Economics and politics finally have a nuclear bond.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Renewables plus storage would have to be cheaper than nuclear for it to become the primary electricity generating technology; otherwise we'll just have nuclear.

Subsidies.......................they pattern our world.

If not for the US Navy keeping shipping lanes free, little oil and or goods would make it to our shores, what do we add to the costs of such goods to establish a "true cost"?

Nuclear isn't viable as a private only venture, it gets subsides from the government, more so than even oil with it's crazy tax break schemes for dry wells and what not.

Green energy subsidies are rather transparent by comparison, we know why GE pays no taxes, they are green energy leaders.

My point: all of these energy schemes are subsidized and politicized at one level or another.

Want to kill one off, pull the plug - it's really that simple.

Most energy subsidies go not to renewables but to producing more of the dirty stuff.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...-oil-subsidies

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Pull the plug and see which one wins.

I dare you.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Subsidies.......................they pattern our world.

If not for the US Navy keeping shipping lanes free, little oil and or goods would make it to our shores, what do we add to the costs of such goods to establish a "true cost"?

Nuclear isn't viable as a private only venture, it gets subsides from the government, more so than even oil with it's crazy tax break schemes for dry wells and what not.

Green energy subsidies are rather transparent by comparison, we know why GE pays no taxes, they are green energy leaders.

My point: all of these energy schemes are subsidized and politicized at one level or another.

Want to kill one off, pull the plug - it's really that simple.

Most energy subsidies go not to renewables but to producing more of the dirty stuff.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...-oil-subsidies


Pull the plug and see which one wins.

I dare you.

Just as long as you don't place unnecessary oversight. That is a huge part of the associated costs of nuclear power. I have worked in the research industry and it is appalling how the smallest of nuclear materials, no matter how benign, must carry a mountain of paper and procedure. All for good reason. But streamlining these things can bring the cost down immensely. But that is not allowed. Each state and municipality has to have their say. So does every Green Group. THAT is why nuclear has to have a big government input. Just like the runaway costs of medicine in this country, nuclear is regulated out of the common and into the stratospheric.

A reasonable view of nuclear power along with reasonable oversight will make it the cheapest of power sources. This may take generations because we have to re-educate generations. The problem is, we as a society may not have that time, if the global warming people are right. The only way to get emissions under control and maintain the modern growth in technology and quality of life is to find a means to save on energy, create energy and distribute it, without upsetting our current societal trajectory.

Green Energy Subsidies have boosted things in the solar and wind sector. The other so called GREEN energy tech needs government to allow dams and geothermal, etc. Pull all those direct and indirect subsidies and you have, . . . Coal and oil? Solar and wind would still grow, but at a slower rate. Certainly, research would have been slower. Government subsidies are important in attracting initial research monies and efforts.

Third world regions have a chance to re-invent their energy portfolio. But they will run up against the very real problem of the diffuse and intermittent nature of solar and wind and will then look for baseline solutions weather it be storage or principal power. Growth needs consistent power. Some geo-locations will allow pumped hydro or gravity potential storage. Too many will not. Batteries are pricey and I'd rather my EV battery not be used and it's life shortened by the power grid. All my friends and family with EVs all feel the same way. Storage is easy when it is of a concentrated chemical form like fossil fuels. It becomes bulky and cumbersome as you try to store diffuse energy from renewables. Nuclear is thousands of times more energy dense than fossil fuels.

I'll bet on nuclear.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Just as long as you don't place unnecessary oversight. That is a huge part of the associated costs of nuclear power.

I'm sure dumping the used radioactive fuel in the local landfill would help lower the costs.

All joking aside, the regulations are so strict because the consequences of mishandling are so severe.

The term "playing with fire" comes to mind.

If you play'n with the fire and the spark goes in my eye and blinds me, you better have the cash to buy me a new eyeball. I'd rather keep the eyes I have if I have a say in it.

[oil pan 4]

Or you could go with out fire all together and freeze to death on a cold wet night.

Originally Posted by kach22i

One Hot Island: Iceland's Renewable Geothermal Power
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...thermal-power/


There may be a different solution for different areas.

Nearly half the world's population lives near coastal areas, and most of the world’s megacities are located in the coastal zones.

I think the answer to future energy production is in the oceans and tides of the world.

Yeah get the nimbly people to agree to that.
I remember a few years back they blocked the largest US off shore wind farm off the cost of MA some where.
Because it would "ruin the view". And that the wind turbines should be "put out in the country where no one would see them", which is exactly the grid lock experienced in other parts of the world.

Nuclear power plants do great next to the ocean as long as it's not the ring of fire and in a massive earthquake and tsunami zone.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Subsidies.......................they pattern our world.

If not for the US Navy keeping shipping lanes free, little oil and or goods would make it to our shores, what do we add to the costs of such goods to establish a "true cost"?

Nuclear isn't viable as a private only venture, it gets subsides from the government, more so than even oil with it's crazy tax break schemes for dry wells and what not.

Green energy subsidies are rather transparent by comparison, we know why GE pays no taxes, they are green energy leaders.

My point: all of these energy schemes are subsidized and politicized at one level or another.

Want to kill one off, pull the plug - it's really that simple.

Most energy subsidies go not to renewables but to producing more of the dirty stuff.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...-oil-subsidies


Pull the plug and see which one wins.

I dare you.

Energy subsidy is a topic I'd like to be more educated on. It seems it's way too easy to misrepresent the facts. For instance, someone might say that something is subsidized when the operating costs for producing that thing are written off as an expense. That wouldn't be a subsidy then, as all business operating expenses are tax exempt.

A functioning navy is not something that is appropriate to consider a subsidy to business. Law enforcement isn't a subsidy to business either. It's a cost borne by citizens that wish to participate in various activities including business in a orderly way, where everyone is encouraged to play by the same rules (or discouraged to play by different rules).

Nuclear became orders of magnitude more expensive, mostly due to red tape that provided no benefit to the people or the environment. Technology shouldn't become more expensive over time, and yet it has due to regulatory BS.

Reasonable regulation is necessary, but absurd regulation is absurd.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Batteries are pricey and I'd rather my EV battery not be used and it's life shortened by the power grid. All my friends and family with EVs all feel the same way.

Sure, nobody wants to volunteer their battery for extra wear with no return, but people respond to incentives. If you were paid $0.15 / kWh of electricity from your EV, and the EV was never discharged more than say 50%, and only during a window of time which you specify, then perhaps you'd change your mind.

Originally Posted by kach22i

the regulations are so strict because the consequences of mishandling are so severe.

The term "playing with fire" comes to mind.

If you play'n with the fire and the spark goes in my eye and blinds me, you better have the cash to buy me a new eyeball. I'd rather keep the eyes I have if I have a say in it.

The regulations are so strict because humans are horrible at rationally approaching risk. Nuclear plants based on '50s technology have proven to be the lowest risk to health compared with any other major source of electricity generation, yet has the greatest opposition.

The only fatalities directly as a result of nuclear accident were a few suffered by crazy Russians. No other nuclear accidents have resulted in deaths. 3 notable accidents out of 450 nuclear power plants based on 50's technology is not too shabby. Just think how safe and efficient nuclear could be if we pursued it?

I'm telling you, 50 years from now we'll mostly be running nuclear, and that generation will wonder why we wasted so much time with other distractions.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm telling you, 50 years from now we'll mostly be running nuclear, and that generation will wonder why we wasted so much time with other distractions.

You could be right.

We cannot stay on our current path at any rate.

Food for thought.

2017-07-12
France could close 'up to 17' nuclear reactors by 2025
https://www.france24.com/en/20170710...nuclear-plants

Nicolas Hulot, France’s environment minister, announced on Monday that France could close “up to 17 nuclear reactors” by 2025.

Hulot says the move aims to bring policy into line with a law on renewable energy that aims to reduce French reliance on nuclear power to 50 percent. France currently derives close to 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. The push for diversification comes on the heels of other high-profile stances taken by Hulot and the administration of President Emmanuel Macron, including a ban on new fossil fuel exploration an end to the sale of gas and diesel-powered vehicles by 2040, and a recently announced climate conference to be held on December 12 for the two-year anniversary of the signing of the Paris Accord..............

Such a reduction in nuclear power generation would signal a large break with France’s traditional energy policy. France’s heavy investment in nuclear power dates back to the 1973 oil crisis, which fueled the French government’s desire for energy independence. With few natural resources – oil, gas or coal – on its territory, France’s policy-makers saw nuclear as the answer.................

As a result, French greenhouse gas emissions fell drastically from the late 1970s to today. In 2014, France averaged CO2 emissions of 4.32 tons per capita, below the EU average of 6.22 tons per person and well below the US average of 16.22 per person...................

.........France’s nuclear plants – built for a planned lifespan of 40 years – are ageing. The average plant is more than 30 years old, and 15 of France's 58 reactors are over 35. ..........

During the most recent presidential campaign, the Institut Montaigne, a liberal think tank based in Paris, released a report concluding that if a phase-out of nuclear power were initiated immediately in favour of wind and solar, it would cost €217 billion by 2035, including grid upgrades. Moreover, dismantling existing reactors once they reach the end of their lifespan, along with treating waste, is projected to cost some €85 billion.

The cost of pursuing a new generation of nuclear plants, however, would be even more significant............................

In 2016, France's Cour des comptes, a government body charged with overseeing public finances, estimated that prolonging the lifespan of the reactors would cost €100 billion. Add to that an estimate from EDF chief Jean-Bernard Lévy that 30 to 40 new plants would need to be constructed between 2030 and 2050 to replace the current fleet and the total bill for maintaining nuclear power would balloon to somewhere between €250 billion and €300 billion.

Nuclear is cheaper when the government subsidizes it, and the close out costs are not considered.

Fossil fuels are cheaper when ignoring damage to the environment and human health concerns set aside.

We know the answer, we just lack the will and perhaps some of the means.

14 minute long video from that last link:

Published on Jun 9, 2017
Nuclear energy: When France faces a new era
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=4YgmCu7dfS4

The nuclear industry remain central to France. The country has 19 power plants and 58 reactors. Yet the vision for the sector's future continues to evolve. Around a third of French nuclear reactors will be 40 years old by 2020. Should they all be dismantled or renovated? Another priority is the treatment of nuclear waste. How can contamination be avoided? We end by meeting some residents whose future is closely linked to that of France's nuclear industry.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by kach22i

You could be right.

We cannot stay on our current path at any rate.

Food for thought.

2017-07-12
France could close 'up to 17' nuclear reactors by 2025
https://www.france24.com/en/20170710...nuclear-plants


Nuclear is cheaper when the government subsidizes it, and the close out costs are not considered.

Fossil fuels are cheaper when ignoring damage to the environment and human health concerns set aside.

We know the answer, we just lack the will and perhaps some of the means.

14 minute long video from that last link:

Published on Jun 9, 2017
Nuclear energy: When France faces a new era
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=4YgmCu7dfS4

Lets see if their electricity bill goes up or down.

France enjoys one of the lowest electricity prices in Europe; at 14.72 euro cents per kWh, the average cost of electricity in France is 26.5% cheaper than the EU average (20.02 euro cents per kWh).

The cost of generating the electricity itself: this represents about 31% of the cost of electricity for residential customers. About 75% of electricity generated in France comes from nuclear-generated power

Delivery costs: represents about 33% of the residential customer cost of electricity... covers the costs of delivering electricity from power generating facilities across high voltage lines

Taxes: there are several taxes that are applied to electricity consumption (see below), and when put together, they represent about 31% of the cost of electricity

CSPE - Contribution to the Public Service for Electricity: helps financing renewable energies, tariff equalization on the whole territory, and the basic needs tariff. In 2016, the CSPE cost 22,5€/MWh ($0.0225 / kWh)

So nuclear power is funding renewable energy in France.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by kach22i

I'm sure dumping the used radioactive fuel in the local landfill would help lower the costs.

All joking aside, the regulations are so strict because the consequences of mishandling are so severe.

The term "playing with fire" comes to mind.

If you play'n with the fire and the spark goes in my eye and blinds me, you better have the cash to buy me a new eyeball. I'd rather keep the eyes I have if I have a say in it.

Chernobyl happened. The region is now an animal wildlife refuge of sorts. The radio-activity is below safe levels.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened. Both cities are population centers. The horrific death toll is a fraction of the fire bombings that came before.

Nuclear waste is stored on-site. Decades of waste can be stored in a couple acres. Try that with coal ash or the detritus from an equivalent solar/wind farm. If we had the will to reprocess, we could reduce the volume by an order of magnitude or more. If we had certain breeder reactors, they could "eat" the nuclear waste ( plutonium ) from the other reactors and leave you with only long lived wastes (U238 or depleted uranium with a half life in BILLIONS of years). Or you could run things in a molten salt reactor and do the processing and actinide reductions on-site leaving very little volume of waste. Let the waste "cool" in a glassified state and put into stainless casks for long term storage with little worry about pollution leaks as the material is not soluble in an aqueous solution and is difficult to turn into a friable powder. A ton of nuclear fuel would result in only a few kilograms of active "waste". If you had the will to process to the last nuclear fissionable. Much of what I have described is already done by the French Nuclear Commission. We just don't want to copy them for some reason. Molten salt reactors reduce the ability of a terrorist group to grab and use fissionables for weapons production from "very difficult" to "awww man"? And there is no chance for an explosion or meltdown.

The only worry is cleanup of mining sites. Many of these sites are "nuclear waste zones" because of . . . Thorium! Well, there are classes of nuclear reactors that can use that thorium. A set of reactor types can keep us in energy for hundreds of years into the future. In that time span, practical fusion will come to pass. But we won't have to stress. By then, we will be able to mine the stars.

[oil pan 4]

No one ever talks about the fire bombing raid in Tokyo.

Palo verde nuclear power station in AZ is designed to run on 100% recycled, plutonium packed nuclear fuel.
Nothing new needs to be built.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Chernobyl happened. The region is now an animal wildlife refuge of sorts. The radio-activity is below safe levels.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened. Both cities are population centers. The horrific death toll is a fraction of the fire bombings that came before........

Another good post, but know this I am 58 years old and remember a lot of history first hand, and know how to use Google to refresh my memory.

Nuclear power generation failed to go big in the USA because it's use and development was tied to nuclear proliferation of atomic weapons. First under Ford, then Carter.

U. S. POLICY ON SPENT FUEL REPROCESSING: THE ISSUES
by A. David Rossin
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...gs/rossin.html

The Indian explosion caused an agonizing reappraisal of paths to proliferation. The nuclear supplier nations formed a secret group. The U.S. put pressure on proposed French and German nuclear deals that would include enrichment or reprocessing facilities for Pakistan, South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil. Congress began work on bills that would tighten the conditions for U. S. nuclear exports. The Ford administration carried out a secret study, and five days before the 1976 election President Ford ordered a hold on startup of the new reprocessing plant until issues involving safeguards and nonproliferation could be resolved.

The basic concern was that separated plutonium would provide the key ingredient for making an atomic bomb. Reprocessing plants do produce separated plutonium. The issue that emerged was whether or not reprocessing should be permitted to proceed in certain countries, or perhaps anywhere.

3. THE CARTER POLICY

On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would defer indefinitely the reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel. He stated that after extensive examination of the issues, he had reached the conclusion that this action was necessary to reduce the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, and that by setting this example, the U. S. would encourage other nations to follow its lead.

President Carter's Executive Order also announced that the U. S. would sponsor an international examination of alternative fuel cycles, seeking to identify approaches which would allow nuclear power to continue without adding to the risk of nuclear proliferation. More than thirty nations participated over almost three years. But no new magic answer could be found.

Some other nations went ahead with reprocessing and breeder development, but high costs and loss of political support delayed plans in many nuclear projects around the world. The U. S. never regained its technological lead in nuclear energy development, its own nuclear power program had already gone from orders to cancellations, and the dream of long-term future energy security from breeder reactors faded away. The three years of uncertainty about the future had wiped away further prospects for private investments in the nuclear fuel cycle. Today, twenty years later, all U.S. spent fuel remains in storage at each plant where it was used.

Carter was on the way to paying off the national debt (a hardship on us all as interest rates went bonkers), was leading the country towards energy independence (solar panel credits etc....) in the face of OPEC boycotts (another hardship at the gas pump this time), but Americans in overwhelming numbers voted him out in favor of a smash and grab and run up the national debt, spend like crazy, import oil like there is no tomorrow guy named Ronnie.

My point is, based on the electorate's history in this country we will always favor the candidate promising us the most even when it is unsustainable and unrealistic.

The reason this is important is fossil fuels cannot stay on top without continued government support, nuclear cannot take over without government intervention, and renewable energy will die and drown without a government life line.

These are all political considerations, and guess which lobbyist spend the most?

Lobbying / Industry: Oil & Gas
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/in...ent.php?id=E01

Fossil Fuel Funding to Congress: Industry influence in the U.S.
Fossil Fuel Funding to Congress: Industry influence in the U.S. - Oil Change InternationalOil Change International

For every $1 the industry spends on campaign contributions and lobbying in DC, it gets back $119 in subsidies.

To put it in perspective, big pharma and the military industrial complex are no slouches either.

Lobbying’s top 50: Who’s spending big
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...s-spending-big

As rational logical people we want to think that the best engineering energy solution will be the one our democratic republic will put it's weight behind.

That all the decisions will be made in the public's interest, free and clear of distraction and things that cloud judgment.

We want to think this, but know that isn't the case.