As Renewables Falter, Environmentalists Stand Up For Nuclear

Bret says that Fusion is likely our best bet.

He also says that it would take something like 100 years to completely move to it.....these people who think "going Green" can and will be done by 2040/50 live in FantasyLand.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Bret says that Fusion is likely our best bet.

He also says that it would take something like 100 years to completely move to it.....these people who think "going Green" can and will be done by 2040/50 live in FantasyLand.
Click to expand...

You talk a LOT of corporate wonk BS, Hawk. Yet you can't logically deny that a combination of solar, wind, geo thermal, hydro (where applicable) would enormously reduce our energy problems.

Meanwhile, coal mining owners cut corners and their workers die....the oil companies and Wall St. rob you blind with speculative BS....the nuke plants keep fucking up, the waste product becomes more complex to store, and you just bend over with a smile and say "please sir, may I have another?" I hope the wonk/troll checks are worth it.
 
The demanded timelines are so divorced from reality that they are effectively fabrications....that is Brets take.

The Modern Morons do it because they dont know a God Damned thing about building, all they have ever done is tear down, deconstruct.
 
Taichiliberal said:
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
Click to expand...

You're such an appalling old windbag, imbecile.

Japan is the world’s second-biggest LNG importer, so a revival in atomic power there would have a big impact on global gas markets. Countries from South Korea to Belgium have been reassessing the role of nuclear to help speed the transition away from fossil fuels, with the war in Europe making atomic power look even more attractive.

Only 10 nuclear reactors have been restarted under post-Fukushima safety rules, but Japan’s 2030 energy goals requires nearly all 33 of them to be back online eventually. A small group of politicians from both the ruling party and opposition are calling for this to happen faster, but the restarts face hurdles including getting local government approval and a formal safety nod from the national regulator.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-nuclear-power-for-first-time-since-fukushima
 
Taichiliberal said:
You talk a LOT of corporate wonk BS, Hawk. Yet you can't logically deny that a combination of solar, wind, geo thermal, hydro (where applicable) would enormously reduce our energy problems.

Meanwhile, coal mining owners cut corners and their workers die....the oil companies and Wall St. rob you blind with speculative BS....the nuke plants keep fucking up, the waste product becomes more complex to store, and you just bend over with a smile and say "please sir, may I have another?" I hope the wonk/troll checks are worth it.
Click to expand...

Hydro is tapped out in the US, pretty much all the major rivers have already been dammed, and some might say damned. Geothermal has some use but it's best found in areas with high thermal gradients near volcanoes, near plate boundaries or areas with thin crust like Hawaii. Yellowstone Park is ideal but I can see the NIMBYs going apeshit already over that idea.

Indian Point is a good example of what happens when imbeciles are allowed to control energy policy.

Over 2020 and 2021, New York prematurely shuttered the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, NY. The two reactors at Indian Point had been safely providing 12% of New York’s electricity. This one plant generated over one fifth of all carbon-free generation statewide — 2.5x the amount annually produced by all the solar panels and wind turbines in the state. As fossil combustion ramps up to keep the lights on, most severely impacted are downstate residents, who already suffer from air pollution. The regional electric grid is almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels from April 2021.

Despite this major setback to New York’s climate and justice goals, many well-intentioned activists are celebrating in the belief that electricity from Indian Point is being rapidly replaced by renewables and energy efficiency. Contributing to this misconception is a brief posted by Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers (PSE) last year. Titled Evaluating the potential for renewables, storage, and energy efficiency to offset retiring nuclear power generation in New York, PSE’s brief has been referenced in opinion pieces and anti-nuclear mailings as evidence that the state does not need nuclear power and is well on its way to a 100% renewable grid. This is not so.
Click to expand...

http://climatecoalition.org/setting-the-record-straight-on-indian-point/
 
Last edited:
The Gulf of Mexico is prime territory for Ocean Thermal Energy Converters.

Nukeheads- get lost- and take your shit with you.
 
Primavera said:
You're such an appalling old windbag, imbecile.

Japan is the world’s second-biggest LNG importer, so a revival in atomic power there would have a big impact on global gas markets. Countries from South Korea to Belgium have been reassessing the role of nuclear to help speed the transition away from fossil fuels, with the war in Europe making atomic power look even more attractive.

Only 10 nuclear reactors have been restarted under post-Fukushima safety rules, but Japan’s 2030 energy goals requires nearly all 33 of them to be back online eventually. A small group of politicians from both the ruling party and opposition are calling for this to happen faster, but the restarts face hurdles including getting local government approval and a formal safety nod from the national regulator.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-nuclear-power-for-first-time-since-fukushima
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is pure projection. The rest of your post changes NOTHING of what I previously linked. Without gov't assist, S. Korea's nuke industry grinds to a halt. And remember, future of the Japanese nuke industry depends upon their future elections...and if the gov't heads won't be into the agenda, then the private industry is not going to cut it. So "energy goals" can be changed and reached without nuke plants.

Your such a corporate toady, you'd eat shit and call it ice cream if they told you to. Meanwhile, all the sophisticated and complexed burying of nuke waste is and will be a problem, for the Earth doesn't give a damn what you and your tin gods think will be permanent (Floods, earthquakes, etc.).

As to the self fulfilling prophecy of nuke plants/energy, there is the human factor https://www.nupoliticalreview.com/2...-uncertain-future-of-nuclear-energy-in-japan/

But hey, wonks and toadies like you just ignore what you don't like https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14578094

Carry on.
 
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...
Because they don't have as many lawyers as we do.
 
Primavera said:
Hydro is tapped out in the US, pretty much all the major rivers have already been dammed, and some might say damned. Geothermal has some use but it's best found in areas with high thermal gradients near volcanoes, near plate boundaries or areas with thin crust like Hawaii. Yellowstone Park is ideal but I can see the NIMBYs going apeshit already over that idea.

Indian Point is a good example of what happens when imbeciles are allowed to control energy policy.



http://climatecoalition.org/setting-the-record-straight-on-indian-point/
Click to expand...

And here's the nuke industry troll at it again, folks. Let's just pull the rug out from under him regarding hydro power: https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/new-vision-united-states-hydropower

https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/hydropower-basics

And for the reading audience interesting in not just the corporations version of reality regarding Indian Point:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0131/ML013100203.pdf

https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/closeindianpoint/water-and-indianpoint.pdf



https://www.riverkeeper.org/campaigns/stop-polluters/indian-point/debunking_myth/
 
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...

Nah. It's government interference.
 
moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

PIddle power isn't enough, dumbass. Even nuclear power is cheaper than wind or solar, watt for watt.
 
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...

Nuclear power does not make the planet uninhabitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top