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: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:37 am

chownah wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:08 am
Kim OHara wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:45 pm
Problem: Refugee camp. Lots of people, all arrived recently and most arrived destitute, no infrastructure. What to do for electricity?
Solution: cheap, quick, and can largely be build by unskilled labour.

https://www.facebook.com/climatecouncil ... 632713438/

:twothumbsup:
Kim
Is there a way for someone without a facebook account to view this?
chownah
Sorry - didn't think. :embarassed:
This should work. http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2017/1 ... plant.html

:namaste:
Kim

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

VVER-1000 nuclear reactors startups in Russia and China

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:36 pm

Russia and China each startup Russian VVER-1000 nuclear reactors
Jan 2018
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/01/russia-and-china-each-startup-vver-1000-nuclear-reactors.html wrote:Russia’s latest nuclear power reactor, Rostov 4, reached criticality and minimum controlled power on 29 December, 2017. It is Russia’s 36th reactor in a fleet that meets about 18% of the country’s electricity demand.
Russian Plants in China wrote:Tianwan 3 and 4 are AES-91 VVER-1000 units designed by Gidropress and supplied by Russian state nuclear company Rosatom.

Unit 3 of the Tianwan nuclear power plant in China’s Jiangsu province was connected to the grid on 30 December, 2017. The Russian-supplied VVER-1000 is scheduled to enter commercial operation later this year.
Russia approves operation of 70 Megawatt floating nuclear reactor
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/01/russia-approves-operation-of-70-megawatt-floating-nuclear-reactor.html wrote: Russia has approved the operation of the floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov.

Akademik Lomonosov houses two 35 MW KLT-40S nuclear reactors, similar to those used in Russia’s nuclear-powered ice breakers. The plant is to be towed to Murmansk in May, be loaded with fuel in October and commissioned in November next year. The plant is intended to replace the outgoing capacity of the Bilibino nuclear power plant in the Chukotka district. The first Bilibino unit is scheduled to be shut down in 2019 and the whole plant will be shut down in 2021.

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

New Chinese Reactors

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:02 pm

China’s high temperature pebble bed reactor on track for operation this year
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/01/chinas-high-temperature-pebble-bed-reactor-on-track-for-operation-this-year.html wrote:The pressure vessel head has been installed at one of the two high-temperature gas-cooled reactor units that make up the demonstration HTR-PM plant under construction at Shidaowan in China’s Shandong province.

The first of the graphite moderator spheres was loaded within the core of the first reactor in April last year. In July, the thermal hydraulic parameters of the steam generator were validated. The demonstration HTR-PM is expected to be connected to the grid and start electricity generation this year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
About Pebble Bed / Next Generation Reactors
Pebble Bed Reactors wrote: The basic design of pebble-bed reactors features spherical fuel elements called pebbles. These tennis ball-sized pebbles are made of pyrolytic graphite (which acts as the moderator), and they contain thousands of micro-fuel particles called TRISO particles. These TRISO fuel particles consist of a fissile material (such as 235U) surrounded by a coated ceramic layer of silicon carbide for structural integrity and fission product containment. In the PBR, thousands of pebbles are amassed to create a reactor core, and are cooled by a gas, such as helium, nitrogen or carbon dioxide, that does not react chemically with the fuel elements.

This type of reactor is claimed to be passively safe that is, it removes the need for redundant, active safety systems. Because the reactor is designed to handle high temperatures, it can cool by natural circulation and still survive in accident scenarios, which may raise the temperature of the reactor to 1,600 °C. Because of its design, its high temperatures allow higher thermal efficiencies than possible in traditional nuclear power plants (up to 50%) and has the additional feature that the gases do not dissolve contaminants or absorb neutrons as water does, so the core has less in the way of radioactive fluids.

China [has] ...the only such design operational. In various forms, other designs are under development by MIT, University of California at Berkeley, General Atomics (U.S.), the Dutch company Romawa B.V., Adams Atomic Engines, Idaho National Laboratory, and X-energy.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor
Late last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body, said Asia had become the “driver” of global nuclear development. And it may be a sign of the times that Britain, which 61 years ago opened the world’s first civil nuclear power plant, could soon either have no nuclear power or be largely reliant on Korean and Chinese manufacturers.
FRED PEARCE wrote:South Korea has 25 working reactors delivering power. China is constructing new reactors at the rate of eight a year. ... South Korea has 25 working reactors delivering power. China is constructing new reactors at the rate of eight a year. And both countries are increasingly eyeing the export opportunities created by the collapse of the old order in the U.S., France and Japan.
-- https://e360.yale.edu/features/industry ... -to-an-end
See also:
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:28 pm

The task of our generation is to make an informed decision on the best way to get to a sustainable, zero-carbon world, and to act on that decision "with vigor!" as President John F. Kennedy used to say.

Unfortunately, making that decision entails wading through some rather science-y stuff. It also means shedding a lot of pre-conceptions, prejudice, and tribalism.

The "renewables vs. nuclear" divide has often been split along political lines, with lefties / greens all in for renewables while demonizing nuclear power.

That's gradually changing. In fact, many of the nuclear advocates and scientists we personally know are either centrists or left of center, and some are even social democrats. Very few of them could be considered right-wingers or free marketeers.
-- http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/chapter-two/
For what consensus is worth -- the majority of scientists, qualified academic engineers and policy experts at minimum support active research on nuclear power. Most endorse building a mix of technologies including nuclear electrical power.
wrote:... 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.
-- http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full
Fred Pierce wrote:Where does this leave greenhouse gas emissions? Can countries both abandon nuclear power and slash their emissions? In the short term, the answer looks like no.

Japan’s emissions have risen to record levels since the post-Fukushima shutdowns, and the government has abandoned targets to cut them by 2020. In Germany, much of the slack from nuclear closures has been taken up by burning more brown coal, leaving the country that likes to boast about its solar and wind power with among the highest CO2 emissions in Europe.

France’s emissions are lower, thanks to its current reliance on nuclear power. But the French Academy of Sciences last month warned that reducing nuclear’s share of the energy mix was incompatible with further reductions in CO2 emissions.
-- https://e360.yale.edu/features/industry ... -to-an-end
On the face of it, now should be the moment when nuclear power fulfills the extravagant promises made for it half a century ago. In an age that proclaims that there is no higher priority than delivering low-carbon energy, the biggest source of that energy in the richest, most developed countries is in crisis. The crisis could prove terminal.
The Environmental Defense Fund’s John Finnigan recently made the case for “why we still need America’s nuclear power plants – at least for now.” He argued that nuclear power should remain a vital low-carbon energy source in the U.S., especially when the early shutdown of a nuclear plant would boost the burning of natural gas. He called for retirement dates for nuclear plants to be postponed until they were “more likely to be replaced by renewables.”

--------------
Misc. References: :?: A author of the "Roadmap" paper is suing the authors of the "Evaluation" paper and the US National Academy of Sciences.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:20 pm

Thanks, Leeuwenhoek2 - an impressive array of research! If we can look out for :strawman: we can learn quite a bit from it.

:strawman: 1: That I, or someone else here, or some reputable people in the real world of energy policy want to shut down all nuclear power generation right now. I'm not sure if you think that, or if you're just quoting people who think that and failing to separate your opinions from theirs. Either way, it isn't so. Sure, Japan panicked when the government thought it might have to evacuate Tokyo (true!) (and not unreasonable) and closed all their generators, but the more general view is that existing nuclear plants should continue until the end of their lifespan but that nuclear is not an important part of the energy mix in the long term.

:strawman: 2: That wind and solar together are a feasible complete solution to energy needs. I agree that the "Roadmap" is fatally flawed and "Road Map to Nowhere" is (mostly) justified.

So what's the real place for nuclear in the future?
Obviously, as part of the bridging technology as we move away from burning stuff. We don't want to replace existing nuclear power with new fossil power, ever.
Beyond that? Niche uses - ships and subs; research projects; medical tech; etc. - and not much else unless and until we get fusion power.
Why not? Cost, cost, poisonous waste, cost, cost, vulnerability to terrorist attacks, cost, cost, construction time, cost, cost ...

Paul Hawken's Drawdown is a very big multi-disciplinary project assessing all sorts of technologies and polices and ranking them in cost-effectiveness and plausible total impact in reducing CO2 emissions. The list in the energy sector, from biggest impact downwards, is Onshore wind, Solar farms, Rooftop solar, Geothermal, Nuclear, Offshore Wind, Concentrated solar, Wave and tidal, ...
Nuclear is there in the mix but well down the list, and he notes that most of Drawdown's solutions are 'no regrets' solutions in that they have no significant environmental costs but nuclear is a 'regrets' solution because of radioactive waste, the potential for catastrophic accidents, etc.
Drawdown is online, at http://www.drawdown.org, but I'm working from the book.

I mentioned cost, didn't I? :tongue:

Image

See: https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.net ... Lazard.png
Solar and wind now cost one half to one third as much as nuclear in $/MWh.
Game over - really! - even if you have to chuck in a few batteries or pumped hydro dams.

The article that chart comes from is worth reading in full for comments like this:
A study led by the former head of the Harvard Medical School found that coal cost the US $500 billion per year in extra health and environmental costs — approximately 9¢/kWh ($90/MWh) to 27¢/kWh ($270/MWh) more than the price we pay directly. To fool yourself into thinking these are not real costs is to assume that cancer, heart disease, asthma, and early death are not real.

The air, water, and climate effects of natural gas are not pretty either. On the nuclear front, the decommissioning and insurance costs of nuclear power — unaccounted for above — would also put nuclear off the chart.
:reading: https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/co ... tural-gas/

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:23 am

The environmental costs of fracking have just been shown to be higher than thought - viewtopic.php?f=54&t=18897&p=453536#p453536

:namaste:
Kim

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

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:31 pm

A recent post recommended this article: https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/co ... tural-gas/. That article restates a point I've been making:
cleantechnica.com wrote:On the renewable front, costs to overcome intermittency of renewable energy sources (basically, presuming a very high penetration of renewables on the grid) are also not included. Once that is a significant issue (at which point solar and wind will be even cheaper), low-cost demand response solutions, greater grid integration, and storage will be key solutions to integrating these lower-cost renewable sources to a high degree.
Thus as the percentage (penetration) of intermittent energy sources increases the differences between intermittent and non-intermittent / dispatchable energy sources become more pronounced. Even if intermittent renewables were free they would be of little value during the times when they produce little to no power; which is the majority of the time for solar PV and wind in most regions. They are, at best, only a partial solution. And no technology is close to being CO2 emission free, free of environmental consequences or %100 renewable.

The phrase "greater grid integration" is not explained but it probably refers to the challenges I've discussed in this thread. The increased costs of grid stabilization (which are already a significant cost of maintaining the current electrical grid) and increases with the addition of inconsistent and intermittent solar and wind are also not included in the cost estimates quoted.

The article is based upon a financial study by lazard.com. That study confirms what I have written:
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/ LCOE = Levelized Cost Of Energy
The only proven CO2 emission free complementary source that developed countries can clearly scale up in large amounts is nuclear. (In developed countries hydro and geothermal sources have largely been exploited already). Once again the idea is to avoid reliance on a single technology but rather seek safety in diversity.

Dispatchable Nuclear technology has more value to a system.
US Energy Information Administration (EIA) wrote:Since load must be balanced on a continuous basis, units whose output can be varied to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies), or those whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource. ... caution should be used when comparing them to one another.
-------------------------------------------------------
Tricky Journalism
Quote by Kim Ohara wrote:A study led by the former head of the Harvard Medical School found that coal cost the US $500 billion per year in extra health and environmental costs — approximately 9¢/kWh ($90/MWh) to 27¢/kWh ($270/MWh) more than the price we pay directly. To fool yourself into thinking these are not real costs is to assume that cancer, heart disease, asthma, and early death are not real.

The air, water, and climate effects of natural gas are not pretty either. On the nuclear front, the decommissioning and insurance costs of nuclear power — unaccounted for above — would also put nuclear off the chart.
The last sentence uses two tricks of influence.
1) The last sentence properly belongs in it's own paragraph because it changes the subject from health and environment to costs. It's like a game of 3 card monty.
2) The phrase "would also put nuclear off the chart." This plants an impression not supported by facts. It's innuendo instead of "I know" or "I don't know" -- the reverse of the teachings on right speech. It doesn't say that the cost of decommissioning were not included in the costs shown on the chart or in what way those costs would or could be "off the chart".
3) The quote says nothing of the sometimes dramatic differential in the environmental impacts and CO2 emmissions of building and recycling solar PV and wind.
----------- Chucky Does "Math"
A recent post shows a chart of of one estimate of levelized costs and concludes:
Solar and wind now cost one half to one third as much as nuclear in $/MWh.
Game over - really! - even if you have to chuck in a few batteries or pumped hydro dams.
It takes more than a 'few batteries' to sustain a grid even for a few hours. How many hours of storage would you "chuck in"?
I think 'Chucky' is throwing ideas around and hoping something will stick.
How much does this storage cost?
How many hydro dams sites are reasonably available?
Have you considered the anti-hydro opposition? It seems to be as strong as the anti-nuke crowd.
So I think Chucky is throwing ideas around and hoping something will stick.
I love solar PV because I've lived off-grid and want to do it again ... but my batteries cost more than my solar panels. And they still would even with the latest tech batteries. It's not that different in utility scale.

The chart shows utility scale solar PV as $46 to $92 and nuclear as $97 to $136. So it depends a lot on what numbers you chose. The difference being that solar PV only generates anything near it's rated output for about 6 to 8 hours a day on average on a good day. Wereas nuclear plants can produce power 24/7 even on overcast days. Admit it Chucky, you are comparing apples and oranges. In reality, in most countries it's mostly down to coal and gas to fill in for what the other sources don't provide.
--------- Levelized Cost Estimates Vary
US Energy Information Administration (EIA) Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2017
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/el ... ration.pdf
See table 1b on page 8.
Total System Cost (LCOE) | Capacity Factor
Advanced Nuclear . . . 99 | .90
Wind - Onshore . . . . .64 | .39
Wind - Offshore . . . . .157 | .45
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:35 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:31 pm
... Admit it Chucky, you are comparing apples and oranges. ...
When you resort to disparaging me by nick-naming me, it looks like you're getting desperate. :toilet:
But really, a few shotgun blasts of one-sided and barely-relevant comments aren't worth arguing about so I will just go ahead and compare apples and oranges again. :tongue:

spills.jpg
spills.jpg (62.58 KiB) Viewed 379 times

:coffee:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7496
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:46 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:31 pm
I love solar PV because I've lived off-grid and want to do it again ... but my batteries cost more than my solar panels. And they still would even with the latest tech batteries. It's not that different in utility scale.
This is the most ridiculous arguement that you have attempted recently. What difference does it make whether batteries cost more than panels or panels cost more than batteries? Fact is that the cost of both are going down fast.

No one is suggesting that current battery technology can provide all of the storage needed to provide continuous service year round 24/365. 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!). 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. Storing hydrogen is a known technology and is cost allowable....fuel cell technology is not currently cost allowable but there is lots of research going on and it is cost allowable for certain applications....but even without improvements with fuel cells the hydrogen could be used to power turbines or even plain old fashioned internal combustions engines with those pistons thingies going up and down.
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 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.

The quote from my post could have been written with you in mind:
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/
The question you should be asking is why you don't see indications that disagree with your desired conclusion even when they are right in front of you.

But that analysis quoted above doesn't register with you. Why? It is because you dismiss any indication that disagrees with the answer that you so strongly cling to as "short sighted or narrow minded"? That is a system of thinking -- self sealing logic -- that is closed to outside information but can rationalize anything to itself. It's often called denial

Second. Do you apply that same optimism to nuclear power? The evidence of a recent post says you do not. Examine your own responses to a report about what nuclear power would cost today if it enjoyed the same popularity and government subsidies as renewable energy. “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 ) But when a report examined the indications that such a thing might have happened to nuclear power years ago you responded with scorn.
----------------------------------
First remove the short sighted or narrow minded thinking from your arguments. That is the beginning of a practice in which the basic assumptions behind views are confronted, hypotheses are tested publicly, and processes are disconfirmable, not self-sealing. That is a path to which many aspire but few are proficient at when their identity is threatened. I see it as a modern restatement of some parts of the dharma.
http://www.aral.com.au/resources/argyris.html
http://www.actionscience.com/actinq.htm
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:43 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
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 349 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: 4999
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: 7496
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

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests