The reason, and only reason, that we no longer build nuclear power plants is due to the enormous costs of constructing them and bringing them online, and the equally onerous cost of keeping them on line. Utilities and other energy concerns got out of the nuclear business because there's more money to be lost, then made, with nuclear. And the specter and liability expenses incurred from a potential core meltdown, or any other serious mishap, pretty much seals the no-deal for investors. It's not just low-margin power, but potential anti-margin power. This may change in the future, but it's a relatively distant future.
According to Gates, тАЬif weтАЩre serious about solving climate change, and quite frankly we have to be, the first thing we should do is keep safe reactors operating.тАЭ
But тАЬeven then, just maintaining that status quo is not enough. We need more nuclear power to zero out emissions in America and to prevent a climate disaster,тАЭ Gates said Wednesday.
Ah yes - "safe reactors" - anything like those "safe bio-safety labs"?
The NRC isn't exactly a non aligned party.
No doubt the Gates Foundation would be a big investor and already has his fingers in the pie ...
The same Bill Gates who opposes TRIPS IP waivers for vaccines? Or is this a different Bill Gates - considering he's into GMOs, maybe he has had himself cloned ...
Is this directed at my comments? Reading material? And I'm not supporting or not supporting nuclear power in my comments. I'm not advocating for any mode of energy in my comments. And I said nothing about the "climate crisis." And: I wouldn't deny (and never mentioned) that "opposition to nuclear comes from every other industry providing energy."
What's your point? There's opposition, organized or not, everywhere against everything. And finally, nobody mentions the "climate crisis" more than Big Oil, in "opposition" to alternative (green, sustainable, what have you) as well as the very existence of climate change. Big Oil long ago recognized "climate change," correctly viewing it as a threat to their bottom lines. That's when they ramped up their propaganda. Ditto for the Pentagon. This is all well-documented.
The Pentagon commissoned a comprehensive strategic-themed study 10 years ago in preparation for climate change. They take the science seriously. Don't doubt that solar and wind companies "hire lobbyists to spread disinformation, just like every other lobbyist in DC."--Ii'll take your word for it. I would welcome a share of some of YOUR reading and research.
Again, once again, I am neither advocating for nuclear power, nor am I advocating against nuclear power. I am aware of Bill Gate's nuclear project and his advocacy of it as a positive source of energy for mitigating the effects of climate change. In the name of humanity, I wish him godspeed.
Fromm your link:
тАЬToday, nuclear power is at a crossroads. Nearly 20% of AmericaтАЩs electricity comes from nuclear,тАЭ Gates said. тАЬBut while AmericaтАЩs current nuclear capacity serves the country well, there are far more reactors slated for retirement than there are new reactors under construction.тАЭ
In April, the Indian Point Energy Center nuclear power plant north of New York City retired its last operating nuclear reactor. And the Exelon Corporation has announced plans to retire two of its Illinois nuclear power plants in the fall.
If these retirements come to fruition, 2021 could set a record for the most retirements of nuclear generators in a year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Since 1960, the United States has retired 40 nuclear generators but it has never this many in one year, sasy an EIA spokesperson."
This speaks to my point, I believe. There's no reason to believe that if nuclear power were economically viable, at the moment, these plants would either remain on-line or if needed, upgraded. I've not commented on the current efficacy of nuclear technology due, mostly, because I'm not a nuclear engineer. I havenot studied nor am I privy to it.
Here, though, is someone who has, lurking beneath the fold in this piece":
"....Jacobson says that, in fact, тАЬinvesting in new nuclear power is the surest way to climate disaster.тАЭ Climate change is urgent, and new nuclear power plants are expensive and take a long time to build, he says.
Jacobson, who has published a textbook on renewable energy, also points out that nuclear power comes with concerns that renewables donтАЩt have, including weapons proliferation, meltdowns, radioactive waste and uranium mining risks.
Again, I'm not an advocate, one way or another. And as for Gates' Natrium project, it certainly helps to have $160 billion in the checking account. Jeff Bezos, I hear, is using his billions to go spelunking in the Andromeda Galaxy. I wish the two of them well in their scientific exploits.
Yes. And presumably there are some engineers squirreled away in a Western mountain range working on a new technology that will "make nuclear power viable again." And it will be marketed and sold to the American public accordingly.
Great call out. I'm guessing it will be met with a silence similar to that of anti-nuke folks when similarly questioned...
The reason, and only reason, that we no longer build nuclear power plants is due to the enormous costs of constructing them and bringing them online, and the equally onerous cost of keeping them on line. Utilities and other energy concerns got out of the nuclear business because there's more money to be lost, then made, with nuclear. And the specter and liability expenses incurred from a potential core meltdown, or any other serious mishap, pretty much seals the no-deal for investors. It's not just low-margin power, but potential anti-margin power. This may change in the future, but it's a relatively distant future.
It's not 1970 any more.
Bill Gates three days ago:
According to Gates, тАЬif weтАЩre serious about solving climate change, and quite frankly we have to be, the first thing we should do is keep safe reactors operating.тАЭ
But тАЬeven then, just maintaining that status quo is not enough. We need more nuclear power to zero out emissions in America and to prevent a climate disaster,тАЭ Gates said Wednesday.
And he's putting his money where his mouth is.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/11/bill-gates-bullish-on-using-nuclear-power-to-fight-climate-change.html
Ah yes - "safe reactors" - anything like those "safe bio-safety labs"?
The NRC isn't exactly a non aligned party.
No doubt the Gates Foundation would be a big investor and already has his fingers in the pie ...
The same Bill Gates who opposes TRIPS IP waivers for vaccines? Or is this a different Bill Gates - considering he's into GMOs, maybe he has had himself cloned ...
I suspect he has more than one bunker ready ....
Read again:
Latouche31 min ago
Is this directed at my comments? Reading material? And I'm not supporting or not supporting nuclear power in my comments. I'm not advocating for any mode of energy in my comments. And I said nothing about the "climate crisis." And: I wouldn't deny (and never mentioned) that "opposition to nuclear comes from every other industry providing energy."
What's your point? There's opposition, organized or not, everywhere against everything. And finally, nobody mentions the "climate crisis" more than Big Oil, in "opposition" to alternative (green, sustainable, what have you) as well as the very existence of climate change. Big Oil long ago recognized "climate change," correctly viewing it as a threat to their bottom lines. That's when they ramped up their propaganda. Ditto for the Pentagon. This is all well-documented.
The Pentagon commissoned a comprehensive strategic-themed study 10 years ago in preparation for climate change. They take the science seriously. Don't doubt that solar and wind companies "hire lobbyists to spread disinformation, just like every other lobbyist in DC."--Ii'll take your word for it. I would welcome a share of some of YOUR reading and research.
Again, once again, I am neither advocating for nuclear power, nor am I advocating against nuclear power. I am aware of Bill Gate's nuclear project and his advocacy of it as a positive source of energy for mitigating the effects of climate change. In the name of humanity, I wish him godspeed.
Fromm your link:
тАЬToday, nuclear power is at a crossroads. Nearly 20% of AmericaтАЩs electricity comes from nuclear,тАЭ Gates said. тАЬBut while AmericaтАЩs current nuclear capacity serves the country well, there are far more reactors slated for retirement than there are new reactors under construction.тАЭ
In April, the Indian Point Energy Center nuclear power plant north of New York City retired its last operating nuclear reactor. And the Exelon Corporation has announced plans to retire two of its Illinois nuclear power plants in the fall.
If these retirements come to fruition, 2021 could set a record for the most retirements of nuclear generators in a year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Since 1960, the United States has retired 40 nuclear generators but it has never this many in one year, sasy an EIA spokesperson."
This speaks to my point, I believe. There's no reason to believe that if nuclear power were economically viable, at the moment, these plants would either remain on-line or if needed, upgraded. I've not commented on the current efficacy of nuclear technology due, mostly, because I'm not a nuclear engineer. I havenot studied nor am I privy to it.
Here, though, is someone who has, lurking beneath the fold in this piece":
"....Jacobson says that, in fact, тАЬinvesting in new nuclear power is the surest way to climate disaster.тАЭ Climate change is urgent, and new nuclear power plants are expensive and take a long time to build, he says.
Jacobson, who has published a textbook on renewable energy, also points out that nuclear power comes with concerns that renewables donтАЩt have, including weapons proliferation, meltdowns, radioactive waste and uranium mining risks.
Again, I'm not an advocate, one way or another. And as for Gates' Natrium project, it certainly helps to have $160 billion in the checking account. Jeff Bezos, I hear, is using his billions to go spelunking in the Andromeda Galaxy. I wish the two of them well in their scientific exploits.
"But those who oppose nuclear power need to shut up about "climate crisis."
Why is this? Hey, man, you're commenting at TK, and this smacks of stifling free speech. Censorship. Don't go all nuclear-woke on us, now.
Old enough to remember when nuke power was being sold to us a "too cheap to meter" ....
Yes. And presumably there are some engineers squirreled away in a Western mountain range working on a new technology that will "make nuclear power viable again." And it will be marketed and sold to the American public accordingly.
No doubt - if it doesn't blow us up first ...
Starting to look that way.