Comments on: Could Hybrid Nuclear Plants Help Stem Global Warming?

By: Others

Others — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:45:00 +0000

Actually Solar Thermal power can also provide both Power and Heat using the Hot Water. In summers, the heated water can be user for power generation while in winter, the heated water can be used for space heating.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 10 Nov 2013 03:48:00 +0000

Yep, people are so eager to snuggle up to nuclear plants in order to warm their tootsies.

By: Others

Others — Sun, 10 Nov 2013 03:32:00 +0000

Lot of energy from nuclear plants is wasted as heat and that can be used for district heating just like the co-generation plants in New York City.

By: globi

globi — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 18:34:00 +0000

Besides that there is already enough hydro storage capacity for back-up power (longer than any night and dead calm period combined anyway): http://www.claverton-energy.com/european-hydro-capacity-compared-to-the-demand-for-electricity.html
(And you don’t need to build more dam to increase power on existing dams.)
Since the heating and hot water sector needs to be electrified in order to get rid of fossil fuels anyway, you automatically obtain plenty of flexible loads (or cheap storage if you will), you don’t need much back-up power.

Also, it’s cheaper to curtail Wind and PV up to a certain extend than to store it.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 22:03:00 +0000

“By pairing a nuclear power plant with either an artificial geothermal storage system, a hydrogen production plant, or a shale-oil recovery system.”

Great idea Charles. Use nuclear reactors to generate expensive electricity and then store some steam to be used later to generate even more expensive electricity. Wowzer!

Or use some of the steam to extract even more climate killing oil. Hot Diggity Dog!

BTW, Charles, how are you planning on getting that steam from nuclear plants to shale oil sites? Going to be building nuclear reactors at Canadian tar oil sites, are you?

This is about as big a fail as the guy who was going to put a wind turbine on the top of his car and power the electric motor with the wind created by the moving car.

The nuclear fanboys are getting desperate.

By: agelbert

agelbert — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:06:00 +0000

Exactly right! It’s an old propaganda trick that has been discussed right here in detail. Here’s a snippet from the article and my comment on it:

“Typical phases of resistance to renewable energy, as described by Dr. Herman Scheer are as follows:

Phase 1 – Belittle & Deny the Renewable Energy Option

Phase 2 – Denounce & Mobilize Against the Renewable Energy Option

Phase 3 – Spread Doubt & Misrepresent the Challenges in the Disguise of General Support

(Note: reaching Phase 3 doesn’t mean that Phase 1 & 2 will disappear.) width=40 height=40]http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png

Do any of these nuclear nuts ever price in the cost of baby sitting used fuel rods for a few centuries!!!?

Who paid to dig those deep caverns in Finland or Norway to store this poison per secula seculorum?

Do any of these idiots understand cost accounting? Sure they do. They just lie a lot!

It’s no wonder Hansen, a normally clear headed scientist, is back to pushing nuclear power again. It seems these boyz get together and plan a new campaign whenever winter is coming (that is, when they aren’t busy pretending deformities and deaths from Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Iraq!, Navajo Uranium miners, etc.are “old news”.

They prevaricators for nuclear poison are at their duplicity again. Last year they were pushing some madness about, the horror called liquid sodium as a “solution” to avoiding long term waste storage. 　

Yet another “bright” idea. They want to use Liquid Soium (of the fast breeder accidents infamy, by the way) to accelerate radioactive decay of fuel assemblies so they will be A-Okay in ONLY a hundred years or so instead of 100,000 years! Aren’t they so thoughtful and kind?

One more thing. These pro nuke liars never mention the cost of paying nuclear scientists and technicians versus PV panel and Wind technicians and maintenance personnel.

Why? Because the word “nuclear” is code for $$$$$$ and they just don’t want to let go of their poisonous cash cow. To hell with them!

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/nuclear-poisoning-of-the-pacific/

By: Dan Pangburn

Dan Pangburn — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 19:07:00 +0000

Carbon dioxide change
has never had a significant influence on climate and never will. Find out what
actually has driven average global temperature at http://danpangburn.blogspot.com/

By: Börje Widerberg

Börje Widerberg — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:26:00 +0000

Nuclear Power today is not cheap, it´s extremely expensive and used as a back-up Power source will be even more expensive. The best short term solution for back-up Power to renewables is probably gas which is easily dismatled when the back-up facility is no longer needed.
Börje Widerberg

By: ThomasGerke

ThomasGerke — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:06:00 +0000

Reminds me of the ideas that were floated around in Germany back in 2009-2010, when the pro-nuclear government pushed for a decade long lifetime extension for nuclear power plants.

Nothing more than old theorethical ideas that never materialized and are brewed up again and again.

The only real world application is that these theorethical possibilies are used by those who want to slow down investments into renewable energy sources.

We want more solar & wind, BUT we…
() we need the storage first…
() we have to make our nuclear fleet more flexible first…
() we have to expand the grid first…
() Bla BLa BLa

By: globi

globi — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 13:25:00 +0000

Since renewables are faster, cheaper and can power the world several times over by themselves, there’s no reason to keep on wasting more money on nuclear power.

http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly