Canada to boost nuclear power to help meet climate target

March 15, 2018
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

Related Stories

Experts say nuclear power needed to slow warming

November 3, 2013

Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to ...

Recommended for you

Researchers discover new material to help power electronics

March 18, 2019

Electronics rule our world, but electrons rule our electronics. A research team at The Ohio State University has discovered a way to simplify how electronic devices use those electrons—using a material that can serve dual ...

Semimetals are high conductors

March 18, 2019

Researchers in China and at UC Davis have measured high conductivity in very thin layers of niobium arsenide, a type of material called a Weyl semimetal. The material has about three times the conductivity of copper at room ...

335 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WillieWard
3 / 5 (8) 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
greenonions1
3.8 / 5 (9) 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
unrealone1
3 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2018
Way to hot in Canada, some thing has to be done!!
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) 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?
uthrnme
3.9 / 5 (7) 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.
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
4.3 / 5 (6) 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.
uthrnme
3.5 / 5 (8) 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."
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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).
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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
uthrnme
2.3 / 5 (6) 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.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) 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.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) 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?
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) 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.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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.
uthrnme
2 / 5 (4) 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 .
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) 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)
uthrnme
3 / 5 (6) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (6) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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?
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) 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?
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2018
Yep, it is a question for readers. Oh no, 10 would be enough, so please lead the way.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2018
Now it's got socks voting it 5s for every post. Whadda ya want, written instructions?
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2018
I thought we said farewell.

written instructions?

Are you capable of constructing informative comment? Please.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (6) 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?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (7) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2018
I am 73 and have heard it all before. We do not need them, nor can we afford them.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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)
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) 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?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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..."
uthrnme
4 / 5 (4) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2018
No, you have not provided the numbers for which I asked.

I'm waiting.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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?
greenonions1
2 / 5 (4) 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...
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) 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.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) 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.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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£.
uthrnme
4 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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
uthrnme
4 / 5 (4) 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.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) 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
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
uthrnme
4 / 5 (4) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
4 / 5 (4) 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.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) 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"
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
4 / 5 (4) 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!
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) 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...
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) 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?
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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?
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) 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....
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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).
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) 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."
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2018
uthrnme, your links are very informative; however, this site blocks short url, but full url is ok.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) 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
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) 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...
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) 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...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2018
Ride on a biplane?sd
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
greenonions1
2 / 5 (4) 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....
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
thisisminesothere
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2018
Hey. This is aboot Canada. Get your comments on track eh?!
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) 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

uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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
greenonions1
1 / 5 (3) 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/
greenonions1
1 / 5 (3) 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
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) 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.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) 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....
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) 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/
greenonions1
1 / 5 (3) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2018
Here from Feb 13. 2018
France's Macron does not rule out building new nuclear reactor
https://www.reute...8N1Q36XB
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) 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
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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!!
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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!
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) 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?
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2018
Answer the questions.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) 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.
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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!

uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) 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.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) 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?
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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".
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2018
"Shell says"??

What do THEY sell?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) 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.
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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.
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) 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

gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) 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.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) 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...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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 .
greenonions1
2.6 / 5 (5) 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....
greenonions1
2.6 / 5 (5) 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.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) 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!!!!
gkam
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2018
Oops, it was SL-1, not PL-1 which exploded and melted down killing three people in Idaho.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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!
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) 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?
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) 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.)
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) 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.

uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
5 / 5 (2) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
Solon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2018
Galen Winsor asks – Who owns the plutonium? How much is it worth?
https://atomicins...t-worth/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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/
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) 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
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) 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.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) 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.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2018
Apparently it is all a big mystery to Willie.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) 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?
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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!
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2018
Right now my computer is being powered by the Sun, just like the rest of the household.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2018
Willie will feel better after another meltdown.

Which one will go next, Willie?
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) 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

gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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?
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2018
Yep, respond in the line with a sad greenwashed fearmongerer.
Read it: https://www.forbe...ientist/
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2018
"Yup, live near one."

But have you been IN IT?

Tell me which one, and we can discuss it.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) 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
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2018
Want to compare power bills?
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) 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
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) 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/
gkam
1 / 5 (4) 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.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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
uthrnme
2.6 / 5 (5) 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
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2018
Two Baghdad Bob nuke propagandists.

He can't save you, Willie!

And the offer to compare power bills still stands.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) 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

greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) 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
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) 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).
uthrnme
5 / 5 (2) 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.
uthrnme
5 / 5 (2) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) 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.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (3) 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....
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) 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.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) 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.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) 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."
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2018
A village with a nuclear power plant?

Are you nuts?
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2018
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2018
NASA - https://www.engad...habitat/
Village.
"radioisotope thermoelectric generator" will prevent astronauts from freezing in the dark on Mars, like Matt Damon's movie, it's less harmful than cosmic and solar radiation.
Now batteries charged by solar energy during the day, to travel the whole night, it's pure fiction, it doesn't work even here on Earth where sunlight radiation is 3x more intense than Mars, and there is no fossil fuels on Mars to be "greenwashed" by sunshine&breeze unicorn energy.
https://www.youtu...QHcBvS6E
http://sciencevsh...martian/
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2018
Well I get good laughs of your comments :)

It won't save lives only on mars though.
https://www.bloom...millions
A combination of unusually hot weather, infrastructure damage from typhoons and Tsai's drive to abandon nuclear power left Taiwan barely able to supply sufficient electricity to residential and business users in the past week.

Many villages.

Just because some villages (germany) chooses to pollute the environment even further with outdated and deadly technologies, that shouldn't give them the power to force other villages to do the same.

gkam, would you let Musk to send you to mars with your Tesla? He has proven he could do it. And you are perfect for it, a bit older (there is much radiation) and still a lot of time ahead of you.
That would be progressive, not battery in basement.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2018
uthrnme
why not go the route we know works
Because I am not in charge. I hope we do go the route that works - which is a mixed basket of renewables. Scotland is on track to be 100% renewable by 2020 - http://www.greenm...20-solar So we have a model. As the article I showed you indicates - nukes have a track record of over budget, and time line delays. Hinkley Point is going to cost tax payers 12 cents Kwh - adjusted up for inflation for the next 60 years. Insanity given the cost curves on wind and solar. But hey - if you are in charge - pull some strings - build those BN 1200 nukes - and let's see what happens.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2018
uthrnme
Maybe not just look at 12 months moving average
And your point is? On the 12 month average - of 30 wind projects - only 7 were at or below 30%, and the average was 44.3%. Some wind farms are now getting north of 50% - http://energynumb...nd-farms

Keep cherry pick your data though - you and Willie make a good team....
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2018
Not a very affordable power system, is it?

And why does the pro-nuke lobby keep on bringing up Musk? I was working with alternative energy decades before Musk.

Grow up and learn.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2018
Scotland is on track to be 100% renewable by 2020

Will see. Remember, batteries not included.
Nuclear will eventually be recognized as renewable, and then many more countries and villages will be 100% renewable.

Any comment on that Dudgeon's curve?

build those BN 1200 nukes

You really like these, who wouldn't right? 2c/kWh, 24/7 safe and burning waste. Nice. And renewable.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2018
Hey - don't blame me - I had nothing to do with it - but the U.K is talking about more than doubling it's offshore wind capacity - to supply 1/3 of their electricity from offshore wind by 2030.
which could reduce overall electricity system costs by 9%; a five-fold increase in export value, up to £2.6 billion per year; 27,000 skilled jobs across the UK, an increase from the 11,000 in existence today


from - https://cleantech...ts-2030/
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2018
pro-nuke lobby keep on bringing up Musk

Look history, you did.
How's going that calculation 2+2 = 16 for Diablo?

working with alternative energy decades before

Those dutch windmills failed. Than you went broke with tulips.

Would you be so kind on explaining Dudgeon's curve? Or that is not in the field of yours alternative energy like PMM1 and PMM2.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2018
Look it up yourself. Academia is interesting but in the real world, we have to make it work Maybe they are windmills to academics, but we use wind turbine generators here, and they are much cheaper than nukes!!

I am interested in what works. I spent most of my life in production of all kinds.

What did you do?
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2018
Look it up yourself

Coz you have no idea. Just like you cant come up with the answer on Diablo.
What did you do

Huh plenty of things, I just don't brag about it (or in your case lie).
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2018
How about an answer for Fukushima? That is a REAL disaster, not some projected outage.

BTW, I was one of the engineers hired by PG&E in 1980 to go into the facilities and factories of the customers and make them more efficient. It saved us from building more generation at the time. It gave the lie to the book "Overload".

And it carries over to now.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2018
BTW, I was one of the engineers hired by PG&E

And now you are bragging about Tesla in garage and battery in basement - on the internet. Can't explain Diablo calculation and Dudgeon's curve. Just fantasies and lies.

Now let's try a different approach. Why do you think fukushima is a disaster? And should it be an excuse to quit nuclear power?

At least maybe I would learn something new.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2018
No, that is what you assume. No basement.

"Why do you think fukushima is a disaster?"

WHAT???

Why don't you?

Go invest in it! Take the kids!
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2018
I wasn't bragging, but bringing up the fact the future is here now, and it does not include many 20th century nuclear technologies.
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2018
Scotland is on track to be 100% renewable by 2020
Renewable cultists are so delusional, Germany and Denmark were the best examples they had about renewable "success", now these countries have one of the most expensive electricity bills and also are a fiasco in terms of CO₂ reduction in contrast to France, Sweden, Ontario.
France(nuclear): 53g CO₂eq/kWh
Germany: 532g CO₂eq/kWh
Denmark: 600g CO₂eq/kWh
"Germany and Denmark have invested heavily in wind power & have some of highest energy prices in EU. Germany's over reliance on weather dependent energy has meant they have increased mining and burning dirty lignite coal to keep lights on = raised emissions. Very 'green' - not."
"While Denmark gets all its clean energy from wind + solar, its other sources of electricity are mostly coal + gas, giving it a carbon intensity of 431g of CO2/kWh. France, at 64% nuclear, has a CI of 69g CO2/kWh."

Costa Rica is >90% hydro; Scotland is integrated to UK fossil-fueled grid.
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2018
...Fukushima? That is a REAL disaster...
It's a kind of disaster where no one has died from radiation exposure.
The REAL disaster is the renewable scam that has ruined natural landscapes, disrupted wildlife habitats, annihilated millions of birds and other endangered species, increased child labor in poor countries, wasted trillions of dollars from taxpayers for almost nothing in terms of CO₂ reduction, and that has served as "greenwashing" to favor even more coal and other fossil fuels which air pollution respects no border and kills millions of people every year.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
https://theenergy...dy-free/
Scottish Power chief executive Keith Anderson has questioned the apparent obsession with achieving 'subsidy-free' renewables, warning it will not happen any time soon in the UK for technologies such as offshore wind


"I can't understand why the renewables industry has become obsessed with talking about becoming 'subsidy-free'. Right now, nothing in the UK energy industry is being built without some form of support, so why in god's name is the renewables industry running around desperate to [be seen] as subsidy-free?" Anderson asked.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2018
Willie
Scotland is integrated to UK fossil-fueled grid
But EXPORTS electricity...
Despite the closure of Cockenzie coal-fired power station in March 2013 Scotland is exporting a record proportion of its electricity generation to the rest of the UK, in large part thanks to the growth of renewables
From - https://www.scott...cotland/

So as usual Willie - you and your BFF uthrnme prove that you don't understand the subject you are howling about - and that you are pushing an agenda - rather than interested in a better world. We all know that renewables are intermittent, and that an important part of the future grid - is interconnections. I like the idea of distributed generation. Panels on everyone's roof. Wind and solar farms spread around. I am a Conservative on this one. Less reliance on one source or central authority....
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
@uthrnme From your article
Right now, nothing in the UK energy industry is being built without some form of support
If it is the cheapest form of generation, then underpin it with a market mechanism," he said. "Why shouldn't UK consumers get the benefit of that cheap energy?


So you want to howl about supports for cheap renewables - in a world that is possibly going to dump $37 billion into a nuke - costing the tax payers 12 cents Kwh wholesale - adjusted up for inflation over the next 60 years. That sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Good reading - http://www.wired....ar-plant

critics of the power plant raised similar concerns about the increasing cost of Hinkley Point C. One assessment by the Government put the cost as high as £37 billion
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
prove that you don't understand the subject

How's going on that Dudgeon's curve mystery? Maybe you can help gkam with that calculation for Diablo, you know that "2+2=16".

distributed generation [...] central authority

When grid is depended on interconnections you got yourself a central authority.
See the distributed generation in action: https://i.imgur.com/PjdVktu.jpg, https://i.imgur.com/YD6Djce.gif, https://i.imgur.com/I6taTkc.jpg .
How expensive is rooftop solar? Take a look: https://i.imgur.com/k7N1ZaU.jpg
And you forgot battery in everyone's basement.

over the next 60 years

Pretty sure it's not 60, mind to check that and report?
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2018
Maybe I will just wait until the next meltdown and international disaster.

It is as sure as another Trump lie.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2018
Wind and solar are parasites and cannot survive without a host, and in the case of intermittent renewables in Scotland, the host is the fossil-fueled grid in UK.
It's so mixed to UK grid that is hard to find the final prices.
http://www.euanme...npie.png
https://selectra....rope.png
https://selectra....s-europe
"Scottish Power announces sharp rise in energy prices" - Feb 10, 2017
http://www.bbc.co...38930236
"Scottish Power customers to be hit by 7.8% price hike"
https://www.thegu...ice-hike
"A sausage factory paid more if it sells no sausages? The shocking economics of Scottish wind farms." - Aug 10, 2017
https://capx.co/t...-racket/
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2018
Maybe I will just wait until the next meltdown and international disaster.
"Nuclear scare stories are a gift to the truly lethal coal industry".
http://www.thegua...industry
"Even the worst nuclear accidents result in far fewer deaths than the normal operation of fossil fuel power plants."
Wind and solar are parasites and are unable to compete in a fair way with carbon-free nuclear energy, neither with other forms of renewable energy like hydropower and biomass, their only option is to serve as "greenwashing"/facade for the fossil fuel industry.

uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
**Boom**
Six dead after blast at Czech refinery
https://www.reute...BN1GY17T

Fukushima - 0.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
What's up with that:

Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
https://www.teleg...udy.html

The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.

The study estimates that routine wear and tear will more than double the cost of electricity being produced by wind farms in the next decade.

The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years.


greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
Willie
the host is the fossil-fueled grid in UK
I just showed you that Scotland EXPORTS electricity to the UK grid . But yes - Scotland is interconnected, and when it needs to - it draws power, and vice versa. If it is a net EXPORTER - that means Scotland is actually helping to reduce the emissions from the UK grid. Britain now gets more than half it's electricity from low carbon - and is in the process of closing all coal plants. Keep telling you Willie - Rome was not built in a day. Let's see what lies you are trying to push - when more and more places hit 100% renewables. Denmark is targetting 2050. Scotalnd 2020. Then what lie will push - after your rubbish is exposed????
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2018
I think Davis-Besse may go next. The maintenance there has been terrible.

It just went through its last refueling, but may not last through the fuel cycle, in my opinion.
When I was in the control room of Rancho Seco, I wanted to ask where in the panel the electrician dropped the light bulb which shorted out the cooling system.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2018
Scotland is interconnected, and when it needs to - it draws power, and vice versa.
UK CO₂ reduction match with natural gas(methane) increase:
http://i.imgur.com/duFaCWK.png
In France, Sweden, Ontario, etc. there is no doubt that the CO₂ reduction is due to carbon-free nuclear energy. In other countries, almost sure it's mostly due to replacement of coal by natural gas(methane), substitution of incandescent bulbs by led, level of economic activity, etc.

WillieWard
5 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
It's interesting: it seems that Greenpeace is realizing that carbon-free nuclear energy is the way to go, because sunshine&breeze unicorn energy is just to provide "greenwashing" for marine DIESEL in order to generate electricity to power their ships and inflatable motorboats across the oceans. LOL
"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"
https://pbs.twimg...9BBM.jpg
http://wpmedia.ne...1808.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
uthrnme
What's up with that:
It is very interesting to watch deniers at work. Rushing off to their chosen denier information sites, and peddling rubbish. The R.E.F. is a known front organization for the fossil fuel industry - and works tirelessly to oppose wind farms. You can check them out on the net. The Hughes report is full of nonsense - that is simply disputed by reality. Wind turbines are in fact lasting far longer than Hughes' mathematical gyrations indicate - as shown by studies like this - https://www.scien...13005727
Canada is just decommissioning it's first wind farm - at 24 years old. https://www.windp...nd-farm/

Of course technology is moving fast - and new turbines will last longer. Operators only get paid for the power they generate - so obviously Hughes is full of it. Wind turbines are holding up just fine...
uthrnme
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2018
https://www.theti...dv76g7cm
https://jyllands-...0;finans
chosen denier information sites

Hey now, wrong conclusions. I accept your explanation. And honestly, I really don't care for now, in next 5 years we will know more.
That's why I often quote the study you posted as it's at least peer reviewed.

Now, got anything to add on above comments of mine (60y)?
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2018
Now, got anything to add on above comments of mine
Nope - you have shown yourself as someone who does not value truth - or honesty. Quoting that Hughes study - shows that you don't understand the subject - but are pushing an agenda. Wind turbines are doing fine. Scotland and many others ares on track to 100% renewables. We are in the early stages of a massive shift in how we generate electricity. It may take 100 years. Electric cars are just emerging. I am in favor of nukes - as I think the main issue is getting off fossil fuels - and it would make sense to me to throw everything we have at that one. If I was in charge of Germany - I would have shut down their coal plants first. Interesting that you did not post the peer reviewed study - but posted a debunked rubbish study...
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2018
How do the pro-nuclear folk plan on competing with other sources of power?

We cannot afford the Police State we need for it, cannot afford the time delay or the enormous costs of this dangerous technology.

Where are they going to get the money to guard high-level waste with armed guards essentially forever in Human terms? Do they not think ahead?????
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
yourself as someone who does not value truth

Says some1 who lies about 12 cents for 60 years. Sources please.
I didn't state that I agree with that report, I asked in provocative way. You explained.
It's like that BN-1200 again, where I don't care much but you take it so seriously because you have nothing else to point out, coz I didn't lie in this discussion and all information provided is true. Cope with it.
don't understand the subject

How progress on explanation for that Dudgeon's curve? So please. I think it is you who don't understand the subject in depth.
Interesting that you did not post the peer

I used their value, search comments. Don't have all the sources all the time with me.
Calculate annual 1.6% (or 0.8 solar) capacity factor degradation for wind farm, and after 25 years its >25% lower production.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
competing with other sources of power

by carbon tax, wipes out all competition.

guard high-level waste

no one will need to guard it and there is not much of it. Then we will use it in fast reactors and no need for mining anymore.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
"no one will need to guard it and there is not much of it."

It is all over central Japan.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
Faux-greens still have the courage to claim that their stupid unicorn placebos are cheap and reduce emissions. No shame after all.
"German La La Land" - Mar 19, 2018
"Germany's Energiewende isn't decarbonizing electricity, it's only increasing electric prices"
https://rtoinside...t-FI.jpg
https://rtoinside...t-FI.jpg
https://www.rtoin...n-88814/

Just image the costs to replace all these useless placebos in few years.
"Wind farm blades eroding after few years at sea" - Mar 12, 2018
http://www.itv.co...-at-sea/

"Nuclear Reactors Could Run as Long as 80 Years" - Feb 21, 2018
https://www.bloom...ump-plan
greenonions1
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
uthrnme
Says some1 who lies about 12 cents for 60 years. Sources please
The strike price for Hinkley Point is £92.50 per Mwh - which at today's exchange rate gives you 13 cents Kwh. I said 60 years - because you previously asserted that nuclear power plants could run for 60 years - and I think you said that with overhaul - they would last for 80 years. So what will be the price of wind and solar in 80 years. That is the insanity of this deal. That £92.50 price is based on construction costs of around $20 billion. Wonder what the price will be if the costs truly mushroom to $50 billion. https://www.theti...brnph9q7

Here is a source on the strike price - https://www.thegu...-point-c
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2018
Wille
Nuclear Reactors Could Run as Long as 80 Years
Wow - so we will be paying 12 cents a Kwh for our power in 80 years - while wind and solar keep going down - probably be too cheap to meter at that point. What a dumb idea.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2018
Votgle went up to 15 cents/kWh long ago, before the latest setback.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2018
I said 60 years - because you previously asserted that nuclear power plants could run for 60 years

You failed to understand the deal. It's 12 cents for 35 years. But you can bring that calculator of yours and do the math: It's 3.8 GW power plant with at least 90% capacity factor. 35 years -> 1000 TWh, which @12c/kWh gives 125B. So, you can see that for a plant for 25B you have yourself a nice margin. After this is payed you got a nice, stable, clean, low-cost source. And it will produce electricity for 60+ years. Don't lie please.

while wind and solar keep going down

You failed to understand the basics, lower source LCOE does not mean lower system LCOE. It's that simple. Really.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2018
Don't lie please
I was not lying - but you are correct in that the term is 35 years. Apologies - I was going from memory and had not registered the 35 year term - my mistake. It does not change the point being made - that the electricity is expensive. 12 cents Kwh in a world where wind and solar are much cheaper - and going down - makes no sense.

You failed to understand the basics
No - you fail to understand the basics. If the source cost drops - the LCOE drops. So if wind and solar are cheaper than nukes today - and the cost curve keeps going down - the projections are pretty clear. Here is a good explanation for you - https://www.green....pXtLIJc Look at chart 2 and 3. Nukes are going to have to work some mojo to compete. I wish them luck...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2018
12 cents a Kwh
In Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota, all countries/states that have invested heavily in wind/solar placebos, people are paying much more than 12¢/Kwh.
Germany: 36¢/Kwh, Denmark: 38¢/Kwh
So the 2¢/Kwh for sunshine&breeze unicorn energy (batteries included) is a lie.
"California has glut of electricity but residents still pay 40% more than national average"
"California households paying 17.97 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity, or 40.9 percent more than the national average of 12.75 cents, according to the latest data from November 2016"
https://www.cnbc....age.html

Poor Californians still have to subsidize rooftop solar panels and electric cars for Rich Eco-nuts to pretend they are still connected to grid powering the whole state.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2018
All the arguing on Earth will not stop the decline and death of nuclear power.

We cannot afford its cost in dollars we cannot accept its cost in lives and overall destruction.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2018
In the same way coal is dead...dead in Germany and everywhere, oops it is still alive preventing Germans from freezing to death during the Winter when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining.
If it isn't coal, then it's natural gas(methane/fracking), sunshine&breeze is just to provide "greenwashing" for the fossil fuels.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2018
In Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota, all countries/states that have invested heavily in wind/solar placebos, people are paying much more than 12¢/Kwh


The 12 cents is the wholesale price - Brits will be paying a lot more than that - although luckily they will have renewables to temper the cost of their nuclear millstone.

California has glut of electricity but residents still pay 40% more than national average
Shitty little cherry picker. I can play that game too, Idaho is ranked # 1 in terms of % of renewable energy - https://www.energ...on-state

But is ranked 2nd in the nation in terms of cost of electricity - https://www.googl...ie=UTF-8

WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2018
Idaho is ranked # 1 in terms of % of renewable energy
Idaho is mostly Hydro.
"Hydro power accounted for nearly 50 percent of our resource mix in 2017."
Coal: 18.28%
Natural gas: 8.37%
https://www.idaho...sources/
https://www.eia.g...D#tabs-4
"While nuclear and hydro are strongly correlated with decarbonization of energy at aggregated national levels, solar and wind are not."
"The ones that went with nuclear and hydro decarbonized. The ones that went with wind and solar failed and keep failing."
"In a world of limited hydro, solar and wind won't scale."

Show us a country, or even a small city/island, 100% powered by sunshine&breeze + batteries. Costa Rica is >90% hydro, and Ta'u island scam was already debunked.
"Islands Trying To Use 100% Green Energy Failed, Went Back To Diesel"
http://dailycalle...-diesel/
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2018
Idaho is the home of SL-1, the nuclear reactor which exploded, killing three workers. The nuke industry never mentions it.

They never mention Fermi I, either, I wonder why, . . .
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2018
Renewable cultists never mention it:
Two engineers died from thermal radiation of a wind turbine; their bodies were exposed to an "unimaginable" lethal quantity of Sieverts(Joules/kg) of electromagnetic heat radiation.
http://40.media.t..._500.jpg

"Inconvenient Truth: Wind Energy Has Killed More Americans Than Nuclear"
https://www.newsb...-nuclear
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2018
Did you look up the incident? NO? Why not?

Because of the deaths from a REACTOR EXPLOSION?

Then, Wllie look up the book "We Almost Lost Detroit", and let's discuss it.

It is about the partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor nobody mentions, Fermi I.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2018
Nuclear cultists never mention it - that is the Widnscale fire -
The fire burned for three days and there was a release of radioactive contamination that spread across the UK and Europe.[4] Of particular concern at the time was the radioactive isotope iodine-131, which may lead to cancer of the thyroid, and it has been estimated that the incident caused 240 additional cancer cases
Yeah Willie - every form of electricity generation has risks - overall - nukes, wind, solar, hydro are all very safe - especially compared to fossil fuels. Are you proposing we stop generating electricity - or do we live the risks? And yes - renewables are scaleable - stop with the lies...
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2018
Willie
Show us a country, or even a small city/island, 100% powered by sunshine&breeze + batteries.
Why? No one is saying we need to go to 100% wind and solar. They will be a part of the energy mix - which will include nukes, geothermal hydro, wave, tidal etc. Stop setting up straw men - it is childish.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2018
Willie, . . tell us about Fermi I.

Or how about Rancho Seco? I know all about the series of failures and stupid stunts which led to the closure of that dangerous plant by its owners! I was in it after it was shut down, but still fueled.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2018
Antinuclear fearmongers have nothing except scary stories to mislead the public, because even including the worst-case scenarios, carbon-free nuclear power is the safest per unit of energy produced, fewer fatalities and less ecological impacts than renewables, and it really decarbonizes the grid and keeps the electricity bills affordable mainly during the Winter when its energy is most needed to prevent poor people from freezing in the dark.
They will be a part of the energy mix
Intermittent renewables need to be part of a mix/grid, because they are parasites, cannot survive without a host(fossil fuels).
>80% carbon-free nuclear energy is possible (France), and then a little of bit of hydro for pumped storage and it's OK, so bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers(scalable ecological disasters) are unnecessary, leave more space for nature.
https://pbs.twimg...SNS4.jpg
https://medium.co...703dd5d3
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2018
How many nuke plants have you been in, Willie?
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2018

Gosh, Willie, my solar panels are not radioactive, do not produce any waste, provide clean power, and pay back in four years. The entire system with inverter went up in four hours.

How about them nukes?
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2018
Antinuclear fearmongers have nothing except scary stories to mislead the public
It was you posting the picture of the turbine fire. Can't get much more scaremongery than that.

When you calculate which source is safest, do you include Chernobyl in those calculations? How many deaths do attribute to Chernobyl?
The mainstream view puts the toll in five figures. Environmental physicist Jim Smith of the University of Portsmouth, UK, prefers to cite a 2006 study by Elisabeth Cardis of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. This predicted that by 2065 Chernobyl will have caused about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers


Thanks Willie - we'll take wind and solar - if safety is the metric...
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2018
When you calculate which source is safest, do you include Chernobyl in those calculations? How many deaths do attribute to Chernobyl?
The 2008 UNSCEAR update on their Chernobyl Report changed the "4000" future deaths from cancer to undetectable future deaths. With that reduction, the deaths per TWh drop accordingly form 0.04 to 0.0013 in contrast to wind 0.15 and solar 0.44
https://uploads.d...f0de.jpg
...Environmental physicist Jim Smith ... study by Elisabeth Cardis of the International Agency for Research on Cancer...predicted ...16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers
Unfortunately, the millions of deaths predicted by academic alarmists(in the pocket of fossil fuel interests) cannot be confirmed because the bodies have been abducted by aliens or eaten by chupacabras or Godzilla.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2018
we'll take wind and solar
Don't forget to take some gasoline/diesel generators to prevent you and your family from freezing in the dark when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining. Your children and grandchildren will thank your for the air pollution from the generators and the radioactivity from rare-earth metals present in wind turbines, and the arsenide and other chemical carcinogens present in solar cells than never lose their toxicity with time.
"Sunlight may be renewable, but solar panels are not."
http://www.enviro...useholds
"Solar panels contain toxic metals like lead, which can damage the nervous system, as well as chromium and cadmium, known carcinogens. All three are known to leach out of existing e-waste dumps into drinking water supplies."
http://www.enviro...e-crisis
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2018
"The high penetration of renewables results in high electricity costs not just in California, but all over the world."
"Humanity has typically adopted energy sources that have greater 'power density' requiring less land. Renewables are lower in density. That means a move to renewables could vastly increase the world's energy footprint, barring a vast expansion of nuclear"
"One troubling implication of that density reversal, Smil notes, is that in a future powered by renewable energy, society might have to devote 100 or even 1000 times more land area to energy production than today. That shift, he says, could have enormous negative impacts on agriculture, biodiversity, and environmental quality."
https://pbs.twimg...KZYN.jpg
http://www.scienc...t-energy
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2018
Don't forget to take some gasoline/diesel generators to prevent you and your family from freezing in the dark when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining
Or we could do what so many are doing today - staying connected to the grid - as we watch the grid transition over to more and more renewables, and less and less fossil fuels.
generation from fossil fuels declined in 2017 at the same time that generation from renewables increased.
So no idiot - we don't need gasoline/diesel generators. Drip drip drip - the world is changing Willie - sad you are left behind. From - https://cleantech...ed-2017/
greenonions1
2 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2018
Willie wonker -
society might have to devote 100 or even 1000 times more land area to energy production than today.
More lies. Which is it Will 100, or 1,000 times? Except that it is neither. You never heard of roof tops, or parking lots, or brown fields. You didn't know that wind farms in the ocean take up no land, or that onshore wind farms don't actually take up much agricultural land - the farms keep on running beneath them - and it is a good source of revenue for struggling farms.
In other words, the land footprint of coal is about 20 percent bigger than the land footprint of solar thermal.
From - https://grist.org...ar-farm/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2018
CleanTechnica biased source:
generation from fossil fuels declined in 2017 at the same time that generation from renewables increased.
"correlation doesn't imply causation"
Wind/solar placebos are almost nothing in the energy mix even after hundreds of billions of dollars spent:
https://flowchart...2016.png
roof tops, or parking lots, or brown fields
Most being built are large wind/solar farms, less expensive, away from the general public so they can't realize how useless bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers are.
In other words, the land footprint of coal is about 20 percent bigger than the land footprint of solar thermal.
Solar/wind is not alternative to coal/oil/gas; steel for structures are not manufactured/mined/transported by wind/solar-powered machines, and the Sun doesn't shine at night or on cloudy days.
https://pbs.twimg...9rFa.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...y5yd.jpg
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2018
Hey, . . G.O.,

Who pays these folk, . . Putin?
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2018
Willie wonka -
CleanTechnica biased source
Yes it is - they are clearly pushing the same agenda that I am pushing - a better world. Their article was just reporting statistics from the EIA. You are free to go back to the source - if you want to dispute the information. You can't...
correlation doesn't imply causation
Never said it does - but the premise is - that as we move forward - we will cut our use of fossil fuels, and increase our adoption of renewables. The data support the premise.
steel for structures are not manufactured/mined/transported by wind/solar-powered machines
Well of course - by that reasoning - nukes are in the same boat - they are made by fossil fueled machines to - right. Do you have a problem with that? Hypocrite.
gkam - I doubt any one is paying Willie - can't imagine any one is that dumb - but then I think - someone is paying Alex Jones!!!!https://www.youtu...ieh7YIgY

WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2018
we will cut our use of fossil fuels, and increase our adoption of renewables.
Costly electricity bills, demand for energy drops, thanks to expensive(heavily subsidized) intermittent renewables.
The total U.S. net generation fell by 1.5 percent last year, i.e. fossil fuels consumption fell because demand fell, probably due to increase of intermittent renewables(13.4%) which has increased the electricity bills. The fact is that while intermittent renewables grew, the total net production fell; wind and solar are expensive and are just to parasitize the grid and absorb huge amounts of subsidies.
What renewable cultists are doing better is making up the numbers while calling other liars.
they are made by fossil fueled machines
Carbon-free nuclear power requires less material per gigawatt-installed.
https://pbs.twimg...0zRI.jpg
I doubt any one is paying Willie
Indeed, no one pays me to expose the faux-greens' lies and contradictions.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2018
Costly electricity bills, demand for energy drops
"More than a hard technical limit, what determines the upper penetration of solar panels / wind turbines on a grid is how much people are willing to pay for their electricity."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear power requires less material per gigawatt-installed
So what? You just move the goal post. Your point is that renewables (currently) use fossil fuels in being produced. So does nuclear - so your point is invalid. Nuclear may use less concrete per Kwh - but it also has to be refueled with mined uranium every 2 years. Didn't put that energy cost in your equation - did you? That is also changing. We are slowly shifting the grid over to more renewables. And look - we are starting to build electric trucks - https://arstechni...vehicle/
Wind and solar are now cheaper/cleaner/distributed - just better in every way - and don't cost 12 cent Kwh like Hinkley point (not made up numbers - just real facts. cont.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2018
cont - perhaps we should use Vogtle as our example of the amazing benefits of your precious nukes -
Assuming the project is completed, ratepayers would incur significantly higher revenue requirements and a reduced economic benefit while the company's profits would increase
How about this quote -
no nuclear project in U.S. history has been built on time and on budget, largely because they must meet strict safety and regulatory standards
Oh I know - let's not have safety standards for nukes - then we can have Chernobyls all over the world - that's what willie wonka wants.
From - https://www.eenew...60067953
Willie wants tax payers in every state to pay out $9 billion a piece - so he can gloat about the low cost of nukes - https://www.nytim...ina.html How about that wille - put a VC Summer in every state eh???
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2018
Electric trucks are a joke, batteries are almost as heavy as the payload.
and the shift is happening
People are sick of paying expensive electricity bills and seeing natural landscapes and wildlife habitats being ruined just to make room for bird-choppers for almost nothing in terms of CO2 reduction while hearing from the faux-greens that "Wind and solar are clean/cheap/distributed"... environmentally friendly, fossil-free, almost for free 2¢/Kwh (batteries included, no subsidies) ... bla bla bla... " Rome was not built in a day" ... bla bla bla...
"People's opinions matter - Public Acceptance Towards Nuclear Power is Increasing in Finland" - Fev 2018
"According to the survey carried out by the research company Norstat, 75 per cent of Pyhäjoki residents and 71.9 per cent of residents of the neighboring region support the Hanhikivi 1 project."
http://www.fennon...and.html
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear power is worth the price as the only scalable way to stop Climate Change. Hydro is site-specific. Wind and solar are scalable ecological disasters, a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions.
Historically, unlike intermittent renewables, carbon-free nuclear has made the electricity bills less costlier than thought.

"More people die each year from falling out of bed in the U.K. than all people who died as a result of exposure to radiation from Chernobyl."
"Living near the Fukushima nuclear site impacts life expectancy less than London's air pollution"
https://theconver...dy-87697
"New study in Lancet states that pollution kills 9 million people EVERY YEAR. Nuclear power has killed less than 60 people in its entire history, all of them at Chernobyl. And yet every environmental group in the world favors fossil fuels over nuclear power. Go figure."
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2018
More people die each year from falling out of bed in the U.K. than all people who died as a result of exposure to radiation from Chernobyl
So what? When you calculated the number of casualties caused by nukes - did you include Chernobyl? I already asked you that one - crickets chirping. I understand you want a $9 billion dollar VT Summer in every state. We would prefer renewables - which is why as I already showed you - support for renewables is much higher than support for nukes. Hey I support nukes - as long as they are cost competitive. VT Summer, Vogtle, Hinkley Point - all indicate they are not.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2018
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2018
And sth on solar: http://www.solars...ndex.php
from: http://www.solars...card.pdf

Thirteen companies (the same as in 2014, and 3 less than in 2015) report one or more categories of environmental emissions (hazardous waste, heavy metals, air pollution, ozone depleting substances, landfill disposal).

Zero companies can provide documentation to verify that their supply chains do not contain conflict minerals based on the due diligence guidelines set by the OECD. All companies selling to the USA are engaged in or have started the process of due diligence to determine if conflict minerals are present in their supply chains.


And on rare earths: https://youtu.be/U_G21ZUzGDY
https://youtu.be/lxwF93wnRQo
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2018
uthrnme
Take a look:
The question on the table is this - when you calculate the stats for safety of different energy sources (as Willie wonka did) do you include Chernobyl? Either way - it does not matter that much - because compared to fossil fuels - wind, solar, nuke, hydro, geothermal, wave, tidal etc. - are all very safe. So there is no point to be made.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2018
Yes, accidents are included, as with solar, wind, hydro. These power sources all have casualties because of accidents and not "business as usual".
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2018
These power sources all have casualties because of accidents and not "business as usual".
So what? The point again - is that compared to ff - all of these sources are dramatically safer. The true picture of Chernobyl will never be known.
This predicted that by 2065 Chernobyl will have caused about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers, compared with several hundred million cancer cases from other causes.
From - https://www.newsc...ny-died/ So we can agree that all sources of electrical generation carry risks. I keep stating that I am fine with nukes - providing they can compete economically. I understand the arguments on both sides. I think that you pro nukers cherry pick - as you are acolytes of a religious calling.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2018
Here you can read UNSCEAR (United Nation Scientific Committee on the Effect of Radiations) report : http://www.unscea...ex_D.pdf

The Committee has decided not to use models to project absolute numbers of effects in populations exposed to low radiation doses from the Chernobyl accident, because of unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions. It should be stressed that the approach outlined in no way contradicts the application of the LNT model for the purposes of radiation protection, where a cautious approach is conventionally and consciously applied


"The true picture of Chernobyl will never be known." yes because it seems it was not much of a effect or else would be evident. But using chernobyl for anti nuclear agenda is just fearmongering, it must be put into context, poor country, reactor with high positive void coefficient, safety off during experiment etc.
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2018
So what? The point again - is that compared to ff ...

Agree. Not trying to make a point, just death tool with nuclear, wind, solar, hydro are all because accidents.

you pro nukers cherry pick - as you are acolytes of a religious calling

I try not to cherry pick.
uthrnme
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2018
(death toll)*
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear energy is so superior in all respects, and intermittent renewables are so inferior, that not even faux-green organizations and eco-hypocritical celebrities rely on wind/solar/tidal/wave/algae to generate electricity to power their ships, yachts, cars, jets and other vehicles. Wind and solar are nothing except parasites on other forms of reliable energy, "greenwashing" for the fossil fuel industry, that renewable cultists have no choice except to use scary tales based on theoretical studies made by academic alarmists(funded by vested interests) to ridiculously try to compete with carbon-free nuclear energy.
We would prefer renewables
Stop using fossil fuels.
I support nukes...
I am fine with nukes...
No, you support fossil fuels(backup for your wind/solar unicorn energy), you are an eco-hypocritical like gskam, stop fooling us, or better, stop lying to yourself, you prefer cheap fossil fuels(coal and natural gas) over carbon-free nuclear energy.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2018
But using chernobyl for anti nuclear agenda is just fearmongering
No it is not. I am pro nuke - but I think it is important to be honest. Chernobyl is catastrophic. Saying that we cannot predict how many people got cancer from it - does not mean that no one got cancer from it. In you youtube - your presenter says that thyroid cancer is no big deal - you just have an operation - and then take a cheap drug for the rest of your life. That is a big deal. I keep making the same point over and over - all sources of electricity production come with risks. Nukes and renewables are much lower risk than ff. I don't think that thousands of people - having to have an operation - and then being on medicine for the rest of their lives - should be trivialized. And by the way - you have to be monitored by a specialist - for the rest of your life. My wife goes to her endocrinologist once a year for thyroid monitoring after having half of her thyroid removed...
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2018
Willie wonka
Stop using fossil fuels
You first...

I am signed up through O.G. and E. for 100% wind power. We pay a small surcharge every month. What are you doing? Are you paying for V.C. Summer? I am sure the rate payers of South Carolina would love to get your $9 billion dollar donation...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2018
Chernobyl is now a tourist zone, it is a proof that carbon-free nuclear is the safest even in the worst-case scenario.
"The "90" for global nuclear is predicated on old estimates for future cancer deaths from Chernobyl. The most recent estimates set the number at "indistinguishable". Assuming zero, the world deaths become ~1.3." "The number could in fact turn out to be negative since the cancer rates are lower in the 4 most affected countries than in their neighbors. Hormesis, baby!"
http://www.gnetra...nlnt.jpg
https://uploads.d...b8eb.jpg
"The leukemia incidence of 96,000 Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors is compelling evidence that the LNT model is wrong."
"What happened to the radiation that was supposed to last thousands of years in Hiroshima (1945)?" It is equal to natural background level. Japan subjected to Fukushima, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, breaks record for longevity.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2018
Nukes and renewables
Intermittent renewables are parasites. Carbon-free nuclear energy doesn't need "greenwashing" from wind and solar like coal and gas to pretend fighting Climate Change, nuclear just needs a little bit of hydropower for pumped storage to deeply decarbonize the grid.

What matter is the final result: decarbonization and low electricity prices, and in this requisite, carbon-free nuclear power is a success, while wind and solar are shameful failure even with all media and governmental/financial/political/ideological support.

"Half the people that were out there saying 'No nukes' and 'Shut down the power plants' are now realizing that, some would say, nuclear is the best way to go for energy for the future. So I think it's natural to reexamine your beliefs as you age up." - Robert Downey Jr.

"The Green religion is anti intellectual and fundamentalist . It has a set of beliefs that cannot be questioned exposing their antiscientific antirational instincts."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2018
Willie wonka
Chernobyl is now a tourist zone,
So what? it is 32 years later - and

10 minutes next to the No. 4 reactor gives someone close to seven times more than a fatal dose of radiation.


So it is a tourist zone - as long as you stay where they tell you, and don't touch things - and of course don't go anywhere near the reactor. So what is your point Willie. Are you trying to say that Chernobyl was not catastrophic? Oh yeah and renewables are not scaleable.....

Read up on the tourist destination - https://www.inver...ine-safe
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
"Chernobyl continued to operate 3 reactors for over a decade after the accident."
Radioactivity at Chernobyl(5mSv) is up to 160x lesser than natural radiation in Kerala/Ramsar/Guarapari(up to 800mSv), people receive up to 13x more radiation during a flight(65mSv) than doing a tour in Chernobyl.
"The Woman Who Ate Chernobyl's Apples"
https://www.youtu...reZ98_Ug
http://chaes-tour...zzx3.jpg
https://media-cdn...trip.jpg
https://www.chern...9485.jpg
https://www.wareh...tour.jpg
https://www.never...0_n.jpeg

Renewables are much more catastrophic for the environment(scaleable ecological disasters):
https://pbs.twimg...Oty_.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...GNv4.jpg
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
So what? it is 32 years later - and

Lies, miss-handling and fearmongering are getting exposed.

http://www.bbc.co...12860842
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2018
More lies from bias little deniers exposed - from the World Nuclear Association
the international organization that promotes nuclear power and supports the companies that comprise the global nuclear industry.


http://www.world-...cts.aspx

You see uthrnme - when shitty little cherry pickers like you and willie wanka start spreading your misinformation - you go running off to your cherry picked sites - that support your religious calling to spread fud around the world - and you discredit yourself. So we live in a world in which truth no longer matters. Chernobyl was a catastrophic event - as was Fukushima. I don't think this means we should stop using nukes. Overall I think the nuclear industry has a strong safety record - thanks in large part to vigilante governments. Willie says that Chernobyl is a tourist attraction. Liar...
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2018
What's your point here?

It states:
The conclusions of the Annex J report by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) are reproduced here. The full report is available from UNSCEAR


Are we are going to deny UNSCEAR, UN UNEP, WHO? I linked the report not WNA site. So please.

Well they do have tours to Chernobyl (https://chernobyl...nglish/) and I know people who went there (but that shouldn't convince you).
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2018
Chernobyl is a tourist attraction.
Yes, and the antinuclear feamongers, faux-green(pro-fossil fuel) activists, are hating it because it exposes their lies.
"World's Most Exotic Tourism Destination? Chernobyl"
https://www.youtu...5fjy3jCI
The fear induced by scaremongers is more catastrophic(heart-attacks, abortions, suicides) than the radiation itself. The air pollution from fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables) is much more catastrophic. Carbon-free nuclear energy is the safest, even including Chernobyl and Fukushima, it causes fewer fatalities and less ecological impacts than renewables per gigawatt produced.
In an honest way, it is impossible for sunshine&breeze unicorn energy to compete with carbon-free nuclear power, it's why faux-greens are forced to use lies and scare tactics every time.
uthrnme
3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2018
It would be only fair if nuclear would get some more incentives and less FUD:

Federal energy Incentives: https://i.imgur.com/mQ3jZc6.jpg ( http://misi-net.c...0517.pdf ) . Best to convert that to $/kWh delivered, nuclear wins. Decarbing most of electricity: https://i.imgur.com/QuyE6Ub.png

Leaky gas and renewables got a lot of incentives ($140B+$160B vs $80B for nuclear)

And impact on prices: https://i.imgur.com/AmUObmO.jpg .
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2018
Want to compare power bills?
...And the offer to compare power bills still stands.
...California is the future...
"Poorer Californian families without solar panels must pay $65/year to subsidize wealthier families with solar, finds UC-Berkeley economist"
"It doesn't make sense... Rooftop solar isn't getting rid of the utility. It's just changing who pays for it."
https://pbs.twimg...Pb8p.jpg
https://energyath...-panels/
"Often forgotten - net metering takes money from everyone (including the very poor) to subsidize those with solar panels"
The more renewables you have, the more expensive the electricity bills become, and dirtier the grid.
https://pbs.twimg...UYZ6.jpg
Poor Californians still have to subsidize rooftop solar panels and electric cars for Rich Eco-nuts to pretend they are still connected to grid powering the whole state.


greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2018
uthrnme
It would be only fair if nuclear would get some more incentives and less FUD
Funny - all of a sudden it has to be fair. Nuclear has received massive amounts of government funding - for many decades. Hinkley point is going to get a guarantee of 12 cents Kwh - that the tax payer will be on the hook for. VC Summer - $9 billion and nothing to show for it. The cost of cleaning up Chernobyl $235 billion. Fukushima $180 billion. Decommissioning Shoreham - $6 billion - stuck to the tax payer. The list goes on. Why do assert it must be fair now - after all these years of government supports?
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2018
uthrnme
What's your point here?
Simple - and complex. 1. Chernobyl, Fukushima and others were catastrophic accidents. Honesty is important. Dismissing Chernobyl as you and Willie are doing is dishonest.
2. I live in a really shitty world - and am part of a really fucked up stupid species. Climate change; pollution; war; crime; violence; etc. etc. I believe the path to a more enlightened existence lies in honesty/education/science/technology. A major priority has to be ending our use of fossil fuels. That is why I support nukes - and every form of non fossil fuel energy we can throw at the problem. Liars like Willie Wonka - who are pushing a political agenda - piss me off. Maybe you noticed.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2018
Who is calling me dishonest: a faux-green, a travesty anti/pro-nuclear, promoting intermittent renewables(backed up by fossil fuels) arguing it's cheap although there are endless evidences that it has made the electricity bills costlier and the grid dirtier.
Nuclear = carbon-free nuclear
Wind/Solar = 20% wind/solar + 80% coal/gas
"Reality of windpower: no wind, no power. Hence the need for back-up power stations. Double investment for the same production + subsidies."
"Wind/Solar Expansion Will Require Perpetual Subsidies"
http://www.theene...ubsidies
"The losers are the taxpayers. The winners get the massive subsidies to build Wind/Solar."
Subsidies is a way of transferring wealth from the poorest to the richest.
https://pbs.twimg...v9l0.jpg

Lets go! Stop all subsidies for nuclear and wind/solar and let's compete!
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2018
Lets go! Stop all subsidies for nuclear and wind/solar and let's compete!
That's what I keep saying Willie Wanka. That means the nuclear industry has to pay for Fukushima, and Chernobyl, and VC Summer, and Shoreham, etc. etc. Let's See if your BN 1200 can really deliver 2 cents Kwh - all costs accounted for. If it can - it will become the dominant source - and we get cheap power. If it can't - wind and solar will be down there before very long.
The losers are the taxpayers
You mean with Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and VC Summer, and Vogtle, and Hinkley point, and Shoreham, etc. etc. etc. So you put your 12 cents Kwh up against our wind and solar
Here in Scandinavia, new onshore wind is the cheapest form of new electricity that we can bring onto the grid
that is without subsidies - which of course you can't say about nukes.....From - https://af.reuter...8N1P623X
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2018
Who should pay for Fukushima and Chernobyl are the fearmongers, faux-greens, academic alarmists, sensationalist mass media, opportunistic politicians, that have spread misinformation causing more deaths(heart-attacks, abortions, suicides) just to favor the fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables) which air pollution kills millions every year.
"12 cents Kwh"
What should matter is the final prices for consumers and decarbonization; in all requisites, carbon-free nuclear is a success.
Wind/solar, with its "2¢/Kwh", is a scam after scam after scam ... trillions of dollars spent, massive subsidies, expensive electricity bills, for almost nothing in terms of decarbonization.

"12 cents Kwh"(reliable/carbon-free) vs. "2¢/Kwh"(intermittent/unreliable/fossil-parasite)
"Nuclear however provides reliable electricity, wind does not. Like apples and oranges you wouldn't expect them to cost the same price."
https://pbs.twimg...UIM9.jpg
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2018
that is without subsidies
Scam after scam after scam:
"Solar will soon be cheaper than coal, without subsidies"
https://af.reuter...8N1P623X
It is never told that solar panels are manufactured/mined thanks to cheap coal, and that "batteries not included" so it's necessary coal/gas-fired backup plants to prevent people from freezing in the dark.
https://pbs.twimg...F-Ik.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...F2NL.jpg

Wind and solar are unreliable and unable to compete in a honest way with any other form of reliable energy, the best they can do is parasitize other forms of energy: hydro, biomass, and mainly coal/oil/gas, and the poor taxpayers.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2018
What should matter is the final prices for consumers
Correct - and 12 cents Kwh is a bad deal. Better off with cheap wind and solar. You of course don't mention who should pay the billions of dollars for Chernobyl, Fukushima, VC Summer, Shoreham etc. etc. etc. Which of course is over and above the 12 kwh for the actual cost of the electricity from a Nuke. Course - you have to resort to lying - as your case collapses in the face of facts. Renewables are scaleable - they do not require fossil fuels- they do not kill whales - and their cost just keeps dropping.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2018
Better off with cheap wind and solar.
"Theresa May urged to build 10 more nuclear power plants to get millions of electric cars on the road" - Mar 27, 2018
https://www.thesu...ic-cars/
http://www.dailym...ars.html

But of course it's entirely unnecessary, according to eco-nuts, because sunshine&breeze is scaleable and can power directly the electric cars, no fossil fuels required, it doesn't kill whales except a few millions of birds and bats, and their costs are ever dropping(thanks to trillions of dollars in subsidies) it's already almost for free.
https://pbs.twimg...Lj1s.jpg
https://uploads.d...0954.jpg
http://jonova.s3....-web.jpg
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2018
Better off with cheap wind and solar.
Interesting that "batteries never included", neither coal/gas-fired backup plants.
they do not require fossil fuels
You are like gskam, have no shame in lying openly.

who should pay the billions of dollars for Chernobyl, Fukushima
the fearmongers, faux-greens, academic alarmists, sensationalist mass media, opportunistic politicians, that have spread misinformation causing more deaths(heart-attacks, abortions, suicides) just to favor the fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables) which air pollution kills millions every year.


greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2018
Interesting that "batteries never included
Not true willie https://www.fool....sto.aspx

Interesting question - is why you keep saying shit - when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. And the costs are going to keep coming down willie. Beats that 12 cents a Kwh you refuse to talk about...

You are like gskam, have no shame in lying openly
What did I say that was a lie? You said that renewables are not scaleable. That is a bald faced lie - they are scaleable. Is 200 GW scaleable enough for you? liar liar - https://cleantech...r-plant/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2018
"Theresa May urged to build 10 more nuclear power plants to get millions of electric cars on the road"
Air pollution in large cities are a growing problem, it's killing millions of people every year.
Hydrogen, methanol, ammonia and other low-carbon(carbon capture)/carbon-free synthetic fuels, seem to be a solution cheaper and more affordable than batteries.
Intermittency is not a problem in manufacturing synfuels, when sun shines or wind blows, synfuels could be produced a lot to compensate the inactivity periods.
The problem is that it will become more obvious that wind and solar, aside their intermittency, also are unable to produce the equivalent BTU in synfuels that were required from fossil fuels to manufacture/mine/transport/install/repair/recycle their components, and then the wind and solar "scam" would be definitively exposed to the public, and carbon-free nuclear energy would reign absolute to definitively defeat the Climate Change.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2018
...renewables are not scaleable... https://cleantech...r-plant/
CleanTechnica is a biased and unreliable source, so unreliable as the intermittent renewable they promote as "greenwashing" for the natural gas(methane/fracking) industry.
When solar and wind scale up, the fossil fuels scale up much more.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2018
CleanTechnica is a biased and unreliable source
Why do you persist in repeating the same error - no matter how many times you are corrected? Yes - Cleantechnica is bias. It is often a portal to information - that can be verified. Learn to use google. You can verify information yourself - and be a bit smarter - instead of a perpetual liar. You said that renewables are not scalable. That is a lie. Here is just one of the dozens of hits I can get off google regarding the Saudi plan - https://www.bloom...-project

Maybe the Saudi's wont build these plants - time will tell - but the world is scaling up Willie - you just want to put your head in the sand. Here is India - just for example - https://en.wikipe...in_India
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2018
put your head in the sand
"America's Energy Future Looks Greener, But More Expensive" - March 27, 2018
http://www.inside...pensive/

"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."
http://euanmearns...storage/

"Battery recycling is considered one of the most potentially hazardous industries." - March 22, 2018
https://capitalan...why-0322

"Germany Approves Russia-Led Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline" - Mar 27, 2018
https://oilprice....ine.html

Saudi plan
Saudis are not stupid.
intermittent renewables = "greenwashing" for fossil fuels
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2018
renewables are not scalable
Hydro and geothermal are site-specific(geographically limited), biomass is worse than coal in terms of greenhouse effect. Wind and solar have strong dependence on fossil fuels to be manufactured/transported and to keep lights on. So renewables are not a scalable solution to deeply decarbonize modern grids in order to stop Climate Change.

Show us a small country, or even a small island, 100% powered by wind and solar.
Several times, you have cited Costa Rica which is >90% hydro.

"100% renewables fail. This small island of El Hierro has been attempting to power itself with wind, solar, and pumped hydro for 3 years, but the diesel back is still the mainstay electricity generators."
http://euanmearns...-update/
El Hierro(wind/solar): 650g CO₂eq/kWh
France(nuclear): 53g CO₂eq/kWh
https://pbs.twimg...TQnt.jpg

greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2018
Show us a small country, or even a small island, 100% powered by wind and solar
And every time you ask that - I answer the same. Just because there may not be an example of a country that is 100% wind and solar - does not mean that renewables are not scaleable. That is very basic and simple logic. Anyway - no matter what country I showed you as being on the road to 100% renewable - you would find reasons to say it is not true. But again - none of that shows that renewables are not scaleable - because they are scaleable. You just keep repeating the same stupid lie. When the world has left fossil fuels in the dust - and when renewables have scaled up - and are a major part of our global energy system - you will still be squawing "renewables are not scaleable." You are just too religious....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2018
Renewable scam never ends.
"Germany's green energy shift is more fizzle than sizzle" - Mar 23, 2018
"Despite spending billions, it is falling behind other European countries."
"High power prices, continued coal dependency and a "poor CO2 emissions record"..."
"The public image of German energy policy is very green, but if you check the data, it's a different story."
"Germany, as far as energy policy is concerned, is the biggest fraud globally,"
"Despite the billions spent on wind and solar, the country is still hooked on coal, relying on it for almost 40 percent of its electricity. Coal provides the backup power needed when the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shining, something that will become even more crucial when the last nuclear plants close in 2022."
https://www.polit...-sizzle/
https://climatech...t-budge/
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2018
Renewable scam never ends
Willies lies never end. But it does not change reality. BNEF agrees that wind and solar are squeezing out fossil fuels - in line with what we have been saying all along - https://www.bloom...nef-says

They are beating the pants off your nukes Willie - better build some of the BN 1200's show us how you can do better than 12 cents from Hinkley Point. Oh that's right - they are on indefinite hold. What else you got Willie Wonka?
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2018
Do you have by any chance access to full report? I would love to see the assumptions. Onshore vs offshore price is quite different. Are batteries or backup included?
KEPCO nuclear is today below 50$ https://i.imgur.com/k7N1ZaU.jpg and china will be even cheaper.
But again you should note, lower source LCOE does not mean lower system LCOE. And same goes for GHG emissions.
In US fossil fuels are squeezing out other fossil fuels and nuclear https://i.imgur.com/AmUObmO.jpg. Not much of a progress.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2018
BNEF agrees that wind and solar are squeezing out fossil fuels ... https://www.bloom...nef-says
Interesting that the article fails to cite that: the more penetration of "cheap wind/solar" in the grid, the more expensive the electricity bills have became, due to intermittency, unreliability, instability, weather-dependence, subsidies/tax incentives, integration costs; neither that cheaper batteries are produced thanks to child labor and huge environmental impacts.

Faux-greens loved to cite Germany's Energiewende, as well Denmark, California, Minnesota, etc., now they avoid to mention them, because they are an excellent example of the "scam" called renewables: once wind/solar reach a certain penetration in the grid, it becomes impossible to hide their hidden costs anymore.

"Our society's blind push for 100% renewable (instead of 0% carbon), is doing far more environmental harm than good."
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2018
This one is funny: https://pbs.twimg...ABu5.jpg :)
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2018
Interesting that the article fails to cite that: the more penetration of "cheap wind/solar" in the grid, the more expensive the electricity bills have became, due to intermittency, unreliability, instability, weather-dependence


That's because it is another one of your lies - and does not need to be mentioned
The average increase in prices between the 20 states that had the most investment in renewable energy was 4.3 percent, when comparing the average from 2010 to 2015 with the average over the last 18 months. However, for the 20 states that had the least investment in renewable energy, the average increase was 4.6 percent


From - http://www.renewa...ces.html

Renewables are beating the pants off your 12 cents Kwh nukes Willie - you just don't know it yet.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2018
"analyses done in both the UK and Germany showed that just connecting an offshore wind farm to the land grid costs more than building an equivalent capacity in gas turbines that can be located virtually anywhere"
https://pbs.twimg...fzZJ.jpg
https://books.goo...CQAAQBAJ

"BILL GATES : Renewables is NOT A VIABLE solution for CLIMATE CHANGE"
https://www.youtu...EzHBze7M
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2018
analyses done in both the UK and Germany showed that just connecting an offshore wind farm to the land grid costs more than building an equivalent capacity in gas turbines that can be located virtually anywhere
blah blah blah. And you provide no context to understand this complex situation. If it costs a lot of money to build the connection - but then you can use that connection for many decades in the future - you may save money over time - cuz the electricity is cheap. Have to have context - right? Added benefit - no C02 emissions. Life time cost of power is much less than your 12 cents Hinkley Point fiasco. I didn't realize you were a supporter of fossil fuels....
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2018
And your point is? On the 12 month average - of 30 wind projects - only 7 were at or below 30%, and the average was 44.3%. Some wind farms are now getting north of 50%


You keep repeating that same old misunderstanding about capacity factors. Capacity factor is mainly a product of local wind conditions and weather patterns, not of the turbine technology, so predicting capacity factors to rise in the future is the same as saying "The world will get windier as we build more wind turbines".

If it costs a lot of money to build the connection - but then you can use that connection for many decades in the future - you may save money over time


An undersea power cable has a lifespan of about 30 years, while a modern gas turbine powerplant can operate for 50 years.

But you dodge the point: the cost of -just- the cable is enough to pay for a gas turbine. You still have to pay for the windmills, and the integration costs elsewhere because it's still intermittent
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2018
Capacity factor is mainly a product of local wind conditions
It is more than that. Of course local wind conditions affect capacity factors - which is why theydo a lot of research into the speed and consistency of each site - and why they like putting turbines further out to sea - where winds are stronger and more consistent. I know that . I also know there are other factors - which you clearly do not know.

The first is with bigger rotors and blades to cover a wider area. That increases the capacity of the turbine, i.e., its total potential production.

The second is to get the blades up higher into the atmosphere, where the wind blows more steadily. That increases the turbine's "capacity factor


From - https://www.vox.c...y-blades

Sorry - I forgot Eikka knows more than the engineers at GE, Vestas, Orsted, etc. etc. etc.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2018
Back on the subject of nukes vs renewables - have a nice quote for you Willie
FirstEnergy's fleet has been losing money for years, unable to compete against cheap natural-gas-fired power, as well as a rising share of low-cost renewable energy
Seems even established plants can't compete with cheap renewables now - and don't start in about subsidies - cuz look at what they are begging the tax payers for.

https://www.green....WlZPafo
uthrnme
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2018
Seems even established plants can't compete with cheap renewables now

Nope. It's gas: https://i.imgur.com/AmUObmO.jpg . And that is fossil fuel.

And from MIT: http://ceepr.mit....rief.pdf
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2018
FirstEnergy's fleet has been losing money for years, unable to compete against cheap natural-gas-fired power, as well as a rising share of low-cost renewable energy
So-called "low-cost renewable energy" is serving as "greenwashing"/facade for "cheap natural-gas-fired power".
So-called "low-cost renewable energy" has made the electricity bills costlier everywhere.

greenonions1
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2018
uthrnme
Nope. It's gas
But why don't you read the actual article that says

FirstEnergy's fleet has been losing money for years, unable to compete against cheap natural-gas-fired power, as well as a rising share of low-cost renewable energy


Another quote for you
The cost of new offshore wind halved in 2017 and onshore wind is already the cheapest of any new power source in the UK
From - https://cleantech...-source/

So what's your point uthrnme? Mine is that the cost of wind and solar are declining - and becoming the cheapest option. The costs are going to keep falling. Unlike your Hinkley Point - at 12 cents Kwh.....

WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2018
the cost of wind and solar are declining...
...and the cost of electricity is climbing as well the emissions.
It's ridiculous, wind and solar are "the cheapest option" to provide "greenwashing" for fossil fuels, specifically natural gas(methane), to keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during prolonged droughts.
Intermittent renewables are not "alternative", they are "parasites" on fossil fuels.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2018
and the cost of electricity is climbing as well the emissions
Not because of renewables. Maybe nukes have caused the price to go up - you know to cover VC Summer, and many other nuclear sink holes. Renewables are bringing the cost of electricity down, and saving emissions. Look at the UK Willie liar. - https://cleantech...-source/

Emissions are down - and wind is the cheapest new build generation - sure beats that 12 cents Kwh Hinkley Point - dont you think?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2018
Look at the UK
Most of CO₂ reduction has to do with replacement of coal by natural gas(methane), real numbers don't lie:
http://energytomo...ises.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/duFaCWK.png
Not because of renewables.
Every country/state that has invested heavily in intermittent renewables also has increased the costs of electricity, and failed at reducing emissions.
Look at Denmark, South Australia, etc. where there's no or almost no carbon-free nuclear energy, with highest penetration of intermittent renewables and also with costliest electricity bills.
https://pbs.twimg...7m2t.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...UYZ6.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...-h5y.jpg
https://www.elect...map.org/
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2018
Most of CO₂ reduction
Do you know what the word 'most' means? It does not mean all. It means less than all. Which means something else is happening too. That something else is (as pointed out in numerous links) - the increase in use of renewables - including wind and solar. That means the adoption of wind and solar has contributed to the reduction in green house gas. Now that wind is the cheapest new build - we will of course see and acceleration in that trend....
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2018
the increase in use of renewables - including wind and solar.
Renewable cultists purposely mix up installed-capacity with energy production in order to mislead the public.
"Capacity installed in kilowatts (kW) is not equal to energy produced in kilowatt hours (kWh)"
https://phys.org/...ate.html

"While most of the good-news headlines have been about the rise of wind and solar, most of [Europe's] new "green" power has actually come from burning wood in converted coal power stations."
"Europe's Great 'Green' Energy Swindle: Destroying Forests, Increasing CO2 Emissions"
https://pbs.twimg...Jj3V.jpg
http://e360.yale....n-energy
https://www.thegw...issions/
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2018
Renewable cultists purposely mix up installed-capacity with energy production in order to mislead the public.
No I don't do that Willie - once again you are a liar. You see - if you look at the graph on this report labeled 'Electricity generation by fuel' - you will see that currently gas actually generates around 6,000 Twh of electricity globally, and renewabe are producing 6,400 - and that line is diverging. Obviously as renewables get cheaper (they will) - the gap will widen - and at some point we will drop gas all together because of cost. Same with nukes - unless they can get their act together and bring the cost down.

Maybe you could do some reading on the subject - and see if you could learn the difference between a Mw, and a Mwh. It would save you a lot of embarrassment. Oh that's right - you are happy to lie on a science site....

link - https://www.iea.o...les2017/
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2018
"Solar Power Is Burning Bright. But It's Hardly Twilight for Fossil Fuels." - April 5, 2018
https://www.nytim...rgy.html
"Greenwashing" for fossil fuels.

Most of renewables are hydro and biomass.
"The share of electricity production from renewables has barely increased between 1990 and 2014 (from 19% to 21%)" most is hydro and biomass.
https://ourworldi...OWID_WRL
"From now until 2035, EIA projects that renewables will grow from 7%-10% of total primary energy in the US. But that 10% includes hydro and biomass."
http://thebreakth...s/8.jpeg

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.