Clean power to overtake fossil fuels in Britain in 2019

[Tug]

Nuclear energy is potentially very dangerous that being said how many die mining coal or in the fossil fuel industry every year and how many die producing power with nuclear energy?

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 7:44 PM, hugh2121 said:

Sounds like ignorant jealousy. Clean energy is much cheaper to produce and is kind to the environment. 3% of UK energy now produced from polluting coal. Asia please take note,

 

Hmmmmm. Up to a quarter of UK electricity is from nuclear. Do you really want Asia building loads of nuclear power plants?

Some is also sent from Holland which uses coal, and allowing the propagandists to claim that Britain is using less coal, which is of course a distortion of the truth.

According to Wikipedia, a third of UK electricity will hopefully be generated by nuclear in 2035. I'm all for nuclear power, and at present it's the only means to produce enough power reliability. Just wait till all those electric cars come on stream. 5555555

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 11:05 AM, Tug said:

Nuclear energy is potentially very dangerous that being said how many die mining coal or in the fossil fuel industry every year and how many die producing power with nuclear energy?

 

 

Potentially being the significant word.

France generates 75% of it's electricity by nuclear and how many accidents have they had?

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.

NB, LOW cost, not high as the anti nuclear propagandists claim.

[Cryingdick]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Potentially being the significant word.

France generates 75% of it's electricity by nuclear and how many accidents have they had?

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.

NB, LOW cost, not high as the anti nuclear propagandists claim.

the funny thing is Germany doesn't have reactors but all of the nuclear power they depend upon is with in 10miles of their border. Then they get their LPG from Russia.

 

They basically lie to their population and say Germany is nuke free.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Cryingdick

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 10:44 PM, connda said:

I used to work out at the Hanford Site in Eastern Washington where they use to produce plutonium.  Scientists working for DOE have been working on storage and containment for decades, and specifically vitrification, or glassifying plutonium manufacturing and other forms of nuclear waste.  Decades  and many major cost overruns and setbacks later the plants to start the process are still not built.  Nor do I think the ultimate 'end-site' storage is worked out either.  

Nuclear is not 'clean' by any stretch of the imagination.  Sure - no CO2.  The trade-off is what to do with highly radioactive by-products.  Most just sit in storage pools onsite at nuclear reactors.  Safe?  You've got to be kidding me.  Proponents downplay the dangers.  Viable alternatives are dismissed.  Why?  Like oil, big money backs this technology.  Stakeholders don't want to lose their share of the pie regardless of the effects of unsecured radioactive waste has on future generations.  

Greed's amazing stuff - it burns human lives and human suffering as fuel and usually develops only short-term solutions for maximum profits.  

Obvious place for permanent storage is deep tunnels  in geologically stable areas. Of course cost is a factor, and less pay off than building windmills and such.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 1:29 AM, SpaceKadet said:

Actually, you are very wrong. Gen3 and up designs using sodium cooling employ what is termed "Passive Safety". You can disconnect all the cooling pumps (those being EM pumps, no moving parts since sodium is a metal) and the reactor will scram on it's own based on pure physical properties of the materials used. All nuclear reaction will cease within 20 minutes, and the reactor will slowly cool down on its own. It has been done and proven.

 

As well, there is no danger of explosion since the reactors operate at atmospheric pressure inside, and there is no "positive void coefficient" or high pressure steam as in the current Gen2 BWR...

Don't tell the NZ government that. They are totally invested in something ( other than nuclear ), but I have yet to work out what. They won't allow more hydro, but want all cars to be electric!

Madness, IMO, has consumed the world.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 2:44 AM, bristolboy said:

Whatever the safety of nuclear may be, the fact is nuclear generated power is expensive. What's more as the cost of solar and wind generated power keep plummeting, and storage capacity was well, why would any rational capitalist invest in nuclear power?

Below is a graph showing the levelized costs of various power sources. (The levelized cost is basically total cost of building and running a power plant over its lifetime divided how much power it generates.)

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

 

 

Whatever the safety of nuclear may be, the fact is nuclear generated power is expensive.

France disagrees with you. See one of my previous posts for the link.

[bert bloggs]

On 6/21/2019 at 9:59 AM, BritManToo said:

I thought the UK was nearly all gas turbines.

No only half the posters on here are all gas

[xtrnuno41]

4 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

the funny thing is Germany doesn't have reactors but all of the nuclear power they depend upon is with in 10miles of their border. Then they get their LPG from Russia.

 

They basically lie to their population and say Germany is nuke free.

GErmany isnt free of that. They had 17 reactors , but are phasing down. Still 9 of them running.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Whatever the safety of nuclear may be, the fact is nuclear generated power is expensive.

France disagrees with you. See one of my previous posts for the link.

Wow! France disagrees with me. Because France is a disinterested party? Do those costs include the expense of decommissioning nuclear plants? Who knows? And the website you got your info from is the World Nuclear Association. Not exactly an impartial source. But we do have independent analysts and not one of  reports I have seen shows anything like France's figure. But I guess you're just the kind of person who believes what governments tell them.

As for me I'll go with analysts like those at Lazard Freres who say the lowest levelized cost for nuclear power is $112. Not the $42 that France is charging.

Or how about this?

PARIS, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Building new nuclear reactors in France would not be economical, state environment agency ADEME said in a study on Monday, contradicting the government’s long-term energy strategy as well as state-owned utility EDF’s investment plans.

In a speech last month, President Emmanuel Macron said nuclear energy would remain a promising technology for producing low-cost, low-carbon energy and that EDF’s EPR reactor model should be part of future energy options...

Two EPR reactors under construction in France and Finland are years behind schedule and billions of euros over budget.

https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower/building-new-nuclear-plants-in-france-uneconomical-environment-agency-idUSL8N1YF5HC