Time for a Return to Nuclear Power? (1 Viewer)

[Jack Hays]

Nuclear: The Arithmetic in Support Is Merciless - Eduardo Porter, NYT

Today renewable energy supplies only about 6 percent of American demand. And most of that comes from water flowing through dams. Solar energy contributes next to nothing.
Averting climate change is likely to require much less eco-friendly sources of power. This includes natural gas, of course, which emits about half the carbon dioxide of coal. But over the long term it is likely to require much more investment in a big bugaboo of the environmental movement: nuclear power.
The arithmetic is merciless. To make it likely that the world’s temperature will rise no more than 2 degrees Celsius above the average of the preindustrial era — a target agreed to by the world’s governments in 2010 — humanity must spew no more than 900 billion more tons of carbon dioxide into the air from now through 2050 and only 75 billion tons after that, according to an authoritative new study in Britain. :mrgreen:

 

[specklebang]

Nuclear Power is a good idea. The problem is that it ain't gonna happen.

First, the cancellation of the Yucca Mtn. Repository has left many nuclear plants with parking lots full of waste and nowhere to get rid of it.

Second, the cost of construction in full compliance (and you want full compliance in this case) is far too large of an investment for any rational return.

 

[Jack Hays]

Nuclear Power is a good idea. The problem is that it ain't gonna happen.

First, the cancellation of the Yucca Mtn. Repository has left many nuclear plants with parking lots full of waste and nowhere to get rid of it.

Second, the cost of construction in full compliance (and you want full compliance in this case) is far too large of an investment for any rational return.

The NYT, at least, finds nuclear power to be economically viable.

An analysis of power generation in 21 countries by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency projected that even if the world were to impose a tax of $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, neither wind nor solar could outcompete gas and coal.

A new generation of nuclear power, by contrast, is potentially the cheapest energy source of all.

The study projected that the typical nuclear generator in North America could produce power at $50 to $75 per megawatt-hour, depending on assumptions about construction costs and interest rates, against $70 to $80 for coal-fueled power. Wind-powered electricity would cost from $60 to $90, but there are limits to how much it can be scaled up. A megawatt-hour of solar power still costs in the hundreds.

The study concluded that nuclear power would prove even more competitive in Asia and Europe. eace

 

[MMC]

The NYT, at least, finds nuclear power to be economically viable.

An analysis of power generation in 21 countries by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency projected that even if the world were to impose a tax of $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, neither wind nor solar could outcompete gas and coal.

A new generation of nuclear power, by contrast, is potentially the cheapest energy source of all.

The study projected that the typical nuclear generator in North America could produce power at $50 to $75 per megawatt-hour, depending on assumptions about construction costs and interest rates, against $70 to $80 for coal-fueled power. Wind-powered electricity would cost from $60 to $90, but there are limits to how much it can be scaled up. A megawatt-hour of solar power still costs in the hundreds.

The study concluded that nuclear power would prove even more competitive in Asia and Europe. eace

Heya JH. :2wave: Well that may be the case. But then what do we do with like what took place with Japan. We have an ongoing travesty taking place there. The Japanese having been pumping 300 million tons of Contaminated Water into the Ocean, weekly. Already they think it will reach the West Coast here. It is affecting all kinds of life in the ocean. What happens when it invades our coast line?

 

[Jack Hays]

Heya JH. :2wave: Well that may be the case. But then what do we do with like what took place with Japan. We have an ongoing travesty taking place there. The Japanese having been pumping 300 million tons of Contaminated Water into the Ocean, weekly. Already they think it will reach the West Coast here. It is affecting all kinds of life in the ocean. What happens when it invades our coast line?

I believe it's 300 tons/day, or about 2100 tons/week, not 300 million. And the last thing I read was that the effect on marine life will be negligible because the ocean is so vast. Regardless, the answer to your question is that we have to build better, safer power plants.eace

 

[Helix]

we should absolutely expand nuclear power. i'm interested in thorium technology; have heard good things about it.

nuclear and renewables are the future.

 

[Helix]

Nuclear Power is a good idea. The problem is that it ain't gonna happen.

First, the cancellation of the Yucca Mtn. Repository has left many nuclear plants with parking lots full of waste and nowhere to get rid of it.

Second, the cost of construction in full compliance (and you want full compliance in this case) is far too large of an investment for any rational return.

that's why you do it both privately and publicly. the unprofitable parts (and the NIMBY issues) are handled by the public sector. it would take the will to do it, though.

 

[polgara]

Nuclear: The Arithmetic in Support Is Merciless - Eduardo Porter, NYT

Today renewable energy supplies only about 6 percent of American demand. And most of that comes from water flowing through dams. Solar energy contributes next to nothing.
Averting climate change is likely to require much less eco-friendly sources of power. This includes natural gas, of course, which emits about half the carbon dioxide of coal. But over the long term it is likely to require much more investment in a big bugaboo of the environmental movement: nuclear power.
The arithmetic is merciless. To make it likely that the world’s temperature will rise no more than 2 degrees Celsius above the average of the preindustrial era — a target agreed to by the world’s governments in 2010 — humanity must spew no more than 900 billion more tons of carbon dioxide into the air from now through 2050 and only 75 billion tons after that, according to an authoritative new study in Britain. :mrgreen:

:argue Well I guess I don't need to wonder what we'll be debating in the foreseeable future! :mrgreen:

 

[KevinKohler]

Nuclear power was always ever the only viably solution to our energy needs, at least till we get better at storing and transporting solar energy. Nature is able to do it via photosynthesis, which resulted in oil, millions of years later, I see no reason why we can't do so as well, and even improve on natures model. Till then, though, nuclear is all we've got, and statistically, it's safer than oil.

 

[MMC]

I believe it's 300 tons/day, or about 2100 tons/week, not 300 million. And the last thing I read was that the effect on marine life will be negligible because the ocean is so vast. Regardless, the answer to your question is that we have to build better, safer power plants.eace

Yeah.....you got the stat there. 300 tons. Another thing is.....I don't think they can admit to the World that the problem is more serious than they thought. All shellfish are being impacted and anything that is scavenging on the bottom. I don't think they know what all the impact is or even will be. This is different than Russia's ordeal.

I saw China was becoming more alarmed over it too.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah.....you got the stat there. 300 tons. Another thing is.....I don't think they can admit to the World that the problem is more serious than they thought. All shellfish are being impacted and anything that is scavenging on the bottom. I don't think they know what all the impact is or even will be. This is different than Russia's ordeal.

I saw China was becoming more alarmed over it too.

I'll be having lobster for dinner Friday. If it glows I'll know you're right.eace

 

[specklebang]

that's why you do it both privately and publicly. the unprofitable parts (and the NIMBY issues) are handled by the public sector. it would take the will to do it, though.

You are grossly underestimating the NIMBY factor. That's why there is no waste repository. It's no small thing. Indeed, it's why we can't close Gunatanamo because the NIMBYs are sure they'll break out and eat our children. These are AMERICANS we're talking about here.

The NYT, at least, finds nuclear power to be economically viable.

An analysis of power generation in 21 countries by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency projected that even if the world were to impose a tax of $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, neither wind nor solar could outcompete gas and coal.

A new generation of nuclear power, by contrast, is potentially the cheapest energy source of all.

The study projected that the typical nuclear generator in North America could produce power at $50 to $75 per megawatt-hour, depending on assumptions about construction costs and interest rates, against $70 to $80 for coal-fueled power. Wind-powered electricity would cost from $60 to $90, but there are limits to how much it can be scaled up. A megawatt-hour of solar power still costs in the hundreds.

The study concluded that nuclear power would prove even more competitive in Asia and Europe. eace

That's all well and good but have you noticed that nobody is building a plant? Now, why do you suppose that is? Please understand I'm in favor of this but I see interstellar travel coming before this does. Or at least a waste repository...

 

[MMC]

I'll be having lobster for dinner Friday. If it glows I'll know you're right.eace

Thats coming from The East Coas erm Atlantic Coast......Right? :shock: I wouldn't worry about it glowing. I would worry that it will get up and walk off ya plate. :2razz:

 

[Jack Hays]

Thats coming from The East Coas erm Atlantic Coast......Right? :shock: I wouldn't worry about it glowing. I would worry that it will get up and walk off ya plate. :2razz:

I'll be sure to be careful. I like steaks rare, lobsters not so much.:lol:

 

[Jack Hays]

You are grossly underestimating the NIMBY factor. That's why there is no waste repository. It's no small thing. Indeed, it's why we can't close Gunatanamo because the NIMBYs are sure they'll break out and eat our children. These are AMERICANS we're talking about here.



That's all well and good but have you noticed that nobody is building a plant? Now, why do you suppose that is? Please understand I'm in favor of this but I see interstellar travel coming before this does. Or at least a waste repository...

I understand your skepticism. I just think (hope?) that when the numbers are right they will get built.eace

 

[Helix]

You are grossly underestimating the NIMBY factor. That's why there is no waste repository. It's no small thing. Indeed, it's why we can't close Gunatanamo because the NIMBYs are sure they'll break out and eat our children. These are AMERICANS we're talking about here.



That's all well and good but have you noticed that nobody is building a plant? Now, why do you suppose that is? Please understand I'm in favor of this but I see interstellar travel coming before this does. Or at least a waste repository...

1. changing our energy model is a national security issue, and needs to take precedence over NIMBY. right now, nuclear is among the least bad options. people are just going to have to deal with having facilities near them.

2. nobody is building a plant because of the difficulty of building them. we need to cut the red tape, and if that doesn't work, the public sector builds and runs the plant.

this might seem like a somewhat aggressive view, but the reason is this : fossil fuels are the tech of the past. renewables are the energy source of the future, and nuclear is the way from here to there.

if we kick fossil fuels now, we might avoid involvement in future wars over diminishing resources. i'd say it's worth going all in on solving this problem before it becomes situation critical. i would also support a NASA-type agency with the mission of innovating new energy solutions.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

1. changing our energy model is a national security issue, and needs to take precedence over NIMBY. right now, nuclear is among the least bad options. people are just going to have to deal with having facilities near them.

2. nobody is building a plant because of the difficulty of building them. we need to cut the red tape, and if that doesn't work, the public sector builds and runs the plant.

this might seem like a somewhat aggressive view, but the reason is this : fossil fuels are the tech of the past. renewables are the energy source of the future, and nuclear is the way from here to there.

if we kick fossil fuels now, we might avoid involvement in future wars over diminishing resources. i'd say it's worth going all in on solving this problem before it becomes situation critical. i would also support a NASA-type agency with the mission of innovating new energy solutions.

Isn't this the DOE's mission, or at least wasn't it when it was created?

 

[specklebang]

I understand your skepticism. I just think (hope?) that when the numbers are right they will get built.eace

Please don't hold your breath. We would miss you.

1. changing our energy model is a national security issue, and needs to take precedence over NIMBY. right now, nuclear is among the least bad options. people are just going to have to deal with having facilities near them.

2. nobody is building a plant because of the difficulty of building them. we need to cut the red tape, and if that doesn't work, the public sector builds and runs the plant.

this might seem like a somewhat aggressive view, but the reason is this : fossil fuels are the tech of the past. renewables are the energy source of the future, and nuclear is the way from here to there.

if we kick fossil fuels now, we might avoid involvement in future wars over diminishing resources. i'd say it's worth going all in on solving this problem before it becomes situation critical. i would also support a NASA-type agency with the mission of innovating new energy solutions.

Tell you what. We're actually on the same side. So, just look at the waste repository situation and then come back to tell me that NIMBY doesn't override security issues. I'll be here waiting.

 

[Helix]

Isn't this the DOE's mission, or at least wasn't it when it was created?

we're still pretending that oil, coal, and NG are the only game in town because that's what we can make money off of at this microscopic moment in human history. we need a massive initiative to replace our energy model.

however, it's not going to happen. i'm promoting what needs to happen. we're going to sleep through, and then end up involved in a bunch of wars and international interventionism because we refuse to consider that the oil era will end.

 

[Jack Hays]

1. changing our energy model is a national security issue, and needs to take precedence over NIMBY. right now, nuclear is among the least bad options. people are just going to have to deal with having facilities near them.

2. nobody is building a plant because of the difficulty of building them. we need to cut the red tape, and if that doesn't work, the public sector builds and runs the plant.

this might seem like a somewhat aggressive view, but the reason is this : fossil fuels are the tech of the past. renewables are the energy source of the future, and nuclear is the way from here to there.

if we kick fossil fuels now, we might avoid involvement in future wars over diminishing resources. i'd say it's worth going all in on solving this problem before it becomes situation critical. i would also support a NASA-type agency with the mission of innovating new energy solutions.

Hmmm. It's hard to see growth in coal, but I think petroleum/gasoline will be with us for a long time, and natural gas has strong growth potential. I seriously doubt that renewables can ever supply more than 10% of demand, but scalability of nuclear is virtually unlimited.eace

 

[KevinKohler]

1. changing our energy model is a national security issue, and needs to take precedence over NIMBY. right now, nuclear is among the least bad options. people are just going to have to deal with having facilities near them.

2. nobody is building a plant because of the difficulty of building them. we need to cut the red tape, and if that doesn't work, the public sector builds and runs the plant.

this might seem like a somewhat aggressive view, but the reason is this : fossil fuels are the tech of the past. renewables are the energy source of the future, and nuclear is the way from here to there.

if we kick fossil fuels now, we might avoid involvement in future wars over diminishing resources. i'd say it's worth going all in on solving this problem before it becomes situation critical. i would also support a NASA-type agency with the mission of innovating new energy solutions.

This is the United States of America we're talking about. Looking to the future is not our forte. Just ask your kids, or grand kids.

 

[Jack Hays]

Please don't hold your breath. We would miss you.


Tell you what. We're actually on the same side. So, just look at the waste repository situation and then come back to tell me that NIMBY doesn't override security issues. I'll be here waiting.

Fair enough.:thumbs:

 

[Helix]

Please don't hold your breath. We would miss you.


Tell you what. We're actually on the same side. So, just look at the waste repository situation and then come back to tell me that NIMBY doesn't override security issues. I'll be here waiting.

it shouldn't. having a nuclear power plant or a waste repository is better than having our grandkids involved in a major war over an energy source from the nineteenth century.

while we're doing that, though, we need to innovate new solutions. if it's not profitable to do that, the public sector should step in.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

we're still pretending that oil, coal, and NG are the only game in town because that's what we can make money off of at this microscopic moment in human history. we need a massive initiative to replace our energy model.

however, it's not going to happen. i'm promoting what needs to happen. we're going to sleep through, and then end up involved in a bunch of wars and international interventionism because we refuse to consider that the oil era will end.

No, I don't pretend when it comes to this discussion. Nuclear power is a good alternative for electrical needs, but it doesn't satisfy transportation requirements for the country. We, as a nation, need to go all in for becoming energy independent both to increase economic growth and get our asses out of all ME politics...

 

[Jack Hays]

No, I don't pretend when it comes to this discussion. Nuclear power is a good alternative for electrical needs, but it doesn't satisfy transportation requirements for the country. We, as a nation, need to go all in for becoming energy independent both to increase economic growth and get our asses out of all ME politics...

You don't like sand? Good evening, AP.:2wave: