+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 54
Latest: abrogard
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16388
Total Topics: 269
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 1155
(April 20, 2021, 12:50:06 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable Energy Technology  (Read 1674 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
An EXCELLENT example of how the originally claimed "TOO CHEAP TO METER" Nuclear Power Plant Electricity has ALWAYS been Prohibitively EXPENSIVE but PROVIDED by GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY born of behind the scenes nuclear advocate arm twisting (i.e. CORRUPTION)  >:(

Hinkley C Nuclear Power Plant To Get Twice The Rate As Solar PV  From UK Government ???

White Elephant

Radioactive Poisonous White Elephant

In a demonstration of how out of touch the UK government is with public opinion, it intends to pay approximately twice as much for electricity from the proposed Hinkley C nuclear power plant near Bristol than is paid for electricity from solar power in Europe. With high public support for solar PV and low support for nuclear, that’s quite absurd. >:( It’s also very absurd from an economic standpoint. :P

Dr David Toke of the University of Aberdeen writes: “Looming large over the UK Government’s EU state aid application for Hinkley C is the charge that this deal will distort the EU’s internal market, in particular to undercut solar pv arrays in Germany over 10 MW in size. Such arrays are no longer eligible to receive premium prices under the German feed-in tariff system. Such plant will only receive the wholesale electricity price, which is less than half the rates to be paid to Hinkley C.”

Dr William Nuttall of the Open University writes: “Today’s news is that a two reactor power station is to be built at Hinkley Point near Bristol capable of supplying 3,340MW, or roughly 7% of British electricity in the 2020s. This has come at a price, called the ‘strike price’. French company EDF Energy, the lead firm of the construction consortium, has secured a long-term commitment from the government that the nuclear-powered electricity it generates will be bought at the hefty price of £92.50 per megawatt hour. That wholesale price is almost double today’s market price, and isn’t far off what the end consumer is paying today to keep their lights on. When wholesale prices meet retail prices things are unsustainable. Don’t forget that between power generation and use there are businesses that deal with transmission, distribution and supply, and they all need their cut.”

Furthermore, as a summary by Craig Morris of Renewables International indicates, the payments are supposed to be guaranteed even if electricity is not provided to the grid    :o >:( because of curtailment, and the guarantee is supposed to last for 35 years, which would be from 2023 (if the power plant is miraculously built on time) to 2058.  ???

With the guaranteed price already well above what solar and wind power cost (and their costs continuously declining), the taxpayer commitment for this power plant is so crazily high that it seems this story should be coming from The Onion rather than reality.

The UK’s move to subsidize nuclear power to such an insane degree is simply astonishing.

Dr Toke has more on how this commitment goes completely against EU rules:

The fact that the Hinkley C deal distorts the EU’s internal market to give a state aid to nuclear power that is not available to renewable energy directly flies in the face of the EU’s state aid regulations. Under these rules it is permissable to give premium price incentives to renewable energy, subject to clearance by the EU Commission that they have been applied according to the correct procedure. However, state aid for non-renewable energy, while not necessarily illegal under EU rules, has to be the subject of a special application. The issue that arises here is that the UK Government, in effect, is wanting to give priority state aid in the EU electricity market to a fuel which has no exemption over and above a fuel which does have an exemption.

The UK is going to be increasing trade in electricity along with the others, with increased electricity interconnector capacity helping this. But what is going to be happening now? British policy will be giving a state-aided competitive advantage to nuclear power in this cross border trade over and above renewable energy. This threatens to directly contradict EU competition and internal market policy and law.

This issue will be a prominent factor in the European Commission’s investigations in the UK Government’s application for state aid for Hinkley C (for which it has recently notified the Commission). Renewable generators across the EU will be pointing out how the UK policy may be contravening EU law. Analysts will remember that it took a case at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to establish the right of the German state to give premium prices to renewable energy. What would the ECJ say about a case where nuclear power was being given priority premiums in the EU electricity market against renewable energy? I can see no basis in law for this, as discussed above.


Agelbert NOTE:the nuclear power industry, TERRIFIED of renewable Energy, is CHEATING to undercut Renewable Energy and RIDICULOUSLY PAD the rate for Nuclear Power plant Electricity BEFORE a plant is even BUILT AND guarantee it DECADES into the future!

Now consider what THOSE subsidies and incentives activity would mean if they were applied to renewable energy. ;) Exactly! nuclear power AND fossil fuels would be priced out of the market IN A HEART BEAT!

There is always some money in CORRUPTION.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2021, 12:23:38 pm by AGelbert »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
A Polite Discussion With a Nuke Puke In March of 2011
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2013, 06:56:27 pm »
On of the more polite Agelbert exchanges with a nuke puke (claimed to be a materials engineer with over 30 years experience in nuclear power plant siting, building, operating and maintenance costs) during March of 2011.


Atomsk's comments are spot on!

Droll Troll had the brass to claim everything was "all good" at Fukushima. I claimed from the start that the reactor vessels had been **** by the earthquake even BEFORE the tsunami. History has proven me right and Droll Troll a bald faced liar.

Also, Vermont Yankee will, thankfully, CLOSE by the end of 2014. Droll Troll Bill had been claiming that it was "cost effective" to keep Vermont Yankee running. He also expresssed dismay abut my "adversarial" dialogue.

Agelbert snark added today along with emoticons
Bill (Droll Troll)

One of the questions you asked me the other day piqued my curiosity and I have done some pencil pushing. The following is based on the current GE ABWR, not the Mark 1 used at Fukushima-1. The new reactor is much bigger and more powerful but the per rod data should be pretty close to the reactors with the accident:

Total number of fuel rods: 54,064
Total uranium dioxide in reactor: 379,221 lbs
Uranium dioxide in each rod: 7 lbs
Uranium in each rod: 6.2 lbs
Natural uranium necessary for one rod (uranium going into enrichment): 48 lbs

Uranium cost (48 lbs): $4446  ( costs not included)
Chemical conversion: $ 283   ( costs not included)
Enrichment service: $2114 ( costs not included ) 
Rod fabrication: $1500 ( costs not included) 
Cost per rod: $8143  

Reactor electrical output (gross) 1,356 MW

Electrical output per rod: 25 kw (excluding all the energy required to mine, refine and maufacture it, of course!) 

Electricity generated over 4.5 years: 591,300 kwh per rod

Wholesale value of electricity: $35,478 per rod 

Federal fee for disposal: $ 591 per rod

The reactor design data is from NRC filings. SWU calculation (how much enrichment is necessary) from wise-uranium.org. Uranium, chemical conversion, and enrichment service prices from uxc.com. Rod fabrication is my guess. I assumed a 90% capacity factor. Wholesale price of electricity is contract price from Vermont Yankee to instate utilities.

Good question


Posted by agelbert

Mar 30 2011 - 10:32pm

Thanks for the info. It's a lot to chew on. That 591 bucks fee floored me though. It sounds like one of those externalized costs that we the people get stuck with.

For many decades scientists were flumuxed by the paradox of the required energy for a dolphin to swim and the actual energy it uses. There was no paradox. The problem was the math in fluid mechanics and hydrodynamics. But it is a testament to the sheer bull headedness of the scientific community to cling to their world view in the face of a reality that conflicts with the math they so love.

I bring this to your attention because my baseline for logical premises is reality, not necessarily scientific status quo. No, I don't question the law of gravity but I question a lot of stuff that many scientists do, like putting mice under hard radiation to see effects on a "mammalian biological model" similar to humans. I think it's wrong to torture animals for the "good" of humanity. But that's another subject.

I will continue to balance the costs of anything that generates energy against anything else by adding up the whole enchilada.

If I buy a car that will become toxic waste after 4.5 years, I would consider it prudent to find out what it was going to cost me to detoxify this car, not just offload the toxic waste at the cheapest possible price. I don't subscribe to Wall Street's greater fool theory although that seems to be the MO of corporate executives everywhere.

So thanks again for the info. I'll get back to you with a summary comparison of nuclear energy with, among other things,  pumping with wave action water with thousands of hydraulic rams several thousand feet up a mountain and using it in a pipe back to the ocean to generate electrical energy. That and other crude and simple energy production methods work but there aren't a lot of corporate profits to be had beyond initial fabrication. Inland alternatives exist as well.

Finally, as a materials engineer, you probably know a lot better than I do how much more expensive the pipes, valves, fittings, insulation, etc. are in a nuclear power plant as opposed to those in a dam or a wind generator. All these things need to be looked at afresh IF humanity recovers from the current level of insanity.

Posted by Atomsk

Mar 30 2011 - 10:47am

Budgeting for crimes is common practice in business, and if businesses are allowed to do that, the state certainly has that right too :-/

Afaics, responsibility and risk gets concentrated at the bottom, power and payoff at the top. I think that responsibility is how society handles feedback from reality, and if you decouple that from power, you get a positive feedback loop, which will lead to cancerous structures.
I know this sounds really vague and mystical and pseudo-scientific and stupid, but I don't have better words for this.

Source: Agelbert's files. I'm sure you can find this at the Common Dreams web site archive for March, 2011. Note: This was before they adopted Disqus so the handles are in-house.

Renewable Revolution
« Last Edit: May 12, 2016, 03:26:33 pm by AGelbert »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
About those Nuclear Power Plants in Germany that many shills for dirty energy screamed (and still scream) that WE NEED NUKES and Germany is going to have to REPLACE THOSE NUKES WITH (gag!, screech!, moan) COAL!    ::)                    

SNIPPET from Amory Lovins article:

GERMANY's integrated policy network in action:

This integrated policy framework and the solid analysis behind it meant that the output lost when those eight reactors closed in 2011 was entirely replaced in the same year
59% by the 2011 growth of renewables,
  6% by more-efficient use, and
36% by temporarily reduced electricity exports.   Through 2012, Germany’s loss of 2010 nuclear output was 94% offset by renewable growth; through 2013, 108%. At this rate, renewable growth would replace Germany’s entire pre-Fukushima nuclear output by 2016. 

Jul 8, 2014

Amory B. Lovins Chief Scientist

How Opposite Energy Policies Turned The Fukushima Disaster Into A Loss For Japan And A Win For Germany 

Japan thinks of itself as famously poor in energy, but this national identity rests on a semantic confusion. Japan is indeed poor in fossil fuels        —but among all major industrial countries, it’s the richest in renewable energy like sun, wind, and geothermal. For example, Japan has nine times Germany’s renewable energy resources. Yet Japan makes about nine times less of its electricity from renewables (excluding hydropower) than Germany does. 

That’s not because Japan has inferior engineers or weaker industries, but only because Japan’s government allows its powerful allies—regional utility monopolies—to protect their profits by blocking competitors.  >:(  Since there’s no mandatory wholesale power market, only about 1% of power is traded, and utilities own almost all the wires and power plants and hence can decide whom they will allow to compete against their own assets, the vibrant independent power sector has only a 2.3% market share; under real competition it would take most of the rest. These conditions have caused an extraordinary divergence between Japan’s and Germany’s electricity outcomes.

Full article at link below: 


Expect pro-nukers and fossil fuelers to claim that the U.S. is not Germany or Japan so, uh, that PROVES we DO NEED NUKES and anybody that says different does not understand "supply and demand" and is stupid, math challenged, ignorant and most of all NOT thinking "profitably"! 

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Renewables Help Push Nuclear Giants to Brink of Collapse   ;D

Paul Brown, Climate News Network | November 24, 2014 9:10 am

Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors in south-west England are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial backing from China and Saudi Arabia—while the British government considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white elephant.


Early stages of construction on the Flamanville 3 nuclear reactor in France, which was due to open in 2012. Photo credit: Schoella via Wikimedia Commons

A long-delayed final decision on whether the French electricity utility company EDF will build two 1.6 gigawatt European Pressurised water Reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset—in what would be the biggest construction project in Europe—was due in the new year, but is likely to drift again.

Construction estimates have already escalated to £25 billion, which is £9 billion more than a year ago, and four times the cost of putting on the London Olympics last year.

Costs Escalate

Two prototypes being built in Olikuoto, Finland and Flamanville, France, were long ago expected to be finished and operational, but are years late and costs continue to escalate. Until at least one of these is shown to work as designed, it would seem a gamble to start building more, but neither of them is expected to produce power until 2017.

With Germany phasing nuclear power out altogether and France reducing its dependence on the technology, all the industry’s European hopes are on Britain’s plans to build 10 new reactors. But British experts, politicians and businessmen have begun to doubt that the new nuclear stations are a viable proposition.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, London, said: “The project is at very serious risk of collapse at the moment. Only four of those reactors have ever been ordered. Two of them are in Europe, and both of those are about three times over budget. One is about five or six years late and the other is nine years late. Two more are in China and are doing a bit better, but are also running late.”

Tom Greatrex, the British Labour party opposition’s energy spokesman, called on the National Audit Office to investigate whether the nuclear reactors were value for money for British consumers.

Peter Atherton, of financial experts Liberum Capital, believes the enormous cost and appalling track record in the nuclear industry of doing things on time mean that ministers should scrap the Hinkley plans.

Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe, who wants to invest £640 million in shale gas extraction in the UK, said that the subsidy that the British government would pay for nuclear electricity is “outrageous.”

Finding the vast sums of capital needed to finance the project is proving a problem. Both EDF and its French partner company, Areva, which designed the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR), have money troubles. Last week, Areva suspended future profit predictions and shares fell by 20 percent.

Chinese power companies have offered to back the project, but want many of the jobs to go to supply companies back home—something the French are alarmed about because they need to support their own ailing nuclear industry. Saudi Arabia is offering to help too, but this may not go down well in Britain.

On the surface, all is well. Preparation of the site is already under way on the south-west coast of England, with millions being spent on earthworks and new roads. The new reactors would be built next to two existing much smaller nuclear stations—one already closed and the second nearing the end of its life. The new ones would produce 7 percent of Britain’s electricity.

But leaks from civil servants in Whitehall suggest that the government may be getting cold feet about its open-ended guarantees. The industry has a long history of cost overruns and cancellations of projects when millions have already been spent—including an ill-fated plan to build a new nuclear station on the same site 20 years ago.

The Treasury is having a review because of fears that, once this project begins, so much money will have been invested that the government will have to bail it out with billions more of taxpayers’ money to finish it—or write off huge sums.

The whole project is based on British concern about its aging nuclear reactors, which produce close on 20 percent of the country’s electricity. The government wanted a new generation of plants to replace them and eventually produce most of the country’s power.

Guaranteed Prices   

In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of £37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of electricity in the UK.

The European Commission gave permission for this to happen, despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market. But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which will further delay the project.

Since the decision was made to build nuclear power stations, renewable energy has expanded dramatically across Europe and costs have dropped. Nuclear is now more costly than wind and solar power. In Britain alone, small-scale solar output has increased by 26 percent in the last year.

In theory, there are a number of other nuclear companies—from the U.S., China, Japan and Russia—keen to build stations of their own design in Britain, but they would want the same price guarantees as EDF for Hinkley Point.

With a general election in the UK looming in May next year, no decisions will be reached on any of these projects any time soon. And a new government might think renewables are a better bet. 

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Entergy says it shut Vermont Yankee because it was losing money. Though fully amortized, it could not compete with the onslaught of renewable energy and fracked-gas. * Throughout the world, nukes once sold as generating juice “too cheap to meter” comprise a global financial disaster. Even with their capital costs long-ago stuck to the public, these radioactive junk heaps have no place in today’s economy—except as illegitimate magnets for massive handouts.

So in Illinois and elsewhere around the U.S., their owners demand that their bought and rented state legislators and regulators force the public to eat their losses. Arguing for “base load power” or other nonsensical corporate constructs, atomic corporations are gouging the public to keep these radioactive jalopies sputtering along.


Every reactor shutdown represents an avoided catastrophe of the greatest magnitude.  As the takeoff of cheap, clean, safe and reliable Solartopian technology accelerates, greedy reactor owners struggle to squeeze the last few dimes out of increasingly dangerous old nukes for which they ultimately will take no responsibility. Vermont Yankee alone could require 60 years for basic clean-up. Fierce debate rages over what to do with thousands of tons of intensely radioactive spent fuel rods.

It remains unclear where the money will ultimately come from to try to decontaminate these sites, but clearly they are all destined to be dead zones.

As will the planet as a whole were it not for victories like this one in Vermont. This weekend the No Nukes community will celebrate this accursed reactor’s final demise. 

Many hundreds more such celebrations must follow—soon! 

Harvey Wasserman edits NukeFree.org and works to shut all Vermont Yankee’s mutant siblings so Solartopia can take root.

Activists Permanently Shut Down Vermont Yankee Nuke Plant Today   

* Vermonters are NOT letting Vermont utilities replace nuclear power with Fracked Gas. Construction on a rather large pipeline project is being relentlessly protested, construction snarled and massive cost overruns shouted from the rafters to shut this poison pipeline DOWN! Vermonters are NOT playing games here.

Vermonters like this intelligent, do the math, fellow below are MAKING IT HAPPEN!

Robert Toms‎
 the Vermont Gas Pipeline
October 30 ·

The Vermont Democratic Party is calling around this week urging folks to vote for Shumlin, and making excuses for his position on the pipeline.

Shumlin's numbers have to be weak come Tuesday so he knows he has lost support of many dems . Last thing we want is a Shumlin landslide. He needs to feel vulnerable.

Burlington office: 399-2173
 Montperlier office: 229-1783.


Vermonters resoundingly disapprove of expanding the fracked gas pipeline and sending it under our lake to International Paper.
The Governor has not been listening to us. Protect our state from this massive setback in fighting climate change and call the Governor—tell him what you think of his misguided support of the project. Let’s flood his phone lines!!!

The Public Service Board recently ruled to move forward on Phase I of the fracked gas pipeline to Addison County, despite overwhelming, scathing criticism from the public and concerned, thoughtful, government officials. Opponents have articulated the disastrous economic, environmental, and human injustices created by a pipeline that would have long-reaching negative impacts on our entire state for generations to come. At a time when pipeline explosions are increasingly commonplace in the U.S. it is lunacy to run a pipeline under Lake Champlain to International Paper, potentially damaging the drinking water of a quarter-million people with toxic fracked gas chemicals.

Relentless phone calls have been proven to work—politicians pay attention! The Governor will know we are watching for him to respond to the overwhelming number of calls and we are not going away until he changes his position. This phone campaign was started by a coalition of Vermont landowners and climate activists that go by the name of Just Power. We are just people, and we invite everyone to join us in demanding just power.


· The 41% cost overrun on Phase I of the Addison Natural Gas Project brings the capital costs to $121.6 million, which is $50-$60 million over the company’s original estimate in 2011, and still the utility, Vermont Gas Systems (VGS), refuses to put a cap on its spending.

· The Department of Public Service is supposed to protect Vermonters, but it has not called for transparency. No one outside of VGS can access the numbers underlying the costs and benefits claimed in its filings and marketing.

· $121.6 million of Vermont ratepayers’ money for infrastructure that would serve fewer than 2,600 customers translates into $47,500 per customer hook up!

· Weatherization and cold climate heat pumps or wood pellet stoves achieve similar household savings for a small fraction of that price.

· Although VGS is owned by a Canadian multi-billion dollar company, all of the costs will be borne by ordinary folks in Vermont—the current gas customers, or ratepayers, in Chittenden and Franklin counties.

· There is no public good in raising rates for 50,000 ratepayers to as much as 15.2% above the value of gas service they receive so that fewer than 2,600 new customers can—maybe—save something on their heating bills.

· The dangers/risks of fracked gas pipelines running near residences are inequitable and dangerous. Problems with pipelines are becoming commonplace; over time, pipelines corrode, leak, and explode, releasing massive amounts of toxins into the air, land, and water.

· This is not the direction Vermonters want their energy future to take. At a time when scientists are starting to question whether or not we can prevent the worst of climate change, we do not want to build one inch more of fossil fuel infrastructure. Leave fossil fuels in the ground!

· Natural gas is not a “bridge fuel.” Methane is a vastly more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, some say worse than coal. We have all the bridges we need to create our renewable energy future, now.

· Vermont could save $1.4 billion and avoid 6.8 million tons of carbon pollution if the state invested in efficiency and clean heat programs available to all Vermonters, as called for by the state’s own Thermal Efficiency Task Force.

· The fracked gas industry has been described as a “Ponzi scheme” and a “bubble.” All indications are that when the bubble bursts gas prices will go up, and the so-called savings will vanish. Renewable energy sources are unlimited.

· The rights of landowners have been violated in the easement negotiating process.  >:( State agencies that are supposed to be neutral but which have openly defended the pipeline  >:(, have left landowners to fend for themselves.  >:(  VGS has taken advantage of the complexity of negotiations to pressure landowners to sign contracts against landowners’ interests  >:(.

Vermonters DECORATE Fossil Fueler "utility" building.  ;D

Vermonters to Frackers and their bought and paid for government WHORES: Go ahead, MAKE OUR DAY...

The latest news is that massive cost overruns are FINALLY giving the government a face saving excuse to shut the pipeline down. I'll keep you posted. The peer pressure here against that Fracked Pipeline is ENORMOUS (especially in the light of New York's recent decision to ban Fracking. I expect any pipefitters or other construction workers that bury their conscience for a job can't even buy lunch without a lot of dirty looks.  The way peer pressure is DONE in Vermont is that they look at you, smile, and say, "I know where you live".  ;)  I have received that "message" for not being a local and I take it VERY seriously. But locals have a much more difficult time dancing around peer group REJECTION. LOL!

VPIRG Statement on Fracked Gas Pipeline Cost Increases

By Dylan Zwicky  on December 19, 2014  in Fracking, News and Updates, Press Releases
pipe-dreams-cover ;D
MONTPELIER, VT – Vermont Gas Systems today announced the second massive cost overrun in just six months for Phase 1 of its proposed fracked gas pipeline project.  Project costs have risen almost 80 percent over original estimates for Phase 1 alone.

In July, the Phase 1 price tag rose from $86 million to $121 million – a remarkable 40% increase that sparked new waves of opposition to the fossil fuel project.  Today’s announcement – raising the budget by another $33 million – calls into question the viability of the overall pipeline expansion project.

“It’s time to pull the plug on this fracked gas pipeline before any more economic or environmental damage is done,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.
“The economics for this project were already questionable, given the availability of clean alternatives that can save Vermonters half on their heating bills.”

In light of the increased costs, Vermont Gas is asking the Public Service Board to postpone hearings related to Phase 2 of the pipeline that were scheduled for January.

“Any project that sees its costs balloon by nearly 80 percent in less than a year should be stopped in its tracks,” said Burns.  “VPIRG urges Gov. Shumlin to drop his administration’s support of this project and we ask Attorney General Sorrell to consider an immediate investigation on behalf of Vermont ratepayers.”


Renewable energy=                                 =Fossil Fuelers
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Nuclear Giants Take a Huge Hit   

Paul Brown, Climate News Network | May 31, 2015 10:45 am


agelbert  • 44 minutes ago 

It's nice to see the true HORRENDOUS economic math of nuclear poison white elephants on full display. These welfare queen monstrosities will continue to be championed by the biosphere math challenged nuclear nuts in the USA, of course.

I expect them to show up here and pretend they are the solution to all our energy problems. Prison is too good for them.

"The core responsibility assigned to governments in democracies is the public welfare, protecting the human birthright to basic needs: clean air, water, land, and a place to live, under equitable rules of access to all common property resources.

It is astonishing to discover that major political efforts in democracies can be turned to undermining the core purpose of government, destroying the factual basis for fair and effective protection of essential common property resources of all to feed the financial interests of a few.

These efforts, limiting scientific research on environment, denying the validity of settled facts and natural laws, are a shameful dance, far below acceptable or reputable political behavior. It can be treated not as a reasoned alternative, but scorned for what it is – simple thievery." —George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center founder

« Last Edit: May 31, 2015, 06:30:12 pm by AGelbert »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Another U.S Nuke Bites the Dust   ;D

Harvey Wasserman | October 14, 2015 10:32 am

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Agelbert NOTE: The profit over planet defenders of Job security for the nuke pukes are celebrating a victory coutesy of subsidy swag we-the-people are COERCED to pay.  >:(

05/10/2016 03:18 PM
In the US, First New Nuclear Plant Turns On In 20 Years

SustainableBusiness.com News

The first new nuclear plant in 20 years is about to be turned on in the US, in Tennessee.  :(

At the same time the Tennessee Valley Authority starts up the 1400 megawatt Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Unit 2), it is also looking to add an enormous amount renewable energy - 3.8 gigawatts (GW) of solar and 1.75 GW of wind by 2033.   

Over half of TVA's energy will be zero emissions by 2020.

With enough power for two cities the size of Chattanooga, Watts Bar 2 will replace closing coal-fired plants. But the plant was designed in the 1960s and has been under construction since 1972! It was put on hold during the 1980s and revived in 2007, with the cost almost doubling from $2.5 billion to $4.7 billion.  

A recent Gallop poll finds that, for the first time, a majority of Americans oppose nuclear energy (54%), up from 43% a year ago. Asked every year as part of an environmental survey, 62% favored nuclear in 2010. Even after the Fukushima meltdown in 2011, attitudes didn't change, leading Gallop to conclude that with low gas prices, Americans don't feel the risk of nuclear is worth it. 

The industry has been plagued by cost-overruns and delays, and ratepayers have seen high utility bills, in addition to the dangers (and waste) nuclear plants pose.

Worldwide, the use of nuclear energy peaked in 2006 (438 plants) after booming in the 1960s and 1970s. It supplied about 18% of electricity in 1996, dropping to 11% by 2013 with 388 plants, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report.

Most are in the US (100 plants), followed by France (58), Russia (33) and South Korea, China, India, and Canada (each have 20).

"In a competitive market, you can't even come close to making the math work on building new nuclear plants,"
says Daniel Eggers, a utilities analyst with Credit Suisse, told Bloomberg Businessweek. "Natural gas is too cheap, demand is too flat, and the upfront costs are way too high."

Big Expansion Planned 

While Germany and other countries have abandoned nuclear, China plans to build 56 plants by 2020 and the UK is fighting over a $26 billion new plant. If all the plants under consideration are built, capacity will be 45% higher in 2035.

"New nuclear power would be a real setback in terms of trying to solve the climate problem,"
Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor who maps how 100% renewable energy can be achieved. "Even if there were no issues like meltdown or waste proliferation - which are serious issues - it's just so costly and it takes so long to put up new nuclear reactors that by the time the next set of nuclear reactors are planned, permitted, constructed, it takes 10-19 years. The Arctic ice will be gone," he told Fast Company.

Imagine how much renewable energy we could quickly install at those prices!!
In the US, between cheap natural gas and renewable energy, it's hard to see how nuclear makes sense.

Nuclear Industry Attacks Renewable Energy

Lately, the low cost of electricity from wind and natural gas has been undercutting nuclear, but rather than fighting the fracking industry, the industry fights policies that support energy efficiency and renewables on the state and federal levels.

Utility FirstEnergy was a major factor in Ohio's suspension of its Efficiency and Renewable Portfolio Standards, for example, and has been pushing guaranteed rates for nuclear energy - at a cost of an extra $3.2 billion for ratepayers, reports Midwest Energy News.
"Clearly FirstEnergy was seeing both energy efficiency and renewable energy as direct competitors. The arguments they were using were that these mandatory standards are distorting the market and are costly to ratepayers. But as soon as the standards were frozen, they turned around and proposed a plan that is looking to distort the market and going to cost $3 billion," Allison Fisher of Public Citizen told Midwest Energy News.

While utilities have tiny stakes in renewables, they often have major investments in both gas and nuclear. Most of all, they don't want a shift from centralized to distributed energy.

That's why we see them lobbying against tax incentives for renewables and against solar net metering.

"Renewables and energy efficiency are options that are on a downward cost-curve, and when given the chance, prove themselves highly cost-effective. The major barrier to the take-up of these is the credulity of policy-makers to new, ever more unrealistic claims for new nuclear technologies and the self-interest of large utilities of promoting large technologies because they insulate them from competition    from new dynamic companies," says Stephen Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at the UK's University of Greenwich.

Read our article, 1955: Why the US Chose Nuclear Energy Over Solar

Read the report, Power Shift: The Deployment of a 21st Century Electricity Sector and the Nuclear War to Stop It:   

Website: www-assets.vermontlaw.edu/Assets/iee/Power_Shift_Mark_Cooper_June_2015.pdf
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
06/21/2016 01:34 PM

History Made as Renewable Energy Replaces Nuclear Plant

SustainableBusiness.com News

History is being made in California where, for the first time, an agreement has been signed to replace a nuclear plant with zero emissions energy, rather than turning to fossil fuels.

The nuclear plant is California's Diablo Canyon and the agreement is signed by utility PG&E, labor unions and environmental groups. When the plant closes within 9 years, it will be replaced completely by energy efficiency measures, demand response and solar and wind, backed by energy storage.   

It's a big deal because Diablo Canyon produces 1.1 gigawatt of power - 9% of California's in-state power generation, 6% of the state's electricity and about 20% of PG&E's electricity, enough for 1.6 million people, says NRDC, one of the environmental groups that negotiated the agreement.

This proves energy efficiency and renewable energy can replace aging nuclear plants - the key is taking the time to plan ahead, says Rhea Suh, President of NRDC*
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

Other signatories to the "Joint Proposal" are Friends of the Earth, Environment California, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility Employees, and Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.

"Giant baseload nuclear power plants like Diablo Canyon can't easily be taken offline or ramped up and down as system needs change, which obstructs the integration of renewable resources with variable output into the electricity grid. This worsening problem is forcing the California grid operator to shut down low-cost renewable generation that could otherwise be used productively," explains Ralph Cavanagh of NRDC. Flexible generation options and demand-response are the energy systems of the future, adds Friends of the Earth.

"California's energy landscape is changing dramatically with energy efficiency, renewables and storage being central to the state's energy policy," says Tony Earley, CEO of PG&E. "As we make this transition, Diablo Canyon's full output will no longer be required."

Diablo Canyon is California's last nuclear plant.  ;D

 Under the Joint Proposal, PG&E will withdraw its request to extend the nuclear plant's license fo another 20 years. And it will raise its target for renewables to 55% by 2031, exceeding the state's 50% by 2030. 

The agreement includes provisions to help displaced employees and the community of San Luis Obispo. 

Friends of the Earth (FOE) initiated the process by commissioning a technical and economic report that served as the basis for negotiation. Called Plan B, it details how efficiency and renewables can replace the two Diablo Canyon reactors cost-effectively. 

The agreement is especially sweet for FOE because they were founded to oppose construction of Diablo way back in 1969. They have been fighting the nuclear plant ever since because it is so close major earthquake fault lines.

State and federal regulators have to approve the agreement. It's expected to save PG&E customers at least $1 billion in energy costs.

The US has 100 nuclear reactors, many of which are nearing the end of their lives. In May, the first new reactor in 20 years came online in Tennessee and four are under construction.

A similar negotiation was attempted when California's San Onofre nuclear plant closed in 2013, but in the end about half the energy was replaced with natural gas.

Read the Joint Proposal: 
Website: www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/safety/dcpp/MJBA_Report.pdf


* "We do not need a 'new' business model for energy because we never had one. What we need, if we wish to avoid extinction, is to plug the environmental and equity costs of energy production and use into our planning and thinking. " -- A.G. Gelbert

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley

"We can’t have a healthy business on a sick planet."-- Ashley Orgain, manager of mission advocacy and outreach for Seventh Generation, Burlington, Vermont

"Technical knowledge of Carrying Capacity will not save us; only a massive increase in Caring Capacity will." -- A. G. Gelbert
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Energy| Jul 29, 2016

Plans to Build World’s Largest Nuclear Plant on Hold

By Climate News Network


The price of all renewables is going down as they develop, while the price rises for nuclear power, with safety fears and threats from terrorism pushing costs up.

It is also argued, even by the UK's national electricity grid, that the day of the large power plant is over, to be replaced by small local generators providing electricity near to homes and factories—something that renewables are ideally suited for.

Even France, which has 58 reactors and is building a Hinkley prototype at Flamanville in Normandy, has no plans to build any more. All its new energy projects are renewables and it has plentiful supplies of untapped wind and solar power, which are cheaper.

Full article:


The REST of the story:
Deutsche takes issue with the UK government’s claim that the contract is “competitive with other large-scale clean energy and with gas’.  It notes that this contract would only be cheaper than gas generation if the crude oil price (to which UK gas is linked) averages more than $150 barrel in real terms over the next 40 years. This, says Deutsche Bank, is around 3 times the average oil price over the last 40 years, and a 50 per cent premium to the average oil price over the last 5 years.



Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Could Offshore Wind Replace Nuclear Power?  


August 16, 2016 by Bloomberg

by Jessica Shankleman (Bloomberg) Britain could scrap the 18 billion-pound ($23 billion) nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point and get the same amount of electricity from offshore wind turbines for roughly the same investment

That’s the assessment of Bloomberg New Energy Finance following Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to review whether to proceed with the first new atomic plant in more than three decades.

For the same capital costs, the U.K. could install about 830 new turbines at sea, which would generate 25 terawatt hours a year the same amount of power the Hinkley reactors would produce, according to the London-based researcher.

Aglebert NOTE: Not to mention the FACT that sea side wind turbines in Japan were unscathed by the giant tsunami when all the nuclear reactors were put out of commission or melted down to pollute every living thing around them.

Not to mention the FACT that we-the-people have to bear the cost (i.e. nuclear welfare queen subsidy THEFT) of insuring nuclear power plants because, although private insurers will gladly insure offshore wind turbines, they will NOT insure nuclear power plants.

Not to mention the FACT that Nuclear power plant capital costs CONTINUE after being built BECAUSE they need more fuel rods from polluting mining and manufacturing operations.

Not to mention the FACT that Wind turbine maintenance is much less hazardous, while maintenance  costs are much lower than that of a nuclear power plant. Yes, you need more people (i.e. MORE JOBS!  ;D) to maintain a lot of wind turbines. But the elimination of the COSTS to we-the-people of insuring nuclear power plants, providing sweetheart financing and guaranteed energy price rates more than offsets the cost to employ all these people.

Wind power is a win win for biosphere AND the economy. Nuclear power is the exact opposite.

Full article including energy cost bold faced lies (i. e. nuclear power is 'cheaper' than wind power), doubletalk (i. e. claiming that the wind 'only blows half the time' in order to assert that wind power generating capacity needs to be DOUBLE - wind power is reliable over 80% of the time over the UK ocean.), and whining  about renewable 'schemes' by a spokesman for the EDF nuke pukes


Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Energy| Nov. 09, 2016 11:16AM EST

'Nuclear Industry in France in Crisis,' 20 Reactors Shut Down

Climate News Network
By Paul Brown

A third of France's nuclear reactors have been shut down by industry regulators as revelations emerge about the supply of sub-standard parts.

As investigations into falsified documents and excess quantities of carbon in steel continue, more closures are expected. This is not yet a full-blown crisis for the nuclear industry, but it is putting serious strain on the finances of French nuclear giant EDF and causing electricity price rises across western Europe.

The Chooz nuclear power plant in France, where the industry is being investigated by regulators.

It is also very bad news for the climate. France is reopening mothballed coal plants and burning more coal than it has for 32 years. Neighbors, including Germany, which normally takes cheap nuclear power from the French, are also powering up old fossil fuel plants and exporting the electricity to France at premium prices.

Japan's Nuclear Scandal

France is not the only country affected by the scandal. A Japanese company, the Japan Casting & Forging Corporation, has also allegedly been involved in falsifying quality control documents for parts supplied to reactors both at home and in France.

The Japanese nuclear safety organization is now investigating, but so far no plants in Japan have been ordered to close, partly because most of them have in any case remained shut since the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

This is a drama that has been unfolding slowly for months. But as more forged documents and potentially faulty parts have come to light, the French regulator ASN has begun insisting on shutdowns and inspections to ensure plants are safe.

One problem is that there is too much carbon in the steel components and containment vessels, which will make them brittle. The carbon content is well above specified safety limits, leading to fears that there could be catastrophic failures in plants currently operating.

The second, related, problem is forged, falsified or incomplete quality control reports about the components themselves. Areva, the troubled French state-owned nuclear component manufacturer, is reviewing all 9,000 manufacturing records from its giant forge at Le Creusot dating back as far as 1943. This includes 6,000 parts made for nuclear reactors—some of them outside France.

The anomalies were first discovered in 2014 at the plant being built at Flamanville in northern France. Excess carbon was found in the plant's pressure vessel. This has caused considerable further cost and even longer delays to the completion of the flagship reactor. It has still not been cleared as safe and a final decision will not be taken until next year.

It was the investigations into how this potentially disastrous flaw got through the safety vetting process that led to the discovery in May this year of 400 other sub-standard parts and a mass of falsified quality control documentation. Many of the parts are inside nuclear plants currently operating.

According to Power magazine, an ASN press relations officer, who requested anonymity in line with ASN rules, said more nuclear power plants with suspect parts will be inspected in the next few weeks. "We are now finding carbon segregation problems from components coming from both Le Creusot and Japan Casting & Forging. As for now, there are 20 EDF reactors offline," the official said.

And the Japan Times reported that Japan Casting & Forging Corporation is now also under scrutiny by the country's Nuclear Regulation Authority because it supplied French plants. With most of Japan's nuclear fleet closed since Fukushima, there are moves to reopen some reactors.

Urgent Testing

Shaun Burnie, nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Germany, said: "The nuclear industry in France is now in crisis as a result of the carbon test results, with 11 reactors supplied by Japanese steel ordered shut down and under investigation by the regulator."

"No such testing has been done in Japan … until actual testing is conducted, the NRA and more importantly the communities living near nuclear reactors, will not know what risks the nuclear plants pose," Burnie added.

"The NRA must instruct utilities in Japan to undertake testing as a matter of urgency." He said the priorities are the Sendai-2 and Ikata-3 reactors, the only plants operating.

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Nuclear Power Giants Limp Toward Extinction   

Posted on Apr 16, 2017

By Paul Brown / Climate News Network 

Any lingering hope that a worldwide nuclear power renaissance would contribute to combating climate change appears to have been dashed by US company Westinghouse, the largest provider of nuclear technology in the world, filing for bankruptcy, and the severe financial difficulties of its Japanese parent company, Toshiba.

After months of waiting, Toshiba still could not get its auditors to agree to its accounts [last] week. But it went ahead anyway and reported losses of nearly $5 billion for the eight months from April to December, in order to avoid being de-listed from the Japanese stock exchange.

The company admitted it too could face bankruptcy, and is attempting to raise capital by selling viable parts of its business.

In a statement, it said: “There are material events and conditions that raise substantial doubt about the company‘s ability to continue as a going concern.”

Nuclear Reactors

The knock-on effects of the financial disasters the two companies face will be felt across the nuclear world, but nowhere more than in the UK, which was hoping Westinghouse was about to start building three of its largest nuclear reactors, the AP 1000, at Moorside in Cumbria, northwest England.

The UK’s Conservative government will be particularly embarrassed because, in late February, it won a critical parliamentary by-election in the seat that would be home to the Moorside plant, on the guarantee that the three reactors would be built—a pledge that now seems impossible to keep.

Martin Forwood, campaign co-ordinator for Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, says: “I think the day of the large-scale nuclear power station is over. There is no one left to invest anymore because renewables are just cheaper, and these prices are still going down while nuclear is always up.”

Toshiba and Westinghouse are in deep trouble because the reactors they are currently building—the same design as the ones planned for Cumbria—are years late and billions of dollars over budget. Even if the companies can be re-financed, it seems extremely unlikely they would risk taking on new reactor projects.

Both the UK and Toshiba have looked to the South Korean nuclear giant KEPCO to take over the Moorside project, but the company is unlikely to want to build the Westinghouse design and would want to put forward its own reactor, the APR 1400.

‘There is no one left to invest anymore because renewables are just cheaper, and these prices are still going down while nuclear is always up.’

This would delay the project for years, since the whole safety case for a new type of reactor would have to be examined from scratch.

But the company is already under pressure from within South Korea, where Members of Parliament have urged KEPCO not to take on a risky project in the UK. Twenty-eight members of the Republic of Korea’s “Caucus on Post-Nuclear Energy” have called on KEPCO not to invest in Moorside.

The other nuclear giant present in Britain, the French-owned Électricité de France (EDF), is in serious difficulties of its own. It is already deep in debt and its flagship project to build a prototype 1,600 megawatt reactor at Flamanville in northern France is six years behind schedule and three times over budget at €10.5 billion.

Originally due to open in 2012, its start date is now officially the end of 2018, but even that is in doubt because an investigation into poor quality steel in the reactor’s pressure vessel is yet to be completed.

Despite this, the company and the UK government are committed to building two more of these giant reactors in Somerset in southwest England, and have started pouring concrete for the bases to put them on. These reactors are due to be completed in 2025, but nobody outside the company and the UK government believes this is likely.

So, with troubles of its own, EDF is in no position to help Toshiba out of its financial difficulties. In the nuclear world, this leaves only the Chinese and the Russians who might be capable of taking on such a project.

The Russians will be ruled out on political grounds, and the Chinese are already helping out EDF with a large financial stake in the Somerset project. They also want to build a nuclear station of their own design at Bradwell in Essex, southeast England – another project that looks likely to take more than a decade to complete.

Vast Capital Costs

The problem for all these projects, apart from the vast capital cost and the timescales involved, is that the energy industry is changing dramatically. Solar and wind power are now a cheaper form of producing electricity across the world, and are less capital-intensive and quicker to build.

Despite the fact that there are more than 430 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide and the industry still has great economic and political clout, it is beginning to look like a dinosaur – too big and cumbersome to adapt to new conditions.

Nuclear power now produces about 10% of the world’s electricity, while 40% is from coal and 23% from renewables. The rest is mainly from natural gas.

Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia, says: “Nuclear lobbyists are abandoning the tiresome rhetoric about a nuclear power renaissance. They are now acknowledging that the industry is in crisis.

“The crisis-ridden US, French and Japanese nuclear industries account for half of worldwide nuclear power generation.

“Renewable energy generation doubled over the past decade, and strong growth, driven by sharp cost decreases, will continue for the foreseeable future.” 

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33207
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

SC Utilities Pick Nuclear Option ;D for Reactor Projects

South Carolina utilities announced Monday that they will halt construction of two unfinished nuclear reactors, dealing a major blow to the struggling industry. 

The decade-old projects have been plagued by issues, costing utilities nearly $10 billion dollars to date while being 5 years behind schedule and only 40 percent completed.

The decision and other plant closures and problems this year reflect major issues in the American nuclear industry, including high operating cost, the lack of domestic supply chain due to a lack of new reactors and additional competition from natural gas and renewable energy.  

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


+-Recent Topics

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
July 30, 2021, 12:25:59 pm

🎋 Victories Against the 🦕 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn by AGelbert
July 30, 2021, 12:05:16 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
July 30, 2021, 11:47:15 am

Geothermal Power by AGelbert
July 29, 2021, 06:55:05 pm

What A Nuclear Power Plant REALLY IS by AGelbert
July 29, 2021, 04:06:58 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
July 28, 2021, 11:50:12 am

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
July 27, 2021, 10:53:46 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
July 27, 2021, 12:44:32 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 06:25:17 pm

Renewable Hydrogen Power by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 05:16:13 pm