# Practical Energy Discussion: Bring Back Nuclear To Abate Climate Change



## Shrimpbox

New safer technologies are out there, including ones that use spent fuel rods for power. Nation could focus on a nuclear program similar to Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. The environmental impact of solar and wind is finally being considered. Energy density is the new buzzword. Listen to what a committed environmentalist says about our energy policy.


----------



## Shrimpbox

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power


----------



## william the wie

That is simply good sense.


----------



## candycorn

I completely agree.  The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted.  These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…  

I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:

You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel.  You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that.  You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.  

I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.


----------



## Dekster

I am fine with nuclear, though I would rather see more money put into coming up with a better grid option to make solar more practical and cheaper for end consumers to generate their own.  Sort of a plug and play version of solar.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

We'd be better off investing a trillion dollars in fusion energy research and/or the Casimir Effect research than seven trillion or more on the New Green Deal.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## jwoodie

Nuclear power makes way too much sense for Demwits to support it.  They would much rather use it as a scare tactic to influence ignorant voters.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Nuclear power is a dead issue. When San Onofre was shut down it was working perfectly with no issues.


----------



## Crepitus

Shrimpbox said:


> New safer technologies are out there, including ones that use spent fuel rods for power. Nation could focus on a nuclear program similar to Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. The environmental impact of solar and wind is finally being considered. Energy density is the new buzzword. Listen to what a committed environmentalist says about our energy policy.


The environmental impact of both wind and solar are negligible.

I am fine with nuclear power by the way.  Go for.it.


----------



## daveman

Dekster said:


> I am fine with nuclear, though I would rather see more money put into coming up with a better grid option to make solar more practical and cheaper for end consumers to generate their own.  Sort of a plug and play version of solar.


What does the grid need done to it to better enable people to generate their own solar?


----------



## Dekster

daveman said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with nuclear, though I would rather see more money put into coming up with a better grid option to make solar more practical and cheaper for end consumers to generate their own.  Sort of a plug and play version of solar.
> 
> 
> 
> What does the grid need done to it to better enable people to generate their own solar?
Click to expand...


Probably nothing in your mind.  Solar is magic.  

In reality, the grid is designed to distribute power from central generators to behind the meter consumption.  It is not designed for behind the meter generation being sent back toward the current generators.  Germany has a horrible problem shedding load on sunny, windy days--they have to pay someone to take the electricity off their grid to keep it from melting down.  California's grid is already having related issues because of power fluctuations.  The current grid is designed to pair generation with consumption in real time.  There isn't any meaningful storage system as would be needed either behind the meter or in local microgrids to take the excess loads off in real time.  In addition, the thing that everybody who is thinks solar is the magic bullet ignore is that standby power gets increasingly more expensive per kilowatt the more alternative energy is being put on the grid.  It is part of the reason Germany has some of the most expensive electricity in the world.  Edge generation can mitigate the need for new power generators, but it cannot totally replace the need for centralized 24/7/365 producers.


----------



## elektra

We can not change the climate. No way, no how. Nuclear is a great source of power. Solar and Wind are for fools.


----------



## elektra

Tipsycatlover said:


> Nuclear power is a dead issue. When San Onofre was shut down it was working perfectly with no issues.


San Onofre had poorly designed replacement steam generators. It was not functioning perfectly. It did fail. I know, I inspected the steam generators. But, San onofre should of been allowed to continue operation. It is more than reasonable to assume San onofre could of operated at 90% of capacity. Democrat politicians shut down San onofre. Shutting down nuclear automatically elevates solar and wind into a higher percentage of the power mix.


----------



## elektra

candycorn said:


> I completely agree.  The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted.  These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…
> 
> I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:
> 
> You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel.  You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that.  You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.
> 
> I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.


The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes


----------



## candycorn

elektra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree.  The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted.  These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…
> 
> I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:
> 
> You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel.  You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that.  You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.
> 
> I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.
> 
> 
> 
> The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes
Click to expand...


Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.


----------



## elektra

candycorn said:


> Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.


The military record is the same, and worst. The private record is better reported.


----------



## candycorn

elektra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.
> 
> 
> 
> The military record is the same, and worst. The private record is better reported.
Click to expand...


Doubtful given the number of vessels, the conditions the US Navy vessels operate in and the capabilities of the vessels supported by the reactors.  You implement that sort of command in control by rule across the board…I’m in.


----------



## elektra

candycorn said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.
> 
> 
> 
> The military record is the same, and worst. The private record is better reported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubtful given the number of vessels, the conditions the US Navy vessels operate in and the capabilities of the vessels supported by the reactors.  You implement that sort of command in control by rule across the board…I’m in.
Click to expand...

Doubtful? You can not say with certainty.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree.  The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted.  These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…
> 
> I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:
> 
> You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel.  You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that.  You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.
> 
> I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.
> 
> 
> 
> The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.
Click to expand...


How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?


----------



## elektra

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?


0, relating to the nuclear reactor, radiation, or an event triggered by the reactor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

elektra said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?
> 
> 
> 
> 0, relating to the nuclear reactor, radiation, or an event triggered by the reactor.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm….sounds pretty safe.


----------



## daveman

Dekster said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with nuclear, though I would rather see more money put into coming up with a better grid option to make solar more practical and cheaper for end consumers to generate their own.  Sort of a plug and play version of solar.
> 
> 
> 
> What does the grid need done to it to better enable people to generate their own solar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably nothing in your mind.  Solar is magic.
> 
> In reality, the grid is designed to distribute power from central generators to behind the meter consumption.  It is not designed for behind the meter generation being sent back toward the current generators.  Germany has a horrible problem shedding load on sunny, windy days--they have to pay someone to take the electricity off their grid to keep it from melting down.  California's grid is already having related issues because of power fluctuations.  The current grid is designed to pair generation with consumption in real time.  There isn't any meaningful storage system as would be needed either behind the meter or in local microgrids to take the excess loads off in real time.  In addition, the thing that everybody who is thinks solar is the magic bullet ignore is that standby power gets increasingly more expensive per kilowatt the more alternative energy is being put on the grid.  It is part of the reason Germany has some of the most expensive electricity in the world.  Edge generation can mitigate the need for new power generators, but it cannot totally replace the need for centralized 24/7/365 producers.
Click to expand...

"Solar is magic"?

Ummm...no.  I have experience in power generation and distribution.  There is no magic.  Save your condescension.  

Home electricity producers have a ready solution to keeping excess power off the grid -- transfer switches.  If the homeowner's means of production has the capacity to generate more power than the household needs, the transfer switch can be thrown to isolate the household from the grid.  Or a switch can be used for peak shaving, transferring the household load to the homeowner's source when utility power is most expensive.  

Germany may have to pay someone to take power off the grid, but it isn't necessarily the homeowner.  

That means consumers are being paid to use the power, rather than the other way around.

This isn’t even the first time this has happened. According to one of Europe’s largest electricity trading exchanges (the EPEX Spot), it has happened more than 100 times in 2017.

All of this would seem to bode well for German households, long regarded as operating under the highest energy prices on the continent.

Well, not quite.

But someone else is getting paid.

And the whole matter has crucial implications for where the energy industry is going next…

Given the heavy amount of taxes and fees charged for power, the wholesale cost factors in only about 20% of the real price charged to the average residence.

That means that, while the period of negative costs helps, prices are still going up for German households.​That means government is making more money on power than the utilities are.  

In the US, utilities are required by law to purchase power homeowners generate.  But the homeowner doesn't have to sell it; not feeding into the grid greatly simplifies installation.  Paralleling with an infinite bus is a tricky thing.  

"Germany has a horrible problem shedding load on sunny, windy days--they have to pay someone to take the electricity off their grid to keep it from melting down."

I know what you meant to say, but you said it wrong.  Load shedding is turning off devices that use electricity so the grid isn't damaged by too much current...like not running your clothes dryer on summer afternoons because air conditioners are running the grid at near capacity.  Since many means of power generation can't be turned off immediately, any power generated in excess of grid demand must be load banked...something has to be turned _on_ to use the power.  Otherwise a generator running with no load is in danger of motorizing...it draws power instead of generating it, a situation called "reverse power".  Safety circuits sense which direction current is going, into or out of the generator, and open its breaker when a reverse power situation is sensed.  The prime mover -- the (usually) turbine spinning the alternator -- doesn't like to be unloaded all at once.

And while solar installation costs are falling every year, they're still prohibitively expensive.  Average cost of solar install:  $11,214 to $14,406 after solar tax credits.  Call it $12,810.

What's the average household pay for electricity from a utility?  $65.33 – $88.10.  Call it $76.72.

How long would it take to be off the grid to pay for the solar system?  13 years, 27 days.  What's the life expectancy of home solar panels?   20-30 years.  

Not real attractive.  It's a huge up-front investment, with not much return...and then you'll have to do it all again once the panels' efficiency drops down.  And that doesn't include the cost of replacing the storage batteries, which have a life expectancy of 5-15 years.  

Nope.  Solar's not attractive at all.


----------



## daveman

elektra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree.  The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted.  These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…
> 
> I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:
> 
> You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel.  You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that.  You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.
> 
> I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.
> 
> 
> 
> The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes
Click to expand...

That's why small modular reactors are so attractive.


----------



## elektra

daveman said:


> That's why small modular reactors are so attractive.


I would prefer a reactor, sized for the city. Give or take. We certainly do not need a 100 reactors to supply southern california.


----------



## daveman

elektra said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why small modular reactors are so attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer a reactor, sized for the city. Give or take. We certainly do not need a 100 reactors to supply southern california.
Click to expand...

Okay.  They come in different sizes, y'know.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree.  The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted.  These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…
> 
> I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:
> 
> You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel.  You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that.  You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.
> 
> I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.
> 
> 
> 
> The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?
Click to expand...


None I think.  Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree.  The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted.  These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…
> 
> I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:
> 
> You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel.  You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that.  You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.
> 
> I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.
> 
> 
> 
> The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None I think.  Why?
Click to expand...

Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree.  The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted.  These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…
> 
> I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:
> 
> You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel.  You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that.  You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.
> 
> I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.
> 
> 
> 
> The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None I think.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.
Click to expand...


Ok


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None I think.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok
Click to expand...


Happy to help you with the facts.


----------



## elektra

daveman said:


> Okay.  They come in different sizes, y'know.


It is cheaper to build nice big ap1000's. Economy of size and standardization. 

We have what we need, now.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None I think.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy to help you with the facts.
Click to expand...


Now if you can only address the safety record:

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia

PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.


----------



## Decus

The newest designs for nuclear electric plants, like molten salt reactors, are so safe that you could install one in your living room.

Newly designed nuclear is the only clean option for the production of electricity 24/7/365.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None I think.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy to help you with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if you can only address the safety record:
> 
> Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
Click to expand...


What's wrong with the safety record?
Something like 20% of our power generation with zero fatalities due to the "nuclear" portion of nuclear power.


----------



## elektra

candycorn said:


> There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.


Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal. 

Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation. 

You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?

That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.


----------



## daveman

elektra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.
> 
> Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.
> 
> You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?
> 
> That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.
Click to expand...

Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors.  And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed.  Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.


----------



## daveman

elektra said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  They come in different sizes, y'know.
> 
> 
> 
> It is cheaper to build nice big ap1000's. Economy of size and standardization.
> 
> We have what we need, now.
Click to expand...

And when one plant goes down, the entire city is out of power because the grid will have a hard time picking up the slack.

If generation is decentralized, and a neighborhood-sized plant goes down, the grid can pick it up easily.


----------



## Mr Natural

Nuclear power is like air travel.  

Everything is fine until something goes wrong.


----------



## daveman

Mr Clean said:


> Nuclear power is like air travel.
> 
> Everything is fine until something goes wrong.


Coal power is like air travel. 

Hydroelectric power is like air travel. 

Wind power is like air travel. 

Everything is fine until something goes wrong.

Nothing is without risk.


----------



## elektra

daveman said:


> And when one plant goes down, the entire city is out of power because the grid will have a hard time picking up the slack.
> 
> If generation is decentralized, and a neighborhood-sized plant goes down, the grid can pick it up easily.


right now the grid supplies power from phoenix, to los angelos, with no problem. How is that a problem if we power los angeles with Nuclear Power. Further, California imports power from coal burning plants in Wyoming, so again, how is the grid a problem? It is not. And, further, today, a Nuclear power plant built 30 years ago will operate for 500 days straight without going down! So again, the problem you invented, is not based on reality. Even when San Onofre Units 2 and 3 were shutdown, there was no interruption of power. 

gee, that was not so hard to knock down your comment, maybe next time......


----------



## elektra

Mr Clean said:


> Nuclear power is like air travel.
> 
> Everything is fine until something goes wrong.


really? nuclear power is like air travel? name the two accidents this year at nuclear power plants that killed 100's?


----------



## daveman

elektra said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when one plant goes down, the entire city is out of power because the grid will have a hard time picking up the slack.
> 
> If generation is decentralized, and a neighborhood-sized plant goes down, the grid can pick it up easily.
> 
> 
> 
> right now the grid supplies power from phoenix, to los angelos, with no problem. How is that a problem if we power los angeles with Nuclear Power. Further, California imports power from coal burning plants in Wyoming, so again, how is the grid a problem? It is not. And, further, today, a Nuclear power plant built 30 years ago will operate for 500 days straight without going down! So again, the problem you invented, is not based on reality. Even when San Onofre Units 2 and 3 were shutdown, there was no interruption of power.
> 
> gee, that was not so hard to knock down your comment, maybe next time......
Click to expand...

It's the All Your Eggs In One Basket theory.


----------



## elektra

daveman said:


> It's the All Your Eggs In One Basket theory.



No, it is the Theory of Nuclear Power. The application of which is proven safe and reliable. India has a nuclear power plant run for 895 days straight. Canada has a reactor that operated for 894 days! 

Today, we could build a reactor that would operate for 30 years. 

Why do you have a problem with our current technology?


----------



## daveman

elektra said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the All Your Eggs In One Basket theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is the Theory of Nuclear Power. The application of which is proven safe and reliable. India has a nuclear power plant run for 895 days straight. Canada has a reactor that operated for 894 days!
> 
> Today, we could build a reactor that would operate for 30 years.
> 
> Why do you have a problem with our current technology?
Click to expand...

I don't.  But we can do even better.  Do you have a problem with doing better?


----------



## elektra

daveman said:


> I don't.  But we can do even better.  Do you have a problem with doing better?


With Nuclear Technology, we can do better? We are operating 30 year old Nuclear power plants with zero problems. We have technology today to replace all those old reactors with new reactors that can operate for years with maintenance. Technology ready and waiting to be built. Doing better does not require research. Doing better does not require new reactor technology. That is all done, we need to build, period. And what we need to build needs to be able to provide power to industry, not the households of Los Angeles. 

Do you have a problem with our proven technology being built today so that early tomorrow our lives are better and do you prefer a 20 year plan to research something else?


----------



## elektra

daveman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the All Your Eggs In One Basket theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is the Theory of Nuclear Power. The application of which is proven safe and reliable. India has a nuclear power plant run for 895 days straight. Canada has a reactor that operated for 894 days!
> 
> Today, we could build a reactor that would operate for 30 years.
> 
> Why do you have a problem with our current technology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't.  But we can do even better.  Do you have a problem with doing better?
Click to expand...

I think you are on the same page as me but are kind of missing the point. Point being we have great modern advanced designs that do not need to be scaled down to mini reactors that really wont provide the power industry needs. 

Los Angeles and all of California needs large scale nuclear power. To pump water and to desalinize water. You wont do that with mini reactors. 90% of the power california uses pumps water.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Shrimpbox said:


> New safer technologies are out there, including ones that use spent fuel rods for power. Nation could focus on a nuclear program similar to Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. The environmental impact of solar and wind is finally being considered. Energy density is the new buzzword. Listen to what a committed environmentalist says about our energy policy.


The Left knows manmade climate change is a hoax, that’s why they continue to hate nuclear power.


----------



## daveman

elektra said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  But we can do even better.  Do you have a problem with doing better?
> 
> 
> 
> With Nuclear Technology, we can do better? We are operating 30 year old Nuclear power plants with zero problems. We have technology today to replace all those old reactors with new reactors that can operate for years with maintenance. Technology ready and waiting to be built. Doing better does not require research. Doing better does not require new reactor technology. That is all done, we need to build, period. And what we need to build needs to be able to provide power to industry, not the households of Los Angeles.
> 
> Do you have a problem with our proven technology being built today so that early tomorrow our lives are better and do you prefer a 20 year plan to research something else?
Click to expand...

R&D should ALWAYS continue, because we can ALWAYS do better.  State-of-the-art is a temporary condition.  

Build plants with current technology.  Definitely. But don't stop looking for new ways.


----------



## daveman

elektra said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the All Your Eggs In One Basket theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is the Theory of Nuclear Power. The application of which is proven safe and reliable. India has a nuclear power plant run for 895 days straight. Canada has a reactor that operated for 894 days!
> 
> Today, we could build a reactor that would operate for 30 years.
> 
> Why do you have a problem with our current technology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't.  But we can do even better.  Do you have a problem with doing better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are on the same page as me but are kind of missing the point. Point being we have great modern advanced designs that do not need to be scaled down to mini reactors that really wont provide the power industry needs.
> 
> Los Angeles and all of California needs large scale nuclear power. To pump water and to desalinize water. You wont do that with mini reactors. 90% of the power california uses pumps water.
Click to expand...

Los Angeles and all of California are not the entire nation.  Mini reactors would be great for isolated towns in Alaska and the northern tier.


----------



## elektra

daveman said:


> Los Angeles and all of California are not the entire nation.  Mini reactors would be great for isolated towns in Alaska and the northern tier.


Let us not put all our eggs in one basket? By building egg like reactors everywhere.


----------



## daveman

elektra said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Los Angeles and all of California are not the entire nation.  Mini reactors would be great for isolated towns in Alaska and the northern tier.
> 
> 
> 
> Let us not put all our eggs in one basket? By building egg like reactors everywhere.
Click to expand...

Why do you think a simpler, smaller design would be less safe?


----------



## candycorn

daveman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.
> 
> Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.
> 
> You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?
> 
> That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors.  And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed.  Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.
Click to expand...


I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> None I think.  Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy to help you with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if you can only address the safety record:
> 
> Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with the safety record?
> Something like 20% of our power generation with zero fatalities due to the "nuclear" portion of nuclear power.
Click to expand...


You care to address any of the incidents and fatalities mentioned in the link?

Of course you don’t.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.
> 
> Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.
> 
> You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?
> 
> That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors.  And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed.  Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy to help you with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if you can only address the safety record:
> 
> Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with the safety record?
> Something like 20% of our power generation with zero fatalities due to the "nuclear" portion of nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You care to address any of the incidents and fatalities mentioned in the link?
> 
> Of course you don’t.
Click to expand...


Workers electrocuting themselves or falling off ladders or any of the other myriad industrial accidents that occur everyday, while tragic, aren't an indictment of "unsafe nuclear power" in America.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.
> 
> Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.
> 
> You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?
> 
> That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors.  And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed.  Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy to help you with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if you can only address the safety record:
> 
> Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with the safety record?
> Something like 20% of our power generation with zero fatalities due to the "nuclear" portion of nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You care to address any of the incidents and fatalities mentioned in the link?
> 
> Of course you don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Workers electrocuting themselves or falling off ladders or any of the other myriad industrial accidents that occur everyday, while tragic, aren't an indictment of "unsafe nuclear power" in America.
Click to expand...


Oh brother


----------



## elektra

candycorn said:


> You care to address any of the incidents and fatalities mentioned in the link?
> 
> Of course you don’t.


Why should I? You did not and it is your link. You did not read your own link. No fatalities or incidents are mentioned relating to commercial nuclear power. 

How about you quoting your own link, and then you can show us what fatality you are speaking of. Go ahead and try.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.
> 
> Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.
> 
> You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?
> 
> That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors.  And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed.  Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Happy to help you with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if you can only address the safety record:
> 
> Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with the safety record?
> Something like 20% of our power generation with zero fatalities due to the "nuclear" portion of nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You care to address any of the incidents and fatalities mentioned in the link?
> 
> Of course you don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Workers electrocuting themselves or falling off ladders or any of the other myriad industrial accidents that occur everyday, while tragic, aren't an indictment of "unsafe nuclear power" in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh brother
Click to expand...


*I agree, your claim, "Private industry has a spotty safety record at best"*

Was spotty at best.


----------



## daveman

candycorn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.
> 
> Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.
> 
> You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?
> 
> That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors.  And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed.  Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.
Click to expand...

The Navy's doing it the right way.  You want experienced people maintaining critical equipment.  Military members are fairly transitory.  They separate from the service or get assignments elsewhere.  And then their experience on that particular equipment is lost.  That's just the way the military is, and it works for the military's mission.

DoD civilians and contractors provide long-term experience and continuity.  I have no problem with state government-owned nuclear power plants with Navy oversight.


----------



## elektra

daveman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.
> 
> Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.
> 
> You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?
> 
> That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors.  And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed.  Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Navy's doing it the right way.  You want experienced people maintaining critical equipment.  Military members are fairly transitory.  They separate from the service or get assignments elsewhere.  And then their experience on that particular equipment is lost.  That's just the way the military is, and it works for the military's mission.
> 
> DoD civilians and contractors provide long-term experience and continuity.  I have no problem with state government-owned nuclear power plants with Navy oversight.
Click to expand...

Ex navy personal already operate our civilian nukes.. either way, people are wrong thinking the navy would make it better.we have a great record  of safety.


----------



## candycorn

elektra said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.
> 
> Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.
> 
> You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?
> 
> That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors.  And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed.  Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Navy's doing it the right way.  You want experienced people maintaining critical equipment.  Military members are fairly transitory.  They separate from the service or get assignments elsewhere.  And then their experience on that particular equipment is lost.  That's just the way the military is, and it works for the military's mission.
> 
> DoD civilians and contractors provide long-term experience and continuity.  I have no problem with state government-owned nuclear power plants with Navy oversight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ex navy personal already operate our civilian nukes.. either way, people are wrong thinking the navy would make it better.we have a great record  of safety.
Click to expand...


They do? Every nuke plant is run by someone who is ex navy?  Really?


----------



## daveman

elektra said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
> Happy to assist you with factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.
> 
> Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.
> 
> You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?
> 
> That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors.  And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed.  Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Navy's doing it the right way.  You want experienced people maintaining critical equipment.  Military members are fairly transitory.  They separate from the service or get assignments elsewhere.  And then their experience on that particular equipment is lost.  That's just the way the military is, and it works for the military's mission.
> 
> DoD civilians and contractors provide long-term experience and continuity.  I have no problem with state government-owned nuclear power plants with Navy oversight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ex navy personal already operate our civilian nukes.. either way, people are wrong thinking the navy would make it better.we have a great record  of safety.
Click to expand...

I think we're done here.


----------



## elektra

candycorn said:


> They do? Every nuke plant is run by someone who is ex navy?  Really?


You are a very special kind of stupid, aren't you. 

Yes, Navy personal that leave or retire from the military apply for jobs, and get them, at our Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. 

Where do you think ex-sailors with Nuclear experience go? 7/11 to sell you Slurpees?

Grow the fuck up!


----------



## candycorn

elektra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do? Every nuke plant is run by someone who is ex navy?  Really?
> 
> 
> 
> You are a very special kind of stupid, aren't you.
> 
> Yes, Navy personal that leave or retire from the military apply for jobs, and get them, at our Commercial Nuclear Power Plants.
> 
> Where do you think ex-sailors with Nuclear experience go? 7/11 to sell you Slurpees?
> 
> Grow the fuck up!
Click to expand...


You made a false statement and now you’re upset.
You should probably further develop some maturity.


----------



## elektra

candycorn said:


> [
> You made a false statement and now you’re upset.
> You should probably further develop some maturity.


Ha, fro. The person lacking maturity. You know nothing of commercial nuclear power, you could not see a mistake if it was on the tip of your tongue.


----------



## Old Rocks

The cost of nuclear is over four times the cost of wind, and over 3 times the cost of stand alone solar. However, it is over 5 times the cost of solar plus storage. And it cannot deliver power tuned as closely to demand as the combination of solar or wind plus storage. Nuclear is really a non-starter today. No reason to build anymore plants and time to retire the old ones as the renewables plus storage are built.


----------



## daveman

Old Rocks said:


> The cost of nuclear is over four times the cost of wind, and over 3 times the cost of stand alone solar. However, it is over 5 times the cost of solar plus storage. And it cannot deliver power tuned as closely to demand as the combination of solar or wind plus storage. Nuclear is really a non-starter today. No reason to build anymore plants and time to retire the old ones as the renewables plus storage are built.


Source, please.


----------



## Old Rocks

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of nuclear is over four times the cost of wind, and over 3 times the cost of stand alone solar. However, it is over 5 times the cost of solar plus storage. And it cannot deliver power tuned as closely to demand as the combination of solar or wind plus storage. Nuclear is really a non-starter today. No reason to build anymore plants and time to retire the old ones as the renewables plus storage are built.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source, please.
Click to expand...

https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf


----------



## daveman

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of nuclear is over four times the cost of wind, and over 3 times the cost of stand alone solar. However, it is over 5 times the cost of solar plus storage. And it cannot deliver power tuned as closely to demand as the combination of solar or wind plus storage. Nuclear is really a non-starter today. No reason to build anymore plants and time to retire the old ones as the renewables plus storage are built.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks.  I see a whole lot of "Source:  Lazard estimates" in the footnotes.  

Self-referential citations are self-referential.


----------

