New Study Casts Doubt on the Future of Nuclear Power

[Marlin]

New Study Casts Doubt on the Future of Nuclear Power

http://www.ecowatch.com/nuclear-power-climate-change-1983530346.html

[hamsamich]

More crap about replacing nuclear with renewables instead of adding to carbon free nuclear with renewables.  Sorry ecowatch correlation is clearly not causality in this case.

I stopped clicking on ecowatch articles long ago.  They will take any small bit of truth and turn it into complete garbage.  While there are articles out there that effectively and fairly portray the cons and weaknesses of nuclear power, ecowatch will usually use any chance they get to grind their axe against nuclear power.

What I take from the paper the article is based on is that countries with nuclear power may not be as likely to incorporate renewables for whatever reason into their energy mix.  This is a choice and shouldn't be used to falsely demonize nuclear power.

[Marlin]

More crap about replacing nuclear with renewables instead of adding to carbon free nuclear with renewables.  Sorry ecowatch correlation is clearly not causality in this case.

I stopped clicking on ecowatch articles long ago.  They will take any small bit of truth and turn it into complete garbage.  While there are articles out there that effectively and fairly portray the cons and weaknesses of nuclear power, ecowatch will usually use any chance they get to grind their axe against nuclear power.

What I take from the paper the article is based on is that countries with nuclear power may not be as likely to incorporate renewables for whatever reason into their energy mix.  This is a choice and shouldn't be used to falsely demonize nuclear power.

Agree but it is news and it is what opposition reads and believes. 







  on Family Circus, nice anology 

[hamsamich]

Oh yeah, that blast wasn't directed at you, I get it.  Ok, you yell "pull" next time.  ha ha.

Sad if those types of arguments are what's winning over half of our population to stay on the "anti-nuclear power side"     ....even worse argument than 20 years ago.

[Marlin]

Oh yeah, that blast wasn't directed at you, I get it.  Ok, you yell "pull" next time.  ha ha.

"Pull" would make a good emoji  ... I tend to post Nuke News as I find it not pro or con. It is hard to track or respond to Nuke News in the other two Nuke News sections so I post it here or move ones that might be discussion worthy if I see them in the other Forum sections.

[thenuttyneutron]

I am wondering how things will shake out if coal and nukes are shut down leaving only natural gas and "others".  New nukes require such a large capital investment that I doubt a deregulated state will ever build one.  If the SMR designs were to gain traction and the regulatory overhead is enough to ensure safety while also being affordable, they may be able to be cost competitive with the renewable sources.  I could see a nice synergy with renewable sources where advanced SMR designs are able to ramp power quickly , make the reactive load to support a grid and load follow as demand changes.

If we go forward with the renewable plans that many people advocate without advanced nuclear plants or carbon plants, will America be able to adapt to the periodic shortages of power by consuming less until more energy supplies are found?  I am still trying to understand what type of storage system we will be using to store the excess power during times of abundance for later consumption.  I am sure that the future grid will look nothing like today because without reactive load making generators, large grids are not possible. 

[hamsamich]

Yeah you rarely see reactive load talked about when all the renewable pundits tout renewable energy in large quantities.  I'd like to see a comprehensive explanation of how the grid will be able to deal with large amounts of wind power without reactive power.  I know they have reactive compensation devices but I think there are some problems like resolution of voltage.