Oh, you don't like nuclear power? Ok, but...

[Unkotare]

Japan?s Coal Imports Rise, Raising Carbon Emissions - Japan Real Time - WSJ



"Japan is on a path to increase its carbon-dioxide emissions because it is shifting to coal imports from more expensive liquefied natural gas.

Recent trade statistics suggest Japan’s LNG demand has peaked even though the country continues to go without any nuclear power plants in operation. Meanwhile, coal imports are moving higher.

In February, Japan’s LNG imports fell 0.2% compared to the same month a year earlier, following a 0.6% slip in January, customs data released Wednesday showed. Imports of thermal coal used to generate electricity rose 4.8% in February year-on-year, following a 17% rise in January, according to the data.

Japan’s CO2 emissions climbed to their second-highest level on record in the year ended in March 2013 because most nuclear plants were idle and fossil-fuel use grew. In the current fiscal year, those emissions are likely to rise again."

 

[ScienceRocks]

Nuclear
Fusion
and a mixture of renewables are the only path.

Nuclear and fusion(maybe hydro) must be the core of the future clean infrastructure.

 

[elektra]

If the AGW nuts were serious, they would advocate building a 1000 nuclear power plants today.

But they are simply, nuts, fools, idiots, activists, anti-american progressive revisionist assholes.

The only solution to the con-job AGW is pure Nuclear Power with a low tax policy that entices Industry to settle and develop in the USA.

Instead, the AGW crowd has chosen to destroy third world countries endlessly/constantly using the natural resources of the world at an every increasing rate.

AGW is a con job, the Green/Renewable conard is the spike through the heart of the USA that kills us, forever.

 

[Old Rocks]

If the AGW nuts were serious, they would advocate building a 1000 nuclear power plants today.

But they are simply, nuts, fools, idiots, activists, anti-american progressive revisionist assholes.

The only solution to the con-job AGW is pure Nuclear Power with a low tax policy that entices Industry to settle and develop in the USA.

Instead, the AGW crowd has chosen to destroy third world countries endlessly/constantly using the natural resources of the world at an every increasing rate.

AGW is a con job, the Green/Renewable conard is the spike through the heart of the USA that kills us, forever.

Nuclear is part of the solution. But only a part. First of all it is far the most expensive of the ways of generating power. Second, sited in a subduction zone, it is a constant source of danger. Third, it must be engineered to be completely fail safe. A disaster in a PV generating plant means no juice. In a geo-thermal plant, damage to the plant and maybe a few acres around the plant. A coal fired plant, damage to the plant, same for natural gas. But disaster in just one nuclear plant could contaminate a whole state. Or more.

Wind is now cheaper than coal in almost all applications. When the grid scale batteries are available, it will be even more useful. PV has come down in price to the point it is competative with nuclear, and far easier to install, and much safer. Geothermal is just starting to come into the picture, and will be a major player as time goes on. It has the additional plus of being a source of important minerals.

As for the rest of your stupid rant, grow up, do some real research, quit being such a fool.

 

[flacaltenn]

If the AGW nuts were serious, they would advocate building a 1000 nuclear power plants today.

But they are simply, nuts, fools, idiots, activists, anti-american progressive revisionist assholes.

The only solution to the con-job AGW is pure Nuclear Power with a low tax policy that entices Industry to settle and develop in the USA.

Instead, the AGW crowd has chosen to destroy third world countries endlessly/constantly using the natural resources of the world at an every increasing rate.

AGW is a con job, the Green/Renewable conard is the spike through the heart of the USA that kills us, forever.

It's clearly because Nuclear reactors to generate electricity scare them more than rising oceans, drowning polar bears, burning forests, and wasting trillions on phoney "alternative" power sources.. AGW can't be that bad if nuclear power plants are worse..

 

[elektra]

If the AGW nuts were serious, they would advocate building a 1000 nuclear power plants today.

But they are simply, nuts, fools, idiots, activists, anti-american progressive revisionist assholes.

The only solution to the con-job AGW is pure Nuclear Power with a low tax policy that entices Industry to settle and develop in the USA.

Instead, the AGW crowd has chosen to destroy third world countries endlessly/constantly using the natural resources of the world at an every increasing rate.

AGW is a con job, the Green/Renewable conard is the spike through the heart of the USA that kills us, forever.

Nuclear is part of the solution. But only a part. First of all it is far the most expensive of the ways of generating power. Second, sited in a subduction zone, it is a constant source of danger. Third, it must be engineered to be completely fail safe. A disaster in a PV generating plant means no juice. In a geo-thermal plant, damage to the plant and maybe a few acres around the plant. A coal fired plant, damage to the plant, same for natural gas. But disaster in just one nuclear plant could contaminate a whole state. Or more.

Wind is now cheaper than coal in almost all applications. When the grid scale batteries are available, it will be even more useful. PV has come down in price to the point it is competative with nuclear, and far easier to install, and much safer. Geothermal is just starting to come into the picture, and will be a major player as time goes on. It has the additional plus of being a source of important minerals.

As for the rest of your stupid rant, grow up, do some real research, quit being such a fool.

Expensive, yes politics are expensive, Democrats and the Courts drive up the price, thanks to Lawyers and needless bullshit laws.

You are a complete dummy.

Geothermal has always been the most expensive,
Solar and Wind follow, that is why all three are subsidized. From free research and development in the State/Federally funded Universities, to free public land they are built on.

As far as pound for pound, raw materials, utilized for construction, it takes less to build a nuclear reactor.

Old Crocks comment is like saying a Semi-Truck costs more than 100,000 Wind Turbines or 350,000 Solar Panels.

Ivanpah cost over 2.2 billion dollars, does not work, and if it does it will deliver 35 mwh.

One must compare construction costs, not Regulations imposed by Democrat/Leftist/Liberals which are designed to destroy our ability to live as a free nation.

Build one or two or three types of designs, Licensed one time, zero lawsuits for a proven technology.

Damage in one USA reactor can contaminate a whole state? It has never happened, never will, unless we allow Obama and Old Crock to design and build it.

Such lies by the leftists, sick, really.

 

[Old Rocks]

Complete bullshit, elektra. You are talking out of your asshole.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/np/np-cost-overruns.jpg

In the dawn of the nuclear era, cost was expected to be one of the technology's advantages, not one of its drawbacks. The first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss, predicted in a 1954 speech that nuclear power would someday make electricity “too cheap to meter.”

A half century later, we have learned that nuclear power is, instead, too expensive to finance.

The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

Of course none of the people here will even skim over this report, but it is the reason that nuclear plants are not being built in any number at present.

 

[HenryBHough]

The only real solution is to go back to the caves.

Increased mortality from lack of heat would reduce human population and the planet would heal.

Believe that?

If so, send money!

Lots and lots of money.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Nobody cares what the Japs do. They're stupidity gave us Fuckishima. What a cluster **** that is. All the radiation California can stand. You'd think the dumb fuckers would have learned after Boxcar the B-29 dropped some payback on Nagasaki or when the wooden city of Tokyo burned like Dresden for days. Nope. We're going to put our reactor on a ******* fault line!

 

[flacaltenn]

Complete bullshit, elektra. You are talking out of your asshole.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/np/np-cost-overruns.jpg

In the dawn of the nuclear era, cost was expected to be one of the technology's advantages, not one of its drawbacks. The first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss, predicted in a 1954 speech that nuclear power would someday make electricity “too cheap to meter.”

A half century later, we have learned that nuclear power is, instead, too expensive to finance.

The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up | Union of Concerned Scientists

That's OLD info.. If you follow the development of ALL our aging reactors, you will see that costs increased ASTRONOMICALLY, the more oversight and regulators were hired. In fact, you can correlate costs with the size of growth of the US Nuclear Regulatory infrastructure.

 

[elektra]

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

Of course none of the people here will even skim over this report, but it is the reason that nuclear plants are not being built in any number at present.

Old Crock. You are liar. We are building nukes in the USA.

When the leftist liberal democrat Marxist can not defend their insane contentions they become brazen liars.

If the green renewable energy nuts are so stupid that they post lies so easily exposed how do they have the intelligence to tell press releases from fact and science. With such low intelligence there is no chance they will survive.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

Of course none of the people here will even skim over this report, but it is the reason that nuclear plants are not being built in any number at present.

Old Crock. You are liar. We are building nukes in the USA.

When the leftist liberal democrat Marxist can not defend their insane contentions they become brazen liars.

If the green renewable energy nuts are so stupid that they post lies so easily exposed how do they have the intelligence to tell press releases from fact and science. With such low intelligence there is no chance they will survive.

Hone the reading comprehension skills there, old boy. In any number. Also note the link is not a press release. And try to find something other than blather to back up your assertations.

 

[elektra]

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

Of course none of the people here will even skim over this report,but it is the reason that nuclear plants are not being built in any number at present.

Old Crock. You are liar. We are building nukes in the USA.

When the leftist liberal democrat Marxist can not defend their insane contentions they become brazen liars.

If the green renewable energy nuts are so stupid that they post lies so easily exposed how do they have the intelligence to tell press releases from fact and science. With such low intelligence there is no chance they will survive.

Hone the reading comprehension skills there, old boy. In any number. Also note the link is not a press release. And try to find something other than blather to back up your assertations.

Old Crock, your post links to a PDF explaining that due to all the government regulations Nuclear Power is expensive, just like I stated, thanks for helping me.

Old Crock, blather and lying is your speciality, which I am pointing out with a simple pic from Georgia.

Georgia Power Achieves Critical Milestones in Historic Vogtle 3 and 4 Pproject | Energizing content from TDWorld

Georgia Power continues to track positive progress in the construction of the new Vogtle units 3 and 4 facility near Waynesboro, Georgia, U.S. The project, among the first new nuclear units to be built in the United States in three decades, has marked numerous significant milestones in 2013.

Old Crock, you can either admit you're a liar, admit you know nothing about what you speak, or prove that Leftist/Liberal/Democrats are vile cowardly snakes by ignoring facts.

 

[elektra]

Old Crock. You are liar. We are building nukes in the USA.

When the leftist liberal democrat Marxist can not defend their insane contentions they become brazen liars.

If the green renewable energy nuts are so stupid that they post lies so easily exposed how do they have the intelligence to tell press releases from fact and science. With such low intelligence there is no chance they will survive.

Hone the reading comprehension skills there, old boy. In any number. Also note the link is not a press release. And try to find something other than blather to back up your assertations.

Old Crock, your post links to a PDF explaining that due to all the government regulations Nuclear Power is expensive, just like I stated, thanks for helping me.

Old Crock, blather and lying is your speciality, which I am pointing out with a simple pic from Georgia.

Georgia Power Achieves Critical Milestones in Historic Vogtle 3 and 4 Pproject | Energizing content from TDWorld

Georgia Power continues to track positive progress in the construction of the new Vogtle units 3 and 4 facility near Waynesboro, Georgia, U.S. The project, among the first new nuclear units to be built in the United States in three decades, has marked numerous significant milestones in 2013.

Old Crock, you can either admit you're a liar, admit you know nothing about what you speak, or prove that Leftist/Liberal/Democrats are vile cowardly snakes by ignoring facts.

oldrock/edthecynic, I hear crickets.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Japan?s Coal Imports Rise, Raising Carbon Emissions - Japan Real Time - WSJ



"Japan is on a path to increase its carbon-dioxide emissions because it is shifting to coal imports from more expensive liquefied natural gas.

Recent trade statistics suggest Japan’s LNG demand has peaked even though the country continues to go without any nuclear power plants in operation. Meanwhile, coal imports are moving higher.

In February, Japan’s LNG imports fell 0.2% compared to the same month a year earlier, following a 0.6% slip in January, customs data released Wednesday showed. Imports of thermal coal used to generate electricity rose 4.8% in February year-on-year, following a 17% rise in January, according to the data.

Japan’s CO2 emissions climbed to their second-highest level on record in the year ended in March 2013 because most nuclear plants were idle and fossil-fuel use grew. In the current fiscal year, those emissions are likely to rise again."

I love nuclear power. Up to the point someone says "Uh-oh...Run!" But electricity has to come from something, and until we perfect fusion reactors, none of the practical widescale solutions are ideal. 6 in one, half a dozen in the other is what it amounts to.

 

[DGS49]

Japan has recently decided to re-start most of the Nuke plants that were shut down in the wake of Fukushima. It is the only rational path forward.

Are we all aware that although F'shima was the "second worst nuclear power disaster in human history," not a single person died from radiation. Not a single person even got sick from radiation.

Are we all aware that even after Chernobyl, only a tiny fraction of the local population had any ill health effects (I think it was kids who were a certain age are more likely to get thyroid cancer, eventually), and 99.9% of the disastrous effects were self-imposed due to irrational panic and fears. More than 100,000 babies were aborted in the wake of the Chernobyl blow-up, and there is no rational reason to conclude that they would have suffered any ill effects at all.

The long-term medical impacts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also greatly overestimated in the public's mind.

The reason why building nuclear power plants is so expensive is the neurotic regulatory framework that forces layer upon layer of design reviews, testing, re-testing, record keeping, and so on. Having worked for Westinghouse for a few horrible years, I can say that we usually spent two or three times the normal commercial price for everything we bought, simply because of the regulatory bullshit (and because the plants take so long to build that the warranties have to last for 5-7 years).

The advent of small modular reactors will reduce the cost of Nuke Power dramatically, if the NRC doesn't **** it up.

By the way, our GREEN friends in Germany will be building fossil plants for the next two decades to replace the lost capacity of the nuke plants they are shutting down. Stupid as ****, if you ask me.

 

[elektra]

Japan has recently decided to re-start most of the Nuke plants that were shut down in the wake of Fukushima. It is the only rational path forward.

Are we all aware that although F'shima was the "second worst nuclear power disaster in human history," not a single person died from radiation. Not a single person even got sick from radiation.

Are we all aware that even after Chernobyl, only a tiny fraction of the local population had any ill health effects (I think it was kids who were a certain age are more likely to get thyroid cancer, eventually), and 99.9% of the disastrous effects were self-imposed due to irrational panic and fears. More than 100,000 babies were aborted in the wake of the Chernobyl blow-up, and there is no rational reason to conclude that they would have suffered any ill effects at all.

The long-term medical impacts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also greatly overestimated in the public's mind.

The reason why building nuclear power plants is so expensive is the neurotic regulatory framework that forces layer upon layer of design reviews, testing, re-testing, record keeping, and so on. Having worked for Westinghouse for a few horrible years, I can say that we usually spent two or three times the normal commercial price for everything we bought, simply because of the regulatory bullshit (and because the plants take so long to build that the warranties have to last for 5-7 years).

The advent of small modular reactors will reduce the cost of Nuke Power dramatically, if the NRC doesn't **** it up.

By the way, our GREEN friends in Germany will be building fossil plants for the next two decades to replace the lost capacity of the nuke plants they are shutting down. Stupid as ****, if you ask me.

waltz mill at the redac or somewhere else?

 

[Againsheila]

If the AGW nuts were serious, they would advocate building a 1000 nuclear power plants today.

But they are simply, nuts, fools, idiots, activists, anti-american progressive revisionist assholes.

The only solution to the con-job AGW is pure Nuclear Power with a low tax policy that entices Industry to settle and develop in the USA.

Instead, the AGW crowd has chosen to destroy third world countries endlessly/constantly using the natural resources of the world at an every increasing rate.

AGW is a con job, the Green/Renewable conard is the spike through the heart of the USA that kills us, forever.

Nuclear is part of the solution. But only a part. First of all it is far the most expensive of the ways of generating power. Second, sited in a subduction zone, it is a constant source of danger. Third, it must be engineered to be completely fail safe. A disaster in a PV generating plant means no juice. In a geo-thermal plant, damage to the plant and maybe a few acres around the plant. A coal fired plant, damage to the plant, same for natural gas. But disaster in just one nuclear plant could contaminate a whole state. Or more.

Wind is now cheaper than coal in almost all applications. When the grid scale batteries are available, it will be even more useful. PV has come down in price to the point it is competative with nuclear, and far easier to install, and much safer. Geothermal is just starting to come into the picture, and will be a major player as time goes on. It has the additional plus of being a source of important minerals.

As for the rest of your stupid rant, grow up, do some real research, quit being such a fool.

Nuclear cannot be part of the solution. We have babies being born without brains around Hanford. Nuclear waste is leaking and causing problems. Japan is dumping 300,000 gallons of nuclear water into the pacific ocean everyday. This cannot go on. There are other, cleaner alternatives without the global disasters. I don't care if solar costs more money, no one had birth defects due to solar power.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Japan has recently decided to re-start most of the Nuke plants that were shut down in the wake of Fukushima. It is the only rational path forward.

Are we all aware that although F'shima was the "second worst nuclear power disaster in human history," not a single person died from radiation. Not a single person even got sick from radiation.

Are we all aware that even after Chernobyl, only a tiny fraction of the local population had any ill health effects (I think it was kids who were a certain age are more likely to get thyroid cancer, eventually), and 99.9% of the disastrous effects were self-imposed due to irrational panic and fears. More than 100,000 babies were aborted in the wake of the Chernobyl blow-up, and there is no rational reason to conclude that they would have suffered any ill effects at all.

The long-term medical impacts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also greatly overestimated in the public's mind.

The reason why building nuclear power plants is so expensive is the neurotic regulatory framework that forces layer upon layer of design reviews, testing, re-testing, record keeping, and so on. Having worked for Westinghouse for a few horrible years, I can say that we usually spent two or three times the normal commercial price for everything we bought, simply because of the regulatory bullshit (and because the plants take so long to build that the warranties have to last for 5-7 years).

The advent of small modular reactors will reduce the cost of Nuke Power dramatically, if the NRC doesn't **** it up.

By the way, our GREEN friends in Germany will be building fossil plants for the next two decades to replace the lost capacity of the nuke plants they are shutting down. Stupid as ****, if you ask me.

"Not a single person even got sick from radiation."

Dunno where you got that from, but it's absolutely untrue.

Fukushima 50 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Originally there were approximately 800 workers on 11 March 2011, the day the earthquake and tsunami struck. On 15 March, workers deemed non-essential were withdrawn by the Tokyo Electric Power Company. A total of around 750 workers left due to increased risk and consequently left around 50. It was on this day that the media started to call the remaining workers the "Fukushima 50".

However, on the morning of the 16 March the remaining workers had to be evacuated for a brief period of time due to a radiation spike which was detected which could be harmful to the workers' health. It was reported that when they returned to the plant, a further 130 or so workers joined their colleagues to total of around 180 to stabilize the reactors.[34] The number of workers rose to 580 on the morning of the 18 March.[1] By 12 April, approximately 700 workers were working on-site."

In addition, there's current lawsuits being filed for injuries to responding US military forces.