tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1129995781979193351.post2806719732099409478..comments2023-11-05T04:24:32.020-08:00Comments on The clouded head's Blog: An alternative analysis and timeline as requested by John QuigginAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12423285073691606288noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1129995781979193351.post-54676535013512954962015-06-08T01:54:40.121-07:002015-06-08T01:54:40.121-07:00I don't know if you now James Hansen, he's...I don't know if you now James Hansen, he's a former NASA scientist. He gives a really reasonable argument for Nuclear Energy.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7MAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12423285073691606288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1129995781979193351.post-65345868838044280882015-06-08T01:25:57.189-07:002015-06-08T01:25:57.189-07:00"In this context, it's hard to see how yo..."In this context, it's hard to see how you sustain the claim that "nuclear has a clear headstart over renewables"."<br /><br />As far as Australia is concerned, you are right, since there is no nuclear there. But in a Worldly context things are more nuanced. The nuclear energy industry isn't stagnant. New capacity is being added every year. The average generating capacity is going up. Not to mention that there's a strong push for new nuclear power by countries like the UAE, India, China, Russia, South Korea. From a world-wide perspective the capacity is there while the renewable energy sector is still catching up, so nuclear has a head start. <br /><br />"Wind and solar are adding over 100 GW a year capacity right now, and those numbers are increasing steadily."<br /><br />As we speak 50 GW of nuclear is under construction, and new GW's are planned each year. Now 100GW's on a worldly scale is a drop in the bucket, especially if the transportation burden will shift from fossils to electricity generation.<br /><br />100 GW capacity @ 25% brings about 219 TWh of energy generation a year. Supplanting 9158 TWh with these kinds of capacity is going to take us 37 years. That's supplanting existing coal today, not expected coal tomorrow. Plus we still have Oil and Gas to contend with.<br /><br />Does it start to sink in? I sincerely hope that humanity becomes smarter and finds more efficient ways to deal with the gargantuan conundrum we've precipitated for ourselves... <br /><br />Plus there are over 45 countries that don't have nuclear capabilities where the debate is ongoing but there's an indication that they will be pushing to go for nuclear. <br /><br />http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Others/Emerging-Nuclear-Energy-Countries/<br /><br />"Even allowing for different capacity factors, it's clear that the share of electricity generated by new renewables will overtake existing (and currently under construction) nuclear within 10 years. "<br /><br />Based on the assumption that there will be no significant push to increase nuclear capabilities. Which is something that I find highly unlikely. Are you aware of the developments in the MSR field? http://www.thoriumenergyreport.org/<br /><br />Once these MSR's can be implemented on a commercial scale, you'll see a strong push for them. They are that good.<br /><br />Let's have a look at this presentation by Robert Hargraves about the economics of Molten Salt Reactors : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOoBTufkEog<br /><br />He thinks we can supplant coal by 2058...<br /><br />"Pointing out that solar plants take up a lot of land is not a serious response to the evidence of what is actually happening."<br /><br />That wasn't the point I was trying to make. The area footprint of solar isn't what bothers me, although it does give a clear indication of the vast amounts of resources required to produce them. What bothers me is that proponents of renewables have no grasp of the immensity of the materials and emissions footprint of said technologies. The amount of CO2 per KW are grossly underestimated. The lifecycle of said technology isn't transparent, waste issues remain unaddressed, very limited life spans, decommissioning issues, re-usability of materials is questionable.<br /><br />It takes 9 million PV panels to build a 550MW solar farm. Have you any idea how energy intense the PV production process is? How much fossil fuel is used in said process? Inefficiency is not going to help us build a prosperous future for humanity.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12423285073691606288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1129995781979193351.post-47959239531932368982015-06-08T01:25:40.677-07:002015-06-08T01:25:40.677-07:00"As I said on Twitter, there is zero time all..."As I said on Twitter, there is zero time allowed here for site selection." <br /><br />Well, I like to move the goalposts around a bit, since we are talking hypothetically anyway. As said earlier, reality will dictate what will happen. The reality has been sketched in the article, we're simply running out of resources. there's roughly 9158 TWh worth of coal-fired energy generation in the world and the generation capacity is growing, not shrinking. Supplanting this capacity can be done by building 1400 nuclear power plants or 610.000 windmills.<br /><br />As said earlier, this isn't going to be enough, we're running out of [burnable] resources and there will be a massive shift in transportation, seriously increasing the stress on electricity generation, requiring such capacities that we would be incredibly foolish to discard nuclear energy, simply because the bureaucratic chain of events would be to long. There are ways around it... <br /><br />Necessity speeds up the process, so since I've omitted site selection, let's parallel park it in 2022 where I had It in mind. There are plenty of sites where these reactors can be build, Let's look at South Australia for instance. There are two coal-fired power plants in SA with a nameplate capacity of 760 MW. Am I supposed to believe that in a country of 983,482 km² or 379,725 sq mi there's not a single spot where these two coal-fired plants can be supplanted with a nuclear power plant? I think you're seriously compounding the problem. <br /><br />"That is, it is necessary to locate a greenfields site, deal with all the usual issues of environmental impact and so on, then deal with the issues that arise with a new nuclear power plant. That would presumably include definition of a surrounding exclusion zone, acquisition of property, evacuation plans and so forth. All of these would require an extensive process of community consultation, almost inevitable litigation, protests and so on. I allowed 5 years, which is incredibly optimistic. Add the same to your timeframe and you get to 2035, which is only a little ahead of my schedule." <br /><br />Will-power moves mountains, once you've established necessity you can speed up any process. We're not addressing un[inter]changeable dichotomies. Bureaucratic pathways are malleable, interchangeable or removable. <br /><br />2018 The political acknowledgement of the need of nuclear energy.<br />2019 Current global affairs necessitate the implementation of nuclear energy<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12423285073691606288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1129995781979193351.post-74061646150928252602015-06-07T18:39:41.936-07:002015-06-07T18:39:41.936-07:00As I said on Twitter, there is zero time allowed h...As I said on Twitter, there is zero time allowed here for site selection. That is, it is necessary to locate a greenfields site, deal with all the usual issues of environmental impact and so on, then deal with the issues that arise with a new nuclear power plant. That would presumably include definition of a surrounding exclusion zone, acquisition of property, evacuation plans and so forth. All of these would require an extensive process of community consultation, almost inevitable litigation, protests and so on. I allowed 5 years, which is incredibly optimistic. Add the same to your timeframe and you get to 2035, which is only a little ahead of my schedule. <br /><br /> In this context, it's hard to see how you sustain the claim that "nuclear has a clear headstart over renewables". Wind and solar are adding over 100 GW a year capacity right now, and those numbers are increasing steadily. Even allowing for different capacity factors, it's clear that the share of electricity generated by new renewables will overtake existing (and currently under construction) nuclear within 10 years. Pointing out that solar plants take up a lot of land is not a serious response to the evidence of what is actually happening/John Quigginhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10830215234726229924noreply@blogger.com