Phasing out nuclear energy could affect safety

June 1, 2018, University of Basel
The reactor disaster in Fukushima initiated the German government's decision to shut down all nuclear power plants by 2022. But the phase-out of nuclear power is also associated with risks, psychologists write in a new study. Credit: Giovanni Verlini / IAEA, 2011 | CC BY-SA 2.0

The way in which the phase-out of nuclear power plants in Germany is currently planned could negatively influence the safety of the facilities. Those involved could increasingly favor their own interests as the shutdown date approaches, argue scientists from the University of Basel and the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin in the journal Behavioral Science & Policy. They base their argument on the possibility of endgame behavior from game theory.

After the reactor disaster in Fukushima in March 2011, the German government decided to shut down eight power plants with immediate effect. The remaining nine facilities were given fixed shutdown dates; the last plant is planned to close in 2022. The phase-out of nuclear power plants is also being discussed in Switzerland, after the nuclear phase-out initiative – which demanded the shutdown of nuclear power plants after a maximum of 45 years of operation – was rejected in November 2016.

Increasingly self-interested actors?

The psychologists examined whether the impending shutdown dates of the operational nuclear power plants is leading to endgame behavior in the nuclear sector, for example in plant workers, managers, operators, suppliers, and authorities.

In game theory, endgame behavior means that players behave increasingly self-interested as a game draws to an end. When transferred into the context of the nuclear industry, this could mean that those involved on every level will increasingly put their own interests first. Such a tendency could have a negative impact on the of nuclear power plants.

The scientists used three approaches to examine whether there are indications of endgame behavior in the nuclear industry. They considered the behavior of players in the nuclear industry as portrayed in the public record; statistics on reportable events in nuclear power ; and the safety behavior of participants in experimental studies.

Three approaches

  • In media reports on phasing out nuclear energy in Germany, there is evidence that trust and cooperative behavior between the utilities and government decision-makers has become increasingly precarious since the phase-out decision in 2011. A loss of expertise and motivation in employees in the is also to be expected, caused by the foreseeable decline of an entire industry that many no longer perceive as offering attractive career opportunities.
  • Contrary to their hypothesis, in the five years since the phase-out decision in 2011, the psychologists found no statistical increase in reportable events (accidents, malfunctions or other safety-related events in ). This would have been expected according to endgame behavior. However, a phase-out was also agreed back in 2001 between the nuclear utilities and the government. In the five-year period after this first phase-out decision, the number of reportable events rose by 39%.
  • In behavior-based experiments, participants took on the role of managers. In several rounds, they had to decide if they wanted to invest in the safety of a power plant or not. If they did not invest, the likelihood of accidents increased. The results showed endgame behavior: by the end of the rounds, less was invested in safety. Only when the definite end point of the rounds was unknown did no endgame behavior emerge.

The human factor

The authors say that these results may be inconclusive, but it is essential to anticipate and analyze potential behavior-based consequences in the phase-out of safety-sensitive technologies and industries. "The human factor must not be overlooked during the concrete implementation of such decisions," says lead author Markus Schöbel. Politically motivated phase-out procedures could introduce new and unanticipated consequences for public safety.

Explore further: Berlin agrees to compensate power firms for nuclear exit

More information: Phasing out a risky technology: an endgame problem in german nuclear power plants? behavioralpolicy.org/articles/ … uclear-power-plants/

Related Stories

Berlin agrees to compensate power firms for nuclear exit

May 23, 2018

The German government approved a draft law Wednesday that paves the way for energy giants RWE and Vattenfall to receive hundreds of millions of euros in compensation for the country's decision to phase out nuclear power.

Swiss nuclear plant to close in 2019

October 30, 2013

Switzerland's state-controlled energy company BKW said Wednesday its Muehleberg nuclear plant would go offline in 2019, as the country seeks to exit nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.

Recommended for you

Permanent, wireless self-charging system using NIR band

October 8, 2018

As wearable devices are emerging, there are numerous studies on wireless charging systems. Here, a KAIST research team has developed a permanent, wireless self-charging platform for low-power wearable electronics by converting ...

Facebook launches AI video-calling device 'Portal'

October 8, 2018

Facebook on Monday launched a range of AI-powered video-calling devices, a strategic revolution for the social network giant which is aiming for a slice of the smart speaker market that is currently dominated by Amazon and ...

Artificial enzymes convert solar energy into hydrogen gas

October 4, 2018

In a new scientific article, researchers at Uppsala University describe how, using a completely new method, they have synthesised an artificial enzyme that functions in the metabolism of living cells. These enzymes can utilize ...

88 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear power is the safest per unit of energy produced. Fukushima has resulted in zero deaths from radiation exposure. The tsunami is that was the real killer together with sensationalist mass media and fearmongers that have induced more deaths(anxiety/heart-attacks, suicides, abortions) all to favor their ecologically hypocritical means of energy production(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) backed up by fossil fuels.
The replacement of carbon-free nuclear by coal/oil/gas "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables has resulted in much more deaths due to air pollution which respects no border and kills millions every year.
https://uploads.d...f0de.jpg
"Japanese government planning to build 45 new coal fired power stations to diversify supply"
http://www.abc.ne.../8224302
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
3 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2018
Hi Willie, how are things with your job in the nuclear industry? You conveniently leave out the close to limitless geothermal energy when writing about replacements for cancer and death by radiation.
rrwillsj
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2018
My unsettled conclusions from reading this article? Is that the present security & safety operations for nuclear power sites, is an extortion racket.

"Keep us funded or you will regret the results of us abandoning our posts!"

My response would be that these sites would be useful as training grounds for a variety of police, military, security, search & rescue and other emergency response units. Until they are finally dismantled or sealed and buried.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
Fukushima has resulted in zero deaths from radiation exposure
So what?

https://en.wikipe...ath_toll

Nuclear is the safest form of energy - but oops we forget to mention the hazards of mining uranium - https://www.scien...s-later/
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2018
As far as the study's topic is concerned, one can also just check recent real-world developments for seeing that working for a form of energy generation that has meanwhile been exposed as irresponsibly dangerous does not bring about the best of humans. Just read the case of senior most official at the IAEA expected to control the safety of nuclear plants. I would call that opposite of role model as far as moral and ethics are concerned, with certain effects on the rest of his team. http://www.innerc...418.html
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
Nuclear is the safest form of energy - but oops we forget to mention the hazards of mining uranium


Uranium comes from the same mines as all the rare earth minerals, so that's a moot point. It's going to get dug up anyhow and the question is simply how to deal with it.
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
Hi Willie, how are things with your job in the nuclear industry? You conveniently leave out the close to limitless geothermal energy when writing about replacements for cancer and death by radiation.


Geothermal energy uses up vast amounts of water to generate energy, since the temperature of the wells isn't very high and the efficiency stinks.

The other problem is that extracting the heat cools down the bedrock, so the lifespan of the plant is just couple decades, and then you have to relocate and wait a long time for the ground to warm up again. Drilling those holes kilometers deep isn't cheap.

Then yet another problem is that injecting water into the ground makes it come up tainted with all sorts of stuff that dissolves, such as uranium.

One more problem still is the thermal expansion and shrinking of the bedrock due to temperature changes, which opens up cracks and pollutes the groundwater with leakages, and also triggers earthquakes.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2018
Eikka
Uranium comes from the same mines as all the rare earth minerals -
Wonder if you could support your assertion with any evidence.
from 1944-1986 the United States extracted 4 million tons of Uranium ore from and left 500 abandoned mines in native Navajo territories. In that time the rates of lung cancer and other diseases effecting Navajo living near the mine rose drastically
From - http://large.stan...gstaff1/
Safety studies often compare deaths per Kwh, but do not look at health effects such as increased cancer and sickness risks from mining uranium
Were all of those 500 mines also producing rare earths? Nuclear power requires a constant supply of uranium. Wind turbines are often built without rare earths, and when the use r.e. magnets - it is a one time use - rather than needing an annual supply. Where is the comparison of how much uranium is mined for nukes, vs how much rare earths are used in wind and solar?.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
@Eikka, to be fair, I had been lazy with that brief posting. I am for sure not talking about the half-hearted current first and second generation of exploitation technique, with the shortcomings you are describing. Time has come for getting to the end-game for geothermal energy. That is deep drilling to a level where no injections are required. Going that way allows to build your plant in any country and at any place you chose. Combine that with a closed system and we are done with our insatiable increase of energy hunger due to an overpopulation situation left unaddressed. Engineering wise we are able to do so.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
...limitless geothermal energy ...cancer and death by radiation.
"Why do the sort of people who exclude nuclear energy for its radiation embrace geothermal?"
http://www.unscea...4696.pdf
http://mzconsulti...m/?p=846
https://pbs.twimg..._6l_.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...ORn-.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...ZaVq.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...0NRJ.jpg
"a study ... shows that of most of the options to generate electricity, nuclear actually releases the least amount of radiation."
http://unscear.or...4696.pdf
"By far the largest collective dose to workers per unit of electricity generated was found in the solar power cycle, followed by the wind power cycle. The reason for this is that these technologies require large amounts of rare earth metals, and the mining of low-grade ore exposes workers to natural radionuclides during mining."
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
Fukushima has resulted in zero deaths from radiation exposure
So what?

https://en.wikipe...ath_toll
From your source:
Chernobyl 45 fatalities, in contrast to millions of deaths from air pollution every year;
"Radiotherapy accident": it isn't related to energy production; "Soviet submarine": military; "Goiânia accident": radiotherapy.
"Even the worst nuclear accidents result in far fewer deaths than the normal operation of fossil fuel power plants."
Nuclear is the safest per unit of energy produced.
Hydro: 171,000 fatalities (Banqiao, China)
https://en.wikipe..._failure
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
The time will come, when future scientists and historians will inform us about the honest, true bill of fatalities caused by Chernobyl and Fukushima. Environment and food cycle (incl. Western Pacific) have been poisoned for centuries to come, way beyond what is currently accounted for by lobbyists. And you are conveniently ignoring that every extra plant adds to the likelihood of further monstrous incidents due to natural disasters or those triggered by human actions, incl. warfare and terrorism. Think about the main fear in South Korea, that conventional rockets from the North could blow up some of their dozens of plants.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2018
Why do the sort of people who exclude nuclear energy for its radiation embrace geothermal?
I don't. I also embrace nuclear energy - certainly from the position that it is a safe, low carbon form of energy. I point out that it is currently expensive - and so wind and solar have the edge in that regard. It is always interesting to watch people who would otherwise be free market advocates - suddenly embracing massive government intervention - when the economics turn in favor of renewables.
Chernobyl 45 fatalities, in contrast to millions of deaths from air pollution every year
Not from wind and solar. This is of course why I advocate for turning away from fossil fuels - to the best low carbon alternative of renewable energy. I don't advocate retiring nukes early - as i believe that Germany is an example of a poor strategy. The people of Germany disagree with me....
nukemann
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2018
Phasing out nuclear power for political reasons is the danger to society, this article is like arguing about the color of a building while it burns to the ground. The answer is to reverse the political decision with one based in reality, keep the nuclear power plants operating, producing low carbon, safe, reliable electricity. Shut down the drty, dangerous lignite plants.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2018
Why do the sort of people who exclude nuclear energy for its radiation embrace geothermal?

Where appropriate. There are natural places where it is just there for the taking (e.g. Iceland), but the current way of doing it elsewhere (i.e. via fracking and then pumping water down) is just nuts (particularly since the resulting steam carries with it greenhouse gases like sulfur dioxide - not a particularly strong one, but still).

If we could get the water down in a contained system (read: pipes) where it would be heated and then brought up as steam through a secondary pipe then that would alleviate all of the issues with it. But it would make geothermal - at current tech levels - rather expensive You'd also need a primary and secondary water cycle, as the aggressive heating would otherwise quickly result in clogging if the primary water cycle weren't run with distilled water.

If we could get it down in a contained
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2018
The answer is to reverse the political decision with one based in reality, keep the nuclear power plants operating, producing low carbon, safe, reliable electricity. Shut down the drty, dangerous lignite plants.

Funnily enough you can do both: Shut down nuclear and shut down coal plants.
Renewables are just that good (and cheaper than either to boot)

The people of Germany disagree with me....

The thing that people in the US don't understand is: Places like germany are tiny. We cannot afford even one Chernobyl type disaster. We can't just cordon off a Montana sized plot and forget about it - because there'd be nothing left of germany. That type of risk just isn't worth it when alternatives abound.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2018
Not from wind and solar.
wind/solar = 20% wind/solar + 80% coal/oil/gas
Carbon-free nuclear plants can back up each other, a thing that wind/solar can't do in a reliable way without fossil fuels in a world of limited hydro/geothermal/biomass resources.
"California is shattering renewable records. So why are greenhouse emissions creeping up?" - May 23, 2018
https://grist.org...ping-up/
Wind/Solar = Decorative Facades for the natural gas(methane/fracking) industry in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change:
https://uploads.d...a1b3.jpg
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2018
Places like germany are tiny. We cannot afford even one Chernobyl type disaster.
Germans can't afford zero deaths from Fukushima and Three Mile Island radiation exposure, but can afford thousands of deaths from air pollution from coal/oil/gas(backup for intermittent renewables), and breath radioactive coal ashes.
Cognitive Dissonance.
"Report: Germany suffers more coal-linked deaths than rest of EU"
"Germany – home to the much-hailed 'Energiewende' green revolution – suffered more premature deaths linked to coal plant pollution than any other EU member state, research by health and environment campaigners has found."
"The burning of coal has a huge impact on human health not only in their own countries but also their neighbouring ones..."
"Whether countries are part of the EU or not, coal pollution recognises no borders."
https://www.eurac...t-of-eu/
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2018
Nuclear is the safest form of energy - but oops we forget to mention the hazards of mining uranium


Uranium comes from the same mines as all the rare earth minerals, so that's a moot point..

Most uranium mines wouldn't be mined at all if not for their uranium so that's a moot point.
Sometimes some rare earth minerals are mined as a byproduct of mining uranium, but so what?
That byproduct alone generally wouldn't make the uranium profitable so if no uranium was mined those mines would be closed down.
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2018
Exempt for some of the older relatively less safe ones, I think it is nearly always a mistake to close down nuclear power plants once they have been built. This is because the most modern ones have the most up-to-date safety features making them relatively safe and much more so than the older types.
I think a better policy would be, at least until if or when nuclear fusion is made practical and cost effective, merely not build any more nuclear power plants because now renewables are currently far cheaper and cost effective than nuclear power; it is just a question of economics.
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2018
Fukushima has resulted in zero deaths from radiation exposure
So what?
...
Nuclear is the safest form of energy - but oops we forget to mention the hazards of mining uranium -

greenonions1

Yes, you got a good point their.
Many people including myself often honestly just forget to take into account the hazards of mining uranium when judging the health and safety of having the nuclear power industry.
If nuclear fusion ever becomes practical and cost effective then no more uranium mining would be required and then that would cease to be an issue for the nuclear power industry.
Alternatively, perhaps robots and AI can replace human uranium miners?
But, until then, its a real issue.
humy
not rated yet Jun 03, 2018
Exempt for some of the older relatively less safe ones, ...

My misedit. That should have been;

"EXCEPT for some of the older relatively less safe ones,.."
rrwillsj
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2018
If I understand the arguments given in these comments? We should all accept the extortionate policies of the centralized police state? Dictating to the public that they damn well better acquiesce to the demands of the nuclear priesthood. Or Else!

Yes there are bad, sad results from continuing ro subsidize obsolete industries such as coal and petroleum. However, the good news is that there is a continuous public demand supporting personal efforts to voluntarily switch to less destructive energy sources.

Perfection? No, of course not. But a hell of a lot cleaner future for our descendants than the poisonous future offered by the collectivist tyranny promoted the paid evangelists for nuclear power.

It must really burn the agitproppers butts that ordinary people, making their own choices about how they want to live. Are disregarding their gibbering proclamations of nuclear superiority.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2018
In the end: what's the argument here? Keep nuclear because a phaseout is dangerous?
And then what? Is it going to be any less dangerous when we phase out after having built even more of it? How does that make any kind of sense?

Even if we did go for nuclear in a big way: Powerplants have a lifetime. They cannot be renewed indefinitely. So you would continually run into this dangerous phaseout issue.

Better get rid of it now while we only have a few and the risk is lower.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2018
Unprofitable without subsidies.
"At huge cost, Germany is learning that you cannot have a cheap, reliable, low-carbon grid without the high EROEI of nuclear. The Energiewende is a historic error."
"Germany set to retire 20 GW of wind power by 2023 - Renewable Energy Federation head" - Jun 1, 2018
"Due to the end of their 20-year life span of guaranteed support payments, about 20 gigawatt (GW) of wind power capacity in Germany will be retired by 2023 as their operation is no longer profitable"
https://www.clean...ion-head
"Germany must prepare for "wind turbine decommissioning wave""
https://www.clean...ing-wave

Climate Change should the first priority, not the "unreliables" / eco-nuts' fantasies.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2018
Willie, American nukes now need bailouts to stay open. Failure after failure to hide the costs of nuclear power have shown us how expensive to Humanity it really is.

The new nukes cost so much to build, few actually produce power because they are cancelled over extreme costs. And they are completely paid off but still cannot compete with wind and PV, which carry the capital costs of construction.
humy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2018
Willie, American nukes now need bailouts to stay open. Failure after failure to hide the costs of nuclear power have shown us how expensive to Humanity it really is.

The new nukes cost so much to build, few actually produce power because they are cancelled over extreme costs. And they are completely paid off but still cannot compete with wind and PV, which carry the capital costs of construction.


Yes indeed.
And the costs of renewables are going down all the time so nuclear power is becoming ever more the most costly and least cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels which simply cannot compete with renewables.
As a result, promotion of nuclear power has become a harmful and unwelcome distraction from what really needs to be done.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2018
Climate Change should the first priority
I agree. But that is a complex issue. The German people feel that closing nukes is as important. See Antialias post above. Nuclear is not without risk - https://www.thegu...ist-rank

The best route to decarbonization is contentious. Wind and solar don't carry the scale of risk that you see in the examples just linked. As pioneers can afford the cost of this - https://cleantech...-better/
the costs fall, and it becomes accessible to more and more people. Despite the high cost of trail blazing - Germans still pay less than Americans for electricity (on a monthly basis) - https://blogs.sci...tricity/

One thing is for sure - telling lies does not help us make good decisions.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
As a result, promotion of nuclear power has become a harmful and unwelcome distraction from what really needs to be done.
Nuclear only makes sense for the companies who run them, because for them these power plants are a goldmine with guaranteed amounts of power they can sell, no liability in case of accidents (nuclear power plants are uninsured - because no insurance company could shoulder the cost) and guaranteed financial aid during decomissioning as well as tax-payer paid storage in perpetuity.

They made a lot of sense when no alternatives were available and the end of fossil fuel availability was already on the horizon. Today they make no sense at all.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2018
Faux-greens Eco-nuts have constantly said that "cheap" renewables have replaced coal plants in Germany. But in fact Germany has replaced the old coal plants with new ones and Russian gas.
Germany has enough installed-capacity of wind/solar to replace brown coal or hard coal, but even so they will have to replace coal by natural gas(methane(CH₄) 86x worse than CO₂) to pretend the "unrealiables" are reducing CO₂ emissions and that Energiewende is a success and the taxpayers' money has been well spent.
https://uploads.d...bd51.jpg

Get real! Wind and solar only make sense in providing "greenwashing" (decorative facade) for coal/oil/gas in order displace carbon-free nuclear energy. Intermittent renewables have been a disservice, a fraud, a scam in the fight against Climate Change.
https://uploads.d...a1b3.jpg
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
Give it up, Willie.

The subsidies never end for nukes.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2018
Faux-greens Eco-nuts have constantly said that "cheap" renewables have replaced coal plants in Germany
What we continue to say - is that Germany is in a transition. They are closing down their nukes - falling back on current coal and gas infrastructure - and then building out renewables to replace this infrastructure over time. Their current goal is 100% renewables by 2050 - https://www.thegu...ctricity

I would call that leadership. Childish banter like this
Faux-greens Eco-nuts
erode your credibility just as much as being a liar does.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2018
What we continue to say - is that Germany is in a transition. They are closing down their nukes - falling back on current coal and gas infrastructure

Not even that. Just found this graph by Fraunhofer Institute that shows the percentage of various sources in electricity production where you can put in the year and see how it has changed over time.
https://www.energ...ear=2015

Note
Braunkohle (brown) = brown coal
Steinkohle (dark grey) = lignite
Kernenergie (red) = nuclear
Gas (orange) = natural gas

If you play around with the years in the dropdown you can see that the percentages for nuclear, lignite and brown coal are steadily dropping. You can also see that since 2018 gas is starting to drop. Both due to more and more being taken up by wind, solar (light green and yellow) and biomass (green)

So yes: We could shut down coal/gas faster if we didn't shut down nuclear. But getting rid of both is working, too
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2018
"Germany set to retire 20 GW of wind power by 2023 - Renewable Energy Federation head"
And the Renewable Cultists believe it is replacing coal.

"The Myth Of An Imminent Energy Transition"
"Over the past decade, the world has spent US$ 3.0 trillion on renewable energy, according to the International Energy Agency" for almost nothing in terms CO₂ reduction.
https://oilprice....ion.html

"Rome Wasn't Built In A Day", they say.
But fell in few years.
"As older turbines see subsidies expire, thousands are expected to be taken offline due to lack of profitability."
https://climatech...o-close/
"Anti-nuclear policies increased global carbon by 18% and added 9.5 million air pollution deaths"
https://www.nextb...ths.html
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
Trump has to SAVE nukes and coal from Reality!!
More SUBSIDIES!!

https://www.utili.../524906/

Better get a Schnorkel, Willie, you're sinking!
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
I went to one of Willie's references, and in it was nothing but narcissistic drivel. The last paragraph is this:

"Prediction – There will be a quantum computer with over 100 qubits of processing capability sold either as a hardware system or whose use is made available as a commercial service by Dec 31, 2010."

So much for that silly guy.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2018
... https://www.energ...ear=2015 ...
Up to 80% energy in Germany is from fossil fuels, biomass, hydro and carbon-free nuclear.
Wind and solar are parasites and cannot survive without a host. You can power a whole country with hydro/geothermal/biomass or coal/oil/gas without wind and solar, but you cannot power even a small city/island with solar/wind without fossil fuels to back them up.
"Without fossil fuels, society would collapse into Armageddon in about 48 hours. Without "renewable energy" - no one would ever notice the difference."
Give it up,...
It's why parasitic people, sociopaths, identify themselves and love intermittent renewables and hate reliable sources of energy.
"Nuclear is having an endless and reliable energy source. Solar/wind is unreliable and intermittent. Stable vs Unstable. The climate fanatics are unstable individuals so no wonder they like solar and wind."
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2018
Up to 80% energy in Germany is from fossil fuels, biomass, hydro and carbon-free nuclear


Well 33% is from renewables - https://www.indep...156.html Which is going up every year - and on track for 80% by 2050.

i'd call call that leadership. Liars just hate reality....
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2018
Well 33% is from renewables...
Renewables include hydro and biomass, and even natural gas when convenient.
"Most fans of renewable energy explicitly reject renewable hydroelectricity if it involves damming a river. Most renewable energy-lovers are also dam-haters."
"But hydro and nuclear, an energy that does not emit CO2, is excluded from the renewable universe."
https://climatech...ossible/
"Burning wood for power is 'misguided' say climate experts" - Dec 31, 2017
https://www.thegu...-experts
"Bioenergy in Germany"
"Troubled pillar of the Energiewende"
https://www.clean...-germany
"Chatham House Study Debunks Biomass Carbon Neutrality" - Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC)
https://www.nrdc....utrality
Liars just hate reality....
rrwillsj
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2018
I dunno, you got to admire the work ethic of WillieWard. He is determined to earn his thirty pieces of silver for betraying Humanity. His paymasters must be so proud!
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2018
Up to 80% energy in Germany is from fossil fuels, biomass, hydro and carbon-free nuclear.

You can't change something like the entire power infrastructure of an industrialized country overnight - but from 2015 to 2018 we increased the share of renewables by 8%. That's a pretty hefty chunk in such a short time.

but you cannot power even a small city/island with solar/wind without fossil fuels

Strawman argument. No one is aiming for 100% solar/wind. No one ever was. You just make up these ludicrous scenarios. Why? Just because you can't deal with reality? Yes there is backup - but no, it doesn't need to be fossil fuel. Biomass (and the hydro we already have) will be plenty - and every study made corroborates this. If we don't want biomass we can always take the excess wind/solar and make hydrogen for storage. The first pilot plant for this went online in Hamburg last year.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
"Without fossil fuels, society would collapse into Armageddon in about 48 hours

Funnily, the countries that rely on 100% renewables have neither collapsed not experienced Armageddon. Weird how your blanket statements are proven lies by reality. Every. Single. Time, Isn't it?

By now you should tell your employers to supply you with a better set of lies - the old ones are so ludicrously thin that it isn't even funny.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2018
Renewables include hydro and biomass, and even natural gas when convenient
Really? Show us where anyone includes natural gas as renewable - or are you just a liar?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2018
"psychologists write in a new study... The scientists used..."

-Psychologists are not scientists. For instance they seem to conclude in the study that operators would be too depressed to follow protocol and do their jobs?

"Phasing out nuclear energy could affect safety"

-Not to mention national security. Nuclear is the only power source that will continue to function when all other sources fail due to war or natural disaster. It also provides cheap fissiles due to economies of scale to power subs and ships, not to mention keeping nuclear arsenals current.

Not to mention that fissiles are essential to establishing permanent, self-sufficient colonies in space.

Eliminating this industry would confine the species to one world, and leave civilization on this world defenseless from disaster and renegade govts, many of which have demonstrated that they're just itching to make bombs of their own.

Which is why it ain't gonna happen for a long long time.
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2018
"Nuclear is the only power source that will continue to function when all other sources fail due to war or natural disaster."

Just the opposite! The special care and quality of required systems and personnel to operate them will not exist. Only wind and PV will give us survival.

Mine works fine.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2018
Just the opposite! The special care and quality of required systems and personnel to operate them will not exist. Only wind and PV will give us survival
I see. So you're saying that when disaster strikes, all the smart people would die and only the idiot psychopaths like yourself would survive?

Well that makes sense. But then you would quickly be killed by the hordes of refugee gang bangers fleeing the inner city because they have guns and you only have your mouth.

And right before you bleed out you might finally appreciate the value of an AR15 and a few extra mags.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2018
...the countries that rely on 100% renewables have neither collapsed not experienced Armageddon.
Such countries, e.g. Costa Rica, have lots of hydro/geothermal/biomass resources which most of environmentalists also oppose.
Show us where anyone includes natural gas as renewable
Las Vegas "100% renewable", natural gas accounted as "renewable", another big scam.
"Las Vegas Doesn't Use 100% Renewable Energy"
http://dailycalle...-energy/
"Per EIA data Las Vegas runs primarily on natural gas."
http://blogs-imag...vada.jpg
http://www.forbes...e-energy


...statements are proven lies by reality...
... with a better set of lies..
...you just a liar...
"The First Thing A Cult Does Is Tell You Everyone Else Is Lying"
https://pbs.twimg...0bmJ.jpg
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
Using these countries to demonstrate the practicality of wind & solar is dishonest:
Norway: 90% Hydro
Iceland: 70% Hydro, 30% Geo
Albania: 94.8% Hydro
Ethiopia: 87.9% Hydro
Paraguay: >99% Hydro
Zambia: 91.2% Hydro
Costa Rica: 78% Hydro, 10% Wind, 10% Geo.

As well, citing Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota, etc. without mentioning the wind/solar trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions and displacing fossil fuels and that caused the electricity prices to skyrocket.
humy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
Using these countries to demonstrate the practicality of wind & solar is dishonest:
Norway: 90% Hydro
Iceland: 70% Hydro, 30% Geo
Albania: 94.8% Hydro
Ethiopia: 87.9% Hydro
Paraguay: >99% Hydro
Zambia: 91.2% Hydro
...
WillieWard

How does a country currently using mostly a renewable other than wind/solar imply wind/solar is 'impractical'?
Using your own incredibly stupid logic, a country currently using mostly hydroelectric implies fossil fuels and nuclear are 'impractical'.

gkam
2 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2018
"And right before you bleed out you might finally appreciate the value of an AR15 and a few extra mags."

You must be REALLY SCARED.
Outgrow it.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2018
Willie - no one claimed that gas is renewable - you are just a liar. The one example you were able to dig up - was Popular Mechanics - putting in a misleading headline - that they quickly corrected to clarify that they were only talking about Las Vegas government. They never insinuated that gas was renewable - you are just a liar.

Hydro is considered renewable - and just because a country has a significant portfolio of hydro - in no way detracts from the contribution of wind and solar. Little by little - reality is making the lying haters into village idiots.

WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2018
How does a country currently using mostly a renewable other than wind/solar imply wind/solar is 'impractical'?
Wind/solar is 'impractical' even in small scale.
"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/
https://www.boe.e...013-9944
"Islands Trying To Use 100% Green Energy Failed, Went Back To Diesel"
http://dailycalle...-diesel/
El Hierro(wind/solar): 650g CO₂eq/kWh
France(nuclear): 53g CO₂eq/kWh
Germany:532g CO₂eq/kWh
Denmark:600g CO₂eq/kWh
https://pbs.twimg...TQnt.jpg

"The IEA says that the world has already developed ~1/2 of its hydroelectric potential. And since that only services ~6% of total CURRENT energy demand"
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2018
...you are just a liar...
"The First Thing A Cult Does Is Tell You Everyone Else Is Lying"
https://pbs.twimg...0bmJ.jpg


In same way, nat gas has been renewable.
"For every barrel of oil consumed over the past 35 years, two new barrels have been discovered."
https://blogs-ima...misu.jpg
https://www.forbe...e-world/

So coal/oil/gas will be an eternal bridge for intermittent renewables while displacing carbon-free nuclear energy their true rival, wind and solar are a joke, they have lots and lots of installed-capacity just to provide "greenwashing" (decorative facade) for fossil fuels and to make the electricity costlier.
"Wind power increases dependence on fossil fuel power plants" -May 2018
http://www.sperof...r-plants
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2018
The First Thing A Cult Does Is Tell You Everyone Else Is Lying
But we don't say that 'everyone else is lying' - I just say that you are lying - and I prove it with evidence. Just one example - you say that people call gas a renewable source - but that is not true - no one does that. The only example you could find - was from 'Popular Mechanics' - using a misleading headline about Las Vegas - that they quickly corrected. They never insinuated that gas was renewable. They falsely asserted that Las Vegas was using 100% renewables - and they quickly corrected their error. There is a difference between calling an individual a liar - with much supporting evidence - and saying that 'everyone else is lying.'
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2018
Willie needs a year at Fukushima.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
...needs a year at Fukushima.
"Fukushima Diaries The picture painted by anti-#nuclear fear mongers does not match reality. Visit Fukushima with these three witnesses."
https://www.youtu...l_MaRngI
"We love Fukushima!"
https://www.youtu...gLGA5TpM
"World's Most Exotic Tourism Destination? Chernobyl"
https://www.youtu...5fjy3jCI
"The Woman Who Ate Chernobyl's Apples"
https://www.youtu...reZ98_Ug
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
...I just say that you are lying...
"The world set a new record for renewable power in 2017, but emissions are still rising" - June 04, 2018
https://qz.com/12...-rising/
"Major European study finds wind energy increases use of fossil fuels" - May 2018
https://www.scien...18300983
Renewable Cultists have no option, except ignore the facts and call liar who exposes their lies and of course continue with scary fables against carbon-free nuclear power, the safest and the only scalable way to stop Climate Change.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2018
"The world set a new record for renewable power in 2017, but emissions are still rising
But we just went around this one a short while ago. The emissions from electricity generation are going down. As Antialias just pointed out - you can't change a huge system overnight - there is too much momentum - and too many people getting rich. Renewables and Nukes currently make about an equal contribution to carbon reduction. We need them both. We just don't need liars who cannot deal with reality - the reality that all the evidence right now shows that the future belongs to renewables. If nukes can get their prices down so they are competitive - I am all for it. The investment in renewables is paying off. I wish the world was not so addicted to fossil fuels - that is not renewables fault. The wind and solar industry are fighting valiantly - we unfortunately have to give it time.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2018
and the only scalable way to stop Climate Change
What is your basis for making that assertion (yet again)??? I could give you a hundred links - showing the large quantities of renewables being developed in every country of the world. How is this kind of thing not 'scaleable.' https://cleantech...me-ever/

Please don't post another off topic slew of links - I don't care about your silly pictures from individual bloggs. Please tell us how wind and solar are not as scaleable as nuclear.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2018
"Renewable Cultists have no option, except ignore the facts and call liar who exposes their lies and of course continue with scary fables against carbon-free nuclear power, the safest and the only scalable way to stop Climate Change."

Are you Sarah Huckabee Sanders in your other job?
humy
3 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2018
How does a country currently using mostly a renewable other than wind/solar imply wind/solar is 'impractical'?
Wind/solar is 'impractical' even in small scale.
WillieWard

False.
And just answer my question; How does a country currently using mostly a renewable other than wind/solar imply wind/solar is 'impractical'?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2018
"And right before you bleed out you might finally appreciate the value of an AR15 and a few extra mags."

You must be REALLY SCARED
Only natural georgie.

"...psychopaths have a distinct advantage over human beings with conscience and feelings because the psychopath does not have conscience and feelings. What seems to be so is that conscience and feelings are related to the abstract concepts of "future" and "others." It is "spatio-temporal." We can feel fear, sympathy, empathy, sadness, and so on... The psychopath does not seem to have this capacity."

"In other words, psychopathy is being recognized as a more or less a different type of human."
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2018
I don't are what your excuse is, you are wrong again.

Again.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2018
Globally, solar and wind are replacing nuclear power as the first choice for new power generation. This is true in China, too.

Cost is a key factor: the earlier nuclear power plants are now in the mid-to-late stages of their lifecycle, with operational and maintenance costs rising, according to Kang Junjie. Meanwhile, renewables are in the ascendant, with costs continuing to fall


Scaleable, and cheaper - what's not to like....

https://www.china...r-power-
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2018
...We just don't need liars who cannot deal with reality...
...I wish the world was not so addicted to fossil fuels - that is not renewables fault...
...large quantities of renewables being developed in every country of the world...
...tell us how wind and solar are not as scaleable as nuclear...
...Scaleable, and cheaper...
Meanwhile, for example in UK, five days with almost no wind, fossil fuels are keeping lights on, and even so renewable cultists say solar/wind can power the whole world and call liar who exposes the facts.
"Another record for UK wind power today! But not one the wind industry will be publicizing."
"The UK electricity demand is 31GW with wind turbines supplying 0.4GW"
https://pbs.twimg...5199.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...Dt3B.jpg

Wind and solar are scalable in installed-capacity but they are a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions.
"REnewable is now a REligion, completely dishonest and divorced from reality."
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2018
They need you at Fukushima, Willie.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2018
and call liar who exposes the facts
Stop spreading your lies, and no one will call you a liar. You said that wind and solar are not scaleable - but then when pushed for support for that assertion - you admit that they are scaleable. Liar.

five days with almost no wind
Wind and solar are intermittent, how many times do we have to acknowledge that one? How many times will you use the same tired tactics? We understand the issue of intermittency - and it can be solved. The process is going to take time - we keep explaining that to you. If we decided to go 100% nukes, it would take time - no difference.

The milestones just keep falling - and you are too wrapped up in your lies and your religion of supporting nukes - that you don't see what is happening in front of you. The first U.S. utility to generate energy equal to 100% of it's electrical usage. Yes - we know it is intermittent. https://www.midam...tory=858
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2018
You are explaining things to an electric billboard.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2018
You said that wind and solar are not scaleable
Fossil fuels are scalable in installed-capacity, wind and solar are also scalable in installed-capacity together with fossil fuels, in no way they are scalable solution to stop Climate Change. Real data don't lie!
"2017 Was Another Record-Busting Year for Renewable Energy, but Emissions Still Increased" - June 2018
"the world added 98 gigawatts of solar PV capacity — more than fossil fuels and nuclear capacity together."
"Offshore wind also had a record-breaking ... growing capacity ... gigawatts of added capacity."
capacity ≠ production
https://www.green...capacity

"we should measure climate progress based on tons of CO2 emissions prevented instead of installed renewable "capacity." Then maybe wind and solar will be seen as the pseudoscientific fraud it is. We need real environmentalism, not good intentions."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2018
no way they are scalable solution to stop Climate Change. Real data don't lie!
Same assertion - but with no support.

we should measure climate progress based on tons of CO2 emissions prevented instead of installed renewable
Yes. So despite all the investment in nukes - C02 levels continue to rise. Is that a rebuke of nukes, or more a comment on the reality that the majority of our emissions come from transport/agriculture/industry-https://www.epa.g...missions
So thanks to the transition that is happening (switch to renewables and nat gas) - electricity emissions are down - https://www.vox.c...ctricity

How many times do you raise the same shit - we address it - and you just keep pushing the same religious nonsense?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2018
So thanks to the transition that is happening (switch to renewables and nat gas) - electricity emissions are down
"The Emperor Has No Clothes" i.e natural gas has no wind to "greenwash" it.
"Britain Has Gone Nine Days Without Wind Power" - Jul 7, 2018
"U.K. turbines can produce about as much power as 12 nuclear reactors..." it's same comparing apples and oranges, nuclear is reliable, wind/solar is "unreliable" / facade for nat gas.
https://www.bloom...or-weeks
"UK greenhouse emissions decrease. Main reason: Switch from coal to renewables backed up by natural gas."
https://pbs.twimg...2PT_.jpg
So despite all the investment in nukes - C02 levels continue to rise.
Every time that a carbon-free nuclear plant was closed it was to give place to intermittent renewables(backed up by coal/oil/gas) so the emissions increased, e.g. Germany, California, Vermont, etc.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2018
Every time that a carbon-free nuclear plant was closed it was to give place to intermittent renewables


It is interesting that you really don't have a clue about the subject you are trying to comment on. It seems like arguing with a religious fanatic - who says "Jesus is the son of god - and I know that because it says so in the Bibull" Look at your statement above - and then understand this reality
One of the main reasons the plants, which produce about 20 percent of the nation's power supply, are closing early is the low price of natural gas


https://www.washi...d-crisis

Can you see how you say things that are clearly false? And yes - I know that closing nukes early is problematic in terms of increased emissions if gas takes over. I personally favor keeping nukes open - while building out renewables - that are both clean and cheap.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2018
Every time that a carbon-free nuclear plant was closed it was to give place to intermittent renewables(backed up by coal/oil/gas) so the emissions increased, e.g. Germany, California, Vermont, etc.
Except you are wrong.

most major economies saw emissions increase, but the US, the UK Mexico and Japan achieved lower emissions. The biggest drop was observed in the US on the back of higher renewables deployment
https://renewable...-606070/

WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2018
"Natural Gas, Not Renewables, Is Largest Factor In Emissions Decline"
https://www.forbe...decline/

"Recent nuclear plant closures in places ranging from Germany and Japan to Vermont and California demonstrate that when nuclear plants close, their electrical output is replaced almost entirely by electricity from fossil fuels, not renewables like solar and wind." - Jun 6, 2018
"...unlike nuclear plants, solar and wind are not reliable sources of energy and always require back-up power, usually in the form of fossil fuels."
"Renewable energy promoters and advocates know that solar and wind depend on natural gas as back-up and are working with the American Petroleum Institute, Sierra Club and EDF to shut down nuclear plants..."
https://www.forbe...ments/3/

greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2018
Natural Gas, Not Renewables, Is Largest Factor In Emissions Decline
So what? The build out of renewables is going to take time. Does nothing to detract from the reality that about 25% of global electricity production was from renewables - and only about 10% from nukes. So I guess renewables really are scaleable - and contributing more to carbon reduction than either nukes, or gas. https://renewable...-606070/
when nuclear plants close, their electrical output is replaced almost entirely by electricity from fossil fuels


But but but but - you JUST said
Every time that a carbon-free nuclear plant was closed it was to give place to intermittent renewables


Head spins around in confusion. You really don't know your subject matter - do you? You remind me of Trump - "what I said yesterday does not matter - and I will probably say something different tomorrow - truth is subjective....."

WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2018
"Britain Has Gone Nine Days Without Wind Power" - Jul 7, 2018...
https://www.bloom...or-weeks
Notice UK has enough installed-capacity of wind to replace half of natural gas, even so gas-fired plants, together with carbon-free nuclear plants, are producing most of energy, while wind is producing almost nothing.
Now compare UK with Germany, it becomes undoubtedly clear that most of CO₂ reduction is thanks to natural gas(methane), together with carbon-free nuclear energy, and not thanks to wind/solar unicorn energy.
UK: 283g CO₂eq/kWh
Germany: 489g CO₂eq/kWh
The build out of renewables is going to take time.
Face the reality: Germany has enough installed-capacity of wind/solar to replace hard coal or lignite coal, even so they will have to replace coal by natural gas to figuratively reduce their CO₂ emissions.
Intermittent renewables are not scalable in terms of CO₂ reduction.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2018
...about 25% of global electricity production was from renewables...
Mostly it's hydro(geographically limited) followed by biomass(competes with agriculture).
"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"
https://www.spect...-energy/
"Wind is an irrelevance to the energy and climate debate"
"Even after 30 years of huge subsidies, it provides about zero energy"
http://www.ration...-energy/
https://stopthese...bsidies/
"Over the past decade, the world has spent US$ 3.0 trillion on renewable energy, according to the International Energy Agency" for almost nothing in terms of CO₂ reduction.
https://oilprice....ion.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2018
And now for something entirely different...

"A long-awaited scientific breakthrough has been made in Russian and world nuclear physics. For the first time, a controlled nuclear fusion reaction is realized at room temperature [LENR].

"In the laboratory, it was possible to start, regulate and stop the nuclear fusion reaction in deuterated polycrystalline titanium. This became possible only after the discovery of a new type of physical wave [for zephyr/Alizee], the existence of which was predicted by the great Soviet physicist L.D. Landau in the 1930s of the last century and received experimental confirmation of [former tennis great/model] Alla Kornilova a few years ago."

-Russia is the world's 2nd biggest exporter of titanium. Coincidence or...?
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2018
Intermittent renewables are not scalable in terms of CO₂ reductio
Yes they are. Just repeating a lie - does not make true - it just makes you a liar. Look at the chart here for the energy production in Britain - https://images.th...fit=clip You notice that coal is in steep decline - on track to disappear. Renewables now make up about 20% of their production - on par with nukes. As previously shown to you - C02 is going down in Britain. Notice that between 2016 and 2017 - wind and solar both increased, and gas decreased. The plan is unfolding. Yes - we know that renewables are intermittent. Why do you keep hammering on the same lies? That chart shows 8 years of progress. This transition is going to take more like 50 years, unless we break the hold of fossil fuels. Perhaps we will.....
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2018
Lets get this straight once and for all: Since the advent of renewables in the form of wind and solar in the 1980's everyone was aware that intermittency is an issue. This is not some new insight or something that has ever been a valid point of contention.

The solution for it was known then and has not changed since: Big grid connectivity, backup (biogas/hydrogen) and storage.

Over the decades numerous studies have shown that with a very small amount of storage you can run a national grid of a fully industrialized nation on 100% renewables. The more you are connected to a wider/international grid the less storage (as a percent of your national power requirements) you need.

So why is this even brought up? This is stuff that has been known for 40 years and is fully considered within any changeover plan. The only thing that changes is what to emphasize (with storage becoming cheaper plans are shifting away from backup)
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2018
Look at the chart here for the energy production in Britain
Interesting, emissions are reduced even when wind isn't blowing and the replacement of coal by natural gas has nothing to do with it (only possible in the eco-nuts' imagination).
Wind isn't blowing, UK CO₂eq/kWh is half than Germany, thereby the CO₂ reduction can attributed mostly to replacement of coal by nat gas.

Without natural gas and carbon-free nuclear, British people will freeze in the dark. Without wind/solar - no one would ever notice the difference, except in the electricity bills, wind/solar are paid even when they don't produce energy.
"UK wind farms found to be most profitable when switched off" - 2018
https://theenergy...hed-off/
"Solar farms receive more cash from green subsidies than selling the energy they produce"
http://www.dailym...uce.html
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2018
Since the advent of renewables in the form of wind and solar in the 1980's everyone was aware that intermittency is an issue.
"Most people think of solar and wind as new energy sources. In fact, they are two of our oldest."
July 20th 1891: New York Times: "Solar Energy would drive all the steam engines in the World".
https://uploads.d...97b6.jpg
https://uploads.d...eac3.jpg
https://uploads.d...59a5.jpg
https://uploads.d...c6fc.jpg
Wind and solar are much older technologies than nuclear, windmills and sails have been around since ancient ages and were replaced by steam engines centuries ago.
"Wind, Solar Are a Distraction. Let's Go Full Steam Ahead on Nuclear Power"
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2018
While Willie posts, more and more nuke plants are closing.
No amount of article pasting can stop it.
They are losers.
Like Trump.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2018
Interesting, emissions are reduced even when wind isn't blowing and the replacement of coal by natural gas has nothing to do with it (only possible in the eco-nuts' imagination)
No one said that natural gas was not part of the reduction in emissions - it is. But if you look at the chart I linked - https://images.th...fit=clip You will see that between 2016 and 2017, gas use fell - renewable use increased - and this link shows you that C02 emissions fell - https://www.carbo...-in-1890

So - your baby like need to throw around stupid terms like eco-nuts - belies your lack of comprehension of the subject matter....
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2018
Lets get this straight once and for all: Since the advent of renewables in the form of wind and solar in the 1980's everyone was aware that intermittency is an issue. This is not some new insight or something that has ever been a valid point of contention
The way you say it makes you sound so... butch.
The solution for it was known then and has not changed since: Big grid connectivity, backup (biogas/hydrogen) and storage
This is like saying that the solution to EVs has been known for 40 years... just put really good batteries in them.

Efficient storage, backup, and connectivity tech have only recently become available and still arent sufficient.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2018
Otto
and still arent sufficient.
Define sufficient. Countries like Scotland are now very close to 100% renewables. Obviously it is just a question of scale. The reason we are not on track for 100% renewables globally within a few years - is the cost. Same applies to why we are not on track for 100% nukes. Decommissioning all of the current infrastructure overnight would be massively costly - but technically feasible. The second world war shows that we can re-tool on a massive scale if we choose.

Any one want to buy some energy bonds - Uncle Sam Needs U.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
Countries like Scotland are now very close to 100% renewables.
Scotland is integrated to UK fossil-fueled grid, otherwise they would be freezing in the dark.
"UK becalmed. Still no wind powered electricity - its been more than 10 days now. Like waiting for a train? Such renewables are the unreliables It is better to invest in 24/7 reliable carbon-free nuclear instead."
https://pbs.twimg...XWyr.jpg
"Wind Drought in Britain Leaves Turbines at a Standstill"
https://www.bloom...andstill
"Windpower needs back up even when the wind is blowing. Coal or gas-fuelled generators must be spinning in stand-by, ready to be throttled up as soon as wind speed diminishes. Add to this extra fuel-burning as the turbines are ramped up... All considered, there R no fuel savings."
"Imagine trying to score points on the price of nuclear while there's no wind power no matter how much you pay."
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
nuke plants are closing
"You've heard that old-school enviro org mantra: "Can't build nuclear energy fast enough to affect climate change soon enough" ? Seems China wasn't listening"
China Nuclear electricity generation in TWh:
2010 71
2011 83
2012 93
2013 105
2014 124
2015 161
2016 198
2017 233
https://pbs.twimg...wpzl.jpg

"This is the price of antinuclearism."
"Meanwhile German coal and lignite plants were responsible for 30% of all mercury emissions from industry in the EU in 2016, more than Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and France combined."
https://pbs.twimg...BG7l.jpg
"Thanks Germany, you proved the renewables route doesn't work so the rest of us can go nuclear with confidence."
"Renewable Energy Use In Europe Didn't Stop CO2 Levels From Rising"
https://climatech...-rising/

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.