Rantings about stupid nuclear reporting, and I want to bitchslap somebody, also other crap

[XT]

But Whack-a-Mole…nuclear energy only composes 8% of the total energy used in the US…and…and…and…8% is a pretty small number. For instance, it’s smaller than 10%, which has TWO DIGITS! Heck, you can count to 8 just using your fingers alone if you have your full allotment of digits (and it’s all about digits…8 < numbers greater than 8, which after all is a pretty small number. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are smaller, but who cares about them??).

So, since nuclear energy only composes 8% (well, 8.4% but then my point about the digits doesn’t work as well) then we can easily replace that with wind and solar, since renewables make up over 7% now (and while 7 is less than 8, it’s pretty close).

Wait…stop looking behind the curtain to see what those renewable sources are composed of! Stop I say! Focus…8 is a really small number, as far as numbers go, so we can easily get rid of nuclear and replace it with clean, fresh and wrinkle free green energy renewables, since they are already 7%!! That’s only 1% to go to beat out nasty nuclear, and 1 is an even smaller number than 8!

Or something. It’s so much easier when you don’t look at the details…

-XT

[sevenwood]

@The_Second_Stone

Meryl Streep died from radiation poisoning related to a power plant.

And here I always thought that everyone in that particular movie died from a bad script.

(That was a joke, folks.)

[kidchameleon]

@The_Second_Stone

Meryl Streep died from radiation poisoning related to a power plant.

While it appeared to be so, it was really just her career.

[billfish678]

@sevenwood

And here I always thought that everyone in that particular movie died from a bad script.

(That was a joke, folks.)

Thats not funny.

I lost three relatives who died watching that movie.

[XT]

Which, though I feel for your loss, would be 3 times the number of people in the US who have died due to radiation poisoning from nuclear power plants. Well, if 1 person had die from it.

FWIW, I had an uncle who chewed his leg off to get away from the movie…but he got better.

-XT

[levdrakon]

@Whack-a-Mole

I cited here that nuclear power, when all things are considered (construction, operation and so on), is about as cheap as it gets except for coal.

Sorry, that’s not a cite. That’s an executive summary of a study commissioned by the IEA and performed by hand-picked “experts” of the IEA, and its participating “member countries.”

What year is it even from? Do you have any idea? 2000? 2005? I do, 'cause I checked. Bet you didn’t.

Hint: there’s a 2010 edition. Your cited edition is not. By a long shot.

Nowhere in it, and I really mean nowhere, does it say nuclear is cheaper than wind, nor anything else. Learn to read. It says:

Main results
With all the caveats inherent to the EGC methodology, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity nevertheless enables the identification of a number of tendencies that will shape the electricity sector in the years to come. The most important among them is the fact that nuclear, coal, gas and,
where local conditions are favourable, hydro and wind, are now fairly competitive generation
technologies for baseload power generation.
3
Their precise cost competitiveness depends more
than anything on the local characteristics of each particular market and their associated cost of
financing, as well as CO2 and fossil fuel prices.
4
As mentioned earlier, the lower the cost of financing, the better the performance of capital-intensive, low-carbon technologies such as nuclear,
wind or CC(S); at higher rates, coal without CC(S) and gas will be more competitive. There is no
technology that has a clear overall advantage globally or even regionally. Each one of these technologies has potentially decisive strengths and weaknesses that are not always reflected in the
LCOE figures provided in the study.

Regarding nuclear specifically:

Nuclear’s strength is its capability to deliver significant amounts of very low carbon baseload
electricity at costs stable over time; it has to manage, however, high amounts of capital at risk and
its long lead times for construction. Permanent disposal of radioactive waste, maintaining overall
safety, and evolving questions concerning nuclear security and proliferation remain issues that
need to be solved for nuclear energy.

Bottom line is nuclear seems nice if all you want is baseload and you pray like hell the cost of financing and building one doesn’t go up. It fails to anticipate long term storage and disposal costs, and we have no long-term storage except for glorified swimming pools right at the nuke plant, which in hindsight is kinda the last place you prolly want to put it, and doesn’t address “evolving questions concerning nuclear security and proliferation.”

As for wind:

For the first time, onshore wind is included among the potentially competitive electricity generation sources in this edition of Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. On the basis of the dynamics
generated by strong government support, onshore wind is currently closing its still existing but
diminishing competitiveness gap. Its weakness is its variability and unpredictability, which can
make system costs higher than plant costs, although these can be addressed through geographic
diversity and an appropriate mix with other technologies. According to the data available for this
study, offshore wind is currently not competitive with conventional thermal or nuclear baseload
generation. Many renewable technologies, however, are immature, although their capital costs
can be expected to decline over the next decade. Renewables, like nuclear, also benefit from stable
variable costs, once built.

Wind is competitive, growing fast, and still an immature technology with tons of room to grow. Nuke is as mature as it’s ever going to get, unless you talk about futuristic plans that have never been built, aren’t being built, and certainly aren’t included in this study.

It includes the note:

In particular, the cost for renewable energy technologies shows important variations from country to country and,
within each country, from location to location. In addition, some of the largest current markets for renewable energy are not
represented in the study.

The largest current markets for renewables aren’t included in the study???

I have to go outside for a bit and shorten my lifespan by breathing. Be back in a bit.

[The_Second_Stone]

@xtisme

Which, though I feel for your loss, would be 3 times the number of people in the US who have died due to radiation poisoning from nuclear power plants. Well, if 1 person had die from it.

FWIW, I had an uncle who chewed his leg off to get away from the movie…but he got better.

-XT

You do realize that when you say not even one person has died from radiation poisoning from a nuclear power plant in the US that you are mistaken? Don’t you?

[XT]

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Nowhere in it, and I really mean nowhere, does it say nuclear is cheaper than wind, nor anything else
[/QUOTE]

Is it just me, or do the charts on page 18 completely contradict the conclusions levdrakon is making here? Looking on pages 23 and 24 it sure LOOKS like the costs are higher for wind and solar than nuclear at the 5 and 10% discount rates.

-XT

[XT]

[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
You do realize that when you say not even one person has died from radiation poisoning from a nuclear power plant in the US that you are mistaken? Don’t you?
[/QUOTE]

Of the general public? I’m unaware of any member of the general US public that has died due to radiation leaking or radiation exposure from a commercial US nuclear power plant. Do you have a cite showing this to be an error?

-XT

[levdrakon]

@xtisme

Is it just me, or do the charts on page 18 completely contradict the conclusions levdrakon is making here? Looking on pages 23 and 24 it sure LOOKS like the costs are higher for wind and solar than nuclear at the 5 and 10% discount rates.

-XT

Yeah, if you spray LSD in your eyes and stand on just the right edge of the table and squint your eyes just right, it is cheaper. My God, you’re actually taking nuke being less expensive but only under certain very specific hypothetical political and economic conditions that don’t exist as a reflection of reality? That study includes plants being commissioned through 2015. Notice something missing there? We don’t have any plants in the US being commissioned now, 2015, or 2025.

You wanna play your cherry picking game you should at least compare everything to the cost of energy in Switzerland. That would make your numbers look great!

Within this framework and various limitations, the study suggests that no single electricity
generating technology can be expected to be the cheapest in all situations. The preferred generating technology will depend on a number of key parameters and the specific circumstances
of each project. This edition of Projected Costs of Generating Electricity indicates that the investors’
choice of a specific portfolio of power generation technologies will most likely depend on financing costs, fuel and carbon prices, as well as the specific energy policy context (security of supply,
CO2 emissions reductions, market framework).

Nothing about nuke being cheaper than anything else there, and that’s the conclusion. Did you read as far as the conclusion? Oh, that’s right. I’d never expect you to read the conclusion when you can cherry pick a few numbers from one section somewhere in the middle of the study and base your sweeping ridiculous and unfactual conclusions on that.

[XT]

It’s your cite, muchacho. YOU linked to it and it doesn’t seem to say what you claimed it says. Looking at those charts on page 18 and the later tables it looks to me as if it’s (nuclear) cheaper (than wind) in an apples to apples comparison…and even there they freely admit that they aren’t counting all of the costs (such as maintenance) for wind power. What’s REALLY cheaper is non-carbon capture coal.

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Nothing about nuke being cheaper than anything else there, and that’s the conclusion. Did you read as far as the conclusion? Oh, that’s right. I’d never expect you to read the conclusion when you can cherry pick a few numbers from one section somewhere in the middle of the study and base your sweeping ridiculous and unfactual conclusions on that.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, they say that there is no single cheapest solution. But looking at the mean, it’s clear that wind is not the cheapest ever, and it only is competitive in very narrow, vertically oriented locations where it’s getting the biggest bang for the buck. In most cases, no CC coal wins out over both because it IS the cheapest…and that’s what we’ll be going with when you idiots kill nuclear power once and for all. Oh, we’ll have wind and solar, and I’m glad for it…I love both technologies…but it’s not ever going to be scalable to the levels we’d need to take a serious bite out of coal power and other FF.

-XT

[levdrakon]

No, it was Whack-a-Mole’s cite. I was just being nice and linking to a newer version of his cite that wasn’t embarrassingly out of date.

@xtisme

Yes, they say that there is no single cheapest solution.

Phew! My goal is to wring at least one painful admission of truth and reality out of you per day. I could take the rest of the day off! No, there’s still a huge backlog of **xtisme **idiocies I need to work you through. I’d like to say it’s taking longer than I thought, but that wouldn’t be true because I’m pretty sure the sun will explode first.

[XT]

That thing that whizzed by over your head? That was the point…sorry you missed it.

Feel free to take the day off though.

-XT

[FXMastermind]

Fuck. You are filling up the topic with yet MORE of your insipid arguing about … something. If you can’t do a proper rant, then get the fuck out of the topic.

[levdrakon]

@Whack-a-Mole

I cited here that nuclear power, when all things are considered (construction, operation and so on), is about as cheap as it gets except for coal.

We also cited in the other thread that there are new designs which are inherently safe. Physics itself prevents a meltdown. No need to worry about human error because a human could not make it melt if they tried.

It was also noted in the other thread that green energy, while it has its place and can be useful, can come nowhere near meeting the energy needs of the planet.

Natural gas has maybe a 30-50 year horizon till the fuel starts to become too expensive for “cheap” power production. Oil has similar problems.

That leaves coal and nuclear as the major power sources for the future.

Care about global warming? Coal plants are already the major contributor to that and our resident expert on power said that scrubbing CO2 from industrial sized coal power plants is not feasible short of some magic, not-yet-invented technology coming along.

What do you think will happen when India and China add massive power generation capacity using coal (they need lots of power). Think China cares overly much for environmental concerns?

That really leaves nuclear power as the main source of future energy 50+ years out. I may live another 50 years to see it. Kids today certainly will so it is not the unimaginable future. Given the time needed to build a nuclear plant and test some of the new nuclear technologies starting on them right now would not be a bad idea.

Since you keep referencing the other thread, and this post has far more to do with that thread than this thread, whatever this thread is supposed to I dunno, I’ll take this one over there if you don’t mind.

[mhendo]

@FXMastermind

Fuck. You are filling up the topic with yet MORE of your insipid arguing about … something. If you can’t do a proper rant, then get the fuck out of the topic.

Yeah, we’ll have none of that reason and logic in any thread where FXMastermoron is participating!

Cut it out right now.

[matt]

@FXMastermind

But when you realize the top officials simply don’t want to think about it, much less prepare any way to deal with it, that is where it gets fucked up.

There isn’t any plan, much less equipment and resources, ready to go, for a single reactor disaster. Nothing is in place, no drills have been done, there isn’t even a plan to start a plan, to deal with an emergency situation, IN JUST ONE REACTOR problem.

No there are four critically damaged reactors, and shitload of damaged fuel pools, and there is simply nothing ready to deal with it.

Yet again, you are drawing conclusions far beyond what is warranted for the evidence you present.

Nuclear emergency preparedness in the USA: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html

A USA nuclear power plant that never operated due to failure to agree on an evacuation plan: Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia

I can’t speak for Japan, where there may indeed have been a lack of preparedness. However, I think THIS sort of thing might just put a crimp in any sort of evacuation plan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmTb8y84KEQ Remember - this is what also hit the power plant site.

@Whack-a-Mole

It was also noted in the other thread that green energy, while it has its place and can be useful, can come nowhere near meeting the energy needs of the planet.

On edit: My reply to this was off-topic. Reposted in the GD thread.

[FXMastermind]

Fucking A man. You got to keep your alarmist rants separated from your scientific discussions. Think of the children.

And now for some more hindsight is 20/20 or whatever you want to call it:

On Monday, as much as 1,000 mSv of radiation per hour was detected in the 4,000 to 5,000 of water that filled the drainage tunnels near the turbine room.

The reactor core and the drainage system linking it with the turbine were damaged in the earthquake, causing contaminated water to seep out. Unless the contaminated water is removed from the drainage tunnels, restoration work cannot proceed, but workers still need to keep pumping more water into the reactors to keep them from overheating.

On Tuesday, temperature readings on the surface of the reactor’s outer shell began to surge, prompting officials to pour more water onto it. The bind is that pumping in more water will lead to the seepage of heavily contaminated water, but stopping could cause a core meltdown. Now it appears the core has already melted through the bottom of its containment vessel and on to the concrete floor, while the fuel remains partially exposed in all three stricken reactors.

Officials are saying they should have used water sparingly in order to minimize seepage.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/03/30/2011033000852.html

Ain’t that a big bowl of radioactive sushi?

[FXMastermind]

Now before you go all crazy and start trying to say anything about that report, remember, you don’t know shit about what is going on.

Nothing, nada, not a bit, except for what somebody tells you, be it TEPCO or some other fucking liar official, who also doesn’t know shit.

[XT]

I hate to be the one to break this too you, FXM, but your hot information? Similar info has been cited several times already in this and the GD thread on the subject. I know, I know…you really thought it was going to be da bomb! Sorry man…you need to learn to keep up…

-XT