tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post5056019596993327216..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: The D A Ryan MSR/LFTR critique: Not ready for Prime TimeCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-47696858809310514252011-08-17T14:22:46.290-05:002011-08-17T14:22:46.290-05:00Sione: "Over-subsidised"! Seems to be an...<b>Sione:</b> <i>"Over-subsidised"! Seems to be another arbitrary rationalisation- an excuse. It doesn't make sense and it certainly isn't likely to win converts to the nuclear cause.</i><br />I don't think anyone who wants more nuclear thinks that nuclear has been over-subsided, that is what the anti-nuclear kooks believe (and it turns out that nuclear has received less subsidies per unit of energy delivered than pretty much any other way to produce power, the renewables are the ones which have wasted taxpayers money).<br /><br /><b>Sione:</b> <i>Govt subsidy necessarily means economic distortion. Do much of it and rational economic calculation becomes difficult or for practical purposes even impossible.</i><br />Yes, the fossil fuel subsidies and renewable energy subsidies are what is hurting nuclear power and preventing global warming from being solved.<br /><br /><b>Sione:</b> <i>Of course, forty years of untold new US nuclear infrastructure construction aptly demonstrates aspects of the economic lesson here.</i><br />The US hasn't been building much nuclear infrastructure the past few decades (largely because the competitors were subsided more than it was).<br /><br /><b>Sione:</b> <i>As far as the general public is concerned, note the overwhelming public support for hundreds of new nuclear plants right across the continental USA, sufficient to replace ol' man coal... not.</i><br />Whilst most people don't want a nuclear power plant them they do say that they want more nuclear power plants built. Those who live near an existing nuclear power plant tend to support adding more units to that power plant and probably wouldn't object to another power plant being built not too far away from them.<br /><br />The people who live near the coal burners would probably be willing to support replacing them with nuclear if they thought the alternative was the coal plant closing and them not having anything there.<br /><br /><b>Sione:</b> <i>The USA isn't Germany, sure. It isn't Italy or Sweden or most of the rest of Europe either, not even the Ukraine or Russia. You should consider however, that the ruling political ideologies and sentiments of Europe eventually end up ruling the USA.</i><br />Of course it is more likely to happen when Europe gets things right.<br /><br /><b>Sione:</b> <i>Right now, in spite of French nationalism, there is not deep support for things nuclear and it is unlikely that will change all that much soon.</i><br />The laws of physics pretty much don't leave us any other choice than nuclear and they aren't going to be changing any time soon either (nor is there any way we could change them).<br /><br />If there's a conflict between public perception and the laws of physics, what the public believes will lose, no question.<br /><br /><b>Sione:</b> <i>Anyway, the $ are not going to be easily available.<br /><br />There is approaching a time when Congress will not be able to raise the debt ceiling any further whatsoever. It is already close presently. Soon enough the choices to be made will be of the order of, "Do we pay those sick retirees some money or do we sink the money in a PPP power station scheme with the usual regulation and bureaucracy and rorting?"</i><br />Of course it just so happens that nuclear is the cheapest low carbon source of electricity so if the money won't be available for it, then the US (or whatever other country can't afford nuclear) won't be able to solve global warming (given that nuclear is often cheaper than fossil fuels and usually isn't much more expensive even when coal is really cheap I'd be doubtful as to whether any country which couldn't afford nuclear could even afford to have electricity for those sick oldies).Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-41808028892871155712011-07-19T06:18:21.942-05:002011-07-19T06:18:21.942-05:00Anon
"Over-subsidised"! Seems to be ano...Anon<br /><br />"Over-subsidised"! Seems to be another arbitrary rationalisation- an excuse. It doesn't make sense and it certainly isn't likely to win converts to the nuclear cause.<br /><br />Govt subsidy necessarily means economic distortion. Do much of it and rational economic calculation becomes difficult or for practical purposes even impossible. Very, very difficult to undertake a new nuclear power project under such conditions. Of course, forty years of untold new US nuclear infrastructure construction aptly demonstrates aspects of the economic lesson here. <br /><br />As far as the general public is concerned, note the overwhelming public support for hundreds of new nuclear plants right across the continental USA, sufficient to replace ol' man coal... not. <br /><br />The USA isn't Germany, sure. It isn't Italy or Sweden or most of the rest of Europe either, not even the Ukraine or Russia. You should consider however, that the ruling political ideologies and sentiments of Europe eventually end up ruling the USA. Ditto for finanical and banking systems. Unfortunately it is contemporary European systems that get commonly adopted. Hell, you even speak and write in a foreign language, one straight from outta Europe...! <br /><br />Right now, in spite of French nationalism, there is not deep support for things nuclear and it is unlikely that will change all that much soon. Anyway, the $ are not going to be easily available.<br /><br />There is approaching a time when Congress will not be able to raise the debt ceiling any further whatsoever. It is already close presently. Soon enough the choices to be made will be of the order of, "Do we pay those sick retirees some money or do we sink the money in a PPP power station scheme with the usual regulation and bureaucracy and rorting?" <br />Ans: Which has the big votes?<br /><br />Not ideal, but there is how it is right now. Interesting times. Huge opportunities to generate extreme personal wealth. Huge risk to become permanently impoverished. No middle. So, in the end, a bad time for illiquid mega projects (see Flybjerg for definition of "mega project"). <br /><br />SioneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-2985510515661645542011-07-19T02:05:37.754-05:002011-07-19T02:05:37.754-05:00Hasn't the idea that the nuclear industry is o...Hasn't the idea that the nuclear industry is over-subsided relative to its competitors been debunked repeatedly?<br /><br />As for the general public, in the US the general public tends to be pro-nuclear (the US isn't Germany remember).Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-84005981380848787682011-07-18T14:21:16.157-05:002011-07-18T14:21:16.157-05:00Thousands of words of debate about minute which th...Thousands of words of debate about minute which the general public (ie. the ones who get to pay for all these boondoggles) do not accept. This sort of stuff (interesting as it may be) is, in general, dismissed right from inception by the public. <br /><br />What nuclear energy promoters are up against are well known and received objections such as:<br /><br />- in the main the general public does not trust nuclear industry and remains anti.<br /><br />- the nuclear industry exists as the result of corporate weldfare handouts, regulatory interferences and the like<br /><br />- the nuclear industry has extremely dangerous elements; indeed it remains resolutely tied to terrible weapons of indescriminate destruction, holocaust, mayhem, terror, generational disease and pollution<br /><br />- the US government is insolvent; it is merely a matter of time before it executes a big version of a Greek default albeit much more severe, hence govt funding to build LFTR infrastructure are more than unlikely to emerge any time soon.<br /><br />- the US fiat money central banking system is insolvent; again the massive funding required is unlikely to emerge from there any time soon. <br /><br />- rational economic calculation is not readily available in the nuclear sector; it is a child of govt welfare, political rorting, influence peddling and cronyism<br /><br />- the USA is deindustrialising as its manufacturing infrastructure is aged (in many cases obsolete), work practices are inefficient/ineffective/out of date, while better set-up and motivated competitors overseas out compete US based operations. <br /><br />- skills base eroded<br /><br />- US population is aging and the financial resources to provide for the continued (non-productive) existence of retirees is scarce (very difficult to resurrect a dead industry if the resources are all going to be directed elsewhere) <br /><br />- US is too indebted (private and public); less and less available for investments <br /><br /><br />- as US standard of living reduces (which it has been for some time now) the demand for energy will fall, reducing requirement for new energy <br /><br />And there is plenty more. <br /><br />Basically a grand nuclear energy "resurgence" just isn't looking likely in the lifetime of the vast majority of the readers of this blog- not in the USA anyhow. Off-shore, well that is a different matter entirely. It will be interesting to see how well the Asians get through the collapse of the China coastal financial and property bubbles. How that is weathered will determine where and what new energy infrasture investments are going to be made throughout what is now the productive part of the world.<br /><br />SioneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-48832664300468321742011-07-14T19:26:52.239-05:002011-07-14T19:26:52.239-05:00Use of the precautionary principle taken to its il...Use of the <a href="http://reason.com/archives/1999/04/01/precautionary-tale" rel="nofollow">precautionary</a> <a href="http://volokh.com/2011/06/02/how-the-precautionary-principle-refutes-itself/" rel="nofollow">principle</a> taken to its <a href="http://depletedcranium.com/precautionary-principle-possibly-the-biggest-sham-of-our-time/" rel="nofollow">illogical extreme</a> (which in practice seems to be the usual use of it, at least when it is used), check.<br /><br />Belief in the <a href="http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/SeviorSLSRebutall" rel="nofollow">stormsmith nonsense</a> (which has been repeatedly debunked), check.<br /><br />Belief that perceived risk (which he is involved in creating) is enough to damn a concept, check.<br /><br />Doesn't really look like someone who is very good at telling the difference between fiction and reality.Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-9361945865132805002011-07-14T06:46:51.193-05:002011-07-14T06:46:51.193-05:00Here's a critique of your critique of my criti...Here's a critique of your critique of my critique!<br /><br />http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/#comment-120daryanenergybloghttp://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-25019909902851652492011-07-13T15:33:11.354-05:002011-07-13T15:33:11.354-05:00I normally don't like making fun of the functi...I normally don't like making fun of the functionally retarded, but if this was a primary school science class essay I would give it an F.Soylenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08125903130939473555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-8134641611663038482011-07-12T11:08:21.524-05:002011-07-12T11:08:21.524-05:00I think you meant to include a "not" in ...I think you meant to include a "not" in this sentence: "While Ryan is familiar with EfT, he has gone to the trouble of checking out his criticisms with the EfT discussion forum."Jim Van Zandthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01724923409800351670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-29766898807136612382011-07-11T23:48:38.936-05:002011-07-11T23:48:38.936-05:00What we are up against is the greybeards in the nu...What we are up against is the greybeards in the nuclear establishments around the world. Almost all of them made their reputations on solid fuel reactors and they are not going to think seriously about molten salt reactors.<br /><br />As Freeman Dyson points out, progress may be stalled until the old physicists die. This from an octogenerian!gallopingcamelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08490747443886030893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-14412015860053790552011-07-11T09:53:36.566-05:002011-07-11T09:53:36.566-05:00Mr. Ryan wrote:
At Windscale the initially attempt...Mr. Ryan wrote:<br /><i>At Windscale the initially attempt to put out the fire using CO2 failed, as the high temperatures of the fire simply stripped the oxygen from the CO2.</i><br /><br />Even if it is possible for hot reactor-grade graphite to reduce CO2 to CO, this chemical reaction extracts heat and thus reduces temperature, which is what one wants to do when fighting fires.donbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-79446063360427963102011-07-10T23:44:39.160-05:002011-07-10T23:44:39.160-05:00From what little I read, Mr. Ryan's agenda is ...From what little I read, Mr. Ryan's agenda is simple.<br /><br />He is following the Lovin's argument that the financial pie for new energy development is only so big and renewables should recieve all of it.<br /><br />That argument is so simplistic that a high school economics student could shred it.<br /><br />Mr. Ryan is another individual that will still have us tied to coal decades from now trying to proclaim it was the nuclear industrys' fault wind and solar weren't able to increase market share to replace the existing 20% already supplied by nuclear.<br /><br />Mr Ryan is using faulty logic to start his diatribe against nuclear power. First it appears he believes only renewables should have access to the Wall Street coffers. Then he appears to believe wind and solar will be able to power our industrial society. Since neither are true, I can't see any reason to continue reading his attempts to technically justify why nuclear shouldn't be persued.Bill Rodgersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-12755366679064351392011-07-10T21:57:13.585-05:002011-07-10T21:57:13.585-05:00Ryan: LFTR fans essentially inventing reasons why ...Ryan: LFTR fans essentially inventing reasons why their “precious” is better than anything else. <br /><br />Barton: The use of the word “precious” is highly inappropriate, and the use of the quotation marks would untruthfully attribute the word to us. Neither Kirk nor I have used the term “precious” to refer to the LFTR or MSR technology. <br /><br />I think it's worse than that -- he's comparing you to Gollum in <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08749459207189576328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-52165694398736866992011-07-10T20:33:37.564-05:002011-07-10T20:33:37.564-05:00Ryan says he is not a nuclear engineer but he come...Ryan says he is not a nuclear engineer but he comes across as someone who is very well informed on a wide variety of NPP engineering issues.<br /><br />I was impressed until he took off the mask and started making emotional arguments against MSRs.<br /><br />Who knows whether weird reactors like LFTRs will achieve what we (their advocates) expect? However, if one listened to naysayers like Ryan, nothing new would ever be attempted.<br /><br />To suggest it would take 10 to 15 years to build a full scale LFTR insults my intelligence. It could take that long if one insists on "Environmental Impact Statements" and all the other bureaucratic BS.<br /><br />The USA built nuclear weapons based on Uranium and Plutonium in less than four years. Apparently we are now too dumb to tackle a simpler task using Thorium in less than 10 years.<br /><br />If this is true, the leadership in nuclear technology will soon pass to China or India.gallopingcamelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08490747443886030893noreply@blogger.com