U.S. CO2 Emissions Rise As Nuclear Power Plants Close

Closing perfectly good nuclear power plants decades ahead of schedule is a bad idea if you care about the environment, especially if you care about carbon emissions. That’s because nuclear is the best source of low-carbon energy and actually produces most of our low-carbon electricity, over 800 billion kWhs – twice as much as all renewables combined. And twice as much as hydro.


Diablo Canyon
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...pWodKiWy4BCbwPAEseFk4hBSm4HhYC6Y#48184fef7034

====================================

Disclaimer: I work in the Nuclear Power industry. I also work on large DOE and DOE projects.

I have been warning people of this for years. There is (1) no "Green" base-load energy replacement at this time for nuclear. Solar, Wind, etc... are not advanced enough and will not be for at least a decade.

(2) Modern Modular Nuclear, should be the next step as the waste is minimal and over 32% of it is recyclable. The remaining waste can easily be treated and stored and potentially recycled when we advance our technologies.

(3) The closure of San Onofre and Diablo Canyon in California will cost the state $1 Billion a year in out of state carbon based energy and thousands of high paying jobs. The same will go throughout the U.S. as our commercial nuclear fleet is targeted for closures by Democratic politicians that are ignorant on energy, but go with it, because it "sounds good".

If you are about "Global Warming" and you do not recognize the damage you are doing to your own cause by closing nuclear plants prematurely, then please educate yourself on the matter and rethink it.


Note: If anyone wants to know about Chernobyl or Fukushima and what really caused the environmental damage, let me know. It's not what you think and I can share some industry knowledge on the idiocy of the Russians and Japanese that caused the loss of containment.

 

I saw a study that suggested that for solar to be remotely sufficient that something like 35/6% of total land mass would have to be covered in solar panels to replace just the energy produced from Coal. Of course the fact that solar farms are essential deep heat islands has escaped the warming faithful, and the idea that suddenly more than a third of our land mass transitioning into heat blooms hasn't occurred to them.

 

There is so much bad information when it comes to "Green Energy". You are correct of course, but it's even worse. They have to transport water to clean the mirrors / cells at a huge cost to desert like areas. Solar costs well over $80 KwH. People think the subsidized price is the true cost of Solar. It is subsidized over $50 KwH. Solar should never be a "farm", but I am all for it being on new construction and retrofitted as private ownership sees the benefit.

 

nuclear power is only necessary for enemy nations who want to make nuclear weapons under the cover of energy

it is costly, risky, and should be retired for more market share in oil, natural gas, solar, and wind.

 

It's not "risky". That explosion at Fukushima didn't happen because of the Earthquake, Tsunami, or even the meltdown into the containment vessel. It happened because the Fukushima City Council failed (for 16 hours) to give the approval for the Plant Operators to vent off the pressure and hydrogen created in the buildings from the meltdown, which was 100% contained at the time. In North America, all plant operators can "vent off" without political approval as it saves the plant, environment, and is safe.

When 3 Mile Island had a meltdown in 1979, they plant operators simply vented off the pressure and hydrogen, because they didn't have to ask the local authorities to do something that is standard practice in such a situations. Thus, there was no explosion and no loss of containment in Pennsylvania. The Japanese screwed themselves.

 

The left seeks higher energy prices, because cheap energy is the key to economic growth; economic growth brings prosperity.

 

Well that and the fact that it was a traditional rod style reactor in the first place and not a modern pebble bed or thorium salt reactor.

Which by the way if we could start building we could 1) replace our existing nuke power infrastructure and 2) replace coal plants etc.

These dumb hippies can't even green right.

 

What screwed up Fukushima was not the lack of venting of H2, which would have, obviously, released nuclear material with it, but rather the lack of passive cooling common to ANY of the current reactor designs in operation. It is very simple: If the power goes out and the generator floods, there is no cooling and the decay heat WILL result in meltdown.

Do you want to live next to a reactor that can go into meltdown when it loses power? I don't. Obviously, there is a reason that there are no passive cooling designs: It is too expensive. Money always wins over safety.

 

3 Mile Island had a meltdown, just like Fukushima. The difference is that the Hydrogen and pressure was vented off in Pennsylvania. Fukushima was 100% contained, until the containment buildings blew up due to the pressure and hydrogen that was not allowed to escape, because of the horrible decision making process in Japan.

 

You make outstanding points on Thorium. As a little side note, the decision to not go with Thorium for our Commercial Energy Fleet came from Y12 (Oak Ridge, TN) back in the 50's. We had competing scientists there. One wanted Uranium based energy, the other Thorium. My scientist / engineer friends in Oak Ridge tell me Uranium won, because of the industry (Uranium is expensive and Thorium is cheap) and ability to ramp up and refine Uranium to weapons grade, which you can't do with Thorium.

 

As far as the topic. Democrats are the cause of America's latest CO2 emission increases and will continue to be the cause as more U.S. Nuclear Plants close and are replaced with Fossil Power sources.

 

Which is a damned, short-sighted shame. It would have been great if we had developed a parallel Thorium program a long time ago. I think a lot of people would think differently about nuclear power today if we had.

 

most people dont want any nuclear power plant near them irrelevant of party affiliation.

 

I just have one question:
Do you think it is a good idea to do some sort of "Moon Shot" style all hands on deck effort to get some types of working Thorium fuel cycle reactors built and online?
Remember, I said "some types" and by that I mean almost any design that uses an advanced Thorium based fuel cycle.
In other words, do you think we should explore Thorium and make an honest effort with it?

For the record, I am a big believer in the "this ain't your grandpa's nuclear power" school of thought. I do not work in the nuclear industry. My father was a nuclear physicist but none of us three sons inherited his genius abilities in math or physics.

That said, I do have a fairly decent basic grasp on some aspects of the subject, more than the average layman.

Good thread, definitely deserves some honest, rational discussion.

 

They cut down 3,500 acres of trees in PA to install solar panels.

 

Please stop...both liberals and conservatives were able to be educated on nuclear power back in the 1950's, and both liberals and conservatives can be better educated on it now.
Regardless of the fact that some liberal pols are no-nukers, there are ways to educate all kinds of people on where we stand in nuclear power design and development.

 

It was a Sophie's Choice when it should have been a "go for it all" choice.
Stingy misers did not want to invest in both, but instead adapt U/Pl to do both and accept the consequences.

 

I lived 10 miles form one, in plain view, for 15 years. Never thought a moment about it.
Knowledge defeats ignorance, see...

 

Look, this can be approached from a variety of different angles.
You can launch endless attacks on Democrats and liberals and ridicule them while selling nuclear power to right leaning indies and conservatives.
Or you can try outreach to more open minded liberals and left leaning indies and inspire them to help educate other liberals and Democrats, and achieve wider and more compelling results, and then take credit for the conservative effort to reopen the possibility of bringing advanced nuclear power into the equation, and be heroes to your side.

Contrary to your beliefs, such liberals, Democrats and left indies do exist.
And just so you know, they will be making those efforts with or without your help.

 

No.

It was Barbara Boxer that refused to give San Onofre the hearing to restart the plant at 70% and re-engineer the new pipes to be able to go back to 100% with the new steam generators. Democrats were the direct cause for the unnecessary closure of San Onofre costing California and $500M annually in out of state fossil based energy and 4,000 high paying jobs. The Democrats of the state all stood behind her. Democrats have now pushed and received the approval to close Diablo Canyon in 2024... for no good reason.

 

If the reactor had been cooled in the first place, there would have been no need to vent off hydrogen gas (and radioactivity) formed by the high pressure water steam reaction with zirconium. In my view it is criminal to still allow reactors without passive cooling.

As to the decision making process: When the reactor is in meltdown, there is absolutely no way for the operators to determine how much radioactivity will be released when venting. Harrisburg just got lucky. I wouldn't want to be the one making that decision, which someone like you are then Monday morning quaterbacking for partisan purposes.

 

All I am hearing is "NO" and references to the Big Tits.
Is "NO" your way of saying "NO, both liberals and conservatives can NOT be better educated on it now?
I am aware of the closure of San Onofre.
I ask a lot of different questions that had little to do with San Onofre or Barbara Boxer. There are new liberal lawmakers coming, this is a chance to help them grow. Make no mistake about it, people on the Left who understand the advances in nuclear power WILL be reaching out to them.

 

As someone who believes that nuclear power has made enormous strides in the last forty years since those old reactors were designed, I believe that extreme partisanship has no constructive role to play in an issue of this importance.

Who is with me?

 

I do believe we should re-visit Thorium and let it compete with Uranium for many obvious reasons.

• Dirty bombs are not potent with Thorium
• Clean up is easier
• No weaponization and we can export the technology to the likes of Iran that claim they need Uranium based power.

 

LOL, Iran....easy big fella...
Alright, okay...Iran...thought provoking but let's rewind a little if you'll be so kind and get back to the United States for a second first.

Yes, I know they're going to close The Big Tits and I know it's maybe not the best idea but let's take into account that advanced nukes is a subject that most lawmakers, (R or L) know very little about right now.
Now, if we have people like yourself on the Right, and people who are knowledgeable on the Left (not me, I don't have degrees in physics or a career in nuclear) who can do outreach, we can do something about the Barbara Boxers and the like, and make better decisions for the good of the country.

I am going to assume you have been watching China and India as they both put their own Thorium plants online, on an experimental basis. Is it not true that China is at the point where they are ready to just start building large scale commercial and residential Thorium plants around the country?
It's almost like the NASA Space Race to the Moon, at least for me anyway.