There's more than enough coal; maybe as much as 10 trillion tons of the stuff. Be hundreds of years before we run out. And the USA is # 1 in coal.

Keep their other nuke plants running. If they're committed to displacing them with renewables, they can displace them as their renewable capacity comes on line.

But the fact is that people are terrified of radiation, and they aren't actually that worked up about climate change. So what we got instead was Japan and Germany shutting their nukes in one fell swoop, and replacing it with coal and gas.

Winning!

It isn't flexible enough. The variability of renewables isn't a problem at all in a properly designed system. But, nuclear isn't part of a system properly designed for renewables, they are part of a system designed for coal.

You are also remarkably inaccurate about Germany:
1) They've been working on the plan for shutting down their nuclear fleet since 2001. This was hardly a kneejerk decision.
2) They ARE NOT replacing the nuclear with coal and gas in any meaningful sense. As has been shown on DUEE any number of times, their new fossil generation is replacing older plants that are neither as efficient nor as flexible. The new ones are designed to facilitate significant increases in the level of wind and solar generation.
3) The planning (and construction for most) of the new plants has been underway long before Fukushima. To ascribe their existence to panic is again, remarkably inaccurate.


Finally, I personally think the Japanese are in a far better position to evaluate their personal and social costs re Fukushima than you are. Your post seems to have a hard edge of pronuclear bias that dismisses the price your desires exact from others.

If nuclear isn't compatible with renewables, the Japanese think that adding more coal-fired plants that function essentially the same will be better somehow?

Also,

As can be seen with the quote GG pulled from the Guardian, the economics clash. That clash is specifically keyed to the inability of the extremely large scale turbines (both coal and nuclear) to cycle efficiently and rapidly. The older design can only be profitable when it is paid to run 24/7, shutting down (as much as possible) only for scheduled mx.

That is their economic niche.

The new plants that Germany built/is building were planned to both increase overall plant efficiency significantly and allow them to fill an economic niche that is able to retain its profitability in the face of a steadily declining load factor, or to put another way, in the face of selling a steadily declining amount of electricity; or to put it another way, in the fact of burning a steadily declining amount of coal.

Can you tell me of a country that has a more aggressive plan to move away from carbon? (Before you cite France, you might want to consider that their intentions are to move away from nuclear.) Most of the criticisms EE's nuclear club levels against Germany are built implicitly on the assumption that in the realm of generation, going large scale nuclear would not entail nuclear working in tandem with carbon generation. And that spending would also be undertaken to make sure that carbon generation was as efficient as possible in its role as a back up/complement for nuclear.

It makes sense to plan as Germany has. If you don't understand the need for the elements of the plan, it isn't because the plan lacks merit.

And, yes, Japan's emissions have skyrocketed, but that speaks to the fragile nature of the system built on nuclear than it does anything else.

However, the article I posted and GG cited said up to 30 reactors in the US could be closed due to economic clashes over the next decade. That, however, still leaves over 60 reactors left running that still work within the existing economic system for the time being while renewables are scaled up further. Over time, those reactors also become uneconomical and go offline as they are no longer needed.

The alternative that Japan and Germany appear to be accepting is a spike in carbon emissions from new gas and coal plants that may last for the next decade to bridge the gap to a predominately renewables system at precisely the time our ecosystems can't handle such a spike. That is not an alternative that keeps us anywhere near a safe atmospheric CO2 level, given now what we're learning about positive feedback mechanisms.

If you want a slow, haphazard, expensive, sloppy, transition that decreases reliability on the grid then your strictly economically driven 'shut down' method would be the preferred approach.

If you prefer to accelerate a least cost process while enhancing grid reliability however, then, you might prefer to plan and make an investment in the proper foundational infrastructure to facilitate those goals - which is what Germany has been doing for 20 years.

And you STILL haven't answered my question - can you point me to the country with a better plan than Germany for getting away from carbon?

its situation like fukushima that worries the piss out of many of us. No one really knows what to do to bring that under control and the dangers from it are very real. Whether you want to admit that or not.
Look what happened in Russia, a whole city is abandoned because of a nuclear mishap. It matters not the kind of power plant it was it matters that it happened and the fuel for that happening is/was nuclear energy.
Thats what we're terrified of

So you don't have to

Wait until there is a major release of contamination and the wind isn't coincidentally blowing away from the high density population centers.

Yes, building fossil fuel generation sucks, but the reason they are in that position is because they chose poorly in the first place. Current investments in highly flexible fossil generation along with significant efforts to expand renewables will work better to phase out carbon than continued reliance and further investment in nuclear ever would.

kristopher,

Sure!

One replaces an essentially zero GHG emission technology like nuclear; and substitute a mix of essentially zero GHG emission renewables, PLUS high GHG emission fossil fuel generation; and that will work better than the original essentially zero GHG emission nuclear techology.

I.e 0 > 0 + 1

Zero GHG nuclear is worse than Zero GHG renewables + high GHG fossil.

Some environmentalists believe that GHG emissions are OK as long as they prevent one from building / operating zero GHG nuclear.

You know, you get more radioactive pollution from the coal plants than you do from nuclear plants. Courtesy of scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.
...
Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

I really do wonder what the bias against nuclear is all about.

PamW

The consequences of the Fukushima meltdown are unquestionable - the Japanese are rejecting nuclear power even after investing hundreds of billions of dollars in building the infrastructure.

Let me repeat that - the Japanese are rejecting nuclear power even after investing hundreds of billions of dollars in building the infrastructure.

That is a real, undeniable aspect of nuclear power - it has accidents that are hugely consequential to the social and economic fabric of their human environment.
- AND (unsurprisingly) those accidents are nowhere near as rare as they are portrayed by the people who profit from the risk faced by the public.

Suppose that the world were to go crazy and actually follow your wish for heavy investment in nuclear for the next 15 years until the next Level 7 accident. And further suppose that, this time the wind is blowing towards the Future Nearby Major City rather than out to sea like it was in Tokyo.

What do you think will happen to the world's carbon footprint when the inevitable happens and that major population and economic center has to be abandoned at a cost of tens of trillions of dollars?

nuclear is god because I said so and everyone else is stupid who disagrees is what is coming from there.
I have a hard time reading that swill anymore. It was bad enough with the big guy but now with this poster its even worse. So many parallels there its like they get their talking points and go with it rather than critical thinking on their own part.

My apologies for pointing out the obvious. Sorry

madokie,

I don't know about you; but EVERYTHING I say comes from my own scientifically accurate critical thinking.

I don't get "talking points" from anyone to tell me what to know and believe.

I make up my own mind using my own scientifically trained intellect.

I do quote other scientists; because that's how one supports one's opinions.

I can't prove to anyone here who I am, and that I have the scientific credentials that I say I have.

However, I can quote people like Dr. Charles Till of Argonne National Lab, a renown scientific leader whose scientific credentials are unquestioned.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

I also don't pay any attention to your screeds anymore due to the way you write what you have to say. In fact I find most of it amusing in the fact that you think everyone who doesn't agree with you are less than you are.

Hell I could quote Einstein too but that wouldn't make me anything in particular now would it

For a long time I had you on my IL but then I needed the comic relief so I changed that.

ETA: I question who you say you are but like you said you can't prove anything so why would I worry with that plus I really don't care. Most scientist have better things to do than stalk people who are against nuclear energy on a democratic message board.
I never see an OP by you, maybe I just miss them, all I see is you jumping in throwing your weight around calling every one who disagrees with you stupid or idiots or whatever when any of us say something that is against the use of splitting atoms for boiling water.

I've tired of your attitude to be honest.

Have a good evening, I plan too.

I never understand why people react so negatively to good scientific information.

Its as if science is there to prove our preconceived political opinions; and if science doesn't confirm our preconceived notions; then to Hell with it.

I have better things to do than visit this board; and I do those things.

However, every so often I check in to see if there is any misinformation or misquoting of science; or any other abuse of science. I usually find something in that realm. I don't have to stalk or go looking for it; it's always obviously there.

The good thing about science is that it is true; whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

what you're calling good scientific information.
Its not ever so often you check in here, thats a lie cause anytime there is any argument made that calls into question what you believe may cast doubt on nuclear energy you just so happen to check in. I don't buy that for a second. You're monitoring what is being posted here about nuclear energy as sure as I'm typing right this minute. It wasn't but a short time earlier that I posted what I did that you replied to so that doesn't sound like someone who just checks in here from time to time. This has happened on many other occasions too.

Most scientist I've read though out the years has had a good grasp of the written word, something you seem to lack so many times in your screeds so that causes me to question your creds too.

Look I've no interest in being banned from this board or this group so I'd appreciate if you'd proof read what you post for correct information and it being presented in a manner that would encourage pleasant discussion rather than screeds that calls into question our sanity for what we may say that you, in your infinite wisdom, disagree with.
I doubt that other scientist put up with your manner of discussion so that too causes me to question the truth in the statement that you are a scientist. Intelligent people don't have to go around telling others how damn smart they are either. It will just come through.

I say you are less than truthful when you say you are a scientist. Pretty intelligent person I can accept but a true scientist, no, I can't. I base this on the many mistakes I've seen in your screeds both factual and typographical.

As often as you appear in threads questioning the sanity of using nuclear energy to boil water and if you are a scientist as you say you must be paid well so why is it you are not a paying member of DU? I'm old, I'm retired and I find money to donate and have since day one here because I understand that a board like this doesn't just happen, it takes lots of effort and lots of money.

If you want to be taken seriously by me and I'm sure there is others too you'll have to tone down your attitude. A lot!

madokie states
I say you are less than truthful when you say you are a scientist. Pretty intelligent person I can accept but a true scientist, no, I can't. I base this on the many mistakes I've seen in your screeds both factual and typographical.

If you think I've made a factual or scientific error - by all means; tell me what error you think I've made.

I would be more than happy to explain the facts or scientific principles that you believe are in error.

Many scientific principles are quite counter-intuitive. Each year one of the scientific societies gives a test to non-scientists as to what they think is the correct scientific answer. In many cases, the results have the majority of non-scientists not only giving the incorrect answer; but they are very sure that their answer is correct.

Evidently, you take my insistence on good science as being too strident; and would prefer a tone that invites discussion. The problem comes when one has a law of science that is crystal clear as to what it says. If someone says, "Let's discuss whether or not the efficiency of a heat engine can exceed the Carnot efficiency"; that isn't something that can be debated. The Carnot limit on efficiency has been known for over a century; and there is over a century of good science that validates it. There really can't be any discussion on that. It's like asking to debate whether Congress has the power to levy taxes. It's really a settled issue.

I donate plenty to various causes; and will take your suggestion under advisement.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

Last edited Sat Oct 19, 2013, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

kristopher states:
That is a real, undeniable aspect of nuclear power - it has accidents that are hugely consequential to the social and economic fabric of their human environment.
- AND (unsurprisingly) those accidents are nowhere near as rare as they are portrayed by the people who profit from the risk faced by the public.

The frequency of accidents speaks for itself. In terms of large scale accidents with offsite consequences in commercial nuclear power plants worldwide for the past 50+ years; we've had three; Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Now compare the frequency of nuclear power accidents to accidents with other technologies that we readily accept. In the past 50+ years that we've had nuclear power, how many airliner crashes have there been? A LOT more than 3. How about automobile crashes and the death toll from those in the past 50 years? Every year, over 40,000 people in the USA alone die in automobile crashes. In the 50 years that we've had nuclear power, that's 2 million deaths in the USA alone. Nuclear power comes no where near that.

What we do have are accidents that anti-nukes like kristopher like to GROSSLY EXAGGERATE as being hugely consequential when they are not. For example, the Fukushima accident has been HYPED so that what it truly is, is a mere shadow of what it has been hyped to be. See:

The Panic Over Fukushima
by Professor Richard Muller, Dept of Physics, UC-Berkeley

Japan's nuclear accident was a great human tragedy, but its long-term health effects have been exaggerated—and the virtues of nuclear power remain.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332

Non-scientist kristopher makes a scientifically unsubstantiated assumption above that the Japanese would have to abandon Tokyo if the wind were different. Suppose we had 3 simultaneous Fukushima accidents, with 9 reactors total instead of 3 and the winds were such that Tokyo got 3 times the contamination as Fukushima. Tokyo need not be abandoned. As per the facts / logic presented by Professor Muller; Tokyo would have the same degree of "contamination" as Denver does naturally. We haven't abandoned Denver; and the Japanese need not abandon Tokyo.

Kristopher keeps claiming that I'm not a scientist, and I predict kristopher will probably claim that Professor Richard Muller of the Physics Department at University of California - Berkeley, and author of the book, "Physics for Future Presidents", and teacher of a highly regarded course for non-scientists at Berkeley; is somehow NOT a scientist, or a bad scientist, or whatever; simply because non-scientist kristopher doesn't like what he says.

Of course; that is an old tactic. That's EXACTLY what climate deniers do. If you don't like what the scientists say; you claim that they are wrong. Don't we excoriate climate deniers for such tactics?

Scientists like myself like to put things in proper perspective, and not EXAGGERATE like the anti-nukes do.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

The fact of the matter is Chernobyl has lain waste to a large area of the surroundings including a city of over 50,000 inhabitants.
Cars in todays world is a necessary evil unless you want to go back to beasts of burden.

Fukushima is not even close to being under control and the jury is still out on the damage that will be caused by it. I doubt this will end in a good way.

madokie states
The fact of the matter is Chernobyl has lain waste to a large area of the surroundings including a city of over 50,000 inhabitants.

I guess there is some disagreement as to what "lain waste" means.

I guess you could say an area was "laid waste" if humans avoid it.

However, just because hysterical and misinformed humans are not frequenting the area doesn't mean that it can't sustain life.

It turns out that the animals in the area are thriving. They don't have anti-nuke animals to "scare monger" them for political purposes; so they just go on with their lives.

From the scientific publication "Science Daily":

Wildlife Thriving After Nuclear Disaster? Radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima Nuclear Accidents Not as Harmful to Wildlife as Feared

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120411084107.htm

Talk about "critical thinking"; that's what I'm advocating. Rather than listening to non-scientists that have a political axe to grind, and so they fabricate horrendous falsehoods; I'd like people to look at the scientific publications which tell a completely different story; a truthful story.

As bad as Chernobyl was; it wasn't as bad as the anti-nukes have made it out to be.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

Last edited Sat Oct 19, 2013, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)

and any self respecting scientist would know that

How can thousands of square miles uninhabitable safely for man and a city that is abandoned be taken as we're making it worst than it really is?
No, you are simply full of it

splchk

madokie,

The reason is that the animals are thriving. They aren't dying. They are getting an epidemic of cancer. The animals are doing just fine.

That's what the science is telling us. The science is telling us that we would do as well as the animals; it's just that humans have convinced themselves that there is a bigger danger than there is.

Read the referenced article for validation.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

Compared to humans.

The kind of damage you'd expect from the radioactive fallout around Chernobyl can take years to decades to manifest itself. In humans, this is a big problem, because we can live such long lives.

In most animals that live at best 10-15 years in the wild (many far, far less than this), they die of weather, disease, predators, etc, long before any of the radiation effects start to become evident.

That said, there is compelling research showing possible long-term genetic damage to the species living there, which could make it harder for them to successfully reproduce in the future.

So, not a blasted wasteland of hopelessness, but also not a utopian game reserve either.

You wrote,

kristopher,

The problem is that you have made a BAD non-scientific assumption; namely that a meltdown must result in bad consequences for the surrounding community.

If we look at Three Mile Island; we see that is a BAD assumption. The containment building of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor worked perfectly. There was ZERO unintended or uncontrolled release.

The only release during the Three Mile Island accident was an "on purpose" release to vent an area of the containment so that workers could get in with lessened radiation exposure. If the utility was willing to let its personnel get a bit more radiation exposure; then even that release would have been prevented and the total release to environment from the Three Mile Island accident would have been ZERO.

Even with the small release; the consensus is that nobody was ill-effected. The judge in the case where neighbors sued the operator Metropolitan Edison; the judge granted summary judgment because there wasn't a case to submit to a jury. Here's the ruling from the judge:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

Before you say that the judge was bought off or was a Republican appointee or some other explanation; read the judge's ruling to see that she followed the facts about radiation exposure as given in the scientific reports, most notably the Rogovin Report.

The scientific community came to its conclusion without bias; and the judge and the legal community backed it.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

I stated a simple, obvious set of facts.

Nuclear plants fail.

We've so far been lucky no major population centers have been directly impacted, but given that fortuitous winds are all that spared Japan from a multi-trillion dollar catastrophe,it is absolutely valid to assume we may not be so lucky next time.

Your diversion to a recitation about TMI is meaningless.

What kind of coal plants are they building, are they direct burn as we know coal or are they gasified combined cycle by any chance? Because if its the later its a whole different ball of wax in the amount of co2 output to the air compared to the former. I realize either way you have to rape the earth to get coal but so do you with gas, oil or Nuclear. With gas and oil the raping isn't so much out in the open as it is with mining but its still there nevertheless. What goes in comes out afterall. Any of the three I mention means we're as a civilization are fucked. I believe I've read the Japanese are installing roof top solar like it was going out of style, thats good if they are because in any region the most electricity we need is during the day. Solar and wind can and do produce a lot of electricity.
All I know is nuclear as it is used today is too dangerous and needs to be stopped.

In my personal world in the last 22 years I've gone from using gas, LPN, to waste, wood pellets, to a variable speed heat pump with a SEER of 19.2. Our electric bill dropped by 1/4 this summer from previous years. I expect our heating bill will drop by at least as much this winter. A lot can be said for what we as individuals are doing in our own personal lives to cut our energy usage.