Nuclear Power Is the Only Solution

[airdvr 197]

https://time.com/6342343/nuclear-energy-climate-change/

COP28 is underway and grand commitments to triple nuclear power by 2050 are recognition of the following reality: There is no way, absolutely none, that the world’s energy transition away from fossil fuels can be achieved without a massive increase globally of nuclear power.

As I've said all along...

[winsor 186]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

https://time.com/6342343/nuclear-energy-climate-change/

COP28 is underway and grand commitments to triple nuclear power by 2050 are recognition of the following reality: There is no way, absolutely none, that the world’s energy transition away from fossil fuels can be achieved without a massive increase globally of nuclear power.

As I've said all along...

How about a massive decrease in population?

At a population of 20 billion, we're screwed regardless.  A stable population of ~1 billion has options.

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

COP28 is underway and grand commitments to triple nuclear power by 2050 are recognition of the following reality: There is no way, absolutely none, that the world’s energy transition away from fossil fuels can be achieved without a massive increase globally of nuclear power.

That can certainly work - but only solves the electrical energy problem.  Also, electrical energy costs will rise by approximately 3x due to the relative cost difference.

Make sure you're willing to pay that.

[nigel99 144]

11 hours ago, winsor said:

How about a massive decrease in population?

At a population of 20 billion, we're screwed regardless.  A stable population of ~1 billion has options.

It's an unpopular opinion, but it has it's merits.

[kallend 1,623]

21 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

It's an unpopular opinion, but it has it's merits.

Can we expect a "final solution" to the vermin problem from Trump and his authoritarian buddies.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

17 hours ago, winsor said:

At a population of 20 billion, we're screwed regardless.  A stable population of ~1 billion has options.

Best way to get there is kill off those over 65 who really aren't contributing to society anymore. You ready to go?

Edited December 6, 2023 by SkyDekker

[airdvr 197]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Best way to get there is kill off anybody over 65 who really isn't contributing to society anymore. You ready to go?

23 days left I guess

[CygnusX-1 42]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Best way to get there is kill off anybody over 65 who really isn't contributing to society anymore. You ready to go?

Again Logan's Run had it right. Maybe not that actual age - that can be up for discussion. But the sentiment was correct. Need to start embedding those crystals.

[winsor 186]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Best way to get there is kill off those over 65 who really aren't contributing to society anymore. You ready to go?

This is living?

[SkyDekker 1,123]

7 minutes ago, winsor said:

This is living?

Sorry to hear your life sucks so much. Maybe if you had worked harder and been less lazy you too could have had the American Dream(tm).

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

7 hours ago, kallend said:

Can we expect a "final solution" to the vermin problem from Trump and his authoritarian buddies.

Hi John,

Well, it worked once; for a while.

Jerry Baumchen

[Phil1111 911]

7 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi John,

Well, it worked once; for a while.

Jerry Baumchen

I've at least noticed one less vermin running around here lately.

[ryoder 1,384]

Now here is a story you don't see every day: Plans to re-open a closed plant!

Michigan nuclear plant aims to be first ever to reopen in US

 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

On 12/6/2023 at 2:13 PM, SkyDekker said:

Sorry to hear your life sucks so much. Maybe if you had worked harder and been less lazy you too could have had the American Dream(tm).

I think he was quoting from Mein Kampf.

[airdvr 197]

3 hours ago, ryoder said:

Now here is a story you don't see every day: Plans to re-open a closed plant!

Michigan nuclear plant aims to be first ever to reopen in US

 

Waking up to the fact that wind and solar won't get the job done here on the North coast.

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

Waking up to the fact that wind and solar won't get the job done here on the North coast.

In the same way that closing coal plants represents people waking up to the fact that fossil fuels simply will not get the job done, I suppose.

However, the future will be a mix of power sources.  Hydro where it's possible.  Renewables for the bulk of our energy.  Nuclear for base load where possible and natural gas (eventually switching to biogas and syngas) for peaking.

The big problem with nuclear is that it is 3x the cost of other forms of power, and it takes ~20 years to plan, site and build a new plant.  That's a reason that repowering older power plants makes sense, because the cost is similar but the planning stage is greatly shortened.  The site is already approved, the infrastructure already exists and the studies have been completed.  I could see it taking 2-3 years instead of the usual 20 to get a repowered nuclear plant working.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

Waking up to the fact that wind and solar won't get the job done here on the North coast.

Please show me any reputable source that claims they will.

Although, I gotta tell you, right now the wind turbines in the upper midwest are just cranking out power.

[wmw999 2,122]

“Only” is generally a poor word when describing a solution to a complex multifaceted issue. Just sayin’

Wendy P. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

13 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

“Only” is generally a poor word when describing a solution to a complex multifaceted issue. Just sayin’

Wendy P. 

But it's GREAT word to use when trying to mock or belittle a concept.

Especially when trying to convince the foolish or gullible.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

But it's GREAT word to use when trying to mock or belittle a concept.

Especially when trying to convince the foolish or gullible.

Only you would say that.

[tkhayes 126]

On 12/5/2023 at 7:28 PM, winsor said:

How about a massive decrease in population?

At a population of 20 billion, we're screwed regardless.  A stable population of ~1 billion has options.

Most sociological sciences still predict that the world population will reach 11B - 12B and likely stop there due to resource constraints.  That means as many people will be dying every year as are being born every year

In other words, MASSIVE human suffering and losses each year.  Grateful that I am white and was born in North America.  But I will not be around to see 10B I expect

[billeisele 122]

On 3/29/2024 at 4:51 PM, billvon said:

In the same way that closing coal plants represents people waking up to the fact that fossil fuels simply will not get the job done, I suppose.

However, the future will be a mix of power sources.  Hydro where it's possible.  Renewables for the bulk of our energy.  Nuclear for base load where possible and natural gas (eventually switching to biogas and syngas) for peaking.

The big problem with nuclear is that it is 3x the cost of other forms of power, and it takes ~20 years to plan, site and build a new plant.  That's a reason that repowering older power plants makes sense, because the cost is similar but the planning stage is greatly shortened.  The site is already approved, the infrastructure already exists and the studies have been completed.  I could see it taking 2-3 years instead of the usual 20 to get a repowered nuclear plant working.

In 2013 SC closed Canadys, a coal plant, with 3 units that had a total of 470 MW output. During that period they also closed  two coal units at McMeekin Station (converted them to gas) that had a 270 MW output. It was done to help manage the politics to push the AP1000 nuclear construction project that eventually failed.

The Canadys site is now proposed for a 1,020 MW gas turbine. It will be interesting to see if it's built. The regulators have approved it but there's more approvals to go. They need a larger natural gas pipeline to serve it. The enviros are screaming about the ACE basin area and other things. The public is scared because of the failure of the nuke project and how those costs were and still are being collected.

Fortunately this tech is well understood and much less risky to build than the AP1000. The site has all the required permits and the transmission system. The major hurdle is getting fuel. 

[olofscience 422]

On 3/29/2024 at 8:51 PM, billvon said:

and natural gas (eventually switching to biogas and syngas) for peaking.

Agree with most of your post except this, turbines take time to start and spin up. And every turbine start affects their lifetime. For peaking, grid-scale batteries have much faster response times and probably much lower total cost.

[ryoder 1,384]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Agree with most of your post except this, turbines take time to start and spin up. And every turbine start affects their lifetime. For peaking, grid-scale batteries have much faster response times and probably much lower total cost.

A natural gas peaking plant does not need to use turbines. There is a big one near me that uses natural gas piston engines:

https://www.power-technology.com/projects/plainsendnaturalgas/

[olofscience 422]

Piston engines are less efficient though. They'll have to throw away a lot of heat to avoid melting (note how much cooling water is mentioned in the link you provided)

However they do have the advantage of quicker start-up time than turbines. Still, grid-scale batteries are better.