721–730 of 731 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
not an argument , bring proofs he's wrong
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 Franc…
nope ''In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity has increased. After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016.
The reason? Record-breaking wind and solar production did not make up for falling nuclear energy output and higher natural gas consumption. And now, the high cost of renewable electricity is showing up in French household electricity bills.
According to Eurostat, although French households pay 41% less than German households, electricity in France has, over the past decade, been increasing in price much faster than electricity in Germany.''
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The counter risk is having the entire planet rendered uninhabitable for human life, right? Let's see, some area rendered uninhabitable versus the planet rendered uninhabitable... I'm going with A.
The worst of the lies about nuclear is that it can somehow help create a carbon-neutral economy. Of course it wouldn't. Designing a carbon-neutral economy is a much bigger problem that requires much broader strategic thinking. The levelized cost of renewables is already cheaper than the equivalent for nuclear power, with much smaller capital costs, much faster start-up and build costs, and no concerns about long-live…
Of course it wouldn't
nope
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And now Germany is not meeting its decarbonization goals. How is that a win for the environment?
That has little to do with the decommissioning itself, and more with the Governments stupidity and ignorance. The decommissioning is only one part of that screw-up. Germany wants (and the whole world should): * enough energy * carbon-free * nuclear-waste-free On order to do that, you need massive investments in renewable energy and storage. Instead, they found a way to have: * large investment in solar energy, withou…
yes they cut the main source of green energy
Can we just get something straight about the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant? Although it was a 1960's design, the reason it failed the way it did was because of one design flaw... Its backup generators were not placed up on the hills above it. Rather, the backup generators were situated below sea level underneath the reactor buildings. DERP. Fukushima Dai-ichi survived the Magnitude 9 earthquake. It did not s…
And yet, very few companies (in the U.S. at least) want to build them. It's because the worst case scenario they're planning for is very bad indeed, so they have to spend all this expense to keep it from happening. Compared to every other renewable energy technology, it is more risky and has a much higher cost to get up and running. And that's setting aside the other problem which is that many of the countries that a…
no https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Woah. Take it easy mate. To be clear there is no "safe" option. But this 60+ year old nuclear facility survived the 4th largest earthquake in record history, a tsunami, and only failed because the placements of the back, back up generators. Other plants (e.g. the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plan) that were closer to the epicenter survived just fine. Old outdate plants aren't perfect, but even still its better than the guar…
> survived the 4th largest earthquake in record history, a tsunami, You make it sound like this is unbelievably improbable. Like "multiply the probabilities of an earthquake and a tsunami". In fact, this is a prime example for a common cause failure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.iea.org/tcep/power/nuclear/ Why would you even invest in anything that looks like that? Especially compared to the curves here: https://www.iea.org/tcep/power/renewables/ Meanwhile at the construction sites: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-pro... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/03/fate-of-... > There is almost no nuclear lobby to speak of. Nuclear advocacy is almo…
> Why would you even invest in anything that looks like that? You'll have to ask Peter Thiel, Bill Gates, Sam Altman, and some others why they invested in advanced nuclear. I suspect you'll hear something about how nuclear can produce low-footprint 24/7 carbon-free energy in sites all over the world. Certainly I wouldn't expect a traditional investor to invest in nuclear to make a buck. It's mostly people who are try…
I would but they are probably not likely to talk about it anymore. Because...you know...it went so well ;)
> I've never seen pro-nuclear advertising in the USA.
Sure you did. You comment underneath it. People like Michael Shellenberger need to be payed too.
Btw, thanks for giving even more arguments to why nuclear is on the away out in this paragraph.
> I personally know a lot of grassroots nuclear advocates:
Omg lol. The first two look like this John Oliver episode about fake grassroots pages. I mean what is this?
whatisnuclear is a guy who works for TerraPower.
> a few Minnesota folks who learned about nuclear and dedicated their efforts to it
I'm sure they are making nationwide impact paying for NYT and WP op-eds no wait...they probably are just like you and those fan boys here and not even relevant to the topic.
And last but not least THE NASA (uhuuuu!) guy with his "just around the corner" Thorium Reactor touring tedX talks I'm sure he has absolutely no money left to pay for this hype too.
So I don't know what you point was with this hilarious list but you seem to have missed mine and as I'm on cool down here for my contribution against this circle jerk, please consider reading my posts slowly so your answers make it worth being regarded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has little to do with the decommissioning itself, and more with the Governments stupidity and ignorance. The decommissioning is only one part of that screw-up. Germany wants (and the whole world should): * enough energy * carbon-free * nuclear-waste-free On order to do that, you need massive investments in renewable energy and storage. Instead, they found a way to have: * large investment in solar energy, withou…
>That has little to do with the decommissioning itself, yes they cut the main source of green energy
There is still no final depot for that waste, and the depots they have now are currently running full of water.
I get the argument of nuclear being zero-emission and maybe nuclear can be the solution - but not in its current form. If they wanna play, they need the new kind of reactors, which are actually safe and minimize nuclear waste. Also maybe figure out what to do with the waste before you produce it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Franc…
> That cost is not reflected in current electric rates nope ''In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity has increased. After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016. The reason? Record-breaking wind and solar production did not make up for falling nuclear energy output and higher natural gas consumption. And now, the hi…
Because they don't pay the real price. The whole show is government owned (EDF, Areva (or what they are called today)). and thus a lot of money is coming from the government - like financing for acquiring Areva parts. The government keeps nuclear power afloat with huge amounts of money.
Example: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Europe-checks-Fre...
EDF is 56bn€ in debt and can't pay for the maintenance/replacement of its aging reactors. The new Flamanville reactor is now at 11bn€ cost...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's too simplistic. Retiring nuclear power plants has been the long term goal of the German anti-nuclear movement since the 70s. They were an important faction in the founding of the Green Party. When the Green party came into power in 1998 in a coalition government, they passed a law to retire all nuclear power plants by restricting the remaining energy output they could produce. BTW, this was done in consensus w…
The fact that you missed her name (it’s Angela, not Andrea) makes me doubt the veracity of the rest of your comment.