cheaper to operate than an electric car?

[Ecky]

I'm (sortof) part of the climate change crowd and I can't figure out why they're shutting down nuclear and hydro power. So, please don't generalize. There are a lot of different factions with different interests and goals.

[ME_Andy]

I'm sorry HB, but Neil is actually correct. Renewables are growing, even with less hydro power. Here's the chart to prove it.

[ME_Andy]

I'm sorry HB, but Neil is actually correct. Renewables are growing, even with less hydro power. Here's the chart to prove it.

[Natalya]

Nuclear has been perennially dogged by safety and environmental concerns. The emissions from the plants themselves are clean, but the waste produced at the plant, and more importantly (but rarely talked about) the waste at the mining and refining sites, is incredibly hazardous and hard to deal with. A lot of energy also goes into producing the fuel, and the maintenance of the security and safety systems at the plants themselves is quite substantial.

[Ecky]

These are definitely issues. I loosely follow Gates (like I follow Musk, Bezos and others) and he's lately been funneling money into research for a reactor that can utilize the primary products of nuclear plants to produce more energy.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

That is actually false. Because of the loss of so much zero emission nuclear energy and hydro electric, it has actually gotten dirtier. Which is one reason I think the climate change crowd is more worried about politics then climate change.

We like to lump "environmentalists", people who conserve energy and climate change folks into one big old bucket but there is no real red versus blue except in the imaginations of our people. Liberals as we seem to strangely call conservationists among others are far more diverse than typical red folks. (Democrats greatest weakness)
Look at all the arguments here? No matter how much of a republican you think you are, if you participate in this forum, you would be considered extremely liberal by the average Joe. Saving energy is considered communist by my uncle)

In Wisconsin which historically was nearly 50% hydro, we have had a sometimes non sensical drive (which oddly enough has been strongly supported by the utilities) to disable hydro power as much as possible.
Many times the utility says the dam is too expensive???
The DNR then also supports removal of hydro power but in half of cases leaves the dam intact just without generators. (Seems to miss the point)

Many of the DNR rangers I know are Trump all the way people.
They consider themselves conservationists in so far as it directly affects the hunt or their favorite plot of land and not much further, climate change many times in their mind is a different story for them than me.

I consider myself a common sense environmentalist but I fully support limited nuclear, oppose removal of nuclear, support nuclear development (like thorium) and hydro, I do like to see limited attempts within reason to add spillways for fish but oppose most dam removals (considering the dam usually stays intact anyway)

Hydro is still a lesser of two evils

So I guess what I am saying is some of what you are complaining about is done by people who are strongly republican or by people who are concerned with specific elements of the environment which they may feel have nothing to do with climate change.

Sometimes things done in the name of liberals are by very conservative groups to make more money

[spdfrk]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

That is actually false. Because of the loss of so much zero emission nuclear energy and hydro electric, it has actually gotten dirtier. Which is one reason I think the climate change crowd is more worried about politics then climate change.

I totally agree. Canada recently announced they will get rid of all coal generation and prices will likely spike as a result unless they find a better way of doing things. Meanwhile, Trump will scoop up all the cheap coal to power the U.S. I don't see good things ahead.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by ME_Andy

I'm sorry HB, but Neil is actually correct. Renewables are growing, even with less hydro power. Here's the chart to prove it.

But that is misleading, and again makes me point that it's about politics not clean energy. First the chart is really narrow in years, and second is it a US chart or world chart?
Here is a longer US chart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr..._1949-2011.png
If it's a world chart then any increase or flat trend in hydro is only because China is increasing hydro. Nuclear was increasing then it completely flat lined and now will be shrinking as those plants from the boom are not refueled and taken off line.
So look at this world chart and see that the overall electric generation is dirtier then ever. The total amount of renewable is has gotten a bit bigger, the nuclear is flat, and fossil has doubled. So the portion of nuclear and renewable is actually smaller then ever since 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr..._the_world.svg

[Daox]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

But that is misleading, and again makes me point that it's about politics not clean energy. First the chart is really narrow in years, and second is it a US chart or world chart?
Here is a longer US chart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr..._1949-2011.png

To be fair, that isn't showing production for the sources. Thats only showing the percent of total generation. We use a lot more power now than in 1950, so it makes sense that hydro (which I assume would be flat to declining as you say) reduces in % of power generated. This is a better representation, although its not super up to date.

Energy sources have changed throughout the history of the United States - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Natalya

Nuclear has been perennially dogged by safety and environmental concerns. The emissions from the plants themselves are clean, but the waste produced at the plant, and more importantly (but rarely talked about) the waste at the mining and refining sites, is incredibly hazardous and hard to deal with.

That just isn't so. Nuclear is, by its track record, far safer than coal (quite apart from AGW) or hydro, or arguably even solar & wind. Its problem is simply the bad press (maybe left over from all those Godzilla movies?) that has instilled an "Omigawd it's radioactive, we're all gonna DIE!" knee-jerk reaction in the hard-of-thinking.