Garbage from the New York Times, as usual.
To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
101–110 of 666 posts
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany replaced their nuclear power with new coal. It boggles the mind. https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces-nuclear-coal-ghgs-skyro...
Except it isn't really true. The share of coal in the German energy mix is decreasing too. There was a hike in 2013 and 2014. And the construction of new coal plants in the last 10 years was big mistake but nevertheless, the switch to renewable sources is important and has to continue. In the end it will be cheaper than any new nuclear power plant which might or might not work. Also renewable energy has a big plus vs…
Shutting down nuclear reactors as they age out and replacing them with renewables (even expensive renewables) is fine, but shutting down perfectly functioning nuclear reactors with years or decades of lifespan left to build new coal seems indefensible to me.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
>in an era where solar is competitively priced We're not in that era though. Solar is only competitive if you don't account for storage, which is required if it's going to replace any large percentage of generation.
We've got these things you know, batteries. And they don't need to be stored somewhere safe for hundreds of years while they cool off. And they decrease in cost as you make more, which nuclear doesn't. Every time an article about nuclear hits HN or Reddit, everyone chicken littles "Nuclear! Won't someone think of the atom!", while solar is on track to have ~80GW installed this year and next year in the US alone. Its…
Mainland China has 35 nuclear power reactors in operation, 20 under construction, and more about to start construction. Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a doubling of nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020-21, then up to 150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro...
China’s policy is to ‘go global’ with exporting nuclear technology including heavy components in the supply chain. - implying there will be a world market, and some 'patsy's' are going to be willing to buy.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#104My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…
> The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident.
The downside of solar is that it provides no electricity at night. We should be building enough nuclear to provide the nighttime load and enough solar to make up the difference between that and the daytime load.
> The political capital lost in a reactor accident isn't worth it.
The only use for political capital in favor of nuclear reactors is to have more nuclear reactors. It seems like you're arguing we shouldn't have more reactors because a reactor accident could make it politically more difficult to have more reactors.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
>in an era where solar is competitively priced We're not in that era though. Solar is only competitive if you don't account for storage, which is required if it's going to replace any large percentage of generation.
Nuclear waste storage is subsidized and nuclear liability is too (capped near $12billion; plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion).
Nuclear waste recycling is heavily restricted in the US. It only makes sense to subsidize storage if recycling is restricted.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#106Is it technically possible to have a global power grid, where solar generated on the sunny side of the earth can be used on the dark side, eliminating the need for energy storage?
Massive infrastructure costs, the need for political coordination, and transmission losses [1] make this scenario unlikely.
[1] http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-...
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#107Garbage from the New York Times, as usual.
Quality contribution to the discussion right here.
Do you mind elaborating what do you think is the problem with the article ?
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've got these things you know, batteries. And they don't need to be stored somewhere safe for hundreds of years while they cool off. And they decrease in cost as you make more, which nuclear doesn't. Every time an article about nuclear hits HN or Reddit, everyone chicken littles "Nuclear! Won't someone think of the atom!", while solar is on track to have ~80GW installed this year and next year in the US alone. Its…
"We've got these things you know, batteries." Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective. "Nuclear lost. Its never coming back." There are currently 55 new power reactors under construction and scheduled to be in operation by 2020. China alone has 20 in active construction, with many more planned. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and...
> Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective.
Compared to nuclear? That very few nations recycle or reprocesses? And where all the waste ends up in cooling pools forever? Don't be disingenuous.
> There are currently 55 new power reactors under construction and scheduled to be in operation by 2020. China alone has 20 in active construction, with many more planned.
I wish those generators luck. Even if wind and solar doesn't have the capacity factor, it being under 1 cent/kwh when generating will drive nuclear right of business (which is why Exelon is closing two generators this year in Illinois; the wind, its too damn cheap!)
EDIT:
> No country keeps waste "in cooling pools forever".
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/plan-storing-us-nuclear-waste-...
"But radioactive waste doesn’t disappear if you ignore it. The US has 75,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste—spent reactor fuel and the byproducts of processing it—that now sit in pools or dry casks at nuclear power plants, facilities never intended for long-term storage. The risk of leaks is high. Because the stuff stays radioactive for millennia, the safest course of action is supposed to be entomb ingit in rock like at Yucca Mountain, where it can remain inaccessible to future humans."
"Now, Yucca Mountain plans have dragged on so long that all the high-level radioactive waste in the country exceeds its storage capacity. The Department of Energy hasn’t even built the repository yet, and the country already needs a second."
"Nobody wants radioactive waste to be their problem, and it ends up being, well, everyone’s problem. The federal government has paid $4.5 billion to keep high-level waste at nuclear power plants, and it’s on track to spend another $22.6 billion. At the same time, the plans for Yucca Mountain are all drawn up and and even its initial tunnels have been drilled. “The technical solutions are ready to be implemented when the political will reasserts itself,” says Lanthrum."
Sure sure, let's keep building nuclear reactors instead of renewables and batteries /s
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that these old plants are getting replaced with coal and natural gas.
Are they really replacing with coal, still? Natural gas contribution to energy is on the rise, but coal seems to be on the decline. (I'm not calling you wrong, I just can't find data to back numbers of plants - only coal as an energy production method.)
Unless there are dramatic changes to the EPA, there will never be another coal plant built in the US after the Kemper Plant is turned on in Mississippi next year.
Kemper was supposed to be an example of a modern 'clean coal' plant but is estimated to cost $4 billion over it's original $2.5 billion budget. It's going to cost over $11,000 per KW in CapEx, nearly twice what a nuclear plant costs on a per-KW basis and probably 8x - 10x what solar PV costs.
In addition to the insane amount of CapEx, Mississippi politicians have decided to further subsidize the plant by paying $35/ton for the CO2 that the plant captures instead of the contracted $10/ton that was initially promised.
This will be some of the most expensive, dirty power that's ever been produced.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sex is fun irrespective of it causing breeding. They are evolutionarily linked, but the have no moral relationship within the human brain. The desire to have sex and the desire to have children are for most people, completely independent desires. And for what it's worth, humans have no obligations to our evolutionary past. "How we evolved" has no direct bearing on what we want (or 'are meant') to do with our lives. I…
Yes, but many people have instinctual desires to produce children as well. Ever heard of the phrase "my biological clock is ticking"?
I said the desire was independent, not non-existent. Did anybody here even read what I wrote?