patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,189,751 comments by 13,848 users - richwicks, Skygoddess, The_Deplorable online now
The Real Reason They Hate Nuclear Is Because It Means We Don't Need Renewables
invite response
2019 Jul 2, 4:18pm 1,949 views 16 comments
Comments 1 - 16 of 16 Search these comments
1
Bd6r
2019 Jul 2, 4:19pm
Bd6r
2019 Jul 2, 4:19pm
Just contrast Germany and France. Germany has done much of what the Green New Deal calls for. By 2025 it will have spent $580 billion on renewables and related accoutrement, while shutting down its nuclear plants.
All that Germany will have gotten for its "energy transition" is a 50% increase in electricity prices, flat emissions, and an electricity supply that is 10 times more carbon-intensive than France’s.
France, by contrast, just built nuclear plants.
But then, over the last decade, as it tried to copy Germany, France spent $30 billion on renewables and saw the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and electricity prices, rise.
All that Germany will have gotten for its "energy transition" is a 50% increase in electricity prices, flat emissions, and an electricity supply that is 10 times more carbon-intensive than France’s.
France, by contrast, just built nuclear plants.
But then, over the last decade, as it tried to copy Germany, France spent $30 billion on renewables and saw the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and electricity prices, rise.
2
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jul 2, 5:00pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jul 2, 5:00pm
d6rB says
And began pushing Gender/Sex/Racial issues
"All the problems which had haunted capitalism," acknowledged Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, "appeared to dissolve and disappear."
What could Marxism mean, Hobsbawm wondered, to workers "who now expected to spend their annual paid vacation on the beaches of Spain?"
In response, radical critics of capitalism shifted their focus. The problem was no longer that capitalism was causing material poverty but rather that it was destroying the environment.
And began pushing Gender/Sex/Racial issues
3
RWSGFY
2019 Jul 2, 5:50pm
RWSGFY
2019 Jul 2, 5:50pm
No need even for nuclear. Just stop playing stupid games and creating artificial energy scarcity.
4
socal2
2019 Jul 2, 6:05pm
jazz_music says
The horror!
But we are being told we have only about 10 years to save the planet - right? Time for extreme measures if we truly believe we have to dramatically reduce carbon emissions in a decade. We either nuke up fast or we need to bomb the shit out of China and India's coal and oil power plants.
It's enough to make you swear off seafood, sushi at least.
The horror!
But we are being told we have only about 10 years to save the planet - right? Time for extreme measures if we truly believe we have to dramatically reduce carbon emissions in a decade. We either nuke up fast or we need to bomb the shit out of China and India's coal and oil power plants.
5
Tenpoundbass
2019 Jul 2, 6:18pm
Tenpoundbass
2019 Jul 2, 6:18pm
Obama squandered 8 years of renewable energy initiative. It went to shit the minute he cut Solyndra a check.
There is nobody more skeptical than me, but the idea of a highway pavement that could generate energy that was a keeper.
Of course the idea was floated the minute Solyndra got that check. There was never another creative idea floated.
The ingenuity just stopped and we've been rehashing the same failure Solar and Wind since.
There is nobody more skeptical than me, but the idea of a highway pavement that could generate energy that was a keeper.
Of course the idea was floated the minute Solyndra got that check. There was never another creative idea floated.
The ingenuity just stopped and we've been rehashing the same failure Solar and Wind since.
6
Rin
2019 Jul 2, 8:36pm
Rin
2019 Jul 2, 8:36pm
Yes, there is a way to make nuclear safe ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
With less temp/pressure, cooling requirements, and waste management (300 years vs 10K+ years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
With less temp/pressure, cooling requirements, and waste management (300 years vs 10K+ years).
8
Bd6r
2019 Jul 3, 7:48am
Bd6r
2019 Jul 3, 7:48am
jazz_music says
Well, if we assume that CO2 is the cause of most global warming, and that we need to do something about CO2 emissions, we can:
(1) do nothing - wrong assuming our premise
(2) engage in New Green Deal - and in process drop our life standard, thus causing election of Trumps for foreseeable future and cancelling Green deal, and even if it is not cancelled, results in Germany show that their carbon emissions are flat.
(3) build up nuclear power, develop technologies which are safer and can not be used for nuclear weapon proliferation, and which are the only technologies that have shown to decrease carbon emissions AND not reduce life standard of population.
Which do we want to pursue?
With respect to nuclear accidents, there are ca. 5000 deaths from coal mining every year in world. There have not been 5000 deaths from nuclear accidents total.
Yeah, that and Fukushima Daiichi Japan sitting there glowing in the dark sending its radiation to Monterey, CA, as two years after the disaster, contaminated water reached the shores of North America.
The cleanup is expected to take 4 decades.
They are trying to dump all the radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean right now.
It's enough to make you swear off seafood, sushi at least.
Well, if we assume that CO2 is the cause of most global warming, and that we need to do something about CO2 emissions, we can:
(1) do nothing - wrong assuming our premise
(2) engage in New Green Deal - and in process drop our life standard, thus causing election of Trumps for foreseeable future and cancelling Green deal, and even if it is not cancelled, results in Germany show that their carbon emissions are flat.
(3) build up nuclear power, develop technologies which are safer and can not be used for nuclear weapon proliferation, and which are the only technologies that have shown to decrease carbon emissions AND not reduce life standard of population.
Which do we want to pursue?
With respect to nuclear accidents, there are ca. 5000 deaths from coal mining every year in world. There have not been 5000 deaths from nuclear accidents total.
9
WookieMan
2019 Jul 3, 12:06pm
WookieMan
2019 Jul 3, 12:06pm
d6rB says
And even if there were more deaths from nuclear, there's no telling how many people developed other ailments that cannot be specifically traced back to coal burning. I've never understood the resistance to nuclear (obviously the coal and nat. gas lobby). When you think about what's actually happening in the process and the fact there's been public risks in maybe a handful of instances in first world countries, it's pretty fucking safe.
jazz_music says
How many gallons (or cubic feet, whatever measure you want to use) is going to be dumped into the ocean? You're probably talking 0.0000000000000000000001% of the worlds ocean getting some radioactive water. It's not good, but it's not a big deal. Keep up the hype though.
With respect to nuclear accidents, there are ca. 5000 deaths from coal mining every year in world. There have not been 5000 deaths from nuclear accidents total.
And even if there were more deaths from nuclear, there's no telling how many people developed other ailments that cannot be specifically traced back to coal burning. I've never understood the resistance to nuclear (obviously the coal and nat. gas lobby). When you think about what's actually happening in the process and the fact there's been public risks in maybe a handful of instances in first world countries, it's pretty fucking safe.
jazz_music says
They are trying to dump all the radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean right now.
How many gallons (or cubic feet, whatever measure you want to use) is going to be dumped into the ocean? You're probably talking 0.0000000000000000000001% of the worlds ocean getting some radioactive water. It's not good, but it's not a big deal. Keep up the hype though.
10
marcus
2019 Jul 5, 2:17pm
marcus
2019 Jul 5, 2:17pm
I don't hate nuclear. It is difficult though becasue of safety issues, and becasue of the time frames involved for construction virtually guarantee better versions available by the time reacotrs go online. And there are always a lot of different versions competing to see which can do it best and the most safely. How do we decide which to go with ?
Still, I would love it if we were progressing faster with nuclear.
Thorium ? Let's do it. Molten salt ? What are we waiting for ?
I believe big oil and coal are a bigger lobbying factor working against nuclear than the folks fighting for renewable ever could be. But it will happen.
Still, I would love it if we were progressing faster with nuclear.
Thorium ? Let's do it. Molten salt ? What are we waiting for ?
I believe big oil and coal are a bigger lobbying factor working against nuclear than the folks fighting for renewable ever could be. But it will happen.
11
HeadSet
2019 Jul 5, 2:30pm
HeadSet
2019 Jul 5, 2:30pm
Thorium ? Let's do it. Molten salt cooling ? What are we waiting for.
It does not exist. Many governments world wide are working on it, though.
It does not exist. Many governments world wide are working on it, though.
12
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jul 5, 3:08pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jul 5, 3:08pm
HeadSet says
We built one at Livermore 60 years ago. Chinese hackers downloaded the plans from an Archive, are working on a ton of them.
It also pairs nicely with Solar.
https://steelguru.com/power/china-s-first-100mw-molten-salt-solar-plant-hits-maximum-power/542890
It does not exist. Many governments world wide are working on it, though.
We built one at Livermore 60 years ago. Chinese hackers downloaded the plans from an Archive, are working on a ton of them.
It also pairs nicely with Solar.
https://steelguru.com/power/china-s-first-100mw-molten-salt-solar-plant-hits-maximum-power/542890
13
HeadSet
2019 Jul 5, 6:35pm
HeadSet
2019 Jul 5, 6:35pm
HonkpilledMaster says
This is interesting, but is not the molten salt cooled Thorium reactor under discussion. This "molten salt" in your article is about using an array on mirrors to heat that salt solution, and store the heat for later use. This is an alternative to solar cells and batteries/capacitors, not nuclear power.
HeadSet saysIt does not exist. Many governments world wide are working on it, though.
We built one at Livermore 60 years ago. Chinese hackers downloaded the plans from an Archive, are working on a ton of them.
It also pairs nicely with Solar.
https://steelguru.com/power/china-s-first-100mw-molten-salt-solar-plant-hits-maximum-power/542890
This is interesting, but is not the molten salt cooled Thorium reactor under discussion. This "molten salt" in your article is about using an array on mirrors to heat that salt solution, and store the heat for later use. This is an alternative to solar cells and batteries/capacitors, not nuclear power.
14
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 19, 3:03am
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 19, 3:03am
Oops, my bad, must have copied over the wrong link.
The first Molten Salt Thorium Reactor at Oak Ridge, 1960s. This is an intro to the history of it, and how it works:
https://www.ornl.gov/news/msres-50th
The first Molten Salt Thorium Reactor at Oak Ridge, 1960s. This is an intro to the history of it, and how it works:
https://www.ornl.gov/news/msres-50th
15
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 19, 8:30am
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 19, 8:30am
In other news: Fukusima station is running out of storage capacity for contaminated water.
16
Y
2019 Aug 19, 12:06pm
Y
2019 Aug 19, 12:06pm
The Atlantic Salmon fisheries are trying to corner the market...
WookieMan says
WookieMan says
jazz_music saysThey are trying to dump all the radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean right now.
After World War II, the working class in developed nations become materially rich, undermining the case that only a radical, socialist transformation of society could end poverty.
"All the problems which had haunted capitalism," acknowledged Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, "appeared to dissolve and disappear."
What could Marxism mean, Hobsbawm wondered, to workers "who now expected to spend their annual paid vacation on the beaches of Spain?"
In response, radical critics of capitalism shifted their focus. The problem was no longer that capitalism was causing material poverty but rather that it was destroying the environment.
In the 1970s and 1980s, France and Sweden proved they could decouple air and water pollution from electricity production simply by building nuclear plants, which replaced their coal and oil-burning ones.
The problem posed by the existence of nuclear energy was that it proved we didn’t need to radically reorganize society to solve environmental problems. We just needed to build nuclear plants instead of coal-burning ones.
“Even if nuclear power were clean, safe, economic, assured of ample fuel, and socially benign,” said the god head of renewables, Amory Lovins, in 1977, “it would still be unattractive because of the political implications of the kind of energy economy it would lock us into."
What kind of an energy economy would that be, exactly? A prosperous, clean, and high-energy one. “If you ask me, it'd be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it,” explained Lovins.
"Real climate solutions," she insisted, "are ones that steer... power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture, or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users…"