Quiet? No. But maybe US people who believe they are the center of the world are unaware of that
China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy
81–90 of 93 posts
Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
The natural objection is that the Fukushima response was a significant overreaction. Counting that cost is like including Iraq war costs for oil usage (perhaps fair for the first gulf war, but the expense of the second was an independent policy mistake) [1] (least bad Forbes article I’ve read in years) https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11...
Destruction of property value by an accident is a real cause for legal action even if you consider it irrational. Shellenberger is not a credible source. He's the person who assured us PV is bad because it uses rare earth elements (it does not.)
Thanks for the info about Shellenberger.
The crux of the Fukushima costing is whether damage actually occurred to property.
In much of the exclusion zone radiation levels are relatively low, and always have been.
The decision to impose the exclusion zone was deeply political.
Here’s an NYT source for better credibility.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240306192358/https://www.nytim...
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-is...
Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hydrogen storage would be underground. Very cheap and more efficient than using ammonia. If underground storage is not available (lack of proper geology), the scheme could be synthesis of methanol, with oxyfuel combustion (Allam cycle) using oxygen from electrolysis, and with the CO2 stored for recycling to produce methanol. The CO2 and oxygen would be stored as refrigerated liquids. > (The lithium alone would be ord…
> An optimal "synthetic baseload" for the US from wind and solar might use 6 hours of battery storage (and e-fuels) This tempers high-frequency variation. The 2% over a full year lower-frequency variation is the problem. You’re proposing good ideas. But they’re untested and contain fundamental engineering risk. It’s similar to when pro-nuke folk assume SMRs will happen; hence, the analogy.
> This tempers high-frequency variation. The 2% over a full year lower-frequency variation is the problem.
Right. And that's where the e-fuels come in. Using batteries for that storage problem is absurd and unnecessary. The argument that renewables can't reach 100% because batteries can't do year-scale leveling is a strawman argument. It's bad engineering to try to use batteries for that use case. And because 2% (say) is such a small fraction of the total demand the low round trip efficiency of using e-fuels for grid storage doesn't hurt much overall.
Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Destruction of property value by an accident is a real cause for legal action even if you consider it irrational. Shellenberger is not a credible source. He's the person who assured us PV is bad because it uses rare earth elements (it does not.)
Thanks for the info about Shellenberger. The crux of the Fukushima costing is whether damage actually occurred to property. In much of the exclusion zone radiation levels are relatively low, and always have been. The decision to impose the exclusion zone was deeply political. Here’s an NYT source for better credibility. https://web.archive.org/web/20240306192358/https://www.nytim... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22…
> The crux of the Fukushima costing is whether damage actually occurred to property.
The legal requirement would be if it caused land values to decline. It doesn't matter if that decline was for a reason you'd call irrational. It wouldn't even require proof of responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt; "preponderance of evidence" would be enough in the US system.
Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok then let's repeal the Price-Anderson Nuclear indemninty act and make nuclear power plants liable for ALL clean up costs if something goes wrong. For Fukushima that number is circa $800 billion. If it is as safe as you think it is with a minimum of safety standards then the market will still provide. Sophisticated insurers will be capable of calculating the risk and shouldering all of it for a reasonable fee. Right…
I know you're making a point but of course realistically, nuclear businesses would just try to structure themselves in such a way that in the event of a fallout the company can just go bankrupt without disrupting those benefitting from it majorly
What you describe is deliberate undercapitalization at the time of incorporation - this would lead to courts being able to pierce the corporate veil and hold directors personally liable for cleanup costs.
This wouldn't mean that the state would get the money back in such an eventuality, but it would mean director => prison.
What kind of person do you think you're going to get to run your nuclear plant if they know that there's a risk of prison if everything goes wrong? Either a very stupid one, a very, very risk averse one or no director at all.
This chain of thought combined with the state's strong desire to see a nuclear industry with a healthy supply chain in order to support the nuclear military is why the indemnity act exists at all. They know that nuclear power requires lavish subsidies like taxpayer backed insurance to even exist.
Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is about industrial generation, not home solar which is largely a vanity thing still. Go look for mildew on a big solar farm on the other side of the Cascades. You'll need to dig through all the wind turbines and dams to find them though. The PNW has better choices than solar anyway.
Isn't there a dust problem east of the Cascades?
Not such that you can't clean off a solar panel with a hose, no. The point is that maintenance in industrial environments is a given and part of the cost structure. Seeing mildew on grandma's panels isn't really an indictment of the technology.
Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there a dust problem east of the Cascades?
Not such that you can't clean off a solar panel with a hose, no. The point is that maintenance in industrial environments is a given and part of the cost structure. Seeing mildew on grandma's panels isn't really an indictment of the technology.
I've never successfully cleaned the dust off my car windows with a hose. It always requires a brush or sponge.
Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not such that you can't clean off a solar panel with a hose, no. The point is that maintenance in industrial environments is a given and part of the cost structure. Seeing mildew on grandma's panels isn't really an indictment of the technology.
I've never successfully cleaned the dust off my car windows with a hose. It always requires a brush or sponge.
You lost me. Are you seriously staking a position on "Solar Energy Will Never Work Because Electric Companies Don't Do Windows"? Or are you just trolling. This is silly. Yes. You can clean a solar panel. Do you genuinely not believe that?
Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the info about Shellenberger. The crux of the Fukushima costing is whether damage actually occurred to property. In much of the exclusion zone radiation levels are relatively low, and always have been. The decision to impose the exclusion zone was deeply political. Here’s an NYT source for better credibility. https://web.archive.org/web/20240306192358/https://www.nytim... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22…
> The crux of the Fukushima costing is whether damage actually occurred to property. The legal requirement would be if it caused land values to decline. It doesn't matter if that decline was for a reason you'd call irrational. It wouldn't even require proof of responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt; "preponderance of evidence" would be enough in the US system.
It’s fair to debate whether the nuclear activities caused the land value to decline or whether the government policy caused the land value to decline.
A government could impose irrational exclusion zones for arbitrary events, it’s unfair to impose the cost on the event itself unless the exclusion zone policy was justified.
Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The crux of the Fukushima costing is whether damage actually occurred to property. The legal requirement would be if it caused land values to decline. It doesn't matter if that decline was for a reason you'd call irrational. It wouldn't even require proof of responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt; "preponderance of evidence" would be enough in the US system.
It’s fair to debate whether the nuclear activities caused the land value to decline or whether the government policy caused the land value to decline. A government could impose irrational exclusion zones for arbitrary events, it’s unfair to impose the cost on the event itself unless the exclusion zone policy was justified.
The decline in land value wouldn't be from government policy, it would be from people not wanting to live on land contaminated with sufficient radioactivity. If anything, government policy would be driven by this public sentiment, not the other way around.
I suggest trying to change this is not going to go well; "radiation isn't really bad, trust us, some meltdowns are ok" would be a very challenging PR move.