''Nuclear Power is the best alternative to Fossil Fuels''

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Today's new nuclear plants will still be operational (they last about 60 years), and still using high grade uranium, and today's wind turbines and solar plants will have been replaced at least once, with little scope of coming down in price, so again your assertion does not stack up.

Just your unsubstantiated words. The fact of the matter is that wind and solar are falling in cost. Fossils and nuclear are rising in cost. Project that out 10 years from now and go figure. I expect it will be cheaper to replace solar and wind plants, than to keep then running beyond 20 years. By that stage I expect there will be even more recycling of used materials and greater efficiencies of new renewable energy technology relative to cost. Much of this is common sense, as costs are falling for renewables and thus cost per watt is falling.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I've shown you evidence to the contruary, and you've just stated the opposite with nothing to back it up even with any solid theory. Oh, even if what you say is true regarding urnanium (which it isn't), we also have thorium, which is even more abundant.

You keep mentioning the needs of 6 billion people, but it misses the point. We need to exploit every affordable resource in the most environmentally friendly way. Nuclear, despite what many say is the best way to acheive this. No one is saying its the only way, but for the type of supply it provides there is no better source for us.

You have not shown any substantive evidence at all. As I said before the 6 billion of us cant afford nuclear, so the notion of "us" as you say, completely misses the point. If thorium was cheaper they would be using it already and that's still in the research phase. Unlike that of nuclear power plants, the cost of solar-thermal power is actually declining and is expected to fall below 10 cents per kilowatt-hour within the next decade. Nuclear is clearly not the most environmentally friendly way and when the price of nuclear increases, that will place more pressure on coal demand again in the years ahead, unless we strongly develop and improve renewable energy. That is environmentally risky scenario and to think we can keep building modern cities using more and more energy powered from mined fuel resources is just a fallacy setting up another house of cards that will collapse at some future point. Long term sustainability is the only way forward for the planet as a whole. Fuels that are mined cannot offer long term sustainability anywhere near to the extent that sustainable renewables can.

Nuclear isn't necessary ?
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.103.html

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Just your unsubstantiated words.

I've provided references, but you just don't like the message.

The fact of the matter is that wind and solar are falling in cost.

Again false. I've shown that wind is not falling in price, and even if it did, its extended use will fall into the realm of diminishing returns the more it is used. Which solar thermal will also fall into.

Fossils and nuclear are rising in cost. Project that out 10 years from now and go figure.

The is one of the core problems with your idea. You project the same trend we currently see, and apply it 10 years and beyond. Life isn't like that.

Nuclear is seeing huge improvements in terms of performance. Lessons have been learnt from the decades of complex and costly designs, and new plants are much simpler. The evidence points to your projections you refer to being wrong.

I expect it will be cheaper to replace solar and wind plants, than to keep then running beyond 20 years. By that stage I expect there will be even more recycling of used materials and greater efficiencies of new renewable energy technology relative to cost. Much of this is common sense, as costs are falling for renewables and thus cost per watt is falling.

Carbon fibre and fibre glass are not that recycleable (if at all). Wind trubines use lots of the stuff. There is no evidence that recycling of such materials will increase.

And, as we both know - wind and solar provide a different sort of supply, and cannot provide sufficient supply in the time needed. Only nuclear can fit those criteria.

Wind only mirror an another source, and solar will take decades to build up in the quantities needed. (See below).

You have not shown any substantive evidence at all. As I said before the 6 billion of us cant afford nuclear, so the notion of "us" as you say, completely misses the point.

Continuuing to say "6 billion" will not remove the need for more nuclear plants.

There is not a single technology that can. We both know, so why continue?

If thorium was cheaper they would be using it already and that's still in the research phase. Unlike that of nuclear power plants, the cost of solar-thermal power is actually declining and is expected to fall below 10 cents per kilowatt-hour within the next decade.

Nuclear is not set to rise substantially. Even if it did, we would still need it, as I've already shown.

Solar thermal has huge demands already in the areas that it is being proposed.
We would need to build 50*50km2 of plants just to deal with the water deficit (desalination of course) in those areas before we supply water for the plants that could export electricity for Europe.

Then, if those countries prospered, they would demand more water and energy, which would leave us needing even more solar thermal.

If we ignore these issues, we'll have even more terrorist attacks. Even if they did prosper, it could still increase the risk of more political instability (see oil rich nations in those regions).

So, once we've built solar plants for all local needs, we build plants for us.... by which time we could have built many more nuclear plants with ease, and more cheaply (per kw). We would need gross over capacity to accomodateit's variable output (molten salt issues inculded), and the nearest areas to Europe in Africa are areas known for wind resources, which is not condusive with solar thermal as we both know. Its not just about our needs, as you've already said.

So we would need to build solar plants for all the needs of the local populations, then for us, and each time build gross over capacity to compensate for variations, and areas that are less than ideal. Can you see how the cost isn't only going to go down? Its fine if we have a regular energy source as well (eg, gas or nuclear), but if you were to take that away, solar thermal suddenly faces some significent additional challenges.

We need all the tools the box.

Nuclear is clearly not the most environmentally friendly way and when the price of nuclear increases, that will place more pressure on coal demand again in the years ahead, unless we strongly develop and improve renewable energy.

There is no techinical or environmental reason why we need to go back to coal. It is worse for the environment than nuclear on just about any scale. And in future, nuclear should be far cheaper, and much more sustainable.

That is environmentally risky scenario and to think we can keep building modern cities using more and more energy powered from mined fuel resources is just a fallacy setting up another house of cards that will collapse at some future point. Long term sustainability is the only way forward for the planet as a whole. Fuels that are mined cannot offer long term sustainability anywhere near to the extent that sustainable renewables can.

They said that decades ago. Then nuclear energy became rather more sustainable than first thought.

But sustainability isn't just about fuels.

Nuclear isn't necessary ?
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.103.html

Part of the anti-nuke propaganda.

There are stacks of information just on this forum that contradict what you've said. There's even more out there on the rest of the internet.

You've still to come up with a single alternative to not investing in more nuclear.

You forget the different types of supply that these different technologies provide, and are therefore not comparable.

You forget the drawbacks of renewables (although you've even mentioned in the past).

You neglect some basic economic factors that derive from the fundamental drawbacks of these renewables.

And you forget the environmental impacts that these renewables make.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You have not shown any substantive evidence at all. As I said before the 6 billion of us cant afford nuclear, so the notion of "us" as you say, completely misses the point.

Not a bit of it.
I've shown that solar thermal cannot provide Europe with more than 15% of its energy (its own major expert has stated it), and there are no other reliable renewable sources on the horizon. Wind - we all know it cannot provide much more than 15%, and that's just capacity. In reality it would provide even less.

That is a huge energy gap, and you have yet to provide any alternative to nuclear.

The energy demands of most of America, Canada, Japan, China, India, ...... and well, a long list of major energy users all should be looking to invest in nuclear (most are). Its the most sustainable low carbon technology we have to fit the gap mentioned above.

I'd rather move away from coal, and cut down on gas usage, and I'm sure you would to.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Not a bit of it. I've shown that solar thermal cannot provide Europe with more than 15% of its energy (its own major expert has stated it), and there are no other reliable renewable sources on the horizon. Wind - we all know it cannot provide much more than 15%, and that's just capacity. In reality it would provide even less. That is a huge energy gap, and you have yet to provide any alternative to nuclear.

The energy demands of most of America, Canada, Japan, China, India, ...... and well, a long list of major energy users all should be looking to invest in nuclear (most are). Its the most sustainable low carbon technology we have to fit the gap mentioned above.

I'd rather move away from coal, and cut down on gas usage, and I'm sure you would to.

So when they get to 15% solar thermal, they better stop building the further cost competitive solar thermal plants they have planned. I very much doubt it. There is nothing substantive to prove 15% would be a limit. Again your views on wind energy arn't substantiated by all expert views out there. As seemingly common, your references do not appear transparent and you have not sited any quoted text from your reference source. Instead you have elected to provide opinion about purported information in alleged references, not easily verifiable by the viewing public. Even if you did quote the source text, its likely not reflective of all expert opinion. However, I await something more substantively detailed from you. You've shown little and substantiated even less and there is more than one expert opinion about what's ultimately achievable. You saying so, doesn't automatically make it so.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

So when they get to 15% solar thermal, they better stop building the further cost competitive solar thermal plants they have planned. I very much doubt it.

So the issue of different type of supply doesn't bother you?

We currently have a variety of different sources that provide different types of supply, and run at different costs. We don't just use the cheapest.

In addition, there is little or no evidence that it will be cheaper across the board than nuclear. You complain that nuclear is financially risky, and then claim solar thermal (and wind!) will be cheaper based on the most flimsy of evidence.

Even if solar thermal will become cheaper in one place, does not mean it will become cheaper everywhere. Even if it did, it does not mean that we should use it over other technologies.

Even if nuclear were to become slightly more expensive (and that would be the worst case senario), it does not mean it can replace nuclear energy, owing to the different type of supply they provide.

Again your views on wind energy arn't substantiated by all expert views out there.

They're based upon a whole wealth of evidence, even though I'm not opposed to wind energy. I can see one from here, and I think its great. I've seen the carbon cost studies for wind and nuclear, and they are comparable (as I've shown). I've referenced articles that are on my desk as I type (word for word at times) and told you the date and author. And yet you ignore all evidence that doesn't fit your world view.

As seemingly common, your references do not appear transparent and you have not sited any quoted text from your reference source. Instead you have elected to provide opinion about purported information in alleged references, not easily verifiable by the viewing public.

You've provided more than your fair share of opinion based upon nothing but those articles you like the look of. Its not my fault I have access to information you do not, but that is no reason not to trust it.

If you doubt the sources, try Googling the the Hans dude. He's one of the champions of your favourate technology.

Even if you did quote the source text, its likely not reflective of all expert opinion. However, I await something more substantively detailed from you. You've shown little and substantiated even less and there is more than one expert opinion about what's ultimately achievable. You saying so, doesn't automatically make it so.

Again, pure projection.


Your views have also shown a lack of reference. You've put up a report that is based upon fantasy, multiple times (I will remove some of them, as there is no value in repeated links in this situation).

[Metyu]

(Haven't read the entire thread so apologies if I repeat.)

Proponents of nuclear tend to ignore the fact that it enables the general public to go "Oh, problem solved - thank goodness for that!" and to continue walking around with their fingers in their ears ignoring their other environmental impacts.

Also, non-elephantine points but still relevant:

1) It may be a solution for the West but it totally ignores developing countries.
2) You're replacing one environmental problem for another, since mining for nuclear is also damaging and the long term effects of water contamination from nuclear is a serious issue.
3) Proliferation. The more we use and distribute the relevant fuels, the more open we leave ourselves to terrorists.

We need to solve current problems before creating new ones.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

We currently have a variety of different sources that provide different types of supply, and run at different costs. We don't just use the cheapest. In addition, there is little or no evidence that it will be cheaper across the board than nuclear. You complain that nuclear is financially risky, and then claim solar thermal (and wind!) will be cheaper based on the most flimsy of evidence.

Governments around the world are appreciating that solar thermal energy will be cheaper than coal before 2020. Yet you dont. I know where I wont place my bets.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Even if solar thermal will become cheaper in one place, does not mean it will become cheaper everywhere. Even if it did, it does not mean that we should use it over other technologies. Even if nuclear were to become slightly more expensive (and that would be the worst case senario), it does not mean it can replace nuclear energy, owing to the different type of supply they provide.

Again, pure projection. Solar Thermal can replace fossils and nuclear when appropriately configured. Cost is the only major barrier to solar thermal and that's projected to come down. What should and shouldn't occur is academic. What's likely to occur is that solar thermal with storage when priced competitively with all factors considered, will start to replace other sources.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I've referenced articles that are on my desk as I type (word for word at times) and told you the date and author. And yet you ignore all evidence that doesn't fit your world view. You've provided more than your fair share of opinion based upon nothing but those articles you like the look of. Its not my fault I have access to information you do not, but that is no reason not to trust it.

Not so. My view is whats being reported by governments. The US Government arm NREL along with others and industry views do not reflect your view or your articles. I'm just re-iterating their views. Near everyone has access to that information, but that is no reason not to trust it.

If you doubt the sources, try Googling NREL solar thermal. They are one of the independant observers of Solar Thermal technology. Plenty of other industry and government information also that differs from your views.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Your views have also shown a lack of reference. You've put up a report that is based upon fantasy, multiple times (I will remove some of them, as there is no value in repeated links in this situation).

Your views have also shown a lack of reference, and I will remove your fallacies also where I deem appropriate.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Governments around the world are appreciating that solar thermal energy will be cheaper than coal before 2020. Yet you dont. I know where I wont place my bets.

This paragraph is rather misrepresentitive of both view points. Where have I expressed a wish for coal to be used instead of ....well, anything?



wobs wrote:

Even if solar thermal will become cheaper in one place, does not mean it will become cheaper everywhere. Even if it did, it does not mean that we should use it over other technologies. Even if nuclear were to become slightly more expensive (and that would be the worst case senario), it does not mean it can replace nuclear energy, owing to the different type of supply they provide.

Then Lmagico wrote:

Again, pure projection. Solar Thermal can replace fossils and nuclear when appropriately configured. Cost is the only major barrier to solar thermal and that's projected to come down. What should and shouldn't occur is academic. What's likely to occur is that solar thermal with storage when priced competitively with all factors considered, will start to replace other sources.

Again, when you can form you own sentences, you might come across better.
But anyway, there is little or no evidence that solar thermal can replace nuclear energy. Obvious issues like location, cost, and supply reliability will not go away.

Many reports have claimed solar thermal technology can provide baseload supply, but this is only in the most ideal conditions, and with significent backup, which is still in its infancy as an integrated system.

15hr backup has been cited as the optimal from a cost view point, so a cloudy day (which you do get at times), or a windy day will diminish this supply. On paper or on test sites with ideal conditions, you can replicate baseload supply, but scale it up, and you come up against a variety of issues that require a true baseload supply. But can you imagine these people mentioning that in these reports? Me neither.

Edit: Found the ref regarding storage time/cost. See page 24. You'll notice that beyond that time, cost goes up. Notice also, they don't show how much.
http://www.htri-net.com/ePubs/HMS_Victoria1.pdf

Not so. My view is whats being reported by governments. The US Government arm NREL along with others and industry views do not reflect your view or your articles. I'm just re-iterating their views. Near everyone has access to that information, but that is no reason not to trust it.

The NREL are involved in the technology and are hardly going to say anything else. To say that "Governments around the world are appreciating that solar thermal energy will be cheaper than coal before 2020", is misleading when its people like the NREL saying it.

What experts are saying is:
"‘With adequate financing, CSP will achieve full cost competitiveness within the next 10–15 years’"
In big friendly letters here:
http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/is...steinhagen.pdf
That's a pro-solar source, and "competitive" is different from "cheaper", I think you'll agree.

But as I've already said, even if it did become cheaper across the board (which is highly unlikely in our lifetime), does not mean it will be "game over" as you put it for nuclear.

If you doubt the sources, try Googling NREL solar thermal. They are one of the independant observers of Solar Thermal technology. Plenty of other industry and government information also that differs from your views.

We have both cited NREL before. I hope we both appreciate their biase.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

This paragraph is rather misrepresentitive of both view points. Where have I expressed a wish for coal to be used instead of ....well, anything? .

You tell me. I never said you have. More shadow boxing on your part as usual.

Originally Posted by Wobs

wobs wrote:.
Then Lmagico wrote:

Then Old Wobbly wrote;

Originally Posted by Wobs

Again, when you can form you own sentences, you might come across better. But anyway, there is little or no evidence that solar thermal can replace nuclear energy. Obvious issues like location, cost, and supply reliability will not go away. .

Again when you can form any sentence with substance, you might be believable. But anyway there is little or no evidence that it can't, when applied appropriately. You certainly have not proven anything of the kind. Others in this world don't entirely agree with you.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Many reports have claimed solar thermal technology can provide baseload supply, but this is only in the most ideal conditions, and with significent backup, which is still in its infancy as an integrated system. .

You are like a broken record. I've heard it all before. The report writers are entitled to their views. I place more credibility in them than yourself.

Originally Posted by Wobs

13hr backup has been cited as the optimal from a cost view point, so a cloudy day (which you do get at times), or a windy day will diminish this supply. On paper or on test sites with ideal conditions, you can replicate baseload supply, but scale it up, and you come up against a variety of issues that require a true baseload supply. But can you imagine these people mentioning that in these reports? Me neither..

You seem to live in a time warp. Luckily most people can see through such weak arguments. The whole dynamics and structure of the power industry is shifting and if you can't extrapolate the meaning of that, then there is little hope for you ever coming to terms with it.

Originally Posted by Wobs

The NREL are involved in the technology and are hardly going to say anything else. To say that "Governments around the world are appreciating that solar thermal energy will be cheaper than coal before 2020", is misleading when its people like the NREL saying it..

Again I would rather place higher credibility in NREL and other government and private bodies, than in your own judgement.

Originally Posted by Wobs

What experts are saying is: "‘With adequate financing, CSP will achieve full cost competitiveness within the next 10–15 years’" In big friendly letters here: http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/is...pdf That's a pro-solar source, and "competitive" is different from "cheaper", I think you'll agree..

Competitive clean energy will always beat competitive polluting energy in the long run. The experts are saying all sorts of things, not just things that might make your argument look less unconvincing than it would otherwise look.

Originally Posted by Wobs

But as I've already said, even if it did become cheaper across the board (which is highly unlikely in our lifetime), does not mean it will be "game over" as you put it for nuclear..

Again it's government and industry projections that are making such claims that by 2020 renewables like solar and wind will be cheaper. Once renewables are cheaper, it will be game over, however you are welcome to think otherwise.

Originally Posted by Wobs

We have both cited NREL before. I hope we both appreciate their biase.

No more bias than any other government body. It all levels out, so another mute point, for lack of something more meaningful to say.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You tell me. I never said you have. More shadow boxing on your part as usual.

Earlier you wrote:

Governments around the world are appreciating that solar thermal energy will be cheaper than coal before 2020. Yet you dont. I know where I wont place my bets.

Which misrepresents what I said. I have never expressed any real support for coal. Any questions?

Again when you can form any sentence with substance, you might be believable. But anyway there is little or no evidence that it can't, when applied appropriately. You certainly have not proven anything of the kind. Others in this world don't entirely agree with you.

Still struggling to form your own sentances I see.
Do you agree that cloud sometimes passes over regions that would have potential for solar thermal technology?
Do you deny that these regions have windy conditions from time to time that can cause these plants to drop in production or even shutdown?
Do you deny that water supply for such technology is an issue?

There is no magic bullet that either of us are aware of that will deal with these issues. A strong enough wind or enough cloud will cause a serious drop in energy production. 15 hr storage is not a long time under such circumstances, and in practise, that will just be the maximum capacity.

An energy grid that supports a healthy economy is one that doesn't have to worry about such issues.

You are like a broken record. I've heard it all before. The report writers are entitled to their views. I place more credibility in them than yourself.

And yet you do not address what I've pointed out.
You only listen to those with a biase in this technology.

You seem to live in a time warp. Luckily most people can see through such weak arguments. The whole dynamics and structure of the power industry is shifting and if you can't extrapolate the meaning of that, then there is little hope for you ever coming to terms with it.

I can find no substance to anything here. Extrapolate changes in the energy industry? What, you mean increases in the number of nuclear plants being planned you mean?

Again I would rather place higher credibility in NREL and other government and private bodies, than in your own judgement.

You're welcome to rely on your own sources, but I'd rather have a more balanced view point, and not rely on such single biases.

Competitive clean energy will always beat competitive polluting energy in the long run. The experts are saying all sorts of things, not just things that might make your argument look less unconvincing than it would otherwise look.

Just in case you didn't get the message, solar thermal technology is thought by its supporters to be "cost competitive". That is not the same as cheaper. It also does not mean it will replace gas and nuclear.

I hope it will replace coal of course, but different types of supply are not necessarily directly competing on cost.

Again it's government and industry projections that are making such claims that by 2020 renewables like solar and wind will be cheaper. Once renewables are cheaper, it will be game over, however you are welcome to think otherwise.

I've already shown you that wind turbines have actually increased in price owing to increased demand.

I'm not saying that solar thermal technology will not be cost competitive, but as competition for energy increases, other energy sources will seak to make themselves more cost competitive, and for nuclear, there is much scope for this.

We all have seen projected costs and demands for energy sources, but they are not guaranteed to be followed. Technological developments come along, new reserves are opened up, new fuel processing capacity may be opened up that reduces bottlenecks. All these play a part in influencing fuel prices, and economic growth does not always follow as we'd like.

Then there's economic growth. Who would like to accurately predict that right now?