1 hour ago, goates said:

Right now that base load is transitioning from coal to natural gas, but after that I'm not sure there are any better options other than nuclear.

That's right.  Wind and solar are supplements. And they require a lot of real estate.  We have a solar array right outside of town and it's footprint covers acres and acres.

So it's either fossil fuel plants of nuclear.  From what I've read the new nuclear technologies are much safer than they used to be.  New designs solve old problems.

From QUORA:

A sub reactor is designed differently from commercial power plants. For example they use very high enriched uranium and other design compromises which increase cost and in return you get high reliability, decades in between refueling, low sound signature, compact size, some resistance to weapons damage, being able to throttle up and down fast, etc. A commercial SMR would have some design changes but it would take lots of cues from its ancestors.

Noel

 

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by birdguy

19 hours ago, birdguy said:

Only so much energy can come from wind, solar, hydro and geothermal.  It would be nice if renewables could make up all of our energy needs but at this point in time they can't. If we are to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas then nuclear is going to have to make up what the renewables cannot produce.

 

Actually, its feasible for renewable energy to provide 100% of the US electricity needs. Where I live all of our electricity is from renewable sources, same for quite a few places now. 43% renewables over in the UK I recall. Norway 99% renewable energy. 

 

Quote

Solar and wind are inexhaustible sources of energy, unlike coal, oil and gas, and at current growth rates will push fossil fuels out of the electricity sector by the mid-2030s. By 2050 they could power the world, displacing fossil fuels entirely and producing cheap, clean energy to support new technologies such as electric vehicles and green hydrogen.

 

https://carbontracker.org/solar-and-wind-can-meet-world-energy-demand-100-times-over-renewables/

 

Quote

 The researchers from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Delft University of Technology and Aalborg University have analysed hundreds of studies from across the scientific literature to answer each of the apparent issues. They demonstrate that there are no roadblocks on the way to a 100% renewable future.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180517113812.htm

 

But yes, as you say, "at this point in time" we still need fossil fuels, nuclear etc. What I'm saying is that nuclear isn't the answer to climate change. You see, there are some that advocate diving in head first and building a multitude of nuclear reactors.  That isn't the answer, keep the ones we have if we must. But engaging in a large scale nuclear reactor expansion phase is a bad idea.

There are so many issues with nuclear power...

 

 

Quote

 

1. Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation

2. Cost

3. Weapons Proliferation Risk

4. Meltdown Risk

5. Mining Lung Cancer Risk

Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution

7. Waste Risk

 

Summary

To recap, new nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh (between 2.3 to 7.4 times depending upon location and integration issues). Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated (between 9 to 37 times depending upon plant size and construction schedule). In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks. 

Nuclear advocates claim nuclear is still needed because renewables are intermittent and need natural gas for backup. However, nuclear itself never matches power demand so it needs backup. Even in France with one of the most advanced nuclear energy programs, the maximum ramp rate is 1 to 5 % per minute, which means they need natural gas, hydropower, or batteries, which ramp up 5 to 100 times faster, to meet peaks in demand. Today, in fact, batteries are beating natural gas for wind and solar backup needs throughout the world. A dozen independent scientific groups have further found that it is possible to match intermittent power demand with clean, renewable energy supply and storage, without nuclear, at low cost.

Finally, many existing nuclear plants are so costly that their owners are demanding subsidies to stay open. For example, in 2016, three existing upstate New York nuclear plants requested and received subsidies to stay open using the argument that the plants were needed to keep emissions low. However, subsidizing such plants may increase carbon emissions and costs relative to replacing the plants with wind or solar as soon as possible. Thus, subsidizing nuclear would result in higher emissions and costs over the long term than replacing nuclear with renewables. 

 

 

https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by martin-w

19 hours ago, birdguy said:

The article mentioned mini-nuclear plants for remote places like Alaskan villages that now rely on diesel fuel.  They would be cleaner and cheaper.

Noel

   

 

That's not the premise though, What they are advocating with the mini nuclear reactors is mass production. A full scale production line and thousands of mini reactors dotted around the place. I see a multitude of mini reactors as no different to a few huge reactors. They still require uranium, so that production line requires a large quantity of uranium to be delivered. And that factory is still responsible for significant CO2 emissions due to the significant amount of CO2 that's generated by mining for uranium, transport operation of the production line and the plethora of mini reactor plants. Not to mention the risk to miners that still exists. Not to mention an even greater risk of proliferation with thousands of mini reactors around.

 

 

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by martin-w

17 hours ago, WarpD said:

That's quite a statement.  Can you provide reference(s)?

 

Cant find the original article on this now, but did find this below...

 

https://www.quora.com/Do-nuclear-powered-submarines-and-aircraft-carriers-ever-suffer-meltdowns-or-leaks

 

 

6 hours ago, goates said:

We can build reactors that use up almost all of the uranium or thorium put into the reactor, or even waste fuel from older reactor designs, and leave behind far, far less waste. That waste would then be less radioactive than the original uranium ore in around 300 years.

You miss the catch - isotopes with short half-lives are more intensely radioactive; that short half-life means that it's breaking down more often and releasing more radiation. The waste issue remains a huge challenge - and I think it's completely unreasonable for us to add any new reactors until we decide what to do with the waste.

The Canadian experience is not great - electricity generation in Ontario has been a significant and financial mess for most of the 21st century, caused in large part by debt and costs from the construction and ongoing maintenance of the three nuclear plants (Bruce, Pickering and Darlington). Even if we can make them safe (which there is little to no evidence of in the civilian sector) there is absolutely no proof that we can build fission reactors in a cost-effective or even cost-predictable fashion.

 

 

9 hours ago, birdguy said:

Of the two I vote for developing cheaper, safer, and more efficient nuclear sources.

 

There is the molten salt reactor of course, that looks like a better bet than the nuclear reactors currently used. Early days though. Much more research needed. Issues remain.

https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-why-molten-salt-reactors-are-problematic-and-canada-investing-in-them-is-a-waste-167019

It wouldn't surprise me if by the time they get molten salt reactors sorted out and all the issues solved, one of the fusion start-ups  develops a working fusion reactor that generates more than it consumes. The old adage that fusion is 20 years away and always will be is no longer true. 

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by martin-w

5 hours ago, birdguy said:

That's right.  Wind and solar are supplements. And they require a lot of real estate

You should go take a look at an open-pit coal mine and tell me what uses more real estate. The reality is that almost all forms of electricity generation have some land and environmental footprint. I would still wager it is smaller and less lasting than that for fossil fuel extraction.

5 hours ago, birdguy said:

So it's either fossil fuel plants of nuclear

You keep jumping to that conclusion. It's not accurate.

First, it omits the best option for base-band renewal electricity, one that is so common north of the border that our Canadian friends don't refer to their electricity bills, instead their "hydro" bills. Hydroelectric power on large rivers and reservoirs provides gigawatts of electricity and is far more stable than other renewable sources. While there isn't room for a lot of new power generation it will be part of our power grid for decades and is safe and effective.

The second false assumption you are making is that electricity cannot be time-shifted or stored, which as any five-year-old with a battery operated device can tell you is clearly not the case. I would argue that the biggest shift that makes renewables viable as an energy source is not better solar or turbine tech (although that does help) it's the ability to reliable store large amounts of electricity in grid-scale batteries. Yes, there will be days when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow - but when it does and the spot price drops to zero, when nuclear is going bankrupt wind and solar suppliers can dump the power into grid-scale batteries and then resell later at a profitable price.

You also don't need batteries to time-shift electricity. One of the earliest applications is in Niagara Falls, and is older than most of us. At night, large amounts of water are diverted to generate electricity and more importantly, to pump water upwards into a large reservoir, creating potential energy when power costs and demand are low. Then, during the day the reservoir is lowered and electricity is generated. While the point of this is to preserve water flows over a tourist attraction, the principle is the same - use cheap night-time power to build a surplus that can then be used to create day-time power.

 

To me, there are three pillars to a cleaner electricity ecosystem - electricity storage, where we store surplus power for use later; more interconnects - where areas with surplus power can easily transfer to areas that do not; and finally, an incremental model where we get rid of the dirtiest and most expensive mechanisms in favor of cheaper and cleaner ones. That means coal needs to die (and thankfully is dying) probably followed by nuclear. It had great promise but it simply cannot compete with renewables+storage.

Cheers!

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by Luke

4 minutes ago, Luke said:

I would argue that the biggest shift that makes renewables viable as an energy source is not better solar or turbine tech (although that does help) it's the ability to reliable store large amounts of electricity in grid-scale batteries.

 

Yep and not just batteries. Pumped hydroelectric, compressed air, flywheels, thermal energy storage.

Liquid Air batteries shows great promise. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/18/worlds-biggest-liquid-air-battery-starts-construction-in-uk

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

Actually, its feasible for renewable energy to provide 100% of the US electricity needs. Where I live all of our electricity is from renewable sources, same for quite a few places now. 43% renewables over in the UK I recall. Norway 99% renewable energy. 

 

You live on a small island Martin.  What about a continent the size of the United States with a dozen large cities with high rises plus all the industries and factories we have to power,

It's nice you live where you have 100% renewable energy.  I could put solar panels on my roof and a windmill in my back yard and start pontificatng to everyone that since I live with 100% renewable energy it's feasible that everyone else should too.

Wind farms and solar panels take up a lot of room.  We could cover all the farmland and wilderness with windmills and solar farms and still not have enough energy to power up an industrialized continent of several hundred million people.

Either we say we will remain dependent for most of our power from power plants that burn coal or natural gas or go to more modern designs of nuclear power.

It works for submarines and aircraft carriers and perhaps other ships in our Navy too.  Nuclear plants that use up more of the fuel than the old ones do and are designed to eliminate the faults the older designs had.

It's going to be a long time before we can wean ourselves away from fossil fuels, not only for domestic households and factories, but also for transportation.  We talk about electric cars.  But what about passenger and cargo aircraft the size Airbus and Boeing make?  What about interstate trucking and railroads.  You can't expect a freight train that moves containers from the port in Long Beach to the manufacturing belt of the Midwest to stop every couple of hundred miles and spend half a day recharging.

 Solar, Wind, hydro and geothermal will never be enough to power and industrialized continent.  Right now the alternatives are fossil fuels and nuclear.  So let's not kid ourselves that renewables will eventually replace them.  It's either keep living with fossil fuels or go to redesigned, modern nuclear plants of various sies to fit the needs of their locality.   Asia, North America, and Western Europe are not your small island.

Noel

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by birdguy

27 minutes ago, birdguy said:

You live on a small island Martin.  What about a continent the size of the United States with a dozen large cities with high rises plus all the industries and factories we have to power,

 

Well yes, as I went on to say, currently many nations can't. The UK doesn't, I recall 40 something percent renewable. I was talking about it being feasible to attain.  We don't generate our own electricity where I live. Its renewable energy from France. I posted a link to the entire US being powered by renewable energy and its feasibility for the future. 

 

31 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Wind farms and solar panels take up a lot of room.  We could cover all the farmland and wilderness with windmills and solar farms and still not have enough energy to power up an industrialized continent of several hundred million people.

 

People always focus on wind and solar but renewable energy is much more than just those two sources, and as Luke pointed out above, fossil fuel energy already involves large swathes of land.  8.4 MILLION ACRES has been disturbed by surface mining just in the US. Nuclear power covers a couple of square miles for the reactor facility and sizable amounts of land impacted by uranium mining. 

 

Quote

Either we say we will remain dependent for most of our power from power plants that burn coal or natural gas or go to more modern designs of nuclear power.

 

Nope. We aren't "remaining" dependant on fossil fuels, rather, we are heading away from fossil fuels, as we should. As I said, we may require the reactors we have now, but I don't believe we should be diving into mega reactor building programs or thousands of mini reactors dotted about our nations.  Don't forget, renewable energy is advancing pretty rapidly now and nuclear reactors have a lengthy lead time before they become operational. As I say, I'm not against keeping the reactors we have now if a nation really needs them, but I am against accelerating new reactor build programs, as there are too many negatives associated with that. 

 

39 minutes ago, birdguy said:

It's going to be a long time before we can wean ourselves away from fossil fuels, not only for domestic households and factories, but also for transportation.  We talk about electric cars.  But what about passenger and cargo aircraft the size Airbus and Boeing make?  What about interstate trucking and railroads. 

 

Hydrogen is an option for trucking and shipping as long as its green hydrogen. Electrification of aviation is a fair distance away in terms of long range aircraft and requires technological advancement. Electric aircraft are currently short range, the max I know of is Eviation Allice at 1000 kilometres. Hybrid will be the next step for medium range aircraft, in development now. Households are doable in terms of renewable energy, passive houses are a thing, ground source heat pumps, solar panels, etc.

 

49 minutes ago, birdguy said:

You can't expect a freight train that moves containers from the port in Long Beach to the manufacturing belt of the Midwest to stop every couple of hundred miles and spend half a day recharging.

 

Well no, electric trains get their juice form the track. There is no stopping to charge. 

 

50 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Solar, Wind, hydro and geothermal will never be enough to power and industrialized continent. 

 

Well its not just those four, but I posted a link that demonstrated that researchers disagree with you. Its feasible, just not right now. 

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

You live on a small island Martin.  What about a continent the size of the United States with a dozen large cities with high rises plus all the industries and factories we have to power,

The world's second-largest country (hint: it's next door) gets 82% of its electricity from renewable sources, or nuclear. Alternative sources are increasing in supply.

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

Either we say we will remain dependent for most of our power from power plants that burn coal or natural gas or go to more modern designs of nuclear power.

You keep sticking with this false dichotomy. Why? It makes it very difficult to have a constructive discussion when you refuse to acknowledge other paths forward that are working in many other parts of the world.

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

It works for submarines and aircraft carriers and perhaps other ships in our Navy too.

Keep in mind that the USN operates their reactors on weapons-grade uranium fuel, and doesn't have to sell their power on the open market and make a profit.

3 hours ago, Luke said:

You should go take a look at an open-pit coal mine and tell me what uses more real estate.

Yes, I have seen open pit mines.  I almost went to work at one once.  And I have also seen the acres and acres of windmills and solar panels, one right outside of the town I live in.  They are also a blight on the landscape.  And think of the size solar and wind farms would occupy to power a city like Chicago despite the storage capacity..

There are currently 443 operating nuclear power plants in 30 countries.  93 of those plants are in the United States.  Additionaly 52 more are under construction.  One an experimental plant sponsored by Bill Gates in Wyoming.  The largest is under construction in Finland.

186 older plants have been shut down.

The IEA says the growth capacity for new technology nuclear plants is 26% between 2020 and 2030.

The next generation  design by Okla's advanced technology nuclear reactor has been approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Nuclear is not dead.  Despite the few accidents that made the news new technology and modernized nuclear power plants are coming on line.

Luke, you and Martin sound like the people in the early days of automobiles who said automobles should not replace horses because they have accidents that kill people.  And you see the new development in technology for wind and solar but turn a blind eye to the new technologies in nuclear.

Nuclear is not dead.  And it will play an important part in tomorrow's clean energy package supported by hydro in locations where hydro is feasible and geothermal in places where geothermal is feasible and wind and solar where they are feasible.

Take a plot of one acre of ground.  Cover it with solar panels or windmills or a modern new technology nuclear plant.  Which is going to produce the most electricity 24/7 without interruption?

No one or two technologies are the panacea for weaning us off of fossil fuels.  And nuclear is going to be a big part of the mix despite a few people's prejudices.

Noel

 

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by birdguy
Spelling

21 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Luke, you and Martin sound like the people in the early days ...  Nuclear is not dead.  And it will play an important part in tomorrow's clean energy package supported by hydro in locations where hydro is feasible and geothermal in places where geothermal is feasible and wind and solar where they are feasible.

Noel, read my posts again. What I or Martin think is irrelevant. The market has spoken, and the indictment is damning.

It is a capital intensive industry to the tune of billions where it will take a decade or more to earn back a single penny in revenue. Both the costs and the timelines can potentially double during the construction period. Even if things go according to plan (there's a first for everything) it still needs to operate 24/7/365 in order to stand a chance of a return on investment, which we already know it cannot do since spot prices drop very low at times, and there's a good chance its competition may get base prices below its level by the time the plants come online. And that's still not considering the chance that an accident may cause liability in the order of tens or hundreds of billions, wiping everyone out.

No one sane would ever invest in such an industry, and that is the problem nuclear faces. The NRC can approve all it wants. Roswell New Mexico can volunteer to take all of the high-level waste instead of Yucca Mountain. It doesn't matter - the investment required is sufficiently massive and risky that sources of capital simply won't invest. Their odds of return are massively higher using solar, wind, geothermal or hydro.

The only way nuclear survives is via Soviet-style central planning (and Soviet-style economic losses).

Cheers!

 

Everyone here makes valid points.  What I'm not for are what I consider radical ideas such as "eliminating fossil fuels by 2030 or 2035".  Statements like that are routinely made by the World Economic Forum, United Nations, and many politicians and bureaucrats.  It is just not realistic, unless you don't care about ruining the economy, greatly increasing the cost of living, and suffering for years with inadequate energy supplies and blackouts/brownouts.

Another thing that advocates of "100% renewable" energy such as wind and solar fail to mention are the materials and industrial processes used to make the wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries.  These materials must be mined and processed, which is not a clean process.  Yes, some things can be recycled, but not everything.

Another drawback to wind and solar is the amount of land they occupy.  I don't want to live in a world where all I see when I look around are wind turbines.  Solar plants take up a huge amount of space.

Like I've said many times before, there is no free lunch.  Energy cannot be created from nothing.  We should harness the sun and wind where we can do so efficiently, but those sources should not be our only sources of electricity.  Again, 50 years from now it may be practical, but not for the foreseeable future.

Dave

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by dave2013