Probably have a pretty good idea of it. It's been explained enough. The problem comes from all the associated problems with frackking that are not being addressed.
Fracking
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
Probably have a pretty good idea of it. It's been explained enough. The problem comes from all the associated problems with frackking that are not being addressed.
Depending on what it says I could change my mind.
Well, let me revise that.
I would change my mind if regulations are introduced sufficient to protect the water supply.
Well, let me revise that.
I would change my mind if regulations are introduced sufficient to protect the water supply.
As I said, if we're not concerned about reducing carbon emissions, there's nothing wrong with keeping all the coal plants going. And if we are concerned, then building new nuclear power plants is just a dumb idea, not fit for purpose.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
This does not make sense. Nuclear has zero carbon contribution. If carbon is an issue, how can nuclear be dumb?
I am also curious about the opposition to cleaner coal plants. This all or nothing approach is Tea Party-ish.
J
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Nuclear can be considered dumb because 1. it's probably not very cost-effective 2. it leaves a quantity of waste that has to be disposed of 3. it has a potential for catastrophic accidents.
And no doubt some other stuff.
I personally think that nuclear is going to be part of a mix of energy sources for a good proportion of countries, anyway.
And even if nuclear has zero carbon emissions, at the power plant itself, there can still be a lot of carbon emissions associated with it in terms of mining, transport, and construction.
And no doubt some other stuff.
I personally think that nuclear is going to be part of a mix of energy sources for a good proportion of countries, anyway.
And even if nuclear has zero carbon emissions, at the power plant itself, there can still be a lot of carbon emissions associated with it in terms of mining, transport, and construction.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I think you drank the koolaid.
#1 is 100% wrong. Cost efficiency is nuclear power's #1 selling point. It is MUCH less costly.
#2 is valid, but manageable.
#3 is valid, but greatly exaggerated. How many disasters have there been? They are so uncommon, you can probably name them all.
I am not a big fan of nuclear power, but I consider it a viable alternative, especially if clean air is a priority.
J
The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up
U.S. needs to shift public support to less costly, less risky alternatives
Unlike coal and natural gas, nuclear power plants do not emit global warming emissions when operating. Therefore an expansion of nuclear power could be one way to meet our energy needs while lowering our carbon emissions. But nuclear power comes with serious safety and security issues, and new reactors are more expensive than most other low-carbon alternatives.
Building Nuclear Plants: Cheap Dreams, Expensive Realities
In the dawn of the nuclear era, cost was expected to be one of the technology's advantages, not one of its drawbacks. The first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss, predicted in a 1954 speech that nuclear power would someday make electricity too cheap to meter.
A half century later, we have learned that nuclear power is, instead, too expensive to finance.
The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.
The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.
Financing Nuclear Power: Putting the Public at Risk
With this track record, its not surprising that nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financingso the industry has looked to government for subsidies, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support. And these subsidies have not been small: according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate.
When nuclear energy was an emerging technology, public support made some sense. But more than 50 years (and two public bailouts) after the opening of the first U.S. commercial nuclear plant, nuclear power is a mature industry that should be expected to stand on its own.
Instead, the industry has responded to escalating costs with escalating demands for government support. A 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if then-current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized.
Cost and Benefit: Weighing Alternatives
If we want to reduce the climate impact of electric power generation in the United States, there are less costly and risky ways to do it than expanding nuclear power. A 2011 UCS analysis of new nuclear projects in Florida and Georgia shows that the power provided by the new plants would be more expensive per kilowatt than several alternatives, including energy efficiency measures, renewable energy sources such as biomass and wind, and new natural gas plants.
Public financing for energy alternatives should be focused on fostering innovation and achieving the largest possible reduction in heat-trapping emissions per dollar investednot on promoting the growth of an industry that has repeatedly shown itself to be a highly risky investment.
Last Revised: 10/01/13
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-and-our-energy-choices/nuclear-power-costs/
In short, nuclear costs more than most other sources of electric generation. And several forms of generation have falling costs in the long run, like wind and solar.
Read the link he posted. It's all explained there.
Is short: it takes a long time to get a nuclear plant started, and during that whole time carbon continues to stream into the air.
Better to send limited infrastructure dollars to sources that can start reducing emissions sooner.
Cutlass and Peter reiterated what I already posted, but remember also that a lot of us live in countries which presently have no nuclear power industry. The proposition to build such an industry from scratch as a response to the immediate need to reduce carbon emissions is even worse in our case. The economics just don't stack up. That's the big reason why nuclear power has stalled.
(I'd also add, for anyone who favours free markets or small government, that nuclear power is the opposite of deregulation. Its economics demand long term supply contracts, loan guarantees, decommissioning costs, and other risk assumption by the state before any private money even gets involved. It's inherently and enduringly statist in a way which is very different to the renewable energy expansion which is currently reshaping the electricity sector.)
The statist part is really the 'why' behind the drive for nuclear power. Build a nuclear power plant, and you've locked in government subsidies for 50+ years. The government can never stop subsidizing you. It's also a technology which forces centralized command and control of markets. So while distributed power generation makes more sense in oh so many ways, nuclear centralizes the markets. And the customer is on the hook for all of it.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I did not find the article germane to the question of clean air and clean water. Carbon footprint is a subdiscussion I have not entered. I suppose that opposing things like clean coal makes internal sense if the reason is climate change, but it strikes me as specious and illogical. Hence the Tea Party reference.
J
I'm actually in favor of targeted nuclear. Large urban centers could really make use of close, high capacity electricity. Nuclear is more efficient than (say) tar sand oil (in Fort MacMurray), so it makes sense to build a plant there to supply the electricity needs than to burn the local oil for electricity needs.
It's not as perfectly scalable like solar is, but it should be a tool in the toolkit (much like biomass).
It's not as perfectly scalable like solar is, but it should be a tool in the toolkit (much like biomass).
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
France is 80% nuclear, and has NO in-house supply of uranium. Hence, you get French troops in Mali -- where France gets most of its uranium.
Why do you think that? Are the electrons different? Grids are grids.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Electricity grids are notoriously leaky, though, aren't they?
What percentage of the power do you lose over 100 km? It's quite high, iirc.
edit: The further you transmit it the more you lose. I really don't seem able to find the relevant figures on this.
What percentage of the power do you lose over 100 km? It's quite high, iirc.
edit: The further you transmit it the more you lose. I really don't seem able to find the relevant figures on this.
Not really. Australia's National Electricity Market is a wide area synchronous grid running from North Queensland to Tasmania to western South Australia. It covers an area as big as a dozen or more European countries
It's unusually long and thin so a lot of transmission occurs over hundreds of kilometres. Hydro power from Tasmania is sold across the Bass Strait to Victoria and other power is sold the other way. Despite all this, transmission and distribution losses are estimated at about 10% in the NEM, compared to about 6% in Europe. If I had to guess, North America would be closer to Europe.
People get this image in their heads of electricity systems as like water pipes but remember that they're one giant AC circuit. The electricity changes direction 50 or 60 times a second and nothing is really just delivered from point A to point B like in a pipe.
It's unusually long and thin so a lot of transmission occurs over hundreds of kilometres. Hydro power from Tasmania is sold across the Bass Strait to Victoria and other power is sold the other way. Despite all this, transmission and distribution losses are estimated at about 10% in the NEM, compared to about 6% in Europe. If I had to guess, North America would be closer to Europe.
People get this image in their heads of electricity systems as like water pipes but remember that they're one giant AC circuit. The electricity changes direction 50 or 60 times a second and nothing is really just delivered from point A to point B like in a pipe.
Carbon emissions are a "subdiscussion"?
Honestly, because I was under the impression that transmission loss was a real thing. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
