The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It was a facetious comment to point out that a handful of shutdowns in a year is nothing compared to the variability of wind.

Wind is predictable. Emergency shutdowns are not. Pilgrim has had FIVE emergency shutdowns in just the last year or two. It had a huge one back in 1986, and it has had many others.

Well sited wind turbines are VERY consistent. And they can be maintained one by one while the rest keep working.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It was a facetious comment to point out that a handful of shutdowns in a year is nothing compared to the variability of wind.

'The necessity of invention is a mutha'

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Nuclear power is far from predictable, and is quite prone to emergency shutdowns... Wind is predictable... Well sited wind turbines are VERY consistent.

You stating these things as fact does not make it so. Please quantify what you mean by "nuclear power is far from predictable". For instance, power output varies by 10% unpredictably, or some other objective statement of predictability that is grounded in fact.

Similarly, I would like to see an objective account of how wind is predictable. For instance, power output from wind is maintained within 5% of demand, or some other such objective statement.

I say this because calculating nuclear reactivity and power output has a few variables that are relatively easy to calculate, and adjustments in output are possible. Calculating wind energy is in the domain of meteorology, which we all know is a crapshoot, and power output cannot be varied on demand.

Excerpts from the World Nuclear Power Performance Report 2018:

Global nuclear electricity output was 2506 TWh, an increase of 29 TWh compared to 2016. This marked the fifth successive year that nuclear output has increased, with generation 160 TWh higher than in 2012.

The capacity factor for the global fleet stood at 81%, maintaining the high availability of around 80% that has been maintained since 2000, up from the 60% average capacity factor at the start of the 1980s.

There is no significant age-related trend in nuclear reactor performance. The mean capacity factor for reactors over the last five years shows no significant variation regardless of their age

https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmed...eport.pdf.aspx

From Wiki on Wind Electricity Generation:

The annual average capacity factor for wind generation in the US has varied between 29.8% and 34% during the period 2010–2015.

More nuclear electricity generation is being added than wind electricity each year by a wide margin.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Noah's Ark
'guess they like to cherry-pick their acts of God!

Back in the last century, I lived across from a church (Lighthouse Temple IIRC). They had trees lining three sides of their city block in the parking median.

The wind blew one down and their lawyers said they would be liable if it had hit someone. So they level the three blocks of 80ft tall trees (in Bleugene, Oregon no less).

My thought was that if a tree blew down on someone they probably need itir deity allowed it to happen.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Decommissioning is a big unknown - and the long term SAFE storage of the nuclear waste - is probably going to cost far more than the energy we got.

Else it is stored until used as fuel in 4th Gen reactors.

Wind is predictable but not uniform. Doing maintenance during high-speed wind conditions would be easier if they built them indoors.

[aerohead]

Between 1970 and 1974,the average capacity factor for Nuclear in the U.S. was 47.8%.
Today's GE offshore turbines have the same capacity factor as the 1996 Nuclear power industry.
As these turbines continue to be added to the mix,over time,they will drive the average upwards.
And the technologists say that,as of February,2017,there's potential to increase the capture efficiency of wind by another 35%.
With increased turbine population and geographic distribution,there's only an increasing probability that both capacity and capacity factor will become much more favorable.
As grid-scale storage proliferates,there will come a time when there is no curtailment.
And if our enemies want to hack our centralized power-plants,that will be an easier calculus compared to distributed power generation spread out over millions of units.
Also,a US fleet of EVs would allow for a vast amount of stored capacity at millions of residences.Perhaps a handy thing as future mega-storms rip the US a new ...hole trashing distribution lines.

[aerohead]

The tornado sirens are on in Denton right now.Denton got hit by a little tornado a few weeks back.Rains pouring down.It look like night out there.
There's a rotation over Krum ,moving towards Sanger.Tarrant and Dallas Counties are under tornado watches as well.
We've been saturated all year.It doesn't take much to set off additional flooding.It'll visit Oklahoma before too long.Just what they need.
Send snorkels!
I'll let you know if I still have a home.

[RedDevil]

Stay safe... Good luck...

[aerohead]

A June,2011,Scientific American had an article about the Nuclear power industry.
*Shutdowns of any kind 'kill' profitability.
*In 2010 alone ,24 nuclear incidents went unreported to the NRC.Which could imply that economic imperatives outweighed reactor and public safety.
*As of 2011,there was 72,000-tons of spent fuel in the USA,and no permanent storage facility.
*Between 2001,and 2011,US taxpayers paid $9-billion on Yucca Mountain alone,which receives only military nuclear waste.
*At 'full-cost' pricing (waste disposal,decommissioning,insurance against accidents,and insurance against terrorists) nuclear is not economically competitive.
*The upper threshold for wet,'pool' storage is 122-F.By 2100,there will be fewer places on Earth below that temperature year-round.
*Dry storage cannot exceed 104-F at any time.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You stating these things as fact does not make it so. Please quantify what you mean by "nuclear power is far from predictable". For instance, power output varies by 10% unpredictably, or some other objective statement of predictability that is grounded in fact.

Similarly, I would like to see an objective account of how wind is predictable. For instance, power output from wind is maintained within 5% of demand, or some other such objective statement.

I say this because calculating nuclear reactivity and power output has a few variables that are relatively easy to calculate, and adjustments in output are possible. Calculating wind energy is in the domain of meteorology, which we all know is a crapshoot, and power output cannot be varied on demand.

Excerpts from the World Nuclear Power Performance Report 2018:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmed...eport.pdf.aspx

From Wiki on Wind Electricity Generation:

More nuclear electricity generation is being added than wind electricity each year by a wide margin.

The article I linked to, mentions multiple emergency shutdowns in a single year, and many over the lifetime, of just one nuclear power plant.

That alone, proves my point, that nuclear power is much less dependable than renewable energy. And I have read experts, who state the same thing.

Another example of unpredictable shutdowns of nuclear power plants, are numerous:

Two different plants had to shut down because their cooling water intakes (from the ocean) were clogged with jellyfish.

Nuclear plants in Nebraska had to be shut down (a couple of years ago) because of flooding.

And nuclear plants (as well as coal fired plants) have had to shut down / reduce output - BECAUSE IT WAS TOO HOT. Their cooling towers could not get the temperature down enough to keep operating.

So, global warming has already affected heat driven power plants negatively.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

That alone, proves my point, that nuclear power is much less dependable than renewable energy. And I have read experts, who state the same thing.

Wind on average shuts down several times daily, and if not shut down, operates at diminished capacity for long periods of time. Solar shuts down a minimum of once per day, and too suffers from diminished capacity depending on weather.

A few examples of plants shutting down is not indicative of a systemic problem. If it were a serious problem, we would see nuclear power diminishing rather than growing faster than solar/wind. We would also see lower capacity factors rather than the very steady 80%+ over the past 2 decades.

Wind capacity factor may be improving, but that has more to do with it being very poor to begin with ~30%.

It's silly to imply that what we need to implement today is technology we hope will be developed in the future. We can only implement what is available today while still hoping for improvements in the future. To say that RE storage might be technically feasible and cost effective in the future doesn't give us direction on what to build now.