nwdiver
Well-Known Member
When you really boil it down. Nuclear Power is essentially just welfare with extra steps.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Nuclear power
- Thread starter eledille
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
When you really boil it down. Nuclear Power is essentially just welfare with extra steps.
In its September throne speech, the federal government signalled its intention to fund the development of new nuclear reactors (SMRs) as part of its climate action plan.
Today, the government made its first SMR funding announcement: $20 million from ISED's Strategic Innovation Fund for the company Terrestrial Energy to develop its prototype SMR in Ontario.
Anyone interested in evidence-based policy is wondering: Why are they doing this? There is no evidence that nuclear power will achieve carbon reduction targets, while there is considerable research indicating the contrary.
In fact, in today's funding announcement, federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan confirmed that the new reactor will take more than a decade to develop and will contribute nothing to Canada's 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The same week as the throne speech, the release of the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) confirmed, as did its previous reports, that developing new nuclear energy is too slow and uneconomical to address the climate crisis compared to deploying renewable energy technologies.
Last week, research based on data from 123 countries over a 25-year period made a similar finding. December 2019 research from Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson refutes claims that nuclear energy is zero-carbon. A November 2019 article in the American business magazine Forbes argues that building new nuclear reactors instead of investing in more climate-effective energy resources actually makes climate change worse.
SMRs, the nuclear reactors promoted by the federal government, are in particular over-hyped as a climate crisis solution. SMRs have been proposed as a solution for remote communities and mining sites currently relying on diesel fuel but new research has found the potential market is too small to be viable.
SMRs exist only as computer models and nobody knows for sure if they will work. Last month, the Canadian energy watchdog The Energy Mix interviewed WNISR lead author Mycle Schneider, who called SMRs "PowerPoint reactors, not detailed engineering."
Given all the research evidence pointing away from funding nuclear energy in a climate action plan, why is the federal government proposing to do it?
<snip>
Full article at:
Why is the federal government funding new nuclear power reactors?
Today, the government made its first SMR funding announcement: $20 million from ISED's Strategic Innovation Fund for the company Terrestrial Energy to develop its prototype SMR in Ontario.
Anyone interested in evidence-based policy is wondering: Why are they doing this? There is no evidence that nuclear power will achieve carbon reduction targets, while there is considerable research indicating the contrary.
In fact, in today's funding announcement, federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan confirmed that the new reactor will take more than a decade to develop and will contribute nothing to Canada's 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The same week as the throne speech, the release of the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) confirmed, as did its previous reports, that developing new nuclear energy is too slow and uneconomical to address the climate crisis compared to deploying renewable energy technologies.
Last week, research based on data from 123 countries over a 25-year period made a similar finding. December 2019 research from Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson refutes claims that nuclear energy is zero-carbon. A November 2019 article in the American business magazine Forbes argues that building new nuclear reactors instead of investing in more climate-effective energy resources actually makes climate change worse.
SMRs, the nuclear reactors promoted by the federal government, are in particular over-hyped as a climate crisis solution. SMRs have been proposed as a solution for remote communities and mining sites currently relying on diesel fuel but new research has found the potential market is too small to be viable.
SMRs exist only as computer models and nobody knows for sure if they will work. Last month, the Canadian energy watchdog The Energy Mix interviewed WNISR lead author Mycle Schneider, who called SMRs "PowerPoint reactors, not detailed engineering."
Given all the research evidence pointing away from funding nuclear energy in a climate action plan, why is the federal government proposing to do it?
<snip>
Full article at:
Why is the federal government funding new nuclear power reactors?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Economists: Ok.... the only way nuclear has even a snowballs chance in hell is if you standardize a SINGLE design and produce as many of that ONE design as you can.
Nuclear Industry: Here's the AP1000 oh no... the AP1400. NO! The Koreans have it right... the APR1400. NO... Norway has ironed out some bugs... the EPR reactors are the way to go!! You know what smaller is better. Here's a 50MW NuScale. WAIT. LFTR! ..... SQUIRREL!
Yeah, because your system is working so much better.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Well, we have a capitalist kleptocracy with the same problems.Yeah, because your system is working so much better.
(The concept of a "Throne speech" is new to me.)
The government is close to giving the green light to a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk.
The BBC has learned that talks with the Sizewell contractor, EDF, have intensified in recent weeks.
This comes after the collapse of projects in Anglesey and Cumbria when Japanese firms Hitachi and Toshiba pulled out.
Government officials are insisting that it "remains committed to new nuclear".
This commitment to new nuclear may be included as part of a 10-point government plan to be published in early November.
That plan is expected ahead of a detailed government white paper in late November which will attempt to set out the course of UK energy policy for decades to come.
Unions have warned that a failure to transfer jobs, skills and new opportunities from the current project under construction at Hinkley Point in Somerset to Sizewell in Suffolk would put thousands of high skilled jobs at risk.
The details of how new reactors at Sizewell will be paid for are still being hammered out.
The government is considering taking an ownership stake and consumers may see a small addition to their bills to pay for the project as it is being built, in order to drive down the costs of financing a project that may cost up to £20bn and take about 10 years to build.
<snip>
Full article at:
New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light
The BBC has learned that talks with the Sizewell contractor, EDF, have intensified in recent weeks.
This comes after the collapse of projects in Anglesey and Cumbria when Japanese firms Hitachi and Toshiba pulled out.
Government officials are insisting that it "remains committed to new nuclear".
This commitment to new nuclear may be included as part of a 10-point government plan to be published in early November.
That plan is expected ahead of a detailed government white paper in late November which will attempt to set out the course of UK energy policy for decades to come.
Unions have warned that a failure to transfer jobs, skills and new opportunities from the current project under construction at Hinkley Point in Somerset to Sizewell in Suffolk would put thousands of high skilled jobs at risk.
The details of how new reactors at Sizewell will be paid for are still being hammered out.
The government is considering taking an ownership stake and consumers may see a small addition to their bills to pay for the project as it is being built, in order to drive down the costs of financing a project that may cost up to £20bn and take about 10 years to build.
<snip>
Full article at:
New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light
(Aside: throne speech presumably comes from the UK monarch's speech at the opening of parliament where the government explains its plans.)
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
mblakele
FSD Beta (99)
Britain’s nuclear industry faces a do-or-die moment
[...]
Unlike the two fast-growing mainstays of zero-carbon electricity generation, wind and solar power, nuclear power’s output is stable, and does not fluctuate with the weather. This makes it valuable to any country attempting to decarbonise. Most of the mathematical models which stay within the confines of the Paris Agreement, which aims to constrain the temperature increase on the planet to less than 2°C, have nuclear power playing a significant role.
Yet the West is abysmal at building new nuclear power stations. Olkiluoto 3, in Finland, is running 12 years behind schedule. Flamanville 3, which is being built in France, is about ten years behind and €10bn ($12bn) over budget. Both use European Pressure Reactors (EPR) from a French company, Areva, which is owned by the French state utility Electricité de France (EDF). Hinkley C and Sizewell C are also being built by EDF. Each contains two EPRs.
[...]
The risk of overruns is considerable, but the risks of failing to decarbonise are much greater. If Sizewell C does not go ahead, Britain will lose any hope of reducing the cost of nuclear power, and thereby the realistic option of including it in the grid. Its existing nuclear fleet is scheduled for decommissing within the decade. Wind power is cheap and getting cheaper; nuclear power is yet to start moving in the right direction. But it may; and given the danger of global warming, there is an argument for keeping the nuclear option open.
Unlike the two fast-growing mainstays of zero-carbon electricity generation, wind and solar power, nuclear power’s output is stable, and does not fluctuate with the weather. This makes it valuable to any country attempting to decarbonise. Most of the mathematical models which stay within the confines of the Paris Agreement, which aims to constrain the temperature increase on the planet to less than 2°C, have nuclear power playing a significant role.
Yet the West is abysmal at building new nuclear power stations. Olkiluoto 3, in Finland, is running 12 years behind schedule. Flamanville 3, which is being built in France, is about ten years behind and €10bn ($12bn) over budget. Both use European Pressure Reactors (EPR) from a French company, Areva, which is owned by the French state utility Electricité de France (EDF). Hinkley C and Sizewell C are also being built by EDF. Each contains two EPRs.
[...]
The risk of overruns is considerable, but the risks of failing to decarbonise are much greater. If Sizewell C does not go ahead, Britain will lose any hope of reducing the cost of nuclear power, and thereby the realistic option of including it in the grid. Its existing nuclear fleet is scheduled for decommissing within the decade. Wind power is cheap and getting cheaper; nuclear power is yet to start moving in the right direction. But it may; and given the danger of global warming, there is an argument for keeping the nuclear option open.
Merrill
Merrill
Someone needs to explain to me how nuclear power is justified, it is not cheap if you factor in the cost to build. It takes a long time to build, it is dangerous and you have to deal with spent fuel rods. Most of the current plants are over budget and behind. What could you do with $12 billion on the green energy side.
SmartElectric
Active Member
Why NASA wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon
^ because it works so well here on planet Earth, let's put one on the moon ...
^ because it works so well here on planet Earth, let's put one on the moon ...
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I think you have to follow the money. Nuclear makes a lot of money for firms: design and construction, utilities (rate base). These people aren't concerned about the high cost, waste, etc. In fact, they make more money the longer things drag out. Of course, it's consumers who pay for all this in higher electric bills during construction and once in operation.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Looks like things are moving along...
FBI searches home of Ohio public utility commission chairman
The search comes nearly four months after the FBI arrested then-Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and four others in connection to a $60 million bribery scheme funded by Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., which was seeking a $1 billion legislative bailout for its two aging nuclear power plants in the state.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It's never about the workers even though they always use jobs as an excuse.
It's always about private profit. That 20 billion goes to corporate profits, not workers.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
MIT really want to make nuclear power cheaper. Looks like it will be difficult.
Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost overruns in the U.S.
The authors also found that while changes in safety regulations could account for some of the excess costs, that was only one of numerous factors contributing to the overages.
“It’s a known fact that costs have been rising in the U.S. and in a number of other locations, but what was not known is why and what to do about it,” says Trancik, who is an associate professor of energy studies in MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems and Society. The main lesson to be learned, she says, is that “we need to be rethinking our approach to engineering design.”
Among the surprising findings in the study, which covered 50 years of U.S. nuclear power plant construction data, was that, contrary to expectations, building subsequent plants based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, than building the initial plant.
Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost overruns in the U.S.
The authors also found that while changes in safety regulations could account for some of the excess costs, that was only one of numerous factors contributing to the overages.
“It’s a known fact that costs have been rising in the U.S. and in a number of other locations, but what was not known is why and what to do about it,” says Trancik, who is an associate professor of energy studies in MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems and Society. The main lesson to be learned, she says, is that “we need to be rethinking our approach to engineering design.”
Among the surprising findings in the study, which covered 50 years of U.S. nuclear power plant construction data, was that, contrary to expectations, building subsequent plants based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, than building the initial plant.
Similar threads
