New Study: Nuclear Power Is Humanity's Greenest Energy Option
Land-hungry biomass, wind, and solar power are set to occupy an area equivalent of the size of the European Union by 2050.
Germany idiotically shut down its last three nuclear power plants last month. Until 2011, the country obtained one-quarter of its electricity from 17 nuclear power plants. As a December 2022 study in Scientific Reports shows, turning off this carbon-free energy source is incredibly short-sighted for combatting climate change and protecting natural landscapes.
The European researchers behind the new study do an in-depth analysis of how much land and sea area it would take to implement the Net Zero by 2050 roadmap devised by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2021. The IEA outlines an energy transition trajectory to cut global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels to zero by 2050. The Net Zero goal is to keep the increase of global average temperature below the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the late 19th-century baseline. "This calls for nothing less than a complete transformation of how we produce, transport and consume energy," notes the IEA.
The Scientific Reports study finds that implementing the IEA's roadmap requires that much of the world's agricultural and wild lands be sacrificed to produce energy. Biofuels, both liquid and solid, are especially egregious destroyers of the landscape. On the other hand, the energy source that spares the most land is nuclear power. In addition, electricity produced by fission reactors is not intermittent the way that vastly more land-hungry solar and wind power are.
Let's go to the figures. The European researchers illustrated the vast differences in the amount of energy that can be produced per unit of land by calculating what percentage of land would be needed to meet 100 percent of emissions-free primary energy demand in 2050. Primary energy refers to raw fuels before they have been converted into other forms of energy like electricity, heat, or transport fuels. They calculate that nuclear power generation could supply all the energy demand in 2050 while occupying just 0.016 percent of the world's land area. On the other hand, using biomass to generate the same amount of energy would take up more than 96 percent of the world's land area.
Turning to the IEA's Net Zero roadmap, the team calculates that the amount of land occupied by the stunted trajectory of nuclear power plants in the IEA scenario will expand from 403 square kilometers (156 square miles)today to 820 square km (317 square miles) in 2050. The area devoted to growing biomass for energy production (liquid and solid fuels) expands from 653,000 square km (252,000 square miles) to 2,981,000 square km (1,151,000 square miles). It is worth noting that 208,000 square km (80,300 square miles) is now annually plowed up for biofuel production in the U.S. The amount of land covered by onshore wind turbines would rise from 79,000 square km (30,500 square miles) to 995,000 square km (384,000 square miles), and the area covered by solar photovoltaic would increase from 9,400 square km (3,630 square miles) to 270,000 square km (104,000 square miles).
"A sixfold increase will occur in the spatial extent of power generation, from approximately 0.5% of land areas used for electric generation in 2020 to nearly 3.0% of land areas in 2050 (i.e., 430 million hectares of land)," report the researchers. "The world will be electrified by requiring an area roughly equal to the entire European Union (EU), which is one and a half times the size of India. The major contributor to increasing land use will be related to power generation from biomass."
As the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week, wind and solar projects occupying massive amounts of land increasingly get NIMBY pushback from disgruntled neighbors. Energy analyst Robert Bryce, author of A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations (2020), has compiled a database showing that nearly 500 renewable energy projects have been rejected or restricted over the past decade.
The European researchers calculated that nuclear power plants sited on just 20,800 square km (8,000 square miles) of land could supply all of the carbon-free electricity demanded in 2050. That's less land than is occupied by the state of Vermont.
Over at Tech Xplore, study co-author and energy conversion researcher at Norwegian University of Science and Technology Jonas Kristiansen Nøland points out that "the spatial extent of nuclear power is 99.7% less than onshore wind power—in other words, 350 times less use of land area." He adds, "An energy transition based on nuclear power alone would save 99.75% of environmental encroachments in 2050. We could even remove most of the current environmental footprint we have already caused."
Nuclear power massively spares land for nature while producing 24-7 emissions-free electricity. That's why closing down 17 perfectly good nuclear power plants is environmentally stupid.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“New Study: Nuclear Power Is Humanity’s Greenest Energy Option”
Nuh uh. Living in a mud hut next to your potato patch, and going to bed when it gets dark, is the greenest option.
And you better not teach someone else how to grow potatoes!
We need that knowledge to die!
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
I never fucking wanted to live in an Ayn Rand novel.
And yet, here we are!
I better stock up on candles.
Consistently begin winning more than $13,000 by doing exceptionallystraightforward Online occupation from home.i m carrying out thisresponsibility in my low maintenance I have earned and gotten $13485 a monthago. I am presently a decent Online worker and gains enough money for myrequirements. Each individual can land this Online position by followsubtleties on this site.......... https://Www.Coins71.Com
Naturally not - the incompetent always want government to steal for them.
Living in a mud hut next to your potato patch
Potato patch?! What about the "nitrogen?!" You monster!
You will eat ze bugs and you will own nothing and be happy, or else!
They pay me $285 per hour to work on a laptop. I had no clue it was possible, but a close friend made $26,000 in four weeks working on this simple offer, and she convinced me to try it. For further information, please see. . . Details Are Here—————————————➤ https://salarycash710.blogspot.com
Actually, that is FAR LESS "green" than any other option.
I did more basic evaluations for the US using the better-than-average efficiency of the solar farms in the Mojave Desert. To fulfill the US annual energy needs of around 98 Quadrillion BTUs at around 340 MWh/acre/year, you would need around 85 million acres or 132,000 square miles of pristine endangered tortoise habitat. That’s larger than the area of Arizona.
While it is true that solar can be placed on roofs, that is far less efficient when you are talking about non-desert areas that get weather.
Just to show how sensitive these numbers are, the "state of the art" ivanpah farms that blind motorists leaving Las Vegas have a net production of 245 MWh/acre/year - which would require about 184k square miles.
Thanks to the Empty Quarter Foundation for their matching grant in support of the Reason Save The Badlands initiative.
Ron’s handwringing about power sites devouring hundreds of thousands of km2 rings false because strip mines have already eaten close to a million.
Nobody much notices that human endeavor has already modified > 45% of the Earth’s surface, and considering that we achieved energy breakeven less than a century after Bethe and Heisenberg figured out how stars work, we can conservatively expect to see fusion power on line centuries before we run out of deserts, salt flats, and badlands in general
Let's see. 184K square MILES is about half a million square kilometers.
And that's at the highest efficiency you're going to get in the US, to theoretically power the US. Not the world, just the United States. So that means if you could, in theory, power everything from a perpetually sunny place like Tonopah Nv, you'd have to use half as many acres as all of the open pit mines in the whole world. Ever.
Oh, and to build all of that infrastructure you would have to mine lots of resources and use lots of energy, as solar panels are pretty energy intensive to manufacture. So you'll have to up those mining stats, too.
I love statistics. You can make them seem like they support any dumb fucking position you want to come up with.
I also doubt he understands statistics, along with chemistry and physics. Like most malthusians he thinks he is scientifically literate without realizing he's actually a fucking idiot that knows near zero on the subject he espouses. And that it's blatantly obvious to anyone with elementary understanding of science how little he actually knows. He states below, or at least seems to be implying, that the meltdown at Fukushima is the result of radioactive decay rather than an uncontrolled fission reaction. Even after being corrected he continues to insist the scenario he first stated is the result of heat generated by radioactive decay, rather than the actual culprit, the fact that under all that cement, there is an uncontrolled chain reaction still ongoing because they lost control of the fission because they couldn't deploy the graphite rods because they lost power and the generators failed because they were badly designed, maintained and placed. The same thing that happened at Chernobyl. It is an uncontrolled reaction that the only way to mitigate is by dumping huge amounts of concrete on top of, not to stop the reaction but to shield everything else from the reaction. In time, thousands of years, once all the rods are depleted, the reaction will cease. But all that heat he contributes radioactive decay is obviously not the result of decay, which if he bothered to actually read any of the reports on the subject, he would know.
Idiot.
Again, nothing to back up your assertions, which are wrong. Because you can't. Because you lack the knowledge necessary. Repute me if you can. Otherwise, I think you've shown who the real idiot is. Hint it's not me.
"...Nobody much notices that human endeavor has already modified > 45% of the Earth’s surface..."
More like Public Ignoramus.
There are lies, there are big lies and then there are the blatherings of a fucking cluically-challenged idiot.
Oceans ~70% of the earth's surface (and they are notoriously hard to "modify"), and guessing this whack-job isn't even familiar with the amount of ag land returned to pre-ag condition as a result of the Green Revolution.
And not realize some of the “modifications “ are actually improvements.
If you can't acknowledge the difference between land from water, how can you take yourself seriously?
Dude, the trees ain't gonna hug themselves.
Your calculations are off. Assuming we had sufficient 90+ efficient batteries (a ridiculous assumption, but roll with it) then land area of 200x200 miles (a small corner of the northern tip of Texas) could replace all of our grid energy today. That's only 40,000 sq miles, or 20% of the land area you suggest.
Wind and solar won't work, of course, because in cloudy and windless areas you'd need 20 days' worth of storage - most of which would only be used once or twice every 5 years. The ONLY solution marketable today which even has the POTENTIAL to be reliable, scalable, clean, small land footprint, and might one day be cheaper than natural gas is closed loop geothermal (see Eavor dotcom, Quaise Energy, Deep Earth Energy).
What are they calling green these days ? Is it just the production ? When lefties talk about EV cars, everybody jumps on the "what about battery disposal ? what about car fires ? " And then , they turn around and spout off about Nuclear Power like Chernobyl and Fukushima didn't happen nor that we have thousands of tons of spent solid fuel waste buried around the country that we are conveniently not talking about and don't know what to do with.
We know exactly what to do with nuclear waste.
We bury it .
Correct. But lefties won't let us bury in secure underground vaults, so the waste is in bins above ground at the plants because of political limbo.
All of France's nuclear fuel waste for their history of nuclear power would fit in a single room.
You can also recycle a lot of it and reuse it in burner reactors and reduce it even further. Additionally, some of it can be turned into nuclear diamonds and utilized as batteries in low energy settings quite safely. Basically, regulations have actually made the nuclear waste less safe, largely due to the advocacy of anti-nuclear malthusians who don't even understand what they're protesting. Just like the idiot below trying to equate an uncontrolled fission in a compromised reactor to waste.
“All of France’s nuclear fuel waste for their history of nuclear power would fit in a single room.”
And IIANM, most of France’s nuclear fuel waste is reprocessed for reuse.
Contradict me if I am mistaken.
No one is talking about batteries either. This is just talking about the footprint of active areas. And for the record, the exclusion zone of Fukushima is a piker in comparison to the area occupied by solar power. You'd need 7000 fukushima scale disasters to take up as much land as is required to provide US energy needs with solar.
As I note above, the better solar farms out there get around 340MWh/year/acre. Fukushima produced 75,000MWh/year/acre. Even if you count the disaster area it was still 5,300, or 15x more space efficient.
All the nuclear waste and then some in the US could fit easily into a small mountain complex. Again this is tiny (and underground, not on the livable surface) compared to the area drastically impacted by solar.
You’d need 7000 fukushima scale disasters to take up as much land as is required to provide US energy needs with solar.
To say nothing about the fact that the entire nation of Japan would effectively become its own solar exclusion zone.
The best way to repopulate Fukushima is to cover its 19th century signs warning people to never again build closer to the Tsunami coast with solar cells.
Wouldn't even come close to producing the same Amount of electricity.
If you build it they will come.
Just plant a giant turbine next to it and wait for the next tsunami.
The tsunami would destroy the turbine and you would get no energy from it. Fuck if the wind is above 30 it destroys turbines so they have to be feathered to avoid damage.
Ocean turbines are a thing, and some ( Oceana's for instance.) run at current velocities exceeding the speed of tsunami inundation,
And they aren't commercially viable because the technology doesn't work.
Somebody’s being dishonest. The Fukushima Tsunami was moving in excess of 400 mph on the surface and the issue with tsunamis isn’t just speed, it’s mass as well. A magnitude 9 earthquake, like the one off the shore of Fukushima, is something like the simultaneous detonation of 20-30,000 nuclear warheads.
The turbine may be able to handle a constant 400 mph current flowing through it, but that doesn’t mean it can go through a couple hundred mph difference in flow of kilotons of water across its breadth without being torn apart. Air frames less than a hundred feet wide get irreparably bent and torn apart by less extreme forces *in the air* (or on the ground).
He conflates a lot of unrelated information in his dishonest and scientifically illiterate argument. Trying to parse them all out is a futile endeavor as he doesn't understand how stupid his posts are to anyone who has taken either basic chemistry or physics, let alone anyone who has gone beyond their first year in those subjects. Like most proponents of renewables only, I doubt he has a science background. And gets most of his science information from pop science places like IFL Science. Which is the least scientifically literate place to get actual science information.
"Somebody’s being dishonest..."
Naah. Never presume intent where stupidity will suffice and Public Ignoramus has shown plenty of that already.
"...Ocean turbines are a thing, and some ( Oceana’s for instance.) run at current velocities exceeding the speed of tsunami inundation,..."
The are a "thing " opposed by every watermelon you can imagine, you lying piece of shit.
Just image how many fish something like that would grind up in a day.
"If you build it they will come..."
And Public Ignoramus can't read!
Well, for solar the land required for batteries is zero. Why? Because they can be located under the panels, which require vastly more land than the batteries. The only batteries I know of which even show the potential to be cheap enough to make the cost of nighttime delivered solar economical are ESS Inc and Form Energy. That's because they just need iron and water. They are, however, only 50-70% efficient, meaning you have to generate twice as much power as you plan to use - raising the overall cost.
Solar and wind are red herrings. Nuclear is too expensive, and they aren't even claiming the new reactors (all untried) will ever get the costs down below $180/MWH (3x natural gas "someday"). The only solution on the table that has the POTENTIAL to be cheaper than gas which is clean, reliable, easy to scale up, and doesn't require vast resource or large amounts of land use is closed loop geothermal. Eavor is in the lead currently, with funding for 7 plants. As with any new tech, the first ones will NOT see the cost of electricity being lower than nuclear. That will take some time and experience to achieve.
The amount of waste produced by a nuclear plant over a year is about the same volume as a can of pop. Even less if you take that and use it in a burner reactor. So, no the amount of waste is not a huge problem. Secondly, both Fukushima and Chernobyl were because of bad designs that they knew at the time were bad designs but because of corrupt government officials the bad designs weren't corrected. The only similar occurrence in the US was Three Mile Island, which contrary to popular myth actually showed the safety protocols worked exactly as advertised. Rather than a condemnation of nuclear power plants, the Three Mile Island incident should have been portrayed as what it actually was, proof that the safety protocols work. Of course the media didn't portray it like that and thus it enters the lexicon as a disaster rather than what actually happened. Yes, places like Hanford are badly contaminated but they were primarily used to produce nuclear weapons and did a lot of illegal and ill advised releases to test the impacts of nuclear waste. In other words the deliberately released radioactive material rather than control it. And Hanford was a government ran facility. Private companies could never get away with what the government did for decades at Hanford.
Also, newer plants that utilize noble gases rather than water to capture heat produce even less waste, spent rods can be reused in burner reactors, utilizing noble gases (helium is the most common), further reducing our stockpile of waste. Thorium plants produce even less and it is far less radioactive, thorium is far more abundant than uranium (one of the most abundant elements) and is radioactive for far less time. Fukushima and Chernobyl were both based on 1950s designs, seventy years later we have much better options.
We would have even better designs if the west didn't limit nuclear research in the 1970s and 1980s. Largely driven by anti-nuclear protests funded by oil, gas and coal producers, who saw that nuclear would easily outcompete their industries for electricity production, while also being cleaner. So everyone that wants to get away from fossil fuels but also is opposed to nuclear power is actually doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry, which knows that solar and wind will never replace fossil fuels. The only viable technology that can is nuclear.
Molten salt reactors are what do that not the thorium.
Thorium pebble-bed reactors also can't meltdown in the way Chernobyl or Fukushima did. They’re essentially incapable of having the same level of disaster occur with them.
Where the few cans of pop that shattered shiploads of concrete and gutted 4 giant steel GE pressure cookers diet or regular?
What exactly are you talking about? If you're talking about Fukushima, than what occured wasn't waste but badly designed safety features that they knew couldn't work, but they continued to operate and bribe the government to allow them to operate, knowing that the plant wasn't safe. Waste is not the same as an uncontrolled reaction, which is what happened when Fukushima lost power and thus lost control of the reaction. Or if you're talking about Chernobyl, again that was a design problem and improper safety protocols that resulted in an uncontrolled reaction, not from waste. Stop conflating the two.
The 'waste' in question is the fission products whose heat of decay boiled the water and released the hydrogen that ruptured the containment and blew the roof off days after the automatic shutdown system worked as advertised—
If you can't handle heat transfer or isotope decay tables, find something else to rant about.
Again, that's an uncontrolled reaction not waste. You're conflating two very different things. Until you stop conflating apples to oranges, you can't begin to understand the topic. Waste doesn't produce fission. A waste rod isn't undergoing fission. But in a reactor, with free neutrons that aren't controlled, yes you have an uncontrolled reaction which produces heat. The fail safes weren't in place, it has nothing to do with waste and everything to do with letting the reaction get out of control. Fuck you're an idiot. You're conflating two very different things.
Radwaste decay is not a reaction, and cannot be controlled.
That's what isotopic half-life is about.
Cue insult repetition by chatbot of smaller brain that GPT-3
Radwaste is a reaction you idiot. And it can be controlled. God have you taken a physics or chemistry course. Yes, radioactive decay is very much a reaction, not fission but still a reaction, and decay doesn't produce the level of heat you described. That is the result of a melt down, i.e. an uncontrolled fission reaction. If this was a problem, every nuclear bomb ever created and every nuclear reactor every created would have the same problem you described. Which is an uncontrolled fission reaction related to inability to control free neutrons as the result of fission or super critical mass, which can produce its own free neutrons. If uranium by itself, which undergoes natural decay could create temperatures like than southwest Wyoming and Northeast Utah would be a lot fucking hotter than they are, due to the huge uranium deposits there, close to the surface.
Also after a year in a cooling pond no used rod is even close to those temperatures, because natural decay isn't that hot.
Forget GPT-3.
Make that Eliza.
God, you're an idiot. You dont even know what youre talking about. Radioactive decay is a reaction, just not a fission reaction. Fuck any first year chemistry or physics student knows that. Fucking idiot doesn't even understand entropy. And he lectures others on being uninformed.
You're also a useful idiot for the fossil fuel industry because you are scared of a technology that actually works, has an amazing safety record and could conceivably replace fossil fuels cheaper and much more reliably than all the pie in the sky solar, wind and tidal projects.
Also, the ChatGPT is a stupid insult. If I actually was ChatGPT, the chances are my posts would be based upon actual peer reviewed literature (which they actually are but a much smaller volume than AI would be able to access in a millisecond, mine has come from decades of hard study and a master's in science in which I had to take years of chemistry and physics to get, despite it being a biology degree, as when you get down to it, every biological function is chemistry and physics). Also, my experience is also growing up with someone with five decades working in the field at the top of the field and having a brother who is also now a power generator operator. ChatGPT has access to far more data than anything I could even imagine. And thus, if my posts were AI generated, they would be even more accurate, scientifically, than mine. In other words, if you were arguing with AI on a purely scientific issue (not philosophical or political) the chances of you being right and the AI wrong is infinitely small. As in 99.9 (with the 9 after the decimal point continuing to such a degree as to be pointless) percent chance the AI is correct and you are wrong. Again, this shows your lack of science literacy. ChatGPT in fact can access any and all peer reviewed literature, plus media reports and government reports, on the subject that have ever been printed on line or transferred on line in a fraction of a second and the response would be completely based upon the review of this huge volume of literature. That is how AI works. If you are implying I am AI, you're actually admitting I am correct and you're wrong, as the chances AI on a purely scientific question that is as well studied as nuclear fission, nuclear decay, isotope reactions, etc, are so finitely small as to be functionally nill.
If radioactive decay produced that much heat, they could use it alone without the need for fission to produce energy. It doesn't.
It doesn't even make sense. Unicorn fart thermodynamics. It's enriched, depleted (and sometimes re-enriched and re-depleted). It's like pretending the mole equivalents of CO2 and gasoline and oxygen have the same potential energy. Fucking no, that energy was released when you burned it.
Like I said he doesn't understand basic stoichiometry or entropy. Uranium decays and produces heat. He got that part partially correct. He then argues it produces far more heat than we know it does and somehow does it without undergoing a reaction. He also falsely conflates an uncontrolled reaction, which is what happened at Fukushima (and continues to happen, thus producing the effects he states above) with radioactive decay. If that actually was the result of radioactive decay, why hasn't someone taken advantage of that limitless supply of energy? Or because it comes nowhere near producing that much heat. Basically, most thermodynamic electric plants utilize reaction to heat a medium to drive a turbine. In fossil fuels you burn hydrocarbons to produce superheated water (you actually superpressurize the water so it doesn't turn to steam, which produces greater pressure) and then this drives a turbine that rotates, commonly, magnets in a field of copper. Producing electricity. In a nuclear power plant, the heat from fission is used to heat a medium, in older reactors water in newer reactors noble gases, to drive the turbine. If radioactive decay could produce that much heat, then there would be no need to mess with fission in the first place.
BTW, my father is a licensed stationary steam plant engineer, and has been running electric generation plants since the mid 1970s except four years when he was serving in the Army. He's worked with wood burning plants, natural gas burning plants and oil burning plants. He's has his top certification from two of the hardest states to get accredited in, Minnesota and Washington, and achieved both in less than a year of getting licensed in those states (the average is more like five years for experienced operators and a decade for new operators). I literally grew up hearing about the ins and outs of electricity production. He's finally retiring in August, since working in the field since 1973 (actually since 1972 if you count his apprenticeship).
Also, a fuel rod, even a used one, is actually very safe unless you bombard it with free neutrons. Otherwise, nuclear weapons would spontaneously explode all the time. In a reactor you bombard it with free neutrons, which results in fission, which releases more neutrons. You control this with graphite rods that absorb the free neutrons. In Fukushima, the electricity for the graphite control rods was lost, and the generators that should have kicked in and allowed a controlled shutdown were drowned by the tsunami because they were located in the flood plain instead of on high ground like they should have. If they had been properly placed the graphite rods would have deployed and captured the free neutrons ending the reaction. This is very similar to Chernobyl where the generators also failed because of bad design and maintenance. The reason this has only happened twice in 70 years of nuclear power is because most plants no the importance of those generators and thus make sure they can work in an emergency. A fuel rod by itself can not react unless you bombard it with free neutrons. Also, fuel rods aren't replaced that often. Almost all waste is from the medium used to capture heat produced by the reaction. Newer reactors use either inert materials such as noble gases (which because of the atomic structure can't be irradiated) or use a closed system that produces far less waste and recycles that waste. Compare Fukushima and Chernobyl to Three Mile Island. In the latter the graphite control rods properly deployed and stopped the reaction with no damage. Like they are designed to do.
The hydrogen was released on purpose it didn't breach containment. Why they didn't knock a hole in the roof and let it out is beyond me.
Just ignore the earthquake and subsequent tsunami, it was the controlled nuclear reaction that had been running for almost 4 decades that was to blame.
Also, it wasn't densely-packed wood frame construction, dry windy conditions, and near complete lack of firefighting infrastructure that caused The Great Chicago Fire, it was Mrs. O'Leary's cow.
Also ignore the difference between waste and an uncontrolled reaction in a compromised reactor. Two very different things he's trying to equate. Fukushima was a bad design, that they knew was a bad design, did nothing to correct, managed to operate for four decades without a problem until a once in a century disaster exposed the very problems they knew they had all along. And the government of Japan knew this as well, and allowed it to happen.
That's what you get when you talk nuclear science with a troll whose knowledge of the subject mostly stems from the Pepsi Syndrome skit on Saturday Night Live.
Or the four-eye fish in the Simpsons.
Hanford sites were also wartime sites. We didn't know what we were doing, but even if we did we didn't care because we were at war. Even so, Hanford cleanup is progressing apace.
Again, a good point. Hanford is the poster child for government controlled energy. So is Chernobyl. Both were directly government ran.
Fukushima's bad design was putting the backup generators in a tsunami zone. The safety systems at TMI did work perfectly until some idiot shut them off because he didn't believe what the instruments were telling him. Unfortunately it happened 12 days after the nuclear disaster film "The China Syndrome" was released! Talk about bad timing.
Hanford is cited in Eastern Washington downriver from naturally occurring uranium deposits. I have never researched it, but that is what I would have done, store the waste the same place you got it from. That being said, the contamination it has leaked is still less than the native radioactive material present in the local environment.
Environmentalists try to blame it on Hanford and the mines, but the Columbia is fed by underground springs that erode uranium bearing strata. Even at that, the levels of radiation in the streams are not enough to harm the animals that live in them, let alone people downriver. Just like Kyiv and the Crimea suffered no effects from Chernobyl. People who don't live on a big river like the Columbia or the Dneiper just can't imagine the volume of water being discussed. Just like the morons on the West Coast who bought iodine pills, convinced that material from Fukushima could travel across the Pacific by idiot Science!tists.
Interestingly, Fukoshima could have been avoided if they had BATTERY backup rather than just diesel generators (which failed).
But nuclear is currently a dead end. Even the new (and as yet completely untried) modular reactors do not promise to achieve anywhere near price parity with natural gas, and will cost 3-5x per MWH.
Currently the Hanford site has 500 million gallons of nuclear waste, that's leaking into the soil and also the Columbia river. It is by far the worst environmental disaster in America at the moment and so few people even know about it.
The "spent" fuel is easy to take care of. It's called a "Breeder Reactor".
This has nothing to do with the environment. It's all about control and the creation of a Socialist Utopia. Look up the origin of the word "Utopia" sometime.
I've said it before, and will say it now: Anyone concerned about global warming who won't put nuclear energy on the table is an idiot.
Germany is an idiot.
Who says they are actually concerned about global warming? 8.75 years of cooling and counting...
Of course it’s green energy! It’s always green when I see radiation stuff in movies and video games. Well, sometimes it's purple, but most of the time they use green.
Most of what Americans know about nuclear power is from the simpsons.
But never Cherenkov Blue. No love for the blue!!!
What about Marge's ionized hair?
You and the TDS-addled asshole brandyshit deserve each other. Find a room and spare us the details.
Would be a great article, except that NO article about nuclear power is complete without a discussion of the newer designs and their benefits for safety and reduction of waste. I can't share this good information with anyone who needs to see it. They'll shrug it off as idiotic.
It is important to understand that the two worst nuclear disasters (and basically the only two documented disasters) occurred in reactors designed in the 1950s. People opposed to nuclear power want you to believe that we've changed nothing in the past seventy years.
The GE BWR Mark 1 boiling water reactor program began in the late 50's , and the first was completed in 1966. The four at Fukushima were ordered a few years later.
So 1950s design,like I stated, in sixty year old reactors, with safety devices that weren't properly designed or maintained. So a seventy year old design in a 60 year old reactor. Gee, that sure corrected me. Fuck, the more you try to disprove me, the stronger you make my case for me. Fuck you're an idiot. Tell us again how radioactive decay isn't a reaction. Hint, if it produces heat, it's a reaction because heat is the byproduct of any chemical reaction. That's basic stoichiometry there son.
" Tell us again how radioactive decay isn’t a reaction. Hint, if it produces heat, it’s a reaction because heat is the byproduct of any chemical reaction"
Did you go to grad school with Tucker Carlson ?
Gee, what a burn. You post stupid shit that is easily rebutted by anyone with any familiarity with the subject. First you imply I'm as stupid as AI, which is probably the dumbest insult there is, as AI generated answers would be based on such a volume of scientific literature on this subject, that any AI generated response would basically be unimpeachable. Then when I use your own statements to show how scientifically illiterate you are, you start spouting about right wing agitators and comparing them to me. Since you haven't actually provided anything close to an understanding of basic chemistry or physics, I can only conclude you have zero actual knowledge on the subject. Furthermore, pointing out your mistakes is entirely pertinent as it calls into question every single one of your assertions, as it shows how uninformed you are of the subject. Additionally, ridiculing someone for being as uninformed, yet still making statements based upon your complete misunderstanding and lack of knowledge, is entirely pertinent as even after being corrected you continue to spout the same nonsense. Like your rebuttal above to my saying they were designs from the 1950s. In your response you even state they were designed based upon 1950s work, even if they were not fielded until the late sixties. Again, rather than rebut my statement this actually reinforces my point. But you don't understand this. Additionally, as with your statement above that radioactive decay is not a reaction, you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge that anyone with even basic education in chemistry and or physics would have. Also, stating the continuing problems at Fukushima are the result of radioactive decay, rather than an uncontrolled fission reaction, further demonstrates how small your actual understanding of the problem are. Anyone with even basic chemistry and or physics would see the flaw and mistakes right away in your posts. I pointed them out ad nauseam, and instead of trying to understand, you instead rely on sophomoric tropes to deflect from your mistakes. Also, if you want to compare CVs I am fairly confident that mine is far more pertinent and informed scientifically than yours. And I am not a physicist or chemist, rather I'm a biologist, but biology once you get past the first two years is all about chemistry and physics. But I am nowhere close to being an expert on nuclear physics and even I can see all the mistakes you've made. A nuclear physicist would for laughing at your assertions.
It's an idiot troll. You can certainly respond if you enjoy the volley, but can also ignore it, and still have our respect.
As loyalty is a virtue, Larry and Moe cannot be faulted for coming to Curly’s defense.
As stupidity is a constant, you are proving it. Fuck off and die, shit-pile
Don't hide your Bibliography under a bushel man—
give us your Google Scholar & ResearchGate links so we all start citing your collective works!
Don't try to hide your stupidity; you have been shown to be fucking ignoramus many times and your response has been to double down on your stupidity.
You might want to try posting something which is not abysmally stupid, but it's doubtful you can.
Fuck off and die, you pathetic pile of shit.
Thank you for doubling down on "
"Don’t try to hide your stupidity; you have been shown to be fucking ignoramus many times and your response has been to double down on your stupidity …"
How many days could liberty survive without your repeating "Fuck off and die, you pathetic pile of shit." as an epithet in its defense in Reason ?
"How many days could liberty survive without your repeating “Fuck off and die, you pathetic pile of shit.” as an epithet in its defense in Reason ?"
Uh, did you hope that suggest that you are other than a fucking ignoramus?
If so, it failed. Fuck off and die, shit pile.
Oh, and, your reply to soldiermedic76 must really have gotten your goat, asshole; amazing in the irrelevance.
Fuck off and die; make the world a better place, shit-pile.
A CV is much more in depth than any bibliography l. Do you even know what a CV is?
Also, how many peer reviewed materials have you published? I know how many I've published also how many I've served as a peer editor for.
And let it also be noted that Fukushima was destroyed by the largest earthquake and resulting tsunami in the history of Japan.
Oh folly of man. We didn't imagine and build for a once in a million year event.
I know that there were mistakes made at Fukushima- there are always mistakes made. But that earthquake killed thousands of Japanese. Not Radiation. Not exploding cores. An earthquake and millions of tons of water. Thousands more died in the cold without power. Granted, that is power from the reactor, but no power station- gas, wind, or solar was going to survive that catastrophe.
And for that disaster of disasters that contaminated 19 square miles, people to try and hang the fate of the Nuclear industry. I agree that 3-mile Island should be considered a success. But we should also look at Fukushima as an example of how benign failure can be under circumstances of biblical proportions.
“…Oh folly of man. We didn’t imagine and build for a once in a million year event…”
Further, the death toll from the power plant was dwarfed by the death toll of those fleeing from the supposed disaster; looks like 10:1 to me
“…No one died directly from the disaster. However, 40 to 50 people were injured as a result of physical injury from the blast, or radiation burns.
In 2018, the Japanese government reported that one worker has since died from lung cancer as a result of radiation exposure from the event.
[…]The year after the 2011 disaster, the Japanese government estimated that 573 people had died indirectly as a result of the physical and mental stress of evacuation…”https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima Yep, like JFree and his PANIC flag. far more die from bullshit.
Don't tell Public Ignoramus...
Haven’t you heard? Not sharing information is the new thing.
Why discuss vaporware? Only one design approved; none built; not even a suggestion they will ever bring the cost per MWH under $180 (and that only a “maybe, someday”).
If they were serious, EVERYONE would be talking about closed loop geothermal - the ONLY plan on the table which is clean, reliable 24x7, requires little in the way of materials (none rare or toxic) or land, can build a plant in about a year, and is believed to have the potential with experience to be cheaper than natural gas.
Oddly, neither the left nor right seems to be mentioning them. Why, it's almost as if NOBODY wants a real solution...
Who can be the 'Greenest' monster of us all???? It's all about being 'Green'. What does 'greenest' even mean? That the sky won't fall down?
Well funny Chernobyl went from Green to Yellow & Red trees. I guess they weren't using 'Green' nuclear power. Ya know what made the land turn 'Green' was farmers and their water management/resources. And in other news at Reason this week; farmers are the enemies of 'Green'......
We need to keep banging this drum.
If one wants all people everywhere to have a standard of living at least as good as the French (gawd, I hate to say that, but it's a reasonable reference point), then the only way to do it with minimal CO2 is nuclear. Fision for now, fusion once we have it. But "renewables" are a fools errand.
Hydro-Electric seems like the best option where I live…
So of course; there’s a running campaign right now to demolish them all.
The funniest thing, is that the only reason that the Columbia Basin can make solar and wind work there, is because hydroelectric is the biggest producer of electricity, and easily ramped up and down on demand. So of course Washington and Oregon wants to tear down the dams on the Snake and Columbia River. Because why not kill the golden goose?
Are there locks on any of the dams on those rivers?
Fish ladders (i think that's what they're called have been built on many of those dams. they allow the salmon to get to their breeding grounds.
Actually, the Dworshack Dam at Orifino actually assists salmon and steelhead survival because it keeps the Clearwater River cooler by letting out cold water. Additionally, they're also testing salmon cannons to assist salmon and steelhead to navigate even the few dams, like Hells Canyon and Dworshack that don't have fish ladders. The biggest threat to salmon and steelhead are actually the non-native fish like walleye and smallnouth they've transplanted in the reservoirs, that eat a huge number of fry. And the sealions that have figured out that fish ladders are a buffet, and those sealions are an protected species.
A salmon cannon sounds... delicious. 😀
A salmon cannon sounds like a good defense against the sealions. Hopefully the courts understand that the right to keep and bear salmon cannons shall not be infringed.
Yes they have locks and fish ladders. Lewiston, ID and Clarkston, WA are both inland seaports which a large amount of grain, beef and timber are shipped from to areas all over the Pacific. And they're 300+ miles upstream behind multiple dams.
Nope. Nuclear costs 3-5x natural gas, and shows NO potential to drop below $180/MWH (3x natural gas).
The only solution available today showing the promise to do everything we want AND (with experience) become cheaper than natural gas is closed loop geothermal. Why is it that nobody is discussing it in any major media? That's rhetorical - neither political party wants real solutions.
What use is a commentariat without information sharing by people who keep using words that do not mean what they think they mean?
Feel free to react.
The issue at hand here is very easy to define:
You don't know what the fuck you're posting about, so you are incapable of judging how others are using words.
Responding to your posts is akin to explaining stresses in a given structural element to a 5-year-old.
You really should STFU and quit making a public ass of yourself.
Fuck off.
And I am pretty sure I know what those words mean, you asshole.
These guys deserted The China Syndrome for Tourette's a long long time ago.
The issue at hand here is very easy to define:
You don’t know what the fuck you’re posting about, so you are incapable of judging how others are using words.
Responding to your posts is akin to explaining stresses in a given structural element to a 5-year-old.
You really should STFU and quit making a public ass of yourself.
Over to you, Curly!
Over to you, Public Ignoramus!
Did you have a point other than proving once and all and for all to see that you are a fucking ignoramus?
Thank you for clarifying President Trump's CNN remarks on which side he is not on the Ukraine
Thank you for once again proving to be an ignorant piece of shit. Fuck off and die, asshole.
Look, fuck-face, you've been handed your hat every time you've lied, which means every time you've posted.
As a steaming pile of lefty shit, you seem to (as lefty shits to) that repeating a lie will somehow make it true.
It won't; you are full of shit; fuck off and die, asshole. Perhaps you might make your family proud.
What say the Sevoi
Sevo says Public Ignoramus is full of shit.
"The China Syndrome"
It seems to everyone here that you learned everything you know about nuclear power from a motion picture that contained more erroneous information about science than possibly any other in history.
Perhaps you also think that Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, Michael Douglas, Scott Brady, James Hampton, Peter Donat, Richard Herd, and Wilford Brimley are actually brilliant people who know something about nuclear power generation and nuclear physics rather than generally stupid people who are able to learn and recite lines that make them look brilliant. That works pretty well if you have writers who can write dialogue that is in any way accurate in terms of science or actual life. Unfortunately those writers left Tinseltown for the Elysian Fields a long time ago.
What I’ve said on the necessity of nuclear power and the idiocy of those who deny it may be read in back issues of Reason policy quarterlies ranging from The National Interest to Foreign Affairs, and the op-ed pages of the WSJ.
Show us your work !
That's a lot of claims absent anything like an actual cite. Once again, you are full of shit.
As of today:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-buy-power-nuclear-fusion-company-helion-2023-05-10/
Perhaps the Pelosi’s of the world do not want to lose investments in solar/ wind? Nuclear in 2023 is the only way to go- it’s crony capitalism /fascism that is keeping it from firing up.
Crony Capitalism is an oxymoron. It has and will always be Crony Socialism.
I prefer the term "Crapitalism."
Read Pinker's "Rationality" some time back. He's 'selectively' rational, being a TDS-addled shit absent any evidence regarding Trump's (seemingly self-evident) faults and concerned that climate change is an existential to human existence (again; evidence? Nope).
But he gets many things right, including the safety of fission energy; it is, by a huge margin, the safest way to provide electrical power:
(gonna save this link this time)
"What’s the Death Toll of Nuclear vs Other Energy Sources?"
[...]
"... In fact, estimates on the number of deaths caused by the nuclear energy sector overall is 90 per 1000TWh —the least of any energy sector!..."
https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources
Nuclear energy shares several characteristics with climate change; they both are widely assumed (absent a shred of evidence) to be existential threats to human existence, and they both allow increased state power by allowing the state to ban such a safe source and thereby ban all sorts of useful goods and activities.
Public Ignoramus? Stuff it up your ass and fuck off.
So use closed loop geothermal. Cleaner than nuclear, no possibility of unfriendly governments cutting off your supply of "fuel," and unlike nuclear actually shows the promise of becoming cheaper than natural gas.
7 plants fully funded (Eavor dotcom, others are trying to get their first). Over $1 billion Euros in funding for those plants, which ALSO supply winter heat. Odd that no major news media have mentioned it.
The cost of whatever land is required by solar or wind or biomass is included in the price of that energy. It is complete nonsense (or corruption) to claim that as something untoward. No eminent domain is necessary or even productive. This is how free markets work.
Further, the use of that land for that purpose is clearly usufruct with no/few abusus externalities - unlike say Chernobyl where those risks/costs will always be transferred to others.
Finally, a unique selling proposition of solar/wind is that it is highly distributed. Another way of saying requires a lot of land. It also means projects can be very small - financed and executed by a household. Which means it can't be controlled by those who love the power of controlling everyone's energy.
Many different sources of energy are going to be required in future. What is obscene are those who want to demonize one form in order to limit the possibilities of the future. There are advantages and disadvantages. That's it.
I remember being able to go out and look at the stars in the middle of nowhere without a sea of blinking red lights polluting the experience. I remember being able to go on road trips without seeing acre after acre of windmills. As mentioned above, enough solar panels to power the US, if placed in a effectively "permanently" sunny location, would require land area the entire size of Arizona.
The "cost" there isn't referring to the dollar amounts (though those would undoubtedly be quite high) but also to the fact that we'd be marring the beauty of gorgeous natural landscapes. I can't believe I even have to explain that to a conservationist.
And as also explained above, there will never be another Chernobyl, Fukushima, or even Three Mile Island. Because those designs are absolutely archaic. It's equivalent to judging the passenger safety of modern automobiles by specimens from the 1950s. Modern designs cannot fail in that manner. Some modern designs cannot fail at all, short of external intervention with explosives, and even then it wouldn't cause a meltdown but simply a breach.
And as for your "distributed" claim, wind isn't part of that. Seriously, have you ever been next to one of those things? They're enormous and astonishingly expensive. No individual family is going to put one up unless it's the Walton family. Solar is a possibility, though I know people who live entirely on solar, and they also essentially do not live a modern life. And that's in New Mexico, where we get a lot of sun. And on top of that there are modern reactor designs that are also very small with a potential for distribution, and affordable. And have far fewer maintenance concerns.
So nearly the entirety of your post is incorrect. "What is obscene are those who want to demonize one form in order to limit the possibilities of the future." is the only line with any value.
"So nearly the entirety of your post is incorrect. "
In other words, it is a typical JFear post, full of his hastily written bullshit that sounds good in his head, and falls apart when given even the slightest scrutiny by someone who isn't in his amen club.
IOW – you got nothing but ad hominem.
Insults aren't necessarily ad-homs.
The tone is irrelevant. Focusing entirely on the person rather than the content is ad hominem
The “cost” there isn’t referring to the dollar amounts (though those would undoubtedly be quite high) but also to the fact that we’d be marring the beauty of gorgeous natural landscapes. I can’t believe I even have to explain that to a conservationist.
Hahahaha. Ok. I doubt you even live in areas that have tons of wind, solar, gas, coal, oil, whatever energy production is actually an option – where the beauty of gorgeous landscape could be a real issue. BTW - that is exactly where I live.
And as also explained above, there will never be another Chernobyl, Fukushima, or even Three Mile Island. Because those designs are absolutely archaic.
Cool. NEVER be another?!? So you will able to identify the specific designs that have moved off paper and into production with enough time elapsed to not only have proven that said designs actually work in the real world — but to have transferred the costs of insuring those risks to actual producers/consumers rather than sloughing it off to govt? Didn’t think so.
And BTW – I am not anti-nuclear. What I AM is anti-‘facts don’t mean anything so we can get away with obvious BS and lies like ‘Chern/Fuku/3Mile can never happen again because we’re smarter now”
And as for your “distributed” claim, wind isn’t part of that.
Of course it is. Wind blows everywhere — even if the wind speed in a particular location is not sufficient enough to be economic for energy usage beyond say ideas for how ventilation can reduce energy usage.
By 'not anti-nuclear' I mean I would support a nuke plant in/near my city as long as the energy stays here.
I will oppose everything - nuclear, wind, solar etc - if it is to be produced here and sent elsewhere. Because that is what results in - and even requires - lies, corruption, toxic dump externalities, etc.
Energy produced here is a source of comparative advantage. Not a source of colonial disadvantage
"and even requires – lies, corruption, toxic dump externalities, etc."
It requires more than that. It requires cooperation between widely dispersed localities. Not everywhere will have their own nuclear powerplant for their exclusive use. Some will generate electricity by hydro, wind, whatever shows the most promise. If humanity is to prosper under conditions of reduced energy consumption, then sharing is essential. Lifeboat economics 101. Luckily electricity is highly portable, much more so than oil is, and with high voltage direct current can be transmitted over long distance with minimal loss.
Got no problem with cooperation. But that is not what happens when the terms of trade include commodities (esp land based resources) on one side and non-commodities on the other. The Mountain West has been screwed by both coasts re that sort of trade since probably the 1873 demonetization of silver. And re nukes in particular. It’s not remotely ‘cooperation’ or ‘trade’ when one party gets the energy and the other gets Chernobyl risk. Fuck you all on the coasts with your disinformation and lies about everything resource related.
You build your nukes in your own fucking backyard.
"The cost of whatever land is required by solar or wind or biomass is included in the price of that energy. It is complete nonsense (or corruption) to claim that as something untoward. No eminent domain is necessary or even productive. This is how free markets work..."
Happen to be reading a book regarding the black death and a quote defined JFree's total bullshit:
"...but the windy nothingness of this somewhat unhelpful speculation..."
Pretty sure JFree was busted centuries ago. Fuck off and die, you pathetic piece of shit.
Ignoramus igitur
Oves egg on ,Sevo!
Ignoramus Platypus
Ecce Sevo goofus!
Post jocundum multi-turdem,
Qui est Sevi savorissime verbem
Ignorabimus habebit humus
And cough up or shut up on the still missing CV
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of ignorant shit.
Mentioning nuclear is the easiest way to call bullshit on the climate change cult. When they come to you with their dire predictions that we must decarbonize by 2030 or face the wrath of Gaia and you tell them we had better ramp up nuclear power then, and fast, they will immediately go into their “wind and solar” mantra like Hare Krishnas. Maybe backing it up with “scientists say we can do it!, so we can”. Well maybe we can, if we go back to 12th century living standards, which is what their plan really is.
"they will immediately go into their “wind and solar”
They will go into wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro electric, less waste, more efficiency, veganism, mass transit and other life style adaptations. Nuclear will obviously play a part, as is evident in China where the public has little or no say in how the country is run. But this is clearly not the case in countries like Germany where public opinion has some bearing on policy.
Just wondering (but not enough to look it up), do wind farms and solar arrays have to do environmental impact studies when they clear cut forests that consume CO2(BAD!) and produce oxygen(good)?
My lived experience: I used to drive down a local road with pretty green forests on each side; now there is bare earth under a gazillion solar panels that sometimes point at the sun, sometimes point in opposite directions from each other.
Just a humorous point. The burning energy from those trees will make more energy than all those solar cells will ever make in their lifetimes. But heaven forbid anyone burn a tree besides the weather that wipes out entire forests in a matter of weeks.
"Nuclear power massively spares land for nature while producing 24-7 emissions-free electricity."
Geothermal spares even more land, also producing electricity. No or minimal toxic waste. No strip mining, no squabbling over precious uranium, no risk of accidents rendering large areas inhabitable for decades, no risk of conversion to weapons.
Radiation, scary! Electricity, terrifying! Light magically appear when Grog flip switch! Getting cold, Grog freeze unless appease Warmth Gods! Spent nuclear fuel – not in Grog’s back yard! – European Energy and Environmental Policy Manual, page 3 million two-hundred forty-six thousand one-hundred twenty-two.
Nuclear is not the greenest option. It costs substantially more per MWH than other forms of energy (3-5x more). It requires continuous mining of rare resources and produces toxic nuclear waste. Plants can have melt downs. It takes more than a decade (at a MINIMUM) to stand up an MSR and the bureaucratic hurdles are immense. Even the newest modular reactors show little or no promise to ever achieve the cost per MWH of combined cycle natural gas, and not a single one has actually been built to prove out the designs. The fuel often comes from nations at odds with each other, making it possible fuel could be denied.
There is an option with none of these drawbacks. Closed loop geothermal. A plant can be built in about a year and may last up to 100 years. Existing power plants can be converted. While the exact figure on how inexpensive they can be made is unknown, NREL and IEAA believe the costs can be reduced to provide an LCOE of less than $60 / MWH (cheaper than natural gas). Construction can scale as quickly as crews can be trained and equipment manufactured. Current leaders are Eavor dotcom and Quaise Energy, the former having their first commercial plant due in a year and funding for at least six more. Since the required technologies are not unique, hundreds of companies could spin off building them.
The Earth will never “run out of heat” before the sun becomes a gas giant in 5 billion more years. Why are none of the media discussing this form of energy? Why, it’s almost as if they don’t really WANT a solution…
This study may be new, but NOTHING this article says about the study was unknown 50 years ago.