IEA: Global Nuclear Power Capacity Must Double By 2050 To Reach Net-Zero Emissions (euronews.com) 223
Global nuclear power capacity needs to double by the mid-century to reach net-zero emissions targets. This will help ensure energy security as governments try to reduce their reliance on imported fossil fuels, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Thursday. Euronews reports: Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 would give the world a chance of capping temperature rises at 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To reach net-zero emissions, nuclear power capacity needs to double to 812 gigawatts (GW) by 2050 from 413 GW early this year, the IEA report specifies. In the 2030s, annual nuclear power capacity will have to reach 27 GW, it added.
As around 260 GW, or 63 percent, of nuclear plants in the world are currently over 30 years old and nearing the end of their initial operation licenses. Although there have been moves in the past three years to extend the lifetimes of plants representing around 10 per cent of the global fleet, nuclear plants in advanced economies could shrink by a third by 2030, the report said. Advanced economies have nearly 70 per cent of global nuclear capacity -- but the problem is the fleet is aging. Investment has stalled and the latest new projects have run far over budget and behind schedule, the report said.
As around 260 GW, or 63 percent, of nuclear plants in the world are currently over 30 years old and nearing the end of their initial operation licenses. Although there have been moves in the past three years to extend the lifetimes of plants representing around 10 per cent of the global fleet, nuclear plants in advanced economies could shrink by a third by 2030, the report said. Advanced economies have nearly 70 per cent of global nuclear capacity -- but the problem is the fleet is aging. Investment has stalled and the latest new projects have run far over budget and behind schedule, the report said.
Every 2 decades! (Score:4, Interesting)
Every two decades we get a report like that and then nothing happens. One really has to wonder how dire our predicament is so that after so much noise and activism every single "solution" is a) making the problem worse, i.e. bio-fuels, veganism etc. , b) protects the power of states to use energy production as a weapon, i.e. Russia , c) makes energy more expensive and less available stalling economic growth and hurting the poorest, as usual, i.e. EU at the moment and d) makes a ton of money for those who already have much, i.e. fossil fuel companies.
Missa thinks just about everyone involve in this is a liar and the most insidious liars are the activists. The big business and big government I can understand. Their greed and corruption, delusions and incompetence. But the useful idiots are incomprehensible..
Re:Every 2 decades! (Score:5, Informative)
In the post-truth society emotions speak louder than facts.
It's why people don't like nuclear power, think hydrogen power is a good idea and why they will sign petitions to ban dihydrogen-monoxide.
People are scared of nuclear power, thank flower-power hippies.
Re:Every 2 decades! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody likes hydrogen except for Toyota, who want to keep all the combustion engine tech they developed relevant.
As for nuclear, it's usually renewables that get all the misinformation and people claiming they can never work. The grid will become unstable, there will be no electricity at night, what happens when the wind stops blowing.
Nuclear's problem is almost entirely financial at this point. It's just too expensive. Nobody wants to invest in it because the returns take a very long time to come, and with new reactor designs they might not come at all. Despite governments heavily subsidising nuclear power, paving the way by clearing all the legal issues and objections, it's still not an attractive product. You only have to look at the nuclear power plants under construction today to see that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody likes hydrogen except for Toyota, who want to keep all the combustion engine tech they developed relevant.
As for nuclear, it's usually renewables that get all the misinformation and people claiming they can never work. The grid will become unstable, there will be no electricity at night, what happens when the wind stops blowing.
Nuclear's problem is almost entirely financial at this point. It's just too expensive. Nobody wants to invest in it because the returns take a very long time to come, and with new reactor designs they might not come at all. Despite governments heavily subsidising nuclear power, paving the way by clearing all the legal issues and objections, it's still not an attractive product. You only have to look at the nuclear power plants under construction today to see that.
Renewables can never work. The grid will become unstable, there will be no electricity at night, what happens when the wind stops blowing. Any reasonable person can see we need an "all of them" approach, nukes, renewables, hydrogen, biofuels, everything, instead of committing 100% to just blind sun worship. And hoping some magical fairy dust technological breakthrough to solve the abovementioned problems is "juuust around the corner, will be there right along with cold fusion".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thing is we already have proof that renewables do work. We have decades of accurate historic data for wind and sunshine. We have large deployments of those technologies already. Some grids are already reaching the point where they can run entirely on renewable energy for short periods.
If you want nuclear to be in the mix then it needs to get a lot cheaper, and a lot faster to build. EDF currently quotes 20 years for a new plant in Europe. That's *after* all the legal issues have been sorted out, land select
Re:Every 2 decades! (Score:4, Interesting)
Thing is we already have proof that renewables do work. We have decades of accurate historic data for wind and sunshine. We have large deployments of those technologies already.
Are you calling Hornsdale a "large deployment that proves the whole world in ready to switch over"? Seriously? A battery that cost "only" about 100M$, can power a small town of a few thousand through the night, and you better hope it's not cloudy in the morning because otherwise you're screwed? Or are we talking about "loudly virtue signal with PV when sun is shining, and quietly burn natgas during night and hope noone notices" kind of proof?
Some grids are already reaching the point where they can run entirely on renewable energy for short periods.
Noone doubts renewables can produce big peaks of energy, it's their ability to sustain production when conditions are unfavorable that's under doubt, so this proves NOTHING.
If you want nuclear to be in the mix then it needs to get a lot cheaper, and a lot faster to build. EDF currently quotes 20 years for a new plant in Europe. That's *after* all the legal issues have been sorted out, land selected and proven suitable with geological surveys etc.
Anyone looking to invest in nuclear today is facing the prospect of waiting 20 years for any return, by which time the energy market will have changed dramatically. Do you have any solutions to these problems which don't involve massive subsidies and relying on fossil fuels until nuclear is ready?
It is possible to build them *much* faster, in the West, and without skimping on security, like the French did [wikipedia.org]. It only takes political will. And we'd better start now.
Because I guarantee to you, that in 20 years, we will be burning less coal, way more natgas, greens will be all excited about new records like "renewables produced 2000% of world's energy needs for on hour last Monday" (too bad it all happened in Southwestern Africa while rest of the world had to burn natgas), and will still whine how nuclear takes 20 years to build.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need giant batteries. The one they installed at Hornsdale is for stabilizing the grid, not providing cover.
Some small batteries will make sense, just to smooth the output of some renewables a little. You don't need massive ones to keep the grid up, you just need good interconnects and some demand management.
You mention the French. The Messmer Plan was a disaster. No consultation with the scientific community, not even a vote in parliament. By 1988 the French nuclear plants had a capacity factor of
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need giant batteries. The one they installed at Hornsdale is for stabilizing the grid, not providing cover.
Some small batteries will make sense, just to smooth the output of some renewables a little. You don't need massive ones to keep the grid up, you just need good interconnects and some demand management.
So, your argument is that we don't need giant batteries containing $WHATEVER MWh because we can install same $WHATEVER MWh capacity in small batteries and thus... gain what exactly? Loose the economics of scale aspect? With each small battery having to have its own inverter, controller, fire protections and so on? Have to significantly invest in smart grid upgrades instead of plopping the battery at power source and being able to keep the rest of the grid mostly as it was? That'll help us...how exactly?
You mention the French. The Messmer Plan was a disaster. No consultation with the scientific community, not even a vote in parliament. By 1988 the French nuclear plants had a capacity factor of 60%, comparable to existing off-shore wind, and were losing money fast. EDF is basically nationalized now, i.e. the French taxpayer is losing money on their failed nuclear ambitions.
They didn't even build the plants that fast either. They started on three of the plants in 1973, and none of them came online until the early 80s.
LOL,
Re: (Score:2)
This is a long term transition so once things like a few million EVs all get V2G/V2H capability you then
Re: (Score:2)
That Hornsdale battery paid for itself in 2.5 years.
Easily debunkable BS. I mean, bloody hell, use your brain. An investment with pretty much no risk, secure against inflation, and a ROI of TWO POINT FIVE EFFING YEARS? LOL?! That's not only out there, that's in-another-galaxy-heck-universe out there. 10 years would be awesome but realistic in current economic climate. All those greedy capitalists would be trampling over each other in a rush to build Hornsdales in their backyards with numbers that good. Yet somehow it doesn't seem to be happening. You've been
Re: Every 2 decades! (Score:2)
News flash grids around the world are busy installing batteries for grid stabilization. What Hornsdale demonstrated is that batteries are in fact by a country mile the best at grid stabilization, so good that all other methods are total junk in comparison. Giving out and sucking up that peak power is extremely profitable. Even if they where not profitable they are so good at grid stabilization you want them anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible to build them *much* faster, in the West, and without skimping on security, like the French did [wikipedia.org]. It only takes political will.
The UK has been bending over backwards for 20 years on this, with the result of one single reactor being built (not complete) and one in planning.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that entire continents are covered in clouds at once, with the wind not blowing at all?
Your arguments are fucking nonsense. 1960s era technology of high-voltage DC interties solve everything you are crying about.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and solar have a massive reliability problem
False. They are very predictable.
and cannot be used for base load.
Irrelevant. We need more load following, not more base load.
Your choices are
I choose not to accept your false dichotomy, which is based on false premises.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The concept of base load is outdated: https://energypost.eu/intervie... [energypost.eu]
Not that renewables can't be used for it. The wind never stops blowing off shore, and transmission lines are old technology.
Re: Every 2 decades! (Score:4, Interesting)
It really saddens me when intelligent posters like drinkypoo and AmiMojo get sucked in by the anti-nuclear propaganda
Simply put, while wind power is a useful tool, it fails when compared to the capacity and a nuclear power plant.
Here is an interesting piece showing the scaling of the two
https://www.ans.org/news/artic... [ans.org]
Wind turbines on wind farms would not be packed closely together as shown in this graphic. Optimally, wind turbines should be placed at least 7-15 diameter widths apart. Given that one 2-MW turbine can be taller than the Statue of Liberty, this can cover an enormous amount of land area with extremely tall structures. With this imaginary wind farm array, a minimum amount of land area required would be about 318 square miles and could include more for access roads, ground leveling, and tree removals. Wind farms are typically built in groups where the name-plate capacity can be 30-50 MW by 10-30 or more turbines. Thus, we will never see a group of 2077 2-MW (4154 MW name-plate capacity) wind turbines.
The 1154-MW nuclear power plant can typically occupy about 50 acres of land, often with a buffer space of land area of at least 1 square mile. The nuclear plant in this graphic is shown without an optional cooling tower, which can be up to 200 meters high.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Well, perhaps an idiot like you, should perhaps once look at an actual wind farm?
Oh: they are places on farm land. No damn forrest killed or tree chopped.
Ah: every 200 yards you have a 10x10 yard parcel for one wind turbine.
Wow .... what a damn waste.
I wonder how the farmers agreed to lose 1% of their land for wind mills, instead of 5 sacks of rice^H^H^H^H wheat per wind mill. Hm, perhaps the electricity they sell is worth more than 5 sacks of harvest ... but: it could be a complete made up myth that most o
Re: (Score:2)
Wind turbines on wind farms would not be packed closely together as shown in this graphic. Optimally, wind turbines should be placed at least 7-15 diameter widths apart.
Actually it's much more complicated that and depends on things like typical wind conditions. Optimal placement is designed using modelling with computational fluid dynamics and weather models.
A minimum amount of land area required would be about 318 square miles and could include more for access roads, ground leveling, and tree removals.
There aren't many roads, not much ground, very few trees at sea. When the wind farms are on land, the land is not denied to other users. Having experience of seeing wind farms I can tell you this from personal experience. There can even be trees - levelling some may help, but again it depends on modelling, typical wind
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, why is a direct comparison of land area needed for comparable power production FUD?
I think it is a useful metric for comparison of power generation means
Perhaps you would be interested in comparing the time necessary to construct both power sources for comparable output
I suspect that you would find that we lack the ability to build an adequate number of windmills in the time necessary, even conpared to the lang time spans that it takes to build a nuclear power plant
These are things that must cons
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, why is a direct comparison of land area needed for comparable power production FUD?
The area under an onshore wind farm is not denied for other uses. If it's at sea it's not land area at all.
Perhaps you would be interested in comparing the time necessary to construct both power sources for comparable output
I'd direct you to DoggerBank C versuses projections for Sizewell C. Faster for wind.
I suspect that you would find that we lack the ability to build an adequate number of windmills in the time necessary
Try looking up the hints above. You are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The 1154-MW nuclear power plant can typically occupy about 50 acres of land
Dogger Bank C is 3600MW nameplate, average 1800MW and uses no acres of land.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume that you are speaking of sea-borne wind farms, could you please let me know the available sq miles of coastline?
Re: (Score:2)
I assume that you are speaking of sea-borne wind farms, could you please let me know the available sq miles of coastline?
That doesn't make sense as a unit. Coastline is linear. Miles. Sq. miles of sea. Pick one.
Re: (Score:2)
Your lack of comprehension is stunning
A line (basic geometry) has no area, just length. Wind farms require area, as they are not simply placed along a line
Just looking at their own web page, you can see the width of the installation, hence the need to consider the area needed for installation
The plain fact is that it takes a lot of wind turbines to produce the same amount of power as a nuclear power plant, and areas with enough wind and access to onshore support are relatively limited
So, just to make it eas
Re: (Score:2)
A line (basic geometry) has no area, just length. Wind farms require area,
Coast lines are linear. You don't get 'sqm' of coastline, you get miles of it. What you wanted to ask is how much area there is off the coast suitable for wind farms. You didn't. Try asking the right question and I might answer it. I know what you were trying to ask, but try actually asking it with the correct units employed.
The plain fact is that it takes a lot of wind turbines to produce the same amount of power as a nuclear power plant
Around 200. See Doggerbank.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I am going to apologise. I did know what you meant. despite the issue of units, but the way I responded was uncalled for. I've been very annoyed by people using the wrong units, but I should not make my annoyance your problem.
So let's do a back-of-envelope calculation. The coastline of the UK is reported as 12000 km, roughly (CIA world fact book). Ideally you'd want the coastline 8 miles out or something like that. But maybe another way to look at it is as a 1000km long, 250km wide box, so the per
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany is using wind for base load.
I suggest to google and read the relevant articles on wikipedia at least to grasp what the term base load means.
Re: Every 2 decades! (Score:2)
Here in the UK base load (actually with hydro probably the full load at all times) could be met with tidal and pumped storage. The day that becomes unreliable we have much much much bigger problems to worry about than the power is out.
Re: (Score:2)
A huge deal of Europe is already far above 50% wind + solar.
Perhaps you should get out of under your rock?
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables can never work. The grid will become unstable, there will be no electricity at night
There are now places where most of the electricity comes from renewables, yet these things don't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables can never work. The grid will become unstable, there will be no electricity at night
There are now places where most of the electricity comes from renewables, yet these things don't happen.
Yes, because when those things would happen, those places import energy from places where it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables can never work. The grid will become unstable, there will be no electricity at night
There are now places where most of the electricity comes from renewables, yet these things don't happen.
Yes, because when those things would happen, those places import energy from places where it doesn't.
You said can never work, but this is obviously not the case. Yes, there is the potential that under specific sets of circumstances there could be issues depending on how the mix of sources of energy used, but that's not the claim you made. There are also a number of ways of setting up a system of generation that will have different qualities, so it's hard to make blanket statements.
Re: (Score:2)
Now only if we could create electricity from stupidity and false arguments such as yours, we'd have a source of limitless energy.
You've heard of energy storage, right? Batteries, pumped reservoirs + hydro turbines, flywheels, molten salt, etc.
Even the nuclear lobbying agency admits that solar and wind are the cheapest new generation you can build [oecd-nea.org], only getting beat on cost per MWh by extending the lifetime of already-built nuclear, and that's only 43% cheaper than building new utility-scale solar. And you
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody likes hydrogen except for Toyota, who want to keep all the combustion engine tech they developed relevant.
And Honda and GM, who formed a joint partnership to make practical (profitable) automotive fuel cells. And Cummins, which is now making fucking hydrogen ICEs as if they made any goddamned sense. But then, Cummins also makes equipment for the fracking industry, so they are solidly in the "pave the earth" camp.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Honda and GM fuel cells are for niche markets. They both have electric vehicles and are investing in battery tech. We already have electric trucks and construction vehicles from other manufacturers too, so there isn't that much left that would really benefit from fuel cells.
Maybe they think they could be used in the HondaJet?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Honda and GM fuel cells are for niche markets.
I think GM plans to use them for military purposes at this point, but more importantly, I think they are both hedging bets. No matter what the future of transportation is electric, but if big oil gets their way they will still be included. They will simply shift to being big hydrogen. If they get the right politicians into power it may well happen, whether it makes sense or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how big oil can become big hydrogen, because unlike oil which requires access to certain regions where it is abundant, hydrogen can be produced almost anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how big oil can become big hydrogen
Through government. Which is how their business has remained viable all these years anyhow.
because unlike oil which requires access to certain regions where it is abundant, hydrogen can be produced almost anywhere.
Sure. But there's lots of potential artificial barriers to entry.
Re: (Score:2)
Most hydrogen already comes from 'big oil'. The cheapest way to get it is to strip the carbon out of hydrocarbons.
Re: (Score:2)
Because natural gas and oil make up about 78% of commercial hydrogen production [wikipedia.org]. Thus, big oil becomes big hydrogen, as they are the overwhelming source of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the key points of propaganda, is to Repeat the Lie Until People Think it is the Truth
Goebbels would applaud AmiMojos efforts
Re: (Score:2)
One of the key points of propaganda, is to Repeat the Lie Until People Think it is the Truth
That's the problem I have with MacMann - inaccurate information repeatedly posted. Sometimes I end up being no better than others here complaining about the inaccuracy without posting rebuttals, but that's because I don't keep a set of copy-paste references to hand. Where the information is a different interpretation, that's fine. When inaccurate information trying to favour a particular technology keeps being posted, it can damage that cause.
Are renewables perfect? No, there is a potential issue with inter
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly agree with you, but groups like GreenPeace, the Green Party, etc... take an absolutist approach in opposing nuclear power, which ignores the time frames needed to produce an adequate supply of renewable power when compared to global warming rates of increase
I think a BIG problem for these groups, and their followers, is the cognitive dissonance of realizing that they actually have made global warming worse by forcing a greater reliance on coal power generation. This is demonstrated by President Car
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly agree with you, but groups like GreenPeace, the Green Party, etc... take an absolutist approach in opposing nuclear power, which ignores the time frames needed to produce an adequate supply of renewable power when compared to global warming rates of increase
The issue, in terms of time to production, is more nuclear, which requires much more specialised engineering and materials than renewables. Renewables are likely to be a better answer for short-term action on global warming because of this. The UK experience, even with government support for nuclear, is that renewables are being built out several times faster than nuclear in terms of generating capacity, and more cheaply. However, I think nuclear has a role as a back-stop. It's also good to not be absolutis
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, gas is not comparable with renewables because it also releases CO2
In the US, Carters decision to use Coal as primary source of electrical generation certainly caused increase in coal use from 1979 on
While it does take a decade to build a nuclear power plant (most delays are due to lawsuits), it would require a national initiative to hold time time frames due to harassment lawsuits
It is also important to consider the ability (or inability) to ramp up wind turbine production to match build time for nucle
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, gas is not comparable with renewables because it also releases CO2
Indeed, and I made no such comparison. You said coal use increased in Germany. It did not.
In the US, Carters decision to use Coal as primary source of electrical generation certainly caused increase in coal use from 1979 on
I was responding to your point about Germany, not the USA.
(most delays are due to lawsuits)
Not the case in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody likes hydrogen except for Toyota, who want to keep all the combustion engine tech they developed relevant.
Toyota's current hydrogen powered vehicle, the Mirai, uses a fuel cell, not a combustion engine. Nobody is building hydrogen ICEs. https://www.toyota.com/mirai/ [toyota.com]
Re: Every 2 decades! (Score:2)
IMO given how much California detests nuclear energy, Arizona should stop sending electrons from Palo Verde their way. It's tainted energy, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Total install costs for solar are 30% of what they were 10 years ago, where solar still made sense in some places 10 years ago. Here's some nice pretty charts to look at [nrel.gov] from an unimpeachable source, just to head off your next reply of total bullshit.
Re:Every 2 decades! (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost of decommissioning nuclear plants are built into the price, unlike coal and other fossil fuel plants that regularly go bankrupt and leave their mess to sit
The lies flowing from the anti-nuclear plants follow Hitlers rule, repeat the lie until people think it is the truth
Re: (Score:2)
The situation is dire because we're so unable to take actions to fix it early enough to stop it from becoming a major catastrophe. Our inability and failure to do so doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist -- rather, it's what's causing the problem. And just because it hasn't reached the major catastrophe stage yet doesn't mean the people pointing out the problem are insidious liars.
Your argument might make sense if the people pointing out the problem were the same people calling the shots on what we do abou
Re: (Score:2)
The situation really is dire. And we're starting to already see actual results of climate change now. See for example https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/ [www.ipcc.ch]. It is true that there have been a lot of activists who have done things which are genuinely unhelpful or counterproductive. This hasn't just been surrounding nuclear power, but in other contexts also, like blocking new power lines in Maine that would have made it possible to transmit hydroelectric power from Quebec into the Northeast of t
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest problem for most people is that making changes that will really have an impact is expensive. They will pay for themselves eventually, but the up-front capital costs make them unattractive.
Take insulation as an example. It will reduce heating and cooling needs dramatically if retrofitted. Governments really need to help people with that, say through a loan scheme that is paid back at a rate that is half the savings they make on energy costs.
Re: (Score:2)
They will pay for themselves eventually...
Are you sure? No? Neither are many investors.
AFAIK: without big government spending as a backstop nobody is ready to start building a new nuclear power plant..
You read many articles about small modular designs but most of the time there is a focus on safety but rarely is there a clear picture on the net price per kWh and how it stacks up against renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
They are always claiming SMRs will be cleaner, cheaper, and safer. But nobody has ever demonstrated a SMR design which accomplishes any of these goals. Because they are small it should be easy to build just one, but literally no one has ever managed to build one which is viable.
It would be a lot easier to take SMRs seriously if anyone had ever built one worth building more of.
Re: (Score:2)
funny thing, you start most of your post with "The biggest problem..."
FYI, they can't ALL be the biggest problem, surely this is a clear sign you are lying
Re: (Score:2)
Take insulation as an example. It will reduce heating and cooling needs dramatically if retrofitted. Governments really need to help people with that, say through a loan scheme that is paid back at a rate that is half the savings they make on energy costs.
If renewables are so cheap and easy, why should I care about how much I use?
They say it is an emergency, but an emergency that we can afford to be picky about our solutions does not seem terribly urgent to me, so I'm just going to ignore it. Solar and wind will save us, problem solved. I've moved on to other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
certainly
https://www.ans.org/news/artic... [ans.org]
Obligatory (Score:2)
but fusion power is just a decade away.
eye roll...
Re: (Score:2)
It has been kept at a decade away by reducing funding in real terms, with respect to any project. If you never fund the work, you'll never get there. A week of fossil fuel subsidies would be more than twice the total funding fusion research has obtained since the 1960s. Give it that extra money and you'll see fusion in 5 years or less because PROGRESS CAN THEN BE MADE.
I very much prefer renewables over nuclear because the latter is a hugely expensive and has too much environmental baggage. However, given the binary choice between nuclear and fusion I'm gong for nuclear simply because it is not vaporware.
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of funding != vapourware.
Fusion works, that's absolutely 100% undeniable. If it didn't, we wouldn't be alive.
The rest is a technical challenge that needs research. This 'vapourware' nonsense helps no one.
Re: (Score:2)
It works, but it's still an open question of whether it'll ever be a competitive way of producing power.
Renewables are simple and cheap, and getting cheaper. There's some point at which a complex power plant requiring a complicated structure with cryogenically cooled superconducting magnets just isn't worthwhile in comparison.
I'm still very much up for researching the tech but I think it's far more likely to find space applications than on Earth.
A very balanced look at the issues (Score:2)
Duh! (Score:5, Interesting)
We have been saying this for decades. We would have prevented climate change if we pursued nuclear energy. It is still the only viable option we have. It is also the best tool we have to reduce poverty.
Fuck antinuclear scumbags. Fuck'em to death!
Re: (Score:2)
Greenpeace was a Soviet-funded psyop to disrupt the American economy.
How did they do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Germany was/is reliant on Russian gas for winter house heating. And thats it. Oil is canceled, coal is canceled. Nuclear is phased out.
So this bullshit: Germany energy is entirely reliant on russia. is simply completely wrong.
"Europe's biggest buyers of Russian gas raced to find alternative fuel supplies on Monday and could burn more coal to cope with reduced gas flows from Russia that threaten an energy crisis in winter if stores are not refilled.
Germany, Italy, Austria and the Netherlands have all signalled that coal-fired power plants could help see the continent through a crisis that has sent gas prices surging and added to the challenge facing policy-makers battling inflation."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/scienc... [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have been saying this for decades.
And you have been lying for decades.
We would have prevented climate change if we pursued nuclear energy.
Not only is this false because EVs weren't until recently practical so you would still have needed transportation fuels, but it's also false because nuclear lifecycle carbon emissions are much higher than the industry likes to imply.
It is still the only viable option we have.
That is a stupid lie. Nuclear is the least viable option for multiple reasons which have already been argued about ad nauseam here.
Fuck antinuclear scumbags. Fuck'em to death!
Come get some, you cowardly fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
And you have been lying for decades.
More projection from an antinuclear scumbag
Not only is this false because EVs weren't until recently practical so you would still have needed transportation fuels,
Ammonium and hydrogen can be produced easily from nuclear energy.
but it's also false because nuclear lifecycle carbon emissions are much higher than the industry likes to imply.
According to the IPCC life cycle emissions for nuclear is at 12 g CO2 per kWh. Wind is at 11-12, solar is at 41, natural gas is at 490, and coal is at 820
That is a stupid lie. Nuclear is the least viable option for multiple reasons which have already been argued about ad nauseam here.
Every pathway in the 2021 IPCC code red report had new nuclear energy being required.
Come get some, you cowardly fuck.
I'd kick your ass ten times out of ten. Fuck you scumbag.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd kick your ass ten times out of ten.
You nuclear dildos lie about everything else, so I know you're lying about this, too.
Re: (Score:2)
You nuclear dildos lie about everything else, so I know you're lying about this, too.
More projection from an antinuclear scumbag.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of pulling numbers out of your ass, you could actually read an IPCC publication: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/asset... [www.ipcc.ch]
Fuck you scumbag.
I would say the scumbag is you, with your self invented -aka- made up numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No! Don't fuck them! That's how you make more of them! We have too many as it is!
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations need relaxing + time to market (Score:2)
Only an idiot, right now, would argue that nuclear is one of the key players in future energy solutions - if not the biggest.
The problem is that in many countries, the regulations are so darn tight, it takes years to get reactors onto the grid.
The "time to market" is stupid - insane.
For example, in the UK, The "Hinkley Point C" power station is one of eight announced in ... wait for it ... 2010.
It took 2 years for the license to be granted and another 4 years to be fully approved.
It is currently due to be o
Re: (Score:2)
Correction:
"would argue that nuclear is *NOT* one of the key players"
Investment has stalled *because* ... (Score:2)
The transition is unlikely to be voluntary (Score:3)
I suspect the problem is: To reduce consumption means sustained economic recession.
Economic *growth* is the bedrock fiscal policy in all the large economies. And that usually means more people consuming more each. It was sold as a way to lift the poor from poverty.
Economics has to be reinvented first.
Re: (Score:2)
It's faster and cheaper to build renewables, even if they include storage. Nuclear power is not a solution, even if it had none of its most spectacular problems.
True, nuclear power is literally not viable without massive state subsidies. People keep pointing at France as a poster child for un-subsidised and highly profitable nuclear but the French government has injected billions into the state-controlled energy group EDF to prop it up because nuclear reactors have been going offline and also because the group has been made to supply power below market prices. The reason being that Nuclear can't compete price wise with alternatives. Both of these measures are even
Re: (Score:2)
I dont think that has been proven out though, the storage part. We haven't seen the type of storage on a mass scale to come to a solid conclusion on that.
Direct battery storage so far hasn't been deployed for much more than short term peaking and buffer. Pumped storage is geographically limited and can have issues but it is promising but there needs to be more of it built an evaluated, it's also capital intensive. Other means like flywheels are promising but not deployed at scale yet.
Insulating homes and
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it's not true, it's not a natural compliment. Nuclear works horribly with renewables for economical reasons.
Nuclear has huge infrastructure costs, so it wants to run full tilt, 24/7 if possible. It also is slow to scale up or down.
Renewables are the same sort of thing, the cost is in the infrastructure and they want to run 24/7. But their cost is far cheaper, because they're simpler, and they're far more regulable.
So what happens when you put both on the same grid? Renewables easily outc
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but nuclear is adjustable in term sof output, it's just not quick at adjustments, IE, you can't use them for peaking power but with grid management it's not a difficult process to adapt your nuclear outputs versus expected and observed renewable output. Nuclear can also ramp up to meet demand when renewables are having downturns in generation.
Without massive advances in grid storage (which are also very capital intensive and long term projects with less of a track record than nuclear) there does exi
Re: (Score:2)
I had no idea that cows, sheep, wheat, soybeans, and corn under the wind turbines give a single fuck what they look like. And you think a few wind turbines are ugly in comparison to 30-story cooling towers for a nuclear reactor?
Wind energy can very easily become a secondary income source for agriculture, and has already across the US Midwest. It's also not something that requires intensive geological study to make sure an earthquake isn't going to render a couple thousand square miles uninhabitable, and re
Re: (Score:2)
If we all lived on piles of active volcanic zones we could all do what they have done but its a bit of an unfair comparison due to their natural geography. I think geothermal heating has a lot of potential in many places but its capital intensive to get up and running.
I do agree though that modern windmills are rad, especially the farms off the coastlines.
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
What? I never said renewables are crap, far from it. I think renewables are obviously the majority of future power generations but I don't think they can do 100% is all and nuclear is a nice fit to clean up the remaining bits while staying carbon neutral.
And geothermal has a lot of potential but Iceland is unique in how much electricity they are able to generate because they sit on very hot very active and very easy to access areas of it so it makes sense. I. Many parts of the us it doesnt make sense for
Re: (Score:2)
How about you refute it with anything but anonymous bullshit?
Given their statements with actual arguments, versus your ad hominem attack and chosen veil of anonymity, I think I'll feel free to ignore you.