Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

[Volunteer]

We may not know today’s price for recycling nuclear waste, but the government was doing it at Oak Ridge in the 1970’s.

Correct that we don't know the costs, which is my point. How do unknown costs factor into the price of electricity?

Oak Ridge - attempts to recycle/contain nuclear wastes there have been a colossal failure. There's volumes of documentation of this.

 

[longview]

Correct that we don't know the costs, which is my point. How do unknown costs factor into the price of electricity?

Oak Ridge - attempts to recycle/contain nuclear wastes there have been a colossal failure. There's volumes of documentation of this.

And yet you choose not to cite any of those colossal well documented failures?
France Recycles up to 93% of their Nuclear waste.
France's Efficiency in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: What Can 'Oui' Learn?

Through recycling, up to 96% of the reusable material in spent fuel can be recovered.

 

[Volunteer]

And yet you choose not to cite any of those colossal well documented failures?
France Recycles up to 93% of their Nuclear waste.
France's Efficiency in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: What Can 'Oui' Learn?

Disposing of uranium waste could cost at least $7.2 billion - Oak Ridge Today

Depleted uranium hexafluoride storage cylinders at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Portsmouth, Ohio, Conversion Facility. (Photo from U.S. Government Accountability Office report) Depleted uranium hexafluoride storage cylinders at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Portsmouth, Ohio, Conversion...

oakridgetoday.com

 

[ModernDiogenes]

And what about batteries or some other storage, for the times of no sunlight and dead wind patterns?

Who's crystal ball says we will have adequate storage means by then?

The problem is the batteries may be as bad, or worse, a pollution problem in the long run. You’re talking an awful lot of heavy metal contamination when those batteries become defunct.

Where are we on renewal of battery components to reduce or eliminate battery waste materials from the equation?

It’s like the long life lightbulbs that are full of mercury. The cure is worse than the disease.

 

[flogger]

The cure is worse than the disease.

That prophetic statement sadly could be said of the whole AGW agenda currently being played out at massive taxpayer expense here in the UK

 

[Lord of Planar]

Disposing of uranium waste could cost at least $7.2 billion - Oak Ridge Today

Depleted uranium hexafluoride storage cylinders at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Portsmouth, Ohio, Conversion Facility. (Photo from U.S. Government Accountability Office report) Depleted uranium hexafluoride storage cylinders at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Portsmouth, Ohio, Conversion...

oakridgetoday.com

I read the first sentence of that, and it is retarded. Depleted uranium is not that bad of a byproduct, in fact it is used in many industrial application, and even military munitions.

The author from that independent media outlet is either stupid, or just am activist.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

That prophetic statement sadly could be said of the whole AGW agenda currently being played out at massive taxpayer expense here in the UK

Din;to get me wrong here. Green and renewables is the way to go. Economically if for nothing else. The counties that deny that will be playing catch-up and economically at peril because of their denial. Green is the economy if the future.

That said, it’s got great unsolved problems that need to be addressed for it to be truly viable.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The problem is the batteries may be as bad, or worse, a pollution problem in the long run. You’re talking an awful lot of heavy metal contamination when those batteries become defunct.

That aspect doesn't worry me. You can bet that there will be a market for recycling the batteries. I am just worried about the actual costs they do not tell people when we go away from fossil fuels.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Din;to get me wrong here. Green and renewables is the way to go. Economically if for nothing else.

Bullshit. They are far from economical. We do not yet have the technology for them to be economical. We need to stick with natural gas for a while still.

The counties that deny that will be playing catch-up and economically at peril because of their denial. Green is the economy if the future.

The far future. Maybe another 50 years when we have better storage technology. The transmission line infrastructure alone will take at least two decades.

That said, it’s got great unsolved problems that need to be addressed for it to be truly viable.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

That aspect doesn't worry me. You can bet that there will be a market for recycling the batteries. I am just worried about the actual costs they do not tell people when we go away from fossil fuels.

I’m certain, but the efficient tech doesn’t exist yet. That’s got to take place first for there to be that market.

 

[longview]

Disposing of uranium waste could cost at least $7.2 billion - Oak Ridge Today

Depleted uranium hexafluoride storage cylinders at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Portsmouth, Ohio, Conversion Facility. (Photo from U.S. Government Accountability Office report) Depleted uranium hexafluoride storage cylinders at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Portsmouth, Ohio, Conversion...

oakridgetoday.com

Thank you for admitting that we do have the capability to dispose of nuclear waste!
You say $7.2 Billion like that is a lot of money, but how much power generation was a result of that waste?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I’m certain, but the efficient tech doesn’t exist yet. That’s got to take place first for there to be that market.

That market will not exist until the feds stop pouring cash into the inefficient tech.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Bullshit. They are far from economical.

Not what I said. I said it will be the ECONOMY of the future. That that it will be economical. Though it will have to come down in cost (and it will as scale comes into play). We should be leading in green for the preservation of first world economic leadership. We have some catching up to do.

We do not yet have the technology for them to be economical. We need to stick with natural gas for a while still.

The far future. Maybe another 50 years when we have better storage technology. The transmission line infrastructure alone will take at least two decades.

No question. Still, we should have started yesterday. Others already have the jump on us.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Thank you for admitting that we do have the capability to dispose of nuclear waste!
You say $7.2 Billion like that is a lot of money, but how much power generation was a result of that waste?

That is not a waste to get rid of, but to sell to manufactured that use uranium. Depleted uranium is the low radioactive U238. It's half-life is 4.5 billion years.

Natural uranium is over 99% U238 and only about 0.72% U235. For reactors and bombs, the U235 is removed from the uranium, and the U238 remains. The U235 is far more radioactive as it only has a half-life of 703.8 million years.

The UF6 should be converted to metallic uranium, and it would be safe. There is a two stage chemical process to convert the UF6 to UF4, then reduce it to its metallic form.

Thank you for admitting that we do have the capability to dispose of nuclear waste!
You say $7.2 Billion like that is a lot of money, but how much power generation was a result of that waste?

 

[Threegoofs]

That aspect doesn't worry me. You can bet that there will be a market for recycling the batteries. I am just worried about the actual costs they do not tell people when we go away from fossil fuels.

Yet you ignore the tremendous future environmental costs of continued GHG emissions from fossil fuels, which will be borne heavily by future generations.

Oh, wait, you don’t ignore them. You pretend they don’t exist because you are a denier who can’t handle scientific fact.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No question. Still, we should have started yesterday. Others already have the jump on us.

Actually, look at the prices and lack of reliable power the places ahead of us are suffering.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yet you ignore the tremendous future environmental costs of continued GHG emissions from fossil fuels, which will be borne heavily by future generations.

Oh, wait, you don’t ignore them. You pretend they don’t exist because you are a denier who can’t handle scientific fact.

You are just making up lies again. Why do you refuse to at least try to understand my points?

You are the denier here.

 

[Threegoofs]

You are just making up lies again. Why do you refuse to at least try to understand my points?

You are the denier here.

The point is you’re pretending fossil fuels don’t have huge costs that will offset the potentially increased cost of renewables.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Actually, look at the prices and lack of reliable power the places ahead of us are suffering.

Growing pains. Happens with most new tech. If we get behind in green it will be at the loss of our leadership in the first world economies. We shouldn’t let that happen.

 

[Volunteer]

Thank you for admitting that we do have the capability to dispose of nuclear waste!
You say $7.2 Billion like that is a lot of money, but how much power generation was a result of that waste?

Billions more liability for taxpayers that, essentially, further subsidizes the price of electricity for ratepayers.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Growing pains. Happens with most new tech. If we get behind in green it will be at the loss of our leadership in the first world economies. We shouldn’t let that happen.

The growing pains happening are flat out unacceptable.

 

[longview]

Billions more liability for taxpayers that, essentially, further subsidizes the price of electricity for ratepayers.

And you do not think Price guarantees for power purchase agreements impact the ratepayers?

 

[Volunteer]

And you do not think Price guarantees for power purchase agreements impact the ratepayers?

Which guarantees?

 

[longview]

Which guarantees?

For many Wind generators they are offering Power Purchase agreements, where they agree to purchase the power at a minimum price,
and in the case of the New England off shore wind farm they were also offering renewable energy credits.
Avangrid asks to renegotiate contract prices for Mass. offshore wind project

The PPAs are with the Massachusetts distribution utilities of Eversource Energy, National Grid PLC and Unitil Corp. They set an energy price of $47.68/MWh for the first year, which would escalate to $76.22/MWh in the project's 20th year, according to state filings. And they set renewable energy credit prices at $11.92/REC for the first year, escalating to $19.06/REC in the 20th year.

 

[Visbek]

The problem is the batteries may be as bad, or worse, a pollution problem in the long run. You’re talking an awful lot of heavy metal contamination when those batteries become defunct.

Where are we on renewal of battery components to reduce or eliminate battery waste materials from the equation?

There's already a lot of utility-scale batteries. And yes, they get recycled at end of life. I'm sure there are ways to improve recycling, make it cheaper etc., but recycling already recovers lots of valuable minerals.

But batteries are only one option. Other utility storage technologies include:

- Pumped hydro. E.g. you use the electricity generated to pump water to a higher elevation. When you need the electricity, you release the water, which drives the turbines. Up to 80% efficient. Takes time and uses up a bit of space. Over 90% of current utility storage in the US is pumped hydro.

- Compressed air. You use the energy to compress air in a chamber, and the increased pressure = increased heat. Hard on equipment as stuff is heating up all the time. 70% efficient, afaik needs less space than hydro.

- Molten salt/thermal. Generated energy heats up a material, which is stored in a chamber. When you need electricity, you add water to the chamber, which turns into steam, which powers the turbines.

It’s like the long life lightbulbs that are full of mercury. The cure is worse than the disease.

Mmmm, no, it isn't.

1) Most of the batteries can be reused or recycled
2) There are other storage options
3) Even if those batteries were going straight into landfill, it's much less damaging than using fossil fuels.