hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 33 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2330313233343536 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 660 of 767

Thread: God Hates America (Natural Disaster Thread)

  1. #641
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Nuclear is cheaper than coal ...
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost...city_by_source

    As for ecological damage just check out the damage done in solar panel production around china. It aint pretty.
    Your welcome to quote studies that support your case that Nuclear is cheaper and less damaging to environment.

    And of course the study should count "Capital cost" and "Eco damage for fuel production" and count actually constructed project and not bullshit fairy land assessments.

    There is not a single Nuclear Power plant in the world that has been constructed:
    • On time
    • On budget


    Its not possible for a private company to independently finance a Nuclear power plant project, cause they get immediately demoted in credit rating. So taxpayers foot the capital cost bill without it being included in project budget (its one of the biggest costs).

    Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must take into account who bears the risks of future uncertainties. To date all operating nuclear power plants were developed by state-owned or regulated utility monopolies[8][9] where many of the risks associated with political change and regulatory ratcheting were borne by consumers rather than suppliers.
    Edit:
    In the United Kingdom and the United States cost overruns on nuclear plants contributed to the bankruptcies of several utility companies. In the United States these losses helped usher in energy deregulation in the mid-1990s that saw rising electricity rates and power blackouts in California. When the UK began privatizing utilities, its nuclear reactors "were so unprofitable they could not be sold." Eventually in 1996, the government gave them away. But the company that took them over, British Energy, had to be bailed out in 2004 to the extent of 3.4 billion pounds.[66]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...r_power_plants

    Some intro on the subject
    https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power...r#.W6XkAvZoSUk
    Last edited by Caldrion Dosto; September 22 2018 at 06:57:44 AM.

  2. #642
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,848
    Not to mention the decommissioning boondoggle after all that
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  3. #643
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Not to mention the decommissioning boondoggle after all that
    Decommissioning cost is actually calculated for in the budget contracts on new Nuclear power plants (although we haven't settled on a location for final storage after 30 years of debate).

  4. #644
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,134
    Your link also says:
    Recent cost trends in countries such as Japan and Korea have been very different, including periods of stability and decline in costs.
    Especially look at the chinese construction. One fifth of the cost compared to the western world.

    I also really dont have a problem with the state building and funding a nuclear reactor.


    

  5. #645
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Your link also says:
    Recent cost trends in countries such as Japan and Korea have been very different, including periods of stability and decline in costs.
    Especially look at the chinese construction. One fifth of the cost compared to the western world.
    Well Chinese aren't exactly know for good working conditions and we cannot build like Chinese are doing in Western Europe so its kinda a moot point. I wouldn't trust Chinese state accounting especially much in this matter, not known as a pillar of transparency.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Your link also says:

    I also really dont have a problem with the state building and funding a nuclear reactor.
    Well itīs the thing with economics of these things. If the state does it they can hide the cost of capital in other books so suddenly the largest cost are not public any more (and paid by the taxpayer as a subsidy).
    It does not make Nuclear power any cheaper in the real world thought.

    I assume you also like Unicorns and Icream?

  6. #646
    Donor lubica's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    On the shitty side of the Alps
    Posts
    4,863
    Regardless of whether we build NPPs with private or public money, we need to build more of them, so we can afford to actually shut down all those coal and gas plants. For Slovenia, we need about 37% of current generation capacity to cover the essentials (hospitals, police, food refrigeration). We produce about 1/3 from our one NPP, 1/3 from hydro, and 1/3 from coal. So, we're in a relatively good place to start thinking about replacing the 600-700MW from coal with alternatives, while boosting domestic producers to achieve that. Like every other country with the capacity to do that. But no, coz politics and lobbies. Literally nothing is going on the topic of renewables here, nothing, while we have an actual solar panel producer, and a wind turbine blade producer. It's mind-boggling.


    Quote Originally Posted by Narmio
    Welcome to Dwarf Fortress, where there is a fine line between insanity and gameplay. The line menaces with spikes of obsessive compulsion.

  7. #647
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,134
    Fair enough on the working conditions and transparency.

    In the real word countries with high % of nuclear power have lower cost of electricity than other countries. Just take a look at France vs Germany. Or how much is the cost of power from the Slovenian nuclear power plant. Those analysis seem to be defied by reality.

    I like chocolate ice cream the most.


    

  8. #648
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    The thing is there is no debate . Nuclear power is to expensive to build. Everyone that knows anything about it agree.

    Those screaming for NPP's are clueless.

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.

    Why? Cause there is no subsidies.

    Look at the reactors built in the US. The company went bancrupt halfway into the project.

  9. #649
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    The thing is there is no debate . Nuclear power is to expensive to build. Everyone that knows anything about it agree.

    Those screaming for NPP's are clueless.

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.

    Why? Cause there is no subsidies.

    Look at the reactors built in the US. The company went bancrupt halfway into the project.
    I take it thorium-based reactors are also not an option, despite India building dozens of them?
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  10. #650
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    The thing is there is no debate . Nuclear power is to expensive to build. Everyone that knows anything about it agree.

    Those screaming for NPP's are clueless.

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.

    Why? Cause there is no subsidies.

    Look at the reactors built in the US. The company went bancrupt halfway into the project.
    Fine then lets find a decent alternative for baseload power plants.

    @nordstern link? Afaik thorium reactors are still theoretical.


    

  11. #651
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    The thing is there is no debate . Nuclear power is to expensive to build. Everyone that knows anything about it agree.

    Those screaming for NPP's are clueless.

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.

    Why? Cause there is no subsidies.

    Look at the reactors built in the US. The company went bancrupt halfway into the project.
    Fine then lets find a decent alternative for baseload power plants.

    There are its called; Water, Wind and Solar.
    Edit: Also wave looks promising but needs a lot more research and trials

    Then on peak production and you get a surplus energy you cannot export you convert water into Nitrogen for storage (That you can burn on turbines/or electrolyze later).

  12. #652

    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.
    I'm not going to say anything on possible interest to build a new NPP but the rest of your post is just plain wrong.

    New npp's can only be built to replace a current one. They can only be built on sites where there already is a npp. The number of npp's can not exceed 10 reactors.

    That is from the 2016 cross parlamentary energy agreement.

  13. #653
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,467
    Late last from bed so lighter in details but my universityhad a very bright chap working on printed plastic solar panels that are recyclable, I'll try to fetch some presser stuff for it tomorrow.

    Also solar is top drawer but you really need the right spot that can grab enough sun, pumped hydro storage looking pretty good for "battery" but sadly government here is completely cooked we don't even have a proper science ministry anymore ffs...

  14. #654
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    The thing is there is no debate . Nuclear power is to expensive to build. Everyone that knows anything about it agree.

    Those screaming for NPP's are clueless.

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.

    Why? Cause there is no subsidies.

    Look at the reactors built in the US. The company went bancrupt halfway into the project.
    Fine then lets find a decent alternative for baseload power plants.

    There are its called; Water, Wind and Solar.
    Edit: Also wave looks promising but needs a lot more research and trials

    Then on peak production and you get a surplus energy you cannot export you convert water into Nitrogen for storage (That you can burn on turbines/or electrolyze later).
    Ah youre one of those.
    Ok we done here. Magic unicorns will make what he wants possible.


    

  15. #655
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan Dax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.
    I'm not going to say anything on possible interest to build a new NPP but the rest of your post is just plain wrong.

    New npp's can only be built to replace a current one. They can only be built on sites where there already is a npp. The number of npp's can not exceed 10 reactors.

    That is from the 2016 cross parlamentary energy agreement.
    Why do you want to build a totally new site? There is no geographical use for it and it would only increase expenses?

    And i cannot find a source for a limit on reactors, Sweden currently have 12 (4 closed, 2 due to close). But even if we say you are correct and there is a cap on 10 active reactors you can easily build 4 additional ones. And no one are even slightly interested.

  16. #656
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    The thing is there is no debate . Nuclear power is to expensive to build. Everyone that knows anything about it agree.

    Those screaming for NPP's are clueless.

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.

    Why? Cause there is no subsidies.

    Look at the reactors built in the US. The company went bancrupt halfway into the project.
    Fine then lets find a decent alternative for baseload power plants.

    There are its called; Water, Wind and Solar.
    Edit: Also wave looks promising but needs a lot more research and trials

    Then on peak production and you get a surplus energy you cannot export you convert water into Nitrogen for storage (That you can burn on turbines/or electrolyze later).
    Ah youre one of those.
    Ok we done here. Magic unicorns will make what he wants possible.
    What are you talking about, its already here. Its what are being used by the industry.

    Edit for clarity: Im not against NPPīs if there is no alternative, but in all western countries i would claim there are better, cheaper and more sustainable options. What i am against is that its brought up as "Cheap", "Sustainable" and "Environmental friendly". And its wrong on all accounts.
    Last edited by Caldrion Dosto; September 22 2018 at 04:29:38 PM.

  17. #657

    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan Dax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.
    I'm not going to say anything on possible interest to build a new NPP but the rest of your post is just plain wrong.

    New npp's can only be built to replace a current one. They can only be built on sites where there already is a npp. The number of npp's can not exceed 10 reactors.

    That is from the 2016 cross parlamentary energy agreement.
    Why do you want to build a totally new site? There is no geographical use for it and it would only increase expenses?
    That's not the point. You said any private company and I'd argue that current npp owners are less than likely to let their sites be used by a competitor. As far as interest go I agree with you but you should have your facts in order.

  18. #658
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    The thing is there is no debate . Nuclear power is to expensive to build. Everyone that knows anything about it agree.

    Those screaming for NPP's are clueless.

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.

    Why? Cause there is no subsidies.

    Look at the reactors built in the US. The company went bancrupt halfway into the project.
    Fine then lets find a decent alternative for baseload power plants.

    There are its called; Water, Wind and Solar.
    Edit: Also wave looks promising but needs a lot more research and trials

    Then on peak production and you get a surplus energy you cannot export you convert water into Nitrogen for storage (That you can burn on turbines/or electrolyze later).
    Ah youre one of those.
    Ok we done here. Magic unicorns will make what he wants possible.
    What are you talking about, its already here. Its what are being used by the industry.

    Edit for clarity: Im not against NPPīs if there is no alternative, but in all western countries i would claim there are better, cheaper and more sustainable options. What i am against is that its brought up as "Cheap", "Sustainable" and "Environmental friendly". And its wrong on all accounts.
    Its cheaper than what you proposed, except hydro power which isnt possible everywhere. Wind and solar arent used anywhere as base powrplants. They simply arent reliable enough.


    

  19. #659
    smuggo
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    The thing is there is no debate . Nuclear power is to expensive to build. Everyone that knows anything about it agree.

    Those screaming for NPP's are clueless.

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.

    Why? Cause there is no subsidies.

    Look at the reactors built in the US. The company went bancrupt halfway into the project.
    I take it thorium-based reactors are also not an option, despite India building dozens of them?
    Thorium is a meme.

    High construction costs are a result of increasingly complex safety requirements and assessment and regulation of safety cases. Case in point; there are 3 different consortiums seeking to build new nuclear reactors in the UK across 5 sites, all wishing to use different reactor designs; things would have been a lot simpler if the government had just picked the best. We could then have benefitted from economies of scale in terms of construction, training, fuel fabrication etc etc etc. As it stands at least one site probably isn't going to be developed.

    Given the advances in renewable and grid/storage technology and the delays with 'big' infrastructure like new nuclear I can't see any more new reactors proposed after the mid 2020's.

  20. #660
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    The thing is there is no debate . Nuclear power is to expensive to build. Everyone that knows anything about it agree.

    Those screaming for NPP's are clueless.

    Contrary to popular belifs it is 100% legal for any private company in Sweden to build as many NPP's they want. And has been for 10 or so years. Interest for doing so is zilch.

    Why? Cause there is no subsidies.

    Look at the reactors built in the US. The company went bancrupt halfway into the project.
    Fine then lets find a decent alternative for baseload power plants.

    There are its called; Water, Wind and Solar.
    Edit: Also wave looks promising but needs a lot more research and trials

    Then on peak production and you get a surplus energy you cannot export you convert water into Nitrogen for storage (That you can burn on turbines/or electrolyze later).
    Ah youre one of those.
    Ok we done here. Magic unicorns will make what he wants possible.
    What are you talking about, its already here. Its what are being used by the industry.

    Edit for clarity: Im not against NPPīs if there is no alternative, but in all western countries i would claim there are better, cheaper and more sustainable options. What i am against is that its brought up as "Cheap", "Sustainable" and "Environmental friendly". And its wrong on all accounts.
    Its cheaper than what you proposed, except hydro power which isnt possible everywhere. Wind and solar arent used anywhere as base powrplants. They simply arent reliable enough.
    But it is not cheaper with NPPīs if you also include "capital cost" and "cost of capital" (its not the same thing). And not trust Chinese numbers an/or construction method.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •