Just a reminder, Three Mile Island Unit-2 was a billion+ dollar accident and ratepayers paid for it

[jpak]

not the owners and operators of the plant....

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf36.html

<snip>

The cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactor system at TMI-2 took nearly 12 years and cost approximately US$973 million. The cleanup was uniquely challenging technically and radiologically. Plant surfaces had to be decontaminated. Water used and stored during the cleanup had to be processed. And about 100 tonnes of damaged uranium fuel had to be removed from the reactor vessel -- all without hazard to cleanup workers or the public.

<more>

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bcealr/28_1/06_TXT.htm

<snip>

5. Consumers Have Paid Enough to Utilities

Consumers have paid enough to the utilities.325 Nuclear energy did not fulfill its promise of being “too cheap to meter.”326 The cost of construction was sometimes ten times the estimated price, and the price of the electricity was sometimes fifty percent more than before the utility was built.327 Who paid for these costs? The consumers, of course. For example, due to the Three-Mile Island accident, consumers were required to pay $433 million for the reactor’s construction costs, $125 million for cleanup of the accident, and $1 billion in replacement power costs.328 In addition, the consumers were required to pay the cost of decommissioning the plant.329 Thus, it is hard to say that consumers, bearing the brunt of these costs, are “benefiting” as a <*PG227>result of receiving the excessively high-priced electricity from the facility.330

<more>

These are facts paid nuclear shills want you to forget.

yup

the end

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. nih.gov TMI cancer map

[jpak]

2. ((((ssshhhh....TMI was a (((clean & green))) nuclear accident and harmed no one)))

except PA ratepayers

yup

[madokie]

4. But yet some say there were no one killed

maybe not killed out right but dead just the same from cancers after the fact.

[NNadir]

8. Probably because some people know science. This may amaze you but Harrisburg PA

is still there and has tens of thousands of people living useful lives there.

http://www.harrisburgpa.gov/

The report that the city was wiped out is just another grotesque exaggeration from the anti-science anti-nukes, who don't give a rat's ass that every single year about 30 times the population of Harrisburg is killed by dangerous fossil fuels.

In fact, the anti-nukes immoral conceit is that only nuclear energy need be perfect (even if only in their severely uneducated imaginations) and that every other form of energy can kill on a massive scale without even a sigh.

Have a nice "I couldn't care less about these guys" kind of evening:

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madokie]

19. For some reason all I see is ignored :-)

funny that, that I would finally just say fuck it its not worth the hassle. I'm guessing that would have more than likely been the fraudulent lying ass inventor of the new jersey molten salt reactor or new jersey salt molten reactor or somesuch shit. :rofl:

[glitch]

5. Says I do not have permission to view that file. nt

[madokie]

6. It told me the same thing at first

so I copied and pasted the url in the addy bar and now it shows up every time. Its worth the effort to see this one.

[glitch]

41. Thanks! it must not like the referer ;) nt

[druidity33]

3. K&R, nt.

[Fledermaus]

7. Isn't there a giant nature reserve there now like Chernobyl?

:rofl:

:nuke:

And everybody's health has been improved by the low dose of radioactivity.....Radiation Hormesis

Vita Radium Suppositories (ca.1930)
From the company's brochure:
Weak Discouraged Men!

Now Bubble Over with Joyous Vitality

Through the Use of

Glands and Radium

". . . properly functioning glands make themselves known in a quick, brisk step, mental alertness and the ability to live and love in the fullest sense of the word . . . A man must be in a bad way indeed to sit back and be satisfied without the pleasures that are his birthright! . . . Try them and see what good results you get!"


http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/quackcures.htm

[jpak]

20. Didn't the History Channel do a show on this? Life After Humans or something like that?

and Yes - the zone nearest the nuclear reactor - that spewed radioactive debris all over Europe & which will kill 4000 people according to the WHO - is uninhabitable and human habitation is banned there

(yes, there are some elderly defying the ban, but it is no place for infants and children)

and yes, if you abandon large areas of cities and towns and countryside, wildlife will return.

It is NOT a "nature reserve"

The journal Nature published several papers on the shockingly high rates of radiation-induced genetic mutations in these "preserved" animals.

yup it did - and in HUMANS as well...

Fitness loss and germline mutations in barn swallows breeding in Chernobyl

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v389/n6651/abs/389593a0.html

The severe nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986 resulted in the worst reported accidental exposure of radioactive material to free-living organisms1. Short-term effects on human populations inhabiting polluted areas include increased incidence of thyroid cancer2, infant leukaemia3, and congenital malformations in newborns4. Two recent studies5,6 have reported, although with some controversy7,8, that germline mutation rates were increased in humans and voles living close to Chernobyl, but little is known about the viability of the organisms affected9. Here we report an increased frequency of partial albinism, a morphological aberration associated with a loss of fitness, among barn swallows, Hirundo rustica, breeding close to Chernobyl. Heritability estimates indicate that mutations causing albinism were at least partly of germline origin. Furthermore, evidence for an increased germline mutation rate was obtained from segregation analysis at two hypervariable microsatellite loci, indicating that mutation events in barn swallows from Chernobyl were two- to tenfold higher than in birds from control areas in Ukraine and Italy.

High levels of genetic change in rodents of Chernobyl

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v380/n6576/abs/380707a0.html

BASE-PAIR substitution rates for the mitochondria! cytochrome b gene of free-living, native populations of voles collected next to reactor 4 at Chernobyl, Ukraine, were estimated by two indepen-dent methods to be in excess of 10 -4 nucleotides per site per generation. These estimates are hundreds of times greater than those typically found in mitochondria of vertebrates, suggesting that the environment resulting from this nuclear power plant disaster is having a measurable genetic impact on the organisms of that region. Despite these DNA changes, vole populations thrive and reproduce in the radioactive regions around the Chernobyl reactor.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v389/n6651/abs/389593a0.html

Human minisatellite mutation rate after the Chernobyl accident

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v380/n6576/abs/380683a0.html

and the Royal Society too?

Very high mutation rate in offspring of Chernobyl accident liquidators

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/268/1471/1001.abstract


Chernobyl apologists are fools

yup

[Statistical]

22. I think his point was that DIDN'T happen at TMI (but that one flew right over your head). n/t

[Fledermaus]

46. I was referring to NN and his motley crew.

They have been coming here for years preaching nuclear power. Claiming Chernobyl is now a nature reserve and small doses of radiation are good for you.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Sorry, that's incorrect. But thanks for playing!

Actually, it was paid for by PECO's part of the Price-Anderson fund. They didn't even have to dip into the collective fund. Most of the remaining financial issues were covered by private insurance and various (re)insurance pools. Any costs borne by ratepayers were limited by the Public Utility Commission. PECO rates stayed relatively high (as they were before TMI) but did not jump.

So we had a *!*!* MAJOR NUCLEAR DISASTER *!*!* and the Republic remained intact. Nobody died. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania didn't even have to declare bankruptcy. But it DID waste about $10,000,000 pursuing wild-ass, bogus conspiracy and cancer theories alleged by anti-nukes brandishing "scientific" reports that turned out to be crap.

Anti-nuke crusaders have been spinning TMI for three decades and have failed for three decades. Fantasy-based reasoning was common among Progressives 30 years ago, but times change. Ironically, "DIY Reality" is now common among Conservatives, who are taking up the anti-nuke cudgel with enthusiasm, calling nuclear energy "Socialism!"

I know you like to give Mr. Rofl as much exercise as possible, so here's the Punch Line: these days, (most) Progressives have progressed to reality-based reasoning. It does not require uncritical acceptance of nuclear energy, nor even acceptance at all; but likewise, it offers no support for uncritical rejection.

--d!

---

Addendum: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf36.html">from the source cited by jpak to support the assertion that the ratepayers got stuck with the tab. (Note: The article referenced DOES NOT assert that ratepayers covered the TMI cleanup.)

No Radiological Health Effects

The Three Mile Island accident caused concerns about the possibility of radiation-induced health effects, principally cancer, in the area surrounding the plant. Because of those concerns, the Pennsylvania Department of Health for 18 years maintained a registry of more than 30,000 people who lived within five miles of Three Mile Island at the time of the accident. The state's registry was discontinued in mid 1997, without any evidence of unusual health trends in the area.

Indeed, more than a dozen major, independent health studies of the accident showed no evidence of any abnormal number of cancers around TMI years after the accident. The only detectable effect was psychological stress during and shortly after the accident.

The studies found that the radiation releases during the accident were minimal, well below any levels that have been associated with health effects from radiation exposure. The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of the plant was 0.08 millisieverts, with no more than 1 millisievert to any single individual. The level of 0.08 mSv is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 1 mSv is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a year.

In June 1996, 17 years after the TMI-2 accident, Harrisburg U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging that the accident caused health effects. The plaintiffs have appealed Judge Rambo's ruling. The appeal is before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. However, in making her decision, Judge Rambo cited:

· Findings that exposure patterns projected by computer models of the releases compared so well with data from the TMI dosimeters (TLDs) available during the accident that the dosimeters probably were adequate to measure the releases.

· That the maximum offsite dose was, possibly, 100 millirem (1 mSv), and that projected fatal cancers were less than one.

· The plaintiffs' failure to prove their assertion that one or more unreported hydrogen "blowouts" in the reactor system caused one or more unreported radiation "spikes", producing a narrow yet highly concentrated plume of radioactive gases.

Judge Rambo concluded: "The parties to the instant action have had nearly two decades to muster evidence in support of their respective cases.... The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs' case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favourable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain." (format mine --d)

More than a dozen major, independent studies have assessed the radiation releases and possible effects on the people and the environment around TMI since the 1979 accident at TMI-2. The most recent was a 13-year study on 32,000 people. None has found any adverse health effects such as cancers which might be linked to the accident.

[joshcryer]

10. Thanks for the truth. I can't believe some people on this forum have the gall to be so misleading.

[Dogmudgeon]

13. I can deal with people thinking nuclear energy might be the wrong thing to do

It's the inane 3 1/2 decade long crusade and its conquistadorillos I can't fathom. It's peer pressure for grown-ups: "if you don't agree, you're out of the club!" Now that the President has come out for nuclear energy, followed by a great many liberal icons (Paul Newman, James Hanson, Al Franken, John Kerry, Stephen Chu, James Lovelock, Ed Rendell; Mark Morford is still anti, but slowly coming around; Al Gore is doing a tap-dance to avoid alienating his base; Rep. John Hall, an original MUSE artist, the front man from Orleans, is still critical, but ready to vote for new nuclear development; etc.), once-intimidated Democrats and Progressives are peeking out of our shells.

And cursing ourselves for the years we let ourselves be bullied.

Somehow, this became a litmus test for Progressives. The expected behavior was set down as uncompromising aggression, distortion of facts, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097493/">Heathers-like elitism, phony populism, rejection of science, culture-vulturism (exploiting American and Asian Indians, the entire music industry, and the Democratic Party), and most of all, "stereophonic sarcasm". Our uncritical adoration of musicians and actors led us astray. I'm as much of a fan of Jackson Browne's and Alec Baldwin's oeuvres as any other failed rock musician, but not their scientific prowess. And I'm sure I'd agree with most of the rest of their politics, too -- but not on this issue.

And it doesn't make me a baby-killer, a Paid Shill™, a black operative (or even a lily-white one), a conspiracy-monger, an Earth criminal, a Mother-Raper, a Father-Stabber, a Father-Raper, or a Republican.

There's plenty of nuclear technology "issues" to be concerned with. In an ideal world, I'd be one of the critics -- the rewards are worth working for, yet the risks are high enough to demand that we offer only our best efforts. However, in a world where most of my fellow political animals have yoked the mojo of supernatural evil to a technology, my allegiances are with Reason.

Thanks for your words of support -- and for indulging my mini-rant!

--d!

[joshcryer]

15. You should save that as your pro-nuclear manifesto.

If you haven't already printed it up for a t-shirt. ;)

[kristopher]

17. It is a screed endorsing a given set of values...

All he has done is to craft a blanket justification for ignoring anyone that disagrees with him. The act of disagreement is defecto proof in his belief system, that the root of the disagreement resides "in a world where most of my fellow political animals have yoked the mojo of supernatural evil to a technology" and are therefore irrational. Only his view represents "reason" even though he is unable to support it on a routine basis.

He is channeling the product of a massive propaganda campaign designed specifically to create and feed that belief system.

What actually motivates the beliefs, however is a set of values that place energy security above environmental values. The us/them dichotomy couldn't be more clear.

In fact, the Democratic party HAS been dominated by people who have strong beliefs based on values that place environmental protection above worries about energy security. So it is natural that he might feel "bullied".

It has become tribal with him. Us versus "them".

Well the fact is that nuclear power IS dirty.

Nuclear power IS a cultural artifact that profoundly influences society in a way that empowers a small group of elites that own the resources required for obtaining the day-to-day energy to live. He is aware of the ability of that elite to deliver the energy and he fears that he and the world he feels at home in will end if we abandon the established structure that charges these elites with ensuring his welfare.

Price isn't important; downstream consequences aren't important; only the continuation of the energy ghetto that he struggles through each day can stem the fear of loss that those "culture-vultures" instill in him.

It is a good rant for it reveal the true values underpinning the dogmatic insistence that against ALL evidence, nuclear power is good for humankind. It isn't humankind that he is worried about, it is Dogmudgeon he cares for.

I can deal with people thinking nuclear energy might be the wrong thing to do Updated at 2:42 AM

It's the inane 3 1/2 decade long crusade and its conquistadorillos I can't fathom. It's peer pressure for grown-ups: "if you don't agree, you're out of the club!" Now that the President has come out for nuclear energy, followed by a great many liberal icons (Paul Newman, James Hanson, Al Franken, John Kerry, Stephen Chu, James Lovelock, Ed Rendell; Mark Morford is still anti, but slowly coming around; Al Gore is doing a tap-dance to avoid alienating his base; Rep. John Hall, an original MUSE artist, the front man from Orleans, is still critical, but ready to vote for new nuclear development; etc.), once-intimidated Democrats and Progressives are peeking out of our shells.

And cursing ourselves for the years we let ourselves be bullied.

Somehow, this became a litmus test for Progressives. The expected behavior was set down as uncompromising aggression, distortion of facts, Heathers-like elitism, phony populism, rejection of science, culture-vulturism (exploiting American and Asian Indians, the entire music industry, and the Democratic Party), and most of all, "stereophonic sarcasm". Our uncritical adoration of musicians and actors led us astray. I'm as much of a fan of Jackson Browne's and Alec Baldwin's oeuvres as any other failed rock musician, but not their scientific prowess. And I'm sure I'd agree with most of the rest of their politics, too -- but not on this issue.

And it doesn't make me a baby-killer, a Paid Shill™, a black operative (or even a lily-white one), a conspiracy-monger, an Earth criminal, a Mother-Raper, a Father-Stabber, a Father-Raper, or a Republican.

There's plenty of nuclear technology "issues" to be concerned with. In an ideal world, I'd be one of the critics -- the rewards are worth working for, yet the risks are high enough to demand that we offer only our best efforts. However, in a world where most of my fellow political animals have yoked the mojo of supernatural evil to a technology, my allegiances are with Reason.

Thanks for your words of support -- and for indulging my mini-rant!

[Statistical]

23. For most people that believe nuclear energy is viable it has never been us vs them.

I am pro:
Wind - Nuclear - Solar - Efficiency - Geothermal - CCS*

* reluctantly

I will however counter misleading stats about wind power when they arise because I don't buy into this fantasy that 100% renewable energy is viable with our current politicial, social, economic system.

There is only a single member of DU who is pro-nuclear and has a "us vs them" attitude and personally I think it is counter productive. He thinks he is convincing people and he is, however the conclusion they often reach is the exact opposite of what he is preaching.

There is a lot of dirty power out there. The only "us vs them" I see is replacing all forms of high carbon power with all forms of low carbon power.

[kristopher]

24. i don't believe that is posible.

If you actually were motivated by altruistic values then you would adhere to the empirical evidence regarding the optimal solution. With every utterance you demonstrate that you place primacy on a tribal adherence to ensuring nuclear power receives money over the quickest, most cost effective, lowest impact solution.

It is the act of ignoring the massive evidence that renewable energy is indeed viable that disproves all the greenwashing rhetoric you can craft.

You say you don't "buy into this fantasy that 100% renewable energy is viable with our current politicial, social, economic system."

I've challenged you before to prove that statement true. You can't; yet you claim you have "reason" on your side.

You do not.

[FBaggins]

25. You don't? But then... you one-up the White Queen, don't you?

You not only believe six impossible things before breakfast... you refuse to believe that which already is.

[Statistical]

26. Even the Europe Low Carbon 2050 plan shows the 100% renewable is non optimal.

It CAN be done but it isn't the fastest, cheapest, or most effective method. The fastest implemented path was 60% renewable 40% other (mix of CCS and nuclear).

By your logic of "most optimal" you shouldn't support anything but wind. Cut all finding for all other sources of power. Compared to solar, geothermal, hydro, tidal wind has the lowest cost, is usable in more location, and highest potential peak power.

Do you support only wind? 100% wind nothing else? By your logic adding non-wind is "suboptimal".

We live a real world with REAL political, social, and economic issues. A diverse set of low carbon solutions are complimentary.

Honestly I don't give a flying fuck if you don't believe me. I really don't. Nuclear will be built here and around the world. It will displace coal and that will help the planet. Maybe it will be too little too late but I am not going to abandon support for it without at least trying.

Nobody anywhere in power anywhere on the planet is advocating 100% renewable. Not a single country, not a single politicians, not a single intergovernmental agency, not a single person in DOE or other influencing agency. In short not a single person who can actually influence change is pushing for 100% renewable energy. It is a pipe dream of purist bloggers, starry eyed idealists, and cheerleaders.

There are nuclear cheerleaders too. There are people who think nuclear can provide 100% of planets energy and you know what from a technical only standpoint it is correct however once again political, societal, and economic pressures make any such plan impossible to implement.

Some of us live in the real world. Cheerleaders on both sides are equally annoying and useless.

Wind - Nuclear - Solar - Efficiency - Geothermal - CCS

[kristopher]

27. That isn't what the study says - they point out the limits of their assumptions.

The study makes a very clear set of assumptions that favor nuclear and coalccs. When those assumptions are altered to incorporate other assumptions that involve unfolding, technologies that are fully expected to develop such as V2G storage, then the role of nuclear disappears.

You really gave ne a laugh with this one though, "In short not a single person who can actually influence change is pushing for 100% renewable energy."

Translation, "we are the ones spending all the money on lobbyists."

[Statistical]

29. Actually wind loby spending has quadrupled over last 5 years.

:rofl:

Of course I didn't just say in the US. Even in non-nuclear countries. I mean nobody of influence ANYWHERE on the PLANET is advocating your pie in the sky fantasies. Nobody.

[kristopher]

31. I guess that is your version of showing an actuall plan that says renewable energy can't do the job.

Fail.

[Statistical]

32. There is no realistic plan saying IT CAN DO IT.

Just a bunch of lightweight dreamers.

Name a single country with a goal to be 100% renewable by 2050. Hell single country with a goal to be 100% renewable by 2100.

[kristopher]

34. ROFLMAO.

Nuclear is slower, dirtier, and more expensive than renewables. I can see support for continuing to use the existing fleet of reactors, but there is no justification for building more.

So, why is nuclear so important to you? It CAN'T be to address the energy security and climate change needs we have, so come on, fess up.

Why do you debase yourself with these transparently disingenuous efforts to support an inferior solution?

[Statistical]

36. Why is no nuclear so important for you? Fess Up

No single energy source can by itself address energy security or climate change.
Diverse systems are always more effective. Nuclear is part of that effective low carbon mix.

Nuclear will happen. Nuclear is happening right now.
55 reactors under construction, 98 in planning, 8 reactor starts this year (so far), 10 will come online with year.

Only someone who is willfully blind can look at that and say nuclear is dead. Nuclear is the most effective baseload low carbon technology we have. That may change in 20-30 years with radically new grid technology and energy storage but on the other hand it might now.

[kristopher]

37. "Renewables" is plural. It IS a mix.

I support the most effective solution to our problems. I've spent years in direct study learning what those solutions are, you clearly haven't. That is why I favor continuation of the existing nuclear fleet. You have exclusive focus on promoting MORE nuclear power in spite of the fact that it is slower to build, costlier, and dirtier than the alternatives.

You didn't answer the question, why do you support building more nuclear?

[Statistical]

39. Because your premise is flawed.

IPCC believes nuclear energy is an effective solution for combating climate change. There are real world limits on capacity growth rates for renewables. If we had 60% renewables installed now and were growing at 5% a year and we had spent the trillions necessary to change entire global grid to support 100% renewable energy it would be different.

I live in the real world.
Today we have a grid that is massively centralized. Replacing a 1000 MW coal plant with a 1000 MW nuclear plant is essentially a drop in replacement.

Can we upgrade the entire global grid to support massively distributed variable power? Sure we can do virtually anything however it will be very costly and time confusing. Costs you conveniently like to ignore.

Nuclear is more compatible with our existing infrastructure. The grid needs to change but that will require decades and we need all the generation we can get as quickly as possible.

[kristopher]

42. "A drop in replacement"

That really sums up your argument for supporting nuclear - you lack the ability to envision complex systems so you seek relief from energy security concerns with nuclear power.

Your limits do not define what is possible nor preferable. If it costs more, takes more time and is dirtier to "drop in" a nuclear replacement for the 6000 coal plants JUST in the US than to replace them with dispersed renewables, then it costs more, takes more time and is dirtier to "drop in" a nuclear replacement for the 6000 coal plants JUST in the US than to replace them with dispersed renewables.

And that *is* the situation - it costs more, takes more time and is dirtier to "drop in" a nuclear replacement for the 6000 coal plants JUST in the US than to replace them with dispersed renewables.

[Statistical]

43. 6000 is a worthless number.

Energy is peak power * capacity factor. That is the only metric that matters.

Coal produced 1.7 trillion kWh. Will nuclear energy replace all of that. No. I have NEVER (not once) claimed that. The problem is far too big for a single solution. However a single 1200 GW reactor can produce about 10 billion kWh annually. Usually they are built in pairs. So that is 20 billion. 15 projects = 30 reactors would be about 300 billion kWh. That would displace roughly 1/5th the coal being burned in this country. We could easily do double that which would knock out 40% of coal. Renewable enegy could knock out another 40% and efficiency reduce demand another 20%.

And that *is* the situation - it costs more, takes more time and is dirtier to "drop in" a nuclear replacement for the 6000 coal plants JUST in the US than to replace them with dispersed renewables.

Only if you exclude the costs of building that non-free distributed grid and the energy storage. Which is large reason why nobody but cheerleaders are advocating it.

[kristopher]

44. Nuclear is far costlier, far dirtier and far slower to deploy than renewables.

You wrote, "Energy is peak power * capacity factor. That is the only metric that matters."

Horseshit. That is the ONLY metric where nuclear power can even PRETEND to have an advantage.

The grid requires large investment no matter whether we go with renewables or nuclear or do nothing at all.


So you are still faced with the fact that the situation is that it costs more, takes more time and is dirtier to "drop in" a nuclear replacement for the 6000 coal plants JUST in the US than to replace them with dispersed renewables.

[Statistical]

45. "The grid requires large investment no matter whether we go with renewables or nuclear or do nothing

That is like saying we all die so why do anything about your health.

Massive amounts of Renewable energy especially in remote locations will require radically more upgrades to energy grid.
That costs is something you never include however realists do.

It is not optimal to try and change entire grid infrastructure at the same time we are trying to reduce carbon just so you can avoid nuclear energy.

It isn't optimal if you goal is to lower carbon intensity as quickly as possible.
It is optimal if your override goal is to simply end nuclear energy because you are a Luddite.

Luckily the nuclear boogey monster meme is wearing thin as are you ridiculous claims of $0.30 per kWh. :rofl:

Every year support for nuclear energy grows both in the United States and globally.
In the only countries to consider ending nuclear power are now reconsidering that decision.

Everything indicates a shift in one direction and it isn't the direction you like.

[FBaggins]

47. Lol!

So that's the only metric that matters, eh? The ability to produce lots and lots of power?

Since we're talking about electricity generation, that would seem to be the most important metric... but whatever.


But it's hardly the only one that matters. One difference between the developed world and the developing world is the reliability of power. Another metric where wind and solar fall on their green butts.

The grid requires large investment no matter whether we go with renewables or nuclear or do nothing at all.

$50,000 and $100,000 to fix a home's foundation are both large expensed... but I'd rather pay the lower figure. Large amounts must certainly be spent, but we don't need to spend money to make sure that solar power in Arizona can make it to North Dakota during a cold winter.

So you are still faced with the fact that the situation is that it costs more, takes more time and is dirtier to "drop in" a nuclear replacement for the 6000 coal plants JUST in the US than to replace them with dispersed renewables.

I doubt that any one of those three is true. Neither is "dirty" enough to matter, and it wouldn't be quicker or cheaper to truly replace coal with dispersed renewables.

[kristopher]

28. I do agree with one part of what you wrote.

The initial noncarbon mix WILL include nuclear power. But if it is anything more than EXISTING nuclear, then it is a suboptimal solution. We shouldn't shut down the existing nuclear fleet until after we have completed the transition away from fossil fuels, but that is a far cry from wasting money by building more.

[Statistical]

30. We won't make a transistion completely off of fossil fuels for decades.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. Once again even the 80% renewable plan for Europe has fossil fuels (in reducing quantities) being used for 30+ years.

The amount of fossil fuels is simply too large for any timescale less than that to be reasonable. As such not building any nuclear power will result in either
a) last minute extensions for nuclear plants - like Germany is contemplating now after indicating they would abandon nuclear 20 years ago
b) more fossil fuel usage.

Nobody not even wind lobby is indicating renewable will grow as fast as you predict. Pie-in-the-sky is just that.

[kristopher]

33. Those are scenarios, not plans.

They are explorations of different scenarios using basic assumptions. You can't support your assertion about nuclear because you get more delivered electricity per dollar & time spent with renewables than with nuclear.

That KILLS your argument - period. Case closed.

[Statistical]

35. Word like "kill", "period", "case closed" only illustrate your mind is made up.

Nuclear energy is cost competitive with either a carbon tax and/or lower risk premium. That is the conclusion of MIT study.

Carbon tax will happen. Maybe not this year but certainly in next couple years. Lower risk premium will happen once first couple reactors are built on time and on budget.

If they can't be then I am not interested in nuclear power. I am not a purist. I simply believe nuclear power has the potential to deliver massive amounts of low carbon energy. We have seen reactors on time and on budget in China, Korea, Japan. There is no technical reason it can't be done here.

It is worth of perusing however you mind is closed but it doesn't really matter. Like I said not a single govt, or intergovernmental agency is advocating 100% renewable energy. It won't happen. Not in our lifetime. You just have couple decades of disillusionment to look forward too.

In 20-30 years you will look back and realize how silly and implausible your "plans" are.

[kristopher]

38. That ISN'T the conclusion of the MIT study.

Nuclear MIGHT be cost competitive with FOSSIL FUELS with a carbon tax AND an artificially low interest rate. They did not do a cost comparison considering renewables and efficiency as alternatives.

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

2009 Update:

while there has been some progress since 2003, increased deployment of nuclear power has been slow both in the United States and globally, in relation to the illustrative scenario examined in the 2003 report. While the intent to build new plants has been made public in several countries, there are only few firm commitments outside of Asia, in particular China, India, and Korea, to construction projects at this time. Even if all the announced plans for new nuclear power plant construction are realized, the total will be well behind that needed for reaching a thousand gigawatts of new capacity worldwide by 2050. In the U.S., only one shutdown reactor has been refurbished and restarted and one previously ordered, but never completed reactor, is now being completed. No new nuclear units have started construction.

In sum, compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

[Statistical]

40. Mit conclusion is not AND it is OR.

However we are going to get the AND. We are going to get risk mitigation AND we are going to get a carbon tax.

You don't believe it? Fine. Check back in a decade.

[kristopher]

16. And you have yet to support the claim that ratepyers didn't get stuck with the tab.

[Nihil]

18. That's a fair comment ...

> I can deal with people thinking nuclear energy might be the wrong thing
> to do. It's the inane 3 1/2 decade long crusade and its conquistadorillos
> I can't fathom.

:thumbsup:


> There's plenty of nuclear technology "issues" to be concerned with.

Unfortunately, these get swept along with the misunderstandings, myths and
downright bullshit so that the things that *should* be addressed are simply
lost in the noise.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

12. Do you have a source that shows who paid?

Ultimately it is a cost that is assigned to the cost of nuclear energy. Lacking substantiation, there is no reason to believe your claim.
If the didn't (as you say) "dip into the the collective fund" then it was paid locally and that means it was ratepayers that picked up the tab.

[joshcryer]

14. The cost of nuclear industry could be $150 / tonne of CO2 and it'd be worth it.

I have given up caring one iota about "costs" and "profit margins." The planet cannot rely on profit to save it. Profit is what is killing it. Society should take responsiblity for all of the externalized costs of all of its behaviors.

[jpak]

21. Thanks for playing - with the facts - again. I present the corporate hstory of TMI

http://www.tmia.com/corp.historyTMI

<snip>

September 20, 1995 - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reverses a lower court’s decision, and sides with GPU in allowing the company to charge rate payers for the TMI-2 accident.

The decision ignores the financial facts of the case: TMI-2 was built at a cost to rate payers of $700 million and had been online for 90 days, or 1/120 of its planned operating lifetime, when the March 1979 accident began. One billion dollars have been spent to defuel the plant, which now lays in idle shutdown, a state the industry calls Post-Defueling Monitored Storage.

<more>

too easy

:rofl: