Democratic Presidential Debate

[Singu]

Irrelevant, as this was not intended as a typical reactor.

… which by 1996 was reaching its intended operational targets.

You keep changing your story, mfckrz.

30% load factor is hardly a "intended operational target". That's a highly inefficient and unstable nuclear reactor.

No sane analysis exists profitable EROIs for wind & solar.

Btw, your EROI/EPR is highly biased and cherry-picked, nuclear EROI goes as low as 10 if you count the cost of nuclear accidents and nuclear wastes. With the latest technologies, wind goes as high as 54 and solar as high as 21.

But it doesn't matter, because the cost of wind has dropped to 2c/KWh, from 7c/KWh in 2009 in the US.

Report Confirms Wind Technology Advancements Continue to Drive Down Wind Energy Prices

Right. Lemme know when we magically upend the laws of physics by legislative fiat making renewables more cost-effective.

It's called technological advancement, mfckrz. The cost of wind mills and solar panels have dropped significantly in the last decade.

[mfckrz]

You keep changing your story, mfckrz.

30% load factor is hardly a "intended operational target". That's a highly inefficient and unstable nuclear reactor.

The intended operational target was to demonstrate proof of concept, nothing more. And it did that.

Btw, your EROI/EPR is highly biased and cherry-picked, nuclear EROI goes as low as 10 if you count the cost of nuclear accidents and nuclear wastes. With the latest technologies, wind goes as high as 54 and solar as high as 21.

But it doesn't matter, because the cost of wind has dropped to 2c/KWh, from 7c/KWh in 2009 in the US.

Report Confirms Wind Technology Advancements Continue to Drive Down Wind Energy Prices

It's called technological advancement, mfckrz. The cost of wind mills and solar panels have dropped significantly in the last decade.

These are fantasy figures, given turbine designs are already approaching Betz's law:



Optimistic projections suggest that 4 million 5W 300m tall turbines could supply at least half the world's electricity use. Assuming fairly ideal wind conditions—remember that turbines are idle and thus produce no power 90% of the time. Similar situation with solar panels—they only produce power under fairly ideal lighting conditions.

What's never discussed in these renewable schemes is the tremendous amount of land use that'd be required—land that could've been developed for other purposes (or left alone). And nobody wants to live around gigantic eerie turbines or garish solar farms.

In all, the power density of renewables is 100-1000x less (and thus requires 100-1000x more space) than fossil fuels: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-renewa...ce-fossil.html

I'm not a fan of coal and won't defend it, but this 'solution' is far worse. Nuclear is the only approach that makes sense.

[Singu]

The intended operational target was to demonstrate proof of concept, nothing more. And it did that.

You really need to stop fabricating:

In September 1998, the plant was closed. Two incidents earlier in the year had culminated in a third, which triggered an automatic shutdown.

During 11 years, the plant had 53 months of normal operations (mostly at low power), 25 months of outages due to fixing technical problems of the prototype, and 66 months spent on halt due to political and administrative issues.

Not that there's any point in dragging it anymore, but it failed and that's why France had scrapped the entire nuclear reprocessing and fast breeder project. France is even abandoning nuclear and they're not building new nuclear plants anymore. Of course, without the fast breeder this would mean that they still don't know what the crap they're going to do with all the nuclear fuel wastes that they've accumulated.

Optimistic projections suggest that 4 million 5W 300m tall turbines could supply at least half the world's electricity use. Assuming fairly ideal wind conditions—remember that turbines are idle and thus produce no power 90% of the time. Similar situation with solar panels—they only produce power under fairly ideal lighting conditions.

I don't know where you're getting your sources from, but wind turbines start operating at wind speeds of 4 to 5 metres per second and reach maximum power output at around 15 metres/second. A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time. Sounds like your sources are very old.

Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 24% of the theoretical maximum output (41% offshore).

What's never discussed in these renewable schemes is the tremendous amount of land use that'd be required—land that could've been developed for other purposes (or left alone).

WWF says 2% of Germany’s surface is enough for 100% renewables

Germany had already reached 100% electricity consumption from renewables:



It met 100% electricity consumption from renewables alone, and all the excess electricity from fossil fuels and nuclear were exported. We're talking about an industry-heavy country that consumes a lot of power. If Germany can do it, then so can anyone else.

According to the official data, the combination of renewables reached 58GW round 1pm, compared with a demand peak of around 53GW. For several hours either side of that time, the renewable output was greater than demand, with excess power being exported to neighbouring countries.

Over the whole day, renewables accounted for 71.3 per cent of total generation on Monday, May 1, with wind and solar contributing 55 per cent.

Renewables cover about 100% of German power use for first time ever

And what about all the land that you can never use or even live due to nuclear radiation?

And nobody wants to live around gigantic eerie turbines or garish solar farms.

Pretty sure no one would rather live around garish nuclear power plants and nuclear wastes. If they did, then they would build a nuclear plant in the middle of a city.

I'm not a fan of coal and won't defend it, but this 'solution' is far worse. Nuclear is the only approach that makes sense.

Renewables will simply out-compete fossil fuels. The vast majority of people will vote for the cheaper and safer renewables, and not more dangerous and more expensive nuclear or fossil fuels. It's simply a no-brainer.