Economically viable is just code for not cutting into Big Power’s profits.
Or for not shutting down power plants before another is built to take its place.
Guys guys guys, can’t we all just calm down and get to work on that Dyson Sphere?
Misbehavior? Who died and left you in charge of the Pit? Nobody. The simple matter is that you misconstrue the data and don’t fully disclose, as usual. Why don’t you simply cite date for what it means and what it says it means? Instead you pretend something that doesn’t exist and hide behind your status as a scientist and an arbiter of misbehavior. Fact remains that there is no new nuclear energy in the US and you implied there was. And you won’t correct yourself or clarify that it is in fact more efficiency rather new reactors shows how reluctant your are to be clear about science matters.
Bad scientist.
If disrespecting a hack like you is misbehavior, than I want to be guilty. Now go find us some new nuclear reactors in the US supplying to the grid (Navy ships don’t count.)
In all fairness, someone other than Dyson thought of it first.
Wow, you made three posts in a row to tell everyone about how I don’t know nuthin’ bout no energy.
You might have forgotten your claim in the OP. That’s understandable, what with your anger and everything. Here, let me repost it for you:
And since the teenaged blogger, Google troll, whatever you rely on for facts hasn’t told you this, I’ll tell you just one reason why your interpretation of uprating of power not being new generation is wrong.
Additional capacity from an existing unit is considered to be “new” power. An example - “New Source Review,” which comes into play when a traditional power plant, such as coal, oil, or gas, adds capacity to their existing unit via an upgrade, such as a new steam turbine. There are limits on heat input as well as energy output before the energy is declared “new”. Also, increases to dispatch capacity can also trigger New Source Review, and thus increases in capacity factor - even if the actual gross or net power does not increase - are considered “new.” Even a single new boiler penetration to allow new fuel ports to increase capacity can trigger NSR, as it would create “new” capacity. State agencies can also put caps on both instantaneous and annual output, considering anything over that limit to be “new” generation and thus potentially subjecting the entire plant to a BACT retrofit.
Although nuclear plants do not fall under the same restrictions (but may fall under others), due to the ubiquitousness of combustion plants, it is common, everyday energy industry parlance to refer to either uprates (which are not routine O&M) at existing stations as well as uprates to the net capacity factor as “new” generation. And of course the nuke plants I’ve worked with consider it such…but then I’m probably just lying to try to make you look bad, right.
(Oh, and when you go to Wikipedia to try to “prove” me wrong and you see the “pollution increase” portion of NSR and think “aha, that doesn’t speak to capacity or generation!” - you should first read the Duke Energy USSC decision first. And no, not the Wikipedia summary.)
Your OP contains false information. Rather than just admitting “OK, I meant to say X”, you have instead spent several posts slurring me and calling me a liar, and making direct, personal attacks on me on the Straight Dope Message Board.
I think that is unfortunate.
What do you think nuke is going to do by 2020 other than run into the trillions in cost overruns?
Keep a few old nukes around for base power if it makes you feel better. I don’t care.
I think the testosterone (and some cinnamon) from the gay bar fight thread was leaking into this thread for a bit…
…
Produce more energy, at least in other countries. America will self destructively insist on avoiding nuclear no matter the cost to itself or the world. It’s one of the many ways that America seems determined to commit national suicide.
First - let me get this out of the way to start with - you’re a retard.
Secondly - the nuke plants probably do have better lawyers (but who knows, some environmentalists are fairly well funded), but the legal system moves slowly. When you have a multi-billion dollar project held up for years due to challenge after challenge, the final price on the construction skyrockets even if you win every single one of them. The goal of the retard movement is to essentially cause enough delay as to make it unprofitable, even if they never actually win anything.
Really, dipshit? How much of our grid under ideal circumstances do you think will be made up of renewables in the next 10 or 20 years? Do you think that number approaches anywhere near 100%? If not, what’s going to take up the slack?
It should tell you that they fear obstructionism. Loan guarantees don’t actually do anything unless the project gets delayed or cancelled or otherwise interfered with - if the project is allowed to be constructed on schedule, the guarantees never actually come into use.
People don’t want to tie up billions in capital on a project which will almost certainly be delayed by this bullshit. It’s too risky. It doesn’t mean it would be a bad investment in an environment where this obstructionism doesn’t exist, but it’s disengenuous as all fuck for you to be the reason that it’s hard to get capital for a nuke build, and then scream “SEE NUCLEAR SUCKS NO ONE WANTS TO FUND IT!”
I also find it funny that you guys are playing the “fat cats are just worried about their profits, they don’t care about the environment!” card and then the “we can’t use the environmentally friendly solution! What about the costs!” card.
No one here is pissed off that wind is doing well, dipshit. I’m sure everyone in this thread is pro solar and pro wind. But here’s the difference: Some of us live in the real world and think about the issue, and some of us think you can solve huge real world problems by going UHHH WIND AND SOLAR GOOD.
Nuclear is not really competing with solar or wind. They can work well together. We will not have 100% of our power coming from solar/wind - both because it would take up ungodly amounts of resources to produce, and cover hundreds of thousands or millions of square miles, and because a cloudy day would take us back to the fucking stoneage. So for what wind and solar can do - at best, maybe 20 or 25% of the power, everyone is all for that.
And here’s where people living in the real world come in. Even if we’re generous and say that wind and solar can handle 20% of the load in the near future, THAT STILL MEANS THAT 4/5THS OF OUR ENERGY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. How you can manage to just ignore this little fact is staggering, it must take a tiny little brain or at least a total lack of critical thinking. We need an always-on, always-producing power source to handle 80%+ of the load. And our options for that are coal and nuclear.
So the discussion is not nuclear vs wind/solar, it’s nuclear vs coal. You anti-nuke retards are always implicitly arguing for coal, but dressing it up illogically as arguing for solar/wind. And it’s fucking stupid. Nuclear power is the single most environmentally friendly decision we could’ve made in the last 50 years, and the environmentalists vehemently oppose it due to ignorance. Do you have any idea what coal does to the environment? It dumps particulates and ash and huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. It burns random impurities in the coal and dumps it into the atmosphere - stuff like little bits of cobalt and uranium. Yes - coal plants actually dump more radioactivity into the environment than nuke plants do. The process of mining coal is ugly and damaging to the environment. And even though coal dumps most of its pollution DIRECTLY INTO THE AIR WE BREATHE, it also leaves behind lots of stuff we have to dump into a landfill somewhere that’s really nasty stuff. By being anti-nuclear, you are doing more harm to the environment than almost anything else humans do to it.
It’s actually sort of ironic - this debate SHOULD be the old stodgy billionaire tycoons wearing monocles lighting their cigars with hundred dollar bills saying “HAHA WE WILL BURN CHEAP COAL AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL INHALE OUR ASH HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHA” and the environmentalists should be the ones saying “NO! We can use the power of the atom to save the planet!” … and in reality, the opposite is going on. Quite bizarre.
Call it whatever you want, blame it on whatever imaginary demons you want, nuke plants always go over budget and over time. They’ll triple current electricity costs. It’s highly doubtful even a single new plant will come online before 2020.
It’s not nuke vs. coal. Both are out. Not on the table. Or at least, nuke shouldn’t be. This, despite amazing subsidies and huge loan guarantees. Read: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW? Short answer: Not nukes. It’s efficiency, wind, and concentrated solar (CSP). That, in combination with a renewable energy plan like Germany’s would have drastic benefits beginning now, and now seems to be the pie in the sky you nuke nuts are dreaming about.
Why would I possibly give a shit about power companies’ profits?
Then America will pollute the world with coal, or collapse.
It wouldn’t have “drastic benefits”; it would collapse civilization. That’s what you are actually arguing for, whether you admit it or not.
It’s nukes, or coal. Those are what we have in hand that are sufficient to the task. In fifty or a hundred years that might be different, but this is now.
You do know that the United States is not Germany, right? US Americans aren’t going to give up convenience or standard of living for energy savings, and any plan that counts on them to do so is unrealistic.
Irrelevant, since it’s not good enough for Germany either. Again; even going by his implausible claim for German wind power of 27% by 2020, that isn’t even close to enough.
Oh, I don’t know. We’ve stopped buying Chinese drywall and Hummers, so it appears that our purchasing habits are somewhat malleable.
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, and that’s saying something in this thread. How on Earth could using existing, proven technologies we have right now possibly lead to the collapse of civilization? That’s just code for cutting into corporate profits again. I’ve lived in Germany and despite what our naive Canadian friend seems to still believe, Germany is a world leader in modern standards of living.
You all need to adjust your meds or something. Do you stand on street corners scaring people with your “the world is ending!” signs? Collapse of civilization. What a hoot.
That, and unless Germany has giant piles of batteries lying around, they’d have power outages every mild night using only wind and solar.
Okay, look. Let’s be wildly, unrealistically optomistic, and say that efficiency can cut power usage in Germany in half. 50%, somehow.
By 2020, you say that, according to the most optomistic reports, wind & solar will provide 27% of 2010’s output. Since the number of people in Germany will probably grow in 10 years, we can bump that down to 25%.
So using wildly optomistic assumptions, we’ve covered…half of Germany’s power using your proposal. Half. Are you asking half of Germany to just go without until the transition is complete? And this still doesn’t address problems like solar not being online at night, wind only working some of the time and so on.