Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.
– Jimmy Carter, 1977
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
Recent Comments
- Bruce of Newcastle on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on Obliterating Bill Gates
- oeman50 on Harris To Win In A Blowout
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
- arn on The End Of Everything
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
Scary times then. We were not sure we were going to miss a new Ice Age!
I listened to the ‘peak oil’ buffoons for years and years just knowing it was nonsense. Sure enough.
Now if we could just get the anti-nuke morons off our country we could truly be independent within a decade. Between thorium units and fast neutron units that’ll ‘burn’ all the used fuel we’re choking on we could have enough provable energy for a thousand years. By which time the marketplace and American ingenuity will provide ‘the next thing’ in energy production.
Not before raising the price gradually of the available material for energy production, issuing scare stories of how ‘the next thing’ will affect the climate so we better stick with the expensive old stuff as long as possible (who wins there ?), and not to mention making it impossible for Joe Public to use ‘the next thing’ at home…because there would be no profit in doing that.
Why assume that the energy providers will operate the energy market differently in the future than the way it is run now….will they convert to a religion and give it away for free ? Really ?
Idealogical assumptions about the character of mankind somehow improving in the future are simply too optimistic
Experts have been predicting that we would run out of oil in the near term at least since 1885.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-peak-oil-predictions-haven-t-come-true-1411937788
It’s the best way to keep the price high
Jevon’s Paradox applies
What we need is a massive genetic engineering program to create billions of angry dinosaurs, & then bury them all so future generations have plenty of oil.
How about substituting politicians for dinosaurs?
aren’t most of them that type anyway?
Drive 55 to stay alive!
And turn down your thermostat to 65°F during the winter.
President Carter, 48.02 years ago:
https://nbclearn.com/files/nbcarchives/site/pdf/3438.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUNKVvd19C4
Don’t forget Obama’s line when he said we’re not going to be able to keep our thermostats set at 72°F or keep driving our SUV’s. Progressives all think alike… the masses should be living in the Stone Age while they enjoy the fruits of our labor and technology so that they can be the “wise guardians and decision makers” for us ignorant proles.
A mandatory solution to the crisis of spirit. Government control of our lives gives us more control over our own lives. Coercion is freedom.
I thought for a long time that in 1979 we were the closest to 1984. I changed my mind in 2009.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jimmycartercrisisofconfidence.htm
I remember that the oil companies were claiming they were having an oil shortage and the world supply was nearly depleted, so they jacked the costs to all time highs. When Carter proposed investing in alternative energies, the oil companies changed their stories and “discovered new sources and extraction methods” so that we would not develop anything which would cut our dependence on them.
The two deepest bore holes reached 7.1 and 7.4 miles deep with the common denominator of 568 degrees F.
There should be no doubt that we can bore on demand to the comfortable temperature of 1700 degrees F. at any spot on the planet. Doing so does bring in some nice terawatt turbines, we can even use GE’s spiffy units for free electrical heat for all 😉
Also, burying the very high ELF “E” and “H” field 3-phase lines might help to knock down those pesky impetus sources for the garden variety cancerous cellular issues …
1. There’s no such thing as a terawatt turbine, nor even close, and there never will be, and if there were you certainly couldn’t drive it with steam made by pumping water into deep wells.
2. You want to drill a hole > 7 miles deep just to heat up water and make a little bit of steam? Seriously? We have vastly more practical & economical ways of making steam.
my kitchen stove works pretty well for that
Actually Dave….which thorium reactors are currently connected to the grid ?
Germany’s Thorium reactor has had to be run on Uranium for at least 95% of it’s operation so far
Nuclear has never been economical, when taking into account the cost of decommissioning nuclear stations there is no net profit….but I guess that’s ok if you accept that the consumer has to meet the deficit
This chart compares costs of electric generation, including the decommissioning of nuke plants.
http://world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/Economic_Aspects/us-electricity-production-costs-95-12.png?n=4287
Nuclear is only less economical than coal, when it is used in countries without massive coal reserves.
Gator, but the chart says it does not include indirect costs (decommissioning is indirect)….it specifies ‘production costs’ which includes operation & maintenance + fuel
Aren’t you just reading into it whatever you want in order to make it say what you hope it says ?
The cost to store nuclear waste in the UK is currently £1.6 billion annually, and rising quickly.
QUOTE
(source: http://www.energydigital.com/utilities/3684/What-Does-it-Cost-to-Decommission-a-Nuclear-Power-Plant )
So, on an individual basis, what does it cost to shut down a nuclear power plant?
For an answer to this question, we look to the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in Southern California. In 2012, it was revealed that the new Mitsubishi tubes put in were wearing prematurely and in June of 2013, it was announced that the plant would be shut down entirely. The plant would be decommissioned, beginning in early 2016.
According to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, the process would take around 20 years and cost $4.4 billion, the most ever for decommissioning a plant.
One of the major issues facing the decommissioning project is the storage of the nuclear waste left behind by the plant. As of right now, there are no commercial facilities to do so. With so many plants about to be decommissioned, this is about to become a major issue—San Onofre is only one plant out of many.
Paul Dorfman of the Energy Institute at University College London told Financial Times that the IEA’s $100 billion estimate is only for the decommissioning process itself and does not include the costs of this permanent waste disposal.
“The UK’s own decommissioning and waste disposal costs are £85 billion alone,” he noted, “so that gives you an idea of the astronomical costs associated with nuclear.”
Chris, your information is out of date.
Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
•Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.
•Providing incentives for long-term, high-capital investment in deregulated markets where short-term price signals present a challenge in securing a diversified and reliable electricity supply system.
•In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/
To date, about 100 mines, over 100 commercial power reactors, 46 experimental or prototype reactors, over 250 research reactors and a number of fuel cycle facilities, have been retired from operation. Some of these have been fully dismantled.
•Most parts of a nuclear power plant do not become radioactive, or are contaminated at only very low levels. Most of the metal can be recycled.
•Proven techniques and equipment are available to dismantle nuclear facilities safely and these have now been well demonstrated in several parts of the world.
•Decommissioning costs for nuclear power plants, including disposal of associated wastes, are reducing and contribute only a small fraction of the total cost of electricity generation.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Decommissioning-Nuclear-Facilities/
As always, technology advances and efficiency rises. France recycles 90% of their waste, and so can we, if not 91%. 😉
Chris –
You completely misunderstand thorium-powered nuclear energy. Start here for facts:
http://thoriumenergyalliance.com/
Molten-salt breeders running on thorium can dispose of transuranic waste from uranium-fueled reactors and they produce no long-lived waste of their own. Thorium is 100x more common than uranium and does not require isotope separation – Th232 is the overwhelmingly abundant isotope and is the fuel stock for nuclear power. The molten salt design does not require high-pressure water systems (so less prone to maintenance/failure issues) and does not have the capacity to “go critical”.
China and India are using declassified US research from the 40s-60s to develop Th breeders – which the US demonstrated with more than a year’s continuous operation at Clinch River TN in the 1970s
also read “Super Fuel” by Richard Martin for an informative summary/history
No Gator my figures are up to date.
What you are projecting are the decommissioning costs of newly installed reactors., using modern more efficient reactors.
no mention of the existing old tech units which will cost many times more to decommission than it cost to build them.
Geology jim, what is there to be misunderstood ?
Salt based thorium was first proposed in the 1950’s. In 1965 the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has a working model.
In 1985 Germany ran a 300MW Thorium reactor on the grid. it lasted about 430 days. There were 80 reported ‘incidents’ one of which was a release of radioactive material to the environment. It produced electricity at a cost of nearly 10 times that of any other source, and decommissioning cannot begin until 2027…expected to be completed by 2050 , at a cost of over 5 billion Euros
Quote Wikipedia…. (Bear in mind that Britain has been involved in Thorium from the start)
“In Britain, a few organizations are either promoting or examining research on thorium-based nuclear plants. House of Lords member Bryony Worthington is promoting thorium, calling it “the forgotten fuel” that could alter Britain’s energy plans.[54] However, in 2010, the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) concluded that for the short to medium term, “…the thorium fuel cycle does not currently have a role to play,” in that it is “technically immature, and would require a significant financial investment and risk without clear benefits,” and concluded that the benefits have been “overstated”
Jim, since 1955, how much electricity has made it reliably to the grid from thorium ? India has more thorium than anybody and has one of the largest thorium/salt development programmes on the planet. Their initial reactor was due to produce useful power in 2012, it still hasn’t happened.
This white elephant better change it’s skin tone soon if you ask me
No Chris, your figures are not up to date. You are projecting costs of previous generations, costs that no longer exist. Read the info at the links I provided.
Previous generations built in the cost of decommission, this was generally paid for during the lifetime of the plant. Your figures are last century, and hyperbolic, the rest of us are moving forward.
No Gator, figure out what you’re proposing first.
You are suggesting that the decommissioning costs of earlier generation reactors was built into the price.
But just think for a moment, with the costs of decommissioning frequently reported as ‘spiraling upwards’ can you just point me to a planning document from the past few decades which predicted spiraling costs ? Logically, it cannot exist.
Therefore the decommissioning costs were never part of the initial projections, or even if we bend our imagination to say that they were included, they were woefully inaccurate, clearly.
Hyperbole Chris. Look it up.
You are taking only worst case scenarios from days gone by. If you look at the decommissioned plants individually, you will find costs all over the board. You are taking the tactics of an alarmist, and not weighing all the facts.
I am not advocating building 1960’s technology.
Gator, this is how the nuclear industry is run…..they secure partial funding from taxpayers (oops, I mean government) to build the plants, they run them at a profit thanks to discounts, and then they are abandoned (financially speaking) and the taxpayers (oops I mean government again) have to pay for the cleanup.
Currently the European Commission is looking into this issue. It is estimated, that during the next two decades, the dismantling of the 150 nuclear reactors in Europe will cost around €150 billion, with an average cost of 1 billion per reactor
If the decommissioning costs were ever part of the running cost, why would the EU commission have this concern now ? Eu citizen will be paying for this
Similar concerns exist in the United States, where the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has located apparent decommissioning funding assurance shortfalls and requested 18 power plants to address that issue. Will they succeed ? Doubtful.
With the current low price of uranium, as a direct result of Fukushima and Japan reducing it’s demand considerably, many uranium mines are in trouble, and modern extraction techniques where acid is pumped underground are having to give way to the traditional underpaid men underground techniques, with focus shifting to Africa to enable that goal to be met. It speaks for itself that this is a terrible situation
Similar concerns exist in the United States, where the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has located apparent decommissioning funding assurance shortfalls and requested 18 power plants to address that issue.
No shit! Once again you are only looking at one side of the issue, just like an alarmist. And once again, you are talking about last century. Check the calendar.
Sun causes cancer, so get rid of the sun!
Here’s a new campaign for you Chris.
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Stop the madness! 😆
I’m glad that you now accept that you were wrong to say that decommissioning was ever part of the initial startup cost projection for nuclear plants
I’m further gladdened to see that you have resorted to humour, for humour is precisely what you need if you try to convince yourself that nuclear is the golden bullet.
WTF? Decommissioning costs are absolutely built into the budget from day one. You obviously are not reading my posts or source material.
Nuclear energy fully accounts for its waste disposal and decommissioning costs in financial evaluations.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Energy-Subsidies-and-External-Costs/
I cannot have a discussion with someone who cannot understand clear statements.
I’m further gladdened to see that you have resorted to humour, for humour is precisely what you need if you try to convince yourself that nuclear is the golden bullet.
Again, you are not comprehending my posts, I never once indicated nuclear was anything akin to a ‘golden bullet’.
I am not a zealot, or alarmist.
Gator “WTF? Decommissioning costs are absolutely built into the budget from day one. You obviously are not reading my posts or source material.”
So you are trying to convince people that when a reactor with a 25 year lifetime is built, that the costs include an accurate estimate of how much needs to be spent decommissioning it.
Again, look at the logic – in 2007 the estimated cost to decommission all nuclear plants in the UK was £47 billion. Today the estimated costs have risen to £85 billion * for doing exactly the same work* ….so Gaotr, when the plants were being built was the cost they planned into the accounting ? Was it £47 billion, was it £85 billion…. was it some other figure ?
Logically, nobody can predict what the cost to deccomission a nuclear plant will be in 25 years time……. where in your link is the prediction, I just didn’t see it.
France recently decommissioned an experimental 90MW plant, the decommissioning costs * When demolition began* were estimated to total 90 million Euro. The cost to date has exceeded 450 million Euro and is still rising…….. what figure did they use when it wa built ? How did they know ?
If i ask a builder to build me a house 25 years in the future do you think he can give me a price ? If i ask a demolition and waste management company to predict the cost to decommission a nuclear power station in 25 years time do you think they can give me a price ? These are the questions which need good quality answers if you believe that the costs were ever included in the build costs.
I no longer live in the dysfunctional Europe.
That is your problem, keep it on your side of the pond, we don’t need or want it.
Actually the USA is far from immune from the rising costs of decommissioning…original estimate to decommission the Rowe plant in Mas was about $50million. The actual cost is well over $600million, and rising. Original estimate in terms of time was 5 years…actual time is over 15 years.
Don’t fool yourself with Professor Rose’s original estimate that decommissioning will cost about 10-15% of the build costs. Rowe cost $39 million to build and has so far cost over $600 to take down. It seems like decommissioning is better estimated as 20 times the cost of building, and not the original 10%-15% estimate
The plant’s spent fuel rods are still stored in a facility on-site, because there is no permanent disposal repository to put them in. To monitor them and make sure the material does not fall into the hands of terrorists or spill into the nearby river costs $8 million per year. That cost will continue for an unknown number of years.
Chris the Wind Baron still flapping his gums.
Zzzzzzzzzz……..
In defeat, insult ?
I expected more from you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmm3KTa601s
Reblogged this on Gunny.G: BLOGGING.BAD ~ ORWELL '84+.