It's not funny, and I'm not drunk.

And there you have it... the normal, emotive, short sighted response that blocks progress.

Cars were once “too expensive”. Immediate visual communications to almost anywhere on the planet was once not just “too expensive” but simply science fiction. Now we have video-calling phones in the hands of millions. And we could cite thousands of other technological innovations that were once “too expensive”.

I imagine the death of our worldwide ecosystem might be viewed as even more expensive while we had immediate remedies like nuclear power staring us in our faces all the while.

But if it’s on late night TV.... well, it must be true


Instagram: @uo_tdf and @4_Eff_Sake

 

But it has been tried... maybe you're too young to remember, but in the 60's nuclear was going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread; US and Europe built hundreds of nuclear power plants but now they're all coming to the end of their working life and the ECONOMIC decision is not to replace them. I really don't think this has anything to do with climate or anything else other than the NIMBY factor (which is pretty substantial for 3 little reasons - Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the Japanese place whose name I can't remember off hand!). China is still building new nuclear although the rate has slowed since 2015, if Wiki is correct.

 

Attitude is the difference between that sort of defeatist thinking and that of the great problem solvers like Thomas Edison who famously said,
“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
And
“Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.”

And nuclear power does work as the vast number of working reactors demonstrate. It just doesn’t suit your agenda.

You may as well say that people continue to die in motor vehicle accidents so we better ban cars. The logic is flawed.

Oh, and I’m 54


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm not the one making the decision not to replace these stations - ask the GMs why they're not viable anymore?

 

Come on ...... he gave his age ...... time to fess up to being as old as Giovanni

 

The cost of a nuclear power station ain't the nuclear power station - it's the paperwork. Imagine a truculent local council trying to block a property development, times a million. If the government spent their virtue signalling green energy money on nuclear, it would be really cheap. Fukushiima was at the end of its life and about to be replaced by a more modern nuclear power plant away from the ocean (forget the details). 21st century reactor designs are vastly superior, vastly cheaper, and vastly safer.

 

Nuclear energy is a growing industry, contrary to what the "environmental" propaganda machine would have you believe. The decision shut down reactors in Germany was purely politcal, they are buying their power from France ( who generate 72% from nuclear and have really cheap power !)

Power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, with about 50 reactors under construction, with most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though there are major plans for new units in Russia. Also significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading and plant lifetime extension programmes are maintaining capacity, particularly in the USA.
Currentlty there are about 450 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries with a combined capacity of about 400 GWe. In 2017 these provided 2506 billion kWh, over 10% of the world's electricity. About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 15 countries notably China, India, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.

Each year, the OECD's International Energy Agency (IEA) sets out the present situation as well as reference and other – particularly carbon reduction – scenarios. In the 2018 edition of its World Energy Outlook report, the IEA's 'New Policies Scenario' sees installed nuclear capacity growth of 25% from 2016 (about 414 GWe) to 2040 (about 518 GWe). The scenario envisages a total generating capacity of 12,466 GWe by 2040, with the increase concentrated heavily in Asia, and in particular China (34% of the total). In this scenario, nuclear's contribution to global power generation is about 10% in 2040.

In the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. These included 47 in the USA, 42 in France and 18 in Japan. These were fairly large – the average rated power was 923.5 MWe. With China and India's nuclear sectors growing, it is not hard to imagine a similar rate of reactor construction in the years ahead.

In all, about 150 power reactors with a total gross capacity of about 160,000 MWe are on order or planned, and about 300 more are proposed. Most reactors currently planned are in the Asian region, with fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.

Increased nuclear capacity in some countries is resulting from the uprating of existing plants. This is a highly cost-effective way of bringing on new capacity. Numerous power reactors in the USA, Switzerland, Spain, Finland, and Sweden, for example, have had their generating capacity increased.

In the USA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved more than 140 uprates totalling over 6500 MWe since 1977, a few of them 'extended uprates' of up to 20%.

In Switzerland, all operating reactors have had uprates, increasing capacity by 13.4%.

Spain has had a programme to add 810 MWe (11%) to its nuclear capacity through upgrading its nine reactors by up to 13%. Most of the increase is already in place. For instance, the Almarez nuclear plant was boosted by 7.4% at a cost of $50 million.

Finland boosted the capacity of the original Olkiluoto plant by 29% to 1700 MWe. This plant started with two 660 MWe Swedish BWRs commissioned in 1978 and 1980. The Loviisa plant, with two VVER-440 reactors, has been uprated by 90 MWe (18%).

Sweden's utilities have uprated three plants. The Ringhals plant was uprated by about 305 MWe over 2006-14. Oskarshamn 3 was uprated by 21% to 1450 MWe at a cost of €313 million. Forsmark 2 had a 120 MWe uprate (12%) to 2013.

M

 

Do a bit of research before waffling on

 

That’s interesting.

What is the source please?

 

Tomato.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

No, I think I’ll get my facts from @wrxmike. He seems a lot better researched and informed than your speculative assertions

Nice work, Mike


Instagram: @uo_tdf and @4_Eff_Sake

 

Mike quoted his sources by succinctly embedding the URL links in each country name, so you can click them and go to the background info that way


Instagram: @uo_tdf and @4_Eff_Sake

 

Ahhh.

Gotcha.

 

Yeah, right.


Sent from my iPad using FerrariChat

 

So why is China reducing its program? No political pressure on them...

 

Ahh but how many actually READ Mike's links:
USA - "2 new nuclear stations are expected to open after 2020 following 16 approvals granted in 2007"... then pop down to bullit point 5 which talks about the falling viability due to lower gas prices among other things.

 

So you’re trying to win your argument about not using nuclear power instead of green energy sources by pointing to decreasing gas prices??

You’re really grasping, aren’t you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A nuclear power plant could be constructed in well under a year - hell, anything can. During WWII, they were building liberty ships every 4 days. Clear the red tape and see what can happen.

 

And have another OPAL tower situation ???

 

Nothing wrong with opal towers....It's the ground that cracked....Just ask the builder...

 

We'll exclude Chinese involvement

 

Not trying to 'win' anything - just pointing out the facts of the article which, as is often the case, didn't match with the headline. Like I said in the beginning of this discussion, the decisions are not being made by either side of the theoretical debate, rather just by the producers themselves based on plain old economics.

 

PI insurers are taking a flogging at present - Lacrosse decision moved most of the liability from builder to architect, certifier and fire engineer in ascending order of blame.

 

Bloody architects.

Sorry Karen.

 

Most often said line of an architecture graduate.....”would you like fries with that?”


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat