Stratagy for make western US carbon-negative

"Stratagy for make western US carbon-negative"

As we has seen so far by action is that US has no intention to be near even carbon neutral. US is one of the bad guys, actually one of the worse guy, in the world community.

Don't tell me that US has any kind of strategy against climate change.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. The promotion of other costly alternatives is a popular strategy with oil companies trying to stop renewables. For example, the whole fiasco about the 'hydrogen economy' in the US as a tactic to delay the introduction of electric cars.
Nuclear power is heavily subsidized. If you were to put those subsidies into renewables instead it would do a lot more good. There is simply no good argument for wasting money on nuclear power.

I don't accept the premise that Nuclear Power is more [or much more] expensive than
renewables you promote.

If you look at this wiki page on Levelized Cost of Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source


And looking at those numbers, Nuclear beats many renewables in many places.

The price of electricity generation by source will vary by location.

Solar power is more expensive up here in the frigid north because we get much less
sun than [for example] most of the USA which is much farther south for example.

So in some places some renewables will beat Nuclear and in other places they wont.

But it's at least competitive.

And given that those numbers do not include the kind of benefits you get from the kind
of mass production France did, AND do not include the fact that new 4th~5th gen nuclear
power eats the waste from 1st~2nd gen reactors. Which means we do not have to spend the
billions upon billions currently estimated to try to build these impossible long term nuclear
waste dumps that many countries are planning [the UK and the USA included].

The fact that instead of building waste dumps for the waste we already have we could
instead build nuclear reactors that make money from this waste instead of costing money
HAS to factor into this.



Given that there are benefits to having the kind of stable long term core generating capacity
that nuclear provides day in day out whatever the weather.

Given that we are going to have and do have escalating power requirements.

Given that nuclear is competitive with renewables on the current evidence.

And given that it allows us to make money of of disposing safely of our current nuclear waste.

I can't see a rational argument for not having nuclear energy as part of our green energy mix.



[And I didn't even get to the potential benefits to the mining industry in the west to be
able to mine for rare earth metals more economically.]

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you look at this wiki page on Levelized Cost of Energy

Can you clarify:
Do the costs include government subsidies or not? Nuclear is often heavily subsidized in order to produce nuclear weapons, and also because cleanup costs tend to be ignored or paid for by government.

What pricing is used for renewables? Solar has come down significantly in the last few years. Is it predicted to continue doing so? Are old prices used or estimated future prices?

But it's at least competitive.
On that you have certainly made a good case, but I do want to be sure.

Nevertheless, it is my claim that investment in renewables will reduce the costs faster than investment in nuclear and so renewables are a better investment.

And given that those numbers do not include the kind of benefits you get from the kind
of mass production France did, AND do not include the fact that new 4th~5th gen nuclear
power eats the waste from 1st~2nd gen reactors.
So can I take it that the same applies to the numbers for renewables? ie that they do not include any benefits from mass production, new discoveries etc? If so, then you can't claim that nuclear gets ahead by the lack of inclusion.

The fact that instead of building waste dumps for the waste we already have we could
instead build nuclear reactors that make money from this waste instead of costing money
HAS to factor into this.
Or we can let China build the new plants and give the waste to them.

Given that there are benefits to having the kind of stable long term core generating capacity
that nuclear provides day in day out whatever the weather.
Not currently a major issue. In fact, I am not convinced it will ever be an issue.

Given that we are going to have and do have escalating power requirements.
Not an argument in favor of nuclear over renewables.

And given that it allows us to make money of of disposing safely of our current nuclear waste.
This remains the only good reason you have given so far. This does however mean it only applies to countries with a waste problem. But then the rest of us will loose out because we won't get the benefits of extra investment in renewables research.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you clarify:
Do the costs include government subsidies or not? Nuclear is often heavily subsidized in order to produce nuclear weapons, and also because cleanup costs tend to be ignored or paid for by government.

What pricing is used for renewables? Solar has come down significantly in the last few years. Is it predicted to continue doing so? Are ...[text shortened]... us will loose out because we won't get the benefits of extra investment in renewables research.

My point was that it's competitive now, and like renewables has a number of mechanisms
for reducing the costs further and can thus remain competitive.

And just giving China huge piles of nuclear weapon making materiel and nuclear waste...

Even just the risks of transporting it all...

Never going to happen.

Plus China doesn't need it, they produce more Thorium annually than is required to run the entire
planet at American power consumption levels. [MUCH more, a single small mine can run the Earth
at current levels]

Originally posted by googlefudge
My point was that it's competitive now, and like renewables has a number of mechanisms for reducing the costs further and can thus remain competitive.

I am not convinced that the costs will drop as fast as renewables. In fact, I suspect the opposite is true: it will become more expensive as public sentiment remains against it.

And just giving China huge piles of nuclear weapon making materiel and nuclear waste...
They don't have a shortage if that is what you thought.

Never going to happen.
Why do you think that?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not convinced that the costs will drop as fast as renewables. In fact, I suspect the opposite is true: it will become more expensive as public sentiment remains against it.

[b]And just giving China huge piles of nuclear weapon making materiel and nuclear waste...
They don't have a shortage if that is what you thought.

Never going to happen.
Why do you think that?[/b]

I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this point until more data comes in.

I don't know why you think public sentiment against nuclear will make it more expensive,
I don't follow that logic at all.

As for the China thing...

If you think politics about climate change is sticky...

That ain't nothing compared to the politics of nuclear weaponry.

Plus, moving large quantities of high level nuclear waste around the planet is dangerous
and really unpopular. couple that with the national security concerns and I don't see
that happening ever. Particularly as we loose the benefits of electricity generated from
this stuff.

And China isn't going to pay much if anything for it as they have piles and piles of much
safer Thorium lying around.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this point until more data comes in.

Not a problem. You have made a strong case, and I concede that for some countries nuclear may be the best option right now

I don't know why you think public sentiment against nuclear will make it more expensive, I don't follow that logic at all.
Many nuclear plants have had to close down due to public sentiment turning against them - considerably reducing their planned lifespan and thus making the initial investment far less economical.
Do the figures on Wikipedia include such closures? Do they include temporary closures such as the ones that occurred in Japan due to safety concerns after fukushima? Or are they optimistic estimates?

My main concern is that promotion of nuclear energy takes away from renewables. Here in SA, they are considering more nuclear power when renewables is a better option here. The thing is that politics tends to favour things like nuclear for reasons other than economy.

Here in SA, we should first ensure that every single house has a solar water heater. Next we should encourage house hold solar by allowing households to sell to the grid. This eliminates the need for battery storage. Then we should invest in biogas plants of various kinds, solar plants, and wind farms. And finally, where suitable, we should invest in hydroelectric. I believe South Africa is currently planning a large hydroelectric dam in the Congo DR, and some investment in solar and wind, but not nearly enough. We are currently one of the worst in the world in terms of coal use per capita.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not a problem. You have made a strong case, and I concede that for some countries nuclear may be the best option right now

[b]I don't know why you think public sentiment against nuclear will make it more expensive, I don't follow that logic at all.
Many nuclear plants have had to close down due to public sentiment turning against them - considerab ...[text shortened]... t nearly enough. We are currently one of the worst in the world in terms of coal use per capita.[/b]

Ok, I get where you are coming from, and no the figures don't take shutting
the plant down due to protests into account.

That kind of thing doesn't really happen in the UK, and shouldn't happen with
4th~5th gen reactors that cannot melt down, but I do understand where you are
coming from.


And I state again, I'm not a one size fits all solution kinda guy...

Somewhere with the solar resources [among other things] that SA has should probably
be going full tilt solar [wind?] hydro ect... I would have to do a real in depth analysis
with data I don't have to say what mix would be optimum, and that mix may or may
not include nuclear.

Iceland as another example is going great guns towards being almost 100% geothermal
because why wouldn't you when you basically live on a giant volcano.

However the biggest polluters in the world [certainly per capita] are USA + Europe
with India and China catching up. And particularly in Europe we don't get the same
amount of reliable sunshine [for example] that would make Nuclear redundant.

I think we have a very strong case for us using Nuclear power at some level.

And we CAN afford to invest in Nuclear AND Renewable's, without either loosing out.

It's different question as to whether we will do that, but again my position is about
what we should do rather than what we will do.

Originally posted by googlefudge
However the biggest polluters in the world [certainly per capita] are USA + Europe
with India and China catching up.

For total volume I believe China is the leader. They are also starting to lead in terms of doing something about it.

And particularly in Europe we don't get the same amount of reliable sunshine [for example] that would make Nuclear redundant.
Sunshine is not the only game in town. The UK has plenty of potential in geothermal, wind, tide and biogas. Even in Germany solar is only part of their green energy mix.

And we CAN afford to invest in Nuclear AND Renewable's, without either loosing out.
I disagree. Whichever gets investment is an automatic loss for the other. Every dollar (or pound or Euro) put into nuclear is a dollar not put into renewables. Every nuclear plant built is a renewables plant not built.

Originally posted by twhitehead
For total volume I believe China is the leader. They are also starting to lead in terms of doing something about it.

[b]And particularly in Europe we don't get the same amount of reliable sunshine [for example] that would make Nuclear redundant.
Sunshine is not the only game in town. The UK has plenty of potential in geothermal, wind, tide and bio ...[text shortened]... is a dollar not put into renewables. Every nuclear plant built is a renewables plant not built.[/b]

So is every pound spent on self defence, welfare, the NHS, tax breaks for business
we are trying to encourage, ect ect.

Any pound we spend on anything is a pound not spent on renewables.

We have enough to spend enough on both nuclear and renewables.

And while it's true that given we need a finite amount of power any nuclear plant
being built is renewable plants not being built... that's not because we can't afford
the renewable plants, it's because the Nuclear plants generating the electricity and
we don't need them. And the only reason that sucks is if you happen to be in the
renewables industry and were competing to generate that power.

It's only bad if you start out with the assumption that nuclear is a bad way to make
power, and set it up as competition for 'renewables'...

Which are a whole bunch of different competing power sources.

You might just as well say every pound spent on Geothermal is a pound not spent
on Hydro, or Solar, ect.

Why single out nuclear as a special case?

Nuclear is a green energy source just as much as renewables, why are we putting it
in a different box and casting it as a battle between nuclear and renewables.

Renewables isn't an energy source, it's a class of different energy sources that compete
with each other for funding and research ect.


I think the biggest difference between your view and mine is that I class nuclear as just
another green power source, and on a par with wind/solar/geothermal/ect and not apart
from them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
So is every pound spent on self defence, welfare, the NHS, tax breaks for business we are trying to encourage, ect ect.

No, not true at all.

And while it's true that given we need a finite amount of power any nuclear plant
being built is renewable plants not being built... that's not because we can't afford
the renewable plants, it's because the Nuclear plants generating the electricity and
we don't need them.
Exactly. Therefore the money will not be spent on renewables, will it?

And the only reason that sucks is if you happen to be in the
renewables industry and were competing to generate that power.
Yet a moment ago you said the renewables industry would not loose out.

It's only bad if you start out with the assumption that nuclear is a bad way to make
power, and set it up as competition for 'renewables'...
No. Its bad for renewables even if nuclear is an excellent way to make power.

You might just as well say every pound spent on Geothermal is a pound not spent
on Hydro, or Solar, ect.
True.

Why single out nuclear as a special case?
Because I do not think we need it. Given a choice between renewables and nuclear at the same price, I would pick renewables for safety reasons.

Nuclear is a green energy source just as much as renewables, why are we putting it
in a different box and casting it as a battle between nuclear and renewables.
Safety. I am not convinced the new generation power plants will be perfectly safe.

Renewables isn't an energy source, it's a class of different energy sources that compete
with each other for funding and research ect.
Yes. And a moment ago you said there was no competition.

I think the biggest difference between your view and mine is that I class nuclear as just
another green power source, and on a par with wind/solar/geothermal/ect and not apart
from them.
I would only agree if nuclear was as safe as those power sources. Currently, it isn't. Maybe new designs would be, but I am yet to be convinced. Have any of these new designs been tested? Do they involve materials that a terrorist of nasty government might be able to use?
Once you push a technology, it will be used not just by your own country, but eventually by everyone else, even the people you don't like.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, not true at all.

[b]And while it's true that given we need a finite amount of power any nuclear plant
being built is renewable plants not being built... that's not because we can't afford
the renewable plants, it's because the Nuclear plants generating the electricity and
we don't need them.
Exactly. Therefore the money will not be spent ...[text shortened]... d not just by your own country, but eventually by everyone else, even the people you don't like.[/b]

Ah. we were unwittingly committing the equivocation fallacy.

Of course you are quite correct that if we spend money on Nuclear Power generation we will
spend less money on renewable power generation. This is both true and trivial.


When I was talking about spending money, and of neither nuclear or renewables loosing
out, I was talking about the money needed to develop and research these technologies.

I was arguing that we can get the development and breakthroughs in both nuclear and
solar/wind/ect.

Not that we would spend the same amount on building and installing renewable power
that we would if we didn't build nuclear vs if we did.

I thought we were talking about the same thing, I apologise.




As for safety, nothing is perfectly safe. But 4th+ gen nuclear reactors are designed such
that they cannot melt down [or are already molten as in MSR reactors] and are not cooled
by high pressure water that can give off hydrogen gas. Which means no very costly high
pressure vessel is needed, and in the even of a core breach nothing explodes, stuff would
just ooze out and pool on the containment building floor where it cools and solidifies.
Which is a major clean-up job and very expensive no doubt... But nothing gets out of the
containment building.

Nuclear reactors as they are generate more power per fatality than almost any other power
source, including most renewables.

Advanced nuclear reactors are even safer, by a big margin.

And they are much worse at creating materials for nuclear bombs than regular reactors are
and because they reprocess fuel on site there is much much less moving it around which
improves safety still further.

The real bad guys who want nuclear bombs in the world pretty much already have them, or the
tech and materiel to make them.

The rest of the world doesn't seem to want nuclear weapons.

As testified by the number of nations that have nuclear materiel from the USA "atoms for peace"
program, none of which went on to build nuclear weapons.


Many more people die making solar panels, or building hydro dams, than die generating nuclear power
as measured by deaths per TWh produced.

I would argue that Nuclear is already safe enough, and is getting safer.

Originally posted by googlefudge
When I was talking about spending money, and of neither nuclear or renewables loosing
out, I was talking about the money needed to develop and research these technologies.

I was arguing that we can get the development and breakthroughs in both nuclear and
solar/wind/ect.

I think it applies to that too. A government will typically have an energy research and development budget and either it goes to renewables or to nuclear, not both. Imagine where we would be today if all that university time that went into developing next gen reactors had been put into solar panel development?

As for safety, nothing is perfectly safe.
I guess that a well placed bomb on many large hydroelectric dams would cause a catastrophe down stream. But still, I see nuclear plants as higher risk.
I agree that there are fewer deaths due to nuclear currently, but the potential for foul play is higher. It is interesting that they have never as far as I know actually been targets of terrorism, so maybe my concern is overblown.

But I still say renewables are here, they are competitive, they are known reliable technology, why go for untried nuclear solutions? How many thorium reactors have been built? Do they really work?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think it applies to that too. A government will typically have an energy research and development budget and either it goes to renewables or to nuclear, not both. Imagine where we would be today if all that university time that went into developing next gen reactors had been put into solar panel development?

[b]As for safety, nothing is perfectly saf ...[text shortened]... o for untried nuclear solutions? How many thorium reactors have been built? Do they really work?

On the 'fear of terrorism/nuclear' front, I recommend having a read of the relevant articles by this guy...

https://www.schneier.com/essays/

This essay in particular I think is apt.

Terrorists Don't Do Movie Plots

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2005/09/terrorists_dont_do_m.html


Fear and Public Perception

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/fear_and_public.html



More [many many more] people die from the pollution emitted every day in the normal operations
of fossil fuel power than die from the catastrophic failure of nuclear power.


It's also really hard to successfully attack a nuclear power plant.


And the tech works, they built working experimental thorium reactors in the 50's~60's, and they
built a working advanced reactor in which they demonstrated the same failure mode that fukashima
experienced. They shut off the cooling, and then just stood there and watched as it passive
shutdown to cold. By using molten sodium [you can also use lead, which wont react with water]
as a coolant at low pressure, when the coolant pump shut down, the temperature went up,
the sodium expanded, the neutrons escaped, the reaction rate dropped, and it shut down.

Passive fail to cold shutdown.

It's not theoretical, it's been built and works.

China's planning a 'fleet' of them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's not theoretical, it's been built and works.

China's planning a 'fleet' of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_disadvantages

Wikipedia suggests otherwise. It lists lots of countries doing research and development. Why 'research and development' if it is already proven technology?