As Renewables Falter, Environmentalists Stand Up For Nuclear

T. A. Gardner said:
An indirect proof of how much more power a home uses today can be seen in residential electrical code, be it the NEC or IRC.

A new home pretty much requires a 200 amp service now. In 1970 it was generally just a 100 amp service. In 1950 you saw 50 or 60 amp services as normal.

A kitchen requires 3 20 amp circuits now, and a designated dining room has to be 20 amp as well. Rooms require more receptacles than they did in the 60's too. If power usage wasn't growing, these things wouldn't be the case. But it is and no matter how much uninformed, technical illiterates on the Left snivel and whine about how we should "conserve," it isn't going to happen. Even they are not going to give up their microwave, computer, smart phone, or whatever. They'll just virtue signal by buying 'squirrely" bulbs (CFL's) and LED lighting to claim victory. "I changed all my lights to CFL's! I'm doing my part to conserve!" What a crock.
Click to expand...

I can't see why anybody would buy CFLs anymore, LED lights win hands down.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I'm well versed in molten salt reactors, but generally don't like them. That molten salt coolant is a big headache. Thorium is better used in a CANDU style reactor along with reprocessed fuel rod fuel--you know, that stuff the environmentalists say can't be stored and has no use but really can safely be stored and does have uses--to generate power. Because of the fuel flexibility of a CANDU you can also use thorium alongside uranium to breed more uranium (U 233 in this case) which is easily fissionable.
The result is a very safe reactor system that produces huge amounts of power in a compact system with no CO2 emissions. The US has over 1,000 years worth of fuel in the ground right now to power the country at roughly double our current energy consumption rate.
Click to expand...

There is a CANDU SMR design raring to go but I suspect that Nuscale, Rolls Royce, Terrapower and Thorcon are the leading contenders in the West at least. Thorcon is currently preparing to build a pair of thorium reactors based on the Oak Ridge design in Indonesia.

 
Last edited:
BartenderElite said:
Wind & solar are the future. Not nukes.
Click to expand...

Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. Solar is being discovered as a loser everywhere it's being pushed.

Despite the massive investment of $130 Billion, solar power accounts for only about 0.3% of Germany’s total energy.
Germany is paying about $1,000 per ton of CO2 reduced. The current CO2 price in Europe is $8.
Defenders of Germany’s solar subsidies also claim that they have helped to create “green jobs”. In China where the panels are made.
German citizens now pay the second-highest price for electricity in the developed world.
Denmark citizens now pay the highest price for electricity because they are the “world wind-energy champion.”
Hawaii’s energy plan is focused on solar and wind, so we clearly know what the energy supply and cost future will be for Hawaii.
Click to expand...
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/germa...d solar,The current CO2 price in Europe is $8.

The expansion of wind power in the first half of this year collapsed to its lowest level since the introduction of the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) in 2000. All in all, just 35 wind turbines were build with an output of 231 megawatts. “This corresponds to a decline of 82 percent compared to the already weak period of the previous year”, according to the German Wind Energy Association (BWE) in Berlin.
Click to expand...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07...r-threatens-germanys-green-energy-transition/

Germany's enormously expensive Energiewende green energy transformation is sputtering. The numbers tell the story.

Despite spending about €150 billion and years of political effort to scrap nuclear and fossil fuels and switch to renewables like wind and solar, Germany is expected to fall short on pretty much all its national and EU emission reduction and clean energy targets for 2020.
Click to expand...
https://www.politico.eu/article/ger...reen-energy-shift-is-more-fizzle-than-sizzle/

Texas has the most wind capacity of any state, generating about 16% of its electricity from wind. In August, as temperatures rose above 100F and consumers increased their use of air conditioning, Texas’ grid operators struggled to meet the record demand for electricity.

Many of the wind turbines could not operate because the wind was stagnant, a common occurrence on very hot days. As a result, energy costs skyrocketed. In Houston, wholesale power prices spiked 49,000% (to $9,000 per megawatt-hour). The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) warned that reserve margins were so low that it might have to institute rolling blackouts, or controlled interruptions of power service. The independent system operator called for the construction of more gas-fired generating plants.
Click to expand...
https://www.powermag.com/texas-impending-reliability-issues-with-wind-power/

California Reveals That the Transition to Renewable Energy Isn’t So Simple
Click to expand...
https://slate.com/technology/2020/08/california-blackouts-wind-solar-renewable-energy-grid.html

Across the board, across the world, solar and wind have show themselves to not be the answer to alternative energy. Instead, they have uniformly proven costly, unreliable, failures. You can claim what you want, think what you want, but the evidence is in and it's overwhelming. Solar and wind simply do not work.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. Solar is being discovered as a loser everywhere it's being pushed.


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/germa...d solar,The current CO2 price in Europe is $8.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07...r-threatens-germanys-green-energy-transition/


https://www.politico.eu/article/ger...reen-energy-shift-is-more-fizzle-than-sizzle/


https://www.powermag.com/texas-impending-reliability-issues-with-wind-power/


https://slate.com/technology/2020/08/california-blackouts-wind-solar-renewable-energy-grid.html

Across the board, across the world, solar and wind have show themselves to not be the answer to alternative energy. Instead, they have uniformly proven costly, unreliable, failures. You can claim what you want, think what you want, but the evidence is in and it's overwhelming. Solar and wind simply do not work.
Click to expand...

Name an industry that ended up being transformative to our lives that did not start with failure.
 
BartenderElite said:
Name an industry that ended up being transformative to our lives that did not start with failure.
Click to expand...

Solar and wind are neither "transformative" or innovative. They are both industries that have been around for decades. They have increasingly seen failure as they expand in the market. They wouldn't exist at all except for government fiat and heavy government subsidies. The second government stops demanding they exist and stops subsidizing them is the second they are abandoned for something else. Both are being pushed primarily by groups and people that haven't got a clue about energy production. These people think solar and wind power are free forever once the plant gets built.

Worse, neither solar or wind is particularly environmentally friendly. Sure, they don't create CO2 in operation, but they do create a whole range of other environmental problems.
 
Reality check as to one of the supporting blocks for this thread:

Why are nuclear plants so expensive? Safety’s only part of the story


But there's now a paper out that provides some empirical evidence that safety changes have contributed to the cost of building new nuclear reactors. But the study also makes clear that they're only one of a number of factors, accounting for only a third of the soaring costs. The study also finds that, contrary to what those in the industry seem to expect, focusing on standardized designs doesn't really help matters, as costs continued to grow as more of a given reactor design was built.
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...-so-expensive-safetys-only-part-of-the-story/
 
As Renewables Falter, Environmentalists Stand Up For Nuclear
Click to expand...


Preposterous horseshit.
The sun hasn't switched off, the winds haven't stopped blowing , the tides haven't ceased to flow and ocean temperature differentials haven't disappeared to suit maggot's fossil fuels portfolio.
Assholes such as the Brit maggot have been chanting for investments to be diverted in the wrong directions for years.
See you, Jiminy.

Haw, haw.................................haw.
 
Counter Argument: Just look at all the things we used to be able to do, but cant/wont accomplish correctly anymore. Civilization is in retrograde, not the best time to deploy a dangerous technology that can make the planet uninhabitable.
 
The Ukrainians are shelling their own nuclear plant, I mean for fucks sake people, just how dumb are you?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Reality check as to one of the supporting blocks for this thread:

Why are nuclear plants so expensive? Safety’s only part of the story


But there's now a paper out that provides some empirical evidence that safety changes have contributed to the cost of building new nuclear reactors. But the study also makes clear that they're only one of a number of factors, accounting for only a third of the soaring costs. The study also finds that, contrary to what those in the industry seem to expect, focusing on standardized designs doesn't really help matters, as costs continued to grow as more of a given reactor design was built.
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...-so-expensive-safetys-only-part-of-the-story/
Click to expand...

Korea and Japan are able to build on time and on cost, why is that then?

South Korea is second-fastest nuclear plant-building country. Average construction period for each plant is less than a third of the global average, says The International Atomic Energy Agency

Published: 12:02pm, 12 Oct, 2016

According to an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) study, Tuesday, 15 countries have built a total of 83 nuclear plants over the last 20 years among the 31 countries with nuclear power. It took on average 190 months to build each plant.

During that period, Korea has built a total of 13 nuclear power plants. The average construction period for each plant was only 56 months, more than three times faster than other countries building nuclear plants.

Japan, which has built a total of eight nuclear power plants since 1996, was the fastest, taking only 46 months to build each plant, while China ranked third, building 28 nuclear power plants during that period and averaging 68 months to complete each one.
Japan’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant Unit 6 is the world’s fastest-built nuclear power plant, taking only 39 months for completion, while of Korea’s Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant Reactor 3 took 49 months to build.

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/arti...second-fastest-nuclear-plant-building-country
 
Last edited:
Nukeheads are simply ignorant and shameless money-suckers. Their technology FAILED the day before yesterday- and they want YOU to pay for their shit.

On the other hand;

Ocean Thermal Energy Converters.
'Recent studies suggest that total worldwide power generation capacity could be supplied by OTEC, and that this would have no impact on the ocean’s temperature profiles.'
Click to expand...
 
Primavera said:
Korea and Japan are able to build on time and on cost, why is that then?

South Korea is second-fastest nuclear plant-building country. Average construction period for each plant is less than a third of the global average, says The International Atomic Energy Agency

Published: 12:02pm, 12 Oct, 2016

According to an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) study, Tuesday, 15 countries have built a total of 83 nuclear plants over the last 20 years among the 31 countries with nuclear power. It took on average 190 months to build each plant.

During that period, Korea has built a total of 13 nuclear power plants. The average construction period for each plant was only 56 months, more than three times faster than other countries building nuclear plants.

Japan, which has built a total of eight nuclear power plants since 1996, was the fastest, taking only 46 months to build each plant, while China ranked third, building 28 nuclear power plants during that period and averaging 68 months to complete each one.
Japan’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant Unit 6 is the world’s fastest-built nuclear power plant, taking only 39 months for completion, while of Korea’s Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant Reactor 3 took 49 months to build.

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/arti...second-fastest-nuclear-plant-building-country
Click to expand...

But they don't have to deal with Greentards and an army of liars... err, lawyers... like we do.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Counter Argument: Just look at all the things we used to be able to do, but cant/wont accomplish correctly anymore. Civilization is in retrograde, not the best time to deploy a dangerous technology that can make the planet uninhabitable.
Click to expand...

Spare us all the rhetoric.....bottom line is that nuke plants are NOT cheap, disposing of the waste is not cheap, the waste is dangerous now and future generations, and any/all problems with nuke plants for the last few decades have been dealt with just the NRC moving the goal post (i.e., Indian Point in NY). And whom do you think eventually picks up the tab?

You can tell yourself all the wonkish lies and company mantras you want, but we lucked out on 3 Mile Island in Long Island, NY (save for all the still births and such to the local populace). Then there're these little tidbits:

https://apnews.com/article/hurrican...t-hurricanes-595544808988e00a3488d50556cc9f00

And a blast from the past: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/flood-risk-nuclear-power-plants


TFB if the rest of the country doesn't want to live with the risk of dead zones like we have in Chernobyl.
 
Primavera said:
Korea and Japan are able to build on time and on cost, why is that then?

South Korea is second-fastest nuclear plant-building country. Average construction period for each plant is less than a third of the global average, says The International Atomic Energy Agency

Published: 12:02pm, 12 Oct, 2016

According to an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) study, Tuesday, 15 countries have built a total of 83 nuclear plants over the last 20 years among the 31 countries with nuclear power. It took on average 190 months to build each plant.

During that period, Korea has built a total of 13 nuclear power plants. The average construction period for each plant was only 56 months, more than three times faster than other countries building nuclear plants.

Japan, which has built a total of eight nuclear power plants since 1996, was the fastest, taking only 46 months to build each plant, while China ranked third, building 28 nuclear power plants during that period and averaging 68 months to complete each one.
Japan’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant Unit 6 is the world’s fastest-built nuclear power plant, taking only 39 months for completion, while of Korea’s Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant Reactor 3 took 49 months to build.

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/arti...second-fastest-nuclear-plant-building-country
Click to expand...

Yeah, Fukushima is a crowning achievement for Japan. And then there's this


After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, all 17 major plants were shut down. As of 2022, only 6 out of 17 major nuclear power plants operate in the country, operated by the Kyushu Electric Power (Kyuden), Shikoku Electric Power Company (Yonden) and Kansai Electric Power Company (Kanden).



And South Korea puts heavy gov't support for it's nuke plants https://cleanenergynews.ihsmarkit.c...victorious-from-south-koreas-presidentia.html
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
But they don't have to deal with Greentards and an army of liars... err, lawyers... like we do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Fukishima is a crowning achievement for Japan. And then there's this


After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, all 17 major plants were shut down. As of 2022, only 6 out of 17 major nuclear power plants operate in the country, operated by the Kyushu Electric Power (Kyuden), Shikoku Electric Power Company (Yonden) and Kansai Electric Power Company (Kanden).



And South Korea puts heavy gov't support for it's nuke plants https://cleanenergynews.ihsmarkit.co...esidentia.html
 
Ocean Thermal Energy Converters.
'Recent studies suggest that total worldwide power generation capacity could be supplied by OTEC, and that this would have no impact on the ocean’s temperature profiles.'
Click to expand...


Oh, yooo- hoooo

Haw, haw.......................................haw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top