So I hadn't looked into Diablo at the time I replied, and I just got some time to check more into it. I just assumed that kind of price tag should be buying decades of life extension, not 5 or 6 years. Something is extremely fishy about that cost estimate. I know there was some talk about changing the cooling water system setup, which wouldn't be cheap, but that price tag is still way off. Pilfer Gouge and Extort and their hand puppets CPUC strike again.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
So I hadn't looked into Diablo at the time I replied, and I just got some time to check more into it. I just assumed that kind of price tag should be buying decades of life extension, not 5 or 6 years. Something is extremely fishy about that cost estimate. I know there was some talk about changing the cooling water system setup, which wouldn't be cheap, but that price tag is still way off. Pilfer Gouge and Extort and their hand puppets CPUC strike again.
Not really. The plant is 40 years old. Contrary to popular belief nuclear plants aren't immortal. There are thousands of things that have a limited lifespan and need to get replaced. The older they get, the more expensive they get. Cost to keep it running thru 2045 is ~$25B - $40B. Heat is a terrible, TERRIBLE source of electricity. The sooner people can accept reality the better.
There's a reason the vast majority of ships now use either gas turbines or diesel engines. $, $, $ and $. Boiling water is a really expensive way to spin a shaft, either for moving a ship, a train or running a generator.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
In its latest medium-term market report, titled Oil 2024, the International Energy Agency said oil demand growth was on track to slow down before reaching its peak near 106 million barrels per day by 2030. At the same time, the IEA expects total oil production capacity to surge to nearly 114 million barrels per day by 2030 — a whopping 8 million barrels per day above projected global demand. It warned these dynamics could have "significant consequences" for oil markets.
Fact check: Is nuclear energy good for the climate? – DW – 11/29/2021
Supporters of nuclear energy say it can help us wean our economies off polluting fossil fuels. No surprise, it's a heated issue. But what about the facts? Can nuclear power really help save the climate?www.dw.com
Here are some different numbers from different sources, with very different conclusions to the source you quoted.
NREL
IPCC 2014
UNECE:
Of course there are ugly wide uncertainty ranges on the estimates from pretty much all sources.
The number you quoted for hydro sounds like it came from before we figured out just how much methane large reservoirs burp out from anaerobic digestion. In warm climates, especially in reservoirs with high silt and organic loads, this methane release is pretty significant.
tmoz
S85D, Y LR, ex Prius PiP
I think of boiling water for electricity as caveman technology. However, to survive a planet-wide catastrophe, I think power disconnected from the sun is needed, such as tidal or geothermal. The later, boiling water again, but hopefully distributed and closed cycle.
You want to ignore our largest source of clean energy by ~3 orders of magnitude? ..... why?
I think there's some merit to the article's perspective. Much like how burning oil releases stored chemical energy, nuclear fission releases stored nuclear energy. Creating crude oil with millions of years worth of organic decay and pressure is ultimately an endothermic reaction. Likewise with the creation of high molecular weight atomic matter. When we burn the oil, or split the atom, we're merely releasing what was stored. So the net result is that we're adding to the heat energy in the planetary system, by drawing on what was stored millions or billions of years ago.
A bunch of kids peeing into the ocean, despite how infinitesimally small it is, is ultimately net-zero, since the water the kids drink, ultimately came from evaporated ocean water (rain/snow clouds). And the cycle is closed within the span of months or at worst a few years.
Uranium-238 isn't created by any natural process. What we have is what we have. We just have alot of it. Uranium-235 (what's actually needed for nuclear fission) can be converted from uranium-238 in breeder reactors. Once consumed in a nuclear fission reaction, we're left with smaller radioactive particles like strontium, which is just buried, because we can't recycle them. Just like how we can't recycle burnt oil.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Kenya’s first nuclear plant: why plans face fierce opposition in country’s coastal paradise
Unease and anger are rising over proposals to build country’s first facility on Kilifi coast, home to white sand beaches, coral reefs and mangrove swamps
www.theguardian.com
Kana nuclear!” Phyllis Omido, an award-winning environmentalist who is leading the protests, tells one such meeting. The Swahili slogan means “reject nuclear”, and encompasses the acronym for the Kenya Anti-Nuclear Alliance who say the plant will deepen Kenya’s debt and are calling for broader public awareness of the cost. Construction on the power station is expected to start in 2027, with it due to be operational in 2034. “It is the worst economic decision we could make for our country,” says Omido, who began her campaign last year.
Peter Musila, a marine scientist who monitors the impacts of global heating on coral reefs, fears that a nuclear power station will threaten aquatic life. The coral cover in Watamu marine national reserve, a protected area near Kilifi’s coast, has improved over the last decade and Musila fears progress could be reversed by thermal pollution from the plant, whose cooling system would suck large amounts of water from the ocean and return it a few degrees warmer, potentially killing fish and the micro-organisms such as plankton, which are essential for a thriving aquatic ecosystem.
About 90% of Kenya’s electricity comes from renewable sources, but solar and wind are not available around the clock and hydro power is under strain from climate-induced drought.
tmoz
S85D, Y LR, ex Prius PiP
Asteroid impact - diminished sun for 12 months+, or Yellowstone cauldron erupts.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
.... where do you think our food comes from?
For anyone else regularly checking in on CAISO, we're continuing to set new battery (high) and NG (low) records.
Just this morning between 11-12am batteries were up to peak charging ~6 GW. A couple early evenings ago they were discharging over 7 GW for about and hour, even more than NG was contributing then.
The other remarkable thing is that we are starting to see more days like June 15th where NG delivery has been finally under 1 GW from the time the sun rose until the early afternoon (8 continuous hours that day).
Just this morning between 11-12am batteries were up to peak charging ~6 GW. A couple early evenings ago they were discharging over 7 GW for about and hour, even more than NG was contributing then.
The other remarkable thing is that we are starting to see more days like June 15th where NG delivery has been finally under 1 GW from the time the sun rose until the early afternoon (8 continuous hours that day).
Last edited:
tmoz
S85D, Y LR, ex Prius PiP
Greenhouses and lab grown meet 100 yrs from now. Relying on rain is too unpredictable.
tmoz
S85D, Y LR, ex Prius PiP
No fossil fuel plants, just fusion (or fission) and geothermal. Still have to boil water like cavemen to avert a species ending event.Yep, fossil fuel plants will not be impacted by those events.
So.... make food and energy unaffordable so we can have unaffordable food and energy in case of a catastrophe?
You mean nuclear plants that explode due to major tsunami and earthquake resulting from the meteor strike? We have a better odd of survival by learning to eat cockroaches. Anything that major, city folks are goners. Maybe some survivalists will survive, and that is a very qualified 'some'. The billionaires are planning to have a habitat on another planet where they will relocate before the meteor hits, that is a better plan.
Think of it this way, are you better off with a nuclear fallout shelter or having an offsite 'vacation home' away from population centers in case of limited nuclear war?
LOL
Watch some meteor smashing into earth movies. It's Hollywood but may have some bits of useful info.
Last edited:
tmoz
S85D, Y LR, ex Prius PiP
Why do you say unaffordable? I’m just saying eventually, there needs to be alternate sources. I think I may have been optimistic in my previous numbers.So.... make food and energy unaffordable so we can have unaffordable food and energy in case of a catastrophe?
I don’t see us raising animals to kill them for their muscle to eat 50 or 100 yrs from now. Way too energy inefficient.
.... what kind if silly non sequitur is that? The sun could be 100 Trillion miles away. It's the availability that matters which is ~1kW/m^2, which is ~1000x more than what's available 15 miles below our feet and it's available at ~1/10th the price in terms of being useful.
There's a reason ~36GW of solar is being built vs ~0GW of geothermal. For the ~1Mth time. Heat is a ridiculous source of electricity.
tmoz
S85D, Y LR, ex Prius PiP
Technology keeps advancing. Geothermal is getting its legs. I'm not saying don't do wind and solar now, but eventually fission fusion and/or geothermal should be added to the mix in a significant way.
Last edited:
Similar threads
