5 ms·

Well, the question is, how much does a nuclear powered grid cost vs. a renewable powered one. Price isn't irrelevant. Newest numbers for Hinkeley Point C don't

by _ph_ 3y ago

Well, the question is, how much does a nuclear powered grid cost vs. a renewable powered one. Price isn't irrelevant. Newest numbers for Hinkeley Point C don't look good. Also, while the weather isn't directly limiting the power output, the plands do require cooling which can be limited by the weather. France already had to limit nuclear production quite severely due to this. The life time of a wind generator isn't limited to 20 years - it is more practical reasons it isn't prolonged further. While with nuclear plants there is a lot of pressure to keep it working, even if the safety isn't quite up to modern standards. Interestingly, while breeding reactors can be built, none is operating in the west. France had two of them and stopped using them. It certainly is a delicate technology. Would be interesting to do a more detailled analysis why no one is operating any more. Perhaps it is just the typical stance of ignoring the problem of nuclear waste as long as possible. As it has been done so far.

the_third_wave 3y ago
EPA: The typical life span of a windturbine is 20 years, with routine maintenance required every six months [1] Renewable Energy Foundation: a new study, The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark [2] shows that the economic life of onshore wind turbines is between 10 and 15 years, not the 20 to 25 years projected by the wind industry itself and used for government projections Russia, China and India are operating breeder reactors, India and China are in the process of starting more. The French SuperPhenix commercial prototype was shut down on political grounds. The completed FBR in Kalkar (Germany) was never fueled, again on political grounds. From what I can see the reason for the limited deployment of FNR/FBR types is mostly based on political and ideological grounds. The fact that these reactor types can be used to create Plutonium which can be used to create nuclear weapons plays a large role as does the irrational fear of anything 'nuclear' in 'green' circles. The latter is becoming less relevant now that many 'green' politicos have seen the problems their anti-nuclear stance create in their own 'battle' against CO₂. The German 'greens' have not changed their ways yet which has led to the expansion of lignite use and with that lignite mining as well as a further deindustrialisation of Germany for lack of affordable electrical power. [1] https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100IL8K.TXT https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100IL8K.TXT [2] https://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/280/ref.hughes.19.12.12.pdf https://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/280/ref.hughes.19...
- _ph_ 3y ago
  Yes, if typical operations license is valid for 20 years, the typical life span is obviously 20 years. Because after that time it is cheaper to build a newer and improved generator than to try to renew the license. That doesn't imply a technical limitation. You pointing to the maintenance interval is just bad faith argumenting. On that ground, nuclear energy is even more irresponsible, as the power plants get daily maintenance and supervision. And your claim about the expansion of the lignite usage is another lie. It is on a historical low. It could be lower still, if the previous government hadn't curbed the rollout of renewable energy while accellarating the shutdown of nuclear. Blame them, not the greens.
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    > Yes, if typical operations license is valid for 20 years, the typical life span is obviously 20 years You're moving the goal posts. I merely state the facts as published by manufacturers and those from experience in the field (which show the manufacturer data to be highly optimistic). > You pointing to the maintenance interval is just bad faith argumenting It is not me pointing out the maintenance interval but the EPA. Is the EPA acting in bad faith? > And your claim about the expansion of the lignite usage is another lie. It is on a historical low Germany is re-opening lignite power plants. Tell us how this rhymes with your claim. Also, please, stop using hyperbolic language like 'argumenting in bad faith' and 'another lie', here we deal in facts not feelings. You are clearly ideologically aligned with those who closed the nuclear power plants but do not let ideology cloud your reasoning. Had 'Die Grune' not insisted on closing those nuclear power plants the lignite plants could have remained closed, the wind farm would not need to make place for a lignite mine and power prices in my part of the world (Sweden) would be markedly lower instead of being pushed up due to the fact that the interconnected grid causes prices to be affected by those on the other side of the border.
    - _ph_ 3y ago
      But you are not telling the truth. Yes, some coal power plants have been reacted, but they are on standby in case we run out of gas or some other major energy shortages. Which hasn't happened. We managed to replace the Russian gas and there was no extremely hard winter. And those plants are slowly getting mothballed again.

by _ph_ 3y ago

the_third_wave 3y ago

EPA: The typical life span of a windturbine is 20 years, with routine maintenance required every six months [1] Renewable Energy Foundation: a new study, The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark [2] shows that the economic life of onshore wind turbines is between 10 and 15 years, not the 20 to 25 years projected by the wind industry itself and used for government projections Russia, China and India are operating breeder reactors, India and China are in the process of starting more. The French SuperPhenix commercial prototype was shut down on political grounds. The completed FBR in Kalkar (Germany) was never fueled, again on political grounds. From what I can see the reason for the limited deployment of FNR/FBR types is mostly based on political and ideological grounds. The fact that these reactor types can be used to create Plutonium which can be used to create nuclear weapons plays a large role as does the irrational fear of anything 'nuclear' in 'green' circles. The latter is becoming less relevant now that many 'green' politicos have seen the problems their anti-nuclear stance create in their own 'battle' against CO₂. The German 'greens' have not changed their ways yet which has led to the expansion of lignite use and with that lignite mining as well as a further deindustrialisation of Germany for lack of affordable electrical power. [1] https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100IL8K.TXT https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100IL8K.TXT [2] https://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/280/ref.hughes.19.12.12.pdf https://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/280/ref.hughes.19...

_ph_ 3y ago
Yes, if typical operations license is valid for 20 years, the typical life span is obviously 20 years. Because after that time it is cheaper to build a newer and improved generator than to try to renew the license. That doesn't imply a technical limitation. You pointing to the maintenance interval is just bad faith argumenting. On that ground, nuclear energy is even more irresponsible, as the power plants get daily maintenance and supervision. And your claim about the expansion of the lignite usage is another lie. It is on a historical low. It could be lower still, if the previous government hadn't curbed the rollout of renewable energy while accellarating the shutdown of nuclear. Blame them, not the greens.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  > Yes, if typical operations license is valid for 20 years, the typical life span is obviously 20 years You're moving the goal posts. I merely state the facts as published by manufacturers and those from experience in the field (which show the manufacturer data to be highly optimistic). > You pointing to the maintenance interval is just bad faith argumenting It is not me pointing out the maintenance interval but the EPA. Is the EPA acting in bad faith? > And your claim about the expansion of the lignite usage is another lie. It is on a historical low Germany is re-opening lignite power plants. Tell us how this rhymes with your claim. Also, please, stop using hyperbolic language like 'argumenting in bad faith' and 'another lie', here we deal in facts not feelings. You are clearly ideologically aligned with those who closed the nuclear power plants but do not let ideology cloud your reasoning. Had 'Die Grune' not insisted on closing those nuclear power plants the lignite plants could have remained closed, the wind farm would not need to make place for a lignite mine and power prices in my part of the world (Sweden) would be markedly lower instead of being pushed up due to the fact that the interconnected grid causes prices to be affected by those on the other side of the border.
  - _ph_ 3y ago
    But you are not telling the truth. Yes, some coal power plants have been reacted, but they are on standby in case we run out of gas or some other major energy shortages. Which hasn't happened. We managed to replace the Russian gas and there was no extremely hard winter. And those plants are slowly getting mothballed again.