Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Nuclear's high costs have been created by political opposition, legal obstruction and regulatory paralysis.

 

That's simply nonsense.

 

Is this based on your knowledge of the cost and schedule for the plant being built in the UK, and the projected electricity cost to the public?

Or, are you just guessing?

 

Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates: Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone

Abstract
This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions. In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO2. Rapid progress was achieved in the past and could be again, with appropriate policies. Research is needed to identify impediments to progress, and policy is needed to remove them.

 

Coulda woulda ...

I was one who paid for WOOPS nuclear power in my electric bills for years, when no such power was ever available.

But obviously, the more important issue is that we are here TODAY.

So, it's time to look at the nuclear possibility in TODAY's terms.

One can do that by looking at the costs and time frames of what UK is doing today.

From there, you can propose all the cool ideas on how we could do this far better than UK - if you want.

I think that will be tough. For one thing, the UK project used an existing nuclear facility footprint, making citing and prep issues far less serious than they will be here.

 

I'm uninterested in the UK situation. My point is that our difficult situation re nuclear power is man-made via a series of poor choices.

 

Not to mention that those "alternate sources" can not be used all the time.

Imagine if Florida went that route. Turbines at maximum can only operate in speeds up to around 50 mph. Just a good tropical storm can exceed that, let alone a hurricane.

 

And that is entirely man-made.

Nuclear power could actually be one of the least expensive and fastest to build per wattage produced. But all the red tape, NIMBYism, and the like is what makes it so long and expensive.

 

At least in the US, this can be seen in the plants that were built.

In the earliest days of nuclear power, the time from proposal to a functioning plant was typically from 2-4 years. Most of that being the construction itself.

Today, that is most often between 10-20 years, sometimes more. Not even counting the projects that were started then shut down before they started operation.

Hell, the only nuclear plant to go online in the US in the 21st century is Watts Bar 2. Construction for that started in 1973, it finally went on-line in 2016. 43 years from start of construction to it sending power.

And there are over 40 plants that started construction, but were never finished. That is a hell of a lot of money the companies ended up eating.

 

Isn’t it? I mean the article was from the Sydney Morning Herald and the government is and has been worried tha5 we will end with rising energy prices as coal and gas companies ship to Europe

 

Australia to Limit Gas and Coal Prices to Ease Spiraling Bills
https://www.voanews.com › australia-to-limit-gas-and-c...

Dec 12, 2022 — Gas producers won't be allowed to charge more than $8 a gigajoule, which is far less than the average price so far this year. The oil and gas ...

". . . Australia sells much of its coal and gas overseas. The government says temporary caps will stop resources companies charging their high export prices to domestic customers.

Gas producers won't be allowed to charge more than $8 a gigajoule, which is far less than the average price so far this year.

The oil and gas industry has condemned what it has described as a "heavy-handed, radical intervention" that would "smash" confidence in Australia as an investment destination for the resources sector. . . ."

 

The climate panic squad seems to think all they have to do is load the money mortar and fire at will and: poof a miracle will occur.
Reserve/backup capability is a huge question mark. As is siting, network layout design, etc.

 

And your point is???

 

As I said, it's madness -- destruction of the energy sector.

 

Just in time for Christmas, a thoughtful and factual presentation to dispel renewable myths.
BOOK REVIEW: The Unpopular Truth about Electricity and the Future of Energy
Kip Hansen
“Their new book, The Unpopular Truth about Electricity and the Future of Energy, will give you the information you need to talk about this topic with a sense of authority…

 

I got that from what you said.

The UK "situation" is important as it is one indicator of nuclear energy today.

 

Those are reasons that the nuclear plant being built at Sizemore, UK is interesting.

With Sizemore, UK we get a better understanding of what a modern nuclear plant will cost as well as the cost we will pay for that electricity.

It is being built as a new reactor on an existing nuclear site, so the issues of siting are less of an issue than they would be in finding a brand new site.

Also, it is being built in our current world economic situation and with a more modern understanding of safety.

You mention failed plants losing money for the company. But, I'd point out that they lost a lot of our tax dollars, too. You could read about the WPPS case where 5(?) nuclear plants failed, and they were at least partially owned by a consortium of utilities. They renamed themselves "Energy Northwest" as the WPPS name was so strongly associated with the astounding size of the failure. This included the second largest municipal bond collapse in US history. Besides the lost tax dollars, the result included that I and others in a large region including Seattle continued paying for those failed nuclear sites in my electric bills for many years.

 

Meh.

 

You can't expect the companies to absorb all of those losses.

And it was not a "failure". Anti-nuclear activists forced through a voter initiative that targeted that site specifically. Of the five planned plants, only one was finished. WNP-3 was almost 80% finished at that time.

And the delays were not the fault of the company doing the construction. 1979 was the year so much new regulation into the nuclear power industry that construction halted on every program in the country. Also it was oversized as the utility was expecting to recover a lot of the cost by selling power to the grid, to help other states already in a power deficit (California) to buy the excess and help to not only future-proof the production capability, but to recover expenses faster.

But NIMBY suddenly jumped in the way in 1979, and the delays provided the anti-nuclear people the chance to kill most of the project. But it was not a failure of the plant itself, or even construction. The entire industry came under such tight oversight that very few projects have been completed since then.

But the nuclear plants never "failed". Activism and man-made FUD caused then to be stopped before all but 1 were finished. That one finished has been in operation for over 34 years now, and produces a lot of the power in the Columbia River area. Producing over 8.1k GWh per year. And even though that one plant provides over 95% of the regions power, activists have been trying to get it shut down for over 3 decades.

 

Oh! Jack! You do crack me up!

Aus Govt is trying to CAP the electricity price for the average consumer because we have been here before. We ended up selling so much of our natural gas to overseas that we almost ran out ourselves. Of course if the latest innovations continue we will have plenty on hand while we price gouge the Chinese

 

Lols! WUWT spelt one of the authors names wrong to start with

 

Yes, people care about safety and cost of electricity.

One has to notice that the demand projections for electricity at the time of WPPS were ridiculously wrong.

The Columbia Generating Station in eastern Washington produces 10% of of the power generated in Washington state.

I have NO idea where you got your 95% idea.

We have far better/safer nuclear power technology today than we did in the 1970's. The issues are NOT the same today.

Pretending that the difficulties of siting, building and operating a nuclear power facility today are the same as they were in the 1970's is just plain ridiculous.

 

I believe you are wrong about that. Spelling is the same as on Amazon.This is just another of your unfounded claims about WUWT.

 

At the cost of ruining the energy sector.

 

Willam? I copy/pasted and it flagged it as wrong - will give them the benefit of doubt though as, as an Aussie we have THE most inventive spellings of names anywhere