|
ulmont posted:I’m not rejecting it, just pointing out that the insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Whether the issue is real or not is irrelevant if you can’t change it, and I’ve seen no evidence of change in favor of nuclear in the past 25 years in the US. You can't say we've been doing the same thing when we haven't built a new plant in 30 years. The insane thing would be to continue not building them and expecting anything to change.
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
ulmont posted:Call it whatever you want, there’s been no meaningful progress in the last 30 years in the US so you might want to consider plan B. Everyone knows that already, you're not actually adding anything by pointing that out. The only reason that nuclear power even came up was a poster suddenly showing up and stating all of the stupid reasons that they don't like nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I’m not rejecting it, just pointing out that the insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Whether the issue is real or not is irrelevant if you can’t change it, and I’ve seen no evidence of change in favor of nuclear in the past 25 years in the US. I don't really believe this thread's theory of why nuclear power isn't a more popular form of electricity generation in the US. Their theory is usually either: 1) well-intended, but ignorant environmentalist groups are controlling U.S. energy policy, which I find hard to believe because environmentalists don't really matter OR 2) the government nuclear regulatory agencies have been infiltrated by malicious actors. Theory 2) is more likely to be true IMO, but if it is true, it doesn't really bode well for this threads' almost constant call to have the government run all of the nuclear power plants and to have the government subsidize everybody's nuclear electricity bills. I think the reality is more like: nuclear electricity is expensive, complicated, prone to fuckups unless extreme care is taken and the plants are designed in a way such that they are extremely costly. It probably isn't the slam dunk technology everyone in this thread says it is, just being ~*misunderstood*~ by the US gov't.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
Nuclear is fine, but when Commie GR says poo poo like "Every nuclear power plant goes replaced by gas" when renewable have been 2/3rds of new power generation added the past few years is disingenuous, EDIT- to be clear nuclear is the absolute last thing that should be closed at this point, I'm just objecting to the idea that if you close one it's only replaced by fossil fuels, which the new data isn't supporting. Monaghan fucked around with this message at 00:09 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
The theory is the US government is completely captured by fossil fuel industry interests, op.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Nuclear is fine, but when Commie GR says poo poo like "Every nuclear power plant goes replaced by gas" when renewable have been 2/3rds of new power generation added the past few years is disingenuous, Didn't the plants Germany shut down get replaced mostly with fossil fuel?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
More people die per kwh from solar/wind/hydro and way more die from fossil fuels so if you're worried about kill counts nuclear is your choice.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
A big chunk of why nuclear isn't more popular in the US is that plants have a tendency to go over schedule and over budget. It might theoretically be feasible to change the regulatory landscape to change that fact, but it seems that the way plants get approved and permitted would need to be transformed entirely.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:A big chunk of why nuclear isn't more popular in the US is that plants have a tendency to go over schedule and over budget. At this point an overbudget nuclear plant should be viewed as a doe payment for the years of cheap dirty energy we've thrived on Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Didn't the plants Germany shut down get replaced mostly with fossil fuel? Yup, and it's stalled, and basically came out that shuttering the nuclear plants was corruption to push Nordstream 2 CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:56 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Didn't the plants Germany shut down get replaced mostly with fossil fuel? Since 2017/2018 more than 2/3rds of new power generation added had been renewable.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't really believe this thread's theory of why nuclear power isn't a more popular form of electricity generation in the US. It's because radioactive materials are both vastly misunderstood by the general public and vastly mischaracterized in entertainment. FreeKillB posted:A big chunk of why nuclear isn't more popular in the US is that plants have a tendency to go over schedule and over budget. Almost no one can tell you how much a nuclear power plant costs, or the average overage on them, or the names of projects that have gone over budget. Almost no one can name any of those energy disasters posted earlier, or the name of that town in PA that is atop a coal mine fire for the next two centuries. But if you say "Chernobyl" loving everyone knows exactly what you are talking about. That's why nuclear isn't popular.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Nuclear is fine, but when Commie GR says poo poo like "Every nuclear power plant goes replaced by gas" when renewable have been 2/3rds of new power generation added the past few years is disingenuous, I'm sorry this is not only untrue, its exactly the opposite. The assumption is, of course, you shutter a plant, you replace it with renewables. That hasn't happened. Indian Point is being replaced GW for GW by Natural Gas. California is brining in Diesel Gensets to make up the different to help fight brown outs. Germany is doubling down on Nordstream 2 and ALSO parking Diesel Generators in shuttered nuclear plant parking lots. Why? Because energy demand is still growing and Renewables is in no way making up the difference. Period.  Every. Nuclear. Plant. Shuttered. WILL. Be. Replaced. By. Fossil. Fuels. Period. There is no scenario where Renewables is going to match a nuclear plant being shut down Gigawatt for Gigawatt. Even worse, you are shuttering a low carbon power source for a medium to high carbon one, so you are actively making it worse. Germany is missing its emissions goals. France met theirs. Australia is now the largest Fossil exporter in the Pacific, larger than Qatar and is masking its Renewables/Battery plan with Fossil fuels. Hell, Germany is looking at pushing back their Lignite Coal EOL date. https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1395380202189033474?s=20 Renewables will be critical to decarbonizing, but anybody telling you they are replacing a Nuclear Plant is lying through their teeth. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:05 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
Again, if the technology only became cheaper the past 4 years to a point that it's now economical to shut down a plant and replace it with the cheaper option, why not do it? You putting in a 50 year graph. Well no poo poo, of course it makes solar replacing nuclear impossible. you.adding.periods.doesn't.make.you're.statement.correct. I made it clear, I don't want nuclear to be shut down, but your blanket statement that replacing nuclear with solar is impossible is untrue, given the worldwide trends in new power capacity and the falling costs of solar and wind.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Again, if the technology only became cheaper the past 4 years to a point that it's now economical to shut down a plant and replace it with the cheaper option, why not do it? You putting in a 50 year graph. Well no poo poo, of course it makes solar replacing nuclear impossible. Yes, because we're going to cheap our way out of our still growing fossil glut. That's not happening and again, I want you to point to a case where a nuclear plant was shuttered and successfully replaced with equal amounts of solar. Hasn't happened. They all get replaced by Fossil Fuels. Shuttering a nuclear plant because solar is cheap is basically a bait and switch to give the Natural Gas industry more fracking money. Monaghan posted:I made it clear, I don't want nuclear to be shut down, but your blanket statement that replacing nuclear with solar is impossible is untrue, given the worldwide trends in new power capacity and the falling costs of solar and wind. Solar and Wind are not replacing Nuclear Plants. They are being used as a way to get you onto Natural Gas. 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:12 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Again, if the technology only became cheaper the past 4 years to a point that it's now economical to shut down a plant and replace it with the cheaper option, why not do it? You putting in a 50 year graph. Well no poo poo, of course it makes solar replacing nuclear impossible. I suspect that CommieGIR's graph is not electricity and instead is all energy consumption. There are a lot of applications where fuel is much better than electricity, and it is hard to imagine his favorite technology, nuclear power, competing in those applications.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, because we're going to cheap our way out of our still growing fossil glut. That's not happening and again, I want you to point to a case where a nuclear plant was shuttered and successfully replaced with equal amounts of solar. gently caress it at this point I'm willing to dox myself or whatever that if any nuclear plants get shut down after 2025 they'll be replaced by renewables given the cost trends and adoption rates. For christ sake building solar plants is now cheaper than running existing coal plants in america. You know about the nuclear industry than me, but I can't think of any nuclear shutdowns that have occurred in the past 3 years or so.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:12
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:You know about the nuclear industry than me, but I can't think of any nuclear shutdowns that have occurred in the past 3 years or so. Indian Point just closed. Replaced with Natural Gas. Diablo Canyon is on the chopping block. It WILL be replaced with Natural Gas (since that is what California has done pretty much with all of its generating power). Illinois wants to shutter theirs as well. It will be replaced with natural gas. silence_kit posted:I suspect that CommieGIR's graph is not electricity and instead is all energy consumption. Try again   We're getting played by an industry screaming about how much cheaper they are to push us onto "Green Gas" Say hello to the new Clean Coal, Natural Gas. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:18 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
One issue is that even if shuttering a nuclear plant doesn't immediately lead to new gas buildout, it IS likely to increase the extent to which existing gas plants are dispatched. Ideally all gas plants would be running like 5-10% of the time (basically as peakers) but right now a lot of them are being run as baseload.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:One issue is that even if shuttering a nuclear plant doesn't immediately lead to new gas buildout, it IS likely to increase the extent to which existing gas plants are dispatched. Ideally all gas plants would be running like 5-10% of the time (basically as peakers) but right now a lot of them are being run as baseload. In most cases, obviously its not like they prop up a gas plant next door (except in Germany's case where they literally placed Diesel Generators in the parking lot to help provide baseload to the grid), but it increases the demand for new natural gas plants.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Indian Point just closed. Replaced with Natural Gas. Diablo Canyon is on the chopping block. It WILL be replaced with Natural Gas (since that is what California has done pretty much with all of its generating power). We'll see since you are speculating on Diablo Canyon and Illinois and the Indian Point closure was announced six years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
edit: double post
silence_kit fucked around with this message at 01:20 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
edit: None of your plots support your claim.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:We'll see since you are speculating on Diablo Canyon and Illinois and the Indian Point closure was announced six years ago. Indian Point shuttered April 30th of this year. That changes little that they decided to shutter it 6 years ago, because the impact is felt this year. I'm just gonna say it again: If you think we are digging out of the carbon hole by being cheap, I have a bridge to sell you, because that's not only not going to happen, its exactly what the Oil/Gas industry wants you to believe. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:21 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:None of your plots support your claim. Both of them demonstrate there is an increase overall in Natural Gas usage globally, and while that might be explained by increasing energy usage, you both claimed that closed plants and energy growth would be offset by renewables, that doesn't appear to be happening. https://twitter.com/nytclimate/status/1381567821604392964?s=20 CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:26 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:A big chunk of why nuclear isn't more popular in the US is that plants have a tendency to go over schedule and over budget. The solution is the government does stuff, specifically the government applies whatever pressure is necessary to force every nuclear supplier and operator to agree on one standard reactor design, build nothing else for the next two decades, and subsidise at whatever level guarantees that at least one reactor every 2 years starts construction. The first 2-3 builds will be AP1000/EPR style shitshows that go 5-10 billion dollars over budget. After that, the US will have actual nuclear construction companies with actually experienced nuclear construction workers and project managers who have encountered real world problems again, so dumb loving mistakes will decrease and economies of scale will start happening.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:23
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Hell, at this point the US government could literally just subsidise two dozen further AP1000s. Don't let this dumb loving reactor fizzle out, because while it's a dumb loving reactor, it's a dumb loving reactor that actually exists at Vogtle, has lessons learned from the money pit at VC Summer and has a supply chain which would completely die off before a better replacement reactor could be designed and approved. Of course in reality the US government is too chicken to actually put like 5-10 billion dollars a year on the line when it's for something useful instead of more F35s, so all we'll get is more coward friendly SMRs which look cheaper as a line item and can be funded in increments of a few hundred million. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 01:35 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:The solution is the government does stuff, specifically the government applies whatever pressure is necessary to force every nuclear supplier and operator to agree on one standard reactor design, build nothing else for the next two decades, and subsidise at whatever level guarantees that at least one reactor every 2 years starts construction. The first 2-3 builds will be AP1000/EPR style shitshows that go 5-10 billion dollars over budget. After that, the US will have actual nuclear construction companies with actually experienced nuclear construction workers and project managers who have encountered real world problems again, so dumb loving mistakes will decrease and economies of scale will start happening. Basically this. But that would be the smart thing to do, so it will not happen.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:however coal waste cleanup doesn’t require a team of anthropologists thinking about how we design a system that can communicate to people 20,000 years in the future to not dig here. This is a really good example of being propagandized. Why is this "required"?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 04:56
|
|
|
No functional nuke plant should be turned off until every gas/coal plant has been replaced with a renewable. That being said, the industry is it’s own worse enemy, I live in San Diego, the San Onofre plant was badly managed, breaking it was as stupid as it gets. Also I have a friend who worked on the construction and it was amazing they even got it to work. “What does this big N mean?”
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 05:08
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:The solution is the government does stuff, specifically the government applies whatever pressure is necessary to force every nuclear supplier and operator to agree on one standard reactor design, This is the stupidest loving thing ever. The government has no idea how to do this properly. Specify a carbon quota? Sure. Specify a the value of an emitted ton of CO2 and tax appropriately? Sure. Specify the One True Nuclear Plant design? No loving way. The government should be pre-approving sites to put plants. Saying "Go put a plant here, your site license is pre-approved." It doesn't need to and shouldn't be specifying a single plant design. Jesus Christ. Emissions standards for cars ? Sure. "This is the only car that can be built"? gently caress no. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 05:18 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 05:16
|
|
|
I'd be fine with Nissan Leafs being the only cars people could buy.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:I'd be fine with Nissan Leafs being the only cars people could buy. F150 Lightnings. Get it done
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 05:22
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This is the stupidest loving thing ever. The government has no idea how to do this properly. To be fair, he said he wanted the government to force standardisation (think how many power plants are allowed to decide their own frequency) rather than designing the standard. I don’t know but assume the French highly intensive phase of nuclear buildout would have been with fairly standardized designs.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 05:53
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Again, if the technology only became cheaper the past 4 years to a point that it's now economical to shut down a plant and replace it with the cheaper option, why not do it? You putting in a 50 year graph. Well no poo poo, of course it makes solar replacing nuclear impossible. CommieGIR's statement is correct because that's literally what the data shows. They're not saying that it's physically impossible, just that it hasn't happened in the past and that there's no indication that this is going to happen in the future. It's the political arm of the oil industry driving the reduction in nuclear power, not naive environmentalism Case in point, Germany has been one of the biggest proponents of green energy and was maybe the best-poised country to actually live up to the promise of replacing nuclear energy with green energy. They failed to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 06:01
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This is the stupidest loving thing ever. The government has no idea how to do this properly. South Korea did it just fine, for both the gen2 and the gen3, until their government went poof and got replaced by the current guy (since popular opinion is actually way more pro nuclear than him they'll probably resume within 1-2 electoral cycles). As a result, outside of China and Russia, South Korea is the one country where nuclear reactors get built on budget and on schedule. Also the idea is that every commercial reactor gets built to the same design. It'd be ok to run some competition or a literal coin flip to pick one type of reactor out of a pool of submissions as long as it's absolutely crystal clear that that's the only type of commercial reactor that will be subsidised for the next 20 years. If some idiot thinks their own big brain reactor is good enough to be built with zero subsidies then they're free to try, but when they run into the usual first of a kind construction problems they're on their own. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 10:04 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 10:00
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Didn't the plants Germany shut down get replaced mostly with fossil fuel? No, they didn't. Electricity generation from fossil fuels has decreased since 2011 both in total Wh and as a share of total generation. Here is the development since 1990. Red is nuclear power, everything below are fossil fuels, everything above are renewables  There is a surprising amount of misinformation and outright lies about Germany's nuclear phaseout online. The ultimate reason for why it happened in 2011 was that 80% of the population supported it and any attempt to slow down the phase out was just not tenable from a political standpoint.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 10:33
|
|
|
The only information you've shared on how electricity generation has changed over time is for New York State. The other plots you've wildly Googled don't really support your claim. I think you should address GABA ghoul's recent post, in which he claims that nuclear power plants are being replaced by renewables in Germany, and not fossil fuel or coal power plants. Edit: Here is a prediction from the EIA on US electricity generation, which is that renewables will become the most popular source of electricity in the US by 2030. Electricity generated from natural gas and nuclear power will mostly remain the same. Electricity generated from coal will be reduced.  source: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46676 I don't think New York State is representative of the US as a whole. Population growth in the US is primarily happening in states where solar is a more attractive source of electricity. Solar is predicted to be the fastest growing source of electricity in this plot. Edit2: If you compare old EIA predictions with newer ones, you'll find that when they revise their predictions, the trend is that they become more optimistic about renewables. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 12:02 on May 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 11:05
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:No, they didn't. Electricity generation from fossil fuels has decreased since 2011 both in total Wh and as a share of total generation. Here is the development since 1990. Red is nuclear power, everything below are fossil fuels, everything above are renewables It's a little hard to tell with stacked charts like this one, especially when it presents percentages rather than gross production, but if you investigate the numbers behind it (come on, you need to cite things like this; I had to reverse image search your graph) it's clear that the drop in nuclear from 2010-2012 (about 40 TWh) matches a sharp increase in electricity from coal (about 15 TWh). The remaining difference was made up by PV and wind, but 15 TWh of additional coal-based electricity is not a good thing. Germany has continued to reduce its fossil fuel consumption since then, but losing nearly 70 TWh of nuclear power hasn't helped them do that. That's the problem. Not that nuclear was replaced 1:1 by fossil fuels (it was not), but that losing a massive amount of nuclear power forced an immediate increase in coal consumption and significantly slowed their fossil fuel reduction in the long-term
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 11:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's a little hard to tell with stacked charts like this one, especially when it presents percentages rather than gross production, but if you investigate the numbers behind it (come on, you need to cite things like this; I had to reverse image search your graph) it's clear that the drop in nuclear from 2010-2012 (about 40 TWh) matches a sharp increase in electricity from coal (about 15 TWh). The remaining difference was made up by PV and wind, but 15 TWh of additional coal-based electricity is not a good thing. I agree with you in general. The accelerated phaseout was a mistake and I opposed it back then and still do. The problem is when people try to portrait it as some major ecological disaster (the short uptick in fossil fuel usage from nuclear plant shutdowns in 2011 was within the range of the usual year to year fluctuations). Fact is, nuclear energy in Germany is absolutely dead and it's never coming back. Renewables adoption has been a huge success and, at least for Germany, the only viable option moving forward. So I really don't get the obsessive need to try to discredit and badmouth the whole industry by spreading misinformation or spouting extremely outdated information (like overstating the need for storage, citing outdated carbon footprint data for PV or make false claims about grid stability). I see a lot of these stupid talking points trickle down into everyday political discourse and causing damage by driving scepticism of renewables expansion. It's bad enough when it was coming just from the right but now the left/greens are also joining the choir and it's just sad. I wish people would keep an open mind, fact check claims and try to keep up with development in the industry more.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
all of this has been posted before, all of this will be posted again
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 13:38
|
|
