Support NeoGAF

[Frankfurter]

It's already been said, but Germany purchases a lot of energy from Poland (fossil fuel) and France (nuclear). 100% renewable is not a viable solution at this point, especially if we are to tackle GHG and dangerous emissions. It is a great way to augment the energy mix and microgrid is definitely a really good trend for the future.

Also in terms of electricity cost (Canadian study from a report I received a week ago):

1) All electricity from nuclear: average monthly bill decrease of $20, and a decrease of 25 tons of CO2e per year

2) All nuclear replaced with gas: monthly increase of $60, and yearly increase of 270 tons of CO2e

3) Nuclear replaced with equal parts solar, wind, hydro, and gas: monthly increase of $120, CO2e increase of 80 tons per year

Germany exports more energy than ever before. Again, source: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/in...Name=20161216_brd_stromerzeugung1990-2016.pdf
See "Stromaustauschsaldo Ausland". A negative result implies more exports than imports. Germany imported 33,6TWh and exported 85,4TWh in 2015.

 

[Xe4]

That's not a fact, it's pure BS. Renewable energy is out there. It works perfectly fine. It can be produced in huge quantities. Plus keeping nuclear while "transitioning" to renewables actually makes the whole thing way more complicated. Nuclear is not able to complement renewables at all. You need sth. that can adapt, nuclear can't do that at all.

Just btw. I think nuclear is the worst power source we have at our hands right now. No matter how safe it is, it's just way too expensive.

Quantity is not the problem, it's how consistent the output can be, and renewable output is not consistent, by its very nature. That is, the sun goes down and the wind goes away. It's fine to make most of your power off of renewable sources, but at least some needs to be off of nuclear and natural gas. As for "adapting technologies", lol that's soooooo wrong. Nuclear has made just as many leaps and bounds as renewables (funny nuclear is renewable, look at that), but it hasn't been able to implement it because of the "green" movement.

As for costs, lol wrong again. Nuclear is cheaper than any solar and offshore wind, and that's with more regulations than any other fuel source.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...2009/05/2.15.13-IER-Web-LevelizedCost-MKM.pdf

 

[Frankfurter]

Quantity is not the problem, it's how consistent the output can be, and renewable output is not consistent, by its very nature. That is, the sun goes down and the wind goes away. It's fine to make most of your power off of renewable sources, but at least some needs to be off of nuclear and natural gas. As for "adapting technologies", lol that's soooooo wrong. Nuclear has made just as many leaps and bounds as renewables (funny nuclear is renewable, look at that), but it hasn't been able to implement it because of the "green" movement.

As for costs, lol wrong again. Nuclear is cheaper than any solar and offshore wind, and that's with more regulations than any other fuel source.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...2009/05/2.15.13-IER-Web-LevelizedCost-MKM.pdf

Nuclear just isn't working well in combination with renewables. The sun is down and the wind isn't blowing. Now you need more energy. Let's kickstart that nuclear power plant, we need its production-level at 32% from 9.21pm to 10.22pm, then at 57% from 10.22pm to 10.45pm, then at 12% from 10.45pm to 11.00pm. Except... nuclear power plants don't work that way. You can't adjust the power generation by clicking on a button in an instant. Gas, to a certain extent, can.

That source... duh...

http://www.motherjones.com/environm...e-change-denial-12-institute-energy-research

 

[Earthbound64]

Lol I am talking about putting the radioactive material where other radioactive material in the Earth already is - I believe fracking doesn't go anywhere near the core.

Either way I don't think we have the tech to bore our way into there anyway

We're nowhere even remotely close. We're closer to being able to send it into space.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

Germany exports more energy than ever before. Again, source: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/in...Name=20161216_brd_stromerzeugung1990-2016.pdf
See "Stromaustauschsaldo Ausland". A negative result implies more exports than imports. Germany imported 33,6TWh and exported 85,4TWh in 2015.

Nice, good to know

 

[Xe4]

Nuclear just isn't working well in combination with renewables. The sun is down and the wind isn't blowing. Now you need more energy. Let's kickstart that nuclear power plant, we need its production-level at 32% from 9.21pm to 10.22pm, then at 57% from 10.22pm to 10.45pm, then at 12% from 10.45pm to 11.00pm. Except... nuclear power plants don't work that way. You can't adjust the power generation by clicking on a button in an instant. Gas, to a certain extent, can.

That source... duh...

http://www.motherjones.com/environm...e-change-denial-12-institute-energy-research

Which is why you have a baseline power coming from nuclear plants that keep the lights on at night. No, nuclear plants do not start up and shut down on a whim, but they do a good job supplementing nuclear. I find it funny you're actually advocating for natural gas over nuclear, though.

Anyhow, that source basically just ripped their numbers from the EIA.

Without a tax credit, Nuclear is still cheaper than PV and Offshore, and as cheap as any "non renewable" aside from natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Energy_Information_Administration

 

[Frankfurter]

Which is why you have a baseline power coming from nuclear plants that keep the lights on at night. No, nuclear plants do not start up and shut down on a whim, but they do a good job supplementing nuclear. I find it funny you're actually advocating for natural gas over nuclear, though.

Anyhow, that source basically just ripped their numbers from the EIA.

Without a tax credit, Nuclear is still cheaper than PV and Offshore, and as cheap as any "non renewable" aside from natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Energy_Information_Administration

I'm not advocating gas, I'm saying it's the better option in that case. Nuclear doesn't do a "goob job" when supplementing renewables... providing base line energy production (which is what nuclear does) was a meaningful thing in the past and it may be meaningful right now, but it's pretty much useless in 20 or 50 years.

You post that wikipedia link with those EIA numbers, but they are obviously BS. LCOE of 125$ per MWh in 2020 is crazy. It's already way cheaper right now! Wind is way, way off too. Edit: Nuclear on the other hand seems to be on the low side. Hinkley Point is at 92.5 pounds per MWh afair (+ compensation for inflation).

Edit: Looking at the 2016 numbers from EIA (just below the thing you posted), PV is actually already below nuclear even from their point of view 85 (solar) vs. 103 (nuclear). Expect that gap to rise to sth. like solar being half the price within the next 5-10 years.

 

[JoeMartin]

Nuclear just isn't working well in combination with renewables. The sun is down and the wind isn't blowing. Now you need more energy. Let's kickstart that nuclear power plant, we need its production-level at 32% from 9.21pm to 10.22pm, then at 57% from 10.22pm to 10.45pm, then at 12% from 10.45pm to 11.00pm. Except... nuclear power plants don't work that way. You can't adjust the power generation by clicking on a button in an instant.

Yes they do. Even better than that, you don't even need to press a button to change power, it just happens because physics. I'm simplifying because lots of other things necessarily change to maintain the greater plant within operating limits, but generally speaking nuclear power plants will change power levels, especially while at high powers, just fine.

Nuclear reactors don't like to change power level because money. Lots of time, effort, and money goes into ensuring that exacting fuel and poison loads are met, and part of ensuring that efficient burn is incumbent on something called core buckling (which is generally a measure of neutron flux density per unit area); when power level changes necessary moderator offsets must be made to maintain other plant parameters (temperatures, pressures, flows) to ensure the system stays in a safe state; this however generally results in suboptimal fuel burnout, which is wasted money, which is why nuclear power plants like to go to 100% power and stay there.

Ironically, a nuclear reactor with a critical mass of fuel loaded is most dangerous when it's off, (or more correctly, when power is below criticality - it's impossible to completely turn off a reactor with a critical mass), because as power gets lower and lower it becomes increasingly more difficult to track how bulk neutron population (reactor power) is changing, and because power necessarily changes exponentially, time for neutron population to change by one order of magnitude (reactor period) can become microseconds without being effectively detected by instruments, and by the time the increase in power is seen by human or machine the rate of change is so high that nothing can be done - see Chernobyl. But again, this condition (called 'prompt supercriticality') is generally avoided by design and can only occur either by gross material failure (which is exceptionally unlikely because I've never seen anything so over engineered as nuclear power plants), gross operator incompetence (Chernobyl), or malice.

 

[Frankfurter]

Yes they do. Even better than that, you don't even need to press a button to change power, it just happens because physics. I'm simplifying because lots of other things necessarily change to maintain the greater plant within operating limits, but generally speaking nuclear power plants will change power levels, especially while at high powers, just fine.

Nuclear reactors don't like to change power level because money. Lots of time, effort, and money goes into ensuring that exacting fuel and poison loads are met, and part of ensuring that efficient burn is incumbent on something called core buckling (which is generally a measure of neutron flux density per unit area); when power level changes necessary moderator offsets must be made to maintain other plant parameters (temperatures, pressures, flows) to ensure the system stays in a safe state; this however generally results in suboptimal fuel burnout, which is wasted money, which is why nuclear power plants like to go to 100% power and stay there.

Ironically, a nuclear reactor with a critical mass of fuel loaded is most dangerous when it's off, (or more correctly, when power is below criticality - it's impossible to completely turn off a reactor with a critical mass), because as power gets lower and lower it becomes increasingly more difficult to track how bulk neutron population (reactor power) is changing, and because power necessarily changes exponentially, time for neutron population to change by one order of magnitude (reactor period) can become microseconds without being effectively detected by instruments, and by the time the increase in power is seen by human or machine the rate of change is so high that nothing can be done - see Chernobyl. But again, this condition (called 'prompt supercriticality') is generally avoided by design and can only occur either by gross material failure (which is exceptionally unlikely because I've never seen anything so over engineered as nuclear power plants), gross operator incompetence (Chernobyl), or malice.

I'm not too much into the technology of nuclear power plants, but this sounds like I'm essentially right? Yes, technically speaking, they can. But you don't wanna that because it's too expensive...

Just btw. you say "especially at high powers". What if a change from, say, 100% to 10% is needed, say within 10 minutes?

 

[JoeMartin]

I'm not too much into the technology of nuclear power plants, but this sounds like I'm essentially right? Yes, technically speaking, they can. But you don't wanna that because it's too expensive...

Just btw. you say "especially at high powers". What if a change from, say, 100% to 10% is needed, say within 10 minutes?

The expense comes after the fact in the bottom line. They are completely capable of changing power at a whim, they'll just make less money in the long run due to less efficient use of the fuel load if they consistently move power (less MW/EFPD) due to resultant xenon concentration transients (changing power has consequence in the form of fission daughter poison production, which has many other knock on effects that must be corrected for to maintain uniformity of flux density).

Ignoring the above, nuclear reactors are capable of making huge changes in reactor power in seconds, up or down, if necessary; that said, controlling reactor power once the reactor is critical is a two party system; reactor power level is generally determined by the load placed on the reactor, but can be altered by changing the state of the moderator as well. Such a reduction in power (from 100% to 10%, for example) would never be something done in a commercial plant for all the reasons in paragraph one, however if you're asking from a safety consideration, all nuclear reactors afford protection by what's called a reactor scram: This functions different ways for different plants but the result is the same - complete collapse of bulk neutron flux, due to removal of neutron moderation or inserting excessive poison concentration, to reduce reactor reactivity to below critical levels - this occurs within seconds if necessary.

TL;DR: Once critical, reactors can change power very quickly, up or down, within the operational limits, without presenting any serious safety risk. This is done all the time on military/research reactors. Commercial reactors do not do this because it would cause unacceptably inefficient fuel use for the company's bottom line. Also sorry for all the technical terms but there really is no other way to talk about how they actually work.

 

[Xe4]

I'm not advocating gas, I'm saying it's the better option in that case. Nuclear doesn't do a "goob job" when supplementing renewables... providing base line energy production (which is what nuclear does) was a meaningful thing in the past and it may be meaningful right now, but it's pretty much useless in 20 or 50 years.

You post that wikipedia link with those EIA numbers, but they are obviously BS. LCOE of 125$ per MWh in 2020 is crazy. It's already way cheaper right now! Wind is way, way off too. Edit: Nuclear on the other hand seems to be on the low side. Hinkley Point is at 92.5 pounds per MWh afair (+ compensation for inflation).

Edit: Looking at the 2016 numbers from EIA (just below the thing you posted), PV is actually already below nuclear even from their point of view 85 (solar) vs. 103 (nuclear). Expect that gap to rise to sth. like solar being half the price within the next 5-10 years.

Err, that's with a tax credit, which is why I said minus the tax credit. Also, I find it hilarious I post a highly respected source and you reject it offhand, without a different source because reasons.

 

[lastflowers]

The expense comes after the fact in the bottom line. They are completely capable of changing power at a whim, they'll just make less money in the long run due to less efficient use of the fuel load if they consistently move power (less MW/EFPD) due to resultant xenon concentration transients (changing power has consequence in the form of fission daughter poison production, which has many other knock on effects that must be corrected for to maintain uniformity of flux density).

Ignoring the above, nuclear reactors are capable of making huge changes in reactor power in seconds, up or down, if necessary; that said, controlling reactor power once the reactor is critical is a two party system; reactor power level is generally determined by the load placed on the reactor, but can be altered by changing the state of the moderator as well. Such a reduction in power (from 100% to 10%, for example) would never be something done in a commercial plant for all the reasons in paragraph one, however if you're asking from a safety consideration, all nuclear reactors afford protection by what's called a reactor scram: This functions different ways for different plants but the result is the same - complete collapse of bulk neutron flux, due to removal of neutron moderation or inserting excessive poison concentration, to reduce reactor reactivity to below critical levels - this occurs within seconds if necessary.

TL;DR: Once critical, reactors can change power very quickly, up or down, within the operational limits, without presenting any serious safety risk. This is done all the time on military/research reactors. Commercial reactors do not do this because it would cause unacceptably inefficient fuel use for the company's bottom line. Also sorry for all the technical terms but there really is no other way to talk about how they actually work.

You sound like the Nuclear Engineers in my Nuclear Rhetoric course.

I hope you continue debating so I can read some more posts and become fascinated by nuclear energy again.

 

[PdotMichael]

The expense comes after the fact in the bottom line. They are completely capable of changing power at a whim, they'll just make less money in the long run due to less efficient use of the fuel load if they consistently move power (less MW/EFPD) due to resultant xenon concentration transients (changing power has consequence in the form of fission daughter poison production, which has many other knock on effects that must be corrected for to maintain uniformity of flux density).

Ignoring the above, nuclear reactors are capable of making huge changes in reactor power in seconds, up or down, if necessary; that said, controlling reactor power once the reactor is critical is a two party system; reactor power level is generally determined by the load placed on the reactor, but can be altered by changing the state of the moderator as well. Such a reduction in power (from 100% to 10%, for example) would never be something done in a commercial plant for all the reasons in paragraph one, however if you're asking from a safety consideration, all nuclear reactors afford protection by what's called a reactor scram: This functions different ways for different plants but the result is the same - complete collapse of bulk neutron flux, due to removal of neutron moderation or inserting excessive poison concentration, to reduce reactor reactivity to below critical levels - this occurs within seconds if necessary.

TL;DR: Once critical, reactors can change power very quickly, up or down, within the operational limits, without presenting any serious safety risk. This is done all the time on military/research reactors. Commercial reactors do not do this because it would cause unacceptably inefficient fuel use for the company's bottom line. Also sorry for all the technical terms but there really is no other way to talk about how they actually work.

So a long way to say that nuclear energy is only an alternative for base load. Nuclear energy already suffers from the fact that it can't compete with other energy sources costwise.

 

[JoeMartin]

So a long way to say that nuclear energy is only an alternative for base load. Nuclear energy already suffers from the fact that it can't compete with other energy sources costwise.

Yeah more or less.

The irony is that the costs aren't inherent to nuclear power, it's mostly in that there's such a high degree of training, oversight and regulation in the nuclear industry to ensure safe operation - this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn't exist in other industries to the degree it probably should. But coal lobbyists etc.

Also there's loads of law/treaty/regulation for fuel enrichment and loading percentages allowable for commercial power - probably a good thing, but my highminded ass would like to believe that we as a society could create an accountability system that would allow commercial use of "weapons grade" enrichment: Plants could be much smaller for the same power (or make way more power for the same size they are) with fuel loads that would last decades between refueling, drastically lowering waste production/handling/storage necessary and making plants far more cost efficient.

But hey I guess we can just fuck up the atmosphere in the meantime that doesn't sound that important.

 

[PdotMichael]

That's the reason why renewable energy sources are the better option. They can compete with coal and gas costwise, don't need large subsides, render typical base load plants like nuclear or coal obsolete and there is no rattail with all the waste and co2 output.

There is a reason why countries like China investing way more into renewable energy than conventional or nuclear energy.

 

[Xe4]

So a long way to say that nuclear energy is only an alternative for base load. Nuclear energy already suffers from the fact that it can't compete with other energy sources costwise.

Again, what you're saying is NOT true. Just look at my post a few up. Nuclear is just as cheap as coal, and cheaper than many renewable. It's not cheaper than wind or natural gas, but those both have downsides. Wind is not possible for a base load and natural gas is not good for the environment.

 

[Frankfurter]

Err, that's with a tax credit, which is why I said minus the tax credit. Also, I find it hilarious I post a highly respected source and you reject it offhand, without a different source because reasons.

Where does it say that?

Edit: I'm not rejecting the source offhand. I'm saying that you should maybe, just maybe, read the couple of sentences right next to it, which to me sound like one should take these numbers with a rather huge grain of salt.

 

[AppleSeason]

Wow. I think I'm never going to be able to enjoy Fallout again. When reality starts to get closer to fiction, thing can be good. Radboars... Radroachs too?

 

[DrROBschiz]

IM still pro nuclear

WE dont push forward by succumbing to set backs

We get engineers/scientists to step up to the plate and solve these problems

Nuclear energy is still very far from realizing its true potential and we desperately need advancements in this space

 

[TakeItSlowDude]

So does this graph take in account the amount of facilities and people working in each field?

The vast majority (>99%) of those coal deaths are from pollution, not from mining and power generation accidents (~2500 coal miners die a year in China, far less working in generation).

 

[DouglasteR]

Wow. I think I'm never going to be able to enjoy Fallout again. When reality starts to get closer to fiction, thing can be good. Radboars... Radroachs too?

Not in the real world.

Radiation destroy DNA, not "enhance" it.

And if for some uncanny reason we could use radiation to alter dna just enough for it be good, it would be preferable use some sort of virus reprogramming scheme.

Im total OK for Nuclear Power. Nature does show to us that is the way for high output, completely safe (in fusion form) energy.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Not in the real world.

Radiation destroy DNA, not "enhance" it.

And if for some uncanny reason we could use radiation to alter dna just enough for it be good, it would be preferable use some sort of virus reprogramming scheme.

Im total OK for Nuclear Power. Nature does show to us that is the way for high output, completely safe (in fusion form) energy.

yeah we will have to to see what major advancement actually makes it to market. Either we build off and reinvent hiw we do fission and bridge the gap until fusion is completed

either way the paradigm hasnt changed and all forms of power generation need to be built up and iterated on to get us away from fossil fueled power

 

[PdotMichael]

Again, what you're saying is NOT true. Just look at my post a few up. Nuclear is just as cheap as coal, and cheaper than many renewable. It's not cheaper than wind or natural gas, but those both have downsides. Wind is not possible for a base load and natural gas is not good for the environment.

Nuclear isn't cheap or even competive to other energy sources.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Nuclear isn't cheap or even competive to other energy sources.

yup its the main reason why we still use 50 year old tech (well it has been iterated on but not as much as id like)

we need new blood in the nuclear space but its a massive technical and economical hurdle

im a believer that we will indeed see new designs and competitors bring something to this space but it could be a long time

 

[PdotMichael]

yup its the main reason why we still use 50 year old tech (well it has been iterated on but not as much as id like)

we need new blood in the nuclear space but its a massive technical and economical hurdle

im a believer that we will indeed see new designs and competitors bring something to this space but it could be a long time

The joke is because nuclear energy is such a high investment before a plant can generate energy a decade later the operators are interested in running reactors so long as possible.

And looking renewable energy renders other power plant types plain obsolete. There is not really a reason to build more nuclear energy power plants anymore.

 

[DrROBschiz]

The joke is because nuclear energy is such a high investment before a plant can generate energy a decade later the operators are interested in running reactors so long as possible.

And looking renewable energy renders other power plant types plain obsolete. There is not really a reason to build more nuclear energy power plants anymore.

I disagree entirely and there is no future for our civilization on the back of renewables alone

This defeatist attitude to the problem of nuclear energy concerns me greatly

 

[Steel]

The joke is because nuclear energy is such a high investment before a plant can generate energy a decade later the operators are interested in running reactors so long as possible.

And looking renewable energy renders other power plant types plain obsolete. There is not really a reason to build more nuclear energy power plants anymore.

If renewable energy rendered nuclear plants obsolete we would be seeing a lot more progress of solar and wind farms versus coal in countries that heavily subsidize them. Instead, these forms of energy are replacing fossil fuels at a glacial pace. Meanwhile, the last nuclear plant in the united states started production in the 70s, and yet the U.S. still gets 20% of its power from 76 nuclear power plants. We would have no carbon footprint from power plants already if we never stopped investing in nuclear. And if things keep going the way they are we'd make faster progress investing in nuclear power plants now to be brought up a decade from now while pushing renewables than just putting all our eggs in one basket.

A nuclear power plant can generate in 1 sq mi the energy that wind does over 260-360 square miles, and that's 260-360 square miles of area where no houses, and no trees can exist. The same amount of power can be generated in 45-75 sq miles of solar, and that's also area where nothing grows, and no one lives.

https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/m...and_Use_Carbon_Free_Technologies.pdf?ext=.pdf

Also, there's a damn good reason that China is investing heavily in nuclear on top of renewables.

 

[DrROBschiz]

make no mistake

nuclear is the future

but its a massive challenge and needs serious breakthroughs

but once it reaches its potential it has the ability to outcompete everything else and push our civilization forward

 

[Frankfurter]

make no mistake

nuclear is the future

but its a massive challenge and needs serious breakthroughs

but once it reaches its potential it has the ability to outcompete everything else and push our civilization forward

Looking at investment trends it's just crazy to say that. You might just as well have claimed that horses are the future for individual transportation in the 50s.

 

[4Tran]

I disagree entirely and there is no future for our civilization on the back of renewables alone

This defeatist attitude to the problem of nuclear energy concerns me greatly

China seems happy building lots of nuclear plants, so hopefully we'll get some progress on that front. For most of the rest of the world, the main hurdle is political so I'm afraid that no amount of technical innovation is going to help things. Maybe we'll get somewhere when coal finally gets put out to pasture, but that's going to be a long time coming because there are a lot of vested interests in coal.

 

[foxuzamaki]

I will never trust nuclear as a power source, you can give me the numbers all you like but all it takes is it happening once and look a the results

 

[Principate]

I disagree entirely and there is no future for our civilization on the back of renewables alone

This defeatist attitude to the problem of nuclear energy concerns me greatly

Why not. The Sun has provided the energy needs for this planet for millions of years. The only reason why energy needs wouldn't be met is because of the inefficient waste of energy and unnecessary demands. Not that it isn't more than adequate to provide it.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

I will never trust nuclear as a power source, you can give me the numbers all you like but all it takes is it happening once and look a the results

Because like 50 people died at Chernobyl and just a few died at Fukushima?? But that's unacceptable compared to the thousands that die yearly around the world to bring you coal power.

 

[Aureon]

Coal can be ended overnight, a radiated area as this one is fucked for centuries if not more. And you know we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time?

global warming and co2 \ fine particle pollution can be "ended overnight"?

 

[elyetis]

I will never trust nuclear as a power source, you can give me the numbers all you like but all it takes is it happening once and look a the results

It's like not trusting planes while trusting cars just because a single plane crash kill more people/is more "impressive" ( in a bad way ).
People do need to look at numbers and think about them, because fear without reason will only lead to less work being done on those field and fewer new ( and safer ) plants, etc..

 

[Alebrije]

So the fauna and flora next to Fukushima is dying or dead? because it seems on Chernobyl specially flora did not have trouble to survive radiation ...does plants have something special to resist radiAtion?

 

[Liha]

Why are people ignoring the costs related to waste management? There is a reason why no-one invests in nuclear power without state subsidies or a fixed energy price.

Looking at investment trends it's just crazy to say that. You might just as well have claimed that horses are the future for individual transportation in the 50s.

 

[Earthbound64]

Coal can be ended overnight, a radiated area as this one is fucked for centuries if not more. And you know we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time?

global warming and co2 \ fine particle pollution can be "ended overnight"?

Just think, millions of dollars poured into something that can be "ended overnight."
I guess all that "global warming" stuff really was a hoax.

/s

 

[Mr-Joker]

Is that what that movie is about? Never bothered to watch it.

No it's a stupid scientifically inaccurate movie about the Earth no longer rotating due to its core not spinning as a result of the evvvvvil military weapon test, so they send down a team down to the Earth's core to get it spinning again by using nuclear bombs.

Like I said the movie got panned for being woefully scientifically inaccurate.

 

[maomaoIYP]

Because like 50 people died at Chernobyl and just a few died at Fukushima?? But that's unacceptable compared to the thousands that die yearly around the world to bring you coal power.

Exactly zero people have died at Fukushima as a result of the power plants.

 

[Trokil]

Exactly zero people have died at Fukushima as a result of the power plants.

Well, you do realize that they used older people for these operations who will probably die before the cancer will kill them, so this is quite a cynical answer.

Also cancer or radiation sickness does not start to show itself that fast, you also know that. That would require a really high dose a radiation. So it is way to early to come to this conclusion.

 

[maomaoIYP]

Well, you do realize that they used older people for these operations who will probably die before the cancer will kill them, so this is quite a cynical answer.

Also cancer or radiation sickness does not start to show itself that fast, you also know that. That would require a really high dose a radiation. So it is way to early to come to this conclusion.

So my answer is still factual then? You don't count people who have not died as "already dead". If this was the case the numbers of "already dead" people as a result of coal power would be astronomical.
Radiation sickness manifests within a week, people who are exposed to large amounts of radiation like the workers at Chernobyl died quickly from deterministic effects, not cancer manifestation. It's been six years since Fukushima. No one has died as a result of the power plants there.

 

[Xe4]

Where does it say that?

Edit: I'm not rejecting the source offhand. I'm saying that you should maybe, just maybe, read the couple of sentences right next to it, which to me sound like one should take these numbers with a rather huge grain of salt.

Look, I'm providing a source here, which is a projection (ie potentially flawed) yet still better than stating offhand that Nuclear is a dead source of energy that costs too much which it isn't.

You can either reject it with your own source or discuss why the source is wrong, but either way it's probably best to start with a source.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/appendix_tbls.pdf
Here's the projections for 2040

To be fair, the 2016 year was quite a bit better than 2015 in regards to how it perceived PV Solar, which is not what was talked about anyhow. It doesn't change the fact that Nuclear is still the cheapest base load source aside from natural gas, and is certainly not far too expensive, as claimed.

Nuclear isn't cheap or even competive to other energy sources.

Are you going to look at my source, or pride your own?

 

[JoeMartin]

Well, you do realize that they used older people for these operations who will probably die before the cancer will kill them, so this is quite a cynical answer.

Also cancer or radiation sickness does not start to show itself that fast, you also know that. That would require a really high dose a radiation. So it is way to early to come to this conclusion.

Radiation sickness would present within 24 hours of exposure, but in any case would generally require an obtusely high exposure to a radioactive source.

Radiation sickness (barring people in the immediate area following a serious catastrophe) in this day and age is generally not a concern. It is very easy to detect and avoid high flux areas. Contamination is the problem - highly excited/unstable fission products (usually some form of heavy transition metals) which enter the body and decay (by B- or B+ or alpha), releasing high quality-factor ionizing radiants over longer periods of time with hard to quantify (or prevent) stochastic health effects. It's the reason you see people wearing tyvek suits and breathing apparatus in potentially contaminated areas. Radiation is the smell, contamination is the poop.

 

[Frankfurter]

Look, I'm providing a source here, which is a projection (ie potentially flawed) yet still better than stating offhand that Nuclear is a dead source of energy that costs too much which it isn't.

You can either reject it with your own source or discuss why the source is wrong, but either way it's probably best to start with a source.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/appendix_tbls.pdf
Here's the projections for 2040

To be fair, the 2016 year was quite a bit better than 2015 in regards to how it perceived PV Solar, which is not what was talked about anyhow. It doesn't change the fact that Nuclear is still the cheapest base load source aside from natural gas, and is certainly not far too expensive, as claimed.


Are you going to look at my source, or pride your own?

Using your OWN source, but for 2016, solar is cheaper, wind is far cheaper. I really don't know why you keep on using those 2015 numbers, which are plain and simply outdated.


2016/2022 for nuclear is 103, for wind onshore is 65, for solar is 85 (using weighted averages, it's a little lower for all three, moreso for wind and pv though). It's way more expensive than those already!

Just btw. please don't move goalposts. I never said nuclear is expensive as a base load source, I said it's expensive period. Base load doesn't matter anymore in a world that is soon gonna be dominated by renewables.


For 2040, out of the 2016 report, projections are wind 43 and solar 64, which is far cheaper than anything nuclear could possibly offer.

 

[Aureon]

Using your OWN source, but for 2016, solar is cheaper, wind is far cheaper. I really don't know why you keep on using those 2015 numbers, which are plain and simply outdated.


2016/2022 for nuclear is 103, for wind onshore is 65, for solar is 85 (using weighted averages, it's a little lower for all three, moreso for wind and pv though). It's way more expensive than those already!

Just btw. please don't move goalposts. I never said nuclear is expensive as a base load source, I said it's expensive period. Base load doesn't matter anymore in a world that is soon gonna be dominated by renewables.


For 2040, out of the 2016 report, projections are wind 43 and solar 64, which is far cheaper than anything nuclear could possibly offer.

Dispatchable vs non-dispatchable.
You can't build a grid out of Solar with current battery tech. It's just completely impossible.
Also, 2040? 2040 is far too late to phase out coal, but eh.

(Also, link that source)

 

[DrROBschiz]

Using your OWN source, but for 2016, solar is cheaper, wind is far cheaper. I really don't know why you keep on using those 2015 numbers, which are plain and simply outdated.


2016/2022 for nuclear is 103, for wind onshore is 65, for solar is 85 (using weighted averages, it's a little lower for all three, moreso for wind and pv though). It's way more expensive than those already!

Just btw. please don't move goalposts. I never said nuclear is expensive as a base load source, I said it's expensive period. Base load doesn't matter anymore in a world that is soon gonna be dominated by renewables.


For 2040, out of the 2016 report, projections are wind 43 and solar 64, which is far cheaper than anything nuclear could possibly offer.

"which is far cheaper than nuclear could possibly offer"

Yeah I take issue with this assumption

We know how expensive it is now but we dont know what future research and breakthroughs will bring for Nuclear power or how its cost profile can shift

Nuclear will continue to have investment and optics problem until someone can bring something new to the consumer power market so i concede there at least until something new comes to the table

LWR iterative reactors, while pretty decent in 4th gen form, are not gonna beat the new guys.

 

[Frankfurter]

Dispatchable vs non-dispatchable.
You can't build a grid out of Solar with current battery tech. It's just completely impossible.
Also, 2040? 2040 is far too late to phase out coal, but eh.

(Also, link that source)

Xe4 started using that 2040 number, but PV and wind are cheaper than nuclear pretty much right now! We don't need to wait until 2040, and countries don't do that either...

The 2016 report from the EIA can be found here (click "full report"): https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

It's not about building a grid out of just solar either. That would be stupid and it's not what's being done at all in reality. There are a couple of renewables that will complement each other. Solar, wind (on and offshore), hydroelectric, biomass and possibly synthesized natural gas (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_gas ). All this accompanied by a smart-grid that uses batteries of electric cars as a way to balance the grid and more transfers between countries.

"which is far cheaper than nuclear could possibly offer"

Yeah I take issue with this assumption

We know how expensive it is now but we dont know what future research and breakthroughs will bring for Nuclear power or how its cost profile can shift

Nuclear will continue to have investment and optics problem until someone can bring something new to the consumer power market so i concede there at least until something new comes to the table

LWR iterative reactors, while pretty decent in 4th gen form, are not gonna beat the new guys.

Yeah, that's an assumption. I know nuclear (aside fusion) will still see investment, but I really don't see it coming even close to those other sources, simply because cost degression especially for PV, but also for wind is insane. Just a couple of years more of 10+% cost degression in PV and all these predictions will be wrong anyway (i.e. way to conservative in terms of future PV costs).



Just btw. maybe I jumped the gun here a bit: I'm only talking nuclear fission. If fusion ever works on a grand scale who knows how ridiculously cheap that could be..

 

[Aureon]

Xe4 started using that 2040 number, but PV and wind are cheaper than nuclear pretty much right now! We don't need to wait until 2040, and countries don't do that either...

The 2016 report from the EIA can be found here (click "full report"): https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

It's not about building a grid out of just solar either. That would be stupid and it's not what's being done at all in reality. There are a couple of renewables that will complement each other. Solar, wind (on and offshore), hydroelectric, biomass and possibly synthesized natural gas (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_gas ). All this accompanied by a smart-grid that uses batteries of electric cars as a way to balance the grid and more transfers between countries.

Sure, but then you're hiding the cost of having not just peak plants, but enough biomass to run the entire grid in the worst case scenario of wind+sun down for extended periods of time.
Nuclear's costs are in line, as the source says - for the LACE measurements, very much so, even in 2040.

 

[Frankfurter]

Sure, but then you're hiding the cost of having not just peak plants, but enough biomass to run the entire grid in the worst case scenario of wind+sun down for extended periods of time.
Nuclear's costs are in line, as the source says - for the LACE measurements, very much so, even in 2040.

That's not a worst case scenario, it's a scenario that is impossible. Grids are connected between countries already and will be way more in the future. So all of, say, Europe being down on both sun and wind is just impossible.