Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but that's exactly what nuclear energy proponents said in the 70s. And how many plants failed that were built after the 70s? >The consequences of a disaster are too great Even with the disasters, it kills fewer people than coal even without taking into account the damage from global warming. It’s like refusing to fly because plane crashes stick out in memory and then choosing to drive instead, despite how much more…
No, it's nothing like that - although it might be like refusing to fly in a 737 MAX. First, any coal analogy is out of date. Only the coal lobby wants to continue burning coal. Everyone else is like "No, that's stupid and self-harming, let's just not." Secondly, plane crashes don't make entire areas uninhabitable for long periods. Third, the problem with nuclear isn't the engineering, it's the management. The nuclear…
Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize
701–710 of 731 posts
Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize
#702Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your report is from 2015 so ? >Given how rapidly PV costs have continued to decline (and how major nuclear efforts collapsed with cost explosions since then), that's useless. you say so, but the one with evidence is me not you
https://www.pv-magazine.com/features/investors/module-price-... Compare 2015 prices to current prices. Anyone with even cursory knowledge of this area would have know how fast PV prices have fallen.
that's not the only cost of renewables,look at germany and france https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...
Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize
#703Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe 4 years aren't so relevant,maybe you should bring proof's of what you say
Solar costs have fallen very rapidly. Four years is forever for this subject. You should acquaint yourself with the basics of the situation.
>Solar costs have fallen very rapidly.
proof? beacuse using solar and wind bring a rise in the cost of energy https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...
Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize
#704Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/features/investors/module-price-... Compare 2015 prices to current prices. Anyone with even cursory knowledge of this area would have know how fast PV prices have fallen.
that's not the only cost of renewables,look at germany and france https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...
Shellenberger has zero credibility. This is the guy who claimed photovoltaics use rare earth metals.
Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize
#705Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solar costs have fallen very rapidly. Four years is forever for this subject. You should acquaint yourself with the basics of the situation.
>Solar costs have fallen very rapidly. proof? beacuse using solar and wind bring a rise in the cost of energy https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...
Title of the piece: "If Saving The Climate Requires Making Energy So Expensive, Why Is French Electricity So Cheap?"
Gee. They have a bunch of nuclear reactors whose cost has already been paid for. That cost is not reflected in current electric rates. When they try to build new ones, the cost is ridiculous, and they find building renewables sources would be cheaper.
"Replacing nuclear with renewables would save France $44.5 billion"
https://futurism.com/the-byte/nuclear-plants-renewable-energ...
Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize
#706Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about whether it makes money. It's a way to drastically reduce the waste from the process.
If they weren't going to use the plutonium immediately, reprocessing was stupid. Spending the money they didn't have to, in order to make Pu they didn't need, just to have the Pu sit around, made no economic sense. And no, it doesn't improve the economics of waste disposal. Understand where reprocessing came from. Way back then, the story was that nuclear was going to be dirt cheap, but would ultimately be limited by…
Again, the point isn't to save money. The point is to reduce waste.
Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize
#707Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We couldn't have a worse nuclear power disaster than Lake Karachay even if we tried on purpose. How can you write such a ridiculous sentence? We have nuclear power plants in the middle of inhabited areas with tens of millions of people who would be immediately affected by an explosion. It's a permanent subject of dispute here in Europe. > If every single operational nuclear power plant had a meltdown incident after…
Explosion as in a nuclear one? Really isn't possible. The fissile material isn't pure enough. I believe graphite rods are used as the safety to capture the neutrons in a nuclear fission reactor and effectively kill off the reaction. Explosion as in Chernobyl level? That was basically water pressure.
Chernobyl had two explosions, a few seconds apart. The second, larger one was after most of the water had left the core. The reactor had a positive void coefficient, so losing water increased reactivity.
Of course these were prompt supercritical reactions in a moderated system, so they are not explosions in the sense of bombs, which are fast systems with neutron doubling times measured in fractions of a microsecond.
Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize
#708Earlier quoted context omitted.
far from it. If nuclear fallout had been reached Tokyo, then we would talk about a much greater problem.
An accident in a nuclear plant that was constructed in a highly seismic and tsunami-prone area isn't an argument against nuclear power. I'm sure that Germany can find a more suited location if they wanted... Anyway, France is peppered with nuclear plants and Germany is right downwind from many of them.
> Anyway, France is peppered with nuclear plants and Germany is right downwind from many of them.
That's why we would like to see some of them being closed immediately.
Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize
#709For folks who think solar/wind/other sources are just as good or better, why not invest in all energy sources anyway? In most cases anyway this will be private investment and there is no reason not to experiment with all types of energies (including new types of nuclear reactors) instead of waiting and see if renewables can achieve their promise. If you are going to make bets, take as many bets as you can.
People don't want to invest in nuclear because nuclear disasters scare the shit out of them.
We are talking about new nuclear reactor designs, not like the ones from the 50s. And frankly nuclear plants, even with their disasters, have killed very few people compared to all other sources of energy.
Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize
#710Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both technologies are proven. One has proven to be cheaper than the other.
France and Sweden built very low-carbon electric grids with nuclear. No country in the world has done that with wind/solar. Some have done it with lots of hydro/geothermal, but those aren't available everywhere.
No country did it with wind/solar in the past, because wind/solar weren't competitive.
No country will do it with nuclear in the future, because nuclear won't be competitive.