Canada to boost nuclear power to help meet climate target

Canada is expected to promote nuclear energy at a forum in Denmark
Canada is expected to promote nuclear energy at a forum in Denmark

Canada, the second largest producer of uranium, will boost its reliance on nuclear energy to reduce its carbon footprint and will encourage other nations to do the same, public broadcaster CBC said Thursday.

The move would mark a change in the climate strategy Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government unveiled just last December, which did not mention .

In May, Canada is expected to promote nuclear energy at a forum in Denmark, seizing the opportunity to "place nuclear energy at the center of global efforts to fight ," Natural Resources Parliamentary Secretary Kim Rudd said in a speech quoted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

"The CEM (Clean Energy Ministerial) meets again in Copenhagen in May and we have ensured that nuclear energy has its place as part of a broad and high-level discussion on a global transition to a low-carbon economy," she said.

The Canadian department of natural resources was not immediately available for comment.

Although nuclear energy does not emit greenhouse gases like the fossil fuels that cause global warming, it is controversial because of the toxic waste produced.


Explore further

US restarts nuclear testing facility in Idaho after 23 years

© 2018 AFP

Citation: Canada to boost nuclear power to help meet climate target (2018, March 15) retrieved 22 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-03-canada-boost-nuclear-power-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1651 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 15, 2018
"... it is controversial because of the toxic waste produced."
Commercial nuclear waste has killed no one, it is tiny and safely stored in dry casks and emits less radiation than a bunch of bananas, unlike the huge quantities of arsenide and other chemical carcinogens present in solar panels that are dumped directly into the environment.
https://uploads.d...de73.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...jmtY.jpg
"Nuclear Waste: Ideas vs Reality"
https://thoughtsc...ng?w=640
https://thoughtsc...reality/
https://thoughtsc...r-waste/
"Used Nuclear Fuel - Part One"
https://www.youtu...vIzH2W6g
"Used Nuclear Fuel - Part Two"
https://www.youtu...dQQsxiq0
"Used Nuclear Fuel - Part Three"
https://www.youtu...ZMxf_kZg

Mar 15, 2018
Willie says
it is tiny and safely stored in dry casks and emits less radiation than a bunch of bananas
Actually much waste is currently stored in pools on site. http://large.stan...madres1/

so you see the problem with lying Willie Ward. And where it is stored in casks - it is not as squeaky clean as Willie insinuates. I am on record as supporting nuclear power - I think the benefits outweigh the risks - but that is my pretty low level of information opinion. I don't think we should be lying to support our position - and we should include the cost of storage when calculating the system costs. I believe renewables will win out in a free market environment - based primarily on cost - but with the added benefits of no high level waste, and distributed power. I think reality will see us with a mix - which is fine with me.

http://www.tri-ci...106.html

Mar 16, 2018
Way to hot in Canada, some thing has to be done!!

Mar 16, 2018
Meh. The problem with nuclear power isn't in the conception. It's in the execution, and all the details and expenses needed to make it safe, it always seems some of which private companies (and even some governments) are unwilling to face up to when pricing it.

Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Chernobyl, and numerous lesser accidents as well as the refusal to store the waste out in the middle of nowhere in Nevada or any other viable waste containment strategy have all demonstrated these problems.

And now we have, in the last few days, warnings that US nuclear plants have been hacked by the Russians, who seem to think it's a viable strategy to sabotage nuclear plants in the US. If they're stupid enough to do this they'll get caught, and they might start a nuclear war. They can deny it all they like while ten megaton nuclear weapons are detonating over Moscow; but that's not exactly the greatest outcome for nuclear power, is it?

Mar 16, 2018
@Da Schneib Nuclear power is already one of the safest energy sources. Accidents did happen but sure gen3+ reactors will be much safer. Post-chernobyl modified RBMK reactors ran for decades (not to mention that safety features in chernobyl were off). Fukushima was hit with huge tsunami which caused 18000 deaths and a lot of damages. No one died because radiation. Fossil fuels kill plenty more people in a year then fukushima+chernobyl accidents.
Control computers of NPP are offline so cannot be hacked, this is just FUD.

Mar 16, 2018
And in case you doubt it, here's the warning from CERT: https://www.us-ce...A18-074A

This is all too real, and it's a pretty dire threat, well verified if it's appearing on CERT. If you're going to lie, then explain that. Good luck.

Mar 16, 2018
As said control systems for nuclear power plants are not connected to the grid
/wiki/Air_gap_(networking). Cant access critical assets of the plant remotely. They can annoy regular work servers.
Same goes for weapons. /wiki/Permissive_Action_Link
That said it does not mean it cant get meddled by an human fallibility like in case with Stuxnet. Worm got in by irresponsible/failed security via infected USB. And personal are educated on this.
So please read your sources in context and with care.

Mar 16, 2018
@greenonions1 source says:

"No waste is believed to have breached the outer shell to contaminate the environment."
"The waste is left from the past production of plutonium at Hanford for the nation's nuclear weapons program."

And how does this waste relate to waste from modern nuclear reactors?

"and we should include the cost of storage when calculating the system costs."
Should we include waste to system costs of renewables? There is a lot of it and pollutiing enviroment.

Here is a take on nuclear waste: https://goo (dot) gl/8CAq5p

"John wasn't aware just how different commercial waste is from weapons waste. We have a deep geologic repository for weapons waste already. Unless we're idiots, used commercial fuel will be burned in fast reactors to get ten times more energy out of it, not thrown away.

Besides, there just isn't much nuclear waste. 70,000 tons over 60 years? It's uranium,. That much waste wouldn't even fill one good-sized landfill."

Mar 16, 2018
...in unrelated news they are starting to stock up on iodine tablets in the emergency zones* around aging nuclear powerplants in Belgium.
https://edition.c...dex.html

Call me Mr. Fussy - but when measures like this are put into place it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

*If a powerplant has a 'emergency zone' with a radius of 20km then...maybe you should be thinking about an alternate power source?

Worm got in by irresponsible/failed security via infected USB.

You sure 100% of personnel at a powerplant are bribe-proof? I'm certain someone with a cash flow (or other) problem can be found to bring a USB in contact with the system. If all else fails you get someone hired to do it.

Mar 16, 2018
I believe renewables will win out in a free market environment...
Parasites need a host to survive, intermittent renewables cannot survive without fossil fuels, specifically gas/fracking.
Little before 2011, wind and solar were almost "dead horses", then came up Fukushima fearmongering tales, so faux-greens, sensationalist mass media(funded by fossil fuel interests) and opportunistic politicians had the chance to continue the renewable scam that ended promoting even more the fossil fuels(coal and gas) to keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during droughts and that of course failed miserably at reducing emissions even after trillions of dollar spent, e.g. Energiewende.
"How Climate Activists Failed to Make Clear the Problem with Natural Gas" - March 13, 2018
https://e360.yale...mckibben
https://thinkprog...5b5f5c7/

Mar 16, 2018
Actually much waste is currently stored in pools on site.
It's tiny and safely stored. Carbon-free nuclear power produces up to 80% of France's electricity and all waste produced over decades fits in a relatively small poll.
http://media1.s-n...-6x2.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...svpZ.jpg
..http://www.tri-ci...106.html
Hanford is a facility for production of weapons.
"One of the standard arguments of those opposing nuclear power is that weapons follow. That's not supported by the facts."
https://pbs.twimg...9Kay.jpg
I am on record as supporting nuclear power... I don't think we should be lying to support our position...
You are a hypocritical not so different from gskam and other renewable cultists.
...distributed power...
Lies are caught by contradiction: distributed power/off-grid versus super-grid(to supposedly solve the intermittency problem).

Mar 16, 2018
...and we should include the cost of storage when calculating the system costs.
Unlike renewables and fossil fuels, "nuclear is the only energy fully covering its system costs including energy supply and decommissioning."
"Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology that takes full responsibility for all its waste and fully costs this into the product. The amount of waste generated by nuclear power is very small relative to other thermal electricity generation technologies. Used nuclear fuel may be treated as a resource or simply as waste."
Meanwhile, wind and solar dump arsenide and other chemical carcinogens(that never lose their toxicity with time), and also radioactive rare-earth metals, directly into the environment.
https://www.youtu...Q_6fuGNI
https://pbs.twimg...jmtY.jpg
https://uploads.d...de73.jpg

Mar 16, 2018
"You sure 100% of personnel at a powerplant are bribe-proof"

I knew some one1 will bring that up. Now we are talking conspiracy theories and is not related to remote hacking. Russian agents will get into contact with personal and bribe them to plant worm inside a system (which they have full knowledge of). I consider that highly unlikely and I don't think any1 can access internal system without approval. And even then there are passive safety systems and I presume quite extensive safety code for controlling the process. So I think that at any given time most of them are bribe-proof, enough that that does not happen.

And with other FUD "unrelated" claim. Now they will be even better prepared for unlikely event that will probably never happen. Just for info - Japanese have iodine rich diet and that helped with fukushima, in contrast people of chernobyl had poor iodine diet, pills were distributed but a bit late.

Mar 16, 2018
Idiots like you are exactly why this is a problem in the first place.

Security is no joke, and safety is no accident.

Mar 16, 2018
So, @uthmme, where do you live, anyway? Just askin'.

@anti, you were dissing this a few threads back. Any thoughts? Brand new user shows up the first time someone mentions Russian nuclear plant hacking and posts all over the thread calling it FUD. Hmmm, kinda transparent, don'cha think?

Mar 16, 2018
So soon into comments you show the lack of arguments and start name calling. Very mature.
Wants to know where I live to what, pay a visit? Yes let your conspiracy theories sip in.
Security is no joke, yep agree. is nice they take security seriously right. Accidents happen and we try to minimize them. See : i.imgur.com/MdMvW2M.png lowest values are all accidents.

The decision by any given power utility to use coal, or gas, or hydro, or wind, or solar, or geothermal, or nuclear has never been based on their relative ranking of fatalities per unit energy - Because all of them, even coal, are less likely to kill you than your bathtub. And having access to electrical energy is much more beneficial.

Mar 16, 2018
Never mind dudebro seems to have a little problem with English. And disses CERT, an obvious hacker maneuver. And takes on protective coloration by pretending to support nuclear power.

Sorry, I don't bother much with Russian hacker trolls. How many socks you assholes have on here, anyway? Just out 'em and move on. Bye now.

Mar 16, 2018
Another victory for the antinuclear faux-greens:
"South Korea fuel oil imports soar as coal, nuclear plants shut" - Mar 14, 2018
https://www.reute...CN1GQ13U
It's ever clearer that the renewable rhetoric is just to favor the fossil fuels which is a crime in the face of Climate Change. Wind and solar are a joke, just Trojan horses for the coal and oil/gas industries in order to displace carbon-free nuclear power.

Mar 16, 2018
@Da Schneib Yep, so do other non native speakers or in your world Russian agents. Didn't diss CERT just put in context for you.
Bye, your conspiracy theories and name-calling won't be missed. Let it haunt you i.imgur.com/HPSr4ZE.jpg .

Mar 16, 2018
. I consider that highly unlikely and I don't think any1 can access internal system without approval.
Ya think Stuxnet was deployed over the internet? Not bloody likely.

Any administrator can access internal systems. If you can get anyone of the administrators to do it then you're golden...or engineer any kind of privilege escalation (which isn't exactly an unknown form of exploit. It's basically how 99% of all attack software works.). Then a janitor will do.

there are passive safety systems and I presume quite extensive safety code for controlling the process.

Oh, boy. The trend to adding any kind of security into systems is just now starting in industrial software. In the kind of embedded controllers that are in use in powerplants right now (i.e. which have been installed 20-30 years ago and aren't designed to be upgradeable) there is nothing. Nothing at all. (And yes: I currently work in a company that does this sort of thing)

Mar 16, 2018
Ya think Stuxnet was deployed over the internet

Didn't say that, read again. I am glad we agree that remote hack of NPP essential assets is highly improbable.
So, any administrator can access anytime without permission or record of this? And change some random code or deploy malware? Hm a janitor will deploy malware on off-grid NPP systems, I doubt it.
In layman terms, if there is a system with scada, mcus that control actuators you would need to hack both the MCU and SCADA. To feed nonsense parameters to mcu you need SCADA and mcu-s must be hacked to accept this "nonsense" parameters. It's not like that with normal set of parameters you could cause a nuclear fallout (if at all). System is designed to work inside a range of parameters and deviations are reported and your operator too would need to be hacked or missing.

Mar 16, 2018
Then there are passive systems like pressure valves, actuator limits, exploited natural responses of materials etc. in a sense fault, fool proof-nothing to do with code or completely independent.

Even if system is hacked, how much damage can it really do?
But let's now dwell some more on the notion of Russia or others hacking NPP to (presume) cause a nuclear fallout. Selection of reactors that could do huge damage, get information on the security systems, operational parameters, fuel, PCV details, and all other little details. Then prepare the malware for it, contact employees (presumably administrators, engineers, janitors?) of multiple "hackable" plants, deploy the malware over layers of security and in the process not be exposed.

Mar 16, 2018
Then hope that the plant operators and other personnel look in the other way when power plant deviate from normal operation and breaches all fault/fool proof (passive) systems to go to meltdown (NPP is not a bomb) in the primary contaminated vessel and harm like no one.
And in the aftermath the attacker would be exposed and accused of a nuclear attack (harming international relations in big way), which could have been done more efficiently with other means.
All this process could take years/decades and since US NPP fleet ramped up its cyber security in recent years, this older NPP could even retire before the plan went through.
I think with a reasonable security this won't happen ever. Things however could get interesting in the design stages of power plants but that is other matter.
So what is your take on this?

Mar 16, 2018
Huh, found interesting read: forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/07/07/is-hacking-nuclear-power-plants-something-we-should-be-afraid-of/


No. Nuclear plants are still mostly analog and not connected to the Internet. On purpose.
Although new plants will have more digital systems than existing reactors, the protective approach of isolating systems, maintaining management and technical controls, and other measures, is essentially the same – maintain robust network isolation.
More worrisome is hacking of our grid. Even more worrisome is the hacking of our democracy.

Mar 16, 2018
And today: forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/03/16/russia-hacks-into-u-s-nuclear-power-plants/


Russian hackers can't affect nuclear power plant operations or safety systems. But they could, and probably did, hack some business, personnel and other non-essential files, which may be embarrassing and a little costly, but not dangerous. These nuclear reactors are truly operational islands wholly disconnected from the Internet.
America's nuclear plants are one of the best protected of all systems from possible cyber threats. The safety and control systems for our nuclear reactors and other vital plant components are not connected to business networks or the Internet. We learned a lot from Stuxnet, the malicious computer worm that substantially damaged Iran's nuclear program.
Updating software and equipment using portable devices, have strict restrictions. Outside laptops and thumb drives cannot be used without serious scrubbing, if at all.

Mar 16, 2018
"Even if system is hacked, how much damage can it really do?"

Did you REALLY post that?

Want a few hundred responses?

Mar 16, 2018
Yep, it is a question for readers. Oh no, 10 would be enough, so please lead the way.

Mar 16, 2018
Now it's got socks voting it 5s for every post. Whadda ya want, written instructions?

Mar 16, 2018
I thought we said farewell.

written instructions?

Are you capable of constructing informative comment? Please.

Mar 16, 2018
"Did he give them anything? If so, show your homework."

Just look up Stuxnet and the sophistication of it and the efficacy, and the sensitivity of nukes to cooling water. They can attack any of the points in the complex cooling loop, from reactor to hyperbolic tower.

What revision of software runs the pumps in the cooling towers outside? How do you know?

Mar 16, 2018
We cannot afford nuclear power. Show me one new plant built on time on budget and operated profitably. ONE.

Instead, we have the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station Debacle, the Hinkley Point Economic Disaster and the Vogtle slow-motion trip down the economic vortex of huge and poorly-considered investments.

PV plus storage is around three cents to four cents/kWh, and wind is down to about two cents/kWh in one contract already.

Investing in this 20th Century Bad Idea is just the exercise of political power.

Mar 16, 2018
They can attack any of the points

After it's sucesfully programed and deployed to NPP internal systems and overlooked by operators. And still fault/fool proof passive systems exists. You avoided providing at least 10 examples mentioned above.
Ok going to economics of the power plants. Average operating costs of America's nuclear fleet: $32.73/MWh - $25.48/MWh. True, gas is still cheaper, from MIT: //goo.gl/5HsqRf
natural gas is the main killer (of nuclear). Effect of gas is order of magnitude larger than wind or demand.

You do realize that the west is not the only one that builds nuclear power plants? You can buy them abroad just like other sources of energy. There is KEPCO build in UAE, build time 8 years, 1.4GW/2years, with LCOE 3c/kWh assuming 60 years operation and 85% CF.

Mar 16, 2018
And these gen3+ builds will have much longer lifespan and higher CF. Then there is china with:
Six Chinese-designed 1000 MW reactors at Yangjiang will be a huge nuclear power base for China General Nuclear, and will cost only US$11.5 billion for over 6000 MWe, a third of the cost in western countries

Source: //goo.gl/iJ7PvU
So western companies will need to step up their game.
You forgot to mention the CF and capacity of storage, how much gas for backup would be needed and integration costs. But nice try.
Bad Idea is just the exercise of political power.

It's the opposite we don't have political power to properly tackle climate change, yet: //i.imgur.com/DkdeDmx.jpg
And graph by James Hansen //i.imgur.com/XMudzty.jpg
Similar //i.imgur.com/Ip4zaAO.jpg

Mar 16, 2018
I am 73 and have heard it all before. We do not need them, nor can we afford them.

Mar 16, 2018
I would love to hear more, but not in the style, I heard it all, I am older.
I assume you are referencing Lazard numbers on costs of energy sources? I urge you to take a look at assumptions made for those calculations //goo.gl/pwsF9F .
So for failed US nuclear we have 2GW lovest LCOE of $112 with 40 year life span, 90% CF.
For solar Crystalline we have lowest LCOE of $46 and CF 30% for 30 years (ofc solar panels degrade by 0.8% CF/year). And not including integrations costs, so system LCOE can be higher, as stated:
Certain Alternative Energy generation technologies are cost-competitive with conventional generation technologies under some scenarios;
reliability or intermittency-related considerations (e.g., transmission and back-up generation costs associated with certain Alternative Energy technologies)

Mar 16, 2018
So, 40 years assessment for nuclear is a bit low, even todays NPPs have extended to 60, and some will apply for 80 years. Assuming 80 years for newer builds that brings LCOE in $60 range and that evaluating first nuclear build of new generation. With building many similar NPP these costs would come down, as demonstrated by France, South Korea.
With solar/wind you need adequate storage (expensive) or ofc cheap natural gas plants, but then you have done nothing to lower GHG. Must include integration costs.

On bright side, nuclear saved $8.5T in health costs only in US by displacing coal burning from 70s+. Using //goo.gl/XFZRcU , health costs $0.33/kWh for coal. Over the world that adds up to $15T. And there are other costs that have been avoided (depends on the country). So pretty neat. We can afford it and we must afford it if want to tackle climate change.

Mar 16, 2018
Assuming the metallurgical problems with the caps of the reactor vessels turn out to be non-fatal to the project, what is the estimated cost for power from Hinkley, if it comes online?

Assuming they do not cancel the project, what is the estimated cost of power from Vogtle?

What did it cost to build the VC Summer plant which was abandoned partially-completed?

It was over $9,000,000,000. Who eats it?

Mar 16, 2018
"Nuclear plants are EXCEEDINGLY cyber-secure. Facts are here:"
https://www.nei.o...r-plants
Carbon-free nuclear power is the only scalable way to stop Climate Change.
Wind and solar are a scam after scam:
"The US and the UK have reduced their emissions more than Germany. Spain, Portugal, Denmark, and California have higher renewable penetrations than Germany. It's almost like folks focus on Germany because it's replacing nuclear with renewables. Even if that's not exactly working"
Investing in sails and windmills, medieval technologies, is a bad idea.
"The higher the penetration of renwables the more expensive their energy seems to get."
"The more renewable capacity that is installed, the more fossil fuel capacity that is locked in long term."
"The more you know about renewables, the less you like them. The more you know about nuclear, the more you like it. The only thing holding us back is ignorance, superstition..."

Mar 16, 2018
@gkam now I would say it's time for you to provide some numbers I have done my fair share, and then I will comment on them. Do some work, it goes both way. But again, if US/west can't build it does not means others cant and it may happen that at some point china will provide the cheapest NPPs as it does many things, energy related or not.
And you still owe me that 10-100 scenarios.

Mar 16, 2018
No, you have not provided the numbers for which I asked.

I'm waiting.

Mar 16, 2018
"at some point china will provide the cheapest NPPs "

Wasn't it China who screwed up the metallurgy for Hinkley and an identical Chinese plant?

Mar 16, 2018
uthmme
And how does this waste relate to waste from modern nuclear reactors?
Because it is the storage of high level nuclear waste. I was responding to this comment -
it is tiny and safely stored in dry casks and emits less radiation than a bunch of bananas
And it was a very appropriate response. And if you know anything about the storage of high level nuclear waste - you would see that it is a very appropriate response. As usual - Willie Ward is a shitty little liar - who is pushing an anti renewables political agenda.
So pretty neat. We can afford it and we must afford it if want to tackle climate change
Well - if we can do the same with renewables - at much less cost - surely it is better to go the cheaper route. But I am good with nukes - as long as we are willing to pay. Hinkley point is running 12 cents kwh. My money would be on renewables kicking nukes ass. Let's watch and see...

Mar 17, 2018
I'm not against nuclear power, I just think it needs to be regulated properly and the people in charge of it need to do their jobs. And people trying to cut pennies aren't doing their jobs. Simple as that.

In the particular case of hackers invading nuclear infrastructure, the programs need to be upgraded, the operating systems hardened and-- here's the kicker-- maintained, and the network security precautions attended to in all phases of the business, not just the direct operational controls. All of this is expensive and requires personnel which costs money, which is not currently regulated. If the government didn't sponsor the liability insurance it would add a lot of expense to nuclear power. I don't know that I've seen this evaluated financially speaking.

Mar 17, 2018
Let me put this another way: the janitor putting a USB stick into a computer across the network airgap is no worse a risk than the beancounter directing that the operational systems be temporarily connected to the compromised network to download security patches. And no worse than the senior VP who puts the same USB stick into the same airgapped system because otherwise the hackers threaten to reveal his affair with the hooker to his wife's divorce detective.

Mar 17, 2018
There are lots of places to go after that. Substandard concrete not found until after the catastrophe. Low seawalls given historic earthquakes and tsunami. Insufficient hardening of emergency generator facilities. Safety interlocks on controls to prevent unsafe operation. All of these cost money, making nuclear more expensive. If these can be overcome, then nuclear will be competitive.

Mar 17, 2018
No, you have not provided

No, you are claiming things. Provide.
high level nuclear waste

Of weapons production. Not in a domain of nuclear energy.
if we can do the same with renewables - at much less cost

And no country has managed to drastically lower theirs GHG emissions with renewables. Don't confuse renewables with wind+solar (+storage), mayor players are biomass (too often) and old hydro. See what happens when there are nuclear expansions vs renewables, google public data: //goo.gl/6iuqAr. And no, it's not cheaper.
Hinkley vs wind

Looking at Wiki for offshore wind farms, costs production etc //goo.gl/HHg4O0 you could easily come to conclusion:
Wind projects (installed 4GW) will produce 340 TWh of electricity © 25 years.
Calculate annual degradation 1.8% CF/y you could easily subtract additional 30% from this figure but let's compare "ideal". All that at the price of 13 b£.

Mar 17, 2018
For Hinkley we got, 18b£ and 7b£ for decommissioning and waste management. It will produce 1513 TWh @ 60y and 90% CF (real figures can be 95%+). Easily extendable to 80y+.
So, we get for wind ideal 26 GWh/m£ and Hinkley 60 GWh/m£. You could see that we get 2.3x more for same buck. And that is comparing high cost nuclear. Compare with KEPCO build or china. UK is quite windy.
This is without additional costs in backup generation, storage costs, integration etc. Although if you want to compliment production of energy with wind that's fine, it can be cheap. But for long term planning you need "baseload" generation. Fee GHG to combat climate change and pollution.
Offshore wind farms suffer from blade damages //goo.gl/8rfdZP, we don't know what to expect long term. Beside investing in renewables with uncertainty outcomes, we must invest in nuclear as its proven technology and getting better.

Mar 17, 2018
Ditch, coal, biomass and hydro needs second look - not so GHG free as advertised, from IPCC //i.imgur.com/vllHjCA.jpg. Depends on climate, region I guess. And incoming sedimentation of reservoirs will make it irrelevant.
it needs to be regulated properly and the people in charge of it need to do their jobs.

Can't argue there, regulation need to focus on relevant issues.
So, we agree that hacking nuclear power plant would be next to impossible and consequences can't or very likely won't be severe or even worth mentioning.

Mar 17, 2018
If the government didn't sponsor the liability

Let's see MITs take on that, report: //goo.gl/P0DDi
There is no obligation placed on businesses to carry full insurance against damages caused by an accident. Indeed, full insurance would be quite unusual. While a business […] has limited liability, since a very large accident could exceed the financial resources of the company, and it would seek protection under the bankruptcy laws. Example, the collapse of a dam […] could cause substantial damages […] could exceed both the firm's liability insurance coverage and the value of the equity in the business. U.S. law does not require firms generally to carry any liability insurance, […]places a limit on the damages that any company would pay as a result of an accident.
From this perspective, Price Anderson requires nuclear power plant licensees to carry substantial amounts of insurance coverage to provide compensation to the public in the case of a nuclear accident

Mar 17, 2018
Needed to modify quote as it has exceeded max char limit.
Low seawalls given historic earthquakes and tsunami

You refer to fukushima accident, well it was 500year tsunami nonetheless they had major flaws. But even when nature throws its worst, that resulted in less damages then normal burning of fossil fuel, biomass. With modifications this could be avoided in future. Gen3 and Gen4 reactors are safer. And nuclear saved japan $1T in health damages, not to mention fuel imports ($40B/y).
All of these cost money, making nuclear more expensive

And still is one of the cheapest, safest, GHG free, sources of energy. Quite nice and getting better.
Getting to Zero: Pathways to Zero Carbon Electricity Systems //goo.gl/JzF839 .
And congrats on forming comments without accusations.

Mar 17, 2018
uthrnme
Of weapons production. Not in a domain of nuclear energy.
Just because the specific site I mentioned is storing high level waste from weapons - does not change the point. Willie said this
it is tiny and safely stored in dry casks and emits less radiation than a bunch of bananas,
about the storage of nuclear waste. As usual - Willie was trying to downplay the reality of the problem of storing nuclear waste. He is a shitty liar. Reality about current waste from power plants is that much is stored in ponds on site - and we are struggling to find a solution. Dry storage is obviously not the easy solution that Willie implies. I actually hope nuclear is part of our energy mix in the future. But we must be honest with our facts.

Mar 17, 2018
What about jobs, jobs, jobs. So, for US we have figures //goo.gl/iOJWXH (2016) and using EIA 2017 numbers for power generation we get: //i.imgur.com/UPKEzOD.png

Comment by IER, Institute for energy research: //goo.gl/Ug7VK9
The primary objective of the energy sector is to supply cost-effective energy to the broader economy, allowing it to grow and increase the standard of living of its citizens.
Artificially pumping up employment in the energy sector per se - and thereby driving down productivity, while driving up costs to the broader economy - is counterproductive to overall net job creation and economic growth. It is a sign of increased efficiency if more energy can be produced and delivered with fewer workers, because this expands the overall output potential of the economy...

Nuclear provides high paying, long term jobs.

Mar 17, 2018
Hinkley point is far more expensive than wind - and you have to remember that the cost curve on wind is down down down. Meaning that 70 years from now (if it ever gets built) - rate payers will be screwed to the tune of 12 cents a Kwh (plus the inflation adjustment) - in a market where wind and solar are probably down to 1 cent. Pretty stupid thinking.

https://www.thegu...newables

Mar 17, 2018
Reality about current waste from power plants is that much is stored in ponds on site - and we are struggling to find a solution.

Have you read Forbes article I posted? //goo.gl/8CAq5p . mentions difference between weapons and commercial waste and the cost of it.
We are not struggling to find a solution we are struggling to find some responsible, knowledgeable politicians as this has become a political problem. Lack of political will.
Besides other countries are moving ahead with fast reactors, which will enable them to burn nuclear waste and extract 10x more energy. US lags behind. India, China, Russia have or are building first fast reactors.
Russia even first commercial fast reactor BN1200 -//goo.gl/4HXrM1, expected to provide electricity with $20/MWh. Their motivation is that they can sell gas at 3x the price abroad than use it at home for energy. Renewable countries will ramp up gas consumption.
Have you seen fuel cast missile strike test: //youtu.be/jBp1FNceTTA

Mar 17, 2018
Nuclear is the only energy source of which waste we can contain, manage and potentially exploit even more, lowering radioactivity down to 300 years -//imgur.com/YZ0y5JR , source //goo.gl/BS6MQS .
We are fully honest here, don't you think?
Hinkley point is far more expensive than wind

Again, you should check with nearest mathematician. And as I said, you can complement existing power generation with wind/solar. And that can result in cheaper energy. But to say it can replace nuclear is absurd. You should note that lover LCOE of an energy source does not results in lower LCOE of a system. With wind you need backup, storage, additional grid expansion etc. grid costs did not go down. Nuclear can replace existing coal, wind+solar alone cannot. As said, cannot judge whole industry on western failed/first builds, costs tend to go down. Goal is to lower GHG not to have wind, solar, so far massive deployment didn't result in drastic lowering of GHG.

Mar 17, 2018
Germanys build of 90 GW wind+solar displaced 10 GW of closed nuclear. And that is with cost of €150B+, compare that to KEPCO gen3 reactor you could build 30 of them - 42 GW. Completely decarbonize electricity generation. Germanys environmental costs are $40B/year coz of burning fuels – 11GW of KEPCO nuclear reactors.
But there is a reason why Germany is holding on to coal, it's coal baseload price is the cheapest://imgur.com/QMvFBwq.
So no, you can't compare sporadic to dispatchable (or for that matter baseload) energy sources purely on the basis of $/MWh.

Serious analytics warn about that, like Lazard//goo.gl/h6fN6A, first line and then go to assumption page 19. Or here, combined://imgur.com/k7N1ZaU

Mar 17, 2018
Wind/solar is generally sold "not paired with storage", so it's misleading to claim it is cheaper.
Moreover, even it being supposedly inexpensive, it has been highly costly(trillions of dollars) per CO₂ avoided; also most of CO₂ reduction is likely due to replacement of coal by natural gas(methane), incandescent bulbs by led, low level of economic activity, etc. not necessarily to solar/wind putting in check its ineffectiveness per money invested.

Renewable cultists have option except to use scare tactics to fight carbon-free nuclear power in order to continue with the renewable scam, promiscuously favoring even more the fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables) which is criminal in the face of Climate Change.

Mar 17, 2018
most of CO₂ reduction is likely due to replacement of coal by natural gas(methane)

Let me check that (for UK): //i.imgur.com/duFaCWK.png , o damn, it's true.
And unfortunately gas won't go anywhere for the near future (UK //i.imgur.com/TJKe1mx.jpg). (nord stram 2, and other nations imports are growing).
Not to mentation that methane is more potent GHG than co2, and it's leakage negates many of the benefits of wind+solar -//goo.gl/8nsDaj
Methane leaks in the state's oil and gas industry equal 11 coal-fired power plants.

And here, worth to watch it whole, if you don't have time, than just this section //youtu.be/V2KNqluP8M0?t=19m6s .
A lot of factors for choosing nuclear power.

Mar 17, 2018
"Wind/solar is generally sold "not paired with storage", so it's misleading to claim it is cheaper."

No it is not. It is new an just taking off, and is STILL 1/4 the cost of nuclear power.

Nukers have already lost.

Mar 17, 2018
"With wind you need backup, storage, additional grid expansion etc. "

No.
You are arguing with someone who worked on the safety systems of GE BWRs in the late 1970's. I understand all the factors of using nuclear power, having been a engineer for a nuclear power utility.

Nuclear power cannot even try to keep up with renewables now. The advent of economical storage killed them, and wind plus storage and PV plus storage are already being built for about 4 cents/kWh. Vogtle is expected to be above 15 cents/kWh,but will be above that.

Mar 17, 2018
I prefer: "Battery not included"

No it is not. It is new an just taking off, and is STILL 1/4 the cost of nuclear power

You don't read much comments do you.
And you are right, batteries are not included. You got that backward. Because batteries (or gas) are not included, sporadic nature of wind not accounted for, wind is in some cases cheaper then nuclear power. Completely neglecting failure to lower GHG emissions.
No, its not new, it has been around for at least 15 years and aggressively build. We need to meed targets by 2050, no storage will be ready for that much capacity.

Mar 17, 2018
"We need to meed targets by 2050, no storage will be ready for that much capacity."

Because you are unaware of it? They are booked up in some places. My own Tesla batteries were supposed to be installed in Feb, but it may be in August.

Look at what he did in Australia and now has another, bigger target.

Mar 17, 2018
No.

Yes. With more penetration wind+solar values decrease. Here germanys problems: //goo.gl/932mHd
To stabilize the power grid, operators spend billions on emergency measures. The construction of new lines is delayed.
announced that they had [spent just under € 1 billion](https://i.imgur.com/W75F2l4.jpg) on network operations in 2017 - significantly more than in 2016 and 2015.
So far, **only 850 of 7,700 kilometers** of grid expansion and grid amplification have been implemented at the transmission grid level.
In fact, however, significant delays in grid expansion cannot be ruled out.

So yeah, costly.

Mar 17, 2018
and wind plus storage and PV plus storage are already being built for about 4 cents/kWh.

that means nothing, numbers. And not storage in watts. KEPCO build overnight costs $4.4/W and LCOE of 2.9c/kWh. Without modifications to grid and backup.

safety systems of GE BWRs

Then you know is the safest source of energy in US and the world.

Mar 17, 2018
Because you are unaware of it?

Nope, I am pretty much aware. Here take a dive:

Tesla gigafactory will spew 50 GWh/year of li-ion batteries, and that is considered large scale (still its quite small). And rest of the world is caching up so that in 2025 world capacity will be 400 GWh/year and in 2030 will be 1300 GWh/year. But if you think that's huge, get some info on how much capacity will national grids need to go (full or some %) renewable.

And just because it works for your basement with money earned from nuclear industry it does not mean it works on large scale.
Germany alone would need for 100% market share of wind+solar about 40 TWh of storage (hydro, batteries etc.). And that is just one industrialized country.
So please, numbers matter.

Mar 17, 2018
"Then you know is the safest source of energy in US and the world."

You can get a lethal dose of radiation in a few minutes in the Fukushima units.
Save your silly arguments. Nukes are 20th Century dinosaurs well past their time and use. The nukers can't accept their dream is a nightmare in reality.

Stop talking and go help at Fukushima.

Mar 17, 2018
You can get a lethal dose of radiation in a few minutes in the Fukushima units

Really nice arguments you got there, completely omitted responding to any of my responses on your greenwashed nonsense. And at the end ended up by classic case of radiophobia. You are not who you claim to be, or your responses would be more educated.
Ofc you can get lethal dose of radiation inside the units. That's why nobody would go there. You know, radiation is something we can measure very well. And no body died because of radiation at fukushima.
Continuing as a greenwashed person would, denying any problems with sporadic sources of energy and bashing nuclear as old technology. Aviation looks very old compared to nuclear, and we fly just fine and still innovate. How was your last ride on a Biplane?
Like you would go help clean the green waste pilling up and polluting environment. I hope japan will soon restart all reactors, to minimize damage to economy and environment – because of FUD.

Mar 17, 2018
My own Tesla batteries were supposed to be installed in Feb, but it may be in August.
Look at what he did in Australia and now has another, bigger target.
Hilarious, Elon Musk is an entrepreneur, not a scientist/engineer, even so he has became a Messiah for the renewable cultists.
Economic nonsense: "Tesla's massive battery in Australia was paid up to $1000/MWh to charge itself"

Mar 17, 2018
No, Willikins, he saw all this was ready for doing and had the money to do it. Now others are trying to catch up. He did not do it for money, but to make a change for the better, giving away all his automobile patents so others could start up quickly.

The greedy capitalists do not understand liberals who make civilization unselfishly.

I'll bet you still drive polluting cars with all those little moving parts which require oil and filters and tune-ups and emissions checks and regular maintenance.

Those of us making the future are dumping our nukes for renewables in California.

I did it myself with our PV system and two electric cars, a 2015 VW e-Golf and a 2013 Tesla Model S, P85. Got a Ferrari? Come on by, and we can run them for pinks.

Mar 17, 2018
I see now why are you detached from reality.
Yes, you are dumping nukes, but not for renewables but for fossil interests. Or maybe not knowingly for fossil fuel but you will found out that math does not add up. Looking at proposal of Friends of the Earth (and others) to retire Diablo we get: //goo.gl/xJFoS2
Basically: "You can keep your plants until 2024-25, but you must:
- have 2000GWh worth of efficiency by 2025.
- have 2000GWh worth of renewable by 2025-30.
- have 55% of something else in your total mix by 2031 (six years after the plants are shut down)."
The one number you will not find in the 20 pages or so, is that the two reactors to be replaced produce about 8000GWh each = 16 000 GWh.
So yeah, 2+2 = 16. Such a future indeed!

Mar 17, 2018
And if you are thinking smart grids, smart charging V2G (electric car to grid), here from CleanTechnica //goo.gl/rfPjZJ
Even greenwashed tabloid couldn't make a positive spin on it:
Tesla CTO JB Straubel is one of the most respected battery experts on the planet, and a few weeks ago we shared an interesting video of him talking about batteries in which he touched on the topic late in the 36-minute video

V2G & smart charging: Notably, the summary is that JB makes the case that it doesn't make economic sense for EVs to send electricity back to the grid

I'm definitely inclined to accept JB's analysis of the tech, so V2G [electric car to grid] and reusing EV batteries for grid storage are now dead-in-the-water ideas to me.

Read last paragraph again.

Mar 17, 2018
And I will reply here to one of your comment as this needs to be sorted out:
"Too cheap to meter" - US nuclear industry


For someone who claims to have worked in the industry and claim to heard it all before, maybe you didn't hear this:
Not so fast, Hintz countered. He noted that Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss, in a 1954 address to science writers, had coined the phrase to describe fusion power, not fission. Nuclear power may be a victim of mistaken identity.

//goo.gl/zbHAeN

Mar 17, 2018
uthrnme
Russia even first commercial fast reactor BN1200
Why don't you give us some links on your nonsense. Where is the BN1200 program that you speak of? What is the current status? https://en.wikipe..._reactor

Just saying that something is 'expected' to supply power at $20 Mwh - does not mean that it will. If you know so much - show us some real numbers. I could show you numbers all day on wind and solar coming in sub $50 Mwh. Hinkley Point is around $120 Mwh. All your math is meaningless in the face of reality...

Mar 17, 2018
Here: //goo.gl/gqzRKA, table 2, bellow.
And some more info: //goo.gl/FU9ope

I could show you numbers all day on wind and solar coming in sub $50 MWh

Yes, you could, and as said that would be without storage/backup, integration costs. Here, lazard: //i.imgur.com/k7N1ZaU.jpg
You haven't showed any math, nor did others.

Mar 17, 2018
Does uthrnme think he is going to stop progress?

He is arguing with someone who produces his own house power and horsepower.

My panels pay off in four years. How about your nuke?

Mar 17, 2018
For starters you can reply on proposal of Friends of the Earth (and others) to retire Diablo.
And 2+2=16 is not progress it's somewhere near religion. I am waiting for your relevant responses.
You think you are the only one with rooftop solar and plans on battery?
Congrats, are you metering? Btw we are talking about the grid not garage energy production with grid backup.

Mar 17, 2018

You are not going to win this one.

PV plus storage and wind plus storage are 24-hour power which is now CHEAPER than nukes, much faster to construct, and creates NO WASTE.

Can we send you the nuclear waste from The Devil's Canyon?

Mar 17, 2018
PV plus storage and wind plus storage are 24-hour power which is now CHEAPER than nukes


If only you would reply to previous comment when I asked you for:
that means nothing, numbers. And not storage in watts

So, numbers on storage and not capacity in watts or in house units.

Can we send you the nuclear waste from The Devil's Canyon?

Another one asking for my address. It has its place.
Maybe you could send waste to fast reactors in china, india, russia. Free fuel, you pay shipping costs right.

Still, reply to proposed 2+2=16 and many others, please.

Mar 17, 2018
uthrnme - neither of your links talk to us about the status of the BN1200 in terms of when we would be likely to see one built. Did you look at the link I gave? https://en.wikipe..._reactor

Current status is on hold.. You cannot talk numbers until you actually build one of these beasts. You can do math all day long - and be wrong. Real world numbers are just that - real world numbers. Here is an example of 24/7 power - at 6.3 cents Kwh - https://cleantech...s-chile/

Funny to watch you splash around all day long with your math - but real world shows you to be wrong. Hinkley point is still 12 cents....

Mar 17, 2018
and creates NO WASTE

//goo.gl/Lh2G5p
//goo.gl/31ZJXZ
//goo.gl/gpz9nb
//goo.gl/SqGjJ
//goo.gl/yChxTZ
//goo.gl/ZDfFVw
//goo.gl/s8PPWg

Nuclear is the only energy source of which waste is safely contained, stored, managed with possibility to be reused (France already do some of the reprocessing).

Mar 17, 2018
...moving parts which require oil...
Surprise! Wind turbines have moving parts and require oil.
"An oil leak from a clean, green wind turbine"
https://uploads.d...4a36.jpg
https://uploads.d...b85e.jpg
"You Can't Have Offshore Wind Power Without Oil"
https://www.forbe...troleum/
http://dailycalle...-of-oil/
"Wind and solar regularly require backup. Switching to "renewables" is a HUGE business opportunity for Oil interests."

Mar 17, 2018
uthrnme, your links are very informative; however, this site blocks short url, but full url is ok.

Mar 17, 2018
Start here:
https://www.utili.../443715/
How can Tucson Electric get solar + storage for 4.5¢/kWh?

"Xcel Attracts 'Unprecedented' Low Prices for Solar and Wind Paired With Storage
Bid attracts median PV-plus-battery price of $36 per megawatt-hour. Median wind-plus-storage bids came in even lower, at $21 per megawatt-hour."
https://www.green....wnOuVpY

Mar 17, 2018
BN1200 is planned. And it's based on existing BN-600 and BN-800. So, they have some experience regarding base technology for it.
//goo.gl/4HXrM1

where traditional VVER pressurised water thermal reactors are complemented with fast neutron reactors.
Ours is the only company with commercial experience of using such reactors. We have them, the BN-600 and BN-800 reactors
fast neutron reactor technologies enables the use of nuclear fuel waste over and over again in a closed fuel cycle
We want to start building fast reactors around the world, which calls for building the first such commercial reactor with a capacity of at least 1200 MW in Russia

Mar 17, 2018
That $21/MWh for wind plus storage is equal to 2.1 CENTS /kWh.

Match that, then, add your thermal and waste problems.
Why pollute? Why create intensely-radioactive materials we cannot even store safely or reliably.

I have been following the disgusting show of incompetence at WIPP for the last several years. Look it up.

Mar 17, 2018
Yes, it's funny how some can't grasp the reality of massive deployment of wind/solar. //i.imgur.com/k7N1ZaU.jpg
As I stated, complementing existing generation with wind/solar results in lowering costs.
You should read UKERC report //goo.gl/jAQaR7

The data for very high variable renewable penetration levels such as 50% suggests costs between £15 and £45/MWh


At a 30% penetration level, where results from wind-based analyses dominate, most estimates are in a range between £4 and £7/MWh, with some outliers. All except two data points of the entire data set lie below the £15/MWh level, even as penetration levels rise to 50%.


Curtailment (costs not identified), transmission and network costs (costs not identified), thermal plant efficiency (costs not identified), system inertia (cost not identified). So please, reality.

Mar 17, 2018
uthrnme seems to want to build a better dinosaur.

Nuclear power was a 20th Century dream and promise from which many learned nothing, . . but others have, and have developed cheaper, cleaner and safer sources of power which do not need twenty years of technical training to operate or understand.

Mar 17, 2018
Again, no response on:
Still, reply to proposed 2+2=16 and many others, please.


Oh please, do you need to be spoon feed all the time:

Duration (MWh) specifications for the battery were not released

So probably yours solar+storage=24/h wont hold on. But please, provide Wh for storage here and the other source your provided. Any news on selected bid?

Why pollute?

Exactly, why pollute with massive amount of toxic waste, shoved to poor communities.
intensely-radioactive materials we cannot even store safely or reliably.

Ofc this is a lie, FUD at its best.

WIPP

licensed to permanently dispose of transuranic radioactive waste for 10,000 years that is left from the research and production of nuclear weapons.

uthrnme seems to want to build a better dinosaur

Waiting reply on:
How was your last ride on a Biplane?


cheaper, cleaner and safer sources

Dementia is a bi**h, read above comments.

Mar 17, 2018
uthrnme
BN1200 is planned.
Thank you.... In other words - you are trying to argue real world (what is actually happening in the world of renewables) - with conjecture. So get back to us when you have built one of these beasts - and run it of 60 years - so we can see the truth...

By that time - wind and solar will be 1 cent a Kwh - and the Brits will be pissed at the charlatans who sold them Hinkley Point...

Mar 17, 2018
By that time - wind and solar will be 1 cent a Kwh

Ofc any speculation/projection regarding wind, solar and storage is valid. But not with nuclear.
You really should check reality regarding integration of wind+solar. Lower source LCOE does not mean lower system LCOE. See above links.
But ofc BN1200 was not main topic of this discussion. It was presented as future of nuclear energy and solution to waste. Don't focus to much on it (I didn't).

You can however focus on first builds of KEPCO APR-1400 with LCOE of $29/MWh and affordable chinese builds. Even today, first builds can compete, and the costs will get lower.

And still there is limited success of lowering GHG with renewables, which is the main goal for this energy transition. //goo.gl/6iuqAr nuclear expansion vs renewables.

Mar 17, 2018
2¢/kWh solar/wind+battery (without subsidies/tax credits) has been announced for a long time by the renewable cultists, in practice it is a hoax, after hoax, after hoax, after hoax...

Mar 17, 2018
2¢/kWh, virtually inexhaustible carbon-free energy
"The BN-1200 breeder reactor requires no evacuation zone, no dedicated uranium mining, no storage, no rare materials, and no carbon price because it knocks out all competition by providing dispatchable zero-carbon electricity at a base price of $20/MWh."
https://pbs.twimg...NVLv.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...m-QB.jpg
https://media.sup...-399.pdf

Mar 17, 2018
Ride on a biplane?sd

Mar 17, 2018
And no need to https://en.wikipe..._machine from baseload/dispatchable power plants: https://i.imgur.com/HnXtwmg.jpg its pretty obvious there is some constant demand.

Yes, if you noticed, aviation industry has made nice progress in 100 years, dinosaur.

Mar 17, 2018
uthrnme
Ofc any speculation/projection regarding wind, solar and storage is valid. But not with nuclear.
I can show you cost curves on wind and solar for the past 50 years. Yes it is speculation - but not at all unreasonable to believe that those curves will not continue down. Experts in the field are very comfortable in asserting costs will continue down. You know nothing about energy if that is news to you....

Mar 17, 2018
"Yes, if you noticed, aviation industry has made nice progress in 100 years, dinosaur"

I was there for some of it, Toots. I worked on aircraft for Test Pilot School and NASA and Special Projects at the Air Force Flight Test Center in 1966-67, including aircraft with rocket engines.

No manned aircraft has gone faster than the ones we had then.

Mar 17, 2018
Hey. This is aboot Canada. Get your comments on track eh?!

Mar 17, 2018
This is aboot Canada.
"Germany does not deserve its reputation as a climate leader."
"Ontario is a clean energy leader" thanks to carbon-free nuclear energy(cheaper than solar/wind fossil-addicted parasites).
https://pbs.twimg...AoYB.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...sWYZ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...lCm_.jpg
https://www.elect...de=CA-ON


Mar 17, 2018
And unlike germany, canada is not killing its neighbors https://i.imgur.com/KlsfdjE.jpg with exports. Even france does not evade fossil killings https://i.imgur.com/t7F7bV3.jpg

Mar 17, 2018
Some stats for you from Canada
Pickering and Darlington nuclear stations, prices increased 4.3 to 6.9 cents per kWh. Bruce Power, which operates the Bruce nuclear station, rates rose from 4.3 to 6.6 cents per kWh.
Pickering and Darlington nuclear stations, prices increased 4.3 to 6.9 cents per kWh. Bruce Power, which operates the Bruce nuclear station, rates rose from 4.3 to 6.6 cents per kWh.
In addition, there are environmental concerns and financial costs associated with managing radioactive waste from the nuclear energy fuel cycle – from mining uranium, to decommissioning of nuclear reactors, to the safe storage of high-level waste which has to be safely stored for over 100,000 years.


From - https://orec.ca/n...ontario/

Mar 17, 2018
Historically nuclear power plants have been prone to cost overruns and delays. The Darlington nuclear power plant in Ontario is cited internationally as a example. Started in 1980, it was only completed 13 years later approximately 300% over budget at a final tally of $14.4 billion


http://energybc.c...ear.html

Mar 18, 2018
Using nuclear power instead coal power plants saved them $500B only in health costs in last 40 years. So yeah, lets pump up individual stats and parade them as example of "bad nuclear power". And they have good start up in battle with climate change, many costs avoided. I added Ireland for you //goo.gl/ai2FGz

In addition, there are environmental concerns and financial costs associated with managing radioactive waste from the nuclear energy fuel cycle

Pounding on concerns on nuclear waste, spreading FUD and scaring with 100,000 years. It is the only waste we can contain, safety manage store, reuse.
https://pbs.twimg...svpZ.jpg

Mar 18, 2018
But here if you are scared because of that 100,000 year. Number is that high because of plutonium: https://i.imgur.com/Q0Edqzg.jpg and Pu is fuel even more reasons to go fast reactor route.

https://i.imgur.com/YZ0y5JR.jpg .
And tell me how much time do toxic materials produced with green tech (and others) take to be harmless? Forever, they don't decay and are not contained as nuclear waste: https://i.imgur.com/sw6yMtO.png . Toxic, radioactive etc.

You can google toxic towns, no need to be spoon-feed all the time, here for US: //goo.gl/RsGucP.
Example of uranium mine using ISL method: https://i.imgur.com/kBc8jtx.jpg .
https://youtu.be/d2PxY-wOrI8

Mar 18, 2018
What should matter is the overall result: electricity prices and CO₂ reduction.
Intermittent renewables do not reduce significantly the emissions and have made the electricity bills costlier.
Carbon-free nuclear power makes the electricity bills cheaper and really curbs the emissions.
Wind and solar are decorative, parasites, they contribute almost nothing to reduce emissions, make the electricity more expensive, and are just to provide "greenwashing" for the fossil fuels, specifically natural gas(methane/fracking), in order to put carbon-free nuclear energy out of business.

Mar 18, 2018
uthrnme
So yeah, lets pump up individual stats and parade them as example of "bad nuclear power
Facts are facts - sorry you prefer to cherry pick. All energy sources have their costs. You guys want to ignore Chernobyl, Fukushima, and many other serious incidents - https://www.thegu...ist-rank

I hope that future energy basket is a mix - that includes nukes. I think the evidence at this point says that when all factors are considered (most importantly cost) - nukes will have a hard time competing against renewables. A $9 billion mess here - https://www.posta...59c.html
A $7.5 billion dollar mess there - https://www.huffi...708.html etc. etc. adds up to an industry in serious trouble.

cont.

Mar 18, 2018
So let's build some of your imaginary BN-1200's - and get some serious data to compare. Experience tells us that it will be 15 years or more before the first one comes on line. Let's see what the cost of wind and solar are at that point. The main point for me is - stop the lying. Be honest about the costs. We can show real world data on new build wind and solar. You guys can't do that for nukes. You are the ones pushing a religion. We have data. And if you want to start in about the subsidies - take a look at just 2 examples I gave above - where tax payers are on the hook for $16.5 billion dollars of hard earned money....

Mar 18, 2018
Let's see what the cost of wind and solar are at that point.
Don't matter how cheap sunshine&breeze unicorn energy looks at first glance, if it makes the electricity bills expensive and doesn't really displace fossil fuels, providing them with "greenwashing", and also ruins natural landscapes, disrupts wildlife habitats, annihilates millions of birds and other endangered species, for almost nothing in terms of CO₂ reduction.
some serious data to compare.
France: nuclear expansion = deep decarbonization; Germany: renewable expansion = almost no CO₂ reduction
https://uploads.d...bfe4.jpg
"How to decarbonize? Look to Sweden"
http://www.tandfo...c=recsys
"Nations with more renewables have more expensive electricity"
http://joannenova...tricity/

Mar 18, 2018
Willie
France: nuclear expansion
So wonder why the French are pushing head long into renewables - http://www.theene...ar-power

http://www.climat...-macron/

Maybe they know more than you do Willie. Maybe they are more interested in facts - than in pushing a religion.

Mar 18, 2018
Here from Feb 13. 2018
France's Macron does not rule out building new nuclear reactor
https://www.reute...8N1Q36XB

Mar 18, 2018
Germans, now French, are being misled by the mainstream mass media(in the pocket of fossil fuel interests), faux-greens and opportunistic politicians.
Fortunately, President Macron has showed some sanity:
"I don't idolize nuclear energy at all. But I think you have to pick your battle. My priority in France, Europe and internationally is CO2 emissions and (global) warming,"
"Nuclear is not bad for carbon emissions, it's even the most carbon-free way to produce electricity with renewables," Macron said.
"What did the Germans do when they shut all their nuclear in one go?," "They developed a lot of renewables but they also massively reopened thermal and coal. They worsened their CO2 footprint, it wasn't good for the planet. So I won't do that."
"Nuclear ... to help French CO2 reduction goals, Macron says" - Dec 15, 2017
https://www.reute...BN1EB0TZ

Mar 18, 2018
Facts are facts - sorry you prefer to cherry pick

Again, you are the one cherry-picking: "look at those low bids", "look at this failed nuclear build"…
While failed to provide any data on MWh of storage for those bid, nor which bid was even selected.
Then goes on mentioning Chernobyl and Fukushima, read above comments. Likelihood of either happening is very low. Besides, nuclear saved $15T just in health costs (world), cost of cleaning up is $1T. And guess what, still is the safer form of producing energy - https://imgur.com/MdMvW2M .
Yes, nothing more terrifying then providing list of nuclear accidents featuring things like "Spread of contamination to an area not expected by design" you know how many toxic/harmful particles from coal, gasoline gets into human body "area not expected by design" at least we eliminated lead – remember that? And greentech waste need to be addressed too.

Mar 18, 2018
"Likelihood of either happening is very low."

"Very low"????

It has already happened!! more than once!

Tell us why we should trust you again!!

Mar 18, 2018
So let's build some of your imaginary BN-1200's

Again, you failed to understand that this was not a main topic of discussion. It was provided as possible (and very likely) future of nuclear energy. Its predecessors BN600 and BN800 are operating.

It's like when green religion mentions storage and you discover that word capacity in 2030 would be 1.3 TWh/year for Li-ion. Germany alone would need 40TWh for 100% of wind+solar. These are the fact you just gloss over with: "-no problem but demand will ramp up production or new type of battery would be invented".

Ii-ion has been around from 90s. You think that some undiscovered battery can be deployed on world scale in 20 years and for what price? Fantasy. We already have the technology for achieving 2050 goals.

Mar 18, 2018
stop the lying

It's easy to accuse someone of lying without pointing out lies. Please, do it.

Now here are the facts:
France's nuclear expansion costed FF400B that is €80B (2015). Compare that Germany: invested €150B in energiewende up till 2015, and total costs will amount to over €520B till 2025.
http://www.insm.d...EEG.html
And BDI projects that additional €1500B would be needed to reduce emissions by 80% or €2300B for 95% by 2050. https://english.b...i-study/ . And even today Germany loses €40B/year in environmental costs and 4000 deaths/year. And that will continue as long they burn coal.
And here you are talking about "taxpayers on the hook for hard earned money....".
Please, be reasonable.

Mar 18, 2018
Give it up. Nuclear power is already a thing of the past.

Go help with the cleanup at Fukushima. They need you, . . for another 40 years!

Mar 18, 2018
It has already happened!! more than once!

And still the safest form of energy production https://i.imgur.com/MdMvW2M.png . You should get acquainted with facts about this accidents and not infowars style. Or you want to be spoon-feed a little more?
Stop spreading FUD.

I am still waiting for your response on:

Diablo we get: //goo.gl/xJFoS2
Basically: "You can keep your plants until 2024-25, but you must:
- have 2000GWh worth of efficiency by 2025.
- have 2000GWh worth of renewable by 2025-30.
- have 55% of something else in your total mix by 2031 (six years after the plants are shut down)."


It's obvious you have no idea what are you talking about.

Mar 18, 2018
You need to work on that radiophobia https://youtu.be/2vr7QmbSZZ8
Give it up. Nuclear power is already a thing of the past.

Have you seen this graph: https://i.imgur.com/yXuWi0l.png Nuclear is pretty much present and future too. Have you seen plans in china?
And here projection for UK: https://i.imgur.com/9s8zvFU.jpg
Oh and http://www.decent...ing.html . Canada too would benefit with nuclear district heating.

Mar 18, 2018
They need you at Fukushima. Why are you not there?

They need you at WIPP. Why are you not there?

They need you at Hinkley Point. Why are you not there?

They need you all over, . . why are you here?

Mar 18, 2018
Oh, what a childish response for a 73 year old who allegedly worked on a safety systems of GE BWEs.
Adorable.
Are you capable of contributing to discussion, to any of the points raised here?

Mar 18, 2018
Answer the questions.

Mar 18, 2018
You show me projections and propaganda, I show you PL-1, Fermi I, TMI II, Brown's Ferry, Rancho Seco, Virgil Summer, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

You came in to save Willie, but are not much better.

Mar 18, 2018
Please, go first:

I am still waiting for you response on:

Looking at proposal of Friends of the Earth (and others) to retire Diablo we get: //goo.gl/xJFoS2
Basically: "You can keep your plants until 2024-25, but you must:
- have 2000GWh worth of efficiency by 2025.
- have 2000GWh worth of renewable by 2025-30.
- have 55% of something else in your total mix by 2031 (six years after the plants are shut down)."
The one number you will not find in the 20 pages or so, is that the two reactors to be replaced produce about 8000GWh each = 16 000 GWh.
So yeah, 2+2 = 16. Such a future indeed!


Mar 18, 2018
You show me projections and propaganda

You mean facts.
Nope you showed what generic fearmongerer would, while proving your knowledge goes no far from your basement tesla battery and expensive rooftop solar.

Mar 18, 2018
utme
France's Macron does not rule out building new nuclear reactor
And I hope he does. As I keep pointing out - I hope that the future includes a full basket of options. Then we will have the real world data - and can make informed choices. Macron and I seem to agree.
It's easy to accuse someone of lying without pointing out lies. Please, do it.
Very happy to -
This is from your BFF Willie
Intermittent renewables do not reduce significantly the emissions and have made the electricity bills costlier
This is an example of shitty little liars - pushing a religion. Renewables do significantly reduce emissions. https://www.thegu...says-eea

I could give you many more links that prove the lie. I don't think you are interested in facts - any more than Willie is. Note - I did not specifically say that you are a liar. You are certainly allying yourself with one.

Mar 18, 2018
uthrnme once again insists I play his game of invented numbers.

I prefer reality. And reality shows us the Age of Nukes is over. They cannot compete with gas or Wind/PV with added storage. And that is without the need to guarantee the safety of thousands of tons of something so nasty we have not found a way to even contain it safely for long periods.

How much can we send you?

Mar 18, 2018
I urge you to take time to understand the information you are receiving.
First, little words mean something:
Intermittent renewables do not reduce significantly


So, key words are "Intermittent", "renewables", "significantly". Now. common mistake is talking about wind+solar, then switch to renewables and attribute all the benefits to wind+solar. First sentence in your article is: "reports solar and and wind is reducing" then renewables
Have you looked at the report they referenced? I bolded out the part on "Intermittent renewables", making distinction between them: //i.imgur.com/5cHtX51.png . True though, intermediate renewables still account for 50% of the GHG value. Is that huge compared to all the money, publicity they are receiving and all the buildout throughout Europe?
I would say that qualifies as "do not reduce significantly". You can see here that solar is yet to cross 10% //i.imgur.com/3elKtFT.png and wind 20% //i.imgur.com/72PjpGq.png

Mar 18, 2018
Now, using biomass is ofc great, but its usage has its limits and sure it must not be overdone:
//goo.gl/11T5YA
//goo.gl/z3MwMm
//goo.gl/fqUq1p
//goo.gl/UWR7os
//goo.gl/2Kne3r

UK renewables: https://i.imgur.com/bKjs7tM.jpg and germanys you can find on energy-charts.de

I hope that the future includes a full basket of options

I agree.
I don't think you are interested in facts

Not true

once again insists I play his game of invented numbers

Once again you provide nothing to discussion. Waiting response on Diablo proposal and "invented numbers"

cannot compete with gas

That's true, however the other part no. Look above comments. And continuing with waste FUD and lies. Your lack of arguments and knowledge disturbing.

Mar 18, 2018
Chernobyl and Fukushima
"Fukushima is NOT a wasteland. Here are just a few views of how life in the restricted zones is getting back to normal." - Feb 8, 2018
https://www.youtu...sMPId720

German coal plants cause 20,000 premature deaths each year, in contrast to <60 confirmed deaths(most not related to radiation: helicopter crash, machinery explosion, etc.) at Chernobyl.
https://www.youtu...s9zqjsLo

"France considers developing mini nuclear reactors, eyes cost ..." - Mar 15, 2018
https://www.reute...8N1QX6WS

"Every green cultist will tell you that "nuclear is dead". Why? Because facts don't matter when you have "faith"."
"There are currently 450 operable reactors in the world."
https://pbs.twimg...8bLY.jpg

"7 secrets to cheap nuclear energy" - Jan 8, 2018
https://www.youtu..._aNpT0Pc

Mar 18, 2018
They cannot compete with gas or Wind/PV with added storage.
Indeed, carbon-free nuclear power cannot compete with cheap gas.
Natural gas(fracking) industry loves wind and solar, as they provide it with "greenwashing".
"Shell says renewables won't replace oil any time soon"
"Shell says fossil fuels are here to stay as renewable electricity not powerful enough for industry"
http://www.indepe...gy-heavy
http://www.indepe...gy-heavy-industry-power-a8247106.html
"No sun?No wind? No problem, natural gas has it covered. See why #natgas is a great partner for renewable power sources."
https://twitter.c...54220800
https://pbs.twimg...t8Ew.jpg
Renewables do significantly reduce emissions.
Of course, faux-greens consider natural gas/fracking as "renewable".

Mar 18, 2018
"Shell says"??

What do THEY sell?

Mar 18, 2018
Let us look at the reality of nuclear power instead of someone's silly "what-if" numbers game.
We cannot afford another Fukushima.
We cannot afford another Chernobyl.
We cannot afford another VC Summer $9,000,000,000 boondoggle.
We cannot afford to keep our money-losing nukes online.
We cannot afford the costs of power from Vogtle for 60 years.
We cannot afford to guard high-level waste essentially forever in Human terms.

Mar 18, 2018
I will correct myself:
You showed what generic greenwashed fearmongerer would, while proving you have no knowledge, no ability to learn or think, a tesla battery in basement and expensive rooftop solar.
Response to diablo please.

1. and 2. are just nonsense taken out of context. 3. is maybe relevant but not indicator of a whole industry.
4. is just nonsense, you should read MIT take on that: //goo.gl/5HsqRf .
natural gas is the main killer (of nuclear). Effect of gas is order of magnitude larger than wind or demand.

5. nonsense with no data, 6. again, lies and FUD

Is sad that at the end you are left with this nonsense arguments against nuclear energy. Accusing of a what-if numbers game while you didn't provide any relevant numbers.

Not only shell agrees, here environmental activist on this: //youtu.be/V2KNqluP8M0?t=18m38s.

Mar 18, 2018
US have other concerns then safest power source nuclear:
http://www.thelan...fulltext


Historical lead exposure may be linked to 256,000 premature deaths from cardiovascular disease in adults in United States each year.

Mar 18, 2018
Experience tells us that it will be 15 years or more...
Experience tell us that carbon-free nuclear power really decarbonizes the grid.
https://jmkorhone...uilt.png
https://actinidea...info.png

Sunshine&Breeze will take hundreds of years with no guarantee if it will definitely replace fossil fuels or significantly curb CO₂ emissions.
"MIT report: it will take 400 years to transform to 'clean' energy"
https://wattsupwi...-energy/
"Carnegie Institution, calculated that the world would need to add about a nuclear power plant's worth of clean-energy capacity every day between 2000 and 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change." - Mar 2018
https://www.techn...-system/

Mar 18, 2018
I would say that qualifies as "do not reduce significantly"
Well - if facts don't say what I want them to say - I will make up my own. You show your colors as someone totally uninterested in facts.
A single PV system will save a Tonne of C02 - even in gloomy old England - https://www.ethex...479.html
Global installed solar panels - 303,000 MW - https://www.green....CW_e=FE
One MW of wind power, will save 2,600 MW of C02 every year - https://science.h...cts3.htm
Total global wind installed - 486,000 MW and going up every year - http://gwec.net/g...numbers/
True though, intermediate renewables still account for 50% of the GHG value
Being that the whole number is significant - that would make their contribution significant. Your lack of reasoning is clear


Mar 18, 2018
uthrnme, I do not want to get into the kind of silly arguments those allied with the losing nuclear industry use to help save them from the future they deserve.

Go clean up some of your nuclear failures before you tell us how good it is for us.

Mar 18, 2018
It doesn't matter how cheap wind/solar seems if it inflates the cost of energy.
"Relying on renewables alone significantly inflates the cost of overhauling energy" - Feb 26, 2018
"The basic problem is that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow."
"Relying on these intermittent sources alone would requiring building many more solar and wind farms to produce excess energy during particularly sunny and windy periods, plus huge storage systems that can bank hours' or even weeks' worth of power"
"Storage systems are incredibly expensive in the case of batteries—and geographically limited in the case of pumped hydroelectric"
https://www.techn...-energy/

Mar 18, 2018
Experience tell us that carbon-free nuclear power really decarbonizes the grid
As does wind and solar - (see above comments) .

Global nuclear capacity - 392 GW. - https://www.euron...wide.htm
Global solar and wind - 789 GW

So you have no point - other than to promote your religion...

Mar 18, 2018
A single PV system will save a Tonne of C02 - even in gloomy old England - https://www.ethex...479.html
It's in theory, in practice, there is no evidence.
Real data show us the truth:
Solar: 48g CO₂/kW
Nuclear: 12g CO₂/kW
https://pbs.twimg...Cb8h.jpg
https://www.factc...otprint/
Solar PV hardly can payback/repay the energy from fossil fuels used to manufacture/mine/transport/install/repair/recycle its components.
https://blogs-ima...gure.jpg
http://rameznaam....ydro.png

Mar 18, 2018
Again, you show lack of understanding what is going on. You see, it's true that low GHG source will always reduce GHG emissions. But problem is wind+solar are backed by fossil. And this fossil power plants need to idle or work outside of optimal conditions thus increasing their CO2 and CO emissions. And which results in higher emissions. And we have similar problem than with price – lower power source stat does not result in lower system stat.
that would make their contribution significant

Look again what France did with €80B vs Germany €150B.
Not denying, it is something, 5% in 15 years of aggressive expensive build.

Go clean up some of your nuclear failures before you tell us how good it is for us.

You just discredit yourself comment after comment.
Take a tour: https://youtu.be/_4siRRMN4Nk

Mar 18, 2018
Global solar and wind - 789 GW

You need lesson on capacity installed vs energy produced? Capacity factor? https://i.imgur.com/yXuWi0l.png

And here, the power to decarbonize: //goo.gl/Z7UyMe. Lets look closer: https://i.imgur.com/WBw2Q1V.jpg .
https://i.imgur.com/wP95oBl.jpg (note axis)
As we can see there is not much data on solar, more on wind though. You could see that with penetration like this there is limited success with lowering GHG. As of now. Fact.
Is it possible that this curves will suddenly turn sharply down and that without expensive HVDC and storage?
Other stats in the report are informative too.
https://www.nytim...les.html

I would recommend:
Getting to Zero: Pathways to Zero Carbon Electricity Systems //goo.gl/JzF839 .

Mar 18, 2018
Real data show us the truth
Pretty picture - showing that wind and solar are extremely low carbon energy options. So the real data does show us the truth. I have never said that nuclear is not low carbon. Your data shows that on shore wind and nuclear are about equal. Solar is about 20 times less C02 than coal. So I guess it is a good idea to replace coal with wind and solar....

Mar 18, 2018
You need lesson on capacity installed vs energy produced?
No I don't - I have done a lot of reading on the subject - and understand the situation quite well. The point I was making is that if you assert that Nukes are reducing C02 significantly - you must also agree that wind and solar are doing the same - and they are currently in the same ball park in terms of installed capacity. Solar and wind have double the installed capacity - so even with lower capacity factor - the argument is clear - other than to a religious acolyte - who is not interested in facts - only in pushing an agenda. I am interested in pushing an agenda too - it is called a better world.

Mar 18, 2018
uthrnme
I would recommend:
Getting to Zero: Pathways to Zero Carbon Electricity Systems


Looks interesting. He says -

Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone


And above I said -
I hope that future energy basket is a mix - that includes nukes
How interesting!!!!

Mar 18, 2018
Oops, it was SL-1, not PL-1 which exploded and melted down killing three people in Idaho.

Mar 19, 2018
@gkam Ah yes, nothing more frightening than bringing up accidents of military experimental NPPs from the 60s.
But ofc killing less then gas accidents in modern times:
(US) From 1994 through 2013, there were an additional 941 serious incidents with gas all system type, resulting in 363 fatalities, 1392 injuries, and $823,970,000 in property damage

Uneducated greenwashed fearmongerer, advocating for deadly fossilfuel.
Go on, reply to:
Looking at proposal of Friends of the Earth (and others) to retire Diablo we get: //goo.gl/xJFoS2
Basically: "You can keep your plants until 2024-25, but you must:
- have 2000GWh worth of efficiency by 2025.
- have 2000GWh worth of renewable by 2025-30.
- have 55% of something else in your total mix by 2031 (six years after the plants are shut down)."
The one number you will not find in the 20 pages or so, is that the two reactors to be replaced produce about 8000GWh each = 16 000 GWh.
So yeah, 2+2 = 16. Such a future indeed!

Mar 19, 2018
How interesting!!!!

That's right. The main thing is we need to get rid of fossil fuels. It's the thing that drags down reduction of GHG emissions overall and emissions of a system with solar/wind+gas, as it's so often deployed alongside (causing death and pollution). There are methane leaks and increased emissions of GHG because of idling.
Nuclear offers us many benefits and can be complimented with wind/solar and storage for better flexibility.
We could start closing reactors when the last fossil fuel plant (or other fossil fuel consumers) is closed and energy consumption decarbonized.

Mar 19, 2018
No., we will start closing them now. For our safety and economy.

You are doing no better than the Baghdad Bob named Willie.

Mar 19, 2018
...wind and solar are extremely low carbon energy options...Solar is about 20 times less C02 than coal. So I guess it is a good idea to replace coal with wind and solar....
Are renewable cultists really crazy/delusional or simply hypocritical? They believe coal and other fossil fuels are not necessary to keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during prolonged droughts, and that sunshine&breeze unicorn energy is replacing coal in Germany and everywhere, not natural gas.
"In shadow of Germany's climate conference, a village disappears to make way for coal"
"German court: Ancient forest can be cleared for coal mine" - Nov, 2017
https://pbs.twimg...aGnv.jpg
http://abcnews.go...51362826
https://pbs.twimg...RBXf.jpg

Mar 19, 2018
Just keep on pasting from nuke sources, Willie.

The rest of us are building a new infrastructure, . . without nukes.

BTW, got any information on SL-1, which exploded and killed three workers, parts of whom had to be buried as high-level waste?

Mar 19, 2018
Spewing nonsense.
Reply to:

Looking at proposal of Friends of the Earth (and others) to retire Diablo we get: //goo.gl/xJFoS2
Basically: "You can keep your plants until 2024-25, but you must:
- have 2000GWh worth of efficiency by 2025.
- have 2000GWh worth of renewable by 2025-30.
- have 55% of something else in your total mix by 2031 (six years after the plants are shut down)."
The one number you will not find in the 20 pages or so, is that the two reactors to be replaced produce about 8000GWh each = 16 000 GWh.
So yeah, 2+2 = 16. Such a future indeed!

The future of your new infrastructure without nukes

That should scare some1 or what? Again, military experimental reactor. I would say this isn't main cause of death in military. Here: how many closed-caskets are there every year coz: plane crash, car, train, high fall, electrocution etc.
Again, you render yourself irrelevant to this discussion. What a shock.

Mar 19, 2018
uthrnme
Nuclear offers us many benefits and can be complimented with wind/solar and storage for better flexibility
We agree. I would word it a little differently - try this -
"The main issue is getting us off fossil fuels as fast as possible - while maintaining or advancing current energy provision - keeping an open mind in terms of developing technologies"

Folks like gkam are of course on the front line in this regard. Not yet economically feasible for me to install solar plus storage - but the day is fast approaching. Total off grid is further away -
and believe we have to compensate utilities fairly if we want to use them as backup. My biggest beef - jerks like Willie - who are pushing a religious agenda - and willing to lie and spread false information (very trumpian). Cost of nukes is an issue - and safety and disposal are big issue (I believe manageable - but we must be honest.)

Mar 19, 2018
" how many closed-caskets are there every year coz: plane crash, car, train, high fall, electrocution etc"

PATHETIC!

These three people were KILLED in a Reactor Explosion!

Their families could not even have the whole bodies to bury because they were contaminated and were themselves high-level nuclear waste!!

My PV panels have killed nobody and do not produce nuclear waste which we are unable to even store safely.


Mar 19, 2018
Word it as you wish. Main goal are low GHG.
I don't think he (@gkam) is any near the front line. It's evident that he is just a uniformed fearmongerer, a jerk. Talking about new infrastructure but can't provide an answer on Diablo. He even can't do the math. I doubt he has solar panels let alone tesla battery. But yeah, maybe I am wrong.

As for off-gird. That would acquire some storage. So, we would need storage for vehicles, grid and off-grid systems. According to EIA there would be around 100m electric cars on the road if we follow EV30@30 route. If average battery is 40kWh we would need 4000 GWh of batteries only for cars. Production of Li batteries is projected to be at 400 GWh/y @ 2025. And that is without replacements and any other needed storage.
https://www.iea.o...2017.pdf

PATHETIC!

You summed your comment pretty well. And now you are crossing the line to troll village. Where logic is no more.

Mar 19, 2018
Check out your king tesla: https://imgur.com/a/pt15h
They were advertised as solar powered, now they are cheap fossil fuel powered and 0 solar panels.
I don't blame him, reality emerges and he adapts.

Mar 19, 2018
What is imgur? I would not trust a site sent to me by you.

"Production of Li batteries is projected to be at 400 GWh/y "

By you? Know how many huge factories are being built now? Those numbers your propagandists give you are just silly weasel data. More distractions from the reality of power in the 21stCentury.

California is the future, and we are closing our last two nukes.

Sorry.

Mar 19, 2018
Galen Winsor asks – Who owns the plutonium? How much is it worth?
https://atomicins...t-worth/

Mar 19, 2018
...The rest of us are building a new infrastructure, . . without nukes...
California is the future, and we are closing our last two nukes...
The fight against Climate Change will be remembered as "The Scam of The 21stCentury".
Greentards/Eco-nuts/Faux-greens are fighting vigorously to shut down sources of carbon-free energy to give place to natural gas(methane/fracking) in order to keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining, which should be considered a crime in the face of Climate Change.
"Some environmentalists don't want to hear the facts about natural gas, as many are actively promoting it as a bridge fuel."
https://e360.yale...mckibben
"Without cheap gas, the "gas bridge" to alternative energy sources collapses. The other end of the bridge exists in imagination only."
https://thinkprog...5b5f5c7/

Mar 19, 2018
Check out your king tesla: https://imgur.com/a/pt15h
They were advertised as solar powered, now they are cheap fossil fuel powered and 0 solar panels.
I don't blame him, reality emerges and he adapts.
Elon Musk should run his factories entirely off-the-grid just with solar+batteries to prove it is 100% reliable and affordable. But of course it is not necessary, math and physics tell us it won't work.
https://uploads.d...3d0e.jpg

Mar 19, 2018
Babble away, Willie. Nukes are closing and those being built are being cancelled.

Meanwhile, my panels are putting kW into the neighborhood distribution system, running my meter backward.

Mar 19, 2018
Meanwhile, my panels are putting kW into the neighborhood distribution system, running my meter backward.
Meanwhile, gskam has invented a system that converts his lies into perpetual motion in order to generate electricity to power his neighborhood and the whole state of California uninterruptedly 24/7/365 forever.

Mar 19, 2018
Apparently it is all a big mystery to Willie.

Mar 19, 2018
Apparently it is all a big mystery
Intermittent lifestyle is not such a big mystery:
http://www.tranch...nne.jpeg
http://s3cf.recap...4a3d.jpg
"FAREWELL Solar Power… WE'RE GOING ON GRID!" - Fev 22, 2018
https://www.youtu...C650s69I
https://www.youtu...7XZy4ckg

Mar 19, 2018
I am on the grid, Willikins. It makes sense for me and the utility as well.
What happened to the guy they sent to help you?

Mar 19, 2018
What is imgur? I would not trust a site sent to me by you.

That's because you are not familiar with google searching. No need to trust, here are others who search for data. You stated your greenwashed position pretty clear.
So here, projects: https://i.imgur.com/9V1E9Th.jpg . 270 GWh by the end of 2021.
//goo.gl/6C47sj

California is the future, and we are closing our last two nukes.

Go on…
Looking at proposal of Friends of the Earth (and others) to retire Diablo we get: //goo.gl/xJFoS2
Basically: "You can keep your plants until 2024-25, but you must:
- have 2000GWh worth of efficiency by 2025.
- have 2000GWh worth of renewable by 2025-30.
- have 55% of something else in your total mix by 2031 (six years after the plants are shut down)."
The one number you will not find in the 20 pages or so, is that the two reactors to be replaced produce about 8000GWh each = 16 000 GWh.
So yeah, 2+2 = 16. Such a future indeed!

Mar 19, 2018
Friends of the Earth = Fossil's Friends.
"Friends of the Earth, for one, was founded in 1969 as an explicitly anti-nuclear group, with funds from Robert O. Anderson - an oil magnate who was also the founder of Atlantic Richfield Oil Co (ARCO)."
'"Friends of the Earth" was founded by an oil tycoon in the 20th century to mount deceptive fear and doubt campaigns against nuclear energy. It doesn't give a damn about the earth. It's friendly to the fossil fuel industry and always has been.'
https://pbs.twimg...RmG2.jpg
No doubt, wind and solar are just "greenwashing" for the fossil fuels.

Mar 19, 2018
Right now my computer is being powered by the Sun, just like the rest of the household.

Mar 19, 2018
Right now my computer is being powered by the Sun, just like the rest of the household.
I'd like to know, if at the same time, your sunshine&breeze power system feeds a shower, washing machine and dryer, iron, vacuum cleaner, and other household appliances, entirely off-the-grid.
https://pbs.twimg...sYR5.jpg

Mar 19, 2018
Willie will feel better after another meltdown.

Which one will go next, Willie?

Mar 20, 2018
Finland's Hanhikivi 1 reactor on track, unaffected by sanctions
https://sightline...nctions/

Wiki - The plant was estimated to cost "less than €50/MWh (5 cents/kWh), including all production costs, depreciation, finance costs and waste management"

That is near the arctic circle and only one unit NPP.

Mar 20, 2018
Ah green germany, investing in coal industry: https://www.altin...riel.pdf , read it.
https://i.imgur.com/YWQ3dMW.jpg

World must eliminate fossil fuels: https://i.imgur.com/GIg3K0d.jpg and those biofuels or at least not increase them. Incoming problems with hydro, renewables cap out relative soon, slow deployment and other problems discussed here. That must happen til 2050.
I see now why you are not rational, if its true what you claim that you are 73y old it's obvious that you need to feel good about yourself now (at least that is natural) and not be concerned about 2050. Go back to your greenwashed bubble and try not to distract others from solutions.

Mar 20, 2018
...feel better after another meltdown.
Which one will go next...
"Even the worst nuclear accidents result in far fewer deaths than the normal operation of fossil fuel power plants."
death/TWh: coal 161.00, oil 36.00, solar 0.44, wind 0.15, hydro 0.10, nuclear 0.04
Nuclear deaths/TWh reduced from 0.4 to 0.0013
Chernobyl: the only incident with fatalities;
https://uploads.d...f0de.jpg
Fossil fuels and renewables: deaths never stop.
Ah green germany, investing in coal industry: https://www.altin...riel.pdf , read it...
anti-nuclear = pro-fossil-fuels = climate-denialism
intermittent renewables = fossil-addicted parasites = "greenwahsing" for coal & oil/gas


Mar 20, 2018
uthrnme, do not worry about my age, I buried my 98 year-old dad in July and our 101 year-old uncle last month.

And I am the rational one here, with proof of renewables working silently and economically. All you have is propaganda.

Ever been in a nuclear powerplant?

Mar 20, 2018
do not worry about my age

I do not. I worry about climate goals 2050.
Nice age btw. They didn't die coz of atomic testing nor you will coz of nuclear plants.

These are the main killers https://informati...y-death/ and a lot of them linked to climate.

I personally am more concern on "humanity" factor. They tend to pack a lot of young population into ditches for no reason. Although the anti-vax movements are a concern too. And anti-nuclear fossil backup groups, preventing obvious and tested solution to climate change thus increasing other risk factors of death.

Mar 20, 2018
Now, you be so kind and bring out calculator and type in "2+2" and report results:
Looking at proposal of Friends of the Earth (and others) to retire Diablo we get: //goo.gl/xJFoS2
Basically: "You can keep your plants until 2024-25, but you must:
- have 2000GWh worth of efficiency by 2025.
- have 2000GWh worth of renewable by 2025-30.
- have 55% of something else in your total mix by 2031 (six years after the plants are shut down)."
The one number you will not find in the 20 pages or so, is that the two reactors to be replaced produce about 8000GWh each = 16 000 GWh.
So yeah, 2+2 = 16. Such a future indeed!


Ever been in a nuclear powerplant?

Yup, live near one. My country has more than 20% share of nuclear.

Mar 20, 2018
Oh, good!

Then, you and Putin are responsible for the high-level nuclear waste nobody has found a way to even safely store.

Mar 20, 2018
Yep, respond in the line with a sad greenwashed fearmongerer.
Read it: https://www.forbe...ientist/

Mar 20, 2018
"Yup, live near one."

But have you been IN IT?

Tell me which one, and we can discuss it.

Mar 20, 2018
Forbes the money magazine interviews a person who relies on nukes for his livelihood?

What do you expect him to say? That he is imposing a dangerous and costly technology on us now that we no longer need it?

YOU pay for the storage of your nulcear waste.

Mar 20, 2018
pay for the storage of your nulcear waste.
Unlike renewables and fossil fuels, "nuclear is the only energy fully covering its system costs including energy supply and decommissioning."
"Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology that takes full responsibility for all its waste and fully costs this into the product. The amount of waste generated by nuclear power is very small relative to other thermal electricity generation technologies. Used nuclear fuel may be treated as a resource or simply as waste."
Meanwhile, wind and solar dump arsenide and other chemical carcinogens(that never lose their toxicity with time), and also radioactive rare-earth metals, directly into the environment.
https://www.youtu...Q_6fuGNI

Mar 20, 2018
And I am the rational one here, with proof of renewables working silently and economically. All you have is propaganda.
You are the sociopath one here. The most that your solar system can power is your computer and a led lamp, no way a shower, a dryer machine, or any other energy-hungry appliance, simultaneously off-the-grid.

Mar 20, 2018
Want to compare power bills?

Mar 20, 2018
IN IT

I said Yup and added information.
Town is supportive of nuclear power plant, often you hear a joke "apples/corn is glowing but otherwise is fine, no problem". I won't provide information which one.

person who relies on nukes for his livelihood

Ad hominem arguments or you want to break that down?
Why should we believe to anything Musk says or greenwashed fearmongerer?

we no longer need it

Oh the denial, BP statistics: https://i.imgur.com/yXuWi0l.png
Answer on Diablo Friends of the Earth proposal for replacement, please.

Mar 20, 2018
...interviews a person who relies on nukes for his livelihood?
"nuclear power is what everyone thinks everyone else opposes"
"USA: two-thirds are pro-nuclear, while supporters think they are a small minority."
"Yes, In My Back Yard"
"86 percent of locals hold favorable impression of nearby nuclear plant"
"Plant Neighbors Say 'YIMBY' to Local Nuclear Plants" - Nov. 16, 2017
"Those more knowledgeable about nuclear are more likely to support it"
https://pbs.twimg...mrCh.jpg
https://www.nei.o...r-Plants
https://pbs.twimg...H9JK.jpg
"The more you know about renewables, the less you like them. The more you know about nuclear, the more you like it. The only thing holding us back is ignorance, superstition and fear of the unknown."
https://pbs.twimg...4i4b.jpg

Mar 20, 2018
Willie cherry picker -
"USA: two-thirds are pro-nuclear
But a much larger percentage are pro wind and solar.......

http://www.pewint...te_2-02/

Mar 20, 2018
You do not have to believe Musk you only need to believe your eyes while you look at my Tesla Model S, P85.

Mar 20, 2018
http://cassandral...ove.html
[q Instead, something went wrong in 2012. The growth of investments stalled, it went up and down for a few years and, by now, it is clear that it has plateaued. Investments in renewable energy are not growing and we don't know if they will ever restart growing.
While it is true that the prices of renewable energy are going down, at these investment rates it is clear that we can't go through the transition fast enough to comply with the Paris targets. Possibly, we won't even be able to replace fossil fuels before they become too costly to produce.

There remains the fundamental problem: how do we increase investments in renewable energy? Our faith in the free market is not helping us in this issue.

Financing renewable energy: Who is financing what and why it matters
https://www.scien...17306820

Mar 20, 2018
http://cassandral...ove.html
[q Instead, something went wrong in 2012. The growth of investments stalled, it went up and down for a few years and, by now, it is clear that it has plateaued. Investments in renewable energy are not growing and we don't know if they will ever restart growing.
While it is true that the prices of renewable energy are going down, at these investment rates it is clear that we can't go through the transition fast enough to comply with the Paris targets. Possibly, we won't even be able to replace fossil fuels before they become too costly to produce.

There remains the fundamental problem: how do we increase investments in renewable energy? Our faith in the free market is not helping us in this issue.

Financing renewable energy: Who is financing what and why it matters
https://www.scien...17306820

Mar 20, 2018
Two Baghdad Bob nuke propagandists.

He can't save you, Willie!

And the offer to compare power bills still stands.

Mar 20, 2018
...But a much larger percentage are pro wind and solar.......
It's because the public are misled by faux-green organizations, opportunistic politicians and mass media(in the pocket of vested interests) in order believe that wind and solar are cheap(not subsidized), reduce emissions, replace fossil fuels, are eco-friendly(don't kill birds neither invade and disrupt wildlife habitats), and are not being manufactured/transported by fossil-fueled machines.
Amazingly, even with all misinformation and scare tales, people in their heart know that carbon-free nuclear energy prevent them from freezing in the dark when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during prolonged droughts, and is the only scalable way to save them from the Climate Change.
https://pbs.twimg...3B3g.jpg
https://uploads.d...8da6.jpg


Mar 20, 2018
It's because the public are misled by faux-green organizations
Funny how you will use public opinion as a way of supporting your own argument - but when it goes the other way - well the public are all stupid idiots - misled by ... blah blah blah.

and is the only scalable way to save them from the Climate Change
Wind and solar are scalable - you really are a know nothing.
The variance between the nuclear roadmap and nuclear reality in China is following the trajectory of nuclear buildout worldwide: delays, cost overruns, and unmet expectations.
Whoa dude - reality really is a bitch.... From - https://www.forbe...67a82f51

Mar 20, 2018
Wind and solar are scalable - you really are a know nothing.
It is interesting that fossil fuels are scaling together even faster to keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining and also to manufacture/mine/transport/install/maintain/recycle the wind turbines and solar panels.
"Renewables may be growing at record rates, but so are fossil fuels." - Sep 20, 2017
http://www.nation...newables
"Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat" - Nov 7, 2017
https://www.nytim...les.html
Wind and solar are not solution to Climate Change, they are part of the problem together with fossil fuels. Carbon-free nuclear power is the only scalable way to save mankind from Global Warming and also to save birds, bats, natural landscapes and untouched wildlife habitats from eco-hypocritical energy solutions("greenwashing" for fossil fuels).

Mar 21, 2018
Whoa dude - reality really is a bitch.... From

Dr. James Hansen does not agree: https://imgur.com/XMudzty and if you are anything serious about climate change you should heed his advice.

And by now you should know that nameplate capacity does not mean shit, and any analytics that parade that metric has no good intentions. What matters is produced energy, and for comparing countries - produced energy by capita.
And even then it matters how much it is produced hour by hour - sporadic source of energy. Apples to oranges.

Mar 21, 2018
California has capacity factor 28% for solar and for wind (only found for US: 35% https://www.eia.g...=30212)?

UK has about 30% wind capacity factor,

Germany 21% wind and 10% solar capacity factor

China 23% wind, solar 18% https://i.imgur.com/z6kkmxs.jpg (source- http://chinawater...415.pdf)

Capacity factors are lower than Lazard's conditions of 45-55% for wind and solar 30% - https://i.imgur.com/k7N1ZaU.jpg

Calculate annual 1.6% (or 0.8 solar) capacity factor degradation for wind farm, and after 25 years its >25% lower production.

Mar 21, 2018
Greenpeace Spain just released a report on the spanish energy transition that clearly shows that the most effective and economical way to reduce emmissions is to keep the current nuclear fleet even though they try to make it as costly as possible.

In fact, the executive summary of such report that they're providing to the media promotes an scenario with an unrealistic low increse of demand (annual 0.2%) that emits more CO2 than the equivalent with current nuclear AND coal plants still open. Truly insane.

Data: https://imgur.com/a/OGuDQ - source ( https://es.greenp...2018.pdf )

Of course, they don't acknowledge that, quite the contrary they call for the shutdown of the nuclear fleet by 2025 with Raquel Montón, head of GP Spain antinuclear branch, lying saying that "emission differences are not large"

Reality, reality, data.

Mar 21, 2018
German chapter of Friends of the Earth (BUND) is campaigning to replace South Korea's nuclear plants with fossil fuels
https://www.korea...933.html
"You are fighting for the future for a better, safer and truly humankind energy revolution," Mergner said. "Korea needs no more nuclear plants. I hope your new government will go on shutting down the existing nuclear plants. They should be shut down like we decided in Germany. In my home in Bavaria in southern Germany, three plants were shut down. There are still two left.


Meanwhile Russia is looking to extend gas pipeline to South korea just like they are doing in Europe (Germany-north stream).

Coal is still king in south korea (and for that matter in germany, denmark is not much better off)
//goo.gl/QScyKv
South Korea fuel oil imports soar as coal, nuclear plants shut
//goo.gl/Bkc9tJ

Mar 21, 2018
Meanwhile in japan:

https://af.reuter...3N1R21ZH

Starting a nuclear power plant results in instantaneous lowering of fossil fuel usage thus lowering costs, pollution and GHG emissions

A Japanese utility that buys liquefied natural gas (LNG) to feed power plants has turned seller of the super-chilled fuel after it restarted a nuclear reactor, reducing its need for gas and potentially driving down spot LNG prices, trade sources said.

Mar 21, 2018
Willie cherry picker
Renewables may be growing at record rates, but so are fossil fuels
Well Willie - unless you have a magic wand - we have to play the long game. Here is a graph of oil/gas production over the past 70 years - and projected into future. http://www.irisin...rrer.png

If our governments weren't being funded by the fossil fuel industries - we would probably be going a lot faster. My point over and over - is that by being a shitty liar - you have no business talking about the subject. You said that renewables don't scale. One more lie - that you yourself have now acknowledged. You are a liar. Why do you need to do that. State the facts - and let's see where we go. We can scale up renewables just as fast as we can scale up nukes. I hope we do both....

Mar 21, 2018
uthrnme
And by now you should know that nameplate capacity does not mean shit, and any analytics that parade that metric has no good intentions
It does mean shit - and only someone who is uneducated about the subject would make that assertion. Capacity factor is of course relevant - and I understand the issues. My intentions are to see a better world. I hope that we scale up renewables and nukes as fast as we can - but i aint in charge. I was responding to liar Willie's claim that renewables are not scaleable. They are scaleable. Lying does not improve one's credibility. Coming to the aid of people who have to lie - makes you complicit.

On your 30% U.K. capacity factor statement - maybe you should keep up with the facts - http://energynumb...factors. Yes offshore is better than onshore - but the point is that the world is changing - keep up.

Mar 21, 2018
On the topic of energy consumption - and are we making any progress. If you look at energy stats - you see that global energy consumption is on an uphill curve. However - that of course includes the transportation sector - which is still almost 100% fossil fuel. On the other hand - if you look at a country like the u.s. - and isolate out their electricity consumption - you see a different story - https://www.stati...ce-1975/

For over a decade - consumption has been pretty flat - despite increasing population. So as we increase our share of renewables - we of course see the first step in the transition to a low carbon energy system. Electric cars are just entering the market. Give it time. There are currently no electric planes. Give it time.

Mar 21, 2018
It does mean shit – …

Can you explain why the Dudgeon's curve is like that: https://i.imgur.com/v0VppBx.png (despite the fact that is online only 4 months) . And then we will see who isn't educated.
I hope that we scale up renewables and nukes as fast as we can

You see here, you HOPE. I say, why not go the route we know works (France, Sweden etc.) and lower big portion of GHG, and meanwhile displace margin fossil plants with renewables. As you can see from diablo, south korea, japan there is plenty of meddling of fossil fuel groups parading as "renewables". Why do you think I didn't get the answer on Diablo?
They are so transparent with latest Spanish Greenpeace report (just look at proposed gas capacity).
Lying to the aid of people who have to lie - makes you complicit.

Point out my lies.

Mar 21, 2018
We can scale up renewables just as fast as we can scale up nukes.
"In a world of limited hydro, solar and wind won't scale."
https://www.youtu...iSNhAJqU

They love to call other liars, but the renewable cultists are the biggest liars ever, they claim that wind/solar is cheap and replace fossil fuels, but in their everyday life, they use gas-guzzling vehicles or electric cars connected fossil-fueled grids, and it includes faux-green organizations and eco-hypocritical celebrities and politicians.

Real data and statistics don't lie.
Clearly over decades, intermittent renewables, specifically wind and solar and biosmass, are a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions and replacing fossil fuels. Even so, the faux-greens are ever trying to manipulate/makeup the data in order to mislead the public.
"Major coal and natural gas companies are using renewable energy as the lipstick on their pig. Don't buy it."

Mar 21, 2018
maybe you should keep up with the facts

Maybe not just look at 12 months moving average. I took my data from here: http://www.renewa...xplained
The load factor for all wind (onshore + offshore) is 30.1%, as used by government

And if we are looking into the future we would need a lot of nuclear knowledge to explore our solar system and beyond. And that means perfecting nuclear cycle and other technologies. All of that helps us here-now.
A mayor of population is just getting into middle class life style, it like first watt is something, 10W/p helps you to run some essential machines (like whole village has an electric pump for water), but really transformative are 100 – 1000 W/person. We should not deny energy to anyone.

Mar 21, 2018
A village with a nuclear power plant?

Are you nuts?