Environmental Anti-Nuclear Movement Question

Getting back to the OP, its worth noting that public attitudes towards nuclear power shifted through the 60's, 70's and 80's. It was the 80's that went down.

But if you look at the late 60's and early 70's, there was a lot more public support and more positive attitudes.

You could see this reflected in culture. Godzilla for instance = a nuclear terror in the fifties and early sixties, friend to mankind in the late sixties and seventies, back to being scary and uncontrollable in the 80's.
 
Here in Canada, we got plenty of room. We have so much space, we just do whatever we want. Yesterday, I took up the entire metropolitan area of Washington DC... because I felt like it. And I still had space for a government building, a park, housing, some farms, factories and two shopping centers, and a half dozen wind farms.
Which is not much.

Birds need somewhere to sit. 11% of Canadian tax revenue comes from charging birds for the squatting fees.
Birds? How do birds pay for anything

So do nuclear plants.
A lot less, wind farms are far more spread out. That means you need more of everything with wind farms, a lot more.
In Canada, we put the urinals on the other side of the bathroom.... because we have that much extra room.
It isn't just the room itself. It is all the maintenance cost for that room. Everything is much farther apart so everything is farther away. It takes you longer to fix things and you have more to fix because you have a tons and tons of windmills to maintain instead of one plant.
Uh huh. Well, since you're so good with figures, perhaps you can tell us how much money has been poured into subsidizing Wind power systems in the last 60 years, compared to how much money has been poured into subsidizing Nuclear Power during this same period of time.
Look it up yourself, do you expect me to do all the work for you? Besides what does that matter? That is the sunk cost fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment That money has already been spent.


So.... A thousand wind farms could provide for over 1/3 of Canada's energy requirements! At 1/3 the cost of nuclear!

Shoot!!! What are we waiting for!

Multiply by at least three since wind power actually produces only 1/3 of its nameplate power rating while nuclear is now around 90%. Also multiply the cost by at least 5 because that is the difference in subsidies. The vast majority of the price differential is the fact that wind is subsidized 15X more than nuclear. Also increase it more because the best sites for wind are picked first due to the law of diminishing returns which applies to renewables as much as anything else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns Nuclear plants can be put almost anywhere.
 
a lot of numbers in that post,along two links. Sadly,the links aren't in any way related to the numbers you just state and shift the burden of proof to others. hint: if you say something,its your job to prove it,not the job of others to hunt the internet for to confirm you.
 
a lot of numbers in that post,along two links. Sadly,the links aren't in any way related to the numbers you just state and shift the burden of proof to others. hint: if you say something,its your job to prove it,not the job of others to hunt the internet for to confirm you.

Where are they wrong? The number $7.3 billion for renewables is right there, the $1.1 billion for nuclear is right there. If you think those numbers are wrong show me where you get your other numbers. Mine come from Allocation of subsidies in the United States from the subsidy page. What numbers are you using? The number for the power generation is on the electricity generation page under List of countries with source of electricity 2008 and is marked TW/Hrs/Yr where are you getting yours ? Subsidy/Thw/Hr/.Yr = subsidy per TW/hr/yr. Subsidy TWH/hr/yr renewables/ Subsidy TW/hr/yr nuclear equals how many times more are than the subsidy per TW/Hr/Yr renewables are than nuclear.
 
Last edited:
Which is not much.

True, but we have lots. For instance, the other day, I ordered in a replica at 2:1 scale, of Mount Rushmore. That's right, my Mount Rushmore is twice the size of yours. And it's in my living room. In a corner, near the Foozeball table. I'm thinking of putting a Wind Farm on top of Roosevelt's head, just so he doesn't look so bald.


Birds? How do birds pay for anything

Debit cards mostly. Birds don't carry a lot of cash on their persons.


A lot less, wind farms are far more spread out. That means you need more of everything with wind farms, a lot more.

We got more. We got a lot more. I have a bathroom for every day of the week, and another for guests. My refrigerator is in a different town from the rest of the Kitchen... because we have that much space.


It isn't just the room itself. It is all the maintenance cost for that room. Everything is much farther apart so everything is farther away. It takes you longer to fix things and you have more to fix because you have a tons and tons of windmills to maintain instead of one plant.

On the other hand, it's a lot easier to fix. Replacing a broken windmill part, on average is about $500 dollars. Replacing a broken Nuclear Plant component averages about $50,000.


Look it up yourself, do you expect me to do all the work for you?

I would, that section of the internet is over in the next province. I thought you, in your tiny country would have it conveniently at your keyboard, also conveniently in range of your arms.


Besides what does that matter?

Translation: "Oh oh! He's got me! Oh oh! It's bad! Really bad! My ship is sinking! Quick, how do I get out of this? I know...."


That is the sunk cost fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment That money has already been spent.

Voila!


Multiply by at least three since wind power actually produces only 1/3 of its nameplate power rating while nuclear is now around 90%.

When it's operating. Factor in shutdowns for various reasons, and it goes way down.


Also multiply the cost by at least 5 because that is the difference in subsidies.

As long as you leave out all the subsidies that you don't care about? Got it!


The vast majority of the price differential is the fact that wind is subsidized 15X more than nuclear.

Well, comparing St. Leon to Point Lepreau, the real math is that without subsidies, wind is 1/3 the cost of nuclear.


Also increase it more because the best sites for wind are picked first due to the law of diminishing returns which applies to renewables as much as anything else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

Actually no. I found this little datum, only thirty miles away. A short hike, fought off some polar bears, and here you go:

Archer and Jacobson (4) estimated that 20% of the global total wind power potential could account for as much as 123 petawatt-hours (PWh) of electricity annually [corresponding to annually averaged power production of 14 terawatts (TW)] equal to 7 times the total current global consumption of electricity (comparable to present global use of energy in all forms). Their study was based on an analysis of data for the year 2000 from 7,753 surface meteorological stations complemented by data from 446 stations for which vertical soundings were available. They restricted their attention to power that could be generated by using a network of 1.5-megawatt (MW) turbines tapping wind resources from regions with annually averaged wind speeds in excess of 6.9 m/s (wind class 3 or better) at an elevation of 80 m. The meteorological stations used in their analysis were heavily concentrated in the United States, Europe, and Southeastern Asia. Results inferred for other regions of the world are subject as a consequence to considerable uncertainty.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933.full

The potential capacity seems to be 35 times the current global consumption of electricity. It'll probably be a while before you hit diminishing returns. So, not really a valid argument.


Nuclear plants can be put almost anywhere.

Like on fault lines? Flood zones? ;)

Seriously though, you're derailing the thread, and I'm feeling bad about that.

I'm going to stop replying to you.
 
True, but we have lots. For instance, the other day, I ordered in a replica at 2:1 scale, of Mount Rushmore. That's right, my Mount Rushmore is twice the size of yours. And it's in my living room. In a corner, near the Foozeball table. I'm thinking of putting a Wind Farm on top of Roosevelt's head, just so he doesn't look so bald.
Big living room , since the face's are 60' high. You must feel small in a living with 120' ceilings. ;) Let's get a bit serious here.






We got more. We got a lot more. I have a bathroom for every day of the week, and another for guests. My refrigerator is in a different town from the rest of the Kitchen... because we have that much space.
Do you have a few million you can lend me? I am short of cash! :biggrin:

On the other hand, it's a lot easier to fix. Replacing a broken windmill part, on average is about $500 dollars. Replacing a broken Nuclear Plant component averages about $50,000.
Plus labor costs plus something will break down far more often, it is spread over 90 square KM after all.

Translation: "Oh oh! He's got me! Oh oh! It's bad! Really bad! My ship is sinking! Quick, how do I get out of this? I know...."
Not really, it means that I am not going to take a significant amount of time to dig up records that stretch over 60 over something that is irrelevant. If you want to find out something irreverent you look it up. That money is gone.




Then you don't understand what it means, what was spent 60 years ago is irrelevant to today because that money is spent. What matters is what is spent now.


When it's operating. Factor in shutdowns for various reasons, and it goes way down.
Wind farms go down too, big storms damaging the windmills for one thing. Nuclear plant shutdowns , outside refueling are fairly rare. There was exactly one nuclear plant shutdown for a year or more between 1997 and 2006 according to a New York Times article cited in Terrestrial Energy by William Tucker pg 310.


As long as you leave out all the subsidies that you don't care about? Got it!
Just the opposite when you include the subsidies it is at least 5 X as much for wind over nuclear. Wind energy provides some energy so it isn't ALL subsidy just a big majority of it. If they didn't get huge subsidies every wind and solar farm would go out of business in a year, at most.
Well, comparing St. Leon to Point Lepreau, the real math is that without subsidies, wind is 1/3 the cost of nuclear.
Almost certainly not, the windmills themselves got huge subsidies when built so the power company didn't pay full freight. Every solar and wind power company on the planet get huge subsidies for building the windmills and the solar panels themselves. I could run McDonalds out of business if the US government paid for all the food and all I had to pay for is the wages and rent.


Actually no. I found this little datum, only thirty miles away. A short hike, fought off some polar bears, and here you go:
Which means absolutely nothing. I live in Wisconsin, should I calculate the number of dairy cows based on the number of dairy cows in my area? Holy crap the US has a lot of dairy cows because Wisconsin has more cows than people.


http://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933.full

The potential capacity seems to be 35 times the current global consumption of electricity. It'll probably be a while before you hit diminishing returns. So, not really a valid argument.
If we use that land only for wind production. Of course outside the cities we have no need for farms, mines or parkland .:rolleyes: If you are willing to cover every farm, non-forested areas of parks, mines etc. with windmills you can get that much electricity. In the real world...


Like on fault lines? Flood zones? ;)
Point taken but it is still available on more land than wind farms. It needs far less after all.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Actually, the subsidies given to solar and wind are quite trivial compared to the massive subsidisation of the nuclear power industry. Like I've said over and over, your big enemy is Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

New York is subsidizing its nuclear power plants to prevent them from shutting down because it costs less to keep existing nuclear power plants running than it does to subsidize new renewable energy construction.

As for subsidies, you've neglected to consider how immensely nuclear power was subsidized for over fifty years. This is not insignificant, as a lot of that subsidy went into construction costs and concealing decommissioning. The nuclear power industry benefitted from decades and billions upon billions of dollars worth of free rides, and didn't really justify its return.

Not all of the nuclear funding went towards direct subsidies of power reactors. A lot of that money went into exploring alternative reactor designs and developing technologies such as reprocessing and breeder reactors that won't be required for decades. In some countries (France, Japan, and the United Kingdom) they even built and operated civilian nuclear reprocessing facilities at great expense.

Renewable energy funding has been much more restrained and focused on wind and solar energy, which have power production curve issues that are unlikely to ever be resolved. Alternative baseload power solutions such as geothermal energy and marine energy have seen very little funding. More of the funding for renewable energy is going towards direct subsidies.

Even today nuclear sees more funding for research and development than direct subsidies, while renewable power sees the opposite.
 
Last edited:

Delta Force

Banned
You do realize that windmills get in the way of tractors, combines, wagons, and all the other big farming equipment needed in modern agriculture?

That was shown to not be an issue about a decade ago. Even the farm animals don't mind.

turbines-and-tractor.gif
 
Getting back to Godzilla, my point is that if you look at Japan, you see a relatively similar trajectory of social disquiet and loss of confidence in the nuclear industry.

But Japan isn't the United States, and the American Environmentalist Anti-Nuclear movement didn't exist there, not in the same way. The cultural and economic baselines were quite different.
 
Top