Those who want to burn it all down are those who want to live in “The Farmhouse”.
They don’t care about the rest of us “animals” beyond how we can be used to get them there.
MyUsername
May 24, 2024 6:13 am
The real joke is thinking nuclear power has a future.
They definitly do great on power point presentations, lofty promises and in political speeches…in reality – not so much. Especially in the west and outside of dictatorships.
Taken from France bets link February 2024. Europe decided that wind is so wonderful that cost doesn’t matter:(significantly abbreviated)
copy
The European Parliament and the Council reached a final agreement on the Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA).
At the heart of the NZIA deal is the design of wind energy auctions.
Europe is taking another decisive step away from price-only auctions towards auctions that award those projects that create the most value for society.
Europe wants and needs to strengthen its domestic clean tech manufacturing. The EU wants to have 420 GW of wind energy installed by 2030, up from 220 GW today.
Don’t feed the troll. MyUserName is an obvious propagandist for the worst sorts of green neo-colonialists. Every post it makes contains at least one flagrant and major lie.It doesn’t matter to this piece of garbage that every one of the policies it advocates will result in greater poverty, shorter lifespans for everyone. Whoever this slime is should have to live in the world for which it campaigns.
Thebuletin.org interview with Schneider should be followed up with another equally biased interview with Al Gore to assure their readers that the Bulletin is unwavering in their anti-nuclear stance. This one remark tells everything anyone needs to know about Schneider (Serious TDS infliction). He thinks the COP 28 triple nuclear pledge isn’t feasible, but not a peep about the feasibility of Europe doubling wind in six years:
Copy (abbreviated)
Diaz-Maurin: If it’s not feasible, does the nuclear pledge impede other climate actions that are urgently needed then?
Schneider: That’s a good question. I think it’s a terrible signal, indeed. It’s like Trumpism enters energy policy: It’s a pledge that has nothing to do with reality, and it doesn’t matter. It is giving you the impression that it is feasible, that it is possible.
Press release New nuclear power plant earmarked for North WalesWylfa in Anglesey is the government’s preferred site for a large-scale gigawatt nuclear power plant.
no, the real joke are idiots that in the past shut down the Nuclear power plan because of a fear that they would all meltdown and irradiate us all. The Tennessee Valley Authority had planned for 17 nuclear units( many of which were under construction), these ere to virtually eliminate coal fired units, but because idiots like Jimmy Carter said ‘we don’t need nuclear power. as of now TVA has 8 units running, and all doing well. As a side note I worked for TVA at a nuclear plant for more than 25 years. It is time for stupidity to end!!!!
Carter, primarily training as an instructor to teach nuclear plant operating personnel, is hardly “work as a nuclear engineer.” Carter did graduate from a 3-year navy nuclear engineering program created to provide instructors for nuclear submarine operators.
Dems like to consider Carter a qualified nuclear engineer, but as always that’s another lie. Training for a few months, to help operate a nuclear sub, and then working as an instructor teaching nuclear plant operating personnel, is hardly “work as a nuclear engineer”.
One month after joining the nuclear reactor branch, the very junior newly minted lieutenant Carter led a team of men who, after formulating a plan, descended into a highly radioactive site for 90 seconds apiece to perform specialized tasks.
Carter’s job, according to the CBC recounting, was simply to turn a single screw.
Background
Carter graduated from the Naval Academy in 1946 and served in several capacities before moving to a nuclear submarine startup program… from 3 November 1952 to 1 March 1953, he served on temporary duty with the Naval Reactors Branch, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., to assist “in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels.”
Timeline 4 months in the nuclear reactor branch of AEC, obviously essentially in an early stage of receiving training. There’s Carter’s engineering career.
I don’t think so. He got a Bachelor of Science from the Naval Academy. He went to work on submarines so he was around nuclear power but I see no mention of a degree in nuclear engineering.
Without massive state founding they would have never gotten anything build anyways. Or researched. The whole history of nuclear power is countries pursuing their military targets hiding behind civil nuclear to fool taxpayers.
Why do you think Iran or North Korea have such a hard time getting their hands on civil reactors?
Could it have something to do with the fact that both are rogue ideological states on record as intending to obliterate their declared enemies – the democratic nations of Israel and the US?
According to the World Nuclear Association there are 440 operating NP stations worldwide and 61 reactors currently under construction in China, India, Turkey, Egypt, Russia, UK, South Korea, Japan, Bangladesh and Ukraine.
So far this year there have been 10 construction starts – 7 in China, 2 in Egypt and 1 in Russia.
You shouldn’t believe everything that Mycle Shneider says about nuclear power. By the way I have met and talked with him in the past – have you?
You may not, but I see plenty of discussion of the economics of nuclear. We know that the USA used to build them fast and economically and that France and South Korea continued to do so for much longer. The cost of nuclear could be cut by 75% to 90% by removing insane regulations.
Yes, that’s how stupid the climate hysterics are. We have the choice between proven technology that delivers reliable power versus unreliable, so-called renewable technology that depends on the weather. Dumbasses.
Like China and India, the Saudis are not ideologically (illogically) driven by what they use as electricity sources.
If wind and solar can be useful as supplemental power sources, they’ll use them.
But these nations are primarily intent on having ABUNDANT, RELIABLE electricity for all their requirements – domestic and industrial.
Over-reliance on wind & solar will not see them meet their national aspirations for higher standards of living for their citizens.
They can read performance / productivity reports for wind & solar (just as anyone not hobbled by ideology can), and they can see that w & s alone cannot be relied upon.
No matter how “cheap” they are made out to be.
(and remember that sage advice – “you get what you pay for” )
I like these guys getting wet panties when looking at a windmill or a solar panel believing they save the world building another one.
That’s more than a Friday fun, it’s daily fun, morning to evening 😀
Who needs nuke energy when you have plenty of NG like we do in PA and NY. The problem of cheap NG is a political problem not a tech problem. Nukes will not solve either the cheap energy problem nor the political problem holding up the supply and access of NG. Build the nuke plants were they don’t have access to NG or simply increase the access of NG to those areas.
NG vs Nuke is no more an environmental issue than any other energy input including renewables. So if the environmental issue is moot and the capital costs for building new Nuke plants is very high, then what is left for the cheap energy problem?….. nothing but a political problem not a tech problem!
Renewables create an expensive energy problem due to huge tech problems and clear environmental problems and is pushed by the political problem. Solve the tech issue and maybe some renewables become less of an environmental problem and become market competitive input for electrical generation but we ain’t anywhere close.
NG only has a political problem impairing supply and access, but it does solve the cheap energy problem
Nuke has a big capital outlay cost problem and a political problem due to the same radical environmentalists impair the supply and access to NG, and nuke power will never solve the cheap energy problem.
Please someone give me clue me into the why WUWT is pushing nuke power in the US. Give me the sound argument not troll clamor.
For instance, why would Iran who has massive reserves of NG and oil even consider building nuke power plants?….makes no sense right! They build them for political purposes to keep the world worried about creating atomic bombs and eventually to build one to terrorize whomever. Again nuke power to solve a political problem.
We don’t need to solve political problems with nuke power, we ain’t Iran. We have enough oil and NG to be energy independent well into the future when better tech may arrive like fusion, viable SCMES, more efficient grid or decentralized grid etc. No need to panic and spend billions of tax payors money on nuke power when we don’t need to.
The amount of electricity used by the average citizen of the USA during their entire lifetime could be supplied by a quantity of nuclear fuel that would fit inside a soda can. The USA has abundant quantities of uranium for conventional reactors, and thorium for molten salt reactors. The amount of thorium in just one known domestic deposit could power this nation for hundreds of years. And the more electricity we generate with nuclear reactors, the more oil and gas we have to make plastics and petrochemicals.
Understand Nuke power works. I have no problem with nuke power per se other than in many cases it isn’t the cheapest option due to high capital costs. NG is a cheaper choice especially if the political problem is solved.
Why go nuke the more expensive option to solve a political problem with it has the same political problem as NG
Nuclear power is an expensive work-around-alternate because the greenies have convinced the politicians that fossil fuels will kill us. It is expensive because greenies have convinced politicians that nuclear requires excessive onerous regulation because it will kill us.
All you are demonstrating is that you have no idea as to why nuclear power generation was built in the first place and why it continues to be built today.Here’s a hint for all the pinheads at the back of the class: nuclear power generation started being built long before the ‘greenes’ existed.
Troll ad hominem attack! Everyone is stupid about something…give it break. The argument here is the contemporary Hydrocarbon fuel vs Nuke in terms of the cheap energy option… not environmental. I grew up in the Nuclear Navy and have no green leanings I have cheap energy leanings.
Nuke with it’s high capital cost in only the cheaper option where there is little access to NG.. US has massive hydrocarbon fuel reserves especially NG….especially where I live in PA where NG is a cheaper option than nuke power. Ancient history has no comment because it says nothing about the cheap energy imperative of today. I have no problem with nuke power except why replace the cheaper NG with nuke especially in NY, PA, TX, OK, ND, NJ, New England, MD, DEL, NJ, VA, mid west where is plenty of access to cheap NG?
Thanks understood. Still both problems are political problems. Nuke and NG has the same political problem. Nuke is in most cases the more expensive option so why go nuke.
It’s the capital costs that makes nuke not a cheap energy option. Solve the political problem holding NG back, and you have the cheapest energy solution.
The mean greenies make nuke too expensive and want to curtail the supply of NG.
Which political problem has a better chance of being solved first…. if neither, then why replace NG with the more expensive nuke option as it exists now. If he nuke political problem is more likely to be solved soon and reduces the capital costs making it cheaper option than NG, then I will switch my motto from Frack on to Nuke on. I live in PA where there is massive shale NG So I have to be loyal to my local community….so for now “it’s frack on”.
Well, TBF, I didn’t want to give certain someone any attention, but there is a genuine economic issue to nuclear energy. It’s only an issue because those politics come first and cause that economic problem, but it is an impact on the wallet of any potential investors that cannot be denied or ignored. If anyone has $1B and wants to build a power plant, you can permit and build a gas plant in less than half the time a nuke can do the same. That’s a much sooner payback to put income in the investor’s wallet, a quicker payback of any loans, and less time something can go wrong which reduces overall risk of the investment. The cause of the delays are mostly regulatory and due to an over abundance of caution, i.e. kinda political, but we can’t pretend the way forward is entirely once the political element is mitigated. Which comes first the political solution or the investment solution?
Nuclear has been made ridiculously expensive by excessive and useless overregulation. If the government got the hell out of the way, we could have new nuclear coming online in 12 months, tops, fueled entirely from fuel mined and processed entirely within the United States, and it would still be the safest form of energy production.
Red94ViperRT10, the NRC is not going away. Not now, not next week, not next month, not ever.
On the regulation side of the nuclear industry house, the ongoing challenge is to redirect the NRC’s mission back towards its original focus on basic nuclear safety issues and on better management of nuclear quality assurance requirements — as opposed to the NRC’s current emphasis on Linear No Threshold (LNT) regulation and on As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) regulation.
The Congress voted in 2020 to direct the NRC to develop a new set of regulation standards which better fit the true needs of the oncoming 4th Generation advanced reactors in the area of basic nuclear safety. And to reduce the NRC’s emphasis on LNT and ALARA.
What the NRC did instead was to spend four years repackaging the existing light water reactor regulations in a way which thwarts the intent of the Congress to streamline the NRC’s regulation processes.
And so the long-fought battle to eliminate LNT-focused regulation and ALARA-focused regulation from the NRC’s regulatory approach continues. The Breakthrough Institute is one of the leaders in pushing a policy of streamlining the NRC’s regulatory methods and means.
As I see it, a major shakeup in the ranks of the NRC’s senior and middle management is needed if the major redirection of agency’s regulatory focus which was legislated in 2020 by the Congress is to be achieved.
The one thing you can count one is that the Mean Greenies don’t want consumers to have cheap energy regardless of the input and politicians will leverage it for tax dollars and power all day long.
I am all for deregulating Nuke power to make it the cheapest option…. why not. Until then don’t build the plants and stick with NG.
The problem is politicizing energy inputs. This should be a market decision only but in the day where people want to control all markets to garner tax dollar and power…forget about
it.
Energy inputs: if all things being equal regarding costs, (production, sane environment regulation etc) then who cares what the input is if the input is the cheapest option being the greatest value to the consumer.
COAL is what should be being used where it is available, which means a large percentage of countries around the world.
A modern coal fired power plant has all the factors needed to provide for modern society.
It even produces CO2 plant-growth gas as a huge bonus.
GAS should be the number 2 option….. cover those high peaks in demand
HYDRO where it can be done with reliable enough rainfall and steep terrain.
NUCLEAR. used where the above are not a viable or economical option.
Wind and solar.. for out of the way niche uses..
…NEVER connected to the grid in any quantity, because they immediately introduce imbalances and instability which cost a lot of money to counteract.
The big problem with nuclear power occurred due to the USSR vs USA cold war.
We ended up with MAD.
But we eliminated reprocessing spend fuel rods and breeder reactors due to plutonium being refined as a side effect.
We did not want weapons grade plutonium to get into the wrong hands.
Guess what? The cat is out of the bag so the whole real scare around nuclear power is no longer a future concern.
You are absolutely right there no technical economic or environmental need for nuclear generation in the US for at least the next 50 years because of our abundant natural gas reserves and our incredibly efficient CCGT’s.
But there is a $trillion dollars need to placate those low information voters who insist that the government do something to save them and the planet from plant food (CO2). The inflationary consequence of trying to power our Country on sunshine and breezes is destroying our economy. Those low information voters need a functional alternative “net-zero” carbon source. It’s not technical it’s political but it is totally real.
To add to the general Friday mirthiness, I’d like to propose an alternative way to deal with the evil CO2 molecule.
As the root of the problem is the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, not necessarily the amount, I propose we hit up Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or NASA to fund a special automated mining operation on Saturn’s moon Titan. Titan has a nitrogen-rich atmosphere, which could be processed by freezing it into a (relatively) small sphere using the natural low temperature of space, and launching it at Earth, where it will melt on re-entry and add to the atmosphere – thus driving down the overall percentage of CO2 and saving humanity from the certain doom of oversized houseplants.
Problem solved. No need for wind turbines or solar panels, and we can burn as much oil and gas as we want – just need to up the frequency of delivery of nitrogen from Titan to compensate. Plus an orbital platform around Titan could double as an observatory.
For those that may have missed this tidbit about SMRs I posted 2 days ago –
Excerpted from the recent Canadian Defence Force’s “NORAD modernization and the North” Plan –
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for the Canadian Arctic in order to provide the clean energy necessary to support NORAD modernization and to stabilize local energy infrastructure needs, supply clean, firm, dispatchable power and heat in extreme conditions, with years in between refuelling.
Ticks all the boxes, doesn’t it?
Beta Blocker
May 24, 2024 11:29 am
Going with nuclear power is strictly a public policy decision. We buy nuclear because we value its energy security and reliability benefits, and because we are willing to pay the necessary cost premium of nuclear over gas-fired in order to gain those energy security and reliability benefits.
The Georgia PSC’s decision to allow construction of Vogtle 3 & 4 to continue in the face of steeply rising project costs and a lengthening project completion schedule is an example of this kind of public policy decision.
It was clearly evident in 2012 and 2013 that major cost growth problems were occurring at Vogtle 3 & 4; and further, that the Georgia PSC knew that such problems were occurring. What was also clearly evident was that the Georgia PSC had made a policy decision to support Vogtle 3 & 4 almost regardless of what the project might eventually cost.
The Georgia PSC made a conscious decision to emphasize energy reliability and security over energy cost. Time will tell whether or not the PSC’s decison was a wise decision.
France in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s is the most prominent example of an entire nation which makes a clear, unambiguous decision to rely on nuclear power as a means of ensuring energy security and reliability.
A perceived need for maintaining energy security and reliability is also why France does its own nuclear fuel reprocessing as a means of closing the nuclear fuel cycle within its own borders, thus reducing the risk that supplies of nuclear fuel might be disrupted.
What about the future of nuclear in France? If you are a public policy decison maker in France, is there a case to be made for France to build more reactors within its own borders and to export any excess electricty to the energy-starved nations of Europe?
Maybe yes, maybe no. The problem is that construction of a new-build nuclear power plant, either in Europe or in America, is four to six times more expensive than it was forty years ago.
Over-regulation is not the main cause of this recent cost growth. It is the lack of a robust nuclear construction industrial base combined with ever-rising costs for the industrial resources and industrial commodities needed to construct any large complex industrial facility, not just a nuclear facility.
Much truth to this.
This cartoon is too close to truth to be funny.
The “Duck Test” says that’s what’s going on.
They really do want to burn it all down, they think that is being Robin Hood somehow.
They may want us to think that, but no.
Not Robin Hood.
The Sheriff of Nottingham.
Steal from poor to give to the rich.
Those who want to burn it all down are those who want to live in “The Farmhouse”.
They don’t care about the rest of us “animals” beyond how we can be used to get them there.
The real joke is thinking nuclear power has a future.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide#:~:text=About%2060%20reactors%20are%20under,by%20old%20plants%20being%20retired.
Nuclear is doing well.
They definitly do great on power point presentations, lofty promises and in political speeches…in reality – not so much. Especially in the west and outside of dictatorships.
France is a dictatorship? That’s news to me.
How much of new capacity is France building? How did EDFs latest projects go?
France bets on large volumes of offshore wind energy
https://www.evwind.es/2024/05/22/france-bets-on-large-volumes-of-offshore-wind-energy/98628
Nuclear expert Mycle Schneider on the COP28 pledge to triple nuclear energy production: ‘Trumpism enters energy policy’
https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneider-on-the-cop28-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-energy-production-trumpism-enters-energy-policy/
Taken from France bets link
February 2024. Europe decided that wind is so wonderful that cost doesn’t matter:(significantly abbreviated)
copy
The European Parliament and the Council reached a final agreement on the Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA).
At the heart of the NZIA deal is the design of wind energy auctions.
Europe is taking another decisive step away from price-only auctions towards auctions that award those projects that create the most value for society.
Europe wants and needs to strengthen its domestic clean tech manufacturing. The EU wants to have 420 GW of wind energy installed by 2030, up from 220 GW today.
German Angst of coming tsunamies was the reason to stop nuclear power. Nothing else at first view.
Bad, ill, crazy.
Germany was on the way to end nuclear before.
Totally political from far-left idiots.
Now they use lots of coal. ! lol !
Yes, the idiots have been controlled by the deep greens for longer than other countries.
In France, windpower is declared as illegal, time to use the judge words as precedent worldwide.
You spelled it wrong, it is NAZI!!!
What’s about GB ?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nuclear-power-for-70-years-to-create-jobs-reduce-bills-and-strengthen-britains-energy-security
I say nothing but lofty plans, we’ll see.
NET Zero is THE “lofty plan”…….
Wind and solar are the only lofty and incredibly stupid meme.
They are not even a plan ! Certainly not one that can EVER actually work.
Don’t feed the troll. MyUserName is an obvious propagandist for the worst sorts of green neo-colonialists. Every post it makes contains at least one flagrant and major lie.It doesn’t matter to this piece of garbage that every one of the policies it advocates will result in greater poverty, shorter lifespans for everyone. Whoever this slime is should have to live in the world for which it campaigns.
If you can’ handle the truth just declare it a lie.
Funny how everything that runs contrary to what you have been told to believe, is a lie.
You haven’t said the truth at any point..
You are a LIE. !
Thank you! I totally agree. Down-vote and move on.
Copy (abbreviated)
Diaz-Maurin: If it’s not feasible, does the nuclear pledge impede other climate actions that are urgently needed then?
MUN,
your information is out of date.
They are planning a further 14 new nuclear stations.
https://www.barrons.com/news/france-to-build-beyond-planned-six-new-nuclear-plants-50e18170
With all due respect, please don’t feed the troll. Down-vote and otherwise ignore Lusername.
Yet it condemns itself with every comment.
Is there anything you believe that is actually true?
Press release New nuclear power plant earmarked for North WalesWylfa in Anglesey is the government’s preferred site for a large-scale gigawatt nuclear power plant.
Published 22 May 2024
And why has nuclear not been adopted far more (outside of France and South Korea)? Because of people like you?
So hilarious watching the Luser emulate the ultra-leftist in the cartoon.
Proving just how close the cartoon is to reality.
Well done the Luser ! 🙂
It should change its user id to “can’t stand nuclear!”
To “can’t stand humanity” !
More Communism Now would be most accurate.
Ignore the troll.
no, the real joke are idiots that in the past shut down the Nuclear power plan because of a fear that they would all meltdown and irradiate us all. The Tennessee Valley Authority had planned for 17 nuclear units( many of which were under construction), these ere to virtually eliminate coal fired units, but because idiots like Jimmy Carter said ‘we don’t need nuclear power. as of now TVA has 8 units running, and all doing well. As a side note I worked for TVA at a nuclear plant for more than 25 years. It is time for stupidity to end!!!!
I seem to recall Jimmy Carter had a degree in nuclear engineering.
If true, then truly ironic.
Joe Biden remembers when he and Jimmy Carter designed, planned, built and operated those 17 nuclear plants in Tennessee.
Just the 2 of them did it. No joke.
Al Gore didn’t do that?
Al might have been identifying as Jimmy at the time.
Al is quite the chameleon when personal fortune and fame are in prospect.
He might have been busy creating the internet.
Crooked Joe: Come on, man! We didn’t do that.
Hahahahaha! As if.
You really need someone like AOC.
She would be your perfect partner.
A mindless, clueless, mouthy, very-low-IQ idiot.
You are just envious she wouldn’t even look at someone like you.
I wouldn’t want her to.
A cackle-mind… well-suited to a gormless twerp like you.
I would want someone with more intelligence than a munted gnat !!
You however would place her on a pedestal, so low on the ladder of humanity that you are.
He was raised in a nuclear power plant. But he got oil cancer and realized how bad that was.
How well he remembers when he was Vice President during Covid, Obama sent him to Berlin to thank the Führer for closing those last nuclear plants.
Carter, primarily training as an instructor to teach nuclear plant operating personnel, is hardly “work as a nuclear engineer.” Carter did graduate from a 3-year navy nuclear engineering program created to provide instructors for nuclear submarine operators.
Dems like to consider Carter a qualified nuclear engineer, but as always that’s another lie. Training for a few months, to help operate a nuclear sub, and then working as an instructor teaching nuclear plant operating personnel, is hardly “work as a nuclear engineer”.
One month after joining the nuclear reactor branch, the very junior newly minted lieutenant Carter led a team of men who, after formulating a plan, descended into a highly radioactive site for 90 seconds apiece to perform specialized tasks.
Carter’s job, according to the CBC recounting, was simply to turn a single screw.
Background
Carter graduated from the Naval Academy in 1946 and served in several capacities before moving to a nuclear submarine startup program… from 3 November 1952 to 1 March 1953, he served on temporary duty with the Naval Reactors Branch, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., to assist “in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels.”
Timeline 4 months in the nuclear reactor branch of AEC, obviously essentially in an early stage of receiving training. There’s Carter’s engineering career.
I don’t think so. He got a Bachelor of Science from the Naval Academy. He went to work on submarines so he was around nuclear power but I see no mention of a degree in nuclear engineering.
No, the real joke is how any discussion of economics disappears when it’s green energy.
Or nuclear. So they seem to have something in common after all 😛
It’s basically the NRC issuing costly regulations that have nothing to do with safety.
Without massive state founding they would have never gotten anything build anyways. Or researched. The whole history of nuclear power is countries pursuing their military targets hiding behind civil nuclear to fool taxpayers.
Why do you think Iran or North Korea have such a hard time getting their hands on civil reactors?
Could it have something to do with the fact that both are rogue ideological states on record as intending to obliterate their declared enemies – the democratic nations of Israel and the US?
You have no idea, what subsidies are necessary to push wind and solar?
Billions if not Trillions.
And paid by customers.
Same with nuclear
https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/subsidies-in-the-u-s-for-fossil-fuels-nuclear-vs-renewables/
The HUGE difference, is that once nuclear is built..
… IT PROVIDES STABLE ELECTRICITY !
Nuclear actually does something. MORON!
According to the World Nuclear Association there are 440 operating NP stations worldwide and 61 reactors currently under construction in China, India, Turkey, Egypt, Russia, UK, South Korea, Japan, Bangladesh and Ukraine.
So far this year there have been 10 construction starts – 7 in China, 2 in Egypt and 1 in Russia.
You shouldn’t believe everything that Mycle Shneider says about nuclear power. By the way I have met and talked with him in the past – have you?
And how much massive state funding has gone into wind turbines and solar power? How would either survive without that state financing?
“Without massive state f
ounding they would have never gotten anything build anyways.”You are talking about ALL wind and solar now… correct ?
You do know they wouldn’t be build except for the scam of massive subsidies for erratic supply.
What stops a NP plant to work ?
Storm, no wind, hail, snow, tornado, no sun ?
You know what stops to work. Right, wind and solar plants.
Not enough water, or too much heat- see France a while ago.
Compare the numbers, compare the results.
Any destructed NP plant ? No.
Will you see a collection of destructed “renewables” ?
Yeah, destroyed NP help with renaturation. And I’d rather have renewables in a war zone when it comes to destruction.
I’d rather not have a war zone.
But then you are an ultra-leftist moron…
… to you, war is just another “must-have”.
Glad to see you still have no clue about political ideologies.
Your idiotology is left of Genghis Khan…
A total war-mongering totalitarian, with a deep hatred of humanity and human progress.
I understand you completely.
You may not, but I see plenty of discussion of the economics of nuclear. We know that the USA used to build them fast and economically and that France and South Korea continued to do so for much longer. The cost of nuclear could be cut by 75% to 90% by removing insane regulations.
Yes, that’s how stupid the climate hysterics are. We have the choice between proven technology that delivers reliable power versus unreliable, so-called renewable technology that depends on the weather. Dumbasses.
Even Rosatom is building wind energy now
Saudi Arabia goes renewable too
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/renewables/saudi-oil-prices-believe-it-or-not-even-in-saudi-arabia-renewable-power-is-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels/articleshow/110358786.cms?from=mdr
I guess they too have climate hysterics?
Funny how those on the left actually believe that government mandates is how the market works.
Lefts and market ??
You are funny 😀
Like China and India, the Saudis are not ideologically (illogically) driven by what they use as electricity sources.
If wind and solar can be useful as supplemental power sources, they’ll use them.
But these nations are primarily intent on having ABUNDANT, RELIABLE electricity for all their requirements – domestic and industrial.
Over-reliance on wind & solar will not see them meet their national aspirations for higher standards of living for their citizens.
They can read performance / productivity reports for wind & solar (just as anyone not hobbled by ideology can), and they can see that w & s alone cannot be relied upon.
No matter how “cheap” they are made out to be.
(and remember that sage advice –
“you get what you pay for” )
And a ready market in Europe for the things mean they can turn a profit if they can sell there.
What else ?
And cash from subsidies
I like these guys getting wet panties when looking at a windmill or a solar panel believing they save the world building another one.
That’s more than a Friday fun, it’s daily fun, morning to evening 😀
Somebody built a windmill in the desert.
That obviously completely refutes my contention that renewables are unreliable, expensive and weather dependent.
I was told that they generate enough heat there to keep the workers warm in winter.
India’s Electricity generation… COAL and more COAL..
… with massive growth in COAL since 2020.
Hysterical climate idiots do not hold sway in India.
NO, renewables are NEVER cheaper…. because they cannot guarantee supply..
… and they add greatly to the costs of grid stability.
They are a parasite, a burden on the grid, causing electricity prices to increase rapidly as they infect the host.
Yeah but how significant is India or China? How about in a major country like the UK or Luxembourg?
LOL.. One wind turbine..
Let’s have a look at Saudi Energy consumption, shall we.
Can you see wind or solar anywhere ???
You have been FOOLED by propaganda… as always.
“You have been FOOLED by propaganda”
It was not fooled by the propaganda; it embraced it.
Today we had zero sun and zero wind. What should we use?
Ignore..don’t make eye contact..
I knew I have sexy irresistible eyes 👁️👁️
Your eyes are hidden by blinkers.
blindfolds !!
AI trollbots don’t have eyes actually. How about we stop feeding the troll?
It is interesting that you believe you know what you are talking about.
MUN is, as my old Chief used to say, a horrible little man, thick as two short planks.
As of a report from August 2023, China had 21 nuclear reactors under construction, which will have a capacity for generating 21.61 gigawatts of electricity1. Additionally, the country’s energy regulator, the National Energy Administration, is expected to set the country’s nuclear capacity target to 120-150 gigawatts by 2030, up from about 38 gigawatts in 20172.
You think reality is funny?
Nuclear has a bright future. It’s wind and solar that have failed completely.
And so, in your esteemed opinion, what is the future for energy?
Wind and solar have a future.
… as landfill !!
It would be good to put the cartoonist’s name on the image in case we pass it along.
Who needs nuke energy when you have plenty of NG like we do in PA and NY. The problem of cheap NG is a political problem not a tech problem. Nukes will not solve either the cheap energy problem nor the political problem holding up the supply and access of NG. Build the nuke plants were they don’t have access to NG or simply increase the access of NG to those areas.
NG vs Nuke is no more an environmental issue than any other energy input including renewables. So if the environmental issue is moot and the capital costs for building new Nuke plants is very high, then what is left for the cheap energy problem?….. nothing but a political problem not a tech problem!
Renewables create an expensive energy problem due to huge tech problems and clear environmental problems and is pushed by the political problem. Solve the tech issue and maybe some renewables become less of an environmental problem and become market competitive input for electrical generation but we ain’t anywhere close.
NG only has a political problem impairing supply and access, but it does solve the cheap energy problem
Nuke has a big capital outlay cost problem and a political problem due to the same radical environmentalists impair the supply and access to NG, and nuke power will never solve the cheap energy problem.
Please someone give me clue me into the why WUWT is pushing nuke power in the US. Give me the sound argument not troll clamor.
For instance, why would Iran who has massive reserves of NG and oil even consider building nuke power plants?….makes no sense right! They build them for political purposes to keep the world worried about creating atomic bombs and eventually to build one to terrorize whomever. Again nuke power to solve a political problem.
We don’t need to solve political problems with nuke power, we ain’t Iran. We have enough oil and NG to be energy independent well into the future when better tech may arrive like fusion, viable SCMES, more efficient grid or decentralized grid etc. No need to panic and spend billions of tax payors money on nuke power when we don’t need to.
The amount of electricity used by the average citizen of the USA during their entire lifetime could be supplied by a quantity of nuclear fuel that would fit inside a soda can. The USA has abundant quantities of uranium for conventional reactors, and thorium for molten salt reactors. The amount of thorium in just one known domestic deposit could power this nation for hundreds of years. And the more electricity we generate with nuclear reactors, the more oil and gas we have to make plastics and petrochemicals.
Understand Nuke power works. I have no problem with nuke power per se other than in many cases it isn’t the cheapest option due to high capital costs. NG is a cheaper choice especially if the political problem is solved.
Why go nuke the more expensive option to solve a political problem with it has the same political problem as NG
Nuclear power is an expensive work-around-alternate because the greenies have convinced the politicians that fossil fuels will kill us. It is expensive because greenies have convinced politicians that nuclear requires excessive onerous regulation because it will kill us.
All you are demonstrating is that you have no idea as to why nuclear power generation was built in the first place and why it continues to be built today.Here’s a hint for all the pinheads at the back of the class: nuclear power generation started being built long before the ‘greenes’ existed.
Troll ad hominem attack! Everyone is stupid about something…give it break. The argument here is the contemporary Hydrocarbon fuel vs Nuke in terms of the cheap energy option… not environmental. I grew up in the Nuclear Navy and have no green leanings I have cheap energy leanings.
Nuke with it’s high capital cost in only the cheaper option where there is little access to NG.. US has massive hydrocarbon fuel reserves especially NG….especially where I live in PA where NG is a cheaper option than nuke power. Ancient history has no comment because it says nothing about the cheap energy imperative of today. I have no problem with nuke power except why replace the cheaper NG with nuke especially in NY, PA, TX, OK, ND, NJ, New England, MD, DEL, NJ, VA, mid west where is plenty of access to cheap NG?
Thanks understood. Still both problems are political problems. Nuke and NG has the same political problem. Nuke is in most cases the more expensive option so why go nuke.
It’s the capital costs that makes nuke not a cheap energy option. Solve the political problem holding NG back, and you have the cheapest energy solution.
The mean greenies make nuke too expensive and want to curtail the supply of NG.
Which political problem has a better chance of being solved first…. if neither, then why replace NG with the more expensive nuke option as it exists now. If he nuke political problem is more likely to be solved soon and reduces the capital costs making it cheaper option than NG, then I will switch my motto from Frack on to Nuke on. I live in PA where there is massive shale NG So I have to be loyal to my local community….so for now “it’s frack on”.
Well, TBF, I didn’t want to give certain someone any attention, but there is a genuine economic issue to nuclear energy. It’s only an issue because those politics come first and cause that economic problem, but it is an impact on the wallet of any potential investors that cannot be denied or ignored. If anyone has $1B and wants to build a power plant, you can permit and build a gas plant in less than half the time a nuke can do the same. That’s a much sooner payback to put income in the investor’s wallet, a quicker payback of any loans, and less time something can go wrong which reduces overall risk of the investment. The cause of the delays are mostly regulatory and due to an over abundance of caution, i.e. kinda political, but we can’t pretend the way forward is entirely once the political element is mitigated. Which comes first the political solution or the investment solution?
Nuclear has been made ridiculously expensive by excessive and useless overregulation. If the government got the hell out of the way, we could have new nuclear coming online in 12 months, tops, fueled entirely from fuel mined and processed entirely within the United States, and it would still be the safest form of energy production.
Red94ViperRT10, the NRC is not going away. Not now, not next week, not next month, not ever.
On the regulation side of the nuclear industry house, the ongoing challenge is to redirect the NRC’s mission back towards its original focus on basic nuclear safety issues and on better management of nuclear quality assurance requirements — as opposed to the NRC’s current emphasis on Linear No Threshold (LNT) regulation and on As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) regulation.
The Congress voted in 2020 to direct the NRC to develop a new set of regulation standards which better fit the true needs of the oncoming 4th Generation advanced reactors in the area of basic nuclear safety. And to reduce the NRC’s emphasis on LNT and ALARA.
What the NRC did instead was to spend four years repackaging the existing light water reactor regulations in a way which thwarts the intent of the Congress to streamline the NRC’s regulation processes.
And so the long-fought battle to eliminate LNT-focused regulation and ALARA-focused regulation from the NRC’s regulatory approach continues. The Breakthrough Institute is one of the leaders in pushing a policy of streamlining the NRC’s regulatory methods and means.
As I see it, a major shakeup in the ranks of the NRC’s senior and middle management is needed if the major redirection of agency’s regulatory focus which was legislated in 2020 by the Congress is to be achieved.
The one thing you can count one is that the Mean Greenies don’t want consumers to have cheap energy regardless of the input and politicians will leverage it for tax dollars and power all day long.
I am all for deregulating Nuke power to make it the cheapest option…. why not. Until then don’t build the plants and stick with NG.
The problem is politicizing energy inputs. This should be a market decision only but in the day where people want to control all markets to garner tax dollar and power…forget about
it.
Energy inputs: if all things being equal regarding costs, (production, sane environment regulation etc) then who cares what the input is if the input is the cheapest option being the greatest value to the consumer.
COAL is what should be being used where it is available, which means a large percentage of countries around the world.
A modern coal fired power plant has all the factors needed to provide for modern society.
It even produces CO2 plant-growth gas as a huge bonus.
GAS should be the number 2 option….. cover those high peaks in demand
HYDRO where it can be done with reliable enough rainfall and steep terrain.
NUCLEAR. used where the above are not a viable or economical option.
Wind and solar.. for out of the way niche uses..
…NEVER connected to the grid in any quantity, because they immediately introduce imbalances and instability which cost a lot of money to counteract.
The big problem with nuclear power occurred due to the USSR vs USA cold war.
We ended up with MAD.
But we eliminated reprocessing spend fuel rods and breeder reactors due to plutonium being refined as a side effect.
We did not want weapons grade plutonium to get into the wrong hands.
Guess what? The cat is out of the bag so the whole real scare around nuclear power is no longer a future concern.
Mostly wrong. Reactor grade plutonium is not weapons grade plutonium.
You are absolutely right there no technical economic or environmental need for nuclear generation in the US for at least the next 50 years because of our abundant natural gas reserves and our incredibly efficient CCGT’s.
But there is a $trillion dollars need to placate those low information voters who insist that the government do something to save them and the planet from plant food (CO2). The inflationary consequence of trying to power our Country on sunshine and breezes is destroying our economy. Those low information voters need a functional alternative “net-zero” carbon source. It’s not technical it’s political but it is totally real.
There is absolutely no need to close down COAL fired power stations either..
They wouldn’t enjoy my great-grandparent’s life. In fact, I doubt they’d survive it.
What do you actually mean? That People don’t love to get up at 5AM to shovel manure out of the way everyday of their short lives?.
To add to the general Friday mirthiness, I’d like to propose an alternative way to deal with the evil CO2 molecule.
As the root of the problem is the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, not necessarily the amount, I propose we hit up Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or NASA to fund a special automated mining operation on Saturn’s moon Titan. Titan has a nitrogen-rich atmosphere, which could be processed by freezing it into a (relatively) small sphere using the natural low temperature of space, and launching it at Earth, where it will melt on re-entry and add to the atmosphere – thus driving down the overall percentage of CO2 and saving humanity from the certain doom of oversized houseplants.
Problem solved. No need for wind turbines or solar panels, and we can burn as much oil and gas as we want – just need to up the frequency of delivery of nitrogen from Titan to compensate. Plus an orbital platform around Titan could double as an observatory.
More practical than solar power in England by far.
Ayah.
That’s so true, it’s painful.
For those that may have missed this tidbit about SMRs I posted 2 days ago –
Excerpted from the recent Canadian Defence Force’s “NORAD modernization and the North” Plan –
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for the Canadian Arctic in
order to provide the clean energy necessary to support NORAD modernization and to stabilize local energy infrastructure needs,
supply clean, firm, dispatchable power and heat in extreme conditions, with years in between refuelling.
Ticks all the boxes, doesn’t it?
Going with nuclear power is strictly a public policy decision. We buy nuclear because we value its energy security and reliability benefits, and because we are willing to pay the necessary cost premium of nuclear over gas-fired in order to gain those energy security and reliability benefits.
The Georgia PSC’s decision to allow construction of Vogtle 3 & 4 to continue in the face of steeply rising project costs and a lengthening project completion schedule is an example of this kind of public policy decision.
It was clearly evident in 2012 and 2013 that major cost growth problems were occurring at Vogtle 3 & 4; and further, that the Georgia PSC knew that such problems were occurring. What was also clearly evident was that the Georgia PSC had made a policy decision to support Vogtle 3 & 4 almost regardless of what the project might eventually cost.
The Georgia PSC made a conscious decision to emphasize energy reliability and security over energy cost. Time will tell whether or not the PSC’s decison was a wise decision.
France in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s is the most prominent example of an entire nation which makes a clear, unambiguous decision to rely on nuclear power as a means of ensuring energy security and reliability.
A perceived need for maintaining energy security and reliability is also why France does its own nuclear fuel reprocessing as a means of closing the nuclear fuel cycle within its own borders, thus reducing the risk that supplies of nuclear fuel might be disrupted.
What about the future of nuclear in France? If you are a public policy decison maker in France, is there a case to be made for France to build more reactors within its own borders and to export any excess electricty to the energy-starved nations of Europe?
Maybe yes, maybe no. The problem is that construction of a new-build nuclear power plant, either in Europe or in America, is four to six times more expensive than it was forty years ago.
Over-regulation is not the main cause of this recent cost growth. It is the lack of a robust nuclear construction industrial base combined with ever-rising costs for the industrial resources and industrial commodities needed to construct any large complex industrial facility, not just a nuclear facility.
Perhaps the big picture is beginning to dawn on the politicians with Eraring-
Realisation ‘dawned’ on NSW government on energy shortages (msn.com)
In any case it’s refreshing to see a professor trying to tell them.
Great video, thanks 🙂