CO2 is killing the planet - yet some are calling for an end to zero carbon nuclear power???

[txlibdem]

Not the end of oil.

Not the end of coal.

Not the end of natural gas.

No, they are disregarding all the climate science we have learned and are calling for ending nuclear power... which is zero carbon, zero emissions, zero pollution (all of its pollution is contained and constantly monitored).

Why would someone fail to see that it is fossil fuels that need to end??? Is there some kind of agenda at work here? Is there some selective memory? I don't know and don't really care. The truth is: Fossil Fuels MUST END... NOW!!!

References:
'Fracking' chemical found in town's aquifer - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x316625

Americans using more fossil fuels - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x316539

NOAA greenhouse gas index continues climbing - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x316538

World has five years to avoid severe warming: IEA - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x316502

Groundbreaking Study Quantifies Health Costs of U.S. Climate Change-Related Disasters & Disease - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x316534

[Harmony Blue]

1. Using hyperbole never accomplishes anything

By definition water vapor is also killing the planet.

As for nuclear power, the risk versus reward is no longer worth it given we can start to quantify the risks. We always knew the risks involved with fossil fuels. But now we have a comparison point, nuclear power isn't better than fossil fuels ironically. Renewable energy can replace nuclear and most fossil fuels. Coal will be the hardest to replace, but all it will take is one breakthrough.

As a result, we are not far off from a world without a need for nuclear of fossil fuels. The idea we have to choose one or another is a faulty premise to begin with.

[FBaggins]

23. Never?

Seems hyperbolic. :)

[txlibdem]

24. Are you saying that climate change is "hyperbole???"

96% of climate scientists, and the majority of voters, would disagree with you.

Water vapor? Come on.

Nuclear power risks versus rewards; that's a fair question but you are not looking at it fairly. You compare brand new technology (renewables) with 30 or 40 year old technology... that's your idea of a fair comparison??? You cannot be fair about the risks and rewards of the old nuclear plants because the risks will always grow larger each year and the rewards will fluctuate with the economy (except the fact that they will never emit any CO2, NOX, SOX, Lead, Mercury, or any of the hundreds of other poisonous chemicals found in fossil fuels -- you conveniently left that out).

And it is people like you, anti-nuke advocates who won't let any new nuclear power plants be built, that have caused this situation. Had new plants been allowed to be built the older plants would probably have been allowed to be shut down... but we need the copious amounts of clean power they produce so their licenses will be extended (a foolish move in my opinion).

It is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Old nuclear plants are always going to be less safe than newly built ones, leaving cities with these old plants at the mercy of anti-nuke protesters. Murphy's Law applies to nuclear power plants just as much as anything else and since you lot have not allowed those old plants to be replaced it is a sure bet that there will be accidents and leaks.

The choice is not which do we keep, fossil fuels or nuclear: we keep NEITHER. The proper question is which one do we get rid of first.

I say we need to get rid of coal first, then oil, and at the same time put 10 times the current effort into renewable energy than we currently are and take coal plants offline as soon as adequate renewable sources with 24/7 energy storage are available to replace the lost electrical power.

Once we have rid the planet of coal and oil we must continue the expansion of renewable energy so we can begin to shut down nuclear power plants and natural gas uses as well.

Any other course is guaranteeing massive devastation from climate change.

[kristopher]

43. Some = all climate action NGOs

[TheWraith]

40. I've heard that same thing for years, and years, and years.

"As a result, we are not far off from a world without a need for nuclear of fossil fuels."

That's literally what they were saying 30 years ago: it'll just happen on it's own, we'll have a clean energy miracle with no trade-offs or anything we're uncomfortable. Some solar panels will do the whole thing. Still hasn't happened. And yes, whether we like it or not, nuclear power is infinitely better than fossil fuels by any measure. If you think the damage we're doing to the planet with CO2 is any less dangerous, more manageable, or more short-lived than radioactive waste, you're not looking at the big picture at all.

[patrice]

2. What about the kinds of tax-supported financing nuclear plants get? If they're good business

why do they need welfare, especially since we have to pay for the power too.

Zero pollution? Oh come on!!! Does that mean we can just put the wastes any-old-where? That question is ALWAYS ignored.

Can you admit that we REALLY DO NOT have the nuclear waste issues solved?

[Harmony Blue]

4. Most nuclear waste currently is on site which provides many problems

for engineers and scientists.

One, increasing the magnitude of damage done if an accident occurs at the plant nearby, and two. there is no reliable way to ensure this material is not exposed to the water table. Throw in that earthquakes can take place in the middle of tectonic plates, and we have a lot of engineering and logistical problems for nuclear power to be reasonable for use once more.

Nuclear power has its place for space exploration or military, but for use for civilians I think its time is coming to an end.

[baldguy]

6. Aww, c'mon! A little radiation never hurt anybody!

http://gizmodo.com/5853988/the-simpsons-called-it-three-eyed-fish-caught-outside-a-nuclear-power-plant

[The Second Stone]

3. How come people who support nuclear power don't

invest a significant portion of their own money in nuclear power companies, established and start up?

[Harmony Blue]

5. A better investment to combat CO2

is to slow down deforestation practices and to plant more vegetation.

[txlibdem]

25. Halting deforestation is very important, reforestation equally so

But that cannot be the only action we take. The problem is too large now, thanks to that idiot Ronald Reagan. We cannot take baby steps and hope for the best.

The rise in CO2 production easily outstrips the effect any forestation projects would have.

The only way to halt the increase in CO2 and the other deadly pollutants of fossil fuels is to switch to renewable energy sources -- and close down the coal plants, stop using oil and then (and only then) end the use of nuclear power.

[Webster Green]

7. I guess you missed hearing about a couple of incidents.

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

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

[Fumesucker]

8. Can you say "Fukushima"?

Sure, I knew you could.

That plant is *still* spewing radiation into the atmosphere and probably will for years to come, it's still not known what's going on with all the reactor cores because the radiation levels are too high to allow inspection.

[cui bono]

10. You could have used your "Because... shut up. That's why." answer here.

:rofl:

[Fumesucker]

14. I save that one for special occasions..

Wouldn't want to blunt its edge with overuse..

:evilgrin:

I actually got the "shut up" part from Dharma and Greg, Dharma and her even ditzier friend used it as an all purpose saying.. I spent over a year nearly incapacitated and that show and a few others like Roseanne and Grace Under Pressure probably saved my sanity.

[NBachers]

11. So who is that guy in the picture, anyway?

[Fumesucker]

12. Mohamed Bouazizi

The Tunisian man whose self immolation triggered the Arab Spring and now the Western Fall aka OWS..

I'm starting to think theres a good chance he may end up one of the seminal figures in modern history.

[cui bono]

9. Calling for the end of radioactive nuclear waste.

Also, you conveniently failed to mention alternatives such as solar and wind.

:crazy:

:eyes:

[MADem]

18. I like solar and wind. I also would like it if our geniuses could find a way

to USE the waste from nuke plants--to make the operation so efficient that there is no, or very little, waste at the end of the line.

I think that could be the next step, if there was a will.

[Confusious]

20. They have found a way

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

but it'll never happen, because:

http://www.despair.com/consulting.html

Who wins in extending the problem? hint it ain't the nuclear companies.

[MADem]

22. Ok, the poster in the second link made me laugh! nt

[kentauros]

27. I don't know how viable either of the following methods are,

but here they are for y'all's perusal:

Anatoly Kinderevich: Transmutation of Nuclear Waste

Chien Wai: Radioactive Waste Recycling
(Ligand-assisted supercritical fluid extraction for the removal of transuranic contamination)


Personally, I'd be happier if we ended all subsidies to the nuclear industry yet still spent that money, only on Polywell Fusion. If it really works as their research indicates, one idea I've had lately is for these units to be be built and operated to use some of their output just for carbon sequestering and reclamation/degradation of nuclear wastes :D

[Gman]

13. Don't forget about being against wind electricity because it kills birds

doesn't leave a lot of options.

[provis99]

15. you forgot the sarcasm thingy.

[jwirr]

16. When you say nuke are 0 carbon are you including getting the original

material out of the ground and to the site of the plant? Or the disposal of the end waste products? And the building of the plants?

[madokie]

21. I'll suggest right now that NO he doesn't see that part of the nuclear energy boondoggle

When all things are taken into account there is not a whole lot of difference in coal or nuclear, different processes same end result. Killing of the planet we call home

[jwirr]

29. Thanks to Kunstler's The Long Emergency I figured that. I also know

about how TVA built a nuke plant that took 22 years to build and when they were through it was out of date and they had to fix it before they could use it. (Brother-in-law worked on it.)

[XemaSab]

17. Net recommendation: 0 votes

(Your vote: +1)

[miyazaki]

19. As you mention, the responses fail to see your point.

When you mentioned nuclear, they all went bananas on you.

[txlibdem]

26. The sure sign of a person with AN AGENDA

Or a zealot.

I don't want to entrust the future of the planet to zealots, nor people with a single focus. I just don't think it's a wise move.

[Kolesar]

28. Because of that nuclear plant 500 feet from my drinking water supply

and its criminal management: Davis Besse.

[txlibdem]

37. Don't go to this link and look up the real danger

http://www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing/

The danger you face is real and it's from coal power plants, not some boogey-man nuclear plant that you've been convinced is so scary.

[Kolesar]

41. There are statistical methods to prevent disasters,but they dont work when companies falsify safety

...reports like First Energy did at Davis Besse.
They claimed to have inspected the nozzles in that corroded "pressure head" when they had not. Three people were convicted of criminal activity.

[kristopher]

42. The real safety record is far worse than the statistical predictions the nuke industry advertised

Reassessing the frequency of partial core melt accidents
April 27th, 2011 by Thomas B. Cochran, National Ressources Defense Council

There have been enough partial core-melt accidents that we can ask whether the operational nuclear power plants throughout the world are safe enough as a group.

12 nuclear power reactors have experienced fuel-damage or partial core-melt accidents: The Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE), Stationary Low-Power Reactor No. 1 (SL-1), Enrico Fermi Reactor-1, Chapelcross-2, St. Laurent A-1 and A-2, Three Mile Island-2, Chernobyl-4, Greifswald-5 and Fukushima Daiichi-1, -2 and -3. (see Table 1 in paper). Eleven of these (all except SL-1) produced electricity and were connected to the grid during some period of their operation, and all are now permanently shut down. In assessing the historical core melt frequency among nuclear power reactors, the number counted depends on how the issue is framed. SL-1 is excluded because it was an experimental reactor, and the design was abandoned after the accident. Although it was the first U.S. reactor to supply electricity to the grid, the SRE could be excluded because it was primarily a research reactor. Chapelcross-2 and St. Laurent A1 and A2 were dual use military reactors, producing plutonium for weapons and electricity for civilian use. From the data available to this author it is unclear whether any fuel actually melted in Greifswald-5. In five cases then, i.e., SRE, Chapelcross-2, St. Laurent A1 and A2, and Greifswald-5, the fuel melt or damage did not result in immediate closure of the plant; rather the damage was repaired and the reactor was restarted.

Worldwide, there have been 137 nuclear power plants that have been shut down after becoming operational with a total generating capacity of about 40,000 MWe and 2,835 reactor-years of cumulative operation (1). Thus, one in twelve <137/11 = 12.5> or fourteen shut down power reactors experienced some form of fuel damage during their operation Of the power reactors that have been shut down one in 23 <137/6 = 22.8> were shut down as a direct consequence of partial core melt accidents; one for every 500 reactor-years <2,835/6 = 472.5> of operation. Only about seven of eight giga-watts (GW) <40,000-5,250.5)/40,000 = 0.87≈ 7/8> of nuclear power plant capacity have been closed without experiences a fuel damage accident. One out of 13 GW <40,000/3,011 = 13.3> of nuclear power plant capacity have been closed as a direct result of a fuel melting accident.

Worldwide, there have been 582 nuclear power reactors that have operated approximately 14,400 reactor-years (1). Thus, to date, the historical frequency of core-melt accidents is about one in 1,300 reactor-years <14,400/11 = 1,309>, or excluding SRE, about one in 1,400 reactor-years...

http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2011/04/27/reassessing-the-frequency-of-partial-core-melt-accidents/


- 12 nuclear power reactors have experienced fuel-damage or partial core-melt accidents: The Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE), Stationary Low-Power Reactor No. 1 (SL-1), Enrico Fermi Reactor-1, Chapelcross-2, St. Laurent A-1 and A-2, Three Mile Island-2, Chernobyl-4, Greifswald-5 and Fukushima Daiichi-1, -2 and -3. (see Table 1 in paper).


- Eleven of these (all except SL-1) produced electricity and were connected to the grid during some period of their operation, and all are now permanently shut down.


- In assessing the historical core melt frequency among nuclear power reactors, the number counted depends on how the issue is framed. SL-1 is excluded because it was an experimental reactor, and the design was abandoned after the accident. Although it was the first U.S. reactor to supply electricity to the grid, the SRE could be excluded because it was primarily a research reactor. Chapelcross-2 and St. Laurent A1 and A2 were dual use military reactors, producing plutonium for weapons and electricity for civilian use.


- From the data available to this author it is unclear whether any fuel actually melted in Greifswald-5.


- In five cases then, i.e., SRE, Chapelcross-2, St. Laurent A1 and A2, and Greifswald-5, the fuel melt or damage did not result in immediate closure of the plant; rather the damage was repaired and the reactor was restarted.


- Worldwide, there have been 137 nuclear power plants that have been shut down after becoming operational with a total generating capacity of about 40,000 MWe and 2,835 reactor-years of cumulative operation (1).


- Thus, one in twelve ... or fourteen ... shut down power reactors experienced some form of fuel damage during their operation.


- Of the power reactors that have been shut down one in 23 ... were shut down as a direct consequence of partial core melt accidents; one for every 500 reactor-years ... of operation.


- Only about seven of eight giga-watts (GW) ... of nuclear power plant capacity have been closed without experiences a fuel damage accident.


- One out of 13 GW ... of nuclear power plant capacity have been closed as a direct result of a fuel melting accident.


- Worldwide, there have been 582 nuclear power reactors that have operated approximately 14,400 reactor-years. Thus, to date, the historical frequency of core-melt accidents is about one in 1,300 reactor-years ..., or excluding SRE, about one in 1,400 reactor-years...



This probably deserves its own thread.

[txlibdem]

50. Again, I show you ACTUAL DEATHS from coal and you steer the damnation toward nuclear

Fossil fuels have killed people -TODAY- and yesterday, and they'll kill again tomorrow!!!

Your post is nothing but an anti-nuker hit piece that ignores the true killer in the room: FOSSIL FUELS.

[Kolesar]

59. One core lost per 500 reactor years x 9 reactors -> 2% chance/year

And that is just upstream from Niagara Falls, Txlibdem.
They won't have to light the falls at night, they will glow.

[txlibdem]

62. Where did you pull *that* statistic out of (I have a guess)

No link? No data? No studies?

Is that just your opinion. You know what they say about opinions...

[Kolesar]

60. I wonder if the nuclear companies are any safer than the oil industry

...despite the nukes using complicated safety calculations. The oil industry has had famous disasters like Exxon Valdez, Piper Alpha and Deepwater Horizon. I would be comparing the two industries.

[txlibdem]

63. Already been done: oil is 100s of times MORE dangerous than nuclear

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Source: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html

[txlibdem]

49. I show you actual deaths from coal use... and you grips about some nuke nozzle???

Fossil fuels are killing today --RIGHT NOW-- and you don't have a word to say about it.

[Kolesar]

58. If radioactive water poured into Lake Erie at the rate at Fukushima, it would poison the water...

...supply for Toledo, Lorain, Cleveland, Mentor, Ashtabula, Erie, Buffalo, Port Stanley, Niagara Falls, Toronto, Rochester, Montreal and Quebec City. Not to mention that it would be an unconscionable and preventable disaster. There are more stakeholders in this process than just the shareholders of First Energy.

[txlibdem]

61. Breaking News: Coal ash spills into Lake Michigan

How prescient of you. But instead of being only radioactive material, this spill also includes some 40 other toxic chemicals. The media is downplaying it, the government is not mentioning it, the anti-nukers don't seem to care even though it's enough radiation to pollute Lake Michigan for a generation if not more.

November 1, 2011 - posted by jamie

In a bizarre concidence on the heels of an EPA update on hazardous coal ash ponds in the U.S., a coal ash dam a cliff wall on a coal ash pond a bluff wall containing backfilled coal ash in Wisconsin broke collapsed yesterday, spilling as yet unreported amounts of toxic coal ash into Lake Michigan.

A pickup truck and several construction trailers were pushed into the lake when a football-field sized section of cliff at the We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant in Oak Creek, Wis., gave way. According to the Milwaukee, Wisconsin Sentinel-Journal, the debris field stretched 120 yards long and up to 80 yards wide at the bottom. No one was hurt in the slide.

http://appvoices.org/2011/11/01/coal-ash-spills-into-lake-michigan/

We Energies: Debris in Lake Michigan contains coal ash

By The Associated Press

CREATED Nov. 1, 2011 - UPDATED: Nov. 1, 2011

MILWAUKEE- A We Energies spokeswoman says the debris that washed into Lake Michigan this week during a sudden landslide likely contains coal ash.

A section of cliff collapsed Monday at the power plant in the suburban Milwaukee city of Oak Creek. No one was hurt, but a swath of debris the size of a football field swept toward and into the water.

Spokeswoman Cathy Schulze says records of land use in the area suggest there was decades-old coal ash around. She said Tuesday she didn't immediately have further details on how much coal ash may have spilled.

Coal ash contains arsenic, selenium, lead and mercury in low concentrations.

The Sierra Club says Congress needs to stop interfering with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to strengthen coal-ash regulation.

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/133016383.html

[GliderGuider]

30. The sure way to keep CO2 emissions from killing the planet has nothing to do with nuclear power.

The sure way to reduce CO2 emissions is for our global civilization to use less fossil fuel energy.

The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Adding low-carbon energy sources alongside fossil fuels in the hopes that they will displace oil, coal and natural gas has so far proven to be a chimera.

Nuclear power is a bit player on the global energy scene, one we can easily afford to do without.
The same can be said for most renewable power at the moment.

The kicker is that the only thing that has ever reduced our use of fossil fuels has been economic decline.

Since I prefer evidence-based (rather than faith-based) approaches to physical problems, I prefer solutions that have already been proven. Economic collapse will provide exactly what we all say we want: a reduction in both fossil fuel use and nuclear power in one fell swoop.

[txlibdem]

31. Solar and wind are just getting started. Give them a chance.

You say that adding solar, wind and the other renewable (and zero carbon) energy sources to displace fossils has so far proven to be a chimera but it's far too early in the game to say that.

Look at the growth in both the wind and solar sectors: wind doubled over last year, solar went up over 60%. Project that growth out 10 years and tell me that it won't be making a serious dent in fossil fuel use.

The main issues that had slowed the growth of wind power have been the mechanical gearbox and its expensive maintenance and repair costs. GE and Siemens have both figured out how to do away with the gearbox and those wind turbines will filter into the market, eventually dominate. http://www.technologyreview.in/energy/25188/

Energy storage is the next hurdle to overcome but it isn't a critical need until wind and solar reach 20% of our energy production. That'll take some years and yet there is already a solar plant operating for 24 hours:

"Gemasolar Achieves 24-Hour Operation
By Renewable Energy World Network Editors
October 14, 2011 | 2 Comments
Molten salt storage has enabled the 19.9-MW Spanish plant to hit "baseload" performance, running for 15 hours without sun."

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/10/gemasolar-achieves-24-hour-operation

As you can see we have already tackled the science and the overall technologies. They will be refined over the next decade as wind and solar grow. I doubt you'll think they're a fantasy in 2020.

[GliderGuider]

32. OK, ask me again in 2020. Between now and then, though, we have to cut fossil fuel use drastically.

Wind and solar aren't players in that scenario yet.

Economic collapse is.

[txlibdem]

33. Removing the $72 BN that fossil gets and put that into renewables would help

Even with our "Kenyan Socialist" President's programs to fund renewable energy, fossil fuels still get almost double each year and these are the most profitable companies in the history of the world. Why in hell are we subsidizing fossil fuels???

Put that $72 Billion into grants and loan guarantees for renewable energy projects and a proper FIT program and it will help even more.

[GliderGuider]

34. So, get busy and do it!

Because until something changes, things will stay the same...

[txlibdem]

35. Thanks for the suggestion

I'll just get off my comfy couch and change all those government policies all by myself.
:sarcasm:

If I weren't disabled I would already be joining the Occupy Dallas folk. But my efforts are going to have to be confined to areas of my house that I can get to. Sorry.

[GliderGuider]

36. That's the thing, isn't it?

We can point out the flaws in the system all day long, but until something changes, nothing will change. For all our mighty pronouncements of What Must Be Done, none of us can do squat on our own.

[txlibdem]

38. None of us can do squat on our own. Correct.

That is why OWS is so important. Every American who is not disabled should be spending at least 1 hour a week doing something to help the local OWS encampments: clean up around the place, bring sandwiches or other food, bring toothpaste and other toiletries, march for just an hour, etc.

[GliderGuider]

39. Take a look at Blessed Unrest.

OWS is just a small (though visible) part of a much larger global unfolding.

[hunter]

47. Anyone here can walk outside and flip their main circuit breaker...

... and magic! No more fossil fuel or nuclear generated electrical power will flow into their home.

It's like drinking too much or smoking. You quit the harmful habit by not drinking too much or smoking. You don't protest in the streets with a cigarette in your mouth and a forty ouncer in your hand demanding the alcoholic beverage and tobacco industries shut down. That just makes you look like a hypocrite.

If you truly believe you can get along without fossil fuels or nukes, do it. Show everyone how it's done.

I bought a new car once in 1987 because that's what society expected young adults with good jobs to do. I'll never do it again. I've pretty much had my fill of this broken society's fucked up expectations. I don't want to support the automobile industry. Most days I don't drive, but when I do the spiders living on and in my car hunker down and await the car's return to it's proper place as a neighborhood eyesore in my driveway.

When we were newlyweds my wife and I were Los Angeles commuters. It has been a priority of ours not to be a commuters again and we've been fairly successful at that.

There are quite a few ways I'm consciously contributing to the economic decline of our consumer society. I know this hurts most the people who have nothing rather than the people who have everything, so I try to make up for my economic non-participation with my socialism. My personal vision for the future is walkable cities with generous welfare systems and vibrant art communities, and rural mostly organic farming communities that are very well-connected to neighboring cities by public transportation and broadband communication systems.

As a concession to my wife, whose perspective is not so radical as my own, I don't walk out and turn off our main circuit breaker, to live under the light of a few solar powered LEDs and a salvaged laptops held together with duct tape. At the same time I don't feel too bad about the mix of power flowing into my house, of which 40% is generated by natural gas, and the rest nuclear and hydro.

I do support the collapse of this economic system in favor of something better. But I'm not confident we can accomplish that without a lot of pain. The very wealthy control the resources to insulate themselves from the crisis. Like feudal lords they will continue to feast as the peasants starve.

[mackdaddy]

44. Nuclear Plants need 12 years of energy production to equal the energy needed to build them.

Even solar needs more than a year of energy production to equal the energy needed to manufacture. And most of this up front energy is still Hydrocarbon!

Uranium mining equipment still runs on diesel. Over half our electricity to run uranium refining equipment still comes from coal or gas fired plants. Construction equipment runs on diesel, delivery trucks run on diesel, and all the employees still burn gasoline to get to work.

I am not anti-nuke, but between the high up-front cost, the huge problems if an accident does happen, and the multi-thousand year waste disposal problems it is a pretty hard sell for me.

Solar is not the only solution, but after we have solar panels on every roof possible, lets talk Nuclear.

[txlibdem]

45. In that case we need to built 25% more of them than we thought we needed

Or we need to build more wind power or solar power to provide that energy. I'd prefer we take that route.

It's a solvable equation.

[kristopher]

46. Yeah, take the worst solution and waste more money on it because it is bad.

That's just the kind of thinking we've come to expect from you tld. Thanks for delivering yet again.

A plant manufacturing wind turbines just upgraded their manufacturing process and can put out 2.5GWe of wind turbines per year.

At the end of ten years this single plant should be responsible for manufacturing about 25 GWe of wind turbines.

I estimated the total amount of electricity produced as the turbines come online over time and at the end of that 10 years, operating at 33% capacity, they would have provided a cumulative total of approximately 389.7 TWh.

I selected 10 years because this is the time it would take to build complete one nuclear plant project if it doesn't suffer delays - and they almost always do.

One nuclear plant actually produces about 7 TWh each year.

So devoting approximately the same resources to each technology gives us, at the end of 10 years:
wind turbines producing 72 TWhs of electricity per year plus the 54 years worth of production from the nuclear plant that the wind turbines have already cranked out.
OR
One nuclear plant that might be ready to begin to producing 7TWh per year.

Given the standard 20 year life span for the turbines and assuming the plant continued production of the same product, this factory will max out it's contribution to growth of wind power at 50GWe when it hits the 20 year mark and starts to build replacements for those wearing out.

That 50GW of turbines should actually produce approximately 144 TWh of electricity every year.

50GW faceplate capacity X .33 capacity factor = 16.5GW of production

That 16.5GW equals approximately twenty (20) 1GW nuclear reactors operating at the international average capacity factor of about 80%.

That's one factory making what is now a rather small 2.5MW wind turbine...

[txlibdem]

48. You didn't read my post. I said I'd prefer that extra energy come from solar and wind.

Your math is complex enough that those who don't know the wind potential for their area could easily be confused by them. Always remember that wind is higher in some seasons than others and if you happen to live in one of those unlucky areas where the wind speed is 10% in winter of what it is in summer you'll wonder why all those equations didn't result in producing the energy you thought it would.

All wind farms should in some way feed into an energy storage system somewhere (whether that be on site, locally, city-wide, regional, in-state, or national -- it doesn't matter as long as all the extra energy has someplace to be stored until it's needed).

[kristopher]

53. The math is simple.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=316652&mesg_id=316893

[txlibdem]

54. That proves nothing: I've said it a million times that I prefer solar and wind to any other energy

So you're speaking to the choir there.

PS, your numbers do not apply to the Generation IV, mass produced and passively safe small to medium size nuclear reactors.

Nor do they apply to the LFTR, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, which will also be mass produced.

So basically, your posts keep saying we should never build nuclear plants that are identical to the ones in the 1970s and 1980s. Brilliant. I agree 100%.

[kristopher]

55. And yet you routinely and aggressively promote current nuclear technologies.

This thread is an undeniable testament to your actual positions.

[txlibdem]

57. False. False. False.

I do not promote CURRENT nuclear technologies.

I promote mass produced passively safe designs such as SMRs and LFTR, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. The two have absolutely ZERO in common with current nuclear technologies.

Your style of argumentation belongs on a 2nd grade playground, not a serious online forum for adults.

[txlibdem]

51. Compare apples to apples: nuclear power plants work 24/7/365 putting out clean zero carbon energy

So the only fair comparison is to include the extra solar or wind needed and the storage for said solar or wind that will make it equal to the steady power output from a nuclear power plant.

For solar it's pretty easy but wind is so variable by season, wind in winter produces 10% the energy compared to spring and summer in most places.

[kristopher]

52. All of that is false. Nothing you write has any more validity than your floating cities.

Eleven professional organizations of more than 1,200,000 engineers say, "We have the technology to slash global emissions" and they are referring to renewables - NOT nuclear. The ONLY arguing points for nuclear are falsehoods manufactured out of whole cloth.

The technology needed to cut the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 already exists, according to a joint statement by eleven of the world’s largest engineering organisations.

...The statement says that generating electricity from wind, waves and the sun, growing biofuels sustainably, zero emissions transport, low carbon buildings and energy efficiency technologies have all been demonstrated. However they are not being developed for wide-scale use fast enough and there is a desperate need for financial and legislative support from governments around the world if they are to fulfil their potential.

...“While the world’s politicians have been locked in talks with no output, engineers across the globe have been busy developing technologies that can bring down emissions and help create a more stable future for the planet.

“We are now overdue for government commitment, with ambitious, concrete emissions targets that give the right signals to industry, so they can be rolled out on a global scale.”

http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/11-09-23/Future_Climate_2_We_have_the_technology_to_slash_global_emissions_say_engineers.aspx


o The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) (UK)
o The Institution of Engineers (India)
o The Association of German Engineers (VDI) (Germany)
o The Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers (JSME) (Japan)
o The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers (APESMA) (Australia)
o The Danish Society of Engineers (IDA) (Denmark)
o The Civil Engineer Organisation of Honduras (CICH) (Honduras)
o The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers (Sweden)
o The Norwegian Society of Engineers (NITO) (Norway)
o The Finnish Association of Graduate Engineers (TEK) (Finland)
o The Union of Professional Engineers (UIL) (Finland)

These organizations represent over 1.2 million engineers.


See also http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=316652&mesg_id=316893 for a picture of what can be done with distributed renewable technologies and why countries like Germany are turning their goals to 100% renewable energy systems.

[txlibdem]

56. So comparing apples to apples is false??? You amaze me!

You countered my Solar + Wind + storage with Solar + Wind + Waves + growing biofuels sustainably + zero emissions transport + low carbon buildings + energy efficiency technologies. That statement brings us to a much broader discussion than the scope of the OP and my posts in it.

I've posted about electric cars on a number of occasions: zero emissions transport
I've posted about Personal Rapid Transit and electric High Speed Rail: zero emissions transport
I've posted about Geothermal Heating and Cooling/Passive Solar Houses/Passive House: low carbon buildings
I've posted about LED light bulbs: Energy efficiency technologies
I've posted about Vertical Farming: Energy efficiency technologies (as well as clean, pesticide free food... yum).

So your claim that I am false, when I have posted about the immediate need for each of those things, holds no water. Claiming I am wrong when you are the one who has consistently been against all of those things is the height of hypocrisy.

Heck, I've even made a statement so similar to your quote that it is downright eerie:
"The statement says that generating electricity from wind, waves and the sun, growing biofuels sustainably, zero emissions transport, low carbon buildings and energy efficiency technologies have all been demonstrated. However they are not being developed for wide-scale use fast enough and there is a desperate need for financial and legislative support from governments around the world if they are to fulfil their potential."

And I posted that we need to take all subsidies from fossil fuels and channel it instead to renewable energy. I've also posted that we need to increase our efforts in the area of renewable energy 10 times more than we are right now. Again, your claim doesn't stand up to the facts.