Comment

Comment by Long Islander on March 2, 2019 at 10:52am

From December and really unknown to most Mainers thanks to sins of omission from the Maine press:

All six Maine land based wind project bids rejected by State of Connecticut

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/all-six-maine-onshore-w...

and

Nuclear wins big in Connecticut clean energy competition

https://ctmirror.org/2018/12/28/nuclear-wins-big-clean-energy-compe...

and

Lawmakers Overwhelmingly Vote To Modernize US Nuclear Fleet

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/22/congress-passes-modern-nuclear-p...

Comment by Long Islander on March 2, 2019 at 12:50am

A four minute segment from the 2/28/19 telecast of Tucker Carlson Tonight on this subject. The guest is Michael Shellenberger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=81&v=5v8ZPil4wbs

Comment by Willem Post on March 1, 2019 at 2:24pm

Nuclear a Rational Approach to Reduce CO2 than Wind and Solar

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-a-more-rational...

 

As a more rational alternative, the world should build 200,000 MW of nuclear plants each year.

A large part of the world’s fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions would be reduced.

Nuclear typically requires only about one half acre of site area per MW, i.e., 200,000 MW would require about 100,000 acres. Solar, wind onshore, and wind offshore would require 84, 612 and 980 times as much area. See table 3A

That would require far less grid work than hooking up all those wind and solar plants.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-v...

 

No futuristic, expensive, energy-guzzling, short-lived batteries would be required.

No microgrids would be required

No islanding would be required

 

Within 20 years, nuclear generation would be 20 x 200,000 x 8766 x 0.90 = 31,558 TWh/y


Capital cost about $1.0 trillion/y, at $5000/kW. See Note.

 

World generation was about 25,551 TWh/y in 2018.

World generation likely would be about 40,965 kWh/y 20 years from now, at growth of 2.5%/y.

The world would have 31558/40965 = 77% of all electricity from nuclear, just as France has today. See Appendix

 

NOTE: France has CO2/kWh about ten times lower than Germany had in 2018. See Appendix

https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/germanys-electricity-was-nearly-...

 

NOTE:

Korea is building a nuclear plant with four APR1400 units, on about 2000 acres, for $24.4 billion, or $4360/kW, at Barakah in the United Arab Emirates, UAE.

The plant will provide 25% of UAE electrical generation.

The plant is designed to last 60 years.

The plant, operating 24/7/365, will have an 18-month fuel cycle, refuel for one month, and repeat the cycle

The plant production could be 60 y x 5600 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.90, capacity factor = 2651 TWh after 60 years

This can be repeated all over the world.

The world would need to place on line 200000/5600 = 38 of such plants each year for 20 years to achieve 77% of all electricity from nuclear.See URL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant

 

NOTE:

- The world has been spending about $250 to $300 billion/y on wind, solar and other renewables for at least 20 years. World CO2 emissions have increasedduring that time and since COP21 in Paris in 2015.

- The world would need to immediately start spending at least $1.5 TRILLION/y for at least the next 50 years to bend the CO2 emissions curve down per Paris COP21 targets. The likelihood of that happening is near zero.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop21-ipcc-co2-emission...

 

Comparison of Area Requirements of Nuclear, Wind And Solar

 

A Barakah-type nuclear plant produces 84 times more electricity than solar, 612 times more than onshore wind, and 980 times more than offshore wind per acre. See table 3A

 

It would be lunacy to inflict the environmental damage, including damage to remaining fauna and flora, resulting from covering the world with wind turbines and solar panels, that would produce variable, intermittent electricity, that would be totally dependent on the vagaries of wind and sun, and that would require 1) gas turbine plants for peaking, filling-in and balancing and/or 2) TWh-scale battery systems.

 

Table 3A compares production and area impacts of various energy sources. On a given area, nuclear would produce 84, 612, and 980 times more electricity than solar, wind onshore and wind offshore.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-v...

 

Table 3A	Nuclear	Solar	Wind, onshore	Wind, offshore
	Barakah
Capacity, MW	5600	400.00	27.45	11.43
Period, y	60	60	60	60
h/y	8766	8766	8766	8766
Capacity factor	0.90	0.15	0.30	0.45
Site area, acre	2800	2800	2800	2800
Area/MW	0.50	7	102	245
Lifetime production, TWh/60y	2650.8	31.6	4.3	2.7
Production, TWh/1000 acre	946.728	11.271	1.547	0.966
Times		84	612	980

Comment by Penny Gray on March 1, 2019 at 2:00pm

reposted on Facebook.  Excellent.

Comment by Whetstone_Willy on March 1, 2019 at 11:38am

The sole reason for our carbon tax is to bring you to heel. 99% of scientists agree that assessing tread wear of shoes is an effective method of reducing your CO2 exhalations. With our climate change indoctrination programs in the schools, media and Hollywood, we hope this will be a shoe-in at some point soon.