We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Frank Energy • 2 years ago

YES OBAMA BUILT THAT

1: First president to have Americas credit downgraded.

2: 40 million still uninsured.

3: Savings interest rates at an all time low.

4: Record number of people on food stamps.

5: Lowest work force participation rate in 60 years.

6: Rise of ISIS.

7: Let four Americans just DIE.

8: CD interest rates at and all time low.

9: Worst economic recovery of all time.

10: Wages down $4,300.00.

11: Record number of homeless people.

12: Arab Spring a failure.

13: letting Iran do research on nuclear weapons.

14: canceled the missile shield so Putin could invade Ukraine.

15: Reneged on a promise to protect Ukraine if they got rid of their nukes.

16: First president to lose a war after it was won.

17: 2014 GDP 1.4 percent.

18: First President to call Christians and conservatives and veterans terrorists

19: Brought the U.S. Navy down to pre WW2 Numbers

20 Obama gave nukes and $150 Billion to the #1 sponsor of

terrorism in the world ...while they chant “Death to America”

YES OBAMA DID BUILD THAT

Frank Energy • 2 years ago

The lies of nuclear are deplorable, some are listed here. Have some Pepto-bismal on hand if you can stomach this list of 93 lies of nuclear.

http://nukeprofessional.blo...

ecoh • 2 years ago

The lies of anti-nuclear/pro-renewable cultists are deplorable ever backed by myths, beliefs, fictional data, junk science, conspiracy theories, irrational alarmism and scaremongering tactics.
These "Greenie Lie Machines" never stop; they are ever fabricating scary fables on the fly through blogs on the web to attract and lure uninformed people to get them brainwashed in order to support ruination of natural landscapes and wildlife's habitats by wind/solar bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers.

Frank Energy • 2 years ago

Nuclear is far more dangerous, far more likely to have ANOTHER serious accident than the nuclear cartel pretends it does.

Facts here

http://nukeprofessional.blo...

Michael Mann • 2 years ago

"Frank Energy" is one of multiple aliases which he uses to lure people to his personal web page, NucPro is Frank Energy

Frank Energy • 2 years ago

That NukePro to you Mann!

ecoh • 2 years ago

A dangerous technology that kills less and causes less ecological impact than renewable per gigawatt produced.
http://www.forbes.com/sites...
http://assets2.motherboard....

em4tinistaw • 2 years ago

Look at your own chart. This chart is doesn't show much less deaths for nuclear than renewables. It shows much less deaths for renewables or nuclear than coal or fossil fuels.

Frank Energy • 2 years ago

Nuclear is deplorable

Michael Mann • 2 years ago

Nuclear energy is safe, clean and reliable. Frank Energy on the other hand is an alias, one of many and not to be trusted, He has gone so far as to "borrow" someone else's avatar which he used until that someone threatened legal action...I would call that "deplorable"

Frank Energy • 2 years ago

Its nice to see you are so proud of your "wife".

Not be to trusted "nuclear is clean, safe, reliable"

Michael Mann • 2 years ago

Admitting that nuclear power is not only the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but vital to any attempt to meet climate change goals is essential for a realistic energy policy.

BasG • 2 years ago

The full nuclear power cycle emits >10 times more CO2eq/KWh than wind & solar as shown by independent studies referred in the Conservation (https://goo.gl/uXpdU4). It may even be 50% of that of natural gas. So nuclear is not a real low carbon source.

Following the tobacco industry, nuclear facilitated studies that nuclear is low carbon ('forgetting' important factors). The result is that study results easily differ a factor 10 (as occurred with studies regarding health harm by smoking).
As discussion about studies won’t solve the issue easily, let’s use sound reasoning.

Per dollar, costs are associated with roughly the same amount of carbon emission as costs are in the end always labor.*) Workers spend their money more or less the same. So wind, solar, nuclear electricity all emit ~X grCO2eq/$ paid for the KWh.

The costs to operate existing nuclear are >$50/MWh as shown by the NY-state subsidies (ZEC's), etc. To those costs we should add the ~$20/MWh worth of ongoing liability subsidies which nuclear get**)
The costs to operate existing wind & solar are much smaller than $5/MWh.

So sound reasoning implies that existing, depreciated, nuclear emit at least 14 times more CO2eq/KWh than comparable solar and wind!

______
*) This doesn't apply for fossil generated electricity as fossil itself also generates CO2.

**) Nuclear liability limitations acts limit nuclear’s liability for the costs of accidents and nuclear waste to unrealistic low amounts.
The value of the accident liability limitation act:
In ~15,000 years of reactor operations accidents (Fukushima, etc) created a damage of ~$2Trillion. A subsidy of $133mln per reactor year, which translates to ~1.7cent/KWh. The insurance premium subsidy is invisible until disaster strikes. Then citizens have to pay their damage (Evacuations. New houses, shops, offices, factories, etc. Cleaning, etc) and probably also major part of costs to clean the concerned NPP.
Nuclear waste liability limitation add another ~0.5cent/KWh.

Michael Mann • 2 years ago

Actually you can find almost anything on the internet http://educate-yourself.org...

CaptD • 2 years ago

Salute to BasM for taking the time to share his expertise and calling out A4P1 and the others that are pushing the pro-nuclear agenda, despite the now proven fact that renewables are less expensive and pose no ☢ hazard to humanity!

ecoh • 2 years ago

Wake up!
Green fundamentalism has nothing to do with the environment or saving the planet, its main purpose is to ruin natural landscapes and keep us symbiotic with coal natural gas/fracking. There is no economically affordable energy storage solution.
Renewable is not the answer, it's a big part of the problem.
Compact carbon-free nuclear power is the humanity's only hope to stop climate change.
"nuclear power has been the victim of misleading and sensationalist reports in the media for decades."
http://www.coloradoan.com/s...
"Nuclear power is not the bogey that anti-nuclear groups have led us to believe. It has the lowest death rate per kilowatt hour of any generating technology including wind and solar."
http://mothersfornuclear.or...
"We have been misled by fearmongers."

BasG • 2 years ago

There is no compact carbon-free nuclear power. worse:
The full nuclear power cycle emit many times more CO2eq/KWh than renewable. It's emissions are about half way between wind & solar and natural gas: https://goo.gl/uXpdU4
And it's emissions will increase since rich uranium layers are getting exhausted (so more to purify, which takes lot of energy), etc.

There is even no compact nuclear power as the footprint of:
nuclear power plants +
share of uranium mine +
share of uranium processing +
guarded nuclear waste storage during at least a century (no underground solution found, failed trials in a.o. Germany, next trial is in Finland)

is at least 20 times larger per KWh produced than that of onshore wind!
While offshore wind and rooftop solar don't take any land.
In fact nuclear footprint produces per m2 about same KWh as ground mounted PV-solar!

Even the most power dense US nuclear power plant alone, Indian point, cannot compete regarding power density against wind:
Average output Indian Point 1.7KW/m2 (CF 90%)
Average output 5MW wind turbine (CF 33%): 16KW/m2
And the figure for nuclear decrease at least a factor 2 when the uranium mining, processing, storage is also considered!

ecoh • 2 years ago

Nuclear power has the lowest overall carbon print.
In the real world: Is Germany's Energiewende a success? Neither success nor carbon-free!!!
"Germany is the #8 coal producer and the #6 coal importer in the world."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media...
Germany's Energiewende is an example that renewable is just a scam to lure people to get money from taxpayers.

"in 2010 French power production emitted 10 times less carbon than Germany's, but that as Germany has switched on more coal and lignite plants to compensate for closed nuclear reactors, France now emits 30 times less carbon."
http://www.reuters.com/arti...

"except nuclear is already carbon-free. so-called environmentalists are doing the fossil fuel industry's dirty work by killing off their competition for them. France for example gets 75% of their electricity generation from nuclear, but """"environmentalists"""" in our country ensured that the fossil fuel industry would dominate the sector for generations longer than was necessary"

"As an example of this effect, look at how these energy transitions differ between nuclear-focused France and renewable-focused Germany:"
"FRANCE GETS 47% OF ITS ENERGY FROM LOW-CARBON SOURCES IN 2013, MOSTLY FROM NUCLEAR"
"GERMANY ONLY GETS 17% OF ITS ENERGY FROM LOW-CARBON SOURCES IN 2013, AS RENEWABLES REPLACE NUCLEAR"
http://thebreakthrough.org/...

BasG • 2 years ago

Does anybody also experience censorship when commenting on articles written by Rod Adams published at Forbes?

My better founded comments showing results of scientific research regarding the genetic and health effects of additional low level radiation, appeared at the site and then disappeared (hours thereafter)....

Atoms4Peace1 • 2 years ago

Define low levels of radiation. We bathe in these low levels constantly. There are no definitive or authoritative research works that isolate man made radiation sources, being it is 0.1% of the overall radiation budget. There are no authoritarive or validated studies that separate out the many confounders to pinpoint man made low radiation levels as a definitive cause of cancer. Check your sources and their funding. Always follow the money. Any claim by you is the result of sloppy research

BasG • 2 years ago

Even low level of background radiation is a cause of genetic damage, and other health hazards such as cancers.
And of course higher levels of genetic damage in areas with higher levels of background radiation.
E.g. in the high radiation districts of Ramsar (av. 6mSv/a, 'normal' level is 2-3mSv/a) as shown by several studies such as: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
despite the increased rate of repair:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
which increased rate also implies that cells end their life faster (end of telomeres, etc) hence people live shorter.
As not enough people live in the high radiation districts of Ramsar to show significant difference with normal radiation areas, research combined different high radiation areas and found indeed significant more health damage (cancers, etc) in the high radiation areas: https://www.sciencedaily.co...

In line with these research results, significant (p<0.00001!) increases (up to 100% while the increase was 0.5mSv/a) in the frequency of Down syndrome, stillbirth, malformations of the heart, neural tube defects, serious abnormal limbs were found in newborn after Chernobyl in German districts (>1000mile away) that got some fallout (from 0.1mSv/a to 0.5mSv/a; rain from a passing Chernobyl cloud) while no increase in similar nearby districts that got no fall-out: http://goo.gl/RwnCyB
The increases were shown (with high significance) with increases in the radiation level of only 0.15mSv/a (<10% of normal background)!
More research shows similar!

Russ Finley • 2 years ago

BasM said in the following comments:

https://disqus.com/home/dis...

https://disqus.com/home/dis...

Targets of the German Energiewende in order of priority:

1. All nuclear out asap.
2. Democratize electricity.
3. 80% renewable electricity in 2050.
4. Affordable costs.
5. Less GHG

There is a restricted number of goals who also have a clear priority order (which I stated above)

But from the very same link that he provided for us to explain the German energy transition we get:

http://energytransition.de/...

http://i.imgur.com/b3LdIa5.jpg

Note that there is no mention of "affordable costs" and they have not reduced emissions in over five years. How well they have met any of their other goals, I don't know, but I doubt they are any better off. Hard to reduce the risk of one of our safest energy sources.

By far the most important target for the Germans as: they experienced the health devastating effects of nuclear accident Chernobyl, even while >1000 mile away

Your URL address goes to page 117 of a PDF where researchers think they have found a link between Chernobyl fallout and birth abnormalities. The main problem with all of these "antinuclear energy" studies is the same as for the "vaccines cause autism" studies. Assuming they actually uncovered a trend, they can't show how or if it was caused by fallout/vaccines. Correlation does not imply causation. Click on the following "Hilarious Graphs Prove That Correlation Isn’t Causation" link for some examples:

http://www.fastcodesign.com...

It's a moot point considering that German reactor designs with their modern containment domes are incapable of exposing a melted core to burn in the open air as the primitive Soviet design that had no containment dome did. A melted core in a German reactor would have no health impacts just as the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has formally stated that there will be no health effects from radiation exposure on the general public in Fukushima.

their scientists showed that damaging genetic effects of living <40km away from a significant nuclear facility ... Those genetic effects lead to the premature closure of their prime nuclear waste site, even while the huge building was mainly empty (20x500m with 50cm thick walls in which only ~100 dry casks were stored before closing it).

Ironically, Germany ranks 33rd out of 182 countries for cigarette consumption per capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Germany already has a 37% higher cancer rate than Belarus, which is just downwind of Chernobyl:
http://www.theguardian.com/...

Almost without fail, Bas, when antinuclear enthusiasts like yourself provide links, they tend to hurt more than help their arguments because for some reason, they rarely seem to read or possibly understand the links themselves. I finally looked at your last two links. They are PDFs for a lecture course and a workshop.

Below I provide a screenshot of the goofy antinuclear cartoon found in one introduction:

http://i.imgur.com/epdhVtd.png

So, I looked up the real study in a real peer-reviewed science journal ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ) positing the hypothesis that increased radiation may be responsible for the increased sex ratios. It simply lays out a hypothesis to be tested. Stating in the limitation of the hypothesis:

"...Another major limitation is the general lack of firm evidence that ionizing radiation increases the human sex ratio. It is even possible that certain kinds of radiation exposures decrease the sex ratio or act neutral on gender...."

2. Democratize electricity. So ~50% of renewable is owned by citizens, farmers, small coops. Hence also the high FiT's [feed in tariffs] for small rooftop solar.

Democratize electricity? I.e., financing and maintaining your own small power station. Are there plans afoot to also finance and maintain your own sewer, water, and gas systems rather than let cooperative utilities handle them for you?

From MIT technology review:

https://www.technologyrevie...

Germany is giving the rest of the world a lesson in just how much can go wrong when you try to reduce carbon emissions solely by installing lots of wind and solar.

What happens next will be critical not only for Germany, but also for other countries trying to learn how to best bring more wind and solar online—especially if they want to do it without relying on nuclear power.

In hopes of addressing such issues, Germany’s Parliament is expected to soon eliminate the government-set subsidy for renewable energy, known as a feed-in tariff [FIT], that has largely fueled the growth in wind and solar. Instead of subsidizing any electricity produced by solar or wind power, the government will set up an auction system.

From Energy Matters:

http://euanmearns.com/an-up...

Two rounds of auctions have already been held, but with disappointing results. According to Renewables International“. The government originally hoped that auctions would bring down the cost of solar, but that goal has now been abandoned.” The hope that the auctions would bring down solar costs was frustrated by high bid prices, with solar bids coming in at up to €89.30/MWh, not that much less than the Hinkley Point strike price of £92.50. And Hinkley generation is of course dispatchable while solar isn’t.

BasM continues:

3. 80% renewable electricity in 2050. Which translates in a shift of 1.5%/a towards renewable (from 6% in 2000 to 80% in 2050)..In past 5 years the average transition was >3%/a, despite the decreasing FiT's (due to the cost decreases of wind, solar, storage). So they are now ~3years ahead of schedule.

The low hanging fruit has been picked. FITS are going away. The economic laws of supply and demand are coming home to roost.

Below is a list of sources that all explain why solar and wind kill their own value once they reach higher levels of penetration which is why they will typically be limited to something like 10 to 40 percent of electrical energy depending on location:

1) A study by German economist Lion Hirth (pro-renewables and pro-nuclear):“...the value of wind and solar declines as they become a larger percentage of the German grid." http://www.neon-energie.de/...

2) From the United Nations Renewables 2016 Global Status Report (pro-renewables and pro-nuclear):“The more that solar PV penetrates the electricity system, the harder it is to recoup project costs.” http://www.ren21.net/wp-con...

3) From David Roberts (antinuclear): "As they grow, wind and solar hit economic headwinds." http://www.vox.com/2015/6/2...

4) From the NREL (pro-renewables): "Still higher levels of variable renewable energy generation [wind and solar above 30%] is technically feasible but could test the economic carrying capacity of the U.S. power grid." http://energy.gov/sites/pro...

5) From MIT (pro-renewables and pro-nuclear): "...even if solar generation becomes profitable without subsidies at low levels of penetration, there is a system-dependent threshold of installed PV [and wind] capacity beyond which adding further solar generators would no longer be profitable." http://mitei.mit.edu/system...

6) Jesse Jenkins (pro-renewables and pro-nuclear): "Instead, the fundamental economics of supply and demand is likely to put the brakes on VRE (variable renewable energy) penetration." http://www.theenergycollect...

4. Affordable costs. Hence the 50years transition period. The insignificant costs lead also to increasing support of the population for the Energiewende. From ~55% in 2000 towards ~90% now.

The German Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy, second in command to Merkel, who was also the Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety from 2005 to 2009 tells the whole story:

“I don’t know any other economy that can bear this burden [$30billion a year]...We have to make sure that we connect the energy switch to economic success, or at least not endanger it. Germany must focus on the cheapest clean-energy sources as well as efficient fossil-fuel-fired plants to stop spiraling power prices."

While renewable aid costs are at the “limit” of what the economy can bear, Germany will keep pushing wind and solar power, the most cost-effective renewable sources, Gabriel said. Biomass energy is too expensive and its cost structure hasn’t improved, he said.

Germany is demonstrating the real world cost of trying to reduce emissions with only renewables; $30 billiona year, according to Germany's economics ministry. $30 billion a year would pay for forty custom built $7.5 billion Generation III AP1000 reactors over ten years ($30B/year x 10years = $300B, $300B/$7.5B = 40 AP1000 reactors). Add those to existing reactors and they could supply about 97% of Germany's electricity by 2025.

5. Less GHG; Kyoto -20% in 2020 compared to 1990. Germany -25% now. None major country will reach the Kyoto target. Not even close to -20%.

They were doing great until they dropped nuclear instead of coal five years ago. They haven't reduced emissions in five years.

The by far biggest polluter, USA, is even above the 1990 level.

You often try to turn a discussion into some kind of nationalistic contest between Germany and the United States. New York has learned from Germany's mistakes and that is why they are not going to let nuclear close. I'm sure other states will follow in its path. A new reactor came on line a few weeks ago with more on the way.

So even regarding the least important target of the Energiewende they score far better than any other major country!

The graph below shows that France, with its nuclear, makes Germany look quite pathetic when it comes to carbon emissions from the electricity sector.

http://i.imgur.com/tAaUWJI.jpg

A frequent misconception in English literature is the idea that the Energiewende started in ~2011 (due to the Fukushima disaster). It started in 2000 with the Government decision to follow the studied 50years scenario towards 80% renewable electricity and 60% renewable regarding all energy. The first Energiewende law became in force in 2001.

And again, from the very same link that he provided for us to explain the German energy transition we get:

The German Energiewende did not just come about in 2011. It is rooted in the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s ...

BasM continues:

Realizing that Swedish and German culture are less different than US and German culture, and still seeing all these misconceptions make me pessimistic about our ability to understand each other correctly in these matters.

It isn't so much a matter of understanding as it is a matter of misinformation from specific individuals.

BasG • 2 years ago

@Russ,
The author (Graig Morris) of the WEB pages at the link I provided is one of the most accurate native English authors about the German Energiewende. Most publish many basic mistakes, resulting in a picture far off reality.
But Morris also makes substantial mistakes.
E.g.
You seem to state that he writes that fighting climate change is the priority of the Energiewende.
If that was true the Germans would have started with all coal out. But they don't have a plan for that. I expect that coal will survive many decades as the new plants produce for a cost price of ~€25/MWh. About half the marginal (operating only) costs of nuclear, as shown by the NY-state ZEC's!
Stronger: Since 2010 they reduced nuclear with 35%, gas with 33%, coal with 2%!

"lack of.evidence that ionizing radiation increases the human sex ratio.."?
Nonsense.
- E.g. the Dickinson etal study regarding Sellafield, showed that male workers in radiation zones got 38% more boys than girls. While they got less radiation than the official allowed doses..
- UNSCEAR reported it already in its 1958 report to the general assembly of the UN.
In that report UNSCEAR stated that measuring m/f sex ratio of newborn would be be a good indication for increased ionizing (=nuclear) radiation levels.
For an easy to understand and short explanation (sh.7, etc): http://goo.gl/RzZwcV

Sorry, for now I don't want to spend more time to correct your many other mistakes and misrepresentations.

BasG • 2 years ago

Do you, or anybody else, also experience censorship when commenting articles written by pro-nuclear Rod Adams at Forbes?

My better founded comments showing results of scientific research regarding the genetic and health effects of additional low level radiation, appeared at the site and then disappeared (hours thereafter)....

BasG • 2 years ago

As many people here misrepresent the German Energiewende and even its targets, I state them below:

Targets of the German Energiewende in order of priority:
1. All nuclear out asap.
By far the most important target for the Germans as:
- they experienced the health devastating effects of nuclear accident Chernobyl, even while >1000 mile away:
e.g.: http://goo.gl/RwnCyB
- their scientists showed that damaging genetic effects of living <40km away from a significant nuclear facility:
http://goo.gl/a27Vj4
http://goo.gl/p0aUGk

Those genetic effects lead to the premature closure of their prime nuclear waste site, even while the huge building was mainly empty (20x500m with 50cm thick walls in which only ~100 dry casks were stored before closing it).
11 of the 19 NPP's at the start of the Energiewende in 2000 are closed. The rest will be closed before 2023.

2. Democratize electricity. So ~50% of renewable is owned by citizens, farmers, small coops. Hence also the high FiT's for small rooftop solar.

3. 80% renewable electricity in 2050. Which translates in a shift of 1.5%/a towards renewable (from 6% in 2000 to 80% in 2050)..
In past 5 years the average transition was >3%/a, despite the decreasing FiT's (due to the cost decreases of wind, solar, storage). So they are now ~3years ahead of schedule.
Regarding all energy together, the target is 60% renewable in 2050.

4. Affordable costs.
Hence the 50years transition period.
The insignificant costs lead also to increasing support of the population for the Energiewende. From ~55% in 2000 towards ~90% now.

5. Less GHG; Kyoto -20% in 2020 compared to 1990.
Germany -25% now. None major country will reach the Kyoto target. Not even close to -20%.
The by far biggest polluter, USA, is even above the 1990 level.
So even regarding the least important target of the Energiewende they score far better than any other major country!

Atoms4Peace1 • 2 years ago

Does Germany plan to supplement its power need with French and Czech grid contributions? Those would be nuclear.

BasG • 2 years ago

No. More renewable implies an increase in the production of electricity. So over-supply, hence prices at the German market went down (3cent/KWh). Hence other countries now import German electricity. Netherlands is increasing the capacity of the interconnection lines with a factor 2-3!

The (export-import)/production balance of Germany in:
- 2000: -0.5% (net import)
- 2010: 2.8% (net export)
- 2015: 7.8% (net export)

BasG • 2 years ago

A frequent misconception in English literature is the idea that the Energiewende started in ~2011 (due to the Fukushima disaster).
It started in 2000 with the Government decision to follow the studied 50years scenario towards 80% renewable electricity and 60% renewable regarding all energy. The first Energiewende law became in force in 2001.

Russ Finley referred to a report by a Swedish delegation who visited Germany and its Energiewende authorities and still displays many such misconceptions: http://www.iva.se/en/publis...
E.g.:
- that the Energiewende started in ~2011. It started in 2000 (implemented in law in 2001).
- that it has numerous more or less equal goals. There is a restricted number of goals who also have a clear priority order (which I stated above).

Realizing that Swedish and German culture are less different than US and German culture, and
still seeing all these misconceptions make me pessimistic about our ability to understand each other correctly in these matters.
Despite the good work of e.g. Graig Morris who does his best to clear all misconceptions at his WEB-site:
http://energytransition.de/...

Russ Finley • 2 years ago

Brian said in the following comment: https://disqus.com/home/dis...

Notice the pro nuclear folks try con confuse the issue. The Lazard numbers are cost per KWH.

So were my numbers.

Again they use average renewable program costs for renewable in Germany of the past 10 years.

No I didn't.

The prices for new renewable are super cheap now as a result

No they aren't. From the German Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy, second in command to Merkel, who was also the Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety from 2005 to 2009:

“I don’t know any other economy that can bear this burden [$30billion a year]...We have to make sure that we connect the energy switch to economic success, or at least not endanger it. Germany must focus on the cheapest clean-energy sources as well as efficient fossil-fuel-fired plants to stop spiraling power prices."

While renewable aid costs are at the “limit” of what the economy can bear, Germany will keep pushing wind and solar power, the most cost-effective renewable sources, Gabriel said. Biomass energy is too expensive and its cost structure hasn’t improved, he said.

Germany is demonstrating the real world cost of trying to reduce emissions with only renewables; $30 billiona year, according to Germany's economics ministry. $30 billion a year would pay for forty custom built $7.5 billion Generation III AP1000 reactors over ten years ($30B/year x 10years = $300B, $300B/$7.5B = 40 AP1000 reactors). Add those to existing reactors and they could supply about 97% of Germany's electricity by 2025. And their emissions reductions have been flat for the last six years ...six years of carbon in the atmosphere we can't get back.

and they will never need fuel, to the investments today is for 30 years.

Fuel represents a very small percentage of the total costs for a nuclear plant, which can run for 60 years.

I said gov breaks. Fanny how they immediately want to narrow that to just direct subsidies. Nuclear can't run one second without gov liability insurance. So what's that worth? Everything. If they don't need it, take it away.

Tax payers have not paid a dime for nuclear insurance. German nuclear has no government backed liability cap. If renewables don't need government guaranteed loans, take them away.

Are those nuclear 38B$ in gov backed loans gov breaks? I think so.

Don't know where your $38 billion came from but government loan guarantees are often given for renewable projects, several of which have gone bankrupt.

Nuclear power will be short of fuel in tens years.

No it won't.

when are the pro nuclear folks going to face reality? (never).

When are the antinuclear folks going to face reality? Hopefully, not never.

Look at the gov breaks Hinkley needs! 30B$ for one power plant. 37 BILLION pounds!

Hinkley is one of the most expensive proposals out there and it may never be built. Note also that because it would have two reactors, it would cost a lot more than a power station with just one. The cost of nuclear varies widely country by country.

http://www.sciencedirect.co...

Note also that the Hornsea One offshore wind is more expensive than Hinkley Point C nuclear: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

Again they want us to believe the political agencies under the Atomic Energy Commission and a president who is pushing nuclear. We all believe politicians, right?

Nobody believes politicians. It was the NREL that predicted solar PV in the U.S. would only be at 5% by 2050.

Greenpeace really did predict solar growth correctly, and the political and industry groups got is so wrong it's almost funny.

No, seriously, Greenpeace was off 50% on their solar projection, not that it matters.

Russ Finley • 2 years ago

Brian said in this link: http://www.greentechmedia.c...

Geez. Did ya notice the reply? Not a single link anywhere. Snipe hunt anyone? Now they claim 6% of ??? comes from Wind? wow. NOT ONE LINK. notice.

My bad, looks like wind was down to 4.7% of electricity generation in 2015, not 6%. Source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/f...

Here is where you can find the four volume National Renewable Energy Lab study with the bar chart showing PV contributing roughly 5% by 2050. See page 201, A-43, of Volume 1 : http://www.nrel.gov/analysi...

Below is a graph showing why so many people like Brian have been mislead into believing that humanity has been making progress on reducing emissions:

BasG • 2 years ago

The Germans started their Energiewende in 2000 when PV-solar was still extremely expensive (~70cent/KWh), and wind also expensive.
Despite still having to pay a lot for the expensive years until ~2010 (due to the then 20years guarantee for investors), German population consider the costs insignificant as shown by the increasing support (from 55% in ~2000 towards ~90% now).

And they made real progress:
From 6% renewable in 2000 towards 33% renewable now (wind+solar being 2/3 of their renewable generated electricity)
Thanks to the German investment to create a volume market prices came down about a factor 3(wind) - 10(solar).
A price decrease widely expected to go on for next two decades at least....

That implies that any other country now starting an Energiewende will have a fraction of the costs...
Such country will be cheaper off if it has a lot of nuclear now, as shown by France who is moving away from nuclear faster than the Germans did (transition speed 2.5%/a towards renewable, Germany 1.5%/a).
Of course they did a lot of studies too (as the Germans did in the nineties) before taking such decision.
E.g. by French government institute ADEME: http://mixenr.ademe.fr/en

Russ Finley • 2 years ago
The Germans started their Energiewende in 2000 when PV-solar was still extremely expensive (~70cent/KWh), and wind also expensive. Despite still having to pay a lot for those expensive years until ~2010 (due to the then 20years guarantee for investors)

Below is a list of sources that all explain why solar and wind kill their own value once they reach higher levels of penetration which is why they will typically be limited to something like 10 to 40 percent of electrical energy depending on location:

1) A study by German economist Lion Hirth (pro-renewables and pro-nuclear):“...the value of wind and solar declines as they become a larger percentage of the German grid." http://www.neon-energie.de/...

2) From the United Nations Renewables 2016 Global Status Report (pro-renewables and pro-nuclear):“The more that solar PV penetrates the electricity system, the harder it is to recoup project costs.” http://www.ren21.net/wp-con...

3) From David Roberts (antinuclear): "As they grow, wind and solar hit economic headwinds." http://www.vox.com/2015/6/2...

4) From the NREL (pro-renewables): "Still higher levels of variable renewable energy generation [wind and solar above 30%] is technically feasible but could test the economic carrying capacity of the U.S. power grid." http://energy.gov/sites/pro...

5) From MIT (pro-renewables and pro-nuclear): "...even if solar generation becomes profitable without subsidies at low levels of penetration, there is a system-dependent threshold of installed PV [and wind] capacity beyond which adding further solar generators would no longer be profitable." http://mitei.mit.edu/system...

6) Jesse Jenkins (pro-renewables and pro-nuclear): "Instead, the fundamental economics of supply and demand is likely to put the brakes on VRE (variable renewable energy) penetration." http://www.theenergycollect...

German population consider the costs insignificant as shown by the increasing support (from 55% in ~2000 towards ~90% now).

The German Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy, second in command to Merkel, who was also the Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety from 2005 to 2009 tells the whole story:

“I don’t know any other economy that can bear this burden [$30billion a year]...We have to make sure that we connect the energy switch to economic success, or at least not endanger it. Germany must focus on the cheapest clean-energy sources as well as efficient fossil-fuel-fired plants to stop spiraling power prices."

While renewable aid costs are at the “limit” of what the economy can bear, Germany will keep pushing wind and solar power, the most cost-effective renewable sources, Gabriel said. Biomass energy is too expensive and its cost structure hasn’t improved, he said.

Germany is demonstrating the real world cost of trying to reduce emissions with only renewables; $30 billiona year, according to Germany's economics ministry. $30 billion a year would pay for forty custom built $7.5 billion Generation III AP1000 reactors over ten years ($30B/year x 10years = $300B, $300B/$7.5B = 40 AP1000 reactors). Add those to existing reactors and they could supply about 97% of Germany's electricity by 2025.

And they made real progress: From 6% renewable in 2000 towards 33% renewable now (wind+solar being 2/3 of their renewable generated electricity)

If by progress, you mean integrate large amounts of solar and wind while reducing nuclear, then I agree. If by progress you mean lowering costs and emissions as a result, then, no, they went backwards.

Thanks to the German investment to create a volume market prices came down about a factor 3(wind) - 10(solar). A price decrease widely expected to go on for next two decades at least.... That implies that any other country now starting an Energiewende will have a fraction of the costs...

My electricity rate is three times lower than German rates and we get 95% of our electricity from low carbon sources. The German experiment has proven that if you are a first world industrialized nation wanting to go to 30 percent renewables while replacing nuclear you can expect it to cost a fortune and you will not reduce emissions.

The graphic below demonstrates why you can't simply claim to know what a given energy source costs to install. It depends on where and when you are. And to complicate matters, cost of installation does not reflect the cost of using intermittent nondispatchable energy sources in a grid as Germany's high retail prices demonstrate.

http://i.imgur.com/4zI5J6e.jpg

Such country will be cheaper off if it has a lot of nuclear now, as shown by France who is moving away from nuclear faster than the Germans did (transition speed 2.5%/a towards renewable, Germany 1.5%/a).

You have told this whopper several times now.

Going from 75% to 50% is a 33.3% reduction

France: 33.3% / (2030-2015) = 2.2% per year
Germany: 100% / (2022-2011) = 9.1% per year

Source: www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/...

France's carbon emissions are a tiny fraction of Germany's emissions and have been for many decades.
France also proved that you can decarbonize much faster with nuclear than you can renewables.

Of course they did a lot of studies too (as the Germans did in the nineties) before taking such decision. E.g. by French government institute ADEME...

A quote from the forward of the ADME study:

The electricity mixes examined in the ADEME study are theoretical: they are created from scratch and do not take into account the current situation or the path needed to achieve a 100% renewables-based electricity system.

We believe these results to be sufficiently robust to serve as a basis for debate among the stakeholders. Some will probably object that the scope of the study is too narrow, as we do not take into account existing structures and have not programmed the way in which investment will progress. They are right. Others will observe that we have not pushed our analyses to intervals of less than one hour. They are also right and we are well aware of the challenge represented by network stability management, which is not addressed in this study.

Of course, we should recall that electricity only represents a quarter of total energy consumption in France. The best ways to improve the sustainability of our energy system overall will come about in the context of careful analysis and attention to all the sectors, not by tackling each vector separately (electricity, gas, petroleum products and heat). This study is therefore only a contribution inviting subsequent work to build upon a shared understanding of our energy future.

Note that the study does not attempt to replace total energy consumption in France with renewable energy, only 25% of it. In addition, to achieve higher renewable use, the plan is to try to cut total energy use in half by 2050. In theory, by cutting energy use in half, renewables today would go from about 15% to 30% without building one single new renewable energy generator. So, either

a) You didn't read and understand the study and its limits or ...
b) You are trying to deceive readers.

The French Government, after reviewing the study and many similar ones, drew its own conclusions. Use of nuclear for electricity generation will be reduced to 50% of total electricity generation, which is a wise move in my opinion. Just as renewable enthusiasts want too much renewable energy in the mix, nuclear enthusiasts want too much nuclear. A diverse mix is better. 50% nuclear + 25% renewable + 25% fossil.

Be • 2 years ago

Did you all know that solar and wind are available 4 times less than nuclear? BEFORE GOV BREAKS. Reread that till you get it. Nuclear can't run 1 second without gov/taxpayer protection from liability. https://www.lazard.com/medi... "sweeping retirement of nuclear" is a straw man sensationalist nonsense headline. 10-15 year will be needed to phase out nuclear and fossils for renewable. No, not the absurd 2050 dates the political agencies keep claiming using linear projections. Greenpeace kicked them to the curb! http://cleantechnica.com/20...http://reneweconomy.com.au/... Greenpeace has nailed it every year for predicting solar and wind and IEA has gotten so wrong it's funny. Why you should never trust political agencies!
Gemrnay has been a fantastic success. But watch for some clever lies against them. Let's take the cost of solar today in Germany as the average cost over the last 10 years. Do I need to explain the deception? Solar is on the "S" curve: doubling it's market penetration every 2 years and drooping in cost by 20% per doubling. Even we Germany and Denmark had days of over 100% solar or wind, their grids remained the most reliably in the in the world: ten times less outages than the USA. Shier wholemeal cost and prices low compared to the rest of the EU.

Solar and wind won. They are the miracle energy source. Most new power install are solar and wind. Cheaper, cleaner, safer, forever. Stop hesitating. Go Renewable.

ecoh • 2 years ago

“Wind developers have been getting rich on the backs of taxpayers and the wind production tax credit for over two decades, and there is no reason they should receive additional incentives to build unreliable and unsightly wind turbines,”
“Already, federal incentives for wind distort some electric power markets by giving wind an unfair advantage over other, more reliable and cost-competitive forms of electricity generation. The subsidy for Big Wind is already so generous that, at times, wind producers can give away their electricity and still make a profit. Providing further incentives to wind developers will only exacerbate this problem.”
https://www.wind-watch.org/...

Be • 2 years ago

Notice the pro nuclear folks try con confuse the issue. The Lazard numbers are cost per KWH. Deal with it.
Again they use average renewable program costs for renewable in Germany of the past 10 years. The prices for new renewable are super cheap now as a result, and they will never need fuel, to the investments today is for 30 years.
I said gov breaks. Fanny how they immediately want to narrow that to just direct subsidies. Nuclear can't run one second without gov liability insurance. So what's that worth? Everything. If they don't need it, take it away. Are those nuclear 38B$ in gov backed loans gov breaks? I think so.
Nuclear power will be short of fuel in tens years. when are the pro nuclear folks going to face reality? (never). Those reactors would produce zero for 12 years. Look at the gov breaks Hinkley needs! 30B$ for one power plant. https://www.theguardian.com... 37 BILLION pounds!
Again they want us to believe the political agencies under the Atomic Energy Commission and a president who is pushing nuclear. We all believe politicians, right? Greenpeace really did predict solar growth correctly, and the political and industry groups got is so wrong it's almost funny. read the link. Greenpeace shows the proper exponential curve and got it 30% lower, while the political agencies got it 1,000% wrong!

Be • 2 years ago

Actually, solar and wind with installed peak power 150-200% of the maximum demand can supply around 80% of the total ENERGY needed, when you factor in time of day pricing. Most energy is already used during the day, globally on average, annually. Baseload can't provide more than the minimum energy demand, since it hate's to throttle. Thus it's normally limited to 50% of the total energy demand. http://energytransition.de/... good article on why baseload is not what we need. Flexible power is.

Joffan • 2 years ago

As long as we have cheap fossil gas and massive subsidies for wind and solar, nuclear power plants will struggle to make the numbers that the deregulated market currently expects. Sadly, long term thinking has been abandoned for all but closed markets (like pharmaceuticals) and government-sponsored activity. The idea that any non-state company will willingly continue to operate a plant with an open-ended potential for making loss is ludicrous. Since the structural problem behind that loss-making is the government inaction to penalize CO2 emission on the one hand and the government action to subsidize other suppliers to the point where they can sustain buying customers (negative product price), it's not unreasonable to expect some government action to level out the inequality. Sadly this hasn't happened, and the dogma of entrenched and unplacatable nuclear opponents has yet to be recognized for the destructive and anti-progress force that it is.

BasG • 2 years ago

Joffan,
There is no hope for nuclear:
- the subsidies for renewable (wind+solar+storage) are fast decreasing and will be zero at ~2025
- the expansion of renewable is increasing exponentially

A paradigm change is coming thanks to the new disruptive technology:
https://youtu.be/Kxryv2Xrnq...

Russ Finley • 2 years ago

Germany is demonstrating the real world cost of trying to reduce emissions with only renewables; $30 billiona year, according to Germany's economics ministry. $30 billion a year would pay for forty custom built $7.5 billion Generation III AP1000 reactors over ten years ($30B/year x 10years = $300B, $300B/$7.5B = 40 AP1000 reactors). Add those to existing reactors and they could supply about 97% of Germany's electricity by 2025. And their emissions reductions have been flat for the last six years ...six years of carbon in the atmosphere we can't get back.

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Be • 2 years ago

It's a straw man argument. We are talking about phasing out nuclear and fossils in the next 10-15 years. Most dangerous nuclear plants, and dirtiest coal plants first. The nuclear power industry spend billion on pr and influence including lots of articles and trolls.

Nuclear short of fuel ten years IAEA(Pub1104_scr.pdf ) for 2% world's energy for 50 years. Costs 4 times available solar and wind Lazard(energy version 9), 12 years to install. Then solar and wind available for 16 times less and already producing more energy than the world needs. Nuclear power plant per year: 27 tons spent fuel rod waste. deadly for a million years, 30 billion dollars dry casks for 100,000 years, 2M tons of toxic mining wastes.

100% renewables in 15 years. Rooftop and parking lot Solar pv, offshore wind, electric vehicles, efficiency, hydro and waste to fuels for backup, long range and chemicals. Solar 60% total energy without storage We already use most of our energy during the day. Wind 20% . Hydro. Fuels from waste remaining 20%, plus chemicals and long haul.

Solar and wind majority of new power installs, doubling every two years. 200GWp of solar PV(50GWp installed 2015), 500 GW of solar heating, and 400 GWp of wind as of 2015.

Russ Finley • 2 years ago
We are talking about phasing out nuclear and fossils in the next 10-15 years.

If by we, you are talking about the United States, there is no such plan to phase out nuclear. In fact, New York just added subsidies (roughly half of what wind gets) to help out the nuclear power stations having trouble competing with fossil fuels. I'm sure more states will now follow their lead.

Most dangerous nuclear plants, and dirtiest coal plants first.

There are no dangerous nuclear plants in this country.

The nuclear power industry spend billion on pr and influence including lots of articles and trolls.

You made that all up.

Nuclear short of fuel ten years IAEA(Pub1104_scr.pdf ) for 2% world's energy for 50 years.

There is enough economically available uranium for many centuries even without breeder technology.

Costs 4 times available solar and wind Lazard (energy version 9)

Germany is demonstrating the real world cost of trying to reduce emissions with only renewables; $30 billiona year, according to Germany's economics ministry. $30 billion a year would pay for forty custom built $7.5 billion Generation III AP1000 reactors over ten years ($30B/year x 10years = $300B, $300B/$7.5B = 40 AP1000 reactors). Add those to existing reactors and they could supply about 97% of Germany's electricity by 2025. And their emissions reductions have been flat for the last six years ...six years of carbon in the atmosphere we can't get back.

2 years to install.

Nuclear has proven to scale up much faster than renewables have (France).

Then solar and wind available for 16 times less and already producing more energy than the world needs.

Sweet! So instead of paying 12 cents per kWh I'll only be paying 12/16 = three-quarters of a penny! Why, that's almost too cheap to meter! That's hard to believe, if you catch my drift.

Nuclear power plant per year: 27 tons spent fuel rod waste.

Edit: Removed weight calculations and substituted graphic showing how little volume used nuclear fuel assemblies occupy:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-...

deadly for a million years,

LOL, now it's millions of years instead of thousands.

30 billion dollars dry casks for 100,000 years

I have no more idea what you are trying to say above than you do.

2M tons of toxic mining wastes.

...which is a small fraction of the toxic wastes for wind and solar material per unit energy.

100% renewables in 15 years.

You said that already. If by we, you are talking about the United States, there is no such plan to phase out nuclear. In fact, New York just added subsidies (roughly half of what wind gets) to help out the nuclear power stations having trouble competing with fossil fuels. I'm sure more states will now follow their lead.

Rooftop and parking lot Solar pv ...Solar 60% total energy without storage

National Renewable Energy Lab estimates only 5% solar PV by 2050

offshore wind

Offshore wind is more expensive than nuclear.

electric vehicles, efficiency, hydro and waste to fuels for backup

If any of the above prove economically effective, they will enhance baseload nuclear just as much or more than wind and solar.

We already use most of our energy during the day.

Peak load is typically well after peak solar.

Wind 20%.

Actually, for once, you may be right. The NREL has wind at about 20 percent by 2050, which sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Hydro. Fuels from waste remaining 20%, plus chemicals and long haul

...you're ranting now.

Solar and wind majority of new power installs, doubling every two years.

Wind installations stop almost completely with even a hint of removing the subsidy.

200GWp of solar PV(50GWp installed 2015), 500 GW of solar heating, and 400 GWp of wind as of 2015.

Translation; solar contributes less than half of a single percent, wind about 6% to electricity grid.

BasG • 2 years ago

So now even fully depreciated NPP cannot compete. Not just, but not at all.
They need and get a subsidy of >40% on the whole sale price for each KWh they produce.

And that subsidy will increase and increase in the future as:
- the operating costs of old NPP's increase (more to repair / replace, etc)
- NY's high whole sale prices (3.9cent/Kwh) will go down further towards ~3cent/KWh as cheap wind and thereafter cheap solar will enter the market in a few years.

It's like keeping old steamboats up- and running, while faster and much cheaper motor ships are taking the world.
Still it are nice boats, a made a trip on one at Queenstown in New Zealand. Could see how the stokers shoveled the coal in the furnace.
So these NPP's become an expensive relic of the dangerous past.

Who is so crazy to buy new nuclear, as these subsidies make it very clear that nuclear is becoming an antiquated curiosity of the past?
Only governments who want to build nuclear know how, for a possible fast development of an atomic bomb in the future. As they feel some threat by nuclear powers in their surroundings.

Btw.
New offshore wind costs <50% of that of new nuclear.
Recent tender in NL for 400MW unsubsidized offshore delivered 7cent/KWh during first 15years and whole sale prices thereafter (=~3cnt/Kwh). It's expected that the tenders for next year will be at 6cent/KWh in first 15yrs and whole sale thereafter.
So average price of 6cent/KWh.
Unsubsidized new nuclear costs at least >15cent/KWh.
The new NPP at Hinkley ~25cnt when you calculate all subsidies. Not strange that London city financial analysts called the deal insane!

Be • 2 years ago

Both side repeat their arguments. But did you know it's easier to make up lies than new truths? Notice the replies have nothing to say, just attack.
Nuclear is big centralized heavy militarized and secret. That is fascist.
Solar can be on everyone's rooftop and drive way cover. That's democracy.

Russ Finley • 2 years ago
But did you know it's easier to make up lies than new truths?

...LOL, as you have demonstrated so well.

Notice the replies have nothing to say, just attack.

Actually, that's a good point.

Nuclear is big centralized heavy militarized and secret. That is fascist.

None of that is true. Wind farms take up a lot more space, but essentially are centralized.

Michael Mann • 2 years ago

What we are seeing is people who know about technology finally speaking out against the fear mongers.

Russ Finley • 2 years ago

Although, to be fair, these guys are for the most part the victims of decades of misinformation from antinuclear groups. Indoctrination will not work if the indoctrinated realize they are indoctrinated. However, they are responsible for the fact that they have never questioned what they have been led to believe (call it willful ignorance), especially in the age of the internet where you can take the red pill or the blue one (seek information to confirm false false belief, or look for reality).

Michael Mann • 2 years ago

Actually many of these people have been shown the truth, they would rather continue spreading their propaganda instead of becoming educated.

CaptD • 2 years ago

What we are seeing is the Nuclear Industry using its political connections to promote the use of Nuclear when in fact the cost of Renewables continues to drop!

It is a sad state of affairs when ratepayers get ripped off so that Nuclear Utility shareholders can profit.

Each year will see the true cost of using Nuclear increase as Renewables become THE most cost effective way to power our society; left unsaid is that those states with long term Nuclear contracts will see "business flight" as companies relocate to areas with lower cost Energy, taking good paying jobs with them!

Also needed to be included in the "cost" of using Nuclear is the high cost of decommissioning and waste storage which will continue to make using Nuclear a poor choice because of the very real potential health hazards to mankind!

ecoh • 2 years ago

Renewable a poor choice because of the very real hazards to environment! Ruination of natural landscapes, fragmentation of wildlife's habitats, massacre of birds and bats, deadlier than nuclear per gigawatt produced, dependence on fossil fuels to mine/manufacture/transport and to reduce intermittency.
Renewable is symbiotic with fossil fuels, so renewable is becoming cheap because fossil fuels are ever cheaper.

Robert • 2 years ago

Fragmentation of nature is caused by roads and highways. Figure it out, what's worse, webs of fragments (that never end) or little rectangles.
The counter to the geico commercial is a lizard in a autonomous flying vehicle flipping everyone off because it's about the only one that survived. Surely, solar panels aren't gonna stop lizards (especially if a law is created that does NOT allow bull dozing at such large scales, just post mount the panels at probably very slightly extra cost).