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

I don't agree with you on much (anything?), but I agree with you on this. Nuclear is great base-load technology. It would be great to move entirely to renewables for electricity generation, but that is a LONG way off. The price of solar is dropping as cheaper and cheaper panels become available. But there is one enormous problem with solar. It is difficult to generate energy at night. So that means electricity storage has to improve, by some orders of magnitude.
In the long term (when electricity storage becomes better), wind and solar will allow the world to reduce the amount of electricity that is produced by burning hydrocarbons. Maybe in the really long term reduce reliance on nuclear. But for now, nuclear is the best base-load technology available.
IMHO.

 

Modern nuclear power is a considerably safer technology per kWh produced than any other.

Perhaps it is different in Australia - we have the third biggest Uranium reserves in the world and use mostly coal to power our grid. We have places where no soul lives for 100km in any direction, on stable tectonic plates, with regional populations desperate for work. The major parties fight it out over LNG and renewables, agreeing only that nuclear is a bad idea.

It annoys me when irrational phobias interfere with sound policy.

 

Although I don't buy into all the 'carbon-dioxide's-gonna-kill-us-all' hoop-la, I am no fan of light-water fission nuclear reactors, either.

As I'm sure you know (along with the rest of us who have bothered to read anything about the composition of the Earth's atmosphere), the dreaded carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of it.... That probably doesn't mean much to people who can't even do 4th-grade arithmetic dependably, but, in 'plain Texas talk', that's "four one-hundreths of one percent"....

Anyway, you work in the nuclear biz, so, yes, please tell us all about Fukushima in particular! Everything I read indicates that Japan has been able to accomplish next to NOTHING by way of actually ending the constant outpouring of millions of gallons of toxic, radioactive contaminants into the ocean every day. I stopped eating all seafood that comes from the Pacific Ocean after Fukushima and that includes all the seafood from Alaska and the Pacific Northwest that I used to love. Please, tell us about Fukushima and its aftereffects if you have some useful information. Thank you!

 

The fear of seafood, unless near the Japanese coast of Fukushima is not warranted.

https://www.livescience.com/61986-fukushima-anniversary-radiation-levels.html

But, I have heard this from many people. It's a real misinformation campaign.

 

I agree across the boards with your post. Until fuel cell technology is vastly improved, solar has no shot as a base-load energy source and remains incredibly expensive. They are working on fuel cell technology for solar at Los Allamos National Lab, so there is hope for the future of solar.

 

Only the ignorant Democrats. Let's hope the more informed ones prevail. But, I am concerned.

 

Is their any other kind?

 

Well... 99% of Democrats give the rest a bad name.

 

everyone who surfs or eats seafood on the west coast is radiated post fukushima.

california just passed a tax on soda, that comes from deformed and radiated brains.

 

ROFL! That "map" is a fraud. I surf, I eat tons of seafood, and there is no danger.

 

nuclear plants have an excellant

nuclear plants have an excellant operating history, still people dont want them where they live.

the drawback from nuclear power, is the storage of the spent fuel, which again no one wants near where they live.

 

That's not even a radiation map. You're first clue is that radiation isn't measured in centimeters. This is a map of tsunami sea surface elevation perturbations. It can be found here.

 

Perhaps Dems would like us to go back to whale oil.

 

So what? What does that have to do with anything? The percentage has increased drastically and is still going up.

If you are trying to argue that CO2 can't have an effect on climate because the concentration in the atmosphere is so low, you might want to re-think that. Two drops of black mamba venom will kill you and that is very roughly the same concentration in your body as CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Here's a news flash for you, bx4 ... carbon dioxide is an organic molecule without which life as we know it on this planet could not even exist! Plants could not conduct photosynthesis... well, hell, there wouldn't any plants, or anything else, either. Surely you know this...(?).

But, no we don't want excessive amounts of either "black mamba venom" or carbon dioxide to enter our bodies. To my knowledge, the closest "black mambas" we have in North America are in zoos...

and, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the entire planet is 0.04%....

Sometimes a picture helps:

 

Aside from the fact that more CO2 does not necessarily mean more biomass this isn't the issue. The issue that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes the geosphere to warm.

This would be 400 ppm. To put this in perspective consider that Mt. Tambora lofted 60 Mt of SO2 into the atmosphere which is equivalent to about 0.01 ppm by mass. This cooled the planet by about 0.5C - 1.0C globally and as much as 3.0C in the NH. It caused the year without a summer in 1816. So it's not even remotely remarkable that a 100 ppm increase in CO2 could cause significant warming considering only 0.01 ppm of SO2 caused significant cooling.

Also consider that 0.1 mL of dimethylmercury is lethal. This is equivalent to about 2 ppm by volume for a typical person.

 

You completely missed my point. A very small proportion of something can have a huge effect. There are lots of poisons that will kill you at less than 0.04% concentration in your body, so the proportion itself doesn't tell you anything.

Concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm to 410 ppm in the last 150 years or so, thanks to burning of fossil fuels. That is a huge increase, even if the absolute proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is relatively low.

Your non-scientific approach to this is troubling but typical of many people.

 

Many republicans are also against nuclear power. I don't see you calling them ignorant or is it because they are on "your team"??

 

It's "there" not "their." Be sure to at least get your spelling straight when calling others "ignorant."

 

Republicans still believes in coal mining. Hell...they cheered on the reopening of coal mines. Who are you kidding?

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-democrats-join-forces-to-advance-nuclear-power-bill

But nuclear energy appears to be an issue where both parties can find some agreement. Democrats on the environment committee like nuclear energy because it produces no emissions and can help combat the effects of climate change.

"This legislation shows how we can work together, across the aisle, to address issues that are important for our country," said Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the committee. "When done responsibly, nuclear power can help combat the negative impacts of climate change on our environment and public health, while also providing economic opportunities for Americans."

 

Another excellent post. I respect Pollycy as a poster, but as you point out, he is way off on this one, repeating the meme that CO2 cannot possibly become harmful because its concentration in the atmosphere is low. The dose makes the poison, it is no different with the CO2 dose in the atmosphere.

 

Too dangerous.


Nimby

 

We should use the least expensive and most efficient energy sources. If that’s nuclear, lets do it.

 

Sorry, but you can blame liberal and the government all you want.

But the reality is that the only growth in electric power generation is in wind, solar and natural gas.

The business model of the electric power industry has been dependant on a network of fixed large power plants supplying customers over dedicated networks. And it has been so ever since Sam Insull installed the first large steam turbine generator in Chicago in 1903.

That model is fast becoming a thing of the past.

Solar energy makes it possible for every customer to make part or all of their own power and sell the surplus on the grid. Every farmer from western Pa to Illinois is looking at leasing a piece of land to one of the windmill companies marching across the plains. (BTW, maintaining these things is a very lucrative career, especially for someone with only a high school degree).

Thus, the future of the electric power industry is in a distributed network, one where power comes from thousands of sources, balanced by the operators of the grid.

In that model, large capital intensive power plants are big disadvantages.

Which is why nearly 100% of the growth in electric power generation has come from solar, wind and natural gas.

All three have one distinct advantage. They don't requre huge committments of capital outlay.

You're whistling past the graveyard on this one.

Nuclear power is a white elephant.

(and this is coming from someone who was once as pro nuclear as you are!).