How much do you charge for electricity when the wind doesn’t blow? As in California. With nuclear, as with everything else, economies of scale apply. Bigger is cheaper. 1600 MW up and running in no more than 12 years (5 if you get your skates on) for a century. Renewables without a nuclear backbone is not sustainable for the rest of the century. As Germany has found. Paving deserts with ethically produced (and recycled) solar is the long term strategy, with big enough capacity to produce hydrogen as storage for backup power as well as all transport heavier than cars and vans that can’t electrify (rail can). Only massive solar redundancy can perform the job Christianity has failed to do. Universal social justice. Nuclear is the essential step without which that cannot happen as soon as possible.
Scientist argues that we cannot just wait for the world order to change to tackle the climate crisis
Maybe in USA, if regulation is not too strict. Finland is soon getting a 1600 MW nuclear plant to production. Building started in the year 2005. The price was agreed to be 3.2 billion euros and it should have been ready in the year 2009.
It will start to produce electricity in autumn 2021 and the estimated true price is 9-10 billion euros. Because the power producer originally made a deal of 3.2 billion, the producer will pay 5.5 billions and the building company (Areva) the rest.
The current use permit will last until the year 2038 but my guestimate is that the company will get a permit to use the power plant for an additional 20-30 years, after some renovations. So, the power plant will probably be running 40-50 years.
Not cheap and not running for a century.
They will easily run for a century and are as cheap as a government loan with no spurious delays. Generation IV will have an order of magnitude and more less waste, which is a non issue anyway, and two orders of magnitude more fuel efficiency. Nuclear should never run out. As in never.
Ah, yeah, Olkiluoto 3
'The problems started early, with the incorrect laying of the concrete base slab — a structure that is supposed to be able to withstand the weight of the entire power plant collapsing on it.
This was accompanied by errors in the manufacture of the steel liner — the part of the unit that is responsible for preventing the release of radioactive materials into the environment, and is supposed to be able to withstand forces such as an aeroplane crash.’
and on and on. What a farce.
Incompetence all round, I agree. The building company paid a huge price for their errors.
I’m not against nuclear energy. It just has to be accepted that it is far from cheap.
Running time is not either likely to be a century because of strict regulation, unless the power plant will go through an extensive renovation after every 20-30 years. There is also always the risk that the plant must be closed because of political decisions.
Also the waste is definitely still an issue. There are many temporary storages for used fuel but not many permanent disposal sites where the fuel can be disposed for the next 50 000+ years. Finland has an accepted disposal site. Are there any other ready disposal sites elsewhere, except possibly in less free countries such as Russia or China?
People are against getting nuclear waste close to their homes - not in my backyard.
| Global levelized cost of generation (US$ per MWh) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Solar (utility) | Wind onshore | Gas CC | Geothermal | Wind offshore | Coal | Nuclear | Gas peaker | Storage (1:4) |
| NEA (at 3% dr) | 100 | 60 | 100 | 135 | 90 | 55 | |||
| IPCC (at 5% dr) | 110 | 59 | 71 | 60 | 120 | 61 | 65 | ||
| BNEF | 39 | 41 | 79 | 132 | |||||
| Lazard | 36 | 40 | 59 | 80 | 86 | 112 | 164 | 175 | 189 |
| IRENA | 68 | 53 | 73 | 113 | |||||
| average | 71 | 51 | 77 | 71 | 107 | 88 | 95 | 175 | 161 |
Nuclear works in the dark and when the wind doesn’t blow. Or when it blows sand and abrades and covers PV. Solar waste recycling (the panels break) and production are nowhere near sustainable and ethical. Only nuclear can fulfil the gospel.
Existing waste - 65 years’ worth - is half a million metric tons. Using the density of soil that’s 60m cubed. Using the density of water less than 80. What’s the problem? Gen. IV makes it ooooooh an order of magnitude or two less relevant than it already is.
I agree that we need stable energy production to compensate for the fluctuations in the production of solar and wind energy.
The statistics you presented are somewhat outdated.
Annual energy outlook 2021 (U.S. Energy Information Administration) lists following prices for new resources (per megawatthour):
advanced nuclear $63.1
wind, onshore $36.9
solar, standalone $30.4
hydroelectric $55.3
geothermal $34.5
combustion turbine $106.6
Anyhow, this is just a small detail in the big picture. I guess we agree that something needs to be done and low emission energy production is one of the alternatives.
And R134A is good for the ozone hole, but it’s a way worse greenhouse gas than the Freons.
My stats are 2020, global. What are yours for offshore wind? Not a big deal in the US I realise. There’s no lower emission than nuclear, no better safety record.
This kinda reminds me of an exchange in one of Wendell Berry’s novels (‘Jayber Crow’ I think) where an old farmer’s progressive son is taunting his dad about oxen as compared with tractors for working the land. Says the son: “Tractors don’t eat when they’re not working.” Replies the dad: “Tractors don’t eat grass.”
And the dad’s reply was actually being overly generous … as I’m pretty sure that modern tractors very much do eat when they’re not working: they’re busy eating up interest payments to the bank in addition to all the much more expensive stuff they eat when they are working.
Nuclear works when the wind isn’t blowing, to be sure; but then again it isn’t using the wind.
And all those metric tons of waste generated aren’t nothing. Not according to the political and economic costs of figuring out where to put it all. I’m not anti-nuclear, don’t get me wrong. But Kai is right that it is still expensive in its own way. No free lunch or ‘saviors’ to be had here.
There is no calculable risk from nuclear power waste. Apart from whatever incidents there have been in 65 years per TW. I’ll research that. My money says that there is only a theoretical contribution to cancer risk. And I’ll ask the guy who cleaned up Fukushima who is an acquaintance. We have that level of relationship. Waste is nothing but a political issue of ignorant electorates.
It hasn’t been done.
Yeah it has. How many people died as the result of Fukushima? How many will because of the water release?
It’s incalculable.
Sorry? You mean you have no idea. No data. I do. It’s all readily available.
I’m not dead set against it, but we are talking about radioactive nuclides with half-lives in the thousands and tens-of-thousands of years. One thing in favor of it is the new compact modular and scalable designs using conventional technology.
And then there is the human factor against it in plant operations. I was in “Rickover’s Nuclear Navy”, and my initial training and qualifications and written and oral exams were very rigorous, but subsequent requalifications were a hand-wave. There were some things that were more intrinsically engaging and demanding, like reactor startups and shutdowns, maneuvering during entering and leaving port, connecting and disconnecting from shore power and a variety of drills and war games. Transoceanic crossings, on the other hand, were deadly boring. Guess which steady state operations at a land-based utility would most resemble. Of course, the advantages of half a century of new technology and automation needs to be factored in, too.
So I am way more in favor of conservation and a conservative lifestyle along with renewable energy than I am of headlong promotion of nuclear power.
Renewables can’t give you conservation and righteousness as quick, if at all, as headlong nuclear power as well.
Please recheck your settings.
Insulating wrap: Okay, let’s add something into the analogy for the greenhouse effect. I would use some sort of pot cover / lid as a symbol for that, starting with a fairly open mesh splash screen, with the potential to adjust to slightly tighter mesh to represent increasing CO2 ghg effect.
While adding something in the place of added warming from increased CO2, the main point is the same - the primary source of heat does not have to continually increase in order to add warming. It can go up and down or not change at all and still add warming, so long as it is more than the system can handle. Adding in the screen on the pot would shift the system balance point slightly, which has the effect of adding in extra warming with the same amount of primary heat input. But, just as before, when we try to compare the warming in the latter part of the 20th century with that of the early part, the same, or more, heat input will give at least as much warming in both instances, plus whatever increased warming there would be from the greenhouse effect. To claim that essentially all of the warming in the latter part of the 20th century was due to CO2 ghg effect, because the sun didn’t / couldn’t have contributed any of that warming (IPCC-AR5), is preposterous and a giant, unsubstantiated leap outside of any scientific basis for such a leap.
I know that many people have been persuaded by catchy phrases and colourful charts, but too many of them really don’t tell us what we are told they do. They are very effective debating tools, but not necessarily sound science. I’m trying my darnedest to be rigorous, patient, open and objective with the data around global warming and its drivers. I hope those in positions of influence and policy-setting are doing the same. Unfortunately, that process is very much politicized and driven by public opinion. As a result, it is important that you and I do our best to get it right and help others do the same.
And climate scientists are not.
Are people here so disconected from reality?ITS POLITICS.If you want the climate change to end go tell the politicians and the big corperations.And they will hear us of course as they do with everything lol.Businesses and politicians do whatever they want in this world.Till they get their head out of their *** you know climate change wont end period
And because money,greed etc etc are the new god in our society this wont change .