Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

Nuclear like anything has a learning curve so looking at first of a kind costs would be like looking at offshore wind prices in 2010 and saying it's uneconomical let's not try

As shown on one of my other threads you can build a nuke in under 4.5 years

Nuclear would work perfectly fine and at cheap affordable prices (USA nuclear cost 2017 was $33/MWh which works out to £26.40/MWh at today's exchange rate)

The problem is very few nations are big enough to warrant a 50+ reactor build to get economic of save and learning curves. So for the UK it's not a good idea plus the UK grid is already solved

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

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

Simply reporting the news, new reactors cancelled as they won't be economic, and old reactors, such as Three Mile Island being shutdown before end of life as they aren't economic.

Just the facts man, just the facts.

GreatApe wrote: »

Nuclear like anything has a learning curve so looking at first of a kind costs would be like looking at offshore wind prices in 2010 and saying it's uneconomical let's not try

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Nuclear is not AFOAK, it's been around, and heavily subsidised for about 60yrs, and in that time costs have actually gone up as it's proven to not be 100% safe. Also costs have gone up due to more complex builds, so that teh structures can be more easily dismantled in a century or so, as the old ones are going to be, shall we say ...... a bit tricky to decommission.


HPC is not AFOAK and it might start generating in 2028 on a 35yr subsidy of £102/MWh v's off-shore wind commissioned around 2025 on a net zero subsidy of 15yrs.

FOAK

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

nuclear

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Oh man that hurts, my poor ribs.

EricMears

NOT a newly published article but still worth a read


http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

NOT a newly published article but still worth a read


http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

Not an insult Eric, a genuine comment - I'm quite a bit sad and disappointed today, as I used to think a lot more of you.

Oh well, all the best.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Simply reporting the news, new reactors cancelled as they won't be economic, and old reactors, such as Three Mile Island being shutdown before end of life as they aren't economic.

You are reporting bias not news

An old reactor or two shuts down
2018 was the highest every production of nuclear electricity in the USA

You choose to look at a closed nuke or two an infer and cheerlead that the end is nigh and nuclear was never and will never be economic. When the truth is nuclear output was the highest ever and the USA fleet is still a very good effective cheap asset producing record amounts of energy for around $33/MWh (2017 figure)

Just the facts man, just the facts.

You are blind to your own bias

Marty: Shale is a Ponzi
Reasonable person: A huge industry of about $250 billion annually is doing something illegal and no one but this internet expert sees it....best to ignore him

Marty: USA nuclear is failing
Reasonable person: Output is at all time records.....best to ignore him

Marty: Fossil fuels cause untold health harms we would save billions on healthcare if only we stopped using coal
Reasonable person: well coal use in the UK crashed towards nowt over a five year period where is my NHS dividend?

Nuclear is not AFOAK, it's been around, and heavily subsidised for about 60yrs, and in that time costs have actually gone up as it's proven to not be 100% safe. Also costs have gone up due to more complex builds, so that teh structures can be more easily dismantled in a century or so, as the old ones are going to be, shall we say ...... a bit tricky to decommission.

Wind power has been around for 2000+ years probably therefore I conclude no improvement could be made post about 60 years after Jesus of Nazareth died

Nuclear was a success in the USA and in France and in Germany and now in China
Not a success in the UK or USA as we haven't built one for the best part of 30 years
But would be a success if we did 20+ especially Miri reactors at the same site.
UK doesn't need new nuclear but it could be successful in China India and other big growing economies

HPC is not AFOAK and it might start generating in 2028 on a 35yr subsidy of £102/MWh v's off-shore wind commissioned around 2025 on a net zero subsidy of 15yrs.

How much did the first big UK offshore wind farm cost?
£150/MWh?? Nuclear costs would go down to cheap prices if a nation did a 50+ reactor build out. USA costs are about $33/MWh (2017). China will probably have 150+ GW nuclear by 2030 producing ~1,200 TWh annually

ABrass

I'm not able to see GreatApes posts but nuclear is the opposite of the standard learning curve process. With mass production of items the process becomes more refined because you're doing the exact same thing a million times.

Nuclear is a serries of builds of a few different designs of reactors. But due to the locations, timescales and changes they are never identical and don't have the potential to learn. In fact given the paltry rate of building there is a lack of trained and capable people in most countries. Less learning curve and more death spiral.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Not an insult Eric, a genuine comment - I'm quite a bit sad and disappointed today, as I used to think a lot more of you.

Oh well, all the best.

Join the club ! Innumerable, priests, vicars, Imams & Gurus along with a host of minor religionists have all been disappointed that I didn't share their faiths and no doubt there will be others to follow.

Solarchaser

I dont understand why you continue to feed the troll Martyn.

It's so obvious its saddening to see you reply to his blatant, obvious and ridiculously childish baiting.

To sum up.
Yada yada I dont really love nuclear, that's why I troll about it all the time on a green and ethical board, yada yada I'm a physicist... honest guv, and the rest of you are all peasants.

If you ask me for my qualifications, I'll just ignore and carry on.

Oooh ooh Chinese solar panels..... yaaaawn!!

You know, he might well be an engineer, or a fiz a cist, but that doesnt mean he knows anything, I'm sure we have all worked with people who had the ticket, but didnt know there rear hole from their ear hole.... but this one, is just a troll.

The golden rule is dont feed the troll!

GreatApe

ABrass wrote: »

I'm not able to see GreatApes posts but nuclear is the opposite of the standard learning curve process. With mass production of items the process becomes more refined because you're doing the exact same thing a million times.

Nuclear is a serries of builds of a few different designs of reactors. But due to the locations, timescales and changes they are never identical and don't have the potential to learn. In fact given the paltry rate of building there is a lack of trained and capable people in most countries. Less learning curve and more death spiral.

There is a learning curve for everything but as you point out most countries don't need many nukes so they don't get to a learning curve. The USA and French did but they deployed 50+ reactors.

India and China could do even better if they deployed 500GW of reactors the latter 450GW would be built at god prices and high speeds. Already China is down to sub 5 year construction times for their own designs And they could get it down to sub 4 years construction times. And time is money starting up one year sooner is $500 million more in revenue and millions of dollars less in capital interest costs

Nuclear does work and could work even better
This is for nations with large electricity demands especially if the demand is growing
That ruels out the UK where demand has been falling for a decade and we already have a relatively low FF grid

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Join the club ! Innumerable, priests, vicars, Imams & Gurus along with a host of minor religionists have all been disappointed that I didn't share their faiths and no doubt there will be others to follow.

The weird thing though Eric, is that you don't seem able to understand that you have it backwards.

That 'thing' you posted, accuses those of us that believe in science of being religious zealots. Whereas, of course, it's the exact opposite as religion depends on people believing without facts, or ignoring facts on the basis of their personal beliefs, such as you ignoring science and claiming that the planet 'should' be warming, or blaming it on volcanoes.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an excellent bit of spin (or projection) by the denialists to claim that those that accept science are like religious zealots, I just never thought someone like you would fall for it, nor post it.