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

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Earlier you wrote:

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

I never said you did, but I maintain my point as coal will become more costly, nuclear cant replace it cheaply, especially in the long term. Sustainable renewable energy is the only alternative long term.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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?

Still struggling outright I see. I can only re-iterate the government and industry projections for solar say it all. You can live in your own world of you like.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

I can only re-iterate the government and industry projections for solar say it all. You can live in your own world of you like.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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

Is that why its in an unsustainable mess now ? I will bear that in mind the next time I think about Climate Change.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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

You have only raised the same old points you raised long ago and dismissed long ago. Nothing new.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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?

If you cant work it out by now, I suspect there is no hope for you to ever understand. The energy industry is changing in many facets. If you cant see that, then so be it.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

I don't see your view as balanced.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

And ? A non point again ? who said it would ? not that I think it can't. renewables are increasingly replacing new demand.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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

Changes nothing. Renewables are expected to influence all segments.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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

I have already shown that in growth markets that's nothing new and it will eventually level out over the longer term as productive capacity increases. Basic economics applicable across the board.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

It's well recognised by most, that solar energy will be one of the biggest and most dominating forms of renewable energy.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

Again the experts have told the story about cost projections for solar. Believe what you like. All this is basic economics. You are not shedding any new light on this subject.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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

Again basic economics and it hits all industry, but there is a firm view out there that renewable energy is favourably placed to weather and benefit, as it's fuel is not demand sensitive like fossils. People can better lock in renewable contracts, unlike fossils.

Originally Posted by Wobs

It doesn't level out, as you only cite sources such as the NREL that have the biase that you like. There are few sources that provide a balanced view to such technology.

More speculation. You have not shown any alternative substantiated view on that.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I never said you did, but I maintain my point as coal will become more costly, nuclear cant replace it cheaply, especially in the long term. Sustainable renewable energy is the only alternative long term.

Then why keep mentioning coal?
Good job nuclear is just as sustainable as renewable then. (see seawater extraction).

Still struggling outright I see. I can only re-iterate the government and industry projections for solar say it all. You can live in your own world of you like.

Your "government" view is just NREL, and industry is the renewable industry. Hardly unbiased, and if agreeing with them makes you happy, then that's just super.

Is that why its in an unsustainable mess now ? I will bear that in mind the next time I think about Climate Change.

You have provided no viable alternative. You'll notice that the energy grid that we have has provided affordable energy to many countries. Help them develop, and provide comfort for its populations. The current recession is simply part of a cycle.

You keep mentioning climate change, and yet we both know that nuclear has a comparable energy cost to all your favourite renewable technologies, so in terms of fighting climate change, you should support it.

You have only raised the same old points you raised long ago and dismissed long ago. Nothing new.

More projection. And you have yet to disprove anything I've said.

If you cant work it out by now, I suspect there is no hope for you to ever understand. The energy industry is changing in many facets. If you cant see that, then so be it.

Yes they are looking to increase the amount of nuclear energy, which is good news.

I don't see your view as balanced.

So you don't deny that yours isn't. Good.
But I've always maintined that we need both renewable, and nuclear. I'd like to see a gradual decline in coal consumption in favour of nuclear and other low carbon technologies.

I'd say that was a balanced view, given that I'm not actually opposed to any of the technologies you wish to promote.


Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

And ? A non point again ? who said it would ? not that I think it can't. renewables are increasingly replacing new demand.

You did:

It will be game over by 2020, when solar is cheaper than coal and other fossil fuels and I expect nuclear also.

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

Changes nothing. Renewables are expected to influence all segments.

It is an important point, as renewables cannot replace entirely coal and nuclear . Certainly not world wide. As I've repeatedly pointed out, they'll have their place, but there will be significent limits to their capacity even in the long term.

I have already shown that in growth markets that's nothing new and it will eventually level out over the longer term as productive capacity increases. Basic economics applicable across the board.

Blind projections of increasing costs in uranium and fossil fuels and decreasing costs in renewables is most unscientific. It ignores supply issues, exploration, technical limitations of technologies, and what we know about the lifespan any plant.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

It's well recognised by most, that solar energy will be one of the biggest and most dominating forms of renewable energy.

Couldn't be happier for them. But you should be concerned about its impact on certain areas when they increase capacity enough. And how much it will provide compared with nuclear.

Again the experts have told the story about cost projections for solar. Believe what you like. All this is basic economics. You are not shedding any new light on this subject.

So why do you ignore it if its basic economics?

Again basic economics and it hits all industry, but there is a firm view out there that renewable energy is favourably placed to weather and benefit, as it's fuel is not demand sensitive like fossils. People can better lock in renewable contracts, unlike fossils.

A "firm view" in the form of the NREL and the renewable companies saying their technology is great?

More speculation. You have not shown any alternative substantiated view on that.

No, you'll find that you've provided views from the solar industry and they've said that solar technology is great etc. Wow.

I've shown people have other views to yours and the solar industry (see other recent threads).
I've shown that nuclear has enough uranium, but here's another quote anyway:
"Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand the amount is sufficient for 85 years, the study states. Fast reactor technology would lengthen this period to over 2500 years."
Global Uranium Resources to Meet Projected Demand

Here:
"Uranium supply is unlikely to limit nuclear power for at least
the lifetime of a new generation of reactors. Moreover,
uranium (as yellowcake) is also easy to stockpile.

8.1.3 A global expansion is new civil nuclear build that aimed
radically to increase the nuclear share of generation in the
period to 2025, might face some constraints – for example,
the supply of a skilled workforce and manufacturing
capacity – but the availability of fuel is not seen as a
significant constraint in the foreseeable future."

[Wobs]

Or here:
"Worldwide, identified resources of uranium are sufficient for some 85 years at current usage rates. Advanced reactor technologies involving the recycling of used fuel could extend nuclear resources for thousands of years."
Uranium and Nuclear Power - Briefing Paper 10/2006 dated 03/08/2006 - NSW Parliament

And:
"Over the next five years, new mines are expected in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Brazil, India and other countries. They would add around 30,000 tons of uranium of annual production capacity, about a 60 percent increase over today’s capacity. "

The rise in price has stimulated further expansion, exploration and investment in uranium mining. Thus, the price is not set to rise indefinately. New supplies will come on the market, which will extend the reserves futher, and new energy technology will use the fuel more efficiently, as I've already shown (but here's some more indo anyway
Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors: WNA

"As of the beginning of 2003 World Uranium reserves were


Reasonable Assured Reserves recoverable at less than $US130/kgU (or $US50/lb U3O8 ) [4] = 3.10 - 3.28 million tU [2,5].
Additional reserves recoverable at less than $US130/kgU (or $US50/lb U3O8 ) = 10.690 million tU [2].

As of the beginning of 2005 World Uranium reserves were


Reasonable Assured Reserves recoverable at less than $US130/kgU (or $US50/lb U3O8 ) = 4.7 million tU [6].
Additional recoverable Uranium is estimated to be 35 million tU [6].
The substantial increase (almost 50%) from 2003 shows the results of the world-wide renewed exploration effort spurred by the increase in Uranium prices which commenced in 2004. This increase in activity has continued through to 2008. Thus, the provable uranium reserves amount to approximately 85 years supply at the current level of consumption with current technology, with another 500 years of additional reserves. Around 24% of the proven reserves are in Australia."

Nuclear Power Education - Availability of Usable Uranium

So your 85 years is simply a reference number. It is in no way an absolute date of when uranium will either run out or even start to drop off.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Then why keep mentioning coal?
Good job nuclear is just as sustainable as renewable then. (see seawater extraction). Your "government" view is just NREL, and industry is the renewable industry. Hardly unbiased, and if agreeing with them makes you happy, then that's just super. You have provided no viable alternative. You'll notice that the energy grid that we have has provided affordable energy to many countries. Help them develop, and provide comfort for its populations. The current recession is simply part of a cycle.
You keep mentioning climate change, and yet we both know that nuclear has a comparable energy cost to all your favourite renewable technologies, so in terms of fighting climate change, you should support it.
More projection. And you have yet to disprove anything I've said.
Yes they are looking to increase the amount of nuclear energy, which is good news. So you don't deny that yours isn't. Good.
But I've always maintined that we need both renewable, and nuclear. I'd like to see a gradual decline in coal consumption in favour of nuclear and other low carbon technologies. I'd say that was a balanced view, given that I'm not actually opposed to any of the technologies you wish to promote. Originally Posted by Wobs

And ? A non point again ? who said it would ? not that I think it can't. renewables are increasingly replacing new demand.

I've heard it all before. The same old stale, speculative, unsubstantiated arguments about the what might be, if only it could be, ( whether it be from seawater or ore or even from thin air ) in terms of long term sustainability and commercial viability of nuclear energy for the bulk of the worlds population, such notions have little credibility in my eyes. Beyond that, my time is deferring to more important matters, hence my brief reply. Quite simply, most of the world wont be predominantly relying on nuclear energy, as we head into the distant future. Enjoy your further speculation.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I've heard it all before. The same old stale, speculative, unsubstantiated arguments about the what might be, if only it could be, ( whether it be from seawater or ore or even from thin air ) in terms of long term sustainability and commercial viability of nuclear energy for the bulk of the worlds population, such notions have little credibility in my eyes. Beyond that, my time is deferring to more important matters, hence my brief reply. Quite simply, most of the world wont be predominantly relying on nuclear energy, as we head into the distant future. Enjoy your further speculation.

Fine if you don't want to listen, but just because you don't believe nuclear energy is not sustainable is no reason not to exploit such a resource. Especially given that it provides the perfect alternative to coal.

There are huge amounts of uranium yet to exploit. Lower grades are in greater abundance (just like any other ore that we dig out of the ground), and we have yet to find the true limit of the high great ores.

That's before we use seawater extraction which would last millions of years (and effectively put a ceiling on any uranium ore price), so I fail to see how you could argue against nuclear energy based upon some kind of sustainability issue.

Any increase in energy cost that will be faced in reduced ore grade can be tackled with more efficient fuel processing, which is currently being developed. The total amount of energy in the ore has yet to be realised with current practises, and so future uranium stocks are likely to provide far more energy that today (I'm not worried about current stocks lasting only 2500years).

Then there are the different materials that can be used in alterantive plant designs. Thorium is even more abundant than uranium, and the Chinese are even looking extract uranium from certain coal ash types.

So there are a whole range of options for the nuclear industry.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Fine if you don't want to listen, but just because you don't believe nuclear energy is not sustainable is no reason not to exploit such a resource. Especially given that it provides the perfect alternative to coal.

There are huge amounts of uranium yet to exploit. Lower grades are in greater abundance (just like any other ore that we dig out of the ground), and we have yet to find the true limit of the high great ores.

That's before we use seawater extraction which would last millions of years (and effectively put a ceiling on any uranium ore price), so I fail to see how you could argue against nuclear energy based upon some kind of sustainability issue.

Any increase in energy cost that will be faced in reduced ore grade can be tackled with more efficient fuel processing, which is currently being developed. The total amount of energy in the ore has yet to be realised with current practises, and so future uranium stocks are likely to provide far more energy that today (I'm not worried about current stocks lasting only 2500years).

Then there are the different materials that can be used in alterantive plant designs. Thorium is even more abundant than uranium, and the Chinese are even looking extract uranium from certain coal ash types.

So there are a whole range of options for the nuclear industry.

There is no perfect alternative. As indicated, speculation about "what if" we develop this or that type of nuclear technology, at some unknown future date and unknown cost and risks, is highly speculative. Nuclear simply wont sustain the bulk of the world long term and as discussed I don't expect nuclear will be able to compete on price with renewables long term. If exploiting non sustainable resources means building greater dependency upon them, without providing sustainable alternatives, then such exploitation comes into question. New energy demand needs to be met by sustainable energy development, otherwise we are just adding global energy dependency to the house of cards that will eventually collapse. I doubt an unsubsidised nuclear industry will ever be able to compete in the longer run and I suspect the nuclear industry will start to loose some of its political sway, as renewables get cheaper over the next few decades.

[Besoeker]

Currently the major sources for electrical power generation are fossil and nuclear.
There are a few specific hydroelectric schemes that make a significant contribution.
The aggregate of everything else is a marginal contribution.
If it develops from a marginal into the major contribution withing 20 years I'll invite, and pay for, dinner at the London Hilton for Elmagico and Wobs.
If it doesn't, Lmagic has to reciprocate the offer.
And, Lmagic, that's in addition to the five year deal I offered you before.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Currently the major sources for electrical power generation are fossil and nuclear. There are a few specific hydroelectric schemes that make a significant contribution. The aggregate of everything else is a marginal contribution. If it develops from a marginal into the major contribution withing 20 years I'll invite, and pay for, dinner at the London Hilton for Elmagico and Wobs. If it doesn't, Lmagic has to reciprocate the offer. And, Lmagic, that's in addition to the five year deal I offered you before.

ELBesoekero, renewables currently provide around 20 to 25% of global electrical energy supply, most of course being hydro. More significantly growth rates of that other segment are very high and so long as Climate Change remains a global high priority, I expect such growth will continue to be strong. It largely depends on where the worlds priorities lie, that will influence future trends in energy supply and not perceived limitations in technologies ability to deliver. The world probably uses far more energy than it needs to and much is wasted producing throw away junk. I don't do deals on meals.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

ELBesoekero, renewables currently provide around 20 to 25% of global electrical energy supply, most of course being hydro. More significantly growth rates of that other segment are very high and so long as Climate Change remains a global high priority, I expect such growth will continue to be strong.

The growth rate for other renewables, (solar, geothermal, biomass, wind etc.), may be strong related to existing installed capacity.
In absolute terms, the rate of increase of electrical energy from fossils continues to outstrip that by more than an order of magnitude.
The gap is increasing.