131–140 of 354 posts
It's bullshit. Electricity is only 28% of global emissions. What about the other 3/4ths? And on that 28%... The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption. Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world’s electricity from about 445 power reactors. This isn't hard math.
Nuclear is one of a number of alternatives that needs to be seriously considered but due to the long timelines and high costs of nuclear it is also one of the best stalling tactics for the fossil fuel industry seeking to extend the life of their assets. Possible increased adoption of nuclear in the future is not a reason to avoid setting sunset dates for emitting technologies now and commence transition to whatever l…
China builds literally dozens of 1GW plants simultaneously for a fraction of the price, and in a fraction of the time, using western nuclear companies.
The time and cost limitation are entirely avoidable if we make sensible policy changes.
1. We need to issue an executive order opening the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. This one facility can hold ALL the nuclear waste we will make even if we move to 100% nuclear power.
2. We need to immunize nuclear plants from environmental lobby lawsuits which constantly delay projects and multiply costs.
These two changes ALONE will make nuclear plant construction attractive again in the US. Remember that large capital cost finance for profitable projects is not a problem. It's literally what Wall Street was built for. We wouldn't even need to fund the plants with gov't money.
It's bullshit. Electricity is only 28% of global emissions. What about the other 3/4ths? And on that 28%... The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption. Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world’s electricity from about 445 power reactors. This isn't hard math.
Economically accessible coal resources will deplete in 30 years. (1950)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renewables got cheaper to the point where it's not competitive Counter-argument: Wind and sun are unreliable Counter-counter-argument: Why not build 10x the amount of wind and solar if it's so cheap, and automatically break the circuit when not needed?
Even better: when produced energy is not needed... store it, in order to use it when production is insufficient.
California is prematurely closing its perfectly good nuclear reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#Clos...
There have been several leaks and you know, maybe a state with a lot of earthquake activity isn't the best place to put a nuclear reactor.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can't afford to wait or not to hedge our bets. Nuclear is a hell of a hedge since we know it works. We know the French model works really well, but for some reason we, the country with the most heavily armed forces in the world, can't "protect" it. BS, moneyed interests and tree huggers are keeping us from fixing the problem until fusion comes along or uber cheap battery density 100x better than what we have curre…
> We know the French model works really well It works so "well" that the French taxpayer will have to pay the UK so they can deliver their guaranteed energy prices the over-due and over budget reactor they desperately try to finish will generate. It's so fantastic that every summer they have to buy dirty coal energy from Germany because their rivers get too hot and every winter because...it's too cold and their agein…
>It works so "well" that the French taxpayer will have to pay the UK so they can deliver their guaranteed energy prices the over-due and over budget reactor they desperately try to finish will generate.
Pretty much the entirety of the problems we've had with the EPR program has to do stopping building nuclear power plants for decades and losing the associated skill-set and industrial base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, solar apparently pollutes a heck of a lot more than nuclear. It’s still > 100x better than fossil fuels, and I’m still putting some on my roof, but the figures in the article are surprising.
Citation please
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can't afford to wait or not to hedge our bets. Nuclear is a hell of a hedge since we know it works. We know the French model works really well, but for some reason we, the country with the most heavily armed forces in the world, can't "protect" it. BS, moneyed interests and tree huggers are keeping us from fixing the problem until fusion comes along or uber cheap battery density 100x better than what we have curre…
Easily processed uranium will last us 80 years at current consumption rates. If you start building current nuclear reactor designs everywhere, we'll run out of it in less than 40 years. Then the price will skyrocket, and nuclear is already more expensive than renewables. We need different nuclear reactors, fast reactors or thorium that use uranium more efficiently to stave this off, but they're more dangerous and sti…
Nuclear is one of a number of alternatives that needs to be seriously considered but due to the long timelines and high costs of nuclear it is also one of the best stalling tactics for the fossil fuel industry seeking to extend the life of their assets. Possible increased adoption of nuclear in the future is not a reason to avoid setting sunset dates for emitting technologies now and commence transition to whatever l…
I find it interesting that people who advocate we make major policy changes to avert a climate disaster refuse to entertain making minor policy changes to reduce the cost and timeline of nuclear power plant construction. China builds literally dozens of 1GW plants simultaneously for a fraction of the price, and in a fraction of the time, using western nuclear companies. The time and cost limitation are entirely avoid…
I see these articles. I barely read them. I’m a supporter already. I get all the various details and arguments.
I left that industry though. For two reasons.
1. Regulation makes it so that what seems cool and high tech is mostly 60’s tech.
2. I got discouraged working in an industry that I knew could help the world but was so reviled and feared at large.
These days I work in ag automation. Feed the world. Robots and the cloud. That sort of thing. And yet… yesterday, some of the assembly techs were spooked by the supposed ability to have a small magnet stick to the injection site of a Moderna vaccine. I watched grown men spend multiple hours coming to the conclusion that “the magnets didn’t stick after all but something weird was going on.”
I’ve concluded that Darwin was wrong. Humanity has the ability to out wit natural selection any more.
That leads me to believe that nuclear technology (sufficiently advanced to be indiscernible from magic) has as much likelihood of mankind applying it to their benefit as they do of burning witches to save the planet.