Five reasons nuclear energy will rebound in 2018

[Marlin]

Five reasons nuclear energy will rebound in 2018


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Five-reasons-nuclear-energy-will-rebound-in-2018-07031801.html

[GLW]

Five reasons nuclear energy will rebound in 2018


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Five-reasons-nuclear-energy-will-rebound-in-2018-07031801.html

[Rennhack]

Several nuclear plants have closed prematurely in the United States, and other shutdowns have been announced. But in every instance, the nuclear plant closures have led to higher emissions and electricity prices, pointing out a difficult truth. Experts say it is virtually impossible for a major economy to have a reliable, low-carbon grid without nuclear energy. The Germans are learning this lesson the hard way.

Why are emissions per capita far lower in France than in neighboring Germany? One word: nuclear. While nuclear supplies about 75% of France's electricity, Germany has decided to shut down its nuclear plants.
Thanks to its high concentrations of nuclear and hydro, Ontario, Canada has largely decarbonised its grid - and shut its last coal-fired plant in 2014.
According to James Hansen, one of the world's leading thinkers on climate, and three other experts: "Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change."

I see "climate change" tax laws as the US's only path to more nuclear plants.

[TVA]

SOMEWHERE over the rainbow

[Rennhack]

SOMEWHERE over the rainbow

To be clear, I didn't mean that it WOULD happen, I meant that it is the only thing I see that COULD help it.

[Marlin]

Reading the article most of the reasons nuclear has a rosy outlook for 2018 has little to do with the US, we are the old city slum of the nuclear world.

[tolstoy]

The only thing that will save commercial US nukes is if the feds adopt all the plants and maintain them in a don't-put-all-your-eggs-in-one-basket energy portfolio that is willing to take a loss in order to meet the needs of the citizens. Energy needs continue to slow and drop and renewables are increasingly feeding the grid. 

[GLW]

The only thing that will save commercial US nukes is if the feds adopt all the plants and maintain them in a don't-put-all-your-eggs-in-one-basket energy portfolio that is willing to take a loss in order to meet the needs of the citizens. Energy needs continue to slow and drop and renewables are increasingly feeding the grid. 

yeah, that would be called an energy policy,....


that would be promulgated and shepherded by something called a Department of Energy,...


so, for 41 dam years that has been a non-starter,....


but, for 13,000 DOE employees with a 25 billion dollar annual budget it's been a great jobs and retirement program,...


so, we got that going for us,....


almost forgot,....


(sic) for beercourt,...

[retired nuke]

Yup - I like the pie meme ;-)
Face it folks, we are all riding T-Rex...
It's dirt work for those of us too old for career changes - everyone else - get into something else.
We have priced ourselves out of the energy market with stupid INPO directives to exceed NRC rules, CEOs that don't understand economics, and Security requirements post 9/11 that are just too costly for an already expensive industry. I was at IPEC on 9/11 - those 2 planes flew right past us on the Hudson to go take down office buildings - because - people dying is more terrible than a pile of rubble at a power plant.
Anybody young thinking that getting into nukes is a good career move.... well, I promised Mike a while ago to be nicer ;-)
My site is looking like the next full decomm. I'm ok with that.

[SloGlo]

Reading the article most of the reasons nuclear has a rosy outlook for 2018 has little to do with the US, we are the old city slum of the nuclear world.

n the reason four this is we due knot look at the five points of the article.

[Marlin]

Well just be an argumentative  's advocate I agree and disagree with a lot of what has been said. US nuclear plants and nuclear vendors in general are dinosaurs. We cling to old nuclear conventions that will not survive future power needs. We are over regulated and plagued by NIMBY's. Advances in battery storage and super capacitors are making large base line loads less attractive, nuclear, coal, and maybe even gas eventually giving way to renewable. The grid will move to hybrid grids, micro grids and home power that may even leave the main grid eventually. Large baseline units need to look 50 to 80 years into the future for decisions to build. Where would nuclear fit in that system? SMR's and micro reactors provide a more reliable stable power source that would fit in many applications, a high power density user such as a steel smelter or other processing system would benefit from a smaller, simpler, low maintenance SMR. An isolated community could use a micro reactor that could simply be replaces at end of life and the old one trucked off to the reactor plant facility to be disposed of or refueled. Like any new technologies cost is unknown but there are some optimistic people who believe it can be done and are investing in them. Did I mention that a reactor would work very well for a Moon or Mars colony and the rockets to get there.

[Marlin]

Advances in battery storage and super capacitors are making large base line loads less attractive, nuclear, coal, and maybe even gas eventually giving way to renewable. The grid will move to hybrid grids, micro grids and home power that may even leave the main grid eventually.

How apropos that I found this article just now.

GE Announces Innovative Energy Storage Platform called the Reservoir

https://www.genewsroom.com/press-releases/ge-announces-innovative-energy-storage-platform-called-reservoir-284267