Hi, Leeuw, and welcome back.Leeuwenhoek wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2019 11:54 pmIn the USA Democratic party presidential candidates participated in a 7 hour "town hall" on climate change. This produced some interesting reporting about the role of nuclear electric power.
from theverge.comDEMOCRATS ARE DIVIDED ON USING NUCLEAR ENERGY TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate town hall shows split in candidates’ nuclear policies
- The elephant in CNN’s climate town hall isn’t a Republican. It’s nuclear energy.
The end of the article you cite is also worth quoting:
While you've been away, we had a good discussion of the issue over at DWM. The last two posts in it are mine:When you take a look at the bigger picture, nuclear energy isn’t just dividing Democrats. It’s a hot-button topic among environmentalists as well.
Cohen says that if a safer form of nuclear power could be developed without waste and without the risk of meltdowns, it should be considered. There are those who believe new technologies are coming near to that, but Cohen is cautious. “Many climate scientists are attracted to nuclear as a quick form of carbon-free energy, but I consider the management and political risks of nuclear power to far outweigh the benefits,” Cohen told The Verge. “In the words of the great environmentalist Barry Commoner: ‘Nuclear power is a hell of a complicated way to boil water.’” [bolding mine]
andKim O'Hara wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:37 pmOne of our think-tanks has just come out with a report saying what I've been saying about nuclear, i.e. it's too expensive and too slow.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-27/ ... a/11450850Australia's continuing renewable energy boom means the development of nuclear power is not a viable option, a new report from public policy think-tank the Australia Institute has concluded.
With the potential for nuclear power set to be examined by a federal parliamentary inquiry, the institute said the rapid development of wind and solar resources, particularly in South Australia, would render new "baseload" power resources like nuclear uneconomic.
The think-tank's latest National Energy Emissions Audit found that for 44 hours during the month of July, South Australia generated enough wind and solar energy to power 100 per cent of its own demand, with some left over for export to eastern states. ...
The Australia Institute's energy emissions audit for the month July was released today
It found SA's renewable energy generation is setting a "real example" for other states
It also found nuclear energy would not complement a high renewables sector ...
If you would like to comment, either here or there https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f ... 4&start=40, go ahead.Kim O'Hara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:04 amTwo more reports - one from Friends of the Earth and another, by the same author but published in RenewEconomy, which reads like a references list for it. Anyone wanting more data than these two pieces provide is probably going to want a sworn affidavit from the sun to say that yes, it does intend to rise tomorrow morning.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/small-modul ... ars-73761/
tl;dr = nuclear power is far too expensive for anyone to even consider without massive government subsidies, and the "new" small modular reactors are even worse in every respect than the big ones they are supposed to replace.
Meanwhile, I'm sure Democrats can and will keep on arguing but that's not going to worry me too much unless their differences suck so much energy out of their challenge to Trump that we end up with another four years of anti-science anti-environment maladministration.