Aluminum price to average 6% higher in 2024 on strong demand: Fitch
Analysts also raised its 2024 aluminum price forecast from $2,400/tonne to $2,450/tonne to reflect these expectations.
Nuclear power to reach new heights
A new report by the World Nuclear Association estimates global nuclear power generation capacity should grow by more than 45% over the next 20 years and a new pipeline of uranium mines will be needed after 2025.
The 40-year old association’s bi-annual 2015 Nuclear Fuel report released on Thursday forecasts global nuclear capacity will grow to 552 gigawatts equivalent (GWe) by 2035 from 379 GWe or roughly 11% of world electricity supply at the moment.
The report states that until the Fukushima accident in Japan, the outlook for nuclear power around the world was improving, but despite the March 2011 disaster, “many countries are putting more emphasis on satisfying environmental and security of supply objectives in their energy strategies, which should favour increased nuclear power.”
The prospects for new reactor build continue to be strong in China, India and Korea as well as in a number of countries in the EU and the Middle East, but electricity demand growth in countries where nuclear power is well-established continues to be slow.
“Nuclear electricity output is set to increase at a faster rate over the next five years than we have seen for more than two decades,” said Agneta Rising, director general of the association which started life in 1975 as the Uranium Institute.
To feed the rise in global capacity, the world will likely need 103,000 tonnes of elemental uranium or tU (equal to roughly 267m pounds of U3O8) by 2035, up from 56,250 tU (146m pounds U3O8) in 2014, according to the report.
Secondary supplies of uranium are gradually playing a diminishing role in the world market according to the report, but will continue to be an important source of supply as underfeeding of enrichment plants is expected to add significant quantities of uranium to the market in the period to 2025.
World known resources of uranium are more than adequate to satisfy reactor requirements to well beyond 2035, but depressed uranium prices have curtailed exploration activities and the opening of new mines and some mines have stopped production.
The report concludes that rapid uranium demand growth in a number of countries, particularly China, coupled with a limited contribution of secondary supplies will result in the need for additional mined uranium.
Nevertheless, the market should still be adequately supplied to 2025 according to the report but only if all planned mines and those under development start up as forecast. After 2025 however a new supply pipeline will have to be developed to meet demand.
Source: World Nuclear Association
Image of cooling tower climbing wall at Wunderland Kalkar – a never-commisioned nuclear power plant turned into amusement park in Germany – by Koetjuh
65 Comments
vlady47
As if the planet needs more nuclear waste.
The promotion of nuclear energy is the promotion of weapons of mass destruction, either by accident, terrorism or by using nuclear energy as a cover for bomb making.
STOP the nuke con job!
Jag_Levak
The waste of current generation reactors could be fuel for the next. And even current nuclear power has done far more to compete with bombs for fuel and even to consume bomb fuel than it has ever contributed to making bombs. And specialized waste burning reactors should be able to convert bomb fuel into many times more energy than today’s reactors, increasing the cash incentive to convert bombs into energy revenues.
TimS
Be cautious radiophobics.
If radiation is a concern, then be careful of renewables using rare-earth metals with traces of radioactive uranium and thorium; wind/solar farms occupy acres and acres spreading radiation to everywhere possibly contaminating soils and foods.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-toxic-lakes-and-radioactive-waste
Dr ritesh arya
Nuclear power is not safe power……Uranium enriched today is enriched for times to come…A single disaster if it now happens in US or anyother part of the world will be disasterous for the future of Nuclear installation . If I am strongly thinking of giving SAFE sustaianble power to the FUTURE genrations then definately NUCLEAR POWER is not the answer. Nuclear disaster destroys ..not just a generations but generations……..
Dr ritesh arya
“Nuclear disasters destroys…….not GENERATION but GENERATIONSSSSSS….” DR RITESH ARYA
frankinca
Good article except it has narrow info because it doesn’t allow for all the new nuclear generation of power technologies Heavy water, thorium and recycled uranium means that uranium mining is not going to grow fantastically as the report might suggest..
atomikrabbit
Over the next 5-20 years, almost all of the new build will be either uranium-fueled LWRs or PHWRs. The alternative fuel cycles are at least two decades away from widespread deployment: world-nuclear(dot)org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Plans-For-New-Reactors-Worldwide/
Asteroid Miner
WHERE DID NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION COME FROM?
The visible universe [ignoring dark matter and dark energy] started out with only 3 elements: hydrogen, helium and lithium. All other elements were made in stars or by supernova explosions. Our star is a seventh generation star. The previous 6 generations were necessary for the elements heavier than lithium to be built up. Since heavier elements were built by radiation processes, they were very radioactive when first made.
Our planet was made of the debris of a supernova explosion that happened about 5 billion years ago. The Earth has been decreasing in radioactivity ever since. All elements heavier than nickel were necessarily made by accretion of mostly neutrons but sometimes protons onto lighter nuclei. The original nickel was radioactive and decayed to cobalt, then iron. Radioactive decays were necessary to bring these new nuclei into the realm of nuclear stability. That is why all rocks are still radioactive. The supernova made all radioactive elements including plutonium, cesium 137, etcetera.
Radiation also comes from outer space in the form of cosmic rays. Cosmic rays come from supernovas that are very far away. There will always be cosmic rays.
Again: 4 Billion years ago, the Earth was a lot more radioactive than it is today. There is no place in or on Earth or in space where there is no radiation. There never was.
Michael Mann
Fortunately new uranium supplies are on the horizon. Botswana may soon have its first uranium mine as Australian firm A-Cap Resources (ASX:ACB)has applied for a mining licence for its flagship Letlhakane project.
http://www.mining.com/botswana-may-soon-have-its-first-uranium-mine/
Be
Nuclear is 4 times the cost of solar or wind which have infinite free distributed fuels.
Solar and wind are now available cheaper than any other sources. Before gov breaks
http://www.lazard.com/media/1777/levelized_cost_of_energy_-_version_80.pdf
The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf
“As we look to the future, presently known resources
fall short of demand.”
Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
fig 20 also show shortfall.
The 2014 version is essentially the same conclusion but turned into a giant marketing paper with fantasy and propaganda filling the wholes.
For ins fig 2.11 shows exactly the same date of shortfall: 2025. But they cut the diagram off before 2050 where it would be embarrassing to see 10% of the demand available from RAR and proven technologies.
In
fact, we find that it will be difficult to avoid supply shortages
even under a slow 1%/year worldwide nuclear energy phase-out scenario
up to 2025. We thus suggest that a worldwide nuclear energy phase-out
is in order.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713004579
Building more nuclear power makes zero sense.
TimS
Nuclear has the lowest deaths per Terawatt-hour of electricity generated, it is much safer than wind/solar per unit of energy produced.
Statistics confirm: nuclear is safer and ecologically friendly; renewables require much more acres and kill more than nuclear per gigawatt produced.
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2440/6651/original.jpg
Be
Nuclear power is short of fuels in ten years. The poor folks who invest in new nuclear power plants, won’t even finish them before the shortages start.
Isn’t it amazing how every pro nuclear web site claims nuclear is safer than all the others energy sources, by not including the millions of cancers when you use real science: LNT and hot particles? Did you believe the tobacco industry? why do you believe the billion dollar nuclear pr and influence deceptions?
http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7508/77.full
1-2% of cancer that nuclear industry workers get are from
radiation, proving LNT.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/federal/402-r-99-001.pdf
EPA radionuclide exposure coefficients. All radiation is different
and routes of exposure matter.
http://llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukushimariskcalc.pdf
200k
TimS
Link between wind/solar and leukemia confirmed:
“birth defects and eight leukemia cases within five years in a community of 11,000 — after many years with no leukemia cases”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element#Environmental_considerations
“rare earth metals are also needed for clean energy technology. Solar panels, electric cars, and wind turbines all require rare earth metals.”
“increasing cases of leukemia and other cancers, and multiple deaths of farm animals in these contaminated areas.”
“There have been reported cases of radioactive exposure that cause birth defect and leukemia cases at rare earth refinery plants.”
“Since rare earth metals are not found in concentrated deposits, rare earth elements are usually mined through open pit mining. This involves stripping the surface of the earth using heavy equipment, thus destroying the existing ecosystem. Three major contaminants are often released in the area: radioactive waste, dust and metals.”
“The crushing and grinding necessary to refine the rare earths also releases toxic metals and radioactive dust into the air.”
http://raremetalsandmaterials.weebly.com/e-waste–the-environment.html
Be
Nuclear power is short of fuels in ten years according to the IAEA.
Nuclear power is 4 times the cost of available solar and wind.
Nuclear power needs to mine the very same type ores that Rare Earths do, but needs 100’s of times more even for just 2% of the world’s energy demand.
Renewable are the only energy that doesn’t need rare earths.
TIMS will explain how bad rare earth ore mining is, and by extension, how bad uranium mining is.
Did you know we have billion of tons of uranium mining tailing killing people around the world? All for 2% of the world’s energy for less than 50 years.
TimS
“Wind turbines kill somewhere between 140,000 and 328,000 birds die each year, according to this report at Smithsonian.com”
“The report indicates that federal officials investigated the deaths of more than 200 birds at large-scale concentrated solar plants in California.”
http://goingcoastal.bangordailynews.com/2015/11/26/business/birds-face-threats-in-changing-maine-landscape/
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-wind-turbines-really-kill-180948154/?no-ist
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/06/04/wind-solar-facilities-killing-millions-birds-other-animals
Nuclear power is much more ecologically friendly as it does not ruin natural landscapes neither slaughter millions birds and bats as wind/solar does.
TimS
More taxpayer funded renewable failures.
“The biggest of those federal loan guarantees is $1.45 billion to build 4 solar plants in California and Arizona, which was issued to Abengoa Yield to build and operate four solar plants that were supposed to produce 1.13 gigawatts of energy, more than a nuclear power plant.
The last plant was completed and went online in December 2014. But the Wall Street Journal reported this summer that although the solar panels were supposedly designed to deliver a million megawatt hours of power annually, the “plant is putting out roughly half that, federal data show.” – 29 Nov 2015
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/29/climate-summit-obama-scandal-abengoa-solyndra/
“Giant Green Fraud”!!!!
Be
Nuclear power is short of fuels in ten years, and cost 4 times what solar and wind are available for. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf
http://www.lazard.com/media/1777/levelized_cost_of_energy_-_version_80.pdf
Does that answer the question for ya?
But the pro nuclear pr and influence industry has billions of dollar to play with. I wonder how many commenters that would hire?
Nuclear also kills millions with cancers, leaves billions of tons of toxic mining waste, kill many times as many birds per MWH as wind, take ten years to install, ….
did I mention nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years?
WHO are we still suggesting nuclear can solve anything? Please author, tell us.
TimS
“we already had a practical plan back in the 1960s to become fully carbon-free without any need of wind or solar: nuclear power.” – NOV. 27, 2015
“If we are serious about replacing fossil fuels, we are going to need nuclear power, so the choice is stark: We can keep on merely talking about a carbon-free world, or we can go ahead and create one.”
“But while the money was there, the technology wasn’t: The result was a series of bankruptcies and the scandal of Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer in California that went bankrupt in 2011 after receiving a federal guarantee of hundreds of millions of dollars. Wind and solar together provide less than 2 percent of the world’s energy, and they aren’t growing anywhere near fast enough to replace fossil fuels.”
” nobody in Japan died from radiation, and in 2013 United Nations researchers predicted that “no discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected.” ”
“Critics often point to the Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union as an even more terrifying warning against nuclear power, but that accident was a direct result of both a faulty design and the operators’ incompetence.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/opinion/the-new-atomic-age-we-need.html
Be
Nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years according to the premier pro nuclear industry group, the IAEA.
Remember, this is for only 2% of the world’s energy needs for only 50 years!!!!!!!!
Why are we still talking about nuclear?
Could it be the billions per year the nuclear industry spend on pr and inferences?
Because logic and reason say
NO!
TimS
“Scientists are working on cheaper and safer reactor designs that might
make it possible to scale up nuclear power. Molten-salt reactors are a
leading candidate, since they promise to destroy existing nuclear waste
and wouldn’t melt down like current fission reactors do”
“Nuclear power also prevented about 64 gigatonnes of carbon from being released into the atmosphere between 1971 and 2009. In other words, according to the report, it cut about 15 times more emissions than it has created.”
“Fewer than 50 people were reported to have died at Chernobyl; by contrast, the American Lung Association estimates that smoke from coal-fired power plants kills about 13,000 people every year,”
“Coal is so much more dangerous than nuclear it’s not funny”
http://www.techinsider.io/nuclear-power-safer-than-coal-2015-11
TimS
“There were no immediate deaths due to radiation exposure during the Fukushima incident and only 6 workers exceeded the legal limits for radiation. The number of additional cancer cases from Fukushima will likely be undetectably low.”
“Some studies have even shown that small doses of radiation actually modestly reduce cancer risks. A study of radon gas by a Johns Hopkins scientist suggested that people living with higher concentrations of the radioactive gas actually have lower rates of lung cancer than the general population.”
“Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste according to Scientific American. The particulates and heavy metals associated with coal plants emit are estimated to cause 13,200 deaths a year, according to the American Lung Association.”
“the costs of building new nuclear power plants would significantly decline and could even become cheaper”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/02/scientists-tell-regulators-nuclear-energy-isnt-as-dangerous-as-they-once-thought/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17178625
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057636/
TimS
“Wind and sunshine have two big drawbacks as sources of power. First, they are erratic. The sun shines weakly in winter when it shines at all, and the wind can drop.”
“The second problem with wind and solar energy, oddly, is that it is free. Wind turbines and solar panels are not free, of course. Although the cost of solar photovoltaic panels has plunged in the past few years, largely because Germany bought so many, wind and solar farms still tend to produce more expensive electricity than coal or gas power stations on a “levelised cost” basis, which includes the expense of building them.”
“Coal-fired power capacity has actually increased in the past few years. Coal is likely to become even more important to Germany’s energy supply in future because the government is committed to phasing out nuclear power by 2022.”
“And because of generous feed-in tariffs for renewables that are guaranteed for 20 years, consumers in Germany are paying high prices for their not especially clean power. In the first half of this year households there paid €0.30 for a kilowatt-hour of electricity, whereas the French paid a mere €0.16.” – Nov 28th 2015
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21678955-renewable-power-good-more-renewable-power-not-always-better-when-wind-blows
Nuclear power is the best carbon-free option.
Be
Nuclear and coal have big draw backs, they are inflexible power, their pollution is deadly, and
nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years. Remember?
Baseload has always needed flexible reserve generators, and they work just fine for predictable solar and wind. No energy source is prefect, but solar and wind are easily accommodated.
Germany has met it’s co2 goals, and the coal plants were private investments mostly for export.
Don’t confuse price with cost. New solar and wind are cheaper before gov breaks. Without gov breaks nuclear can’t run one second and could never afford a new reactor.
Fukushima may have killed the pacific ocean, and the world if so. Notice the claim of no “immediate” deaths. That’s because the million or so cancer will take up to 50 years for manifest. http://enenews.com/
http://llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukushimariskcalc.pdf
200k
Did I mention that nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years? Here’s yet another paper proving peak uranium. http://energywatchgroup.org/uranium-resources-nuclear-energy-2006/
“it can be concluded that by between 2015 and
2030 a uranium supply gap will arise when stocks are exhausted and
production cannot be increased as will be necessary to meet the rising demand. Later on production will decline again after a few years of adequate supply due to shrinking resources. “
TimS
“Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power offer too little, too late, and the anti-nuclear stance of some countries and almost all environmentalists will only drive many nations towards burning more coal, oil and gas”
“Nuclear power can be done safely, and with a relatively small environmental footprint,” said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington DC.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cop21-world-must-embrace-nuclear-power-to-save-planet-from-climate-change-claim-leading-scientists-a6759236.html
Be
Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power offer cheaper, safer, cleaner, no wars required en, plentiful, fast to install energy forever.
Nuclear power is short of fuels in ten years? Can you believe it?!!!!!
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713004579
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/UF-Nuclear-fuel-industry-ready-to-meet-growth-in-capacity-10091501.html
http://energywatchgroup.org/uranium-resources-nuclear-energy-2006/
around 2025, there will be a shortage of uranium for nuclear reactors.
For only 2% of the world’s energy for only 30 years, and already short?
How is nuclear power possibly solution to ANYTHING???????????? it? And pro nulcear folks still claim is’t a solution!!!!!!!!~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TimS
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/atopclimates.jpg
Nuclear power is the most ecologically friendly, energy dense, and does not kill millions birds and bats, neither ruin natural landscapes as wind/solar does. Top scientists agree.
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-nuclear-power-crucial-climate-goal.html
“Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-option-say-top-scientists-9955997.html
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=106612
TimS
“Nuclear was so obviously superior environmentally to all other energy technologies that opponents had to invent new concerns.”
” They made up & publicized scary myths about proliferation & waste that notably had nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.”
http://seekerblog.com/2015/07/13/mike-shellenberger-how-one-of-worlds-cleanest-greenest-technologies-became-viewed-as-bad-for-environment/
Be
Nuclear is short of fuel in ten years. how much plainer do I need to say it? All the pro nuclear pleas in the world won’t change that. That the pro nuclear folks are now down to opinions, says much.
Their links completely ignore mining and refining. They never bother to calculate the cost and energy to store spent fuel rods for a million years, even 100,000 years. What’s the land alone worth? Why is opposite world always the answer with the pro nuclear people? Nuclear and coal are the dirtiest energy sources there are. At least coal doesn’t explode.
Renewables are cheaper now before gov breaks, or very near, and when you include the gov breaks, it’s not even close.
It’s over: renewables are better, cheaper. forever.
TimS
“Photovoltaic (PV) modules typically come with 20 year warranties that guarantee that the panels will produce at least 80% of the rated power after 20 years of use.”
http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/7475/What-Is-the-Lifespan-of-a-Solar-Panel.aspx
http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
“Solar Panels & Their Toxic Emissions”
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/01/solar-panels-toxic-emissions/
While advanced nuclear power plants are able to provide clean and safe baseload energy for centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_Reactor
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-New-material-promises-120-year-reactor-lives-2107151.html
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/russian-scientists-extending-nuclear-reactors-life-over-100-years-now-possible-1470349
Be
Nuclear power is short of fuels in ten years, so whatever you don’t like about solar, wind and renewables, it does not matter, it’s our only choice.
Nuclear generates 100 of times the pollution per MWH that even dirty solar or wind do. Solar and wind can be made 1000 times cleaner if we have the regulator will.
Nuclear industry spend billion of dollars per year on pr and influence, including funding anti renewable groups.
Solar panels are already being recycled. And we must insist that they are.
Solar panels are 95% glass and aluminum. two of the most recyclable materials we use.
Virtual nothing about nuclear can be recycled, and billion of tons of mining wastes are even now polluting the landscapes, and the taxpayers are paying for the cleanup.
Don’t believe the anti renewable propaganda.
Be
areas of outstanding natural beauty covered by uranium mining toxic waste in the name of soon to be short of fuel, nuclear power. BILLIONS of tons of its now the responsibility of the taxpayers, of course.
France is phasing out nuclear for renewables. France admitted it sold nuclear power at a loss. France buy summer peak power from Germany and it’s from solar.
Nuclear is short of fuel in ten years just supply 2% for 30 years. So who cares? We have no choice: we are going renewable, or we will freeze in the dark.
Nuclear kills more birds than even on shore wind. But nuclear has 100 times the pr budget.
Be
Offshore wind requires zero land, has better wind, and is within 100 miles of 80% of the energy use.
Nuclear power creates massive toxic mining waste dumps. Nuclear mining uses more land than land based solar or wind, but you can’t farm under it or raise cattle.
TimS
“Experts warn renewable energy sources offer too little, too late, while anti-nuclear stance increases burning of fossil fuels”
“Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power offer too little, too late, and the anti-nuclear stance of some countries and almost all environmentalists will only drive many nations towards burning more coal, oil and gas”
“Nuclear power can be done safely, and with a relatively small environmental footprint,” said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington DC.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cop21-world-must-embrace-nuclear-power-to-save-planet-from-climate-change-claim-leading-scientists-a6759236.html
“Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-option-say-top-scientists-9955997.html
“Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists”
“Nuclear power – being far the most compact and energy-dense of sources could also make a major, and perhaps leading, contribution.”
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=106612
“Two-Thirds of Scientists Support Building More Nuclear Power Plants”
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/two-thirds-scientists-support-building-more-nuclear-power-plants#.lssnb2:IWk
“Nuclear energy today is broadly recognized by scientists, scholars, and analysts as an environmentally positive technology with risks, such as they are, overwhelmingly outweighed by its environmental benefits. Such is the consensus on this question that mainstream environmental leaders no longer attempt to contest it.”
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus/the-great-green-meltdown
Be
Nuclear is short of fuel in ten years. Nuclear can’t solve anything, and anyone who says it can is incredibly ignorant.
It takes on average of 12 years to site and install , with 11 reactors now over 20 years and counting.
In 20 years time, solar, which has doubled every 2 years or so, and dropped 20% in cost each times, will have multiplied 1000 times from it’s current 1-2% of electricity: obviously more than the world will ever need, cheaper and forever. Wind is similar. add waste to fuels, hydro, efficiny, and electric vehicles and it’s 24/7 forever, cheaper, cleaner, safer.
Nuclear power has already produced billion of tons of mining wastes supplying just 2% of the world energy for only 30 years. BILLIONS OF TONS. not a coke can per person, tons.
Nuclear industry does spend billions of dollar on pr and influence per year. what do you think that buys? You really believe top and a majority of scientists support nuclear power? really? Ask the union of concerned scientists. Oh, they didn’t, did they.
The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf
“As we look to the future, presently known resources
fall short of demand.”
Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
fig 20 also show shortfall.
How ignorant could the scientists who advocate nuclear be?
TimS
solar/wind farms, vast landscapes and wildlife’s habitats destruction.
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/kingmohamedv.jpg
http://cdn.spectator.co.uk/content/uploads/2013/01/111768033.jpg
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/solarmirrors.jpg
http://i2.irishmirror.ie/incoming/article6448549.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/I150915_153340_60981oTextTRMRMMGLPICT000062365016o.jpg
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2013/01/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/
TimS
“suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
” renewable energy sources like wind and solar “cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires.” ”
“continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428358/global-warming-nuclear-power
Be
What part of nuclear power is short of fuel in tens years are people not understanding? It’s denial of course.
What part of nuclear power is the most expensive power there is don’t people get?
What part of nuclear power can’t be built without gov breaks and can’t run one second with it?
What part of nuclear power is the dirties power there is, with billions of tons of radioactive, toxic mining wastes.
The nuclear power industry spend billion on pr and influence: what do you think that is buying?
Rooftop and parking lot PV, offshore wind, efficiny, eletric vehicles, backed with hydro and waste to fuels is more than the world will ever need, cheaper, cleaner, safer, zero land needed, zero rare earths needed, fewer birds killed, fewer people killed, recyclable, no war for fuels needed, no Chernobyl or fukushima disasters, faster to install, no million years wastes.
Solar pv panels are 95% glass and aluminum, tow of the most common materials on earth and the most recycled.
Millions of deaths from nuclear power are calculate to occur in the next 50 years or so using the best science, including LNT and inhaled particle science.
Mining nuclear fuels is 1000’s of times worse than mining glass and aluminum for solar panels.
TimS
“Sun and Wind Alter Global Landscape, Leaving Utilities Behind”
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/09/14/science/SUB-RENEWABLES/SUB-RENEWABLES-articleLarge.jpg
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/solarpanelsa.jpg
http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2648977.1447059117!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2015/10/the-dramatic-landscape-of-chinas-ga/g20_RTX13UDX/main_900.jpg?1445449263
http://www.anu.edu.au/files/styles/anu_full_920_518/public/event_submission/Solar%20array%20desert%20lower%20res.jpg?itok=9tHVhxFW
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/science/earth/sun-and-wind-alter-german-landscape-leaving-utilities-behind.html
http://www.cecenvironment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/solar-panels2.jpg
http://commdiginews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BING_Solar_PowerV2.png
TimS
Luckless birds and bats.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/wind-bird-kill-630×354.jpg
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-EF794_3ivanp_P_20140822181123.jpg
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Textos/Fotos/2949F1.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ott6IJXwCDc/VRQOGQkvaoI/AAAAAAAAuB0/F6AtxxMbbGU/s1600/birds-wind-turbine.jpg
http://consciouslifestyles.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/wind-turbine-bird-kill1.jpg?w=300&h=205
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-CK046_BIGSOL_P_20140212180350.jpg
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Screen-Shot-2014-09-02-at-2.15.21-PM.png
http://drrichswier.com/2015/10/02/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
TimS
“Although renewables are on the rise, Germany still depends on coal”
http://www.dw.com/image/0,,18083729_401,00.jpg
“Germany is still burning a lot of coal , much of it lignite from several large German open pit mines.”
http://www.dw.com/en/naidoo-coal-is-germanys-achilles-heel/a-18439936
wind/solar ruins natural landscapes
http://www.dw.com/image/0,,17144184_401,00.jpg
For a carbon-free world, nuclear power is our best option.
TimS
“The story seems to reinforce the fact that every time you vote against nuclear power you are voting in favor of fossil fuels, and this is true even in a country aggressively committed to renewables.”
“Germany still imports cheap nuclear-generated electricity from France. In addition, the Germans have had to switch to coal to compensate..”
“Three Mile Island that killed exactly zero individuals”
“toxic metals – substances which unlike radioactive isotopes have an infinite half-life – that the solar power industry generates. Wind power also has similar deep-seated issues, including usage of vast tracts of land and destruction of bird life.”
“A 1,000-MWe solar electric plant would generate 6,850 tonnes of hazardous waste from metals processing alone over a 30-year lifetime.”
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/the-olinguito-a-new-species-that-looks-house-cat-crossed-with-a-teddy-bear/
Be
Nuclear power is short of fuels in ten years.
The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf
“As we look to the future, presently known resources
fall short of demand.”
Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
fig 20 also show shortfall.
And another:
“In fact, we find that it will be difficult to avoid supply shortages
even under a slow 1%/year worldwide nuclear energy phase-out scenario
up to 2025. We thus suggest that a worldwide nuclear energy phase-out
is in order. ”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713004579
Yes TMI killed people with cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469835/?tool=pubmedTMI
“Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI.
Germany coal use has gone down steadily since going renewable. GHG emissions are down too. Germany buys nuclear at a low price, and sell France peak solar ate a high price. France is going solar and wind and phasing out nuclear.
Nuclear power for just 2% of the world’s energy needs for only about 30 years has created billions of tons of super toxic radioactive uranium mining waste and tailing, 100 times the entire rare earth industry, and solar, wind and renewable require zero rare earths. Solar pv panels are 95% glass and aluminum which are completely recyclable.
The pro nuclear fans always forget about the nuclear fuel mining wastes.
TimS
http://capitolhilloutsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/death-by-renewables.jpg
“The German Energiewende has not resulted in less dependence on the burning of coal to generate electricity and will not do so anytime soon.”
http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/02/german-energiewende-modern-miracle-or-major-misstep/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/germany-abandons-nuclear-power-increases-co2-emissions/
http://www.dw.com/en/naidoo-coal-is-germanys-achilles-heel/a-18439936
http://www.english.rfi.fr/general/20151203-Nuclear-not-so-much-dirty-word-Cop21-it-can-barely-be-heard
wind/solar kills millions birds and bats, ruins natural landscapes.
http://birdnote.org/sites/default/files/storage/wind-turbine-and-birds-changhua-coast-cons-act.jpg
http://www.turbineaction.co.uk/uploads/images/birdkill.jpg
https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/image244.png
http://www.provedplusprobable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/bird.jpg
http://www.swissinfo.ch/image/36808998/3×2/640/426/3b243a23a25043e377769741a52bb91a/sU/058-80227-36809000.jpg
Nuclear is much more ecologically friendly.
Michael Mann
I agree with Rod Adams of Atomic Insights:
Nuclear energy costs can be substantially lowered without the need for continued federal subsidies.
There is enough raw fuel material to last indefinitely, especially through the refined use of already proven techniques for breeding and recycling.
Nuclear energy projects can be encouraged to proliferate around the world without increasing the risk of nuclear weapons use.
Excessive fears about nuclear energy are not justified, but they are encouraged by people with ulterior motives. There’s little to fear but fear itself.
http://atomicinsights.com/nuclear-energy-is-not-inherently-expensive-compared-to-all-other-power-sources/
Be
Incredible. The pro nuclear folks just go into robot repeat mode.
The IAEA, they premier pro nuclear organization shows in the official reports that using the tech we have, nuclear will run short of fuel in ten years. I also listed 5 other paper showing the same thing, and they simply cannot deal with it.
Nuclear projected to be short of fuel in ten years. FACT.
All they have is links to unsupported optimistic folks who say there will be enough. They don’t show how,they just claim it’s so.
Here’s a few more:
http://phys.org/news/2007-03-lack-fuel-limit-nuclear-power.html#nRlv
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
rare metals needed for nuclear. Not enough. Can’t pass 1TW.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/25/world-uranium-symposium/
End Nuclear Power Now, Says World Uranium Symposium
TimS
You ever “go into robot repeat mode”: “short of fuel”, “zero land” … ever repeating same BS based on myths/beliefs and fictional data.
Be
Notice no facts, just denial in the reply.
TimS
Wind/solar energy is financially and ecologically costly.
https://forthewind.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/green-energy-isnt-free-cartoon.jpg?w=490&h=388
https://forthewind.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/unreliable-wind-turbine-fan-cartoon.png?w=490&h=406
http://i2.wp.com/ontario-wind-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/dead-golden-eagle.jpg?resize=300%2C199
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/76/9e/769e75852f97f45a9e099e960659f969.jpg?itok=_hbfcdnh
http://www.windbyte.co.uk/ims/birds/finnish_wt_eagle.jpg
Nuclear is far more ecologically friendly per unit of energy generated.
Be
Solar and wind are available 4 times cheaper than nuclear.
Nuclear not only kills twice as many birds as wind, nuclear kill all the animals including people with billion of tons of radioactive toxic wastes.
Nuclear power is short of fuel in tens years. deal with it.
TimS
statistics, deal with it.
Death/TWh: Solar 0.44 , Wind 0.15, Hydro 0.10, Nuclear 0.04; nuclear is safer than solar, wind and hydro.
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2440/6651/original.jpg
http://nuclear-economics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/12-deaths-per-TWh-e1439383898100.jpg
http://thoriummsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/090114_0157_23.jpg
http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/lg/public/2015/12/12/energy.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Sdvobd0OrSA/Uo5NEg1nN2I/AAAAAAAAAWQ/NRFIhqGalT4/s1600/burning+wind+turbine.jpg
http://millerbrossolar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/rooftop-solar-fire.jpg
http://www.2gb.com/sites/default/files/field/image/20140519/solar_panel.jpg
Be
The pro nuclear folks love to endlessly site the pro nuclear sites that pretend millions of cancer aren’t caused by the radiation from nuclear power. They refuse to use LNT or hot particle theory and the captive industry supports this lie. The link don’t even link to data, they just make the claim. They ignore all the miner cancer and deaths, all the people who successfully sued the nuclear mining companies, the mutations, the cancers, all caused by other things, no matter how obvious it is it was caused by the nuclear power related activities. X-ray tech wear lead aprons and leave the room, but nuclear rower radiation is good for you? don’t be fooled.
http://llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukushimariskcalc.pdf
200k
http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7508/77.full
1-2% of cancer that nuclear industry workers get are from
radiation, proving LNT.
1-2% of cancers are from commercial power plant radiation releases.
http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7508/77.full
Just what LNT predicts.
“Ninety per cent of workers received cumulative doses < 50 mSv All radiation increases your cancer risks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16004188”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469835/?tool=pubmedTMI
“Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI.
Billions of dollar per year spent on pr and influence. the pro nuclear and fossils folks repeatedly caught conspiring to lie and destroy solar and wind.
How many commenters can you buy for 100,000 dollar per year? and that’s chump change.
The pro nuclear folks here have repeated proven false claims over and over again. Like claiming rare earths, or land are needed for solar and wind. Like refusing to deal with the simple fact the nuclear is short of fuels in ten years.
Michael Mann
There is no credible report of any increase in cancer from Three Mile Island. Your implication that only someone paid to comment would post pro nuclear comments is easy for me to disprove, I have never been told to comment, never been paid to comment your statement is definitely false, proving that you post without any data to back it up. The only known false claims are yours.
Michael Mann
I hope people realize nuclear energy has the potential to save the world.
Be
I hope people realize nuclear energy has the potential to destroy the world. Fukushima may have already killed the pacific. ENENews.
Nuclear power for just 2 years of the world’s energy demand is short of fuel in ten years.
When is that going to sink in?
Nuclear power cost 4 times available solar and wind.
When is that going to sink in?
Nuclear power takes 12 years average to site and build. It produces zero energy the whole time.
When is that going to sink in?
TimS
ENENews is a scaremonger website notoriously anti-nuclear, that uses myths, beliefs, conspiracy theories, and fictional data to raise irrational fear on misinformed civilians.
They hate an upsetting truth that wind/solar kills much more and produces more impacts than nuclear per terawatt-hour.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/14/even-candles-kill-many-more-than-nuclear-power/#sthash.JSSCXnNw.dpbs
“Harvard Business School Professor Joe Lassiter believes nuclear power is an essential ingredient..”
“..the next generation of nuclear power to combat the dual challenges of climate change and energy poverty (the lack of access to sufficient energy sources in developing countries).”
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/The-Economics-of-Vogtle-Versus-the-Need-For-Nuclear-in-the-Clean-Power-Plan
Be
Future mines are in the IAEA report that shows nuclear power will be short of uranium in 2025.
2 years of the world’s energy demand, 2% of the world’s demand for 30 years, and nuclear power is short of fuels. Why is it still being promoted? Billions of dollars in pr and influence spending by the nuclear industry probably helps.
The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf
“As we look to the future, presently known resources
fall short of demand.”
Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
fig 20 also show shortfall.
Here’s a peer reviewed paper, same conclusion.
“In fact, we find that it will be difficult to avoid supply shortages
even under a slow 1%/year worldwide nuclear energy phase-out scenario
up to 2025. We thus suggest that a worldwide nuclear energy phase-out
is in order. “
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713004579
TimS
“the primary lesson of Fukushima is that nuclear power is far safer than anybody realised.”
“the total amount of people killed by nuclear radiation was zero. The total harmed by radiation was zero. The total private property harmed by radiation was zero. Nuclear radiation hurt nobody.” Tsunami is that caused destruction.
“Later the United Nations commissioned a multi-country task team to investigate the potential long-term health effects on people and the conclusion they came to was that it would be zero.”
http://businesstech.co.za/news/energy/107795/sas-r1-trillion-nuclear-plans-clear-another-hurdle/
Be
Nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years. You will see, as a result, countless attempts to divert attention to this fact and deny it. FACT: NUCLEAR POWER SHORT OF FUEL IN TEN YEARS. start there.
Sadly fukushima shows us that when you control 90% of the media, the DOE and the USA gov, you pull the wool over virtually the entire planet’s eyes.
http://llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukushimariskcalc.pdf
200k
Here’s the deceit: the officials in the industry and the govs will not use LNT and hot particle theory to calculate future deaths from cancers. They systematically under measure and under report the radiation exposure as well. For instance TMI, folks tasted metal, that’s requires a dose 1000 times higher than the official reported. LNT is proven from single cells to the largest studies ever done (not including the militarily study of Hiroshima).
The industry measure overall radiation levels. That’s absurd. An inhaled particles even 1 micron large, is thousands of times more carcinogenic than countless particles irradiating you from outside you body. This is the central lie of Sv or REMS, of the concept of one number to describe radiation that can come from countless diverse sources inside, outside, and in different tissues. The EPA published a list of isotopes and facts for each organ.
Micron particles of even heavy metals float in the air just fine.
Look at this photo of a single 1 micron particle of plutonium in animal
lung tissue, and then understand that the official lie is that dose,
those tracks should be be divided by the whole lung or even the whole
body to give the risk of cancer. Cancers start small, not in whole
organ, but in small clusters of cells, individual cells.
http://nonuclear.se/deltredici.d5.particl.of.pu.html photo of alpha
from plutonium particle.
The nuclear industry spend billion on pr and influence, what do you think that buys? How many bloggers, commentators, scientists, fake web site, you name it.
Nuclear power is killing millions of people with cancers. Don’t worry, it’s less than 2%, so epidemiology studies cannot measure it. it’s only a few million people.
TimS
No evidence against nuclear, there are just myths/beliefs and fictional data.
Against wind/solar there are data, statistics and pictures.
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/76/9e/769e75852f97f45a9e099e960659f969.jpg?itok=_hbfcdnh
http://i2.wp.com/ontario-wind-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/birdcartoon.jpg
http://i2.wp.com/ontario-wind-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/dead-golden-eagle.jpg?resize=300%2C199
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2440/6651/original.jpg
Wind/solar will cause the death of billions of birds and bats and destruction of natural landscapes unless the governments create laws to force people to install PV on their rooftops or bladeless windmills in their backyards in order to keep the remaining wildlife’s habitats untouchable.
Michael Mann
Knowledge is better than fear, the more you know, the more nuclear power makes sense. Nuclear power can change the world, with safe, abundant, clean energy, we can make the world a better place for everyone!
Be
Renewable power can change the world, with safe, abundant, clean energy we can make the world a better place for everyone! Cheaper, safer and forever.
Nuclear power: Deadly, expensive and short of fuel.
But the pro nuclear parrots just repeat their mantra. Polly want a reactor?
Michael Mann
Nuclear power plants in the USA just set another capacity factor record in 2015!
NEI said 99 operating power plants in 30 states posted an estimated average capacity factor of 91.9 percent, based on preliminary 2015 data. That number surpasses the industry’s prior record set in 2007 by one-tenth of a percentage point. Capacity factor measures the total electricity generated as a percentage of potential generation for the entire year. http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2016/01/us-nuclear-power-plants-set-average-capacity-factor-record-in-2015.html
Be
Nuclear power plants capacity factor is inversely proportional to the maintenance and inspection time.
They don’t tell you that.
The higher the capacity factor, the less time for maintenance and safety inspections.
I mean we all know big money cut corners till thing break and people die.
So old reactors beyond their design lifetimes, are being pushed to the limit for maximum profit and minimum time and money for maintenance and safety inspection.
Does this sounds like a good thing to you?
Let’s really look at the capacity factor argument too. Nuclear power plants take 12 years average to build while producing zero power. Then they take 50 years to decommission while not producing any power. Then there’s the million years waste storage.
While say solar pv panels go up in weeks, last 30+ years, then come down in weeks and are recycled since they are 95% glass and aluminum.
So at the macro level of decades, nuclear has a terrible capacity factor compared to solar.
Oh, and nuclear is short of fuel in ten years.
TimS
It is ever more undeniable, ever clearer, that nuclear energy has an outstanding safety record even when it is unbiasedly compared to wind/solar.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#37c061b649d2
Nuclear power is our best carbon-free ecologically friendly option.
Be
Nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years according to the IAEA, search below.
Nuclear power costs 4 times available solar and wind now. In the 12 years it will take to install the nuclear plants, solar and wind will be 16 times cheaper, and have been producing energy from the start. Nuclear will have produced noting but debt and pollution.
Solar, wind, ecars, efficiny, backed by hydro and waste to fuels is all the world will ever need, forever. forever, forever, FOREVER…and the ONLY combination that can supply the 12B people expected with a first world energy lifestyle.
The safety record of nuclear never include the cancers from the whole cycle: mining billion of tons of heave metal radioactive toxic tailing and contaminating whole water supplies.
They never include LNT and hot particle calculated deaths. They rely on the nuclear power exporting nations captive political agency for data. Like the DOE which equals the Atomic Energy Commission. Really, look it up. Of WHO which is captive to the IAEA. Really, look it up.