Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Nuclear Power  (Read 166738 times)

bluice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1150 on: June 27, 2019, 07:35:45 PM »
It is telling that France achieved such emission cuts by accident that Germany cannot do on purpose

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/climate-emergency-germany-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power?cmpid=socialflow-facebook-business&utm_medium=social&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=facebook

Quote
With only seven nuclear reactors still operating in Germany, down from 17 in 2011, atomic power there seems to be in terminal decline. While renewable energy (helped by vast state subsidies) has taken up the carbon-containing slack, solar and wind installations have slowed lately because of regulatory changes and local opposition. Coal and lignite still make up a frightening 35% of Germany’s electricity mix. Hence the country is a long way from reaching its climate goals, something that’s been noted by France’s president Emmanuel Macron as he ponders how quickly to mothball his own country’s reactors.
[\quote]
In PIOMAS we trust

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1151 on: June 27, 2019, 07:45:05 PM »
It is telling that France achieved such emission cuts by accident that Germany cannot do on purpose

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/climate-emergency-germany-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power?cmpid=socialflow-facebook-business&utm_medium=social&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=facebook

Quote
With only seven nuclear reactors still operating in Germany, down from 17 in 2011, atomic power there seems to be in terminal decline. While renewable energy (helped by vast state subsidies) has taken up the carbon-containing slack, solar and wind installations have slowed lately because of regulatory changes and local opposition. Coal and lignite still make up a frightening 35% of Germany’s electricity mix. Hence the country is a long way from reaching its climate goals, something that’s been noted by France’s president Emmanuel Macron as he ponders how quickly to mothball his own country’s reactors.

Germany has a political problem and a transmission problem that have stalled/slowed their renewable progress. The coal industry, like fossil fuel industries in other countries, has fought to continue the use of coal.  They have a political base from those parts of the country where coal is a major employer.  And Germany has not had adequate transmission to move offshore wind to the southern part of the country. 

Both of those problems are on their way to being solved.  The Green Party emerged very strong from the last elections and coal is likely to have less of an ability to slow renewables.  As well, new transmission lines are being built.

It should be noted that Germany has already met the EU goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. 

Earlier Germany set its own goal of making a 30% reduction by 2020.  That goal was set before Fukushima cooked and German citizens decided they wanted to speed nuclear reactor closings.  That decision has meant that Germany will miss the 30% reduction by a year or two. 

eta: Germany reached the EU 20% reduction target in 2009 with a 25.1% drop from 1990 levels.  In 2018 Germany's CO2 emission level dropped by 27.7% which means that Germany hasn't yet missed their more ambitious goal.

(Data 2019 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy)
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 07:56:57 PM by Bob Wallace »

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1152 on: June 27, 2019, 07:45:30 PM »

This article is citing the VW boss and his opinion.

I almost fell from the sitting device i'm on, laughing - try to catch my breath.

The man who still is not convinced ICE cars aren't the future. The man who lost all his credibility. The man who lied and cheated his way to the top. This one are you citing to make an argument.

You are not citing an expert on grids, not an engineer, not a scientist. You cite this one. Dude, you have some nerves too...

bluice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1153 on: June 27, 2019, 08:27:40 PM »
German emission reductions from 1990 levels were made by closing down inefficient DDR power plants.

Btw I cited Bloomberg, not VW. VW lying about their diesel engines was clearly mentioned in the article. However that is besides the point.

It is a FACT that ”green” German per capita emissions are lot higher than French with their evil nuclear power. If German energy policy is a success, how does a failure look like?
In PIOMAS we trust

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1154 on: June 27, 2019, 09:17:37 PM »
German emission reductions from 1990 levels were made by closing down inefficient DDR power plants.

Btw I cited Bloomberg, not VW. VW lying about their diesel engines was clearly mentioned in the article. However that is besides the point.

It is a FACT that ”green” German per capita emissions are lot higher than French with their evil nuclear power. If German energy policy is a success, how does a failure look like?

Germany closed inefficient coal plants.  Therefore: Germany does not deserve credit for reducing their CO2 emissions.  Thank you for setting us straight.

(No one has claimed that Germany has succeeded.  Only that they have made progress, and were extremely helpful in lowing the cost of PV solar.)
-----------------------------------


France has one of the lower CO2 emission levels from electricity production along with several countries with very low electricity related CO2 emission levels.  That is an established fact. 

France did not build their nuclear fleet as a way to cut their CO2 emission levels.  That is another fact. 

France is like a billionaire who got that way by inheriting the fortune from a wealthy relative.  Germany is not a "low CO2 billionaire" but Germany has earned what it has achieved.

France has now decided that nuclear is too expensive and has begun installing renewables in order to first close their few coal plants and then to allow them to start closing nuclear plants.  Another fact.
-------

If you think the wisest route to a low carbon grid is building expensive nuclear reactors that take many years to bring online and create large amounts of very dangerous radioactive waste I don't know what drives your thinking.  It can't be about combating climate change because that is simply the wrong approach.

Sam

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1155 on: June 27, 2019, 09:32:18 PM »
France has done much better than most with nuclear. They have a far better safety culture than others. But, France has had its problems with nuclear too.

Heat waves from global warming have forced nuclear plant shutdowns, especially in France.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-edf-europe-heat-wave-a8477776.html

And then there is the little problem with tritium releases endangering their wine industry, and exposing populations all along the channel.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b4ed/160dcdff955b181edc725dc1733e17607f3a.pdf
https://antinuclear.net/2017/02/10/frances-andra-nuclear-waste-dump-leaked-radioactivity-into-wine-growing-area/
https://www.beveragedaily.com/Article/2006/06/01/Radioactive-waste-threatens-Champagne-vineyards

And then there are the accidents
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-accidents-idUSTRE78B59J20110912

That is vastly better than the British have done, between the releases from Sellafield, radioactive particles on the beaches, intentionally dumping radioactive iodine to the Irish Sea, nearly losing a reactor to a Wigner release in a catastrophic accident that could have been as severe as Chernobyl, from crumbling nearly abandoned spent fuel storage, and abysmal nuclear submarine operations.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-sea-radioactivity-worse-than-at-nuclear-site-1.161463
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/radioactive-particles-in-the-environment-around-dounreay
https://machholz.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/the-irish-sea-one-of-the-most-radioactive-bodies-of-water-in-the-world/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/29/sellafield-nuclear-radioactive-risk-storage-ponds-fears
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3085366/Investigation-launched-sailor-claims-Britain-s-Trident-nuclear-submarines-disaster-waiting-happen.html

Sam

bluice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1156 on: June 27, 2019, 09:42:53 PM »
I think we must reduce emissions immediately and to do this we need all available technologies. Nuclear power has a proven record of decarbonising whole electricity grids for major industrialised countries. Solar and wind have nothing in similar scale. What if they don’t work? It is foolish to completely rule out nuclear.

I understand your dislike of nuclear if your only goal is to promote renewable energy. If you really care about emission reductions you cannot categorically reject proven low carbon technologies.
In PIOMAS we trust

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1157 on: June 27, 2019, 09:59:41 PM »
Well, one can. Because one has the better arguments and real scientists, engineers and experts on their side.

One can also dismiss all logical arguments and prove and just keep being ignorant. That is, what one can also do.

Sam

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1158 on: June 27, 2019, 10:02:17 PM »
I think we must reduce emissions immediately and to do this we need all available technologies. Nuclear power has a proven record of decarbonising whole electricity grids for major industrialised countries. Solar and wind have nothing in similar scale. What if they don’t work? It is foolish to completely rule out nuclear.

I understand your dislike of nuclear if your only goal is to promote renewable energy. If you really care about emission reductions you cannot categorically reject proven low carbon technologies.

No it doesn't. It only appears to reduce carbon emissions when you ONLY look at the period of reactor operations. If you include the entire cycle from dust to rust it does not. It also can play no meaningful role in the near term, even if it could help. We simply cannot build enough capacity fast enough to make any significant difference. But then there are the inevitable accidents, and the waste to deal with - neither of which do we have any real solutions for. Nuclear is not a solution. Nuclear just adds to the problems and distracts us from vastly more effective and more immediately available solutions.

More than this, you mistake disagreement and opposition as being in some way an emotional response - which you then discount. That is entirely fallacious. It is also an extremely commonly held belief in the nuclear industry.

I am one of the more uncommon individuals who came into this field with no strong feelings in either direction. My opposition has nothing to do with an emotional response. It is entirely based in a factual based analysis of the attributes, consequences and problems that nuclear creates.

Many of the arguments you have raised incorporate a series of logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques. I in now way believe you mean to use them as you do. At least I sincerely hope you do not mean to. I doubt you even see them. And I suspect that is because of your own emotional bias in support of nuclear.

Nuclear can play no meaningful role in combatting climate change. It can lead to massive problems that hurt us collectively in that effort. And as such it is a negative that we need to drop.

On the other side of the ledger, energy use reductions through changes in housing and business design, solar (both thermal and voltaic), wind (both on and off shore), and other efforts are highly productive and becoming even better over time. Nuclear on the other hand has trouble even competing with coal. Over time as the high quality uranium resources are used up, the fuel costs (both energetically and financially) increase, as do the toxic load of nuclear waste we must deal with, and more importantly the immense load of fissile isotopes usable for weapons that we must protect, isolate and guard.

Sam

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 145
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1159 on: June 27, 2019, 10:40:00 PM »
Quote
we must reduce emissions immediately
This is so true! 

Pouring concrete (for example) for anything functionally causes emissions immediately (due to cement manufacture process).  So whatever you pour concrete for (reactor casing or windmill base, sidewalk or building foundation) better cause actual CO2 reduction real soon.  If the (CO2) pay-back period is less than a decade, it is probably part of the problem. 

...
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/climate-change-mauna-loa-carbon-dioxide-measurement-834627/

Quote
When you look at this curve, two things are obvious. First, it is a smooth upward curve, with no breaks or dips or plateaus. Despite the decline in the cost of solar power, despite all the climate marches in the streets, despite the wildfires and melting glaciers and increasing summer heat, it is very obvious that, by the only metric that really matters, we have done less than zero to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
[\quote]
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1160 on: June 27, 2019, 11:00:23 PM »
I think we must reduce emissions immediately and to do this we need all available technologies. Nuclear power has a proven record of decarbonising whole electricity grids for major industrialised countries. Solar and wind have nothing in similar scale. What if they don’t work? It is foolish to completely rule out nuclear.

I understand your dislike of nuclear if your only goal is to promote renewable energy. If you really care about emission reductions you cannot categorically reject proven low carbon technologies.

We can make electricity by hooking generators to stationary bikes and treadmills.  Hiring people to pedal bikes and walk on treadmills would cost a lot per kWh but it would reduce emissions.  Using your logic we should take some of the money we have to replace fossil fuels and set up human powered generation plants. 

Damn the torpedoes cost.  Full speed ahead!!!

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1161 on: June 28, 2019, 05:43:15 AM »
Pouring concrete

I brought up this argument many times before. Of course, they never recognised it because all arguments are dismissed by them. By default. Period.

I think at this point we should stop engaging with the platitudes and lies they spread. We can't assume that they are interested in an honest debate anymore. We should report lies and fakes to Neven so he can delete them instead of letting them cook our blood all the time.

EwanM

  • NewMembers
  • New ice
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1162 on: June 28, 2019, 08:27:01 AM »
The IPPC report from 2014 has the greenhouse gas emmissions from nuclear rougly in line with renewables and includes the full lifecycle. The median in the report of 12g/kWhr is the same as wind. The max of 110g/kWhr was a worse case scenario and based on set up in a grid dominated by fossil fuels.

Here's the link to the wikipedia article and this also contains the links to the actual IPPC report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources


Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1163 on: June 28, 2019, 08:32:47 AM »
The French government is considering buying back the 13% of shares that it does not own in EDF.  It looks like a way to hide subsidies for the nuclear fleet.

Quote
President Emmanuel Macron has given EDF until the end of this year to make proposals for an overhaul so that it can invest in new
power generation while retiring 14 of its 58 aging French atomic reactors by 2035. He has also pledged to modify a regulation on nuclear output to reduce EDF’s exposure to declines in power prices, while limiting costs for consumers when they climb.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-27/edf-delisting-is-an-option-to-help-nuclear-giant-minister-says

If the EDF's nuclear plants are protected from declining electricity prices  (i.e. don't have to suffer a loss) and consumer rates don't increase that can only mean taxpayers subsidizing nuclear.


b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1164 on: June 28, 2019, 08:46:11 AM »
That makes sense. Macron is a corporate guy who is always willing to bail out big energy.

The taxpayer will suffer because of politicians with an inability to see the future ruled them.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1165 on: June 28, 2019, 09:01:51 AM »
That makes sense. Macron is a corporate guy who is always willing to bail out big energy.

The taxpayer will suffer because of politicians with an inability to see the future ruled them.

Regardless of what Macron is, any leader of France would be in a tight spot.  You can't let the nuclear plants go bankrupt and close.  The grid would go black.  You can't allow consumer electricity prices to rapidly increase.  There would be huge numbers of people in the streets making the Yellow Vests look like a minor irritant.

President of the French Republic Lefty McLefty would have the same problem and the only solution I can see is to increase nuclear subsidies until reactors can be replaced  with cheaper renewable sourcing.

The important thing that's getting lost in politics here is that even in France paid off nuclear reactors are turning out to be too expensive.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1166 on: June 28, 2019, 09:42:31 AM »
Sure, Bob. I agree France is politically cornered right now. They have to do the switch to renewables and also carry the baggage of nuclear dead wood. Not a great position to be in.

But there are other ways to manage that.

Where do you get the money, if not from the taxpayer?

So here is a thought: Why not print the money? Isn't there a national bank? (Well, in the case of France this should be a European effort, but it's the same idea. We all face the same issues)

Money is an arbitrary concept. And since you are the government you can use it to push the economy in the right direction.

If this sounds stupid to you, you might have not heard of MMT >> https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=monetary+money+theory&hl=de&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1167 on: June 28, 2019, 09:53:09 AM »
Sure, Bob. I agree France is politically cornered right now. They have to do the switch to renewables and also carry the baggage of nuclear dead wood. Not a great position to be in.

But there are other ways to manage that.

Where do you get the money, if not from the taxpayer?

So here is a thought: Why not print the money? Isn't there a national bank? (Well, in the case of France this should be a European effort, but it's the same idea. We all face the same issues)

Money is an arbitrary concept. And since you are the government you can use it to push the economy in the right direction.

If this sounds stupid to you, you might have not heard of MMT >> https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=monetary+money+theory&hl=de&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Printing money decreases the value of existing money and causes inflation.  Taxpayers/citizens get hurt.  Don't see that as an answer. 

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1168 on: June 28, 2019, 11:17:21 AM »
Printing money decreases the value of existing money and causes inflation.

That's right, there is inflation. But how is this different from today? Or is there no inflation today?

This is how it works today: Private banks issue money. This makes them profits. Inflation is caused. Inflation is bad for the average joe in this case. He pays more for things, still earns the same.

If you change the distribution scheme and allow average joe to have the profit instead of the bank, there is still inflation, but his income rises also.

Again: Money is arbitrary. It's an economic communication device. You as the government can decide which purpose it should serve.


bluice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1169 on: June 28, 2019, 11:34:47 AM »

I brought up this argument many times before. Of course, they never recognised it because all arguments are dismissed by them. By default. Period.

I think at this point we should stop engaging with the platitudes and lies they spread. We can't assume that they are interested in an honest debate anymore. We should report lies and fakes to Neven so he can delete them instead of letting them cook our blood all the time.
Don't worry b_l, I'm not on a mission here. It's become obvious that all comments that don't categorically reject nuclear power are immediately attacked by you and few others on this forum. I have better things to do than reply strawman arguments and snarky comments.

That kind of conversation benefits no-one so on my side I will no longer continue it.

Let's watch the ice melt instead.
In PIOMAS we trust

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1170 on: June 28, 2019, 11:50:30 AM »
Thank you, Bluice.

bligh8

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1171 on: June 28, 2019, 02:43:16 PM »
Provenance of uranium particulate contained within Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 ejecta material

Nature Communications
volume10, Article number: 2801 (2019)…. open access

Abstract
Here we report the results of multiple analytical techniques on sub-mm particulate material derived from Unit 1 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant to provide a better understanding of the events that occurred and the environmental legacy. Through combined x-ray fluorescence and absorption contrast micro-focused x-ray tomography, entrapped U particulate are observed to exist around the exterior circumference of the highly porous Si-based particle. Further synchrotron radiation analysis of a number of these entrapped particles shows them to exist as UO2—identical to reactor fuel, with confirmation of their nuclear origin shown via mass spectrometry analysis. While unlikely to represent an environmental or health hazard, such assertions would likely change should break-up of the Si-containing bulk particle occur. However, more important to the long-term decommissioning of the reactors at the FDNPP (and environmental clean-upon), is the knowledge that core integrity of reactor Unit 1 was compromised with nuclear material existing outside of the reactors primary containment.

More within the paper .. interesting read
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10937-z

Sam

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1172 on: June 28, 2019, 04:21:55 PM »
Bligh8,

When the staff at Fukushima Daiichi injected salt water into the reactors they assured the utter destruction of the reactors, the vessels and the release of the cores. Water at reactor temperature and pressure is as I mentioned before a non polar solvent. Under those conditions, water reorganizes into clusters of four or six molecules that behave quite differently from the water that we know under normal conditions.

Immediately upon injection the salt in the seawater condensed and began raining out of solution. That then fell down in and around the screaming hot nuclear fuel. There it acted both as 1) an insulator, further raising the fuel temperature, 2) as a corrosive, attacking and dissolving the fuel and more importantly the steel vessel wall, and 3) as a flux to disperse the fuel matrix. At reactor conditions ppb levels of chloride in water lead to rapid chloride stress corrosion cracking of steel. Once the steel failed, the concrete is rapidly attacked by the screaming hot salty water. It too fails rapidly.

Once the salt was injected the fate of the reactors was sealed.

Most stunning of all is that even two years after the accident, in talking with an engineer who worked at the plant before, during and after the accident, and seaparately an American researcher also involved, neither knew or realized these simple realities. Both were shocked when I pointed these out.

At least one engineer with the US NRC did realize this as well at the time of the accident. That is and was clear in the correspondence between the NRC and Japanese officials at the time of the accident. Yet somehow this knowledge did not apparently make its way into the thinking of the staff involved in the accident or recovery.

This is fundamental chemistry and physics. When something so basic is missed, disaster is all but assured. High power density technologies are extremely unforgiving. Single simple failures like this lead to their rapid destruction. Whether it is something as simple as water chemistry changes with pressure and temperature, hydrogen permeation and embrittlement of metals, phase changes with temperature, differential expansion rates, parametric pumping, cavitation inducing erosion, or any of a thousand or more others, missing just one of these leads to catastrophe. Having to rely on catching all of the myriad possibilities in the design and operations leads to a huge array of potentially missed critical elements of the design. And each and all of these has massive impacts that make the real risks far different from the calculated accident scenario risks.

Sam

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1173 on: June 28, 2019, 04:26:53 PM »
Sam, I am really benefiting from the depth of the information you are sharing.  Thanks.

Sam

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1174 on: June 28, 2019, 05:04:34 PM »
Thank you Bob.

Continuing on the theme and ideas of safety and nuclear power (and other high density power systems)... 

As I said before, I believe the French have done vastly better than most with nuclear safety. They do not have a perfect record. Such is likely an impossible standard. Failures and mistakes will happen. And the systems must be in place to rapidly recognize and fix such things.

Two years ago one such failing involving the French reactors made the news. It necessitated closing 20 reactors.

https://www.ecowatch.com/france-nuclear-power-shut-down-2086414462.html

Similar problems with reactor vessels designed and built by other companies in other nations have similarly put 21 reactors including many in the US reactors in jeopardy. In contrast to the French, they remain running today. The US regulators decided to allow their continued operation.

https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2012-08-reactor-vessel-cracks-revealed-in-belgium-earlier-this-month-spark-international-inspections

https://steamshovel2002.blogspot.com/2015/05/limerick-information-on-testing-us.html

Last year four reactors were temporarily shuttered as France went through a staggering heat wave that killed 14,000 people. The rivers used to cool the reactors were both too warm to cool the reactors, and were being heated too severely by the reactor heat discharges to continue operations.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/four-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-13031498

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_European_heat_wave

A similar climate change caused heatwave in 2003 killed 15,000 in France, and 35,000 in total across Europe.

https://www.apnews.com/e9538d460760e1871098f7e6d2f2b171

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4259-european-heatwave-caused-35000-deaths/

https://www.unisdr.org/files/1145_ewheatwave.en.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

Just now France is experiencing record shattering heat caused by global warming.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/28/europe/france-record-temperature-heatwave-intl/index.html

This will get progressively worse through the coming years as climate change impacts grow worse. As it does so, and as the rivers warm, reactor operations are put further in jeopardy and closures must be expected to occur precisely when the power is most needed for cooling for protection of life and health. And that is a terribly bad design for an energy system.

Sam

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1175 on: July 02, 2019, 12:26:14 AM »
When calculating the capacity factor of nuclear power plants, is the time they are shut down due to the lack of cooling water considered?  It seems to me that this would be more stressful for the grid than compensating for the impact of the rising and setting of the sun on solar power plants.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/30/heatwave-may-force-nuclear-power-shutdown-france-cooling-water/

Quote
Drought and overheating of river water may force some of the nuclear power plants that supply two-thirds of France’s electricity to shut down temporarily in the wake of the European heatwave.

The extreme temperatures are beginning to abate, but shortages and excessive temperatures of river water needed to cool reactors are worrying EDF, the largely state-owned electricity company.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1176 on: July 02, 2019, 01:22:45 AM »
When calculating the capacity factor of nuclear power plants, is the time they are shut down due to the lack of cooling water considered?  It seems to me that this would be more stressful for the grid than compensating for the impact of the rising and setting of the sun on solar power plants.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/30/heatwave-may-force-nuclear-power-shutdown-france-cooling-water/

Quote
Drought and overheating of river water may force some of the nuclear power plants that supply two-thirds of France’s electricity to shut down temporarily in the wake of the European heatwave.

The extreme temperatures are beginning to abate, but shortages and excessive temperatures of river water needed to cool reactors are worrying EDF, the largely state-owned electricity company.

Yes, but...

If a reactor goes offline for a significant period of time for repairs in the US the EIA goes back in time and removes it's nameplate capacity from the 'available capacity' at that point in time.  A nuclear plant that is offline for  long time like Fort Calhoun was for a year does not lower the industry's capacity factor.  The same happens if a plant shuts down for repairs and never comes back online.  The plant's capacity is removed from the database on the day it breaks, not on the day there's a decision to not bring it back.

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1177 on: July 05, 2019, 06:36:37 PM »
Trip to Check Radiation After 1989 Sinking of Russian Sub
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-russian.html

A joint Norwegian-Russian expedition will assess whether a Russian submarine that sank 30 years ago is leaking radioactive material, Norwegian authorities said Friday.

The Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority say Norwegian research vessel G.O. Sars will set off Saturday from Tromsoe, northern Norway, to the Arctic Barents Sea where the Komsomolets submarine sank in 1989. Forty-two of the 69 crewmen died in a fire, and the submarine's nuclear reactor and two nuclear warheads are still on board.

The agency said a Norwegian-built remote-controlled submersible would be used and the work "would be demanding" as the submarine "lies deep" at about 1,700 meters (5,610 feet).

Norway found elevated concentrations of the radioactive substance cesium-137 around the wreck in the period 1991-1993 but said the levels were barely detectable and presented no danger. But there are no traces of such leaks around the submarine after that.

Hilde Elise Heldal of the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research said that monitoring the pollution around the submarine was "important" and would "help to ensure consumer confidence in the Norwegian fish industry."

---------------------------

Russia Reveals Its Fire-hit Mystery Submarine was Nuclear Powered
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/04/russia-reveals-its-fire-hit-mystery-submarine-was-nuclear-powered.html

New Details On Russian Submarine Fire Emerge
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28814/new-details-on-russian-submarine-fire-emerge-along-with-an-intriguing-schematic
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4695
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1178 on: July 08, 2019, 07:14:26 AM »
Nukes running out of cooling water:

" unusually hot temperatures last year forced them to reduce the plants' electricity output more than 30 times "

" So desperate was a power plant in France during last year's heat wave that it began spraying water on the outside of the building to keep the interior from overheating. Plants in the U.S., meanwhile, have regularly slashed their output by anywhere from 3% to 60%."

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-07-01/nuclear-power-once-seen-as-impervious-to-climate-change-threatened-by-heat-waves

sidd

longwalks1

  • New ice
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1179 on: July 08, 2019, 09:33:17 AM »
Another similar source on Komsomolets submarine joint Norsk-Russiam expedition.

https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2019-04-norway-and-russia-to-visit-sunken-komsomolets-sub-three-decades-after-it-sank

Quote
And while Norway has not been able to duplicate Russian results exactly, the scientists hope that their new deepsea rover, the Ægir 6000, will dislodge more answers about possible contamination hazards when it dives to the wreck on the July joint mission.

The Komsomolets put to sea in 1984, at a time when the Cold War had grown especially frosty. Advanced automated systems allowed for the sub to be operated by a relatively small crew of 69.

But what the sub lacked in sailors it made up for in firepower and stealth. Designed to go deeper than any other submarine in the world, the Komsomolets’ huge titanium hull could largely evade American detection. Nervously, the Americans responded with new submarines of their own, but none could match the clandestine depths to which the Komsomolets could dive.

Mildy interesting about the titanium hull and the maximum depth possible with present day events. 

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1180 on: July 10, 2019, 09:21:29 PM »
Wreck Of This Sunken One-Of-A-Kind Soviet Nuclear Sub Is Leaking Radiation
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28905/the-wreck-of-this-sunken-one-of-a-kind-soviet-nuclear-sub-is-leaking-radiation

A joint Russian-Norwegian team of researchers has taken new seawater samples from around the wreck of the sunken Soviet Project 685 nuclear-powered submarine K-278 Komsomolets, one of which was 100,000 times more radioactive than uncontaminated water.

The findings raise concerns that the boat is now actively leaking radiation, either from its reactor or a pair of nuclear-armed torpedoes, after sitting at the bottom of the Barents Sea for more than three decades.


The sub is resting at a very deep depth of more 5,500 feet below the surface approximately 100 nautical miles southwest of Norway's Bear Island in the Barents Sea.



After years of tests and evaluations, Komsomolets was on her first operational patrol when disaster struck in the Barents Sea on April 7, 1989. A short circuit in the engine room caused a fire that spread quickly and eventually caused the reactor to scram. The submarine, which was submerged at the time, was able to make an emergency ascent and most of the crew were able to get off. Four crew members still died as a result of the fire. Unfortunately, Soviet authorities were slow to respond to the incident and another 34 members of the 64-man crew subsequently died of hypothermia after prolonged exposure to the elements in the frigid Arctic waters.

Komsomolets burned for hours before finally sinking. She has remained at the bottom of the Barents Sea ever since. Her reactor was not the only radioactive payload on board, as she was also carrying two torpedoes with nuclear warheads
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1181 on: July 13, 2019, 05:59:03 PM »
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1182 on: July 16, 2019, 10:11:48 PM »
New setbacks for the EPRs under construction.

https://www.powermag.com/long-delayed-epr-nuclear-plants-face-further-holdups/

More than 10 years of delay for the Finnish reactor.

Quote
Setbacks have plagued the two under-construction units. Olkiluoto 3 was ordered as a turnkey delivery from a consortium formed by AREVA GmbH, AREVA NP SAS, and Siemens AG. The plant was originally expected to commence commercial operation at the end of April 2009. However, according to the latest schedule update by the plant supplier, regular production was planned to begin in January 2020. Now, it appears that timeline won’t be met.

Welding issues (that's not very reassuring) have delayed the delivery of France's EPR.  No estimated date or cost impacts have been announced.

Quote
At the Flamanville site—where work began in December 2007 and the unit was originally expected to start commercial operation in 2013—weld quality deviations have been the most-recent problem. On Dec. 3, 2018, EDF submitted to ASN a technical file presenting the procedures for repairing and upgrading the main secondary circuit welds, which had showed deficiencies with respect to break preclusion requirements. The company also submitted the specific justification method for the eight welds located in the reactor containment building structure.

Earlier this month, EDF reportedly asked ASN about the possibility of repairing the welds in 2024, after the unit was commissioned. While ASN said that would be technically feasible, it would pose a number of problems, notably with regard to demonstrating the safety of the reactor during the interim period.

In a statement, EDF said it “is currently analysing the impact of this decision on the Flamanville EPR schedule and cost, and, in the upcoming weeks, it will give a detailed update on the next steps in the project.”

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1183 on: July 17, 2019, 12:47:25 AM »
Most mega project fail because of bad communication between design and execution teams.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 03:41:32 PM by DrTskoul »

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1184 on: July 17, 2019, 03:42:51 PM »
Nuclear Agency Considers Reducing Inspections Of Reactors

What can go wrong....

Link



DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1187 on: July 24, 2019, 01:18:46 AM »
Got to read that back in the past first... too much infooo...   ;D ;D

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1188 on: July 29, 2019, 05:24:07 PM »
Ro5 Researchers Indicate Radioactive Readings in 2017 Due to Unreported Nuclear Plant Accident; Major Nuclear Release
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-ro5-radioactive-major-nuclear.html

After the Chernobyl accident in 1986, scientists in Europe realized that a network of radiation monitoring stations was the best way to detect and alert the public to fallout from nuclear accidents. Scientists in five countries, Finland, Sweden, the Federal Republic of Germany, Denmark and Norway, set up such a network, which they called the Ro5. Scientists from other European countries have joined the network over the years, but the name has remained.



Two years ago, members of the network began reporting higher-than-normal levels of ruthenium 106 (106Ru). The levels were not high enough to be considered dangerous, but the area of detection was large enough to suggest something unusual had happened—some suspected a nuclear accident at a facility in Russia. But Russian officials insisted the levels were due to a release from a disintegrating satellite. In this new effort, 69 researchers from across Europe together found evidence that very strongly suggests the radioactivity they observed came from a Russian nuclear power plant in a southern part of the Urals—likely Majak.

Research by the team consisted of combining and compiling 1,100 atmospheric readings and 200 readings taken on the ground. The researchers were able to conclude that the radioactivity was not from a satellite. They further report that levels of radioactivity varied widely, from tenths of µBq·m−3 to over 150 mBq·m−3. They also found that the widespread nature of the readings suggested an unprecedented release of 106Ru. By looking at the data placed over a map, they were able to trace it back to its source—in the Southern Urals in Russia.


HYSPLIT-based 240-h backward trajectories ending at the Romanian monitoring station in Zimnicea (black star) (43.666 N, 25.666 E), every 3 h on September 30, 2017, from 2 AM to 11 PM UTC. The green circle indicates the position of the Mayak industrial complex. The altitude of the air parcels is given in meters above ground level (AGL). The green circle in the altitude sections of the trajectories ending at 3 PM and 5 PM UTC (maps surrounded by red frames), respectively, indicates the time and altitude (approximately 500 m) the air parcels were in closest proximity to the Mayak area.

The researchers suggest the evidence indicates that there was likely an unreported nuclear plant accident.



... On September 29, 1957, a chemical explosion took place in a radioactive waste storage tank at the Mayak nuclear complex, causing a massive release of radionuclides. The accident became known as the “Kyshtym accident.” In the course of this accident, about 2,700 TBq of 106Ru (together with various other radionuclides) were released into the environment, causing a significant contamination in a more than 100-km-long strip that has been termed the East Urals Radioactive Trace (23).

Although such incidents have become rare events in recent years, 106Ru was released from nuclear reprocessing facilities in the past on multiple occasions. On September 26, 1973, following an exothermic reaction at the Windscale reprocessing plant (United Kingdom), 35 workers were contaminated through an atmospheric release of 106Ru estimated at 0.37 TBq (25). On April 6, 1993, an explosion at the reprocessing plant of the Tomsk-7 nuclear complex (Siberia, Russian Federation) led to the release of approximately 0.52 TBq of 106Ru among other fission products and actinides (26, 27). About 200 km2 were contaminated. On May 18, 2001 and October 31, 2001, a failure in the vitrification shops at the La Hague reprocessing plant (France) led to an atmospheric release of 106Ru. Based on aerosols sampled at 200 km downwind from the stack and grass sampled in the vicinity, the first release was estimated between 0.005 and 0.05 TBq, while the second was estimated to range between 0.0005 and 0.02 TBq (28). Significant atmospheric releases also occurred from the early Hanford operations that were linked to United States nuclear weapons production, with 106Ru (14 TBq from 1944 to 1972) being a relatively minor constituent (compared with 2.7 EBq 131I in the same time span) (29).

For comparison, the present, undeclared accident released an estimated activity of 250 TBq at once.

Open Access: O. Masson et al. Airborne concentrations and chemical considerations of radioactive ruthenium from an undeclared major nuclear release in 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2019)

------------------------

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

------------------------


"What's a little fallout, eh?" ... "Have a nice day!"
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Sam

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1189 on: July 29, 2019, 06:07:00 PM »
The release could have been from a nuclear accident. However, the analysis reported in the paper makes a persuasive case that this was gaseous release of RuO4 from production of Ce144 from VVER fuel reprocessed less than two years out of the reactor for the express purpose of Ce144 production for an antineutrino experiment in Italy.

Ruthenium is notoriously difficult to control during reprocessing. Huge releases occurred during the reprocessing of fuel for plutonium production in both the US and Russia. These often occurred as "crud bursts" from material that plated out in the exhaust stacks. In this case, the composition and properties of the material do not match that, and instead appear to be from a gaseous release source amounting to about 7-10% of the inventory produced during the production run.

What this points out I believe is that even when run as intended, nuclear facilities can have and do often have large uncontrolled releases of dangerous radionuclides.

Sam

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1190 on: July 29, 2019, 10:26:33 PM »
Ya, I read that. A nuclear release 675 times larger than the Windscale accident is one helluva 'crud burst'. It doesn't sound like something that should be swept under the carpet. They could have mentioned it to the neighbors at least.


No. All those bald children are arousing suspicion.

-----------------------

“Nuclear Energy is Never Profitable”, New Study Slams Nuclear Power Business Case

A new study of the economics of nuclear power has found that nuclear power has never been financially viable, finding that most plants have been built while heavily subsidised by governments, and often motivated by military purposes, and is not a good approach to tackling climate change.

The study has come from DIW Berlin, a leading German economic think-tank, and found that the average 1,000MW nuclear power plant built since 1951 resulted in an average economic loss of 4.8 billion euros ($7.7 billion AUD).


The report published by the German Institute for Economic Research (known as DIW Berlin) reviewed the development of 674 nuclear power plants built since 1951, finding that none of the plants was built using ‘private capital under competitive conditions’.

“The results showed that in all cases, an investment would generate significant financial losses. The (weighted) average net present value was around minus 4.8 billion euros,” the study says.

“Even in the best case, the net present value was approximately minus 1.5 billion euros. The authors included conservative assumptions with high electricity prices, low capital costs, and specific investment. Considering all assumptions regarding the uncertain parameters, nuclear energy is never profitable.”



DIW Berlin calculated that for every 1,000 Megawatts of nuclear power capacity that has been built since 1951, there were average economic losses of between 1.5 to 8.9 billion Euros ($A2.4 to $A14.3 Billion).

The report echoes an estimate of the costs of new electricity generation in Australia produced by the CSIRO, which found that renewables remain the cheapest cost form of new electricity generation, with nuclear power amongst the most expensive, as a result of substantial upfront costs to build a nuclear plant.

Report: High-Priced and Dangerous: Nuclear Power Is Not an Option for the Climate-Friendly Energy Mix
« Last Edit: July 29, 2019, 10:50:33 PM by vox_mundi »
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Sam

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1191 on: July 29, 2019, 10:46:56 PM »
A nuclear release 675 times larger than the Windscale accident is one helluva 'crud burst'. It doesn't sound like something that should be swept under the carpet. They should have mentioned it to the neighbors.

I not only agree, I am of the mind that given the enormous costs (financial, health, societal, ...) that these facilities impose on society that the only viable answer is to shutter and dismantle all of them as quickly as can be reasonably done.

Sam

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2030
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1192 on: July 30, 2019, 09:13:18 PM »
does anyone have thoughts on the need for large amounts of zero emission electricity to decarbonize the global economy vs. the precautionary principle for the implementation of new nuclear power systems under a growing threat of total societal collapse, leading to long-term unrestrained contamination of seashores and waterways?
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1193 on: July 30, 2019, 09:38:54 PM »
In the absence of population reduction, all 'wicked problems' are insolvable.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Sam

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1194 on: July 30, 2019, 09:39:57 PM »
does anyone have thoughts on the need for large amounts of zero emission electricity to decarbonize the global economy vs. the precautionary principle for the implementation of new nuclear power systems under a growing threat of total societal collapse, leading to long-term unrestrained contamination of seashores and waterways?

The presumption of your question seems to be that nuclear produces "zero emission electricity". That is false. Nuclear requires enormous inputs of energy from fossil fuels for the construction of the facilities, the mining of ore, the processing of the ore, enrichment of the uranium to fuel usable enrichment levels, fuel fabrication, substitute power during long refueling periods, peaking plants to handle nuclear's inability to handle variations in power output, dismantlement post operations, & processing, entombment and guarding of the wastes.

It is very far from "zero emission electricity".

More over, this presumes accident free operation. As has already been amply shown in real world operation, the design of nuclear plants waves away the high consequence disasters as being too rare and too expensive to consider in design and mitigation. As a direct result, when (not if) a severe accident occurs, the consequences are nation busting events that require massive energy investments (not to mention financial costs, life impacts, diseases ...) to deal with those consequences.

None of these things are counted toward the carbon emissions budget for nuclear.

And then there is the "little" problem of how to deal with the legacy of nuclear operations during societal collapse. Under those conditions, the likelihood of catastrophic failure and consequences increase dramatically.

Sam

Sam

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1195 on: July 30, 2019, 09:40:29 PM »
In the absence of population reduction, all 'wicked problems' are insolvable.

Bravo. Absolutely true.

Sam

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5812
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 962
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1196 on: July 30, 2019, 09:47:15 PM »
We do not need nuclear power.

We know that a mixture of wind, solar, with battery & hydropower etc backup plus perhaps a bit of over-build the complete replacement of fossil fuel electricity generation is possible in a cheaper and more timely manner than nuclear.

How many times have we gone through this on this forum?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

El Cid

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 472
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1197 on: July 30, 2019, 09:53:04 PM »
We do not need nuclear power.

We know that a mixture of wind, solar, with battery & hydropower etc backup plus perhaps a bit of over-build the complete replacement of fossil fuel electricity generation is possible in a cheaper and more timely manner than nuclear.

Let's add one very important thing that currently is missing in Europe: high capacity transmission lines connecting North to South and East to West. With all countries well connected, renewables are alone enough

interstitial

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1198 on: July 30, 2019, 09:57:00 PM »
We do not need nuclear power.

We know that a mixture of wind, solar, with battery & hydropower etc backup plus perhaps a bit of over-build the complete replacement of fossil fuel electricity generation is possible in a cheaper and more timely manner than nuclear.

How many times have we gone through this on this forum?
Agreed

There is nothing new to say here its a dead subject.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1199 on: July 30, 2019, 10:26:27 PM »
We do not need nuclear power.

We know that a mixture of wind, solar, with battery & hydropower etc backup plus perhaps a bit of over-build the complete replacement of fossil fuel electricity generation is possible in a cheaper and more timely manner than nuclear.

Let's add one very important thing that currently is missing in Europe: high capacity transmission lines connecting North to South and East to West. With all countries well connected, renewables are alone enough

You assume that it is easy to solve that problem....