Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Nuclear Power  (Read 261227 times)

domen_

  • New ice
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #150 on: November 06, 2014, 08:53:43 PM »
Michael Mann short comment on nuclear:



at 57:10

Not as enthusiastic about nuclear as Hansen.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #151 on: December 03, 2014, 10:00:34 PM »
Ukrainian PM reports accident at nuclear power plant.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0JH0ZV20141203
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #153 on: January 06, 2015, 04:51:36 AM »
Utilities are closing nuclear plants due to lower energy costs from other sources.
Quote
Exelon Corp. (EXC), the biggest U.S. owner of nuclear reactors, needs to almost double power prices to keep a New York plant running in a move that promises to show just how far regulators will go to keep uneconomic plants operating.
...
Exelon isn’t alone in its struggle with at-risk plants. Four U.S. nuclear reactors were shut in 2013 because they weren’t profitable or needed repairs that owners decided were too costly. Entergy’s Vermont Yankee was closed after it failed to find a buyer. The company blamed “artificially low” power prices for the shutdown.

‘Extraordinary Amount’

A single-unit reactor like Ginna needs as much as $71 a megawatt-hour to earn an 11 percent return and $56 to $64 to break even, based on 2016 forecasts, Exelon said.
...
“Ginna will likely request a contract approximately $80 million a year greater than the market cost of electricity,” said Jessica Azulay, program director of the Syracuse, New York-based Alliance, in a filing. “This is an extraordinary amount of money to be demanded of ratepayers to prop up a private company that has become uncompetitive in the market.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-05/new-york-reactor-s-survival-tests-pricey-nuclear.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #154 on: January 30, 2015, 01:00:08 AM »
Quote
Two days after a major New England blizzard contributed to the shutdown of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., the facility remains closed.

Due to climate change, more of the most extreme precipitation events, such as this recent snowfall, are expected to slam the area in the coming decades. Nuclear power critics cite the Pilgrim shutdown as proof the industry isn't ready now—and won't be any time soon.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20150129/winter-storm-exposes-vulnerability-nuclear-power-plants
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #155 on: February 09, 2015, 12:55:41 AM »
James Hansen on nuclear power.



With emissions increasing at 2.5% per year (average for the past 20 years) we really need to use every non carbon technology that is available if we are to avoid a catastrophic climate change event.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #156 on: April 19, 2015, 03:58:53 PM »
Why Nuclear Power Is All but Dead in the U.S.
Where there's a will, there's a way. In the U.S.: Not much will.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-15/soon-it-may-be-easier-to-build-a-nuclear-plant-in-iran-than-in-the-u-s-

Watts Bar Unit 2 was about 80% complete when its construction was stopped in 1988. It is currently being refurbished and tested, and expected to begin commercial operation in 2016, in historically coal-heavy Tennessee.  It will be the first "new" U.S. nuclear energy this century.
http://www.tva.gov/power/nuclear/wattsbar_unit2.htm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Unit_2_construction_project
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #157 on: May 25, 2015, 01:56:32 PM »
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

ghoti

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #158 on: May 25, 2015, 05:52:08 PM »
This is just dumb. Japan gets quakes of magnitude 5 extremely often - several a month. The quake that devastated Japan was roughly 10,000 times larger. I'm not saying there aren't issues for Japan nuclear but an article hyping a magnitude 5 because it is on an anniversary or on a day plants restart is just silly and not news worthy.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #159 on: June 30, 2015, 02:20:27 PM »
How far along is Germany's nuclear phase-out?
Four years after Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power completely, the country's oldest remaining reactor has been shut down. But is Germany's nuclear phase-out on track - and what obstacles does it face?
http://www.dw.com/en/how-far-along-is-germanys-nuclear-phase-out/a-18547065
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

slow wing

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 819
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 498
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #160 on: July 01, 2015, 02:19:45 AM »
This is just dumb. Japan gets quakes of magnitude 5 extremely often - several a month. The quake that devastated Japan was roughly 10,000 times larger. I'm not saying there aren't issues for Japan nuclear but an article hyping a magnitude 5 because it is on an anniversary or on a day plants restart is just silly and not news worthy.
A couple of points:

1) the Tōhoku earthquake, of magnitude 9.0, and tsunami causing the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was actually more than 100,000 times larger in energy released than the recently reported magnitude 5.6 quake - see definition here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale
(note the "2/3" factor in the defining equation)
That would tend to support your argument, but...

2) prior to the Fukushima disaster, another power plant (Japan's biggest) had already been shut down in 2007 after a nearby earthquake of magnitude 6.6 - i.e. only 30 times the energy of the recent quake and only 1/4000th of the energy of the Tōhoku earthquake. The plant was completely shut down for 21 months and 3 of the 7 reactors were never restarted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant


  With Japan so active seismically, it's really just a question of when the next seismic nuclear disaster will be whenever nuclear power plants are in operation.

  More than 4 years after the Fukushima disaster, Japan still has all nuclear power plants shut down, though 24 of the 50+ reactors are in the process of restart.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/22/japan-moves-nearer-to-restarting-nuclear-reactors-after-court-gives-go-ahead
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Japan/


  In my view, Japan should not restart nuclear power but should instead move aggressively towards 100% sustainable energy technologies.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 04:38:40 AM by slow wing »

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #161 on: July 16, 2015, 04:00:50 PM »
Quote
TOKYO (Reuters) - Solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy besides hydro-electric dams now supply more electricity than nuclear in Japan, China, India and five other major economies accounting for about half the world's population, an atomic industry report shows.

While nuclear stations on average produce about twice as much electricity as renewables annually for every kilowatt installed, the high growth of solar, wind and other renewables means atomic power is fast being eclipsed as nations turn away from the energy source after the Fukushima disaster in Japan.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0PP0AX20150715
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

anotheramethyst

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #163 on: August 11, 2015, 08:14:41 PM »
U.S.:  TVA Completes Comprehensive Testing of Watts Bar Unit 2 Systems, demonstrating readiness to prepare to load fuel.
Quote
Located near Spring City, [Tennessee], Watts Bar Unit 2 is approximately 99 percent complete and remains on target to become the first new nuclear generation of the 21st century. When online, it will produce 1,150 megawatts of carbon-free electricity. Combined with the output of the operational Unit 1, the Watts Bar plant will then meet the power needs of 1.3 million homes.
http://www.tva.com/news/releases/julsep15/wb2_comprehensive_testing_complete.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

mati

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #164 on: August 11, 2015, 11:34:40 PM »
U.S.:  TVA Completes Comprehensive Testing of Watts Bar Unit 2 Systems, demonstrating readiness to prepare to load fuel.
Quote
Located near Spring City, [Tennessee], Watts Bar Unit 2 is approximately 99 percent complete and remains on target to become the first new nuclear generation of the 21st century. When online, it will produce 1,150 megawatts of carbon-free electricity. Combined with the output of the operational Unit 1, the Watts Bar plant will then meet the power needs of 1.3 million homes.
http://www.tva.com/news/releases/julsep15/wb2_comprehensive_testing_complete.html

about time the US worked on getting it's baseload off of coal and gas.... hopefully this transitional use of nuclear will allow for the proper integration of renewables into the electrical grid.
and so it goes

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #165 on: September 04, 2015, 09:14:28 PM »
New nuclear power in UK would be the world's most costly, says report
Quote
A total of 11 new nuclear units are planned in the UK, with a combined capacity of nearly 16GW. These are expected to play a key role in decarbonising the UK's power supplies, a step that is essential if the UK is to reach its longer-term economy-wide climate targets cost-effectively.

The first of these was expected to be the Hinkley C scheme, a consortium led by French firm EDF building two European Pressurised Water Reactors (EPRs) with a total capacity of 3.2GW. A UK white paper in 2008 said this much nuclear could be bought for £5.6bn.

Originally intended to start operating in 2017, the project was later pushed back to 2023, at a cost of £16bn. Today, EDF said it would be even later because of delays finalising the contract. China General Nuclear Group is due to back the scheme, leading to speculation a deal will be announced when Chinese president Xi Jinping visits the UK on 20 October.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/09/new-nuclear-power-in-uk-would-be-the-worlds-most-costly-says-report/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

mati

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #166 on: September 04, 2015, 10:32:19 PM »
what a beaurocratic nightmare.  building a standard model reactor should not cause such time and money overruns UNLESS someone is pocketing lots of money, or the design is stupid.
and so it goes

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #167 on: October 13, 2015, 04:37:30 PM »
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #168 on: October 23, 2015, 11:29:35 PM »
Say Hello to the First New U.S. Nuclear Plant in Almost 20 Years

The NRC has approved the Watts Bar 2 Reactor
Quote
Remember the last time a new nuclear power plant opened up in the U.S.? If not, that’s excusable. It wasn’t in this century. It was Watts Bar in Tennessee, which opened for business in May 1996.
...
Watts Bar Unit 2 is new because it just got permission to operate, but its design and technology are very much a thing of the past. Construction at Watts Bar actually began way back in 1973, and continued until 1985. That’s when major safety concerns delayed the opening of the first reactor until 1996 and TVA abandoned plans to finish the second, which they only decided to restart in 2007.

“It’s a 20th-century reactor—it’s not a 21st-century reactor,” says Dave Lochbaum, who worked for the TVA as a nuclear engineer in the 1980s and now directs the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It’s called ‘new build’ but there’s an asterisk on that.”

The TVA’s decision not to try something new and fancy was a practical one, Lochbaum explains: There was less risk in replicating a design they had already built and operated for years. That means, though, that Watts Bar 2 tells us less about the next generation of nuclear plants than the facilities under construction in South Carolina and Georgia, which will use a newer, more modular Westinghouse AP1000 reactor that is billed as being safer and more cost-effective.
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/10/say-hello-to-the-first-new-us-nuclear-plant-in-almost-20-years/411850/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Theta

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 174
  • Grips
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #169 on: October 23, 2015, 11:48:02 PM »
I always thought support for nuclear was reasonable, but since this forum is a Climate Change forum that focuses on possible disruption because of Climate Change, there is the issue of Spent Fuel Rods, so in essence, nuclear power has the capacity to change the face of planet earth in a fashion that probably outweighs climate change because from my understanding; spent fuel rod fire = nuclear wasteland.
Can't think of a signature

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #170 on: October 24, 2015, 07:11:49 AM »
Quote
I always thought support for nuclear was reasonable, but since this forum is a Climate Change forum that focuses on possible disruption because of Climate Change, there is the issue of Spent Fuel Rods, so in essence, nuclear power has the capacity to change the face of planet earth in a fashion that probably outweighs climate change because from my understanding; spent fuel rod fire = nuclear wasteland.

Hansen is constantly warning that spreading anti science misinformation about nuclear energy is counterproductive to CO2 emissions reduction.   
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf

Chernobyl which had no containment dome was the worst nuclear accident in history yet the other reactors at the site continued to operate into the 1990’s with the last closing in 1999.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html

This NRC site also refers to the United Nations UNSCEAR and WHO reports on the health effects of this accident.
These are insignificant compared to the burning of fossil and biomass fuels for energy, where 8 million people die annually from indoor and outdoor carbon pollution.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

The Chernobyl exclusion zone has also seen the return of many wildlife species suggesting that the presence of humans is much more dangerous than radiation.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00988-4


The scientific evidence shows nuclear power generation is much safer than fossil fuel power generation even before the climate change consequences are considered.

History shows only one successful total transition to non fossil carbon electrical energy generation, France which built 63GW of nuclear between 1975 and 1995.  Today their emissions are just 77gms/kWh, 5 times less than Denmark and 6 times less than Germany.
See page 71, Table 1 of this paper.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03721426.2015.1035217

Theta

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 174
  • Grips
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #171 on: October 24, 2015, 02:49:32 PM »
Quote
I always thought support for nuclear was reasonable, but since this forum is a Climate Change forum that focuses on possible disruption because of Climate Change, there is the issue of Spent Fuel Rods, so in essence, nuclear power has the capacity to change the face of planet earth in a fashion that probably outweighs climate change because from my understanding; spent fuel rod fire = nuclear wasteland.

Hansen is constantly warning that spreading anti science misinformation about nuclear energy is counterproductive to CO2 emissions reduction.   
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf

Chernobyl which had no containment dome was the worst nuclear accident in history yet the other reactors at the site continued to operate into the 1990’s with the last closing in 1999.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html

This NRC site also refers to the United Nations UNSCEAR and WHO reports on the health effects of this accident.
These are insignificant compared to the burning of fossil and biomass fuels for energy, where 8 million people die annually from indoor and outdoor carbon pollution.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

The Chernobyl exclusion zone has also seen the return of many wildlife species suggesting that the presence of humans is much more dangerous than radiation.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00988-4


The scientific evidence shows nuclear power generation is much safer than fossil fuel power generation even before the climate change consequences are considered.

History shows only one successful total transition to non fossil carbon electrical energy generation, France which built 63GW of nuclear between 1975 and 1995.  Today their emissions are just 77gms/kWh, 5 times less than Denmark and 6 times less than Germany.
See page 71, Table 1 of this paper.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03721426.2015.1035217

Yeah, but if we continue in the direction that we are going, nuclear power will mean nothing because people will abandon these sites, and the long term problems will lead to horrible consequences that could even be worse than Climate Change

Here's why:

Quote
A typical 1 GWe PWR core contains about 80 t fuels. Each year about one third of the core fuel is discharged into the pool. A pool with 15 year storage capacity will hold about 400 t spent fuel.

To estimate the Cs-137 inventory in the pool, for example, we assume the Cs137 inventory at shutdown is about 0.1 MCi/tU with a burn-up of 50,000 MWt-day/tU, thus the pool with 400 t of ten year old SNF would hold about 33 MCi Cs-137. [7]

Assuming a 50-100% Cs137 release during a spent fuel fire, [8] the consequence of the Cs-137 exceed those of the Chernobyl accident 8-17 times (2MCi release from Chernobyl). Based on the wedge model, the contaminated land areas can be estimated. [9] For example, for a scenario of a 50% Cs-137 release from a 400 t SNF pool, about 95,000 km² (as far as 1,350 km) would be contaminated above 15 Ci/km² (as compared to 10,000 km² contaminated area above 15 Ci/km² at Chernobyl).

Risk of Spent Fuel Pools at Reprocessing Plants

Another risk is from the spent fuel pools at reprocessing plants.

A reprocessing plant has even greater pool storage capacity than that of a reactor pool. Before reprocessing, the received spent fuels are stored in wet pools at the reprocessing plants.

The buildings that house the pools could be even weaker than those pools at reactor sites. In particular, the roof of the building could be more vulnerable. Most of the sabotage scenarios conceivable for reactor pools could be applied to these pools at reprocessing plants.

Even though this would not ignite a spent fuel fire, a significant fraction of Cs-137 in the rods could be released into the atmosphere. For example, a pool with 2,000 t ten-year-old SNF would hold about 170 MCi Cs-137. If 3% of this Cs-137 inventory were released, [17] about 5 MCi Cs-137 would be released, which is two times more than the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Furthermore, terrorists could pour fuel in the pool and start a fire that would cause ignition of the zircaloy cladding and lead to a greater release of the Cs-137 inventory.

Recent results from France indicate that heating at 1,500 °C of high-burnup spent fuel for one hour caused the release of 26% of the Cs inventory. [18]

Thus it would release about 44 MCi of Cs-137 into the environment, which would be twenty times more than the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

Some experts are already concerned about the possible consequence of a terrorist attack on the La Hague nuclear reprocessing facilities.

As a COGEMA-La Hague spokesman declared after September 11, as far as the design basis is concerned, the facilities are no more protected against an airliner crash than any other nuclear power station. [20]

The World Information Service on Energy, Wise-Paris, estimated the potential impact of a major accident in La Hague’s pools. [21] The calculation was made for the case of an explosion and/or fire in the spent fuel storage pool D (the smallest one), assuming that it is filled up to half of its normal capacity of 3,490 t, supposing a release of up to 100% of Cs-137.

Based solely on the stock of Cs-137 in pool D, it is shown that a major accident in this pool could have an impact up to 67 times that of the Chernobyl accident.

Moreover, the total Cs-137 inventory in the pools of La Hague reprocessing facilities is about 7,500 kg, 280 times as much as the Cs-137 amount released from the 1986 Chernobyl accident.


http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/364/radiological_terrorism.html
Can't think of a signature

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7755
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1133
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #172 on: December 28, 2015, 10:37:59 AM »

Is that including clean-up and storage of radioactive materials, because France is having problems with that (costing way much more money than anticipated, and money often is a proxy for energy use).

Neven
The nuclear waste total volumes are very small, just 2700 cubic metres of high-level waste (HLW) by 2010 and expected to be just 5,300 cubic metres by 2030.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-France_details_nuclear_waste_inventory-0608124.html
Thanks for this. At the end of the article it says: "Assuming that France's current fleet of nuclear power reactors are granted 50-year operating lives and that all used fuel is processed, Andra forecasts that the national radioactive waste inventory will increase to 1.9 million m3 by 2020, with 45,000 m3 of ILW and 4000 m3 of HLW. By 2030, the inventory will reach 2.7 million m3, with 49,000 m3 of ILW and 5300 m3 of HLW."

I really know nothing of the subject, but do this numbers include the entire decommissioning of nuclear power plants? How much energy/CO2 does it take to tear down, transport and bury 2.7 million m3 of concrete and other materials? Is this included in the 40 g/kWh number?

I'm not so much interested in the high-level radiating stuff (although I think burying something for thousands of years is pretty crazy), but in the amount of CO2 it takes to dispose of the bulky, low-level stuff.

Quote
Note also the IPCC reports that “The life cycle GHG emissions per kWh from nuclear power plants are two orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil-fuelled electricity generation and comparable to most renewables.”
If it's comparable to most renewables, then it would make sense to go for renewables, because a) much easier to build out fast, starting now (nuclear takes ages) and b) decentralized power is much better for democracy.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #173 on: December 28, 2015, 12:13:07 PM »
I really know nothing of the subject, but do this numbers include the entire decommissioning of nuclear power plants? How much energy/CO2 does it take to tear down, transport and bury 2.7 million m3 of concrete and other materials? Is this included in the 40 g/kWh number?
Neven, nobody can tell this for sure today. We do not have scientific data because the first    retreating working (? proper translation for "Rückbau", deconstruction?) is still in the work since 1995 (plant Greifswald). It is safe to say that the deconstruction takes longer and is more expensive than the construction http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/rueckbau-von-atomkraftwerken-der-teuerste-abriss-der-geschichte-1.2402674 . For the larger power plants no experience exists.

Here in Germany the operators of the nuclear power plants were forced to accumulate reserves (money) for the deconstruction. It is not clear if the money will be enough (40 billions) and if the operators will survive, since the same operators loose money everyday by burning lignite.

The storage of the radioactive materials is of course the matter of the people and their children (by law, that promise was to convince the industry to get into the nuclear boat in former days). It is likely, that we will have to take care for that waste for ever. Just take a closer look at the "ultimate disposal place" for low/medium radioactive material "Asse II" which collapsed allready and everthing has to be removed from there https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schachtanlage_Asse .

(Attached picture: nuclear waste "stored" 750 below surface, source: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/probleme-bei-bergung-atommuell-muss-womoeglich-in-der-asse-bleiben-13595392.html )

No - we do not have any scientific data for the treatment of relicts of nuclear power plants. It is just trial and error. With a lot of errors...
« Last Edit: December 28, 2015, 12:18:19 PM by SATire »

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #174 on: December 29, 2015, 03:24:33 AM »
China’s Trillion Dollar Nuclear Plan

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Chinas-1-Trillion-Nuclear-Plan.html

"China is big on Five Year Plans, and its latest one, which covers 2016-2020, has the government investing $78 billion to build seven new reactors a year from 2016 for the next five years. According to the plan, the country will reach 88 gigawatts of nuclear power by the end of 2020. By 2030 China is expected to have 110 reactors in operation and by 2050, the country will need around $1 trillion to expand its atomic capacity by up to 250 gigawatts, which would account for a quarter of the world's nuclear power, according to the International Energy Agency."

Chinese annual electricity CO2 emissions are currently 3.5 billion tonnes (700g/kWh).

If this nuclear plan reduces emissions to French levels (40g/kWh), then this will be a significant win for CO2 mitigation and the climate.

If China only uses weather dependent renewable energy and achieves German levels (512g/kWh) the CO2 mitigation savings will be less than required as they will still be dependent on coal to provide electricity when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. 
« Last Edit: December 29, 2015, 03:38:21 AM by tombond »

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #175 on: January 03, 2016, 07:31:56 PM »
Paris Fails to Revive the Nuclear Dream
Quote
In Paris, in early December, the advocates of nuclear power made yet another appeal to world leaders to adopt their technology as central to saving the planet from dangerous climate change.

Yet analysis of the plans of 195 governments that signed up to the Paris agreement, each with their own individual schemes on how to reduce national carbon emissions, show that nearly all of them exclude nuclear power.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/31/paris-fails-nuclear-dream/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #176 on: January 04, 2016, 01:50:51 AM »
Paris Fails to Revive the Nuclear Dream
Quote
In Paris, in early December, the advocates of nuclear power made yet another appeal to world leaders to adopt their technology as central to saving the planet from dangerous climate change.

Yet analysis of the plans of 195 governments that signed up to the Paris agreement, each with their own individual schemes on how to reduce national carbon emissions, show that nearly all of them exclude nuclear power.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/31/paris-fails-nuclear-dream/


The bottom line as Hansen keeps pointing out is CO2 emissions from fossil fuel generation, particularly coal must be reduced to near zero by mid-century or just after if we are to avoid the catastrophic effects of global warming.

History tells us that the most significant emissions reductions have been achieved using nuclear power as demonstrated by France which in just 20 years replaced nearly all its fossil fuel electricity generation.
http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/chiffres-cles-en

History also shows that no country has achieved the same scale of reductions using renewables, energy efficiency measures or fossil carbon capture and storage as indicated by most COP21 plans.

If we are serious about CO2 mitigation we must use every technology available to achieve the emission reductions required.

In my country, Australia both major political parties just use climate change and carbon mitigation issues for short term political gain while maintaining the status quo.  Until there is bipartisan agreement like the UK we will make no progress on emissions reduction.

The UK Climate Change Act established the world’s first legally binding climate change target.  It aims to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% (from the 1990 baseline) by 2050.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-greenhouse-gas-emissions/2010-to-2015-government-policy-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

This Act and the subsequent Carbon Plan, based on science not ideology has the support of the three major political parties in the UK.

The Carbon Plan can be found at;
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/47621/1358-the-carbon-plan.pdf

A government video (unfortunately poor quality) detailing the Carbon Plan progress and future emission reduction goals can be found at;
http://www.iema.net/event-reports/uk-carbon-plan-decc

The Carbon Plan uses every CO2 mitigation strategy that is available and if every global major economy had a similar plan, there would be real hope that emissions could be reduced sufficiently to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Note that Professor David McKay (I am not anti renewables, I am pro arithmetic, plans must add up!) had a big input into this Carbon Plan.


silkman

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #177 on: January 04, 2016, 09:40:47 AM »
Tom

I fervently wish that your faith in the previous UK Coalition Government's Carbon Plan was well placed.

Yes, it was both ground breaking and legally binding when driven through by the Conservative's Liberal Democrat partners as a price for their support but has it has any real impact? The simple answer is no.


Cameron moved rapidly from his commitment to be the "greenest government ever" to "getting rid of this green crap" and through obfuscation, neglect and budget cuts has quietly canned the Plan.

Here's just a few examples:

Electricity generation - reduction in renewable support through feed in tariffs,  continued subsidies for Carbon industries, a massive push for fracking and cancellation of CCS investment.

Housing - cancellation of the Green Deal and abandonment of plans to tighten Building Regulations

Transport - commitment to a new runway at Heathrow

The list goes on.

I don't think you can look to the current UK government for leadership right now, I'm afraid.




tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #178 on: January 04, 2016, 11:24:42 AM »
Silkman
 
At least you have a realistic Carbon Plan with goals out to 2050, here in Oz we only have rhetoric and minimal goals which are supported by the voting public.

To date your plan is heading in the right direction and as the climate issue becomes more urgent in the eyes of the voters it will become more and more important for Governments to meet the Carbon Plan commitments or pay the price at the ballot box.

If the global and UK community generally does not give support to such plans then our descendants will bear the consequences.

silkman

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #179 on: January 04, 2016, 01:02:14 PM »
Tom

I totally agree that the Plan was visionary, pointed us very much in the right direction and had the potential to allow us to take a leadership role as the world (hopefully) starts to recognise the existential nature of the threat.

I'm sorry to say that, as ever, short term political expediency has pushed the long term agenda onto the back burner.

We'll miss our 2020 targets, let alone later ones. Sorry to be so negative!

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #180 on: January 04, 2016, 02:44:27 PM »
History tells us that the most significant emissions reductions have been achieved using nuclear power as demonstrated by France which in just 20 years replaced nearly all its fossil fuel electricity generation.
http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/chiffres-cles-en

History also shows that no country has achieved the same scale of reductions using renewables, energy efficiency measures or fossil carbon capture and storage as indicated by most COP21 plans.

If we are serious about CO2 mitigation we must use every technology available to achieve the emission reductions required.

Given the exponential decrease in the price of solar (it follows a nearly straight line on a log scale), and the exponential increase in solar installation, one cannot simply look at past efforts and say the success of future efforts will be similar.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-law-apply-to-solar-cells/

While I agree that many different strategies should be used to reduce and eliminate carbon emissions, we should think carefully about whether any particular solution might help now -- but kill us later.  Increased energy efficiency, for example, could offest the need for interim nuclear power, without attendant waste storage nightmares.  I would prefer to see efforts directed that way.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #181 on: January 05, 2016, 01:58:58 PM »


At 4:20 minutes Kevin Anderson and Hugh Hunt give the scale of the fossil CO2 mitigation task, 5 tonnes of CO2 waste every year is emitted for every person on the planet. 

At 5:20 minutes for the richest 1% it is 300 tonnes of CO2 and for the richest 10% it is 25 to 30 tonnes of CO2.

The richest 10% emit 50% of global CO2 emissions.

Hansen is right we need every low carbon technology that is available if we are to have any chance of success.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #182 on: January 06, 2016, 01:32:59 PM »

At 5:20 minutes for the richest 1% it is 300 tonnes of CO2 and for the richest 10% it is 25 to 30 tonnes of CO2.

The richest 10% emit 50% of global CO2 emissions.

Hansen is right we need every low carbon technology that is available if we are to have any chance of success.

Or, we make it harder for the richest 1 or 10% to be such profligate wasters of energy -- by regulation, or by shaming, perhaps.  Both have had their successes.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #183 on: January 06, 2016, 06:25:05 PM »
absolutely, those who can afford it should support and make use of all the expensive first generation technology to contribute. i always think about putting more panels on the roof, buying a better more efficient hybrid or electric car or how to find the space for one of those garage size heat exchangers that provides electricity for an entire condominium residential settlement. :-)

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #184 on: January 07, 2016, 05:50:53 AM »
garage size heat exchangers that provides electricity for an entire condominium residential settlement. :-)


I'd appreciate a link to this most interesting technology.
Thanks
Terry

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #185 on: January 07, 2016, 12:09:30 PM »
check this:
i heard about this from one of my clients who is currently negotiating with the german government as to power refugee camps. of course there is more to it but i'm a mere retired business consultant and not in technology  ;)
http://www.avp-energy.com
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 12:17:21 PM by magnamentis »

mati

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #186 on: January 07, 2016, 02:52:34 PM »
and so it goes

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #187 on: January 07, 2016, 08:00:01 PM »
Current status of nuclear reactor construction in china:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china--nuclear-power/

Quite an article.  This jumped out at me:
Quote
SCRO report on nuclear investment and safety

In January 2011 a report from the State Council Research Office (SCRO), which makes independent policy recommendations to the State Council on strategic matters, was published. While approving the enormous progress made on many fronts, it cautioned concerning provincial and corporate enthusiasm for new nuclear power plants and said that the 2020 target should be restricted to 70 GWe of new plant actually operating so as to avoid placing undue demand on quality control issues in the supply chain. Another 30 GWe could be under construction. It emphasised that the priority needed to be resolutely on Generation-III technology, notably the AP1000 and derivatives. However, ambitious targets to deploy AP1000s with reduced foreign input had proved difficult, and as a result, more of the Generation-II CPR-1000 units are under construction or on order. Only China is building Gen-II units today in such large numbers, with 57 (53.14 GWe) on the books.

SCRO said that reactors built today should operate for 50 or 60 years, meaning a large fleet of Gen-II units will still be in operation into the 2070s, when even Gen-III reactors would have given way to Generation-IV and perhaps even to commercial nuclear fusion. The country should be 'careful' concerning 'the volume of second generation units under construction... the scale should not be too large' to avoid any perception of being below international standards of safety in future, when most of the world's Gen-II reactors are retired.
The SCRO noted the 100-fold increase in probabilistic safety brought by Gen-III, and that future generations would continue the trend.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #188 on: January 19, 2016, 12:19:04 AM »
Some good news for the climate, French electricity CO2 emissions remain at very low levels for 2015 (44g/kWh) which are more than 10 times less than Germany (569g/kWh).

http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/chiffres-cles-en

http://decrypterlenergie.org/en/la-sortie-du-nucleaire-en-allemagne-entraine-t-elle-une-hausse-des-emissions-de-co2

Unfortunately while Germany achieved record renewable electricity outputs for 2015, decarbonisation of the energy system is stagnating and unchanged since 2011 (see page 41 in the following report). 

http://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2016/Jahresauswertung_2016/Agora_Jahresauswertung_2015_Slides_web_EN.pdf
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 12:27:59 AM by tombond »

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #189 on: February 07, 2016, 04:41:24 AM »
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo:  "Yesterday I that learned radioactive tritium-contaminated water leaked into groundwater at Indian Point."
https://twitter.com/nygovcuomo/status/696073181820534785

Statement from Governor Andrew M. Cuomo Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Facility
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/statement-governor-andrew-m-cuomo-regarding-indian-point-nuclear-facility
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #190 on: February 10, 2016, 02:02:10 PM »
If the self luminescent exit sign reported lost in Steamboat Springs, Colorado was broken and the tritium was dissolved into water, it would contaminate 940,000 litres of water to the “alarming” level of 8,000,000 pCi/litre that has Governor Cuomo in a tizzy about the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.
http://atomicinsights.com/spills-are-not-leaks-tritium-should-never-alarm-anyone/

This is an example of the anti science, anti nuclear political misinformation that Jim Hansen compares to climate denial as the biggest barriers to effective CO2 mitigation.

By installing 63GW of nuclear power France has reduced CO2 electricity emissions to just 44g/kWh.
http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/chiffres-cles-en

By comparison Germany since 2000 has installed 80GW of renewable energy for almost unchanged CO2 emissions which at 484g/kWh are currently more than ten times higher than France.  Electricity CO2 emissions in 2015 were 313M tonnes (see page 41) and electricity production was 647TWh (see page 13).
http://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2016/Jahresauswertung_2016/Agora_Jahresauswertung_2015_Slides_web_EN.pdf

My spreadsheet says that at the current CO2 emissions reduction rate Germany will fall to French CO2 emissions levels by 2164 providing they do not close any more nuclear reactors.

6roucho

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 296
  • Finance geek
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #191 on: February 19, 2016, 05:15:38 PM »
[snip]
By installing 63GW of nuclear power France has reduced CO2 electricity emissions to just 44g/kWh.
http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/chiffres-cles-en

By comparison Germany since 2000 has installed 80GW of renewable energy for almost unchanged CO2 emissions which at 484g/kWh are currently more than ten times higher than France.  Electricity CO2 emissions in 2015 were 313M tonnes (see page 41) and electricity production was 647TWh (see page 13).[/snip]

That's misleading, bordering on disinformation. It's facile to equate Germany's increased use of renewables to their higher C02 emissions than France. That's due to their relatively greater use of coal than France.

Renewables have helped buffer Germany's GHG inventory from increases inherent in greater coal use.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2016, 05:22:17 PM by 6roucho »

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 819
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #192 on: February 25, 2016, 03:43:42 PM »
If you don't read the manual, it's not a meltdown?   ::)

Fukushima Operator Admits It Didn't Reveal Meltdown for Months
Quote
TEPCO said that after reviewing their company manual its officials realized that if a reactor core was more than 5 percent damaged, the incident should be immediately declared a meltdown.

Two days after the earthquake and tsunami, the monitoring system at the plant indicated that Reactor Unit No. 1 was 55 percent damaged, while Reactor Unit No. 2 was 30 percent damaged. Reactor 2 was discovered to be 35 percent damaged on the March 15, said Satoshi Togawa, a spokesman for the company said on Thursday.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fukushima-operator-admits-it-didn-t-reveal-meltdown-months-n525431
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #193 on: March 24, 2016, 01:23:41 AM »
The following quote is from Robertscribbler, for he like Hansen realizes that the climate change impacts will be far greater, than the perceived risks from nuclear power.  He says;

"At this point we need rapid draw downs in global carbon emissions starting now — not in 2020, not in 2030. Hansen recommends a 6 percent annual reduction in carbon emissions. We’re not going to get that with current global policy so we need an outside push to make that happen. In the 1970s, 150 nuclear power plants were blocked due to a movement that fed on environmental concerns surrounding nuclear power. Well the coal and gas and oil will lock in impacts far, far worse than 150 nuclear power plants if we allow them to keep adding extraction, production, and transport infrastructure for their dangerous products. What we’ll see this Century, if we don’t stop them, is the start of a new hothouse extinction that will likely be worse than all the others. We simply cannot allow that to happen."

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/03/22/ten-times-faster-than-a-hothouse-extinction-human-carbon-emission-is-worst-in-at-least-66-million-years/

The United Nations UNSCEAR reports show the actual impacts of nuclear accidents.  Basically the panic response at both Chernobyl and Fukushima, together with anti science misinformation caused more issues than the radiation.

http://www.unscear.org/

France produces most of it electricity from nuclear and has very low CO2 emissions of just 44g/kWh.

http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/chiffres-cles-en

This is significantly less than countries with renewable only policies like Denmark 385g, Germany 512g, Italy 527g, Spain 455g and Australia 885g.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/Tables/t0305.pdf



 

folke_kelm

  • New ice
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #194 on: March 24, 2016, 02:17:08 AM »
This whole discussion about nuclear ignores some important facts, just like deniers ignore facts about climate change.

There is not enough fuel for more reactors (see IEA studie of available uranium)
The whole fleet of reactors is of rather old age
a nuclear reactor is mechanical designed for a lifetime up to 40 years
Critical components of a nuclear reactor can not be replaced.
the design limit of component failure is defined with a gaussian distribution of failure, a very steep one. Once you exceed the design life time you are in big trouble.
New reactors can not compete with renewables

Why invest huge amounts of money in big reactors when you are able to get more from renewables? Why hang on "big is beautiful" for dear life?

Let us all invest in solar and batteries and forget fossil AND nuclear


wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3193
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 562
  • Likes Given: 385
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #195 on: March 24, 2016, 02:52:41 AM »
Well put, folke_kelm.

On top of those excellent points, it must be pointed out that we are almost certainly headed for total or near total collapse of civilizations.

In such cases, nearly every part of the built infrastructure will be vulnerable to neglect at best and terrorism at worst.

Neglect a solar panel or windmill and nothing much happens, and even intentional harm won't bring about essentially any widespread damage or threat.

The same cannot be said about any nuclear plant.

The faster we close down and dismantle all nuclear plants, the better.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2078
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #196 on: March 24, 2016, 05:31:48 PM »
 :-\ 

yeah, not really.  IAEA expects an expansion of nuclear in coming years, no indication of a 'global' shortage of uranium to be had.

Older plants are older and need to be replaced, not doing so would currently require about 400% more fossil fuel emissions for creation of renewable resources with approximately 1/3 of the annual generating capacity plus the (currently unavailable) grid-level storage technology that would have to store several week's worth of generation in the event of low-renewable production periods (cloudy days, no wind).

The LCOE of wind is projected to be slightly lower than advanced nuclear in 2020 and the LCOE of solar is projected to be much higher but is likely overstated by the EIA.  In any event, LCOE only looks at generation potential, not the costs associated with grid redesign, additional capacity buildouts needed to replace a nuclear power plant equivalent generation potential.

If we dismantle our nuclear power plants immediately we will significantly increase our GHG emissions, if we try to electrify our transportation and manufacturing sectors we will require a 40% increase in total domestic power generation. 

If we do this right now with the current mix of fossil fuel and nuclear it would push back the GHG emissions reductions by over 25 years.  Nuclear buildouts must be a critical part of the decarbonization plan. anything else is greenwashing and self-defeating.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #197 on: March 24, 2016, 09:59:52 PM »
hm - for me it makes no sens to discuss nuclear versus renewables. Renewables will be necessary in future anyway - with or without nuclear.

If one wants to follow Hansen (this is the subject here), then it is his opinion that fossils are faster to be reduced by using nuclear as much as possible today. Differences in opinion are obvious: Some rate the cost of nuclear waste storage and the risk of nuclear accidents higher than others. Why? I am sure it is not because of "anti science, anti nuclear political misinformation" such kind of "denial-like" propaganda wording. There must be real reasons for the differences in opinions.

I want to try to find them to clear the view here a bit:

1. The risk of an accident and its rating. The probability for accidents is low and the effect is large. Thus the "real" evaluation is difficult, also for science. So personal opinion may be valid here as basis for the rating and such ratings should be respected from both sides. It is a tie.

2. The costs of long-term storage. This is a fact everywhere in the world - the costs are very close to infinity on the long run, since the waste must be kept for geological time-frames and there is no safe permanent storage place existent. One must watch all day and take it from here to there every now and then. So why do we have different opinions about this point? Some neglect it and some take it very seriously. E.g. in France waste from nuclear power plants is considered a minor thing while in Germany it is considered a major cost effect and thread. Why?

Simple answer: Because in France nuclear waste from nuclear power plants is in fact a minor task - compared e.g. with waste from military nuclear use. Same in USA, Russia, North Korea... Nuclear waste from power plants is a small (single digit) percentage of total nuclear waste in case a nation developed the nuclear bomb.
This is obviously not the case in countries without nuclear weapons. E.g. in Germany most nuclear waste is from nuclear power plants (and a bit from medicine or research). Thus the nuclear waste problem can be reduced significantly in such countries by stepping out of nuclear. That is why the people want it so in such countries. And since a lot of countries are democracies it must be done so.

In democracies with nuclear weapons it makes not much of a difference for the local people to step out of nuclear - so they are also right in staying with nuclear. I would not call them politically misinformed (like I would say if someone in Germany says so), if they ask for more nuclear power. 

I hope that helps a bit to get over the "walls in the minds" here. In Germany nuclear just does not make sense anymore: Nuclear here was mainly usefull for "base load" (this word was invented because nuclear power plants came up). There was no real need for base load and in future there will be even less, since the "base" is energy consumption minus generation from renewables: Fluctuating extremely. All German nuclear power plants are not designed to follow load and thus they are useless - no matter how much electricity they produce. Btw - same is true (at least 50%, since it follow a bit between 50-100%) also for lignite burning and RWE is in deep trouble allready. This is the next thing to step out after nuclear, therefore.

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #198 on: March 25, 2016, 12:36:19 AM »
Ontario has closed all its coal burning power stations a big win for the climate and the environment!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJar8wQj5_k&feature=youtu.be

How did they do it. 

They use mainly hydro and nuclear to generate their power resulting in an electricity grid emitting less than 50g/kWh of CO2 emissions!

http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html

No wonder James Hansen loves nuclear power.






Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #199 on: March 25, 2016, 05:08:26 AM »
The cost of electricity from new nuclear reactors runs from 13 to 19 cents in western Europe and the US.  Those are subsidized costs, the actual cost is higher.

When the new Vogtle reactors come online their electricity will cost 13c/kWh if there are no more budget overruns.  It is highly unlikely future reactors can produce electricity at that price because the Vogtle reactor projects were begun during the Great Recession and they received extremely low rate financing. 

Hinkley Point is being contracted at 15c/kWh.  The low bid for new reactors at North Anna (Virginia) would have meant 19c/kWh electricity.

In 2014 the unsubsidized contract price of onshore wind in the US was just under 4c/kWh.  The unsubsidized contract price of PV solar was about 6c/kWh.

The price of wind and solar continue to fall.  Both will likely contract about 1c/kWh lower in 2016.  Both should be close to 3c/kWh before a new reactor could begin construction and come online.

For new nuclear to be economically competitive it would have to drop more than 2/3rds in cost.  Consider what it would take to reduce the cost of any construction project by 67% or more.

A few more reactors might be built.  Some people need to learn the hard way.  But barring an unforeseen very major breakthrough in nuclear energy it appears that the age of nuclear energy is drawing to a close.