'wind and solar will power datacenters more cheaply than nuclear, study finds':
No, that's not what the study said. It specified SMR, small modular reactors, not all nuclear power. That level of specificity tells me that they likely found more traditional (commonly referred to as "3rd generation") nuclear power lower cost but they didn't want to reveal that as it would be counter to their anti-nuclear agenda. It appears to be working as people are misinterpreting the results, just as you have.
'The report, prepared by independent expert bodies CSIRO with the Australian Energy Market Operator.. finds firmed renewables, including transmission and storage costs, provide Australians the cheapest power, at between $83/MWh and $120/MWh in 2030, when they account for 80 per cent of variable generation"':
That report also limits the options for nuclear energy to SMR. Why are studies on nuclear energy limiting themselves to SMR, a new "4th generation" technology that hasn't been proven yet, when there's a perfectly viable "3rd generation" technology that's available today and shown to be profitable for something like 30 years? My guess is because that's the only way they can make nuclear energy look bad.
'The most significant environmental drawback of nuclear energy is the generation of high-level radioactive waste. This waste, comprising spent nuclear fuel and byproducts of reactor operation, remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years. Currently, there is no universally accepted permanent solution for its disposal.':
Who are Institute for Environmental Research and Education? Good job on finding some obscure nonprofit to make a statement on radioactive waste. I don't know why I'd care what they say, anyone can get some buddies together to start a nonprofit, put up a website, and issue some "studies" for the press to pick up. On the other hand we have the US NRC that appears to have figured it out: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm...
'uncertainty around a disposal option for nuclear waste critically undermines its grand ambitions to deploy fleets of small modular reactors (SMRs)':
First, they are limiting their concern to SMR which is something of a flag that they are ignoring other options for nuclear energy. Second, the people opposing the use of nuclear energy appear to be a bunch of nonprofit organizations with a limited grasp on science and technology. They "feel" more than that "know" which tells me they will have limited impact on any UK government decisions on building nuclear power plants.
'One nuclear power plant takes on average about 14-1/2 years to build, from the planning phase all the way to operation. According to the World Health Organization, about 7.1 million people die from air pollution each year, with more than 90 percent of these deaths from energy-related combustion. So switching out our energy system to nuclear would result in about 93 million people dying, as we wait for all the new nuclear plants to be built in the all-nuclear scenario.
That's a straw man since I'm not seeing anyone call for an "all nuclear scenario" to resolve the energy problems in UK.
Utility-scale wind and solar farms, on the other hand, take on average only two to five years, from the planning phase to operation. Rooftop solar PV projects are down to only a 6-month timeline. So transitioning to 100% renewables as soon as possible would result in tens of millions fewer deaths.
A nonsense argument to make since I'm not seeing any opposition to rooftop solar if people want it. If there is any opposition then it is about government subsidies to pay people with enough money to own their own roof to put solar panels on them which costs money to those that rent and see no benefit, or the opposition lies with utilities being forced by government to buy the excess electricity produced by rooftop solar whether they need it or not which can lead to negative spot pricing and a higher average cost for electricity to make up for the negative pricing.
This illustrates a major problem with nuclear power and why renewable energy -- in particular Wind, Water, and Solar (WWS) -- avoids this problem. Conventional nuclear, though, doesnÃ(TM)t just have one problem. It has seven. Here are the seven major problems with conventional nuclear energy':
That's the same anti-nuclear bullshit being repeated from the 1980s as if there's been no improvements in technology or government policy since. An army of straw men. Who listens to this bullshit any more?
'"the other problemà of nuclear energy: not only is it neither renewable nor clean, itÃ(TM)s very dangerous (there have been several hushed up incidents; while a single reactor creates up to 30 tons of high-intensity waste that nobody knows what to do with. And just as importantly, it distorts electricity markets.':
You gave links to opinion pieces that cite other opinion pieces as sources. Are you even trying? Is this the best you can find?
(youll love these links - from your favourite tree huggers!):
More opinion pieces than studies based in science and reality. You can't find a study from some government agency? A respected university? Someone that has an advanced degree in a STEM field?
- expensive, slow, waste, cost etc:
That looks like a reprint of something you linked to already. Repetition doesn't make something true.
- pre-existing waste problems:
Those problems are creations of government policy, we can resolve them by electing competent people to public office.
- future unsafety because of climate change:
Again, more an issue of policy than anything inherently wrong with nuclear energy. Now that we know of these issues do you really believe we'd repeat the same mistakes?
That's a bunch of nonsense that I can't follow your point. If you want to point to corruption then keep your sources to actual cases of corruption than mixing it in with lawful lobbying. Lots of people lobby for their cause, including people you and I agree with, so if lobbying is corruption then how are we to make our concerns known to the government without getting hit with corruption charges? You aren't really helping your case with this.
I am not claiming that renewable energy is not without problems, but I dont think people should claim that nuclear isnt either:
That's behind a paywall, so not helpful.
Of the two solutions I would rather go for the one that is ostensibly safer (as it is news for nerds - when it comes to the future of humanity - shouldnt we err on the side of the federation rather than the Ferengi? ie. play it safer rather than look for short term profit?). If we are to gain 'experience' in any field I would argue that it should be in renewable energy and eg. battery technology, grid infrastructure. I am not anti-technological solutions or nuclear per se, but I dont see it as the best/only option, all things considered.
I see, you are making a straw man argument then cite a series of opinion pieces from nonprofit organizations that have people with little knowledge of nuclear energy to make your point. On the other hand I link to pages that cite information from the IPCC, UK government, and a number of respected organizations with an actual background in science, to make my case. I went through your links thinking I'd find a gem with some actual studies and the best I got were studies that limited the options for nuclear energy to SMR, a technology still in development, which is then falsely used as an argument against all nuclear energy options. I can't be the only person that finds it odd that the studies on nuclear energy options were limited to SMR. I've come to believe that the studies put existing nuclear energy options in a pretty good light, but the people writing these reports don't want people to know that, a lie by omission.
What happens to your argument when people start asking why existing nuclear energy options were left out of the studies you cited? My guess is a big flip in favor of nuclear energy.
I am an unashamed globalist (a citizen of nowhere!) so at least I agree with you about not particularly caring about where solutions come from! There are problems IMHO that can only be solved at a global scale and with pooled expertise (and some others only at the local!)
You do realize that China is building a lot of nuclear power plants right now, don't you? I mean *A LOT* of them.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...
If you want to put China as a model to follow then you can't ignore their investment in nuclear energy.
I hope we can find some common ground (and avoid swearing at each other and calling each other names - I dont believe that most people have bad intentions around the subject? Good, clear and impartial data is most welcome in making the right decision). I appreciate you taking the time to reply and your efforts to provide facts to back up your arguments!
I appreciate the compliment but I would have preferred a reply with actual data than a bunch of opinion pieces and clearly biased "studies" to make your point. The argument against nuclear energy is the claim we can reach the goal of reduced carbon emissions sooner and with lower costs with renewable energy alone, and there's no study that proves that. The best the anti-nuclear people have are studies showing we can replace fossil fuels with renewable energy if we assume that the cost to get there isn't relevant. There's a cost to the renewable-only option, there's a cost to continuing to use fossil fuels, and there is a cost to including nuclear energy in our future energy plans. The lowest cost option includes nuclear energy. That is distinct from the higher cost option that is nuclear-only, and I'm not seeing anyone advocate for that. I've seen people use the nuclear-only option to prove how nuclear energy is cheaper than renewable-only but that's a thought experiment, not any real advocacy to take that path.
While the renewable-only option would give us some real gains on lower CO2 emissions in the short term that is not a sustainable plan. As the windmills and solar panels being built now reach end-of-life in 20 to 30 years they will need replacement. We can't sustain the growth we have now in wind and solar to replace nuclear and fossil fuels out that far. If we don't start building nuclear power plants now then we will simply be force to build them later, see energy shortages, or keep burning fossil fuels. Maybe there is a fourth option in the future but for right now those are our three options, fossil fuels, energy shortages, or nuclear fission. If you don't want to accept that then I'm fine with that. I'm seeing people in government ignoring people like yourself and proceeding with building nuclear power plants. They do this because people like yourself aren't bringing any real data to make your case, only opinions recycled from the 1980s.