Wind Power Seen Growing Ninefold as Canada Cuts Carbon Emissions (bnnbloomberg.ca) 105
Canada is set for massive growth in wind power generation as it moves toward net zero emissions by 2050, a new report by the country's energy regulator suggested. From a report: The report models how energy consumption is expected to change under various scenarios as the world reduces its carbon emissions, and it projects electricity use will more than double in Canada from now until mid-century. "Among all technologies, wind contributes the greatest amount of new generation by 2050, increasing ninefold from current levels," the Canada Energy Regulator said, using a scenario it calls "global net zero" that assumes the world acts quickly enough to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050.
The regulator's model sees the greatest amount of new wind power being built in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said he wasn't surprised to see the emphasis on wind generation, given how much it's come down in cost. Building it out quickly will be a challenge, he acknowledged, but he sees it as achievable -- despite the controversy that large-scale wind projects often prompt in neighboring communities.
"Some of this will also come from offshore wind, which perhaps in terms of public acceptance is easier, because it's a long way offshore," he said by phone Tuesday. "Those are often very large facilities, and Canada has been a little bit slower on the offshore than our European counterparts." Solar power will grow at a much slower pace than wind power, the report projects, eventually making up 5 per cent of generation by 2050.
The regulator's model sees the greatest amount of new wind power being built in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said he wasn't surprised to see the emphasis on wind generation, given how much it's come down in cost. Building it out quickly will be a challenge, he acknowledged, but he sees it as achievable -- despite the controversy that large-scale wind projects often prompt in neighboring communities.
"Some of this will also come from offshore wind, which perhaps in terms of public acceptance is easier, because it's a long way offshore," he said by phone Tuesday. "Those are often very large facilities, and Canada has been a little bit slower on the offshore than our European counterparts." Solar power will grow at a much slower pace than wind power, the report projects, eventually making up 5 per cent of generation by 2050.
Can we replace pipelines with high tension wires? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we replace all the Athabasca oil sands pipelines with high tension power feeds to the US? Would make a lot more sense.
Better to reduce the demand for oil so that the oil sands are no longer viable to keep extracting.
For all the people who demand that Alberta shut down the oil sands I hope you've bought an EV (if you drive at all), paid to make your house super-efficient including insulation and a heat pump, and have installed rooftop solar, just to start with.
And even then you're not really approaching the fiscal sacrifice you're asking them to make, because the oil sands provide incredibly lucrative careers [globalnews.ca]. So without th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact, without fossil fuels we can only feed about 1B people. This is why the global population in the 1780s was about 1B. With the combination of being able to grow more food and modern medicine our population is now about 7B or so. So `your plan will starve 6B people to death. Not sure it is the 1000 IQ move you think it is.
I'm not sure I'd agree with the premise that the only difference between the world in 1780 and the modern world is the presence of fossil fuels.
Certainly, the use of fossil fuels was critical in the development of the modern world, but remove fossil fuels at this point and we're still left with a whole lot of the post-1780 planet.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Agriculture is extremely dependent on fertilizers produced from fossil fuels,
Currently yes, but non-fossil fuel fertilizers are possible [wikipedia.org]
pesticides produced by fossil fuels, drying of grains by burning fossil fuels,
Again, I suspect there are alternatives, synthetic fuel if necessary.
most work done by machines driven by fossil fuels, and transport by fossil fuels.
It's just energy, no reason we couldn't transition to battery or hydrogen for those vehicles.
Turn off O&G and 6 billion people will starve to death in months.
Flatten every tire on the planet and billions will starve again as we temporarily lose the ability to drive, that's hardly evidence of anything.
The fact is we probably could transition to an economy that's almost 100% non carbon emitting (with synthetic fuel where absolutely required). But
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Agriculture is extremely dependent on fertilizers produced from fossil fuels, pesticides produced by fossil fuels, drying of grains by burning fossil fuels, most work done by machines driven by fossil fuels, and transport by fossil fuels.
Let's address each of these then. First, the low-hanging fruit: work done by machines driven by fossil fuels and transportation. Those have obvious replacements by simply replacing the ICE engines in those tractors and trucks with electric motors. Electric trucking is coming and shows every sign that it will eventually be the superior economic choice. The main complaint for electric tractors is the recharge time, but that can be resolved with swappable batteries. Possibly, you could even run wires to them i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact, without fossil fuels we can only feed about 1B people.
Funer fact. Most of them don't care. I know at least one anti nuclear, fascist renewable troll who practically stated she doesn't care now many people die as long as we go all renewable.
Re: Can we replace pipelines with high tension wir (Score:3)
Fun fact: I know a nuclear power shill who eats his boogers and thinks Robocop 3 is the best of the franchise.
Re: (Score:2)
I know at least one anti nuclear, fascist renewable troll who practically stated she doesn't care now many people die as long as we go all renewable.
I know a nuclear power shill who eats his boogers and thinks Robocop 3 is the best of the franchise.
So, the anti-nuclear renewable troll is basically a moron willing for people to die to fulfill his desires, while the pro-nuclear guy is just a guy with poor taste. Not sure what your point is. That the trolls and dangerous people are the ones pushing for renewables only, while the rest of us advocate for all low-CO2 emitting energy source to be used to reduce the CO2 emissions problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a figure for how many people you’re ok with dying as long as we don’t?
I’m not trolling I’m genuinely curious what it will take to convince those who hate renewable energy to the exclusion of all reason to go the renewable route.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I’m not trolling I’m genuinely curious what it will take to convince those who hate renewable energy to the exclusion of all reason to go the renewable route.
You have it backward. Sensible people who actually researched climate change and the CO2 emissions problem are in favor of all solutions that are "low-carbon": hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass (when not destroying natural carbon sinks)...
Just look on slashdot, the people who are one-sided, at the exclusion of everything else, are the renewables people. Because their end-goal is not to reduce CO2 emissions per-se, it is to deploy xx% of renewables in the next x years. Whereas their goal should be to redu
Re: (Score:2)
So, just to be clear, you want to ignore all the economic problems with building nuclear (it costs a lot more than most other things), you want to ignore the economic problems with running nuclear power plants (you have to get it out of the ground or get it out of seawater and refine it, which is expensive. Plus we would have to build all that capacity to refine the uranium to usable levels which, you guessed it, will be expensive), and you want to ignore the issues of uranium supply, where the easiest and
Re: (Score:2)
You build your whole argument upon the pretense of false assumptions.
So, just to be clear, you want to ignore all the economic problems with building nuclear (it costs a lot more than most other things)
Nope. The cost per MWh is amongst the lowest [iea.org] (and the lowest if taking into account nuclear LTO, which is what sensible nations are doing; the ones that want to keep the lights/AC on at least). And yes, this is taking into account dismantlement and storage costs. Something other energy sources fail to take into account (coal/gas don't take into account the mess of their CO2 emissions; wind/solar don't take into account their recycling; we
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The cost per MWh is amongst the lowest [iea.org] (and the lowest if taking into account nuclear LTO, which is what sensible nations are doing; the ones that want to keep the lights/AC on at least). And yes, this is taking into account dismantlement and storage costs. Something other energy sources fail to take into account (coal/gas don't take into account the mess of their CO2 emissions; wind/solar don't take into account their recycling; we can go on).
Well, firstly, dismantlement and storage costs are always $0 - when it's time to shutter the nuclear power plant, some 50 or 60 years after the initial estimated lifetime of the plant, the company will suddenly go bust and the government will step in and cover the dismantlement and storage costs. If you don't believe me ask the French government why they have renationalised EDF. Was it the attractive rate of return?
The first problem I see is the LCOE of the nuclear plant as stated in multiple IEA and othe
Re: (Score:2)
Well, firstly, dismantlement and storage costs are always $0 - when it's time to shutter the nuclear power plant, some 50 or 60 years after the initial estimated lifetime of the plant, the company will suddenly go bust and the government will step in and cover the dismantlement and storage costs.
The fact you say that just says how little you know about how nuclear plants are financed. Go do your research (you can start here, the Cost and Finance section [world-nuclear.org]), and look up the terms pre-payment and external sinking fund.
If you don't believe me ask the French government why they have renationalised EDF. Was it the attractive rate of return?
The reasons why they nationalized EDF can be found elsewhere, if you happen to follow France and European politics. To artificially foster concurrency, the European union forces EDF to sell a share of its nuclear electricity to its competitors, at a discounted rate [francetvinfo.fr]. The fun thing is that
Re: (Score:2)
The fact you say that just says how little you know about how nuclear plants are financed. Go do your research (you can start here, the Cost and Finance section [world-nuclear.org]), and look up the terms pre-payment and external sinking fund.
Oh, I know all about pre-payment and external sinking funds. More than you, apparently: [wikipedia.org]
In 2016 the European Commission assessed that European Union's nuclear decommissioning liabilities were seriously underfunded by about 118 billion euros, with only 150 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 268 billion euros of expected decommissioning costs covering both dismantling of nuclear plants and storage of radioactive parts and waste.
It's even worse in France, where EDF needs three times what it has right now to decommission its nuclear plants. Everyone knows the sinking funds are BS and hopelessly inadequate - why didn't you?
The reasons why they nationalized EDF can be found elsewhere...
My French is not up to the job of following your link. However, everyone knows that It's not local politics or handwaving and nationalism, it's EDF shutting down half it's nuclear reactors because they are unsafe and thereby [electricalreview.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Fundamentally, this isn't an engineering problem it's an economic, political and geological one. Yes, we can build a thousand nuclear power plants. But we can't build them, fuel them and run them, without massive cost overruns that result it being uneconomical to run them, resulting in us not decarbonising our energy production. For ever year that all the amazing eath-saving nuclear power plants don't get built coal and gas power plants continue to spew carbon into the atmosphere. And we don't have an infinite pool of money, so we can't build the renewable energy plants we need if we have wasted all the money on power plants that will produce very expensive electricity.
Again, you are the one opposing nuclear and renewables. Nobody, especially not me (check my earlier posts) said the answer was to go full on nuclear. But you are the one saying to go full on renewables, because they will magically scale and solve all the world problem.
Luckily for us, actual countries don't listen to you, and are building a mix of nuclear/hydro AND renewables. Your only purpose is to delay that, so that the impacts of climate change are bigger. You are a sociopath.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you are the one opposing nuclear and renewables. Nobody, especially not me (check my earlier posts) said the answer was to go full on nuclear. But you are the one saying to go full on renewables, because they will magically scale and solve all the world problem.
I've shown you some of the problems with nuclear. I will ask you this though: If it winds up taking an extra 5 years to build Hinkley Point C, will it have been worth it? 10 years? 20? At what point do you see an investment in nuclear as a bad idea? And if we pour all the money down the drain with nuclear, how do we decarbonise our energy production?
Luckily for us, actual countries don't listen to you, and are building a mix of nuclear/hydro AND renewables. Your only purpose is to delay that, so that the impacts of climate change are bigger. You are a sociopath.
Using facts and logic to point out the many many flaws in your argument doesn't make me a sociopath. You don't have any counter-arguments you are just cli
Re: (Score:2)
And if we pour all the money down the drain with nuclear, how do we decarbonise our energy production
There, this is your logical fallacy right there. Since quite a few years now, most of the money is poured down the drain on renewables, as you can see there for instance [ebrary.net] (just look at the graph Electricity Production Investments for Europe, China and North America). And so far, the decarbonation of our energy production is not very apparent (sarcasm), with a record year for CO2 emissions in 2022 [iea.org].
Just look at Germany, if you want a very specific example. After $500 billion spent in the last 30 years, they st
Re: (Score:2)
There, this is your logical fallacy right there. Since quite a few years now, most of the money is poured down the drain on renewables, as you can see there for instance [ebrary.net] (just look at the graph Electricity Production Investments for Europe, China and North America). And so far, the decarbonation of our energy production is not very apparent (sarcasm), with a record year for CO2 emissions in 2022 [iea.org].
All around the world there was 6x the investment in renewable energy compared to nuclear in 2014. Why is this relevant? Let's look at info from the last couple of years [iea.org]. The world invested $US418 billion into renewables and $US40 billion into nuclear in 2020. New renewables in 2020 produced a total of 614 TWh of electricity, taking the world renewable energy production to 8,300 TWh. Nuclear went backwards - it dropped 4% worldwide [iea.org]. New nuclear totaled 26 TWh and it was in China and Russia only so the
Re: (Score:2)
You are grasping at straws. In a precedent post, you argue that too much money is spent on nuclear and not enough on renewables. Now you link an article showing that renewables investment were 6x those in nuclear in 2014 (hint: with the last renewables subsidies, it was more like 10x more in the period for 2016-222). Please make up your mind.
Of course, in a lot of countries their nuclear investment has produced no returns and continues to balloon in cost.
A lot of countries don't agree with you, especially those who benefitted from France cheap energy for the last 50 years. Yes, I know, you will point that France importe
Re: (Score:2)
You are grasping at straws. In a precedent post, you argue that too much money is spent on nuclear and not enough on renewables. Now you link an article showing that renewables investment were 6x those in nuclear in 2014 (hint: with the last renewables subsidies, it was more like 10x more in the period for 2016-222). Please make up your mind.
Firstly, I still stand by what I said - too much money is spent on nuclear and not enough on renewables. Too much money is spent on new coal, gas and oil, but I think we might agree on that (at least I really hope so). The 2014 article was your link - ebray.net. Look upthread if you've forgotten. You keep jumping around topics, and now you are attributing your irrelevant and outdated links to me. Not a good sign.
A lot of countries don't agree with you, especially those who benefitted from France cheap energy for the last 50 years. Yes, I know, you will point that France imported 2.7% of its electricity for the months of July/August/September in 2022; big deal. Funny how the renewables shill like you like to focus on very specific times, and forget about everything else. That just shows your insecurity to be honest. France never boasted around when they were net exporters for the last 50 years. Because when you are doing is working, you don't need to base your whole strategy on a communication plan.
You were the one who brought up France is a net exporter. I brought you back to reality -
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a figure for how many people you’re ok with dying as long as we don’t?
Also, reducing CO2 emissions can be expressed with a mathematical expression, the Kaya identity [wikipedia.org]. In short, we can:
- either reduce the population
- or reduce the GDP per capita
- or reduce the energy intensity of the GDP (i.e.: increase the efficiency of our fossil fuels usages)
- or reduce the emission intensity of the energy (how much CO2 is emitted per energy unit)
We need to divide the CO2 emissions by 3 (compared to 2010 levels, so I guess now we need to divide them by 4 given how little efforts/progress we
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You are totally right, should have re-read my post before submitting it. I was quoting an analysis of this equation that I read a long time ago, and unfortunately my memory failed me (with that stupid math mistake that I must admit I am ashamed of). However, the conclusions are still the same.
Instead of paraphrasing the article in question, here is the original one [translate.goog] (this is a translated version, but google translate works quite well nowadays).
As you say, we need to divide one of the term in the RHS of the e
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Go into your account settings, "Posting" tab, and select "Plain Old Text" as the Comment Post Mode (or alternatively you can stay in HTML formatted and insert line break tag yourself, but that tends to be a bit boring).
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing each by 1.3X basically means reducing it to 77%. Pretty hard to do that with the population of the whole world, but consider Japan. The population there is declining and current projections put it at 77% of its peak in around 2057. Most developed countries seem to be following the same path. Of course, population is still rising in some countries, and enough that the trajectory is still upwards, but trends seem to suggest that, after that, it will go back downwards. Of course, the time scale for th
Re: (Score:2)
This one is framed rather oddly.in terms of efficiency of fossil fuel usage. Using less fossil fuels is not the same thing as reducing the fossil fuel used to make it by a factor. You can express it that way, but that puts an automatic slant on how you view what you're doing.
You are right, my wording was a bit off. It should have been "increase the efficiency of our energy usage", not just fossil fuels.
There is where the biggest dent can be made. While renewables are not zero emissions, they are low enough compared to the alternative of fossil fuels as to represent a reduction of 10X or more.
Yes, but the timeframe we need that to happen is not doable. Or at least, the longer we wait, the bigger the impacts on human lives, biodiversity, environment... Which is why all low-emissions energy sources should be considered. In our current situation, we should not be having a philosophical discussion. This is like being in a car, hurtling toward a big wall of concrete, and h
Re: (Score:2)
Can't really say I agree. Nuclear is too expensive and more importantly, too slow and inflexible compared to renewables. A nuclear plant may produce a lot of power, but it takes a long time to build. A wind farm or solar farm can go up fast and is much, much more flexible in terms of where it's sited. Nuclear really can't compete on those fronts.
Re: (Score:2)
This is because you think building nuclear would hamper renewables deployment. This is not the case: not the same industry, not the same subsidies (solar/wind already receive a lot more investment than nuclear [imgix.net]; there are more up-to-date graphs, which show an even more accelerating trend for 2018-2020, if you care to search the iea website).
There is a physical limitation to the number of solar/wind farms we can put online in the next decade:
- limitations linked to material availability
- limitations linked to
Re: (Score:2)
As for the "too slow to build", here is a story I submitted a few days ago [slashdot.org] on slashdot, which is on its way to being declined mainly because of the many anti-nuclear trolls on slashdot (they usually prefer to avoid having a discussion based on actual science, the reason for that is quite obvious).
It shows an experimental Gen IV thorium-based reactor of 2MW being granted operational license. It has been built in 3 years. This has been on the frontpage of various scientific papers, and may be the future our c
Re: (Score:2)
The expensive and slow to deploy is mostly artificial in nature. The antinuclear crowd has spread so much FUD on the subject that there is so much red tape in opening a new plant, that most don't bother. Even when a plant does get approved it is often delayed by mountains of lawsuits stirred up by same antinuclear FUD.
The truth is, nuclear development is decades behind where it should be. The current generation of plants was designed in the '60 and built in the '70. This is because of antinuclear gr
Re: (Score:2)
This is because you think building nuclear would hamper renewables deployment.
No, it's because I think that nuclear power, as currently implemented, is too expensive and too slow and inflexible, just like I said. I don't want to be stuck with the bill for it again.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, a 2MW reactor was built in three years! For $450 million! Oh, and that 2MW is 2MW thermal, so if it were electric it would be somewhere around 700 kW. How, exactly, do you think that a half-billion dollar reactor, that took _three years_ to build and could only generate 700 kW of electricity is proof that nuclear is either inexpensive, fast, or agile? To put it in perspective, that's a fraction of a single wind turbine, or something like an 8 acre solar installation
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's because I think that nuclear power, as currently implemented, is too expensive and too slow and inflexible. I don't want to be stuck with the bill for it again.
Which doesn't change the conclusion: you prefer "not to be stuck with the bill for it", and instead are in favor of either reducing population, or a huge recession, or a combination of both (I will take it that you don't believe in fairies, so you agree that improving efficiency of energy usage by ten fold is not gonna happen).
Or alternatively, you prefer "not to be stuck with the bill for it", and instead believe that the limitations related to having only solar/wind deployed as low-CO2 emitting energy sou
Re: (Score:2)
The expensive and slow to deploy is mostly artificial in nature.
That's the constant refrain of nuclear power enthusiasts: that there's essentially a public conspiracy against them preventing nuclear power from displaying its superiority, but it's just not true. Let's not forget that, in this day and age there are a significant number of people who think that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer. Somehow wind power still manages to be superior to nuclear despite some pretty irrational opposition.
Nuclear has so many problems because the technology can't compete. It'
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of the word "experimental" ? Compare that with other experimental reactors around the world, and maybe you will understand why it is newsworthy.
Or just ignore it, and be left behind when your country lacks the technological skills to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it wasn't newsworthy. It's just not in any way, shape or form something that counters ""too slow to build" or too expensive, which is why you posted it in the first place. It means that there are potential new ways to make heat with nuclear power that may be available at scale at some point decades from now. That's all well and good, but it doesn't really help us currently and we can't make any plans now that rely on it. Also, as I've argued elsewhere in this thread, there's a fundamental limit
Re: (Score:2)
Which doesn't change the conclusion: you prefer "not to be stuck with the bill for it", and instead are in favor of either reducing population, or a huge recession, or a combination of both (I will take it that you don't believe in fairies, so you agree that improving efficiency of energy usage by ten fold is not gonna happen).
Increasing efficiency of energy usage by ten fold is not necessary. Currently around half of energy usage is just for heating and cooling. That's a huge amount of energy to provide something that we really can reduce the power requirements for by 2 to 3X. There are a huge number of poorly insulated homes out there that simply bleed heat/cold. Not to mention a lot of old, inefficient AC units and nowhere near enough heat pumps instead of furnaces or electric heat. Then, of course, there's the energy savings
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even going to bother to try to reply to all this. Just looking it over there is so much stuff that is just completely wrong.
Here is the simple answer to this. All most everything you posted here is wrong of out of date. I'm going to tell you what I tell the other nuclear Trolls on here.
Nuclear is happening. There is nothing you, or the Trollish Trio can say or do that will stop it. You can take on yourself to educate yourself on the new technologies. That, or you can just sit there in ign
Re: (Score:2)
It's neat how all of your reasoning starts from the religious premise that nuclear power is the only answer.
Mate. You are the one advocating for renewables as the only solution, the one that is going to save us all.
Re-read my previous comments, I literally said several times that the best answer is EVERY low-CO2 emitting energy source that we have at our disposal: hydro, nuclear, solar, wind...
The problem with you is that as soon as someone is for renewables, but also for nuclear, then that person is in your view a pro-nuclear enemy. You are the one making logical leaps so big, that it is worrying to think you ca
Re: (Score:2)
Experimental reactors, especially about new technology, are usually late and over-budget.
That one was finished in 3 years instead of 6, and under-budget. It produces very little "waste" compared to the previous nuclear reactors design. it is safer by design. Most recent nuclear plants, especially those built by China (they are the one who have the expertise for that now, because the west decided to listen to anti-nuclear groups for the last 40 years, and we lost that advantage), are on-time and on-budget.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
Mate. You are the one advocating for renewables as the only solution, the one that is going to save us all.
What I'm doing is looking at the actual realities of the various technologies right now and concluding that nuclear is too expensive, too slow, and too inflexible. Renewables win on cost, they win on speed and they win on flexibility (nuclear plants come in only one size range that's actually practical: giant). Unlike you, I'm actually being objective. You're just starting with the premise that nuclear power is the best and nothing can beat nuclear power and following that where it takes you - which is appa
Re: (Score:2)
Experimental reactors, especially about new technology, are usually late and over-budget.
Which is no different from production reactors which are also usually late and over-budget.
That one was finished in 3 years instead of 6, and under-budget.
For a 700 kW electric power source neither the amount of time to make it, or the budget are impressive. If it weren't for the fact that it's an experimental, rather than production reactor, I would call those shockingly high. Since it is an experimental reactor, rather than a production one, then I would call those numbers... meaningless to our discussion. You can't have it both ways and you especially can't use this
Re: (Score:2)
You're just starting with the premise that nuclear power is the best and nothing can beat nuclear power and following that where it takes you - which is apparently to the notion that anyone who doesn't think nuclear is the only answer is a fiend devoted to the destruction of everything.
You don't even bother to read my replies. This is how delusional you are. Never did I say nuclear was the best and that it was the only answer. The problem with people like you is that you are first and foremost against nuclear. Whereas people like me are for CO2 emissions reduction. And to that end, I am open to all existing solutions: renewables (solar, wind and hydro), but also nuclear. Especially after doing actual research, and not only repeating the dumb things you can read on greenpeace website.
The f
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even going to bother to try to reply to all this. Just looking it over there is so much stuff that is just completely wrong.
Oh, well as long as you're just going to hand-wave it all away, you must be right. I would bow to your superior wisdom... if I had any respect for willfully ignorant sophistry.
Here is the simple answer to this. All most everything you posted here is wrong of out of date. I'm going to tell you what I tell the other nuclear Trolls on here.
What's out of date? Until there's a method of efficiently directly harnessing the energy of a nuclear reaction to convert it into power, then my concern is timeless. All power generating nuclear reactors have been fundamentally heat engines of one form or another. Sure, there are some methods for converting radiation directly to elect
Re: (Score:2)
That's a cute take, I'm sure. The simple fact is that I said that nuclear plants were too expensive, too slow, and too inflexible and Sonlas is the one who presented this research reactor as evidence against that statement from me. I pointed out that it was a poor example if they wanted to demonstrate the low cost, speed, and flexibility of nuclear power because it was a poor example. Now you're attacking me precisely because the research reactor was a poor example. Sorry, but that's on Sonlas, not on me.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even bother to read my replies. This is how delusional you are. Never did I say nuclear was the best and that it was the only answer.
Not agreeing with you is not the same as not reading your replied. Need I remind you that you wrote, about me that I am "...in favor of either reducing population, or a huge recession, or a combination of both." because I didn't favor nuclear power. A quite obvious inference from your demonization of people who are not fellow travelers on nuclear power is that you really do thing that "nuclear was the best and that it was the only answer". If you didn't think that, you would not think people who believe we
Re: (Score:2)
I am "...in favor of either reducing population, or a huge recession, or a combination of both."
At least, this is being honest, I missed that part in your previous replies, and that's on me.
To try to conclude (or to continue the discussion) in a positive way, I think this is the point where we diverge. Or semi-diverge at least. I think that population reduction will happen, one way or another (war, starvation, disasters...), and I also think that recession will happen (or is actually already happening, as people standard of living is worsening year after year, but so slowly that most of them don't rea
Re: (Score:2)
Another wall of text that I'm not going to read.
I stopped reading at the first line. I see no point in continuing. It just wastes both our time.
Your choices are simple. You can go educate yourself on the subject, or continue to live in ignorance with the Trolls. Ether way makes no difference. Nuclear energy is happening.
Now then, I'm going to close out this conversation. You can continue to post if you wish. But be forewarned, I'm ont going to ever read your reply.
Re: (Score:2)
At least, this is being honest, I missed that part in your previous replies, and that's on me.
I'm not sure if this a reading comprehension fail on your part, or if you're trying to be facetious or something. You do understand what quote marks mean, right? I was quoting what you said about me there, not being "honest", since I don't agree with you.
To try to conclude (or to continue the discussion) in a positive way, I think this is the point where we diverge. Or semi-diverge at least. I think that population reduction will happen, one way or another (war, starvation, disasters...), and I also think that recession will happen (or is actually already happening, as people standard of living is worsening year after year, but so slowly that most of them don't realize it).
Recessions happen all the time. Population reduction after prolonged population growth seems to be the pattern developed countries are settling into as well. If that pattern holds, population reduction is probably the long-term prognosis for humanity in gen
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped reading at the first line. I see no point in continuing. It just wastes both our time.
Then you've just been wasting all of our time from the start. You appear to have absolutely no interest in either educating yourself on the point of view of others or in helping anyone else understand your position. Now, I've been on this merry go round long enough that it would take an extraordinary argument on your part to change my mind, but it certainly is possible. As evidence for that, I present the fact that I used to a more enthusiastic about nuclear power and the potential of new technologies like
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, that was indead a reading comprehension fail on my part... Damn, that's too bad, thinking you said that, your arguments made more sense...
All that said, I still don't see the advantage of a combined nuclear+renewables system over just renewables. II don't see how to justify the cost and complication of involving nuclear. It seems like you could build up renewable infrastructure a lot faster, and do it cheaper.
The advantage is to reduce unwanted side effects, like both population reduction and recession. Your assumption is that we can build renewable infrastructure a lot faster and cheaper. However, when you look at the state of solar/wind at the moment, they are already growing by a lot. And the rate of deployment cannot be exponential (it may look like it if you zoom clo
Re: (Score:2)
And the rate of deployment cannot be exponential (it may look like it if you zoom close enough though), for reasons I already posted, amongst others:
- minerals availability
- manufacturing capabilities
- installation capabilities
The rate of deployment actually can be exponential, up to a point. In fact, an exponential or at least geometric growth curve is to be expected for a while. You're making it look like the rate has to grow to infinity. It doesn't. It just has to grow to the replacement rate of the eventual saturated quantity. The limitations you list above apply just as much to nuclear as they do to any renewable. So you still haven't really provided any reason why nuclear is necessary in this formula. It still seems to be s
Re: (Score:2)
The limitations you list above apply just as much to nuclear as they do to any renewable.
I said exactly that. The priority is to reduce CO2 emissions. We can go faster if we push the two systems (renewables and nuclear) to their limit, instead of being stuck with one.
but can you say what those limits are in hard terms rather than just generalities about how resources are limited?
Listening to mining experts [youtube.com] (you can activate subtitles), seeing indicators like " average price of the seven most significant critical minerals for the wind industry has increased by 93% since January 2020 [energymonitor.ai]", reading studies from Bloomberg showing wind turbine manufacturers still losing money despite all the subsidies [twitter.com] (linking the
Re: (Score:2)
I said exactly that. The priority is to reduce CO2 emissions. We can go faster if we push the two systems (renewables and nuclear) to their limit, instead of being stuck with one.
You did say exactly that, but you weren't clear on how it was relevant since the same problem would affect both systems. Your argument that you can go further by pushing both systems to their limits instead of one makes two assumptions. One is that you'll hit the limit on just one of the technologies. You've provided no evidence that building renewables will hit any sort of limit The other assumption is that the two technologies use separate, non-intersecting pools of resources. This simply isn't the case.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nuclear is the only way to save billions of lives" really is showing some desperation.
Do you honestly think that developing a nuclear industry, the expertise, the regulation, the supply chain, the safety regime, the free and unlimited accident insurance, the decades it all takes to do, is how developing countries should be looking to power their growing economies?
Renewables are cheap, safe, and developing nations have an opportunity to build their electricity grids to suit them. For some of them, exporting
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of said anti nuclear, fascist renewable troll....
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how dumb it is to accuse people who advocate for plentiful renewable energy for all "fascists"?
Fascism is a well defined political ideology that is based on supremacy and state control. Renewable energy actually democratises electricity generation, as individuals can invest in solar and wind power themselves.
When the far right gets into power, they have never to my knowledge supported renewable energy. Quite the opposite in fact - they tend to oppose anything related to climate change, as demons
Re: (Score:2)
Once again the great AmiMoJo speaks out on something they know nothing about.
I don't refer all anti nuclear people as "fascists." Most of them are just ignorant. Once they are shown how clean, efficient, and safe nuclear energy is they come around. With social media showing the truth behind nuclear energy there is not really much you anti nuclear trolls can do to stop it now.
Really, the only ones I refer to as anti nuclear 'fascist' are you. An that little sock puppet that follows you around. I'm
Re: (Score:2)
We need to stop BURNING O&G&C. We can have Ag with out the pollution/emissions.
Do not become as foolish as the trumpers or goon squaders. They all suffer from a lack of intelligence and education.
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzzt, thank you for playing.
1. We hit about 1B around 1810 or 1820.
2. Fossil fuels were not a thing until the mid-1800s.
3. You did, of course, completely ignore medicine.
4. You also ignored how much of North America was put into growing crops in the 1800s.... and most of that was horse-drawn plows.
Re: (Score:2)
Better to reduce the demand for oil so that the oil sands are no longer viable to keep extracting.
Amazing. Just amazing. You must have read "the emperor's clothes" or at least believe in Cindy Lou.
I will never understand why the infernal goon squad and their uneducated followers (Ok, that expains a lot), continue to push such things as killing off O&G drilling when more than 25% of our O&G goes to CHEMICALS. IOW, these are not burned. So, what is needed is not to kill O&G drilling, but to kill burning O&G&C.
In fact, what has been killing coal burning has been using the much clea
Re: (Score:3)
The only provinces that border the US that don't currently sell a fair bit of electricity to them are Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If wind power were carbon negative, sure. Unfortunately none of the designs in use right now are. They aren't capable of producing enough energy over their lifespans right now to be anything but an expensive lie, because it takes more energy to get one created and installed than it produces before it breaks and gets sent to a landfill.
As far as I understand from various studies EROI for wind is about 10-30 depending on size and conditions (bigger the better), PV is in the toilet ~3 yet still positive with marginal efficiency gains over time. Hydro and modern nuclear above 75.
Claims of wind below 1 are extraordinary placing such figures far outside the realm of consensus estimates.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't capable of producing enough energy over their lifespans right now to be anything but an expensive lie, because it takes more energy to get one created and installed than it produces before it breaks and gets sent to a landfill.
Can you show me the math on this, or point to a link that does?
It can't be easy weaponized either (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
No need to weaponize something that is already unreliable...
Re: (Score:2)
Wind generators are typically site dependent and therefore are clustered and use the grid to spread out. It is simply putting a power plant remotely only with typically 2-5 sq miles, with a grid connection. Had you paid attention to what is happening in Ukraine, you would know that Russia REGULARLY takes out their grid and then it takes several days. And of course, it is easy to blow these up, and for ever to re-build them.
IOW, wind generators are NOT
Re: (Score:2)
PV on rooftops and parking lots, i.e. interspersed amongst buildings, IS OF GREAT NATIONAL SECURITY USAGE.
Sadly, you goon squaders continue to push for Utility which makes them worthless for National Security and even destroys a great deal of their usefulness for AGW abatement.
PV is far worse in terms of carbon compared to much cleaner alternatives like wind and nuclear. Piecemeal PV is twice as expensive and even more carbon intensive than utility. Adding decentralized ESS at the scale required to make these energy sources locally reliable is unreasonable from both cost and environmental perspective.
Vast majority of PV systems are AC coupled and don't work at all without the grid.
Canadà has wind resource (Score:2)
a ninefold of a negligible amount is still nothing (Score:3, Informative)
But it makes great headlines in the press
And the biggest WIndfarm (Score:2)
Is in Ottawa at the Parliament Building.
Geothermal? (Score:2)
Is geothermal not a viable option in Canada? If not, why?
Re: (Score:2)
Geothermal is only economical in places where the magma is close enough to the surface to get high temperatures. It's not very common, so not used that much.
Have Ford/GM build wind transmissions (Score:2)
Energy Storage? (Score:2)
I used to be a fan of wind power, but then I looked at the details.
When people say wind is cheap they are quoting the non-dispatchable price. An honest comparison would be to include the cost dispatchable power. Ie wind plus storage or backup source. When you do this the price becomes twice what nuclear costs.
Battery backup is great for the evening peak, but will never scale to cover seasonal demands.
Using gas as a backup power source comes with its own issues. There are two types of gas generation know as
massive growth (Score:2)
Canada looking forward to massive growth of power outages when wind does not blow.