Dutch Energy Company Announces the Doubling of its Nuclear Build Proposal.

[NNadir]

Dutch-owned Energy Resources Holding (ERH) has launched the application process for a new nuclear plant at the Netherlands' Borssele site. The plan is completely separate from another plan for new build at the site launched last year by Delta.

In notifying the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) of its plans, ERH has embarked on the procedure to gain authorization to build a new nuclear power plant. In its 41-page submission, the company outlines its vision for up to a maximum capacity of 2500 MWe from third-generation nuclear units, possibly one or two Westinghouse AP1000 units, a single EPR or a single boiling water reactor (BWR). According to the company's indicative planning outline, construction could start on the plant in 2015 with electricity supply from 2019.

ERH owns 50% of EPZ, operator of the existing 485 MWe single-unit PWR Borssele nuclear power station. The other 50% of EPZ is owned by Dutch utility Delta, which last year submitted a so-called 'start memorandum' to VROM for approvals for a new 1600-2500 MWe plant at Borssele, with construction starting in 2013 and a 2018 operation date. ERH points out that its application is completely separate from Delta's.

Application doubles Dutch new-build plans

This of course, is in the birthplace of the wind industry.

World energy production from the related solar PV scam is now, according to the EIA, on the order of an equivalent of a 3000 MW power plant operating at 100% capacity. The 3000W figure (rounded up) represents an average continuous basis, available intermittantly and always backed up by dangerous natural gas. The availability of solar PV is generally around 10 - 15% of name plate capacity.

The Dutch reactor at http://world-nuclear.org/NuclearDatabase/reactordetails.aspx?id=27570&rid=397d2db0-ab75-4acc-b3a8-8fedd33fc39d">Borselle has a lifetime capacity utilization factor of 83.89%, with a latest capacity factor of 95.52%.

If the new reactors run at 90% of capacity utilization, in two small unobtrusive buildings, they will produce 75% as much energy as all the solar PV energy on the entire planet earth.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[DrGregory]

2. the name plate....

>>The availability of solar PV is generally around 10 - 15% of name plate capacity.

The renewable energy community has been quite disingenuous in continually
quoting their rated or "name plate" capacity.

Renewables do NOT have throttles. One can NOT get the rated capacity
of a renewable energy source on demand. When you get your energy from
Mother Nature - you can only get what Mother Nature is offering at the
time. You may have a 500 kw wind turbine - but if the wind is not blowing
with enough energy to produce 500 kw - then you can't get 500 kw out of
the turbine.

Renewables should be rated by their AVERAGE power - which as is correctly
pointed out above is about 10 - 15% of the rated capacity.

Conventional sources have throttles; one can get the rated capacity on
demand. Therefore, it is quite proper to quote rated capacity for conventional
sources.

However, the renewable community appears not to be concerned with meeting
the actual demand. They want to put up a solar plant that delivers power
only in the day time and claim that they can fully meet demand.

We use power 24 hours a day - but that's not something the solar community
can handle - so they dismiss it as a requirement. Again, one of the biggest
boons to public health has been refrigeration - and we need power for that
24 hours a day.

The solar advocates are going to forge a path for us right back to the
19th century. Been there, done that, NO THANK YOU!!!

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

3. Still using faulty models for describing the system, eh?

The most accurate analogy for the grid is that of a town water supply reservoir. The goal is to keep the water at a specified level while millions of users are drawing from the lake and multiple sources are feeding into the lake. The lake doesn't care if it is fed by 2 large rivers or by 10,000 seeps welling into it, as long as the water level is maintained, the system works. Large scale use of onshore wind, offshore wind, concentrated solar thermal, solar PV, hydro, wave, current, tidal, osmotic, conventional geothermal (heating/cooling and electricity), biomass, biogas...

ALL of these will feed into the a smart grid...

AND pumped hydro, thermal rock batteries, and a whole host of innovative approaches to maximizing efficiency in the system through storage systems built into building heating designs or using the batteries of electric vehicles.

Then, as the commodities on this list - PV, batteries, rock batteries, heating systems etc - respond to the way markets rapidly drive down the cost of such mass manufactured once a market has been clearly identified, their rapidly declining costs will drive cycles of increasing market share and declining prices.

BTW, that's real commoditized mass manufacturing, not the nuclear nuclear plant pretend mass manufacturing.

...in the iEA’s view, the use of renewable energy must be increased in order to improve energy security and reduce climate change. The iEA’s Energy Technology perspective included a blue Scenario, which envisages reducing global co2 emissions by 50% compared with 2005 levels by 2050. when combined with deep cuts in other greenhouse gas emissions, this scenario is consistent with a temperature rise limited to 2-3°c. in this scenario renewable energy will be a key contributor to co2 abatement, contributing 21% of the required reductions. Electricity will be the most important sector, with the proportion from renewables rising from the current 18 to 46%. Since total electricity production doubles during this period, this implies a four-fold increase in renewable power production. Currently a more ambitious renewables scenario is under development, in which 75% of global electricity production comes from renewable sources.

Realising these ambitious goals will be difficult. Technical challenges will need to be overcome. The technologies also need to become progressively more cost competitive. To ensure large scale investment and deployment in the electricity, heating and cooling and transport sectors, the required policy framework needs to be developed and implemented, including appropriate financial incentives and measures to tackle the other non economic barriers. Furthermore, the physical infrastructure will need to be adapted.

RE-thinking 2050 presents a pathway towards a 100% renewable energy system for the EU, examining the effects on Europe’s energy supply system and on co2 emissions, while at the same time portraying the economic, environmental and social benefits of such a system. Moreover, the report provides policy recommendations for what is needed to fully exploit the EU’s vast renewable energy potential.

Reinventing the EU's energy system on a sustainable energy model is one of the critical challenges of the 21st century. Renewable energy can become the backbone of Europe’s energy and economic system within this century. The challenge ahead of us is an enormous one, but tackling it will open up a far reaching sea of opportunities.

Notice a trend...?

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Interesting analogy

Given that neither rivers or seeps stop working when the sun goes down...

[kristopher]

5. No power plant generates 100% of the time.

I'll be happy to list again all the contributors to our reservoir that DO provide input while the sun is down if I thought you werre worth the effort.

You aren't.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Good to hear

I shall continue apace without worrying about taking up your valuable time.
:)

[NNadir]

7. I guess the Dutch, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Japanese,and Indians

couldn't care less about what anti-nukes think either.

There are now 60 nuclear reactors under construction world wide. China has announced a plan to reach 200 reactors by 2030, 500 by 2050.

China's FBR went critical in July. Just two of China's reactors now under construction will easily match the output of the entire planet from solar PV electricity, just two.

Have a nice time with those rocks, blah, blah, blah and whatever talk, studies...blah...blah...blah.

Nuclear energy is the fastest growing source of climate change gas free energy on the planet, as it has been for many decades.

[kristopher]

8. ROFLMAO

http://timeforchange.org/who-builds-new-nuclear-power-plants-future

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Also at the same website:

http://timeforchange.org/soul-reincarnation-rebirth">Reincarnation of our soul - rebirth

Talking about reincarnation or rebirth is automatically talking about the life cycles of the human soul: Long time ago, our souls left their divine origin to gain some experiences in the material world. It was clear from the very beginning that the souls would eventually return back to their divine origin, however. Therefore all our souls have the strong desire to return back to where they originally came from, respectively to their original divine state.

A return to the divine origin will only be possible when the souls have reached a state of wholeness again similar to the above mentioned divine state. Concretely, this state is about personality traits, which are best described with unconditional love, (self-) honesty, happiness, modesty, humbleness, etc. Alternatively, you can describe this divine state with respecting the basic rights of existence.

...

What are the proves for reincarnation and rebirth of human souls?

Can we prove the truthfulness of our statements? No, we can't. It is not possible to substantiate reincarnation. On the other hand, it is not possible to prove the non-existence of reincarnation either. (Emphasis by that bastard Dogmudgeon.)

...

Count on your inner voice and don't let other people persuade you (not even us!). However when you have found out that the meaning of our life is developing personality traits like unconditional love, happiness, self honesty and humbleness, respectively to respect the basic rights of existence - then please do act accordingly. Draw the consequences for you own life. Take advantage of this incarnation. Life is about you. It is your own life. It might well be time for change.

...

Quick! Somebody call the Peer Review Committee! (Note: E-mail is preferred to using the Inner Voice.)

--d!

[NNadir]

11. I have always said that anti-nukes are mystics. Thanks for the verification.

[kristopher]

12. The graph tallying nuclear power thru 2056 is from a pronuclear business report.

You can download the report for $200 if you want to see it in its original context (google the copyright on the graph). The data it is based on is from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

While pronuclear zealots love to pretend that nuclear power plants are destined to spread to every street corner, the reality is that the current effort is nothing more than a cross generational multi-trillion dollar grab at the public purse strings.

ETA: The reality of the energy landscape, however, argues that even this scenario is extremely optimistic:
Citigroup 2008 impact of renewables and energy efficiency

What the market should not take for granted

GDP impact on demand and load factors

Consensus view is that electricity demand in the wide European region will grow by 1.5% p.a. over the next couple of decades. This is a view shared by UCTE in its latest System Adequacy Report. Although it is virtually impossible to produce irrefutable electricity demand forecast we are tempted to argue that the risks are on the downside since:

1. During the boom years of 2003-07, when GDP growth was strong and infrastructure investment high on the back of very liquid debt markets and due to the convergence of the new EU joiners, electricity consumption grew by 2.1% p.a.

2. Energy efficiency is likely to become a bigger driver as technology advances and as awareness rises. It is important to highlight that such measures also fall under the Climate Change agenda of governments, which has been one of the driving forces behind the renaissance of new nuclear.

As a result, we would expect electricity demand growth to be in the 0-1% range for at least the next 5 years, before returning to more normal pace of 1.5-2%. We therefore see scope for an extra 346TWh of electricity that needs to be covered by 2020 vs. 2008 levels.

Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca.220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

(Bold in original)

Citigroup Global Markets European Nuclear Generation 2 December 2008

[Dead_Parrot]

13. That's sounds reasonable

I mean, it's not like Citi had to be bailed out with billions of dollars because they couldn't do their sums properly.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. The Dutch just really just want a nucular bomb

It will certainly lead to a new Cold War that will pit the virtuous, Godly, peaceful native Dutch against the filthy, God-denying, war-mongering Walloons.

(Or maybe it's the other way around. But it's still about nukes!)

Hey, isn't Greenpeace Corporate HQ based in Amsterdam?

--d!

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Somebody missheard

It was supposed to be a nuclear bong.

[NNadir]

15. Ba-dah-bump!

[Terry in Austin]

16. A key question for confident nuclear power advocates

How many plants are enough?

I'm confident that a well thought out program includes a direct answer.

[NNadir]

17. This is relatively easy to calculate.

I personally have come to understand from my reading of the literature that nuclear energy has the lowest external cost of any form of energy on the planet, meaning it has the best environmental profile of any form of energy.

People like to talk about conservation, but usually the people doing the talking are fat cat Westerners who wouldn't dream of living with the energy consumption of a Chadean, or a citizen of Thailand even.

We may argue - with a valid point - that energy should be redistributed. It is obvious that in the Western world, for instance, we consume more energy running servers for websites devoted to saying how great solar energy is, than we actually produce from solar energy. We might dispense with this ridiculous enterprise so that a guy in Bangladesh can have a flush toilet.

Some years back, Swiss thinkers argued for a "2000 Watt" world (1/6 the average power American consumption.) I wrote about that on an anti-nuke website where I sometimes write: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/26/211617/753">Real Numbers: The 1998 Swiss Proposal For the 2000 Watt World, and Year 2050 Talk...

Note that I have changed my mind since 2007, when I wrote that piece, and now regard so called "renewable energy" as a waste of money and an incredible collection of garbage.

If we imagine that all human beings are allowed to consume 2000 watts of power on a continuous average - including energy lost to the second law of thermodynamics (and we can improve the utility of this loss and minimize it) we can easily calculate how many reactors would be required to have a clean atmosphere, clean water and reasonable living conditions.

A typical nuclear reactor is rated at 1000 MWe or 3000 MWth.

Assuming that we have 7 billion people on the planet and don't go too far beyond that, we see, by simple division and multiplication, 2000* 7,000,000,000/3,000,000,000 that the required number of reactors would be about 4700.

If on the other hand we think it is important to have lots of dweebs burning energy to do things like, say, run web servers to tell us how great solar energy is, and we go to half the energy that Americans consume, the required number of reactors would be 6000*7,000,000,000/3,000,000,000 = 14,000.

Both of these numbers are acheivable among educated populations with respect for science. They are not achievable by primitive worship of the sun god however.

The World Nuclear Association, working from figures from governments around the world, gives a range of 2000 - 11,000 reactors by the turn of dawn of the 22nd century: http://www.world-nuclear.org/outlook/nuclear_century_outlook.html">Nuclear Century Outlook.

Obviously they don't believe that everyone will live like bourgeois Americans crusing Tesla car websites and moaning "I want one!"

I personally believe that a just and wise world would have between somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 reactors. I also believe in restraints on population growth, and respect for and enforcement of section 1 of the 25th article of the http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml">Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by the United Nations in the 1940's.

It reads:

Article 25.
•(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control

To my mind anyone who calls himself or herself a liberal and doesn't endorse this article is simply drooling all over himself or herself.

[kristopher]

18. People don't consume "on a continuous basis" so what about peaking power?

There is also the need to account for a global average capacity factor below 80%.

And then we have the NATURE of the ECONOMICS of large scale power where conservation is discouraged and consumption is encouraged; the more you sell the more money you make.

The number of reactors required to power our needs would be at least the upper end of the WNA estimate.



Atomic Renaissance Interrupted
Atomic Renaissance Interrupted

Rex Weyler was a director of the original Greenpeace Foundation, the editor of the organisation's first newsletter, and a cofounder of Greenpeace International in 1979.

He was a photographer and reporter on the early Greenpeace whale and seal campaigns, and has written one of the best and most comprehensive histories of the organisation, Greenpeace (Raincoast, 2004). His book, Blood of the Land, a history of the American Indian Movement, was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.

Deep Green is Rex's monthly column, reflecting on the roots of activism, is Rex's monthly column, reflecting on the roots of activism, environmentalism, and Greenpeace's past, present, and future. The opinions here are his own.

The nuclear industry has hitched a ride on the climate change bandwagon, proclaiming that nuclear power will solve the world's global warming and energy problems in one sweeping "nuclear renaissance."

As you might expect, there's a catch. Nuclear energy faces escalating capital costs, a radioactive waste backlog, security and insurance gaps, nuclear weapons proliferation, and expensive reactor decommissioning that will magnify the waste problem.

The contention that nuclear energy is "carbon free" and therefore a global warming solution, fails to account for the nuclear fuel cycle - mining, milling, enriching, and transporting uranium; forging steel for pressurised vessels; building massive, complex plants; and handling, shipping, reprocessing, and storing waste - requiring substantial fossil fuel supplies. Nuclear fuel processing also employs halogenated compounds that both erode the ozone and simultaneously produce more global warming impact per volume than carbon dioxide.

This fall, at Stanford University, Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson published a "Review of Global Warming Solutions," comparing the lifetime CO2-equivalent emissions of energy sources. Wind and concentrated solar emit between about 3 to 11 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. Geothermal and conventional solar emit between 16 and 64 grams; wave, tidal and hydro power emit 34 to 71 grams. Nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams per kWh. Jacobson concludes that "Coal … and nuclear offer less benefit represent an opportunity cost loss."

A dollar invested in nuclear power increases global warming because it consumes scarce resources required by real solutions.

Nuclear economics

This year, billionaire investment wizard Warren Buffett withdrew financial support for a US nuclear reactor in Idaho, killing the project. Why? Nuclear power is not economical.

A full accounting of nuclear power remains obscured by...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/deep-green/nov-08-atomic-renaissance-interrupted/


You can download Jacobson's full article here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

To my mind anyone who calls himself or herself a liberal who endorses nuclear power after reading Jacobson's article is simply drooling all over himself or herself.

[NNadir]

19. I'm not going to wade through continuous crap from Mark V. Jacobson.

None of the world's three most populated countries buy into his bull.

None of the world's three most populated countries give a rat's ass what little bourgeois consumers at Greenpeace think either.

I oppose all use of dangerous fossil fuels, and since I have been studying nuclear technology for decades using the primary scientific literature I understand how nuclear energy can eliminate all dangerous fossil fuels, including meeting needs on hot stagnant nights - of which we've had so many in recent years - when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Have a nice repetitive day.

[kristopher]

20. Please provide one study that says a renewable energy grid cannot do the same thing

You can't because the premise of your statement - that renewable energy is inferior - is false. The evidence is absolutely clear, nuclear energy is a third rate solution to our energy related problems, including air pollution, climate change, and energy security.

[NNadir]

22. Please show me one renewable grid on the entire planet that supplies 100% of ANY nation's grid.

I mean we've had 50 years of big talk from the so called "renewable" energy industry leading not to a nirvana as promised, but rather to the Gulf of Mexico tragedy that our BP funded "renewable" squads suddenly can't remember.

So? Where's the so called "renewable" paradise? Norway? Denmark? How come they're still running new oil rigs in the North Sea?

Name just one country where renewable energy is available on demand and fulfills all of the needs of its citizens - with the caveat that I'm not talking about the desperately impoverished nations that anti-nukes couldn't care less about.

Name one.

Just one.

So called "renewable energy" is not renewable, and it is a scam put forth by dangerous fossil fuel companies as a red herring for their real agenda.

To wit:


http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Amory+B.+Lovins">Famous Anti-nuke Amory Lovins describes his revenue sources:

Mr. Lovins’s other clients have included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, HP Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, CLSA, ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, Equitable, GM, HP, Invensys, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Petrobras, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell, Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Suncor, Texas Instruments, UBS, Unilever, Westinghouse, Xerox, major developers, and over 100 energy utilities. His public-sector clients have included the OECD, the UN, and RFF; the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments; 13 states; Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Departments.

Have a nice poisoned Gulf of Mexico kind of day.

[DrGregory]

28. No grids that are mostly renewables

So? Where's the so called "renewable" paradise? Norway? Denmark? How come they're still running new oil rigs in the North Sea?
==========================

Exactly. Even the massive spending by Denmark on
wind turbines - the last I read, Denmark was getting
about 18% of its electricity from their vast fleet
of wind turbines. Where do they get the other 82%
of their electrical energy - fossil fuels. As
"green" as they purport to be with all the wind turbines,
over 80% of Denmark's electric power comes from CO2-polluting
fossil fuels.

In fact, on a carbon emission per capita basis; Denmark is one
of the dirtiest.

The cleanest are France and Sweden. France is almost 100%
nuclear, and Sweden is 50% nuclear and 50% hydro.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

32. In a long list of stupid arguments from you that is the dumbest.

[DrGregory]

34. Can you say what is wrong??

In a long list of stupid arguments from you that is the dumbest.
===================================================

There are no grids or power systems that have a
majority of renewables. There are power systems
like France and CommEd that are mostly nuclear.

As far as the cites about Denmark, France and Sweden;
that comes from a seminar by Dr. Patrick Moore
to the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan.

It was broadcast on C-SPAN and you can view it at:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199958-1

As far as the comments about Denmark, France and
Sweden; here is a list of the CO2 emission per capita
by country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

France and Sweden are BETTER in terms of CO2 emission
per capita than Denmark and Germany as Dr Moore points
out.

It appears to me that the European countries have
done the experiment. We had multiple countries take
multiple paths to reduce CO2 and meet their Kyoto
promises. Denmark went heavily into wind turbines
as a way to reduce CO2. Germany went heavily into
solar power as a way to reduce CO2. France continued
with its nuclear power program, as did Sweden which
is powered by nuclear and hydro.

So who were the winners and who were the losers.

The Danes and Germans, for all their expenditure
on "renewables" are bigger CO2 polluters than the
French and Swedes.

So the Europeans have done the experiment and we
can learn from them what the path to reduced CO2
is.

You have to ask yourself if you are REALLY interested
in reducing CO2 or are you going to go down the
LOSING path due to an ill-founded anti-nuke bias.

Dr. Greg

[Terry in Austin]

21. At least 5,000 reactors, then

Starting from the 430-odd we have now.

They cost upwards of $10 billion apiece; they take 5-10 years to build. Fifty trillion dollars, with one new reactor a week for the rest of the century.

This is one heroic-scale project. It represents an unprecedented commitment.

Do you see anything or anybody persuasive enough to get buy-in from world leadership and finance for it to actually happen?

[NNadir]

23. The United States built 100 reactors in less than 30 years.

They didn't cost the equivalent of $10 billion (2010) dollars each.

Some did, but usually that was because of trying to address the specious objections of people who couldn't care less about how many deaths occur in actual practice because of normally operating coal plants, but wanted to discuss every imaginable risk of a nuclear plant.

The survivors of the people who died as a result would not be amused if they really understood what happened.

I am always amused when people tell me that what has already occurred is impossible.

The anti-nuke community destroyed the world's nuclear manufacturing infrastructure and then, like Volunteer firemen/arsonists showing up at fires they started hoping to be declared heros, want to announce that nuclear energy is "too expensive."

The same people have been announcing for 50 years that solar energy will soon competitive with the grid because of mass production. Guess what? That's about as accurate as reports that Jesus will soon return.

Last year India forged a reactor head for it's 500 MWe fast breeder reactor using indigenous manufacturing. It was way under budget. They have therefore, now, the experience to manufacture the next six they plan.

We can either declare that gas and coal are "cheap" because we don't require them to meet nuclear standards for safety - they are for instance allowed to dump their waste in human flesh for free - or we can rebuild the destroyed nuclear infrastructure.

Right now we have very few nuclear engineering schools in this country. A B.S. nuclear engineer's median salary is about $75,000/year, so this is somewhat strange. It doesn't bode well for our future generations, but it's not like they're losing sleep over this in other parts of the world. (I would be very happy and proud if one of my two sons pursues this fine and honorable career.)

The nation in the world with the largest positive balance of payments surplus - that would be China - has announced it will build 200 reactors in the next 20 years. They now have 24 under active construction, so it's hard to argue that they're lying. They started a fast breeder up just two months ago.

They have announced an intention to build 500 reactors by 2050. They couldn't care less what Westerners picking lint out of their navels think about their plans.

[Terry in Austin]

25. Got a ways to go then, don't we?

This plan of running the place on nuclear power still seems to be falling short by at least an order of magnitude.

Say that it's the right plan, for all the reasons you mention. Say it's only $20 trillion. It's still big, and now you say there's also a nuclear engineer shortage.

How is a plan that big actually going to happen? Where's the political power for it? Where's the financing?

[Dead_Parrot]

26. Same's true for everything else

Hydro's also short by an order of magnitude. Wind is short by 2 or 3. Solar is short by 4 or 5, as is geothermal.

Solutions are not going to pop out the ground like mushrooms.

[Terry in Austin]

37. Yes indeed. And now we come to the bottom line

Solutions are not going to pop out the ground like mushrooms.

It's very shaky, the premise that the "energy problem" is a problem, in the sense that problems have "solutions."

It's more a predicament -- something you adapt to and manage as best you can, much like a chronic disease that has no actual cure, just strategies for accommodating it.

The awful truth, it appears, is that no combination of alt-energy sources can replace the amount of energy we get from fossil sources. Yes, we keep building what we can, but as the fossil sources continue their fast decline, we just work out ways to make do with less energy overall.

[DrGregory]

27. $20 'Trillion - where did you get that number?

Got a ways to go then, don't we?
=================================

It didn't really take 30 years to build the current
nuclear fleet - more like 10 years. Remember we
haven't been building any new reactors for the last
20 years or so.

Most of the reactors we have were built in the late
'70s and early '80s. No reactor ordered after 1974
has been built in the USA.

So that was 10 years to build a fleet that comprises
about 20-25% of the USA's installed capacity. That's
with about 100 reactors.

Therefore, 300 to 400 new reactors would completely
supply the USA. France, Japan, and other nations are
building new nuclear plants for about $5 billion. We
could have 400 new plants for $2 trillion not 20.

You are off by an order of magnitude.

However, in order to accomplish this we need to rewrite
our licensing laws so that one can not file endless
lawsuits. The legal profession has a term - "one bite
of the apple". That is for many legal issues, you get
ONE SHOT in court. You can't keep filing lawsuits after
you lose. Just like with criminal trials and "Double
Jeopardy". If the prosecutor loses, he can't refile the
same charge over and over and over again until he wins.

However, we allow obstructionists to do that with nuclear
power plants. Other nations don't allow obstructionism;
and their plants are built in a timely manner and within
a reasonable budget.

Dr. Greg

[Terry in Austin]

35. Sticking with the premise

The premise here is that we have a world powered mostly by nuclear energy, at current levels of energy consumption, and transition to it by the end of the century.

Estimates of the necessary number of reactors that NNadir cited ranged from 5,000 to 14,000.

You tell us the proper figure for the cost of each reactor, then multiply by 5,000. That'll give an idea of where the $20 trillion figure comes from -- and a minimum figure, at that.

Which all comes back to the sheer scale we're talking about so casually -- I for one doubt that a project this size is ever going to happen in the real world. YMMV.

The awful truth: current energy levels won't be replaced by nuclear, or solar, or wind, or any combination. As fossil sources dwindle, we'll just be obliged to make do with less. A lot less.

We've got a big downshift ahead of us. Not a real popular idea, but there it is. :shrug:

[NickB79]

30. Well, the US built a lot more reactors than that, actually

Don't forget the US nuclear Naval fleet; much smaller reactors but the principles of construction are the same.

[DrGregory]

31. Only in USA

They cost upwards of $10 billion apiece; they take 5-10 years to build.
========================================================================

The only reactors that had costs approaching that and took over 5 years
to build were those in the USA in the late 70s and early 80 which were
hampered by the protests and lawsuits of the anti-nukes.

There's nothing in the technology that requires that type of expenditure.
The French routinely built nuclear power plants in 3-5 years at costs
less than $5 billion.

Why would we need 5,000 reactors? Where did you learn arithmetic?

The USA currently derives about 20-25% of its total electric energy
production with the 103 commercial power reactors we have operating.

Your 430 includes all the little research reactors at universities, as
well as the US Navy reactors...

With only 300 to 400 reactors, the USA could run the entire country
on nuclear-generated electricity.

As for the will to build, how serious are you about getting rid of
greenhouse gas producing coal-fueled power plants?

Dr. Greg

[Terry in Austin]

36. Two of the three R's

Why would we need 5,000 reactors? Where did you learn arithmetic?

I could ask the same about your reading.

Upthread, the premise was worldwide needs. NNadir cited the calculations.

"We" as humanity, not just the USA.

[madokie]

24. I think its you thats is doing most of the drooling here

'I personally believe that a just and wise world would have between somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 reactors.'
Neither just nor wise would 5,000 to 10,000 reactors be.

Just think of the cost in money, time and CO2 being released into the atmosphere just building those.

You sure your thinker isn't broken there big guy, something tells me it is big time.

[NickB79]

29. "think of the cost in money, time and CO2 being released into the atmosphere just building those"

Can you say that it would be more than that produced by building the millions of wind turbines and solar panels required to transition away from coal and nat. gas?

[kristopher]

33. Yes - that is precisely wht we can predict.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Nihil]

38. Speaking of things we can predict ...

Is anyone going to save K's fingers by answering his question:
http://www.computing.net/answers/windows-xp/binding-keys-in-windows/108677.html

:P

[kristopher]

39. With so many falsehoods repeated so often by nuclear supporters

It should come as no surprise that the science refuting those nuclear industry lies would require such frequent posting. If you dislike seeing the science, make an appeal to those posting nuclear industry falsehoods to stop doing so.