DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Nuke Puke
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5516--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: July 29, 2016, 2:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Energy| Jul 29, 2016
[center]
Plans to Build World’s Largest Nuclear Plant on Hold [img
width=50]
HTML http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/xig/ojx/xigojx6KT.png[/img]
[/center]
By Climate News Network
SNIPPET:
The price of all renewables is going down as they develop, while
the price rises for nuclear power, with safety fears and threats
from terrorism pushing costs up.
It is also argued, even by the UK's national electricity grid,
that the day of the large power plant is over, to be replaced by
small local generators providing electricity near to homes and
factories—something that renewables are ideally suited for.
Even France, which has 58 reactors and is building a Hinkley
prototype at Flamanville in Normandy, has no plans to build any
more. All its new energy projects are renewables and it has
plentiful supplies of untapped wind and solar power, which are
cheaper.
Full article:
HTML http://www.ecowatch.com/plans-to-build-worlds-largest-nuclear-plant-on-hold-1949913505.html
The REST of the story:
[quote]
Deutsche takes issue with the UK government’s claim that the
contract is “competitive with other large-scale clean energy and
with gas’. It notes that this contract would only be cheaper
than gas generation if the crude oil price (to which UK gas is
linked) averages more than $150 barrel in real terms over the
next 40 years. This, says Deutsche Bank, is around 3 times the
average oil price over the last 40 years, and a 50 per cent
premium to the average oil price over the last 5 years.[/quote]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/what-a-nuclear-power-plant-really-is/msg289/#msg289
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/what-a-nuclear-power-plant-really-is/
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/node_header_640/public/EWNI_nuclear_white_elephant_April2011.jpg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 5611--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: August 21, 2016, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Could Offshore Wind Replace Nuclear Power?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif[/center]
[center]
HTML https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8b/30/b3/8b30b31e87dddef823ce634725ac42d3.jpg[/center]
[center]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif[/center]
SNIPPET:
August 16, 2016 by Bloomberg
by Jessica Shankleman (Bloomberg) Britain could scrap the 18
billion-pound ($23 billion) nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point
and [I]get the same amount of electricity from offshore wind
turbines for roughly the same investment[/i].
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
That’s the assessment of Bloomberg New Energy Finance following
Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to review whether to
proceed with the first new atomic plant in more than three
decades.
For the same capital costs, the U.K. could install about 830 new
turbines at sea, which would generate 25 terawatt hours a year —
the same amount of power the Hinkley reactors would produce,
according to the London-based researcher.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/node_header_640/public/EWNI_nuclear_white_elephant_April2011.jpg[/img][/center]
[b][i]Aglebert NOTE: Not to mention the FACT that sea side wind
turbines in Japan were unscathed by the giant tsunami when all
the nuclear reactors were put out of commission or melted down
to pollute every living thing around them.
Not to mention the FACT that we-the-people have to bear the cost
(i.e. nuclear welfare queen subsidy THEFT) of insuring nuclear
power plants because, although private insurers will gladly
insure offshore wind turbines, they will NOT insure nuclear
power plants.
Not to mention the FACT that Nuclear power plant capital costs
CONTINUE after being built BECAUSE they need more fuel rods from
polluting mining and manufacturing operations.
Not to mention the FACT that Wind turbine maintenance is much
less hazardous, while maintenance costs are much lower than
that of a nuclear power plant. Yes, you need more people (i.e.
MORE JOBS! ;D) to maintain a lot of wind turbines. But the
elimination of the COSTS to we-the-people of insuring nuclear
power plants, providing sweetheart financing and guaranteed
energy price rates more than offsets the cost to employ all
these people.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.windpowerninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/uk-offshore-wind-farm.jpg[/img][/center]
[move]Wind power is a win win for biosphere AND the economy.
Nuclear power is the exact opposite. [/move]
Full article including energy cost bold faced lies (i. e.
nuclear power is 'cheaper' than wind power), doubletalk (i. e.
claiming that the wind 'only blows half the time' in order to
assert that wind power generating capacity needs to be DOUBLE -
wind power is reliable over 80% of the time over the UK ocean.),
and whining
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif<br
/>about renewable 'schemes' by a spokesman [img
width=40]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/> for the EDF nuke pukes: [img width=75
height=50]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif[/img]
HTML http://gcaptain.com/could-offshore-wind-replace-nuclear-power/
#Post#: 5866--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: November 9, 2016, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Energy| Nov. 09, 2016 11:16AM EST
[center]'Nuclear Industry in France in Crisis,' 20 Reactors Shut
Down[/center]
Climate News Network
By Paul Brown
A third of France's nuclear reactors have been shut down by
industry regulators as revelations emerge about the supply of
sub-standard parts.
As investigations into falsified documents and excess quantities
of carbon in steel continue, more closures are expected. This is
not yet a full-blown crisis for the nuclear industry, but it is
putting serious strain on the finances of French nuclear giant
EDF and causing electricity price rises across western Europe.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.seogan.ru/images/foto/limerick/Limerick_7.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]The Chooz nuclear power plant in France, where the
industry is being investigated by regulators.[/center]
It is also very bad news for the climate. France is reopening
mothballed coal plants and burning more coal than it has for 32
years. Neighbors, including Germany, which normally takes cheap
nuclear power from the French, are also powering up old fossil
fuel plants and exporting the electricity to France at premium
prices.
Japan's Nuclear Scandal
France is not the only country affected by the scandal. A
Japanese company, the Japan Casting & Forging Corporation, has
also allegedly been involved in falsifying quality control
documents for parts supplied to reactors both at home and in
France.
The Japanese nuclear safety organization is now investigating,
but so far no plants in Japan have been ordered to close, partly
because most of them have in any case remained shut since the
2011 Fukushima disaster.
This is a drama that has been unfolding slowly for months. But
as more forged documents and potentially faulty parts have come
to light, the French regulator ASN has begun insisting on
shutdowns and inspections to ensure plants are safe.
One problem is that there is too much carbon in the steel
components and containment vessels, which will make them
brittle. The carbon content is well above specified safety
limits, leading to fears that there could be catastrophic
failures in plants currently operating.
The second, related, problem is forged, falsified or incomplete
quality control reports about the components themselves. Areva,
the troubled French state-owned nuclear component manufacturer,
is reviewing all 9,000 manufacturing records from its giant
forge at Le Creusot dating back as far as 1943. This includes
6,000 parts made for nuclear reactors—some of them outside
France.
The anomalies were first discovered in 2014 at the plant being
built at Flamanville in northern France. Excess carbon was found
in the plant's pressure vessel. This has caused considerable
further cost and even longer delays to the completion of the
flagship reactor. It has still not been cleared as safe and a
final decision will not be taken until next year.
It was the investigations into how this potentially disastrous
flaw got through the safety vetting process that led to the
discovery in May this year of 400 other sub-standard parts and a
mass of falsified quality control documentation. Many of the
parts are inside nuclear plants currently operating.
According to Power magazine, an ASN press relations officer, who
requested anonymity in line with ASN rules, said more nuclear
power plants with suspect parts will be inspected in the next
few weeks. "We are now finding carbon segregation problems from
components coming from both Le Creusot and Japan Casting &
Forging. As for now, there are 20 EDF reactors offline," the
official said.
And the Japan Times reported that Japan Casting & Forging
Corporation is now also under scrutiny by the country's Nuclear
Regulation Authority because it supplied French plants. With
most of Japan's nuclear fleet closed since Fukushima, there are
moves to reopen some reactors.
Urgent Testing
Shaun Burnie, nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Germany, said:
"The nuclear industry in France is now in crisis as a result of
the carbon test results, with 11 reactors supplied by Japanese
steel ordered shut down and under investigation by the
regulator."
"No such testing has been done in Japan … until actual testing
is conducted, the NRA and more importantly the communities
living near nuclear reactors, will not know what risks the
nuclear plants pose," Burnie added.
"The NRA must instruct utilities in Japan to undertake testing
as a matter of urgency." He said the priorities are the Sendai-2
and Ikata-3 reactors, the only plants operating.
HTML http://www.ecowatch.com/france-nuclear-power-shut-down-2086414462.html
#Post#: 6889--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: April 16, 2017, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Nuclear Power Giants Limp Toward Extinction [img
width=100
height=60]
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png[/img][/center]
Posted on Apr 16, 2017
By Paul Brown / Climate News Network
Any lingering hope that a worldwide nuclear power renaissance
would contribute to combating climate change appears to have
been dashed by US company Westinghouse, the largest provider of
nuclear technology in the world, filing for bankruptcy, and the
severe financial difficulties of its Japanese parent company,
Toshiba.
After months of waiting, Toshiba still could not get its
auditors to agree to its accounts [last] week. But it went ahead
anyway and reported losses of nearly $5 billion for the eight
months from April to December, in order to avoid being de-listed
from the Japanese stock exchange.
The company admitted it too could face bankruptcy, and is
attempting to raise capital by selling viable parts of its
business.
In a statement, it said: “There are material events and
conditions that raise substantial doubt about the company‘s
ability to continue as a going concern.”
Nuclear Reactors
The knock-on effects of the financial disasters the two
companies face will be felt across the nuclear world, but
nowhere more than in the UK, which was hoping Westinghouse was
about to start building three of its largest nuclear reactors,
the AP 1000, at Moorside in Cumbria, northwest England.
The UK’s Conservative government will be particularly
embarrassed because, in late February, it won a critical
parliamentary by-election in the seat that would be home to the
Moorside plant, on the guarantee that the three reactors would
be built—a pledge that now seems impossible to keep.
Martin Forwood, campaign co-ordinator for Cumbrians Opposed to a
Radioactive Environment, says: “I think the day of the
large-scale nuclear power station is over. There is no one left
to invest anymore because renewables are just cheaper, and these
prices are still going down while nuclear is always up.”
Toshiba and Westinghouse are in deep trouble because the
reactors they are currently building—the same design as the ones
planned for Cumbria—are years late and billions of dollars over
budget. Even if the companies can be re-financed, it seems
extremely unlikely they would risk taking on new reactor
projects.
Both the UK and Toshiba have looked to the South Korean nuclear
giant KEPCO to take over the Moorside project, but the company
is unlikely to want to build the Westinghouse design and would
want to put forward its own reactor, the APR 1400.
‘There is no one left to invest anymore because renewables are
just cheaper, and these prices are still going down while
nuclear is always up.’
This would delay the project for years, since the whole safety
case for a new type of reactor would have to be examined from
scratch.
But the company is already under pressure from within South
Korea, where Members of Parliament have urged KEPCO not to take
on a risky project in the UK. Twenty-eight members of the
Republic of Korea’s “Caucus on Post-Nuclear Energy” have called
on KEPCO not to invest in Moorside.
The other nuclear giant present in Britain, the French-owned
Électricité de France (EDF), is in serious difficulties of its
own. It is already deep in debt and its flagship project to
build a prototype 1,600 megawatt reactor at Flamanville in
northern France is six years behind schedule and three times
over budget at €10.5 billion.
Originally due to open in 2012, its start date is now officially
the end of 2018, but even that is in doubt because an
investigation into poor quality steel in the reactor’s pressure
vessel is yet to be completed.
Despite this, the company and the UK government are committed to
building two more of these giant reactors in Somerset in
southwest England, and have started pouring concrete for the
bases to put them on. These reactors are due to be completed in
2025, but nobody outside the company and the UK government
believes this is likely.
So, with troubles of its own, EDF is in no position to help
Toshiba out of its financial difficulties. In the nuclear world,
this leaves only the Chinese and the Russians who might be
capable of taking on such a project.
The Russians will be ruled out on political grounds, and the
Chinese are already helping out EDF with a large financial stake
in the Somerset project. They also want to build a nuclear
station of their own design at Bradwell in Essex, southeast
England – another project that looks likely to take more than a
decade to complete.
[img width=640
height=280]
HTML http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/node_header_640/public/EWNI_nuclear_white_elephant_April2011.jpg[/img]
Vast Capital Costs
The problem for all these projects, apart from the vast capital
cost and the timescales involved, is that the energy industry is
changing dramatically. Solar and wind power are now a cheaper
form of producing electricity across the world, and are less
capital-intensive and quicker to build.
Despite the fact that there are more than 430 nuclear reactors
in operation worldwide and the industry still has great economic
and political clout, it is beginning to look like a dinosaur –
too big and cumbersome to adapt to new conditions.
Nuclear power now produces about 10% of the world’s electricity,
while 40% is from coal and 23% from renewables. The rest is
mainly from natural gas.
Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the
Earth Australia, says: “Nuclear lobbyists are abandoning the
tiresome rhetoric about a nuclear power renaissance. They are
now acknowledging that the industry is in crisis.
“The crisis-ridden US, French and Japanese nuclear industries
account for half of worldwide nuclear power generation.
[quote]“Renewable energy generation doubled over the past
decade, and strong growth, driven by sharp cost decreases, will
continue for the foreseeable future.”
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
[/quote]
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_nuclear_industry_is_heading_financial_black_hole_20170416
#Post#: 7607--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: August 1, 2017, 5:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img
width=100]
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/545693884664119297/mCDJfUgm.jpeg[/img]
[center]SC Utilities Pick Nuclear Option ;D for Reactor Projects
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/za4.gif[/center]
South Carolina utilities announced Monday that they will halt
construction of two unfinished nuclear reactors, dealing a major
blow to the struggling industry.
The decade-old projects have been plagued by issues, costing
utilities nearly $10 billion dollars to date while being 5 years
behind schedule and only 40 percent completed.
The decision and other plant closures and problems this year
reflect major issues in the American nuclear industry, including
high operating cost, the lack of domestic supply chain due to a
lack of new reactors and additional competition from natural gas
and renewable energy.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301014181553.gif<br
/>
HTML https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus
#Post#: 7614--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: August 2, 2017, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Eddie link=topic=559.msg136144#msg136144
date=1501638763]
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=559.msg136137#msg136137
date=1501626429]
[move][font=courier]Nuclear White Elephants get Fiscally Nuked!
;D [/font][/move]
[img
width=100]
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/545693884664119297/mCDJfUgm.jpeg[/img]
[center]SC Utilities Pick Nuclear Option ;D for Reactor Projects
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/za4.gif[/center]
South Carolina utilities announced Monday that they will halt
construction of two unfinished nuclear reactors, dealing a major
blow to the struggling industry.
The decade-old projects have been plagued by issues, costing
utilities nearly $10 billion dollars to date while being 5 years
behind schedule and only 40 percent completed.
The decision and other plant closures and problems this year
reflect major issues in the American nuclear industry, including
high operating cost, the lack of domestic supply chain due to a
lack of new reactors and additional competition from natural gas
and renewable energy.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301014181553.gif<br
/>
HTML https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus
HTML https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus
[/quote]
I saw that. Excellent news.
[/quote]
#Post#: 16695--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: June 7, 2021, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-260420163209.jpeg[/img][/center]
June 6, 2021
[center]Nuclear Subsidies May Be Slowing Transition to Clean
Energy, Advocates Say [/center]
BY Leanna First-Arai, Truthout
SNIPPET:
New York residents pay among the highest rates for electricity
in the U.S.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-040718162655-14212306.gif<br
/>[img
width=20]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp[/img]
Under the subsidy system, which other states, including Maryland
and Pennsylvania, have since considered and is currently under
negotiation in Illinois, subsidies for “zero carbon” power,
which the nuclear facilities qualify for, have far eclipsed
financial support for wind and solar. According to the New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority’s latest
financial status report, the state’s [b]nuclear facilities
received over $500 million in 2020, where renewable energy
facilities received only $5 million.[/b] [img
width=80]
HTML http://media.tumblr.com/c6492e4b47cfdbd50e74d285fde3c53e/tumblr_inline_mm3g4yCaZc1qz4rgp.gif[/img]<br
/>[img
width=80]
HTML https://media3.giphy.com/media/kHmINzGsY6xbwgSo3J/source.gif[/img]
Clean energy advocates highlight that ratepayers’ dollars would
stretch further if spent supporting the most affordable energy
options. According to a 2020 analysis by the asset management
firm Lazard, each megawatt hour of nuclear power generated
without subsidy payments cost $129-$198 in comparison with the
price of generating the same amount of energy via wind power,
estimated at $26-$54, or community solar power, at $63-94. Amory
Lovins, founder of energy think tank the Rocky Mountain
Institute, explained in Forbes that curbing climate change
requires saving the most carbon in the least amount of time, a
calculus in which price plays a major role. “Costly options save
less carbon per dollar than cheaper options. Slow options save
less carbon per year than faster options. Thus, even a low- or
no-carbon option that is too costly or too slow will reduce and
retard achievable climate protection,” Lovins wrote.
Energy policy analyst and activist Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear
reinforced Lovins’s point. “Operating economically distressed
and deteriorating nuclear power stations diverts critical
resources and wastes what precious little time remains for
deploying more carbon reduction quicker, more cost effectively,”
he told Truthout.
Full article:
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-111018132422-1692935.gif
HTML https://truthout.org/articles/nuclear-subsidies-may-be-slowing-transition-to-clean-energy-advocates-say/
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/node_header_640/public/EWNI_nuclear_white_elephant_April2011.jpg[/img][/center]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page