Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

45 Comments

  1. 15:23 minute mark:
    “…and I’m thinking of the use of nuclear power, which despite the attitude of so called greens, is the most environmentally safe form of energy.”

    Just curious, but how large would the US Gen II fleet (PWR & BWR) be today if it wasn’t for the so called greens? In fairness, I believe it has been mentioned the coal industry had some influence in restricting the growth.

    1. Back in the 60’s it was predicted that nuclear power would completely replace coal in the USA.  If we take the 1990 figures for an end-of-buildout state, nuclear would have made about 3.5-4x as much as it actually did.

      1. At which of your hypothetical price points will Natural gas salesmen disfavor such unreilables over reinvigorating basic research in fissioning for the strong force? If they believed your perspective, why wouldn’t they disfavor such unreliables already?

      2. Bas:

        – Believe that nuclear could produce for ~1cnt/KWh or so (“too cheap to meter”).
        – PV-panels, wind turbines, storage were in the ‘baby’ phase.

        I like you. You are just as much of a dreamer as those old nuke guys that had the dream of helping humanity.

        It’s the 20th of December today. It’s almost the shortest day of the year. Snow falls and the sky is very grey. These days are in perpetual gloom. Then I read the comment from this dreamer who thinks my Christmas lights will be powered from solar panels. I hear my furnace fan whirring and my refrigerator kicks on now and then. Solar panels – I don’t think so. I don’t want to freeze in the dark.

        Don Quixote, you and the windmills are now allies. I salute you.

        1. @ Eino
          “Don Quixote, you and the windmills are now allies. I salute you.”
          Did you get that from somewhere, because it it really pithy, witty, and apropos?
          If it is of your own devise, then i salute YOU, Eino.

      3. Now:
        – Long term PV-solar electricity price decrease 8%/a. In some areas price ~6cnt/KWh.
        – Long term wind electricity price decrease 3%/a. In some areas price ~3cnt/KWh.

        Neither of those include the cost of firming power to make it available on demand.  Battery storage alone costs far more than the cost of nuclear power.  That’s part of the difference between LCOE (which doesn’t account for mismatch between supply and demand) and LACE (which does).

        – Operational costs nuclear (without capital costs) ~4cnt/Kwh (based on premature closures of VY, Kewaunee, SONGS, Grafenrheinfeld NPP’s)

        It wasn’t the LCOE of solar that did that.  It was subsidies allowing sales of wind at zero or even negative wholesale prices, and temporarily cheap natural gas.  Remove the explicit subsidy for wind (and the implicit subsidy of free carbon dumping for gas), and Kewaunee would have been sitting pretty.

        1. E-P’s LACE: “Levelized Avoided Cost of Energy”. From EIA Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2014

          direct comparison of LCOE across technologies is often problematic and can be misleading as a method to assess the economic competitiveness of various generation alternatives. Conceptually, a better assessment of economic competitiveness can be gained through consideration of avoided cost, a measure of what it would cost the grid to generate the electricity that is otherwise displaced by a new generation project, as well as its levelized cost. Avoided cost, which provides a proxy measure for the annual economic value of a candidate project, may be summed over its financial life and converted to a stream of equal annual payments. The avoided cost is divided by average annual output of the project to develop the “levelized” avoided cost of electricity (LACE) for the project. The LACE value may then be compared with the LCOE value for the candidate project to provide an indication of whether or not the project’s value exceeds its cost. If multiple technologies are available to meet load, comparisons of each project’s LACE to its LCOE may be used to determine which project provides the best net economic value. Estimating avoided costs is more complex than estimating levelized costs because it requires information about how the system would have operated without the option under evaluation… (T)he calculation of avoided costs is based on the marginal value of energy and capacity that would result from adding a unit of a given technology and represents the potential revenue available to the project owner from the sale of energy and generating capacity…

          Emphasis added, as marginal cost today will not necessarily be the marginal cost tomorrow. For example, the avoided cost of unreliable generation must decrease beyond market penetration approximately equal to its capacity factor, and the awcc of nuclear will decrease if we ever again get around to building nuclear plant on a regular basis.

          Relatedly, The Potsdam Institute refers to “System LCOE”. James Conca discusses the relationship of energy generation cost to grid services (grid services actually accounting for a bit more than half your electric bill) in Net Energy Metering: Are We Capitalists or What?

          But to answer Bas question, no. First-of-a-kind new-nuclear build will not reach 4 cent/kWh. More like 5.1 cent/kWh, and that averaged over a 90 year plant life. This assumes the current Point Vogtle cost estimate of $6.7 billion for an 1170 MWe AP1000, 90% CF, wacc (weighted average cost of capital aka “discount rate”) of 10%, standard 30-year amortization, and fixed and variable cost of operation each of $11.8/MWh. This gives an LCOE of 10.8 cents/kWh for the first thirty years, and 2.3 cents/kWh each year thereafter. AP1000 is initially licensed for 60 years. Our current Gen II reactors were initially licensed for 40 years, and are more-or-less routinely re-licensed for an additional 20. The U.S. NRC issues license extensions in 20-year lots. Whether any can be economically upgraded beyond 60 years is under active investigation by those concerned with long-term carbon emissions. Just about any part of a LWR can be replaced except the containment building and pressure vessel itself, neither of which have moving parts. But just because anything else can be replaced, doesn’t mean it can be replaced economically. Time will tell.

          Back at those US FOAK AP1000, cost and financing. Discount rate includes risk, and if the eighties are anything to go by, building nukes in the US is risky business. The above LCOE estimates nuclear wacc at 10%. If nuclear were afforded the same 6% wacc as Solar PV, and subsequent build costs brought down to more like Vogtle’s initial $5.5 billion estimate, then the LCOE for those initial 30 years is reduced to 6.9 cent/kWh with 3.8 cent/kWh lifetime average.

          Taking Edison’s $60/MWh grid cost as constant — and it might not be as presumably nuclear is providing some of the $19/MWh for generation capacity — then
          12.9 cent/kWh for the first 30 years of operation is not a sure-fire money-maker, while 9.8 cent/kWh over lifetime of plant most likely is. Either one is a bargain compared to NREL’s estimate of 15 – 16 cents/kWh for a non-renewable, non-sustainable, not-scalable, not-good-enough 80\% carbon reduction without new nuclear.

          But it really depends on the price of gas over the next century. Are you feeling lucky?

          1. “Taking Edison’s $60/MWh grid cost as constant — and it might not be as presumably nuclear is providing some of the $19/MWh for generation capacity ”

            Ed, where are these numbers coming from? Do you have a link, or maybe I just missed it? Thanks

          2. This assumes the current Point Vogtle cost estimate of $6.7 billion for an 1170 MWe AP1000, 90% CF, wacc (weighted average cost of capital aka “discount rate”) of 10%, standard 30-year amortization, and fixed and variable cost of operation each of $11.8/MWh.

            I forget where I read it, but one analyst suggests that all emission-free generation should receive capital at an environmental discount rate of perhaps 1.8%.  Throwing 1.8% over 30 years into a spreadsheet gives me financing cost of $20.5 millon per month, financing cost of 2.84¢/kWh.  Adding your 2.36¢/kWh in other costs gives a total of 5.20¢/kWh for the first 30 years, falling to 2.36¢ afterward.

            If you finance for 50 years at 1.8%, the initial figure falls to 4.35¢/kWh.

            1. Sorry, I mis-typed 5700 instead of 6700.  FInancing $6.7 billion at 1.8% would cost 3.33¢/kWh over 30 years, 2.34¢/kWh over 50.

      4. Over in another forum (UseNet group) one fellow did some calculations assuming that the USA had built a modest 10 reactors per year between 1980 and 2010. This would have given us 400 reactors total, or enough to supply (assuming new build are larger capacity than old average) all of the USA’s electricity minus some fossil peaking generators and hydro.

        Anyway, this fellow figured the USA would emit 28% less CO2 now than we currently do (that’s total CO2 emissions, not just electricity sector).

        That would mean that not only would our current emissions rate be 28% lower, but over the last 35 years the total amount of CO2 spewed into the environment would have been vastly reduced.

        Would we have built 10 reactors per year if not for the greens? Perhaps not.

        A rational energy policy would have had us construct 10 reactors or more per year for the last 35 years, though.

        Aiming into the indefinite future, if one figures that we need 800 -1000 reactors to supply our current energy needs (transportation as well as electricity) and that a reactor will last 80 – 100 years. Then eventually we need a steady state build of about 10 reactors per year to replace the ones that wear out, with the number increasing as our energy needs increase.

  2. That and burgeoning costs. Some, perhaps the majority, of those high costs have been the result of greens opposition, intervenors gaming the system to drive up cost, competing industry manipulation, and regulatory overburden.

    A lot of people express a belief in “the free market” as the sole arbiter of technology choice. First, we don’t have a “free market”, and never have had one. We’ve always had a mixed economy, with regulation and entrepreneurship mixed in various ways and amounts. Second, even if there was a “free market”, such a system does not necessarily produce an optimum solution. What it does is select a local maximum based on the most heavily-weighted parameter. If that parameter is cost, then the solutions chosen will migrate in that direction. But a complex system like energy production has other inputs that are not often reflected in price (e.g., reliability, environmental impact, and so on). And sometimes it has inputs that are negative drivers (regulatory excess, frivolous lawsuits are examples). So unless we cost those into the price of every choice, or, in some cases, go beyond the bounds of the sole free market model, we may find ourselves trapped in a system that will be inherently brittle and susceptible to outside shocks and perturbations.

  3. “Please ask why we have let more than a quarter of a century pass since that speech without engaging in the productive, cooperative effort that she outlines. ”

    Because there’s no point in spending money and effort on something, if the money and effort will be wasted. Various groups have enough power to both advocate for effort and at the same time direct that effort into utterly unproductive avenues. Reasonable people oppose such waste, even if it is justified as being for a good cause. But you know all this. The real question is why won’t the greens stop being dupes for the powers that oppose nuclear energy.

    Clean, concentrated, affordable, plentiful energy is the root of the solution for every environmental and resource management issue. Not forcing folks to sort their trash and bath less.

    In Austin, where I live the organization, Capital Metro is incompetent in every way. We could really use better public transportation but there’s no point in voting for any of proposals that come along, because each one would be implemented by an organization that can’t even organize a bus line.

    The issues to which you refer are in a similar boat. Sure, we should work on them. There are folks in the way that guarantee any such effort will be wasted.

    How do we get them out of the way?

    1. “The real question is why won’t the greens stop being dupes for the powers that oppose nuclear energy.”
      I think that the answer to that has something to do with mob psychology.

    2. What we have as supposed “greens” is people who like the idea of ordering people to sort their trash and bath less a lot more than they like anything that would actually solve an environmental problem. Giving those order is their real priority, or in other words, feeling empowered by telling others they’re bad and they are superior to them. It’s not about getting any CO2 out of the atmosphere.

  4. And getting slightly OT…

    Rod, I’ve been doing a little investigation on something in the news and it appears that SiC doesn’t begin to react with water/steam until it hits about 700°C.  This suggests that TRISO fuel might work well in water coolant up to 550-600°C.  Right there is your superheater stage for BWRs.

    1. @ E-P
      There were designs for BWRs with superheat and a few were built (Sweden, Puerto Rico and (I think South Dakota (“Pathfinder”?)) — but they apparently were not successful. Was cladding the problem with those designs?

      1. Was cladding the problem with those designs?

        I don’t know about the rest of them, but this piece on the Pathfinder reactor by Will Davis suggests that zirconium cladding is touchy under such conditions.  Maybe SiC is better; it would be good to know, no?  A nuclear steam supply which can be plumbed directly into existing lower-pressure turbines as a drop-in replacement would have many advantages, such as eliminating issues of fuel delivery in severe weather conditions and eliminating all criteria air emissions.

        1. Thanks, E-P. Looks like cladding was not “the” problem with Pathfinder — but it WOULD have been “a” problem if the reactor had operated much at all.
          As I recall, the “drop-in replacement” idea was the topic of some discussion back around 2007-08 as the “coal yard reactor” but the reactor was a gas cooled reactor producing the steam (sort of like an AGR using a pebble bed reactor)

          1. The problem with gas-cooled reactors appears to be that they require really big cores, which costs too much.

            The attraction of the supercritical water reactor, AFAICT, is that the power density of both the reactor and the steam systems is considerably higher than current practice so cost per kW is reduced.

            I haven’t started researching the power density of TRISO fuel but a hybrid core may not be so demanding in that department.

          2. E-P, on the subject of power density: have you looked at the Dual Fluid Reactor concept? A German group has come up with the idea of a fast reactor fueled by (chloride) molten salt and cooled by liquid lead. They anticipate a power density of 1 GW for a cubic core, 2 meters in each dimension.
            One thing about the design that appears very odd to me is that the core is to be cubic because the alloy used is difficult to produce in a curved form BUT that same core is to be penetrated by 20,000 tubes carrying the lead coolant. Maybe the coolant tubes are square in cross section, though.

          3. have you looked at the Dual Fluid Reactor concept?

            I’ve seen very little.  What I have seen looks clever, but it’s a fast-spectrum reactor so the fissile inventories are going to be awfully high compared to thermal-spectrum reactors.  That market appears to belong to GE-Hitachi and the S-PRISM if they actually move to take it.

  5. Margaret Thatcher’s speech is elegant. It is sobering to realize that after 25 years we are still far from the goals which she set forth. Recently China has articulated plans to limit pollution of the atmosphere. The recent US/China agreement is one of very few moves over the past quarter century which has potential to address global climate change.

    Norman Borlaug was a member of a task force that visited many countries where hunger was an issue. He found that politicians and agriculturists in each country were defensive and not open to accepting seeds of a new high yield wheat and new agricultural procedures that could double their wheat production. When Borlaug submitted his report of the tour he recommended by-passing the politicians and professional agriculturists. Instead he proposed a program which invited bright young scholars to come to Mexico to experience farm work and study with a cadre of young Mexicans who had graduate work in agriculture. The scholars armed with knowledge of productive agriculture and Mexican wheat seed went home and convinced their local farmers of the new yield potential. Before the politicians and local agronomists realized what was occurring, wheat production was sufficient to feed the the population. Sixty countries benefited from the implementation of Borlaug’s program. I wonder if Borlaug’s approach could work with global climate change by placing emphasis on clean nuclear power and preservation of rain forests.

    1. In the case of the farmers in these countries with lack of sufficient food, the individual farmer was able to make a decision in spite of the politicians and agriculturalists. While I would love to have a nuclear reactor in my own back yard, the scaling problem means that will not be happening any time soon. Communities and even the various States in the USA are hampered in their local efforts by regulation that is institutionalized at the Federal Government level.

      1. True. In parallel to the Borlaug methodology, however, we need demonstrable geographies where individual perspectives could be tested. I would expect zero new foundries of any type for a geography that disavowed concentrated sources of energy were required. In such demonstrations, clearly concentrated forms of energy such as water power (energy is concentrated by the lay of the land), Nuclear, and fossil fuel, would provision much more reliably than the heavily promoted unreliable forms.

        We may never see demonstrations among geographies that compare unreliable, diffuse forms with the concentrated forms of energy. We have hope for China, but if China is competitive and smart, they will always maintain a portion of their energy provisioning in unreliables, so that market forces in the free world can point to such unreliables, maintaining the pretense that China is using a “mix” of energy sources and pretending that unreliables are at the vanguard.

  6. “The political boundary lines that seem to have been hardened in recent years are preventing us from cooperating, even in areas where we share many aspirations”

    These divisions are nurtured, while the shared aspirations are ignored. Even on this thread you see participants stereotyping wide swaths of people. “Greens” become a bloc of lemmings, all sharing a neatly packaged mindset, rather than individuals with diverse motives and opinions. “Liberals”, likewise, stuffed into an ideological niche that ignores the individuality of those subscribing to various aspects of a “liberal” political persuasion.

    Over coffee, really, there is very little difference to what we need, and want, for ourselves and our loved ones. But through politics we are sold the idea that one side or the other is a threat to those needs and wants. And an important aspect of this purposeful effort to divide is the practice of stereo-typing. Even here on this blog the practice is all too evident. Nary a topic goes by when, sooner or later, huge numbers of humans are labeled and categorized as having an undeviating ideology. Muslims as savages. Greens as conspiratorial enemies of the environment. Liberals as universally anti NE. Wind and solar advocates as dupes of the fossil fuel industry.

    Rather than softening these “hard political boundries”, this kind of categorizing strengthens these boundries. I can’t help but think of Limbaugh’s mantra…..”liberalism is a mental illness” as being a perfect example of this strategy of division. Or loannes, turning my criticism of Israel into “anti-semitism”, an often used tactic of stereotyping by those defending the indefensible practices of the Israeli political machine.

    In reality, not many of us fit into the niches assigned to us by politics.

    1. Even on this thread you see participants stereotyping wide swaths of people. “Greens” become a bloc of lemmings, all sharing a neatly packaged mindset, rather than individuals with diverse motives and opinions.

      It’s hard to take your objections to this seriously when Greenpeace International is so vehement about thought-policing its membership that it is writing Dr. Patrick Moore out of its history because of his “incorrectness”.  That is Orwellian, MiniTru in real life.

      “Liberals”, likewise, stuffed into an ideological niche that ignores the individuality of those subscribing to various aspects of a “liberal” political persuasion.

      If the mouthpieces and pressure groups are united and attack any deviation from orthodoxy, people must either withdraw their support or accept responsibility for that orthodoxy.

      I know that “winner take all” elections produce two-party systems where there’s much less room for alternative narratives.  That doesn’t excuse those who don’t break off and speak up.

      1. “It’s hard to take your objections to this seriously when Greenpeace International is so vehement about thought-policing its membership that it is writing Dr. Patrick Moore out of its history because of his “incorrectness””

        I gave you examples. Not the only examples. What is it that makes you think my “OBJECTIONS” are narrowly focused? Consistently here I have criticized all media, and this ridiculous partisan banter engaged in by both sides. I decry the system, therefore must be your opponent? Frankly, many of you just sound absurdly paranoid. Conspiracies against NE under every bush, with these “conspirators” neatly congregated into a tightly confined shoebox of “liberals”, “socialists”, and “greens”. Rod’s perceived conspiracy, hatched by a money grubbing bi-partisan conglomerate of industrialists is a far more palatable dish to swallow.

        “I know that “winner take all” elections produce two-party systems where there’s much less room for alternative narratives.  That doesn’t excuse those who don’t break off and speak up”

        You assume I would disagree with that? But “speaking up”, although laudable, is certainly not the formula for success in today’s political climate. Let’s discuss Webb after this election cycle, and I have no doubt we will be discussing a failed and largely un-touted campaign, should he actually attempt to stray from the scripted political narrative that greases the skids into high office. There are certain “litmus tests” a potential candidate must pass before being allowed to tap the huge coffers of those that benefit by a candidate’s climb up the ladder. Being against the status quo doesn’t open the piggie bank. Speaking up about it slams the door shut.

        1. @poa

          But “speaking up”, although laudable, is certainly not the formula for success in today’s political climate. Let’s discuss Webb after this election cycle, and I have no doubt we will be discussing a failed and largely un-touted campaign, should he actually attempt to stray from the scripted political narrative that greases the skids into high office. There are certain “litmus tests” a potential candidate must pass before being allowed to tap the huge coffers of those that benefit by a candidate’s climb up the ladder. Being against the status quo doesn’t open the piggie bank. Speaking up about it slams the door shut.

          We will have plenty of opportunity in the coming couple of years to see if our democracy is as hopeless as you portray. I’m hopeful you will be proven to have been just a bit too pessimistic. There are adequate pots of outsider money to provide support to people courageous enough to point out that the status quo is not working and not helpful to our future prosperity. It’s way too early to call yet; let’s drop this particular thread for now and agree to pick it up occasionally over the next couple of years.

    2. Dont look now POA but another misunderstood radical Islamic justice seeker just executed two NYPD officers. No doubt spurred on by the recent misinformation and hype of left leaning press.

      1. “Dont look now POA but another misunderstood radical Islamic justice seeker just executed two NYPD officers. No doubt spurred on by the recent misinformation and hype of left leaning press”

        Hmmm…..well, lets see…

        Perhaps we should compile a list of cops shot in the last decade, and investigate the ethnic, racial, and religious make up of the perpetrators, eh?

        Think we’d find a long list of Muslims? And, if not, what’s your point?

        And specifically, what “hype and misinformatoon are you referring to? A link would be helpful.

        1. Hmmm, wait, did I say “Muslims” or did I say “radical Islamic justice seeker” or are they one in the same as you seem to be constantly claiming. Im sure others may say “Muslims” but I didn’t. I think that is the point.

          1. I think his selective social media post of a Koran verse puts him decisively in the latter “radical” category. I doubt he even read a significant portion of that scripture to be honest. But it all went into the mix and I certainly criticized radical Christians for the anti abortion rhetoric that lead to violence on multiple occasions. So im not going to have a double standard here.

            “hype and misinformation” in recent police cases? Are you kidding? Here are a couple:
            ( https://web.archive.org/web/20141203220346/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ )
            ( http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/25/us/ferguson-michael-brown-funeral/ )

            Not to mention the sworn testimony did not support the “protest” narrative in any way shape or form. In the Eric Garner case family members opinions in evaluating a cell phone video were repeated by media as fact in the case. Obviously they are complex cases and this isn’t the venue to review them. But this was again another major fail by news media in their duty to present news, not direct it. Or perhaps my belief in their “duty” is dated/misplaced.

  7. Speaking of Greenpeace I went back in their history to see what they have said over the years as some of us seem to have a memory problem.

    “even the most perfunctory examination of the issue shows that nuclear power has no role whatever in tackling global climate change. In fact quite the opposite is true; any resources expended on attempting to advance nuclear power as a viable solution would inevitably detract from genuine measures to reduce the threat of global warming. “ ( http://web.archive.org/web/19990128124911/http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html ) – Greenpeace 1999

    NONE of their “genuine measures” have come close to Nuclear GG reductions. Their early promotion of biofuels has turned into a environmental nightmare as well.

    1. we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. ( http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh05000e.html ) – Kharecha and Hansen 2013

      BTW CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by about 15 gigatonnes per year. The entire Human race emits about 26 gigatonnes / year.

  8. I would think that the majority of Americans, on both sides of the aisle, view NASA in a favorable light. The link provided by Tucker also has this link….

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/

    …..and it this type of of clear analysis, by a trusted science entity, that could turn the tables for you. Easy to read graphs, and very little scientific jargon and theory that wooshes over the head of the majority of americans who are unschooled in nuclear science. A real shame that so few will be exposed to this brief. This is the kind of tool that you guys need in your box.

    1. And thats a conservative estimate, from a range, from a person who should carry tremendous weight in the environmental community. But what happens when you link to it in green blogs (as I have)? They deride Dr Hansen or ignore it completely. Its been out for a while.

  9. Missed this article in November, it wasn’t titled very well IMHO, its kinda interesting in light of recent stories of European overcapacity:

    Policy makers must boost incentives for coal-fired power that includes carbon-capture technology and spur investment in new atomic plants to replace aging reactors, Maria van der Hoeven, the executive director of the IEA, said in an interview. The investment in round-the-clock, or baseload, power is needed to cover intermittent wind and solar supply, she said.

    “Not everything can come just from having more renewables,” van der Hoeven said in London on Nov. 12. “The system has to be stable so that the lights aren’t going to turn off the moment the renewables aren’t there.” ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-21/europe-risks-blackouts-without-clean-coal-inducement-iea-says.html )

    I wouldn’t expect a call for increased new nuclear but even that hat tip to nuclear was beyond surprising from that organization. And carbon capture coal !!?? Note also Gas was missing from that statement.

    1. I went back and looked over the years and I was probably wrong above: the IEA really haven’t been all that anti nuclear, just rather disproportionate in focus of Nuclear costs, operating and safety issues probably and very pro renewable – which isn’t so bad as it is unrealistic, I guess.

      There has been something of a controversy surrounding the IEA’s “How solar energy could be the largest source of electricity by mid-century” evidentially the lowest cost scenario involves nuclear as close to the largest or the largest single generating factor. ( http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/11/17/new-iea-study-least-cost-scenario-has-nuclear-as-the-worlds-largest-source-of-electricity-by-2050/ ) that graph he uses is on report page 18 : ( http://www.iea.org/media/freepublications/technologyroadmaps/solar/TechnologyRoadmapSolarPhotovoltaicEnergy_2014edition.pdf ) Costs are discussed on pages 25 and 26.

      It involves a lot of speculation in solar cost reductions that I do not believe will be realistic, and the use and expansion of pumped storage and carbon capture which have kinda turned into duds if not total turds as of late.

  10. Our shared environment needs protecting. But it is not ours to do with what we like.
    It must be maintained. We can attach feel good words like “respect”, “share” and “mother nature” but what the general public needs to learn is that nuclear energy is the energy form they most need to understand. It is also the best solution to maintaining our environment. Even more important than global warming is ocean acidification. Sea life will die off in less than 25 years at the current rate of CO2 absorption.

    Inventions also need protecting. The one invention that we do not protect is the Molten Salt Reactor. China has already spent large sums with a team of a thousand people or more to develop and patent the idea while our own laws do not allow R & D to use Thorium in useful enough quantities. The same law prevents the growth of the rare earth industry.

    One approach to saving life in the oceans would require large amounts of energy much greater than what solar or wind could do. MSRs and other designs are good candidates for creating lime. The technique is to dump lime which recombines with CO2 that is in the water and that is dropped down to areas where volcanic rock already exists trapping the CO2. So sooner than many people think we face very serious consequences if we do not develop using and expanding nuclear energy worldwide.

Comments are closed.