IPCC report data.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, Solar PV is scalable? Is this a joke? How exactly can you sale the Sun ? Solar and wind is furthest from being scalable of all out energy.
It's your right to be against nuclear, but at least find some real argument and not scalability when you comparing to solar and wind.
And price when you compare to solar.
Mike Rotch So, if it's cost-effective, and scalable, how come the venture capital is going to solar and wind, and none to new nuclear plants which will need to be designed and financed now, if they are going to replace the plants that will be retired in the next decades? Do they know something you don't?
ReplyDeleteMike Crews It's less scalable than gas or coal, but obviously, more scalable than solar or wind.
ReplyDeleteventure capital is going to solar and wind, and none to new nuclear that's true only in western countries where solar and wind are heavily subsidised and nuclear is over regulated and closed for political reasons There are new nuclear power plants in China, India , Argentina, and others.
Mike! Already, I showed up using cost! Nuclear is most expensive! Badman
ReplyDeleteNishioka Yoshio Not according to many scientific studies.
ReplyDeleteP.S Who i this "Badman"you're talking about all the time ?
Mike Rotch what I'm trying to convey is that nuclear plant project started today will have to compete not with today's wind and solar but with the ones 15 years in the future. And 30. And 60. If nuclear is as cheap as wind today it will be more expensive only next year, and a lot more expensive before construction is finished, not to mention over the next 60 some years. The unprecedentedly fast development of renewable energy and the very long expected lifecycle of nuclear plants makes it difficult for nuclear to compete.
ReplyDeleteThe current trend is that about as many reactors are being decommissioned as are being under construction. I doubt even all the ones "under construction" will ever be completed. But even if they are, for all that I can see now, nuclear is going to continue to play a very marginal role.
I think we can probably discuss this indefinitely, without affecting the actual outcome. Only the future will tell. At least the current rapid development in the energy sector makes it very interesting to watch.
Arigatou! Mr.Per Siden! I forget Mr. Mike!
ReplyDeleteMr.Mike, Please check International Conference! IPCC is one of opinion, now more and more rapidly changing opinion underground item of International Conference!
Mike Rotch "that's true only in western countries where solar and wind are heavily subsidised and nuclear is over regulated and closed for political reasons"
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying government intervention works to achieve goals desired by the majority of the population.
So In Paris Conference, IPCC showed database, but NGOs and 500 Mayers Statement push to changed target 2C only to 1.5-2C! Indeed! Please more check! Badman
ReplyDeleteMike Crews Per Siden Your point is ?? We're discussion technical and economic merits of nuclear vs solar . People opinions are influenced by what they've been told.
ReplyDeleteMost people don't have any real argument against nuclear. They repeat that it is dangerous ( it is less dangerous than solar and kills orders of magnitude less people than coal ),
that it too expensive ( it is significantly cheaper than solar ) ,
that it takes tens of years to build ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangjiang_Nuclear_Power_Station 5 years for 1080 MW . How long will it take for solar power plant with similar power output to be built ? and don't forget to account for energy storage for solar)
Mike Rotch "Most people don't have any real argument against nuclear. They repeat that it is dangerous ..."
ReplyDeleteMost nuclear boosters dismiss the severe problems with nuclear as blithely as you just did without actually engaging the arguments of critics. You are not engaging in good faith debate. That's my point.
Mike Rotch what people - and investors - believe and want, regardless whether they're "right" or "wrong", matters, at least in democratic countries. It's one of many hurdles nuclear energy would have to overcome to make a comeback.
ReplyDeleteI am not against nuclear power, I just doesn't see it as likely it will play any significant role in the future, not unless some new and very different (i.e. much less complex) variant makes an unexpected debut. I admit it is possible, just like practically any scenario is, I'm but expressing my view on the probability thereof.
Mr. Khalitah! Thanks! Badman
ReplyDelete