Chernobyl should be left out of the nuclear mortality analysis. It was built in a country with an almost nonexistent safety culture, and no licensing criteria. It would not have been licensed or built anywhere else. Nothing like it will ever be built again. Nobody was injured, made ill, or killed by Three Mile Island or Fukushima. In the entire civilized world, nuclear power is safer than Teddy Kennedy’s car.
Simon Michaux was more pessimistic concerning critical materials. Five times more copper than is known or projected to exist in forms that can be extracted from the Earth would be required to build the "technology units" that the IEA demands. Ten times more nickel. 26 times more cobalt....
The situation with spent nuclear fuel (not waste) is better than you describe. It's only 5% used, not 10%. Argonne and Idaho National Laboratories have developed a better reprocessing system than the ones used in France, UK (until Thorp was closed), Russia, and Japan (if Rokkasho enters service): Pyroelectric refining. After fission products are separated from spent fuel, if caesium and strontium are separated from the others, the mass is reduced by a factor of 200 compared to "once through" and the custody duration is reduced by a factor of 1,000. http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Radiotoxicity.html.
Storage is an extreme problem. For USA as a whole, storage to provide firm power would cost NINE TIMES TOTAL GDP EVERY YEAR! http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Worse.html.
Good, but old news. Folks must go before any of their local administrations, agencies, clubs... and clearly, forcefully, explain the scam that is 'renewable energy'.
Capacity Factor (CF) data are interesting. These are shown in the bulk material usage table at Fig 10 - but CF seems to be a wider systems issue. Two points/Qs, if I may:
[1] CF data seem important but vary substantially on other sites. For example, the US Office of Nuclear Energy (quoting US EIA data) give CF figures for Coal (49%) and N Gas (54%), whereas the Fig 10 table states Coal (85%) and Gas (30%). These are big variations and beg Qs on methods and influences, as I think you mention. For major issues - and perhaps CF is one of those - is it feasible to compare sites and offer average and spread data?
[2] My understanding of CF is that it measures how often the source is running at maximum capacity - one might call this MCF. It would be interesting to know the actual energy generated as a percentage of the (theoretical) MCF - one might call this ACF. Are ACF data readily available? If so, would ACF be a meaningful or even better comparator?
Is CCUS a viable alternative to nuclear waste storage, which, I will confess, I do have doubts about?
While the whole climate change dogma is now being challenged by scientists in the know, should societies become increasingly reliant on nuclear power and the ensuing problems associated with safe storage of radioactive waste?
When I read the airily vague assurances of our leaders about Net Zero utopia, I wonder why so many power stations have been demolished or decommissioned.
Thanks for the excellent summary.
Chernobyl should be left out of the nuclear mortality analysis. It was built in a country with an almost nonexistent safety culture, and no licensing criteria. It would not have been licensed or built anywhere else. Nothing like it will ever be built again. Nobody was injured, made ill, or killed by Three Mile Island or Fukushima. In the entire civilized world, nuclear power is safer than Teddy Kennedy’s car.
Simon Michaux was more pessimistic concerning critical materials. Five times more copper than is known or projected to exist in forms that can be extracted from the Earth would be required to build the "technology units" that the IEA demands. Ten times more nickel. 26 times more cobalt....
Read four articles at https://vsnyder.substack.com.
The situation with spent nuclear fuel (not waste) is better than you describe. It's only 5% used, not 10%. Argonne and Idaho National Laboratories have developed a better reprocessing system than the ones used in France, UK (until Thorp was closed), Russia, and Japan (if Rokkasho enters service): Pyroelectric refining. After fission products are separated from spent fuel, if caesium and strontium are separated from the others, the mass is reduced by a factor of 200 compared to "once through" and the custody duration is reduced by a factor of 1,000. http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Radiotoxicity.html.
Storage is an extreme problem. For USA as a whole, storage to provide firm power would cost NINE TIMES TOTAL GDP EVERY YEAR! http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Worse.html.
Good article!
The other dimension:
China's Quest for World Domination via "Clean Energy" Manufacturing
Stunning new statistics and USA capitulation
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/chinas-quest-for-world-domination
This is very well researched and well written, thank you.
I've just translated it in French and published it on my blog: http://skidmark.blog/2023/04/15/les-energies-renouvelables-ne-sont-pas-durables-par-david-turver/
Hope you don't mind!
PS: the link for Siemens Gamesa is incorrect.
Good, but old news. Folks must go before any of their local administrations, agencies, clubs... and clearly, forcefully, explain the scam that is 'renewable energy'.
We knew >100 years ago the problem with GHG emissions. We knew 60 years ago what to do: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa and we've no excuse now: https://tinyurl.com/44uv49z3
More refs: www.humanists.org/blog/2020-11-22
https://tinyurl.com/yy2puqbz https://tinyurl.com/3vgfsx9e
--
Alex
650-400-3071
TY for a fine piece. One comment about the mortality part. Here is data more curre nt than Glex <http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/97206/1/manuscript_2nd%20revision.pdf>. The study's conclusions: Normalized Wind deaths surpass all other electricity sources...
Another good article, thank you.
Capacity Factor (CF) data are interesting. These are shown in the bulk material usage table at Fig 10 - but CF seems to be a wider systems issue. Two points/Qs, if I may:
[1] CF data seem important but vary substantially on other sites. For example, the US Office of Nuclear Energy (quoting US EIA data) give CF figures for Coal (49%) and N Gas (54%), whereas the Fig 10 table states Coal (85%) and Gas (30%). These are big variations and beg Qs on methods and influences, as I think you mention. For major issues - and perhaps CF is one of those - is it feasible to compare sites and offer average and spread data?
[2] My understanding of CF is that it measures how often the source is running at maximum capacity - one might call this MCF. It would be interesting to know the actual energy generated as a percentage of the (theoretical) MCF - one might call this ACF. Are ACF data readily available? If so, would ACF be a meaningful or even better comparator?
Thank you.
From a member of the public, increasingly dismayed by the Net Zero strategies adopted by HMG and many other countries:
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-carbon-capture-and-storage-and-what-role-can-it-play-in-tackling-climate-change/
Is CCUS a viable alternative to nuclear waste storage, which, I will confess, I do have doubts about?
While the whole climate change dogma is now being challenged by scientists in the know, should societies become increasingly reliant on nuclear power and the ensuing problems associated with safe storage of radioactive waste?
When I read the airily vague assurances of our leaders about Net Zero utopia, I wonder why so many power stations have been demolished or decommissioned.