Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

Why do you believe so strongly that global warming is a big net negative

Let's pretend humans were at current developments and science and population but during the last ice age

Would marty of ice age times have also cried let's stop all this fossil fuel useage because if the world warms from 11 centigrade to 15 centigrade it will be the end of life and if we don't glue Chinese panels onto roofs the four horseman will be upon us?

Well the world did warm about 4 centigrade and ice age Marty would have been wrong as the world is fine today very habitable and more humans than ever

And guess what, Marty of today is also wrong
If the world warms by 2 centigrade everything will be just fine
Humans will be fine and life will be fine

Oh dear!!!

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

The damage to what is enormous?

Life...no life laughs at your climate change life survives truely massive instant climate change like the comet that set fire to life and earth and ended the dinosaurs but gave space and existence to countless other species (including humans!)

Humans...no humans have the ability to move around the planet and our economic scientific and technological progress is exponential

So what is global warming an enormous damage to?
The only thing that comes to mind is your ability to claim some moral high ground

Oh, dear, dear, dear!!!!

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nuclear reactors can not go on for ever. There very use causes structural damage, and once this is assessed as too great they have to shutdown.

Once more you sit there and claim to know everything despite actually having no scientific or engineering background

Also, as pointed out, to extend life times, they require enormous additional expense*,

But they are enormous energy generating machines.

and also have to be run at lower levels

Some UK reactors were de rated primarily because the UK has AGRs no where else uses AGRs.
The LWRs of the USA have in fact had UPRATES which is why 2018 was the highest ever nuclear production in the USA despite a few closures

so you don't get more generation, just generation spread out longer.

No see above

*In the US, reactors are being shutdown early, as the cost of maintaining them, even for their original lifespans is too expensive v's RE.

Vs subsidised RE you mean
And also of course cheap shale gas
And only the uneconomical single reactor sites

Also not many have been shut down, thankfully
And 2018 was a record year highest ever USA nuclear production

So once again stop claiming to be abitor of all things
You aren't an expert at anything so keep an open mind
You just read a few green cheerleader websites and come up with gems like shale is a Ponzi

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

relevant points dealt with below.

"I don't understand your post?"
Please read it again and respond properly when you do.

"volcanoes are not an issue"
As far as %CO2 in the atmosphere is concerned, they are a major issue !

"The planet can no longer 'make' FF's as the conditions no longer exist (the planet isn't marshy enough, material isn't buried fast enough, and wood/bio eating bacteria now exist)."
And of course there isn't enough CO2 around to support the right sort of plants !

"Regarding the last ice-age, that's a weird point, the planet should currently be in a cooling phase"
No ! That was widely believed in the 1960s when a new Ice Age was forecast, but later research suggests that we've stopped cooling and are beginning to warm again. If indeed the Earth was in a cooling phase, anything that promotes global warming should be encouraged.

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

Once more you sit there and claim to know everything despite actually having no scientific or engineering background



But they are enormous energy generating machines.



Some UK reactors were de rated primarily because the UK has AGRs no where else uses AGRs.
The LWRs of the USA have in fact had UPRATES which is why 2018 was the highest ever nuclear production in the USA despite a few closures



No see above




Vs subsidised RE you mean
And also of course cheap shale gas
And only the uneconomical single reactor sites

Also not many have been shut down, thankfully
And 2018 was a record year highest ever USA nuclear production

So once again stop claiming to be abitor of all things
You aren't an expert at anything so keep an open mind
You just read a few green cheerleader websites and come up with gems like shale is a Ponzi

If memory serves me correctly, the US has 99 reactors, but only 4 new ones under construction.

But wait, scratch that figure of 4, as two have now been cancelled mid build, despite the $bn's spent, as they wouldn't ever be economical on completion.

It's unlikley the US will roll out any significant amount of new nuclear (or any at all) going forward, as it's extremely unpopular, and now un-economic.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

"I don't understand your post?"
Please read it again and respond properly when you do.

"volcanoes are not an issue"
As far as %CO2 in the atmosphere is concerned, they are a major issue !

"The planet can no longer 'make' FF's as the conditions no longer exist (the planet isn't marshy enough, material isn't buried fast enough, and wood/bio eating bacteria now exist)."
And of course there isn't enough CO2 around to support the right sort of plants !

"Regarding the last ice-age, that's a weird point, the planet should currently be in a cooling phase"
No ! That was widely believed in the 1960s when a new Ice Age was forecast, but later research suggests that we've stopped cooling and are beginning to warm again. If indeed the Earth was in a cooling phase, anything that promotes global warming should be encouraged.

1. Sorry Eric, I simply didn't understand what you meant regarding the amount of the FF's we have used. It's not about percentages for example, it's simply that we've used too much, regardless of how much is left in the ground.

2. Again, sorry, but as far as additional CO2 in the atmosphere goes, volcanoes are not a major issue, certainly not v's human FF emissions. The volcano argument is dead. [Edit - I think you are confusing natural cycles (such as volcanoes (sometimes more or less)) with the impact on equilibrium by the unnatural release of stored CO2 (FF's)]

3. Not sure if you were just being funny? But the point is really important, whilst we can release CO2 from FF's, the planet can no longer put it back.

4. No, you mis understood what I was talking about. I appreciate that in the 60's/70's a small percentage of scientific papers 12% I think) suggested we might see global cooling as a result of the air pollution, especially SOx (I think), the majority (about 60%) correctly predicted AGW.

But what I was talking about, was the natural planetary cycle, and we should currently be in a cooling phase, so when we consider the fact that the temperature has gone up, we need to conclude that 'more than all of it' is down to AGW.

Hope this makes more sense. And to be clear, I genuinely didn't understand your post, so no offence was necessary.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nuclear reactors can not go on for ever.

Yes they can

https://youtu.be/LAh8HryVaeY

There very use causes structural damage, and once this is assessed as too great they have to shutdown.

Or replace the bits that need to be replaced
LWR can go on for 80 years and the USA industry has started applications to extend reactor lives to 80 years.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If memory serves me correctly, the US has 99 reactors, but only 4 new ones under construction.

But wait, scratch that figure of 4, as two have now been cancelled mid build, despite the $bn's spent, as they wouldn't ever be economical on completion.

It's unlikley the US will roll out any significant amount of new nuclear (or any at all) going forward, as it's extremely unpopular, and now un-economic.

I didn't say the USA should build new nukes

New nukes have been uneconomical ever since cheap highly efficient CCGTs were invented and put into use on a large scale around 1990. Renewables didn't kill nuclear, CCGTs killed nuclear three decades ago. 1/20the the size 1/10th the manpower 1/20th the capital cost and upto 62% efficient and can load follow. No competition!!! You think I'm pro nuclear but I'm actually the most pro CCGTs they are truely amazing even more technically brilliant than a nuke

The USA should and will stick with mostly it's current mix of plants
The 'keep what you got going' method
Of course they will deploy some wind and solar projects and good luck to them

Re their old nukes they should keep them as long as possible and economic
In areas with a lot of wind power the nukes should also be subsidised with a CFD type contract

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

Re their old nukes they should keep them as long as possible and economic

And there's your problem. They are not economic, and extending their life makes them ever more expensive as they need ever more TLC, and the reactors get ever more fragile/brittle due to neutron bombardment.


Now, nuclear was (in my opinion) a good alternative to FF's as it's low carbon and far less polluting (if nothing goes wrong) than coal emissions.

But, nuclear, new and old, is no longer economical v's RE. And since RE has no scaleability issues, there is really no argument to build new nuclear, nor spend vast amounts of money on extending the life of existing nuclear, when we could get more generation from RE - more bang for your buck.

GreatApe wrote: »

Or replace the bits that need to be replaced
LWR can go on for 80 years and the USA industry has started applications to extend reactor lives to 80 years.

Just replace them, simples, like the reactor vessels?

The reason the US is considering licences for 20yr extensions (to 60 or later 80yrs) is because the average age of the fleet is 39yrs, and US reactors have 40yr licences.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And there's your problem. They are not economic, and extending their life makes them ever more expensive as they need ever more TLC, and the reactors get ever more fragile/brittle due to neutron bombardment.

Who are you to claim this as fact?

Not only that but you assume no solutions can be found
You are wrong on both counts

Last time I checked 90% of USA reactors had applied for and received 20 year life extension and 3 had applied for another 20 year life extension on top of that (and the rest will likely follow(

Re neutron bombardment it's a problem where your moderator is graphite blocks like the UK AGRs
It's not a problem where your moderator is water as per pretty much every other reactor on earth
And yes while pressure vessels reactors can be replaced

Now, nuclear was (in my opinion) a good alternative to FF's as it's low carbon and far less polluting (if nothing goes wrong) than coal emissions.

But, nuclear, new and old, is no longer economical v's RE. And since RE has no scaleability issues, there is really no argument to build new nuclear, nor spend vast amounts of money on extending the life of existing nuclear, when we could get more generation from RE - more bang for your buck.

Why do you keep pretending it was wind/PV what made nuclear redundant
It was CCGTs that made nuclear redundant
CCGTs are very economical very efficient and when CCGTs become a real options around the mid to late 1980s there was no case to be made for nukes

CCGT Vs Nukes
About 1/20th the size, 1/20th the cost, 1/20th the land, 1/10th the labor force to run it, lower maintenance and repair, up to 98% availability, can load follow.
CCGTs won

Just replace them, simples, like the reactor vessels?

Yes if necessary and economic
A nuke plant is primarily a building almost all the cost is the buildings
The actual nuclear part is about the size of a bus a fraction of the cost of the bike plant

The reason the US is considering licences for 20yr extensions (to 60 or later 80yrs) is because the average age of the fleet is 39yrs, and US reactors have 40yr licences.

The USA isn't just considering 20 year life extension they have already applied for twenty year extensions for about 90% of the fleet. They are now starting to apply for another 20 years to give reactors a total 80 year life.

Of course economics will dictate if plants operate
A plant can be shut down even mid way through a licence
If you subsidies wind and solar which makes baseload uneconomical then sure they will close
But this isn't s good news story
It's not like the USA is nearly 100% green they are still bulk coal and gas
The US existing nukes are also quite economic with costs around $33/MWh (2017) which is about half the cost of your offshore wind farms that will be delivered around 2024 and you keep jumping up and down about

Of course USA gas fired CCGTs are perhaps even more economical than this cheap $33/MWh nuclear cost. Both are cheap but shale at the moment is cheaper still