Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5014
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:38 am

Speaking of blinkered vision ... this chart is from the same Lazard report.

final-chart-2.jpg
final-chart-2.jpg (279.96 KiB) Viewed 430 times

Would you care to apply your microscope to the purple line, Leeuw, especially the bit towards the right of the chart?

:popcorn:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:56 am

No one is suggesting that current battery technology can provide all of the storage needed to provide continuous service year round 24/365.
That's mostly my view too. One should be quick to point out though that batteries are not the only kind of electrical storage.
I think that the disconnect you are having with me and kim ohara is that you are mostly talking about what is currently available as cost allowable solutions to problems (and in many instances you talk about what was cost allowable in the past!).
Part of the disconnect is that I'm not mostly talking just about cost allowable solutions any more than anti-nuke activists oppose nuclear power because of cost.

Along with prominent climate scientists and a majority of US scientists I do understand the wisdom of not betting the future on a single technology.

---------------------------------------------
A related thought.
Many of nuclear power’s risks can and should be substantially reduced ...
... limiting the worst effects of climate change may also require other low- or no-carbon energy solutions, including nuclear power.

To the extent that a nuclear plant’s output is replaced by electricity from natural gas, the resulting emissions set back national efforts to achieve needed emissions reductions. Today’s low market price of natural gas does not reflect the cost that carbon pollution poses to society. UCS strongly supports a robust, economy-wide price on carbon to address this market failure and level the playing field for all low- and no-carbon sources of electricity.
--https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nu ... al-warming

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5014
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:46 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:56 am

Along with prominent climate scientists and a majority of US scientists I do understand the wisdom of not betting the future on a single technology.

---------------------------------------------
A related thought.
Many of nuclear power’s risks can and should be substantially reduced ...
... limiting the worst effects of climate change may also require other low- or no-carbon energy solutions, including nuclear power.

To the extent that a nuclear plant’s output is replaced by electricity from natural gas, the resulting emissions set back national efforts to achieve needed emissions reductions. Today’s low market price of natural gas does not reflect the cost that carbon pollution poses to society. UCS strongly supports a robust, economy-wide price on carbon to address this market failure and level the playing field for all low- and no-carbon sources of electricity.
--https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nu ... al-warming
I don't disagree with anything on that UCS page but I still don't think nuclear is going to be a big component of the energy mix.
The UCS doesn't, either. Their one-sentence summary is: "Nuclear power provides low-carbon electricity, though its role in combating climate change depends on overcoming economic and safety hurdles," and the second half of the sentence is as important as the first.

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:00 pm

To anyone thinking that Kim raises points of concern please see my previous responses which already address the issues.

If you think it is notable that estimated costs for a technology went up %50 in a few years according to one report then please investigate and report back to the group.

I understand the games of internet trolls and trolling behavior. I consider this an appropriate response on behalf of more mature readers.

chownah
Posts: 7596
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:29 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:08 am
chownah wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:46 am
If the cost allowable problem solutions already existed then there would be no discussion even going on....the difference is that many people are short sighted or narrow minded enough to not realize that every indication...EVERY indication...is that in the not so distant future there will be cost allowable solutions to all the problems that they see. For example: the short sighted/narrow minded say "how many batteries will it take to store enough juice to give uninterrupted service year round?".....well.....probably the answer isn't batteries.....probably the answer is stored hydrogen feeding fuel cells. See....the answer is found.
So you express a lot of techno-optimism. I do too -- although tempered by a bit of engineering risk analysis. However your claim that "that every indication...EVERY indication...is that in the not so distant future there will be cost allowable solutions to all the problems that they see. " ... That isn't true. There was an unambiguous contrary indication in my last post.
Yes, I have alot of techno optimism for solar, wind, and storage. I am optimistic because there are known solutions which are scalable and which solve all of the problems which I have seen raised. The known technologies which solve these problems are being researched and there are advances happening which are bringing them closer to cost allowable implementation. So far, in all of these technologies there have been no "show stoppers" indentified....that is to say there have not been any reasons identified which indicate that these technologies are dead ended and will not eventually be useful. Can you show me some technological assessment that flow batteries will not be continually improved over the next decade?....or fuel cells?....for instance. I don't think you will find that assessment. The arguement you are making about storage is just like the arguement that solar is too expensive which was all in vogue not so long ago......now it is not too expensive....and soon it will be the cheapest pretty much everywhere.....do you dispute that? Those people who were arguing that solar and wind were too expensive and then were shown to be wrong quickly changed their arguement to the arguement that solar and wind were too unstable to be part of the grid......but now the neoen-tesla battery has shown that this is not true and the battery technology to stabilize the grid is here and it does the job better than anything which was used before. AND those people who used to say that solar and wind would make the grid unstable have now changed their tune (now that they have been shown to be wrong) and they say that solar and wind will not be able to provide continuous supply 24/365....and I'm telling you that every indication EVERY indication is that the known solutions to this problem will soon be cost allowable. IF YOU KNOW OF SOME TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUE WHICH DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WHICH MAKES THESE TECHNOLOGIES IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MADE COST ALLOWABLE THEN BRING IT.

I do not have alot of techno optimism towards nuclear power.....because many times those nuclear engineers have come up with ways to deal with the waste issues and so far they have all been really big failures.....if I could see some method which could become cost allowable for the disposing of nuclear waste and a path for development which did not have formidable obstacles then I would be more optimistic.....but I haven't seen it.

I do not have alot of techno optimism towards nuclear power....because I don't want terrorists to have access to nuclear materials and the proliferation of nuclear power plants would make safe guarding it virtually impossible.

Finally, do you like to insult people.....you take a reasonable post and you nit pick it to find some flaw and then you amplify what you see as a flaw into character assasination.....really you do......
chownah

chownah
Posts: 7596
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:30 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:00 pm
To anyone thinking that Kim raises points of concern please see my previous responses which already address the issues.

If you think it is notable that estimated costs for a technology went up %50 in a few years according to one report then please investigate and report back to the group.

I understand the games of internet trolls and trolling behavior. I consider this an appropriate response on behalf of more mature readers.
Finally, do you like to insult people.....you take a reasonable post and you nit pick it to find some flaw and then you amplify what you see as a flaw into character assasination.....really you do......
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:03 pm

chownah wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:30 pm
Finally, do you like to insult people.....you take a reasonable post and you nit pick it to find some flaw and then you amplify what you see as a flaw into character assasination.....really you do......
chownah
What it is that you are labeling a "reasonable post"? Speaking in the abstract and attaching labels to it leaves me scratching my head. Really. What was the content of the post that you are referring to?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Label it insulting if you like but I believe there are good grounds for describing Kim's posts as "troll like". Instead of carrying the burden of investigating for herself and contributing to a productive conversation Kim often substitutes taunts for understanding. I call that lazy and slothful. It's a passive-aggressive type of move that is practiced by so-called internet trolls. Do you say differently?

This seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Would you agree that a reasonable person might label the following insulting. Or unnecessary.
  • ... the most ridiculous arguement that you have attempted recently.
  • Of people you disagree with ... "are short sighted or narrow minded enough to not realize that every indication..

chownah
Posts: 7596
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:13 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:03 pm
chownah wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:30 pm
Finally, do you like to insult people.....you take a reasonable post and you nit pick it to find some flaw and then you amplify what you see as a flaw into character assasination.....really you do......
chownah
What it is that you are labeling a "reasonable post"? Speaking in the abstract and attaching labels to it leaves me scratching my head. Really. What was the content of the post that you are referring to?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Label it insulting if you like but I believe there are good grounds for describing Kim's posts as "troll like". Instead of carrying the burden of investigating for herself and contributing to a productive conversation Kim often substitutes taunts for understanding. I call that lazy and slothful. It's a passive-aggressive type of move that is practiced by so-called internet trolls. Do you say differently?

This seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Would you agree that a reasonable person might label the following insulting. Or unnecessary.
  • ... the most ridiculous arguement that you have attempted recently.
  • Of people you disagree with ... "are short sighted or narrow minded enough to not realize that every indication..
Finally, do you like to insult people.....you take a reasonable post and you nit pick it to find some flaw and then you amplify what you see as a flaw into character assasination.....really you do......
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:56 pm

Everyone, If you want to challenge a view or contribute a new one then cite your sources.
Primary sources are much preferred over secondary sources such as opinion pieces or press releases (which are usually from public relations departments and not peer reviewed)
Obviously, if it's not available online then more extensive quotation should be in order.
My sources are in my posts including: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=7689&p=452648#p452648

If you have a critique or question quote the statement in question and clearly state your objection.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposition wrote:Solar and wind will... be able to provide continuous supply 24/365....
every indication, EVERY indication, is that the known solutions to this problem will soon be cost allowable.
Challenge: IF YOU KNOW OF SOME TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUE WHICH DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WHICH MAKES THESE TECHNOLOGIES IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MADE COST ALLOWABLE THEN BRING IT.
Two obvious flaws in the challenge:
1) This asks for a logically impossible proof. No one can prove that in the future someone will or will not find the flying spaghetti monster or unicorns. Or 'prove a negative'.
2) Proof hinges on the idea of "cost allowable" -- a concept which is insufficiently constrained. A sufficient definition means that we would have a means of knowing, beyond dispute, that some technology was or wasn't 'cost allowable'.

So, there is no technological issue that is capable of demonstrating what is asked either way. Division by zero.

I am curious as to why someone would ask such a question. Do they dispute flaws # 1 and 2? Did they get carried away in their exuberance? Or worse?
The Buddha refused to answer such questions -- and for somewhat the same reasons.

---------------------------------------------------
One should, I say, understand the difference between "EVERY indication" and "widely expected to". The latter is credible but I have a hard time believing that a well informed person would use the former. IMO people who claim certainty about estimates and expert opinions rightly deserve our skepticism and should be questioned or ignored.
--------------------------------------------------

Other issues rightly call to our attention.
3) Cost in the broadest sense or some other factor should also weight the total CO2 emmissions avoided as well as other environmental and social factors.
Indeed every type of argument that is considered "on the table" against nuclear must also be fully accepted as an argument against any technology. No double standards.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:50 am

Chownah
Re-thinking your comments in viewtopic.php?f=54&t=7689&p=453883#p453828

There is a principled reason why I stick to published analysis. What, on the other hand, are the principles behind your opinions?
You have not made reference to any study based on your assumptions. On the other hand I have shown that the Lazard study (which was suggested by Kim) comes to a conclusion the opposite of yours.
Although alternative energy is increasingly cost-competitive and storage technology holds great promise, alternative energy systems alone will not be capable of meeting the base-load generation needs of a developed economy for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the optimal solution for many regions of the world is to use complementary conventional and alternative energy resources in a diversified generation fleet. --https://www.lazard.com/perspective/leve ... ergy-2017/
A more principled approach means relying on published work.
Sure it's fun to speculate but as the saying goes, show us the numbers! State your assumptions. Back up your claims with solid analysis by others. That IMO is a more principled way to proceed. Less opinionating and more study.
it is not in question that it would be theoretically possible to build a reliable energy system excluding all bioenergy, nuclear energy, and fossil fuel sources. Given unlimited resources to build variable energy production facilities, while expanding the transmission grid and accompanying energy storage capacity enormously, one would eventually be able to meet any conceivable load. However, in developing a strategy to effectively mitigate global energy-related CO2 emissions, it is critical that the scope of the challenge to achieve this in the real world is accurately defined and clearly communicated.
-- http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full
IMO your post fails this test.
I am optimistic because there are known solutions which are scalable and which solve all of the problems which I have seen raised.
The Lazard analysis says otherwise. The study quoted above doesn't support it. We have read your opinions -- what more do you have? If the indications as you call them are so strong then you should be able to cite peer reviewed analysis. Which you haven't.
You can always claim that the future is bright and that you have more up to date information -- but people living in illusion, con men and liers liars do that too. That's why a principled approach matters.
AND those people who used to say that solar and wind would make the grid unstable have now changed their tune (now that they have been shown to be wrong)
I say the opposite is true. Either that or you are playing with words. It's widely accepted that adding wind and solar make the grid unstable (or I would say add instability). If you need citations for that point then please admit that there is are big holes in your basic knowledge of the subject matter.
Also I think you conflate a couple of related concepts. One reasonably wonders why solar PV hasn't been used much or at all in some regions for grid stabilization until very recently. But one can't ignore that it wasn't and mostly still isn't providing stability services. But I think I've covered this topic well in recent posts.
AND those people who used to say that solar and wind would make the grid unstable have now changed their tune (now that they have been shown to be wrong) and they say that solar and wind will not be able to provide continuous supply 24/365....and I'm telling you that every indication EVERY indication is that the known solutions to this problem will soon be cost allowable.
Great! But please explain why you haven't cited anything more than your opinion. I don't call that a principled approach.
The arguement you are making about storage is just like the arguement that solar is too expensive which was all in vogue not so long ago......now it is not too expensive....and soon it will be the cheapest pretty much everywhere...
Great! But where is your study? And also please show the level of net reduction in green house gases from your favored solution.

Again, please pay attention to what I and many others are saying. We believe a broad mix of solutions is better than a narrow mix or a single solution.

A principled response should account for qualified, peer reviewed studies which suggest:
With all available technologies at our disposal, achieving an 80% reduction in GHG emissions from the electricity sector at reasonable costs is extremely challenging, even using a new continental-scale high-voltage transmission grid. Decarbonizing the last 20% of the electricity sector as well as decarbonizing the rest of the economy that is difficult to electrify (e.g., cement manufacture and aviation) are even more challenging. These challenges are deepened by placing constraints on technological options.
-- http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full
A principled analysis considers the degree of penetration of wind and solar. In recent posts I've written of specific numbers and levels and why it's important to know. That is a principled approach.
There are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone. These facts have led many US and global energy system analyses to recognize the importance of a broad portfolio of electricity generation technologies, including sources that can be dispatched when needed.
Do you claim that you have more insight into future possibilities than do the 21 authors of this peer reviewed study? That they somehow just "forgot" to consider the predictions of technology improvements?

Strategies for a Low-Carbon Electricity Grid with Full Use of Nuclear, Wind, and Solar Capacity to Minimize Total Costs, 2015
http://energy.mit.edu/publication/strat ... tal-costs/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Nuclear Energy
I think your answer shows that you have a double standard when it comes to your technological optimism. In my estimation your your approach is not principled in this regard.
Costs come down as volume and experience grows, fields mature and become more efficient. There is no reason to assume that the same cost reductions enjoyed by solar and wind won't also apply to nuclear. Other countries nuclear programs which build the same design over and over seem to show this improvement.
“The growing cost-competitiveness of certain alternative energy technologies globally reflects a number of factors, including lower financing costs, declining capital expenditures per project, improving competencies and increased industry competition” ( Financial advisory firm Lazard )
If I could see some method which could become cost allowable for the disposing of nuclear waste and a path for development which did not have formidable obstacles then I would be more optimistic.....but I haven't seen it.
Show us that you can 'see' what you are less inclined to see and can avoid the trap of defining opinion laden terms like "formidable" to suit your preconceptions.
For more on this subject you might start with: CCST Report on Nuclear Power in California’s 2050 Energy Mix
http://ccst.us/publications/2011/2011en ... ichter.pdf see "Spent Fuel Disposal"
This is worth a post of it's own.


-----------------------------------------

IMO Much of your argument is reasonably described as being or being close to "hand waving".
hand waving
Also written handwaving. In formal conversation / speech omitting important details about the subject matter either because 1) the audience is perceived to be ignorant 2) the speaker themselves is not well-informed on the subject matter or 3) a little from column A and a little from column B.

Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while actually doing nothing effective or substantial. It is most often applied to debate techniques that involve fallacies, misdirection and the glossing over of details. It is also used academically to indicate unproven claims and skipped steps in proofs (sometimes intentionally, especially in instructional materials), with some specific meanings in particular fields, including literary criticism and speculative fiction, mathematics and logic, and science and engineering. The term can additionally be used in work situations, when attempts are made to display productivity or assure accountability without actually resulting in them. The term can also be used as a self-admission of, and suggestion to defer discussion about, an allegedly unimportant weakness in one's own argument's evidence, to forestall an opponent dwelling on it.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving

chownah
Posts: 7596
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:03 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:56 pm
objection.
.........
.......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposition wrote:Solar and wind will... be able to provide continuous supply 24/365....
every indication, EVERY indication, is that the known solutions to this problem will soon be cost allowable.
Challenge: IF YOU KNOW OF SOME TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUE WHICH DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WHICH MAKES THESE TECHNOLOGIES IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MADE COST ALLOWABLE THEN BRING IT.
Two obvious flaws in the challenge:
1) This asks for a logically impossible proof. No one can prove that in the future someone will or will not find the flying spaghetti monster or unicorns. Or 'prove a negative'.
2) Proof hinges on the idea of "cost allowable" -- a concept which is insufficiently constrained. A sufficient definition means that we would have a means of knowing, beyond dispute, that some technology was or wasn't 'cost allowable'.
.........
........
First of all, "proposition" didn't write that and neither did I....you wrote it....you seem to be trying to make this into a challenge of some sort.....a competition. You do just about everything that can be done to make the tone of the discussion adversarial and confrontational both here and previously.

If you are asking about "proof" about the future then my response is that there is none. There is no "proof" that any of the technologies will or will not develop in the ways people are hoping for. As for what I said in a previous post namely:
I'm telling you that every indication EVERY indication is that the known solutions to this problem will soon be cost allowable. IF YOU KNOW OF SOME TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUE WHICH DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WHICH MAKES THESE TECHNOLOGIES IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MADE COST ALLOWABLE THEN BRING IT.
This is my opinion based on what I have read. Critics of solar and wind have historically and continually discounted or ignored the development of solar and wind technologies....this is not debated anywhere that I have seen. If anyone is interested they can just go read all the stuff readily available on the internet showing what the fossil fuel industry said would happen and what in fact then did happen and it is obvious. I see from my continued monitoring of developments that this same discounting or ignoring of technological development to improve solar and wind and storage is happening....I presented a short narrative in my previous post explaining this.

There are no known major technological hurdles which would indicate that it will not be possible to create adequate storage of power derived from solar and wind to be able to ensure continous supply 24/365. If you think you have found such an impediment then please bring it.

You love the article which talks about what will not happen in "the forseeable future"....when you think about this article you should remind youself of your own wisdom, namely: " No one can prove that in the future someone will or will not find the flying spaghetti monster or unicorns. Or 'prove a negative'."
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5014
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:07 am

Hi, chownah,
If you want the detail on how Tesla's new battery is performing, and just what it's doing, here it is - http://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-unit-tr ... -in-85623/. (Everyone else is welcome to read it too, of course. :smile: )
If you need help with acronyms and politics, I should be able to explain most of them.

The tl;dr version is that coal generators are crashing in our heat waves and the battery is keeping the grid running - and sometimes making a tidy profit in the process.

:twothumbsup:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7596
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:13 am

Kim Ohara,
Thanks for bringing that article....it does a great job of explaining what the neoen-tesla battery is doing. I think it shows that stability of the grid can be adequately maintained through fast response batteries and auxiliary generators. This should show that we need not worry that the intermitten nature of wind/solar will destabilize the grid.

This use of storage to stabilize the grid is one of the issues surrounding storage. The storage to adequately stabilize the grid already exists and is being implemented.

The other issue is that for a grid with ONLY wind and solar generation, when there is a long period of time when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine enough to maintain grid supply, how will the grid supply be maintained. How this will be done is not yet known. There already are times when in germany or california (for instance) there is more electricity generated than can be used so these are the times when surplus energy could be stored for later use. All that needs to be done is to start implementing methods for storing that energy. So far there is not much economic incentive to store that power because the solar/wind market penetration is still small but as more wind/solar comes on line there will be more surpluses and the economics driving storage construction will become more stimulative. There is alot of research going on in developing these long term storage devices and there is every reason to believe that by the time there is a need for them (when wind/solar increase their share of generation) they will be ready......for example the increase in battery powered vehicles expected in the next five years and onward will itself vastly increase storage....and then there are flow batteries.......and......as I have said before, if batteries don't develop to fulfill all that is needed there is always hydrogen storage....which is scaleable....and a host of other technologies as well....
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5014
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:03 am

As for nuclear ... here's an overview of the industry, worldwide, published last September.
"Stagnating" is the best one-word summary.
This is the one-page summary - https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The- ... html#link1
And the whole report is on the same site, for anyone interested in the detail.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5014
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:07 am

As for Chernobyl ...
For decades, the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster has remained abandoned. Now, Solar Chernobyl is building a massive solar farm on the land to provide renewable energy for those living nearby.

... According to some estimates, the nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl disaster contaminated up to 75 percent of Europe. According to Ukrainian authorities, an area larger than 2,000 square kilometers (772 square miles) near the site of the disaster is so contaminated that people won’t be able to safely live there for 24,000 years.

While a dome couldn’t possibly cover all the contaminated land, the 2016 placement of one over the reactor, which contains highly radioactive magma, has reduced radiation near the plant drastically. According to official data, it’s now at one-tenth of prior levels.

While the land still can’t be used for agriculture, it is suitable for other projects, Ostap Semerak, Ukrainian Minister of the Environment, told AFP in 2016. The Solar Chernobyl plant is one such project, and others could follow.

Olena Kovalchuk, spokeswoman of the State Administration for the zone of Chernobyl, told AFP that Kiev has received roughly 60 proposals from foreign companies interested in participating in future solar developments in the area. The cheap price of land and closeness to power grids has made the Chernobyl site attractive for investors, Oleksandr Kharchenko, executive director of the Energy Industry Research Center, told AFP. ...
https://futurism.com/chernobyl-being-tr ... ergy-farm/

I'm not going to try to explore the ironies.

:meditate:
Kim

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests