Skip to main content

View Diary: Nearly Zero-Carbon Grid: An Example (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd like your comment on... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau

    http://www.udel.edu/...

    The point of the study is that renewable energy is the most cost effective way to go. They considered "28 billion combinations of renewable energy sources and storage mechanisms" as a basis for their conclusions. I'd like to know the basis for your conclusion.

    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

    by Just Bob on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 06:22:10 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I certainly agree that a grid can be run (0+ / 0-)

      exclusively on wind and solar - however, my opinion is that 2030 will be too late.

      Every coal fired plant that can be retired MUST be removed from service as quickly as possible.  Using nuclear power plants to do this is beneficial even with the realization that they have issues as well - those issues do not involve the release of large amounts of CO2 which must be our primary concern right now IMO.

      Basically, I think that we need to have a nuclear component to any decarbonization plan to make it as rapid as possible.

      •  What do you suppose the lead time is on (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau

        building nuclear power plants?

        BTW...
        http://www.nytimes.com/...

        All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday. Shutting them all down at once is not practical, he said, but he supports phasing them out rather than trying to extend their lives.
        Dr. Jaczko made his remarks at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington in a session about the Fukushima accident. Dr. Jaczko said that many American reactors that had received permission from the nuclear commission to operate for 20 years beyond their initial 40-year licenses probably would not last that long. He also rejected as unfeasible changes proposed by the commission that would allow reactor owners to apply for a second 20-year extension, meaning that some reactors would run for a total of 80 years.
        Admiral Hyman George Rickover's final congressional testimony 1982
        “In this broad, philosophical sense, I do not believe that nuclear power is worth the present benefits, since it creates radiation. You might ask, why do I design nuclear-powered ships? Because it is a necessary evil. I would sink them all.”
        [...]
        “From a long-range standpoint–I am talking about humanity–the most important thing we could do at present is to have an international meeting where first we outlaw nuclear weapons. Eventually, we could outlaw reactors too”
        There has been much effort to spin the Admiral's words. During my 10+ years in the navy, I never had any reason to think Rickover's words needed any translation. Here's an example of his plain talk as presented by President Carter in White House Diary
        "His long and distinguished career ended abruptly: in late 1981 Rickover's wife heard on the radio that President Reagan had retired the admiral, who was on a new submarine conducting sea trials, and she had to give him the news. Several weeks later, he was invited to the Oval Office and decided to don his full dress uniform. He told me that he refused to take a seat, listened to the president ask him to be his special nuclear advisor, replied 'Mr. President that is bullshit,' and then walked out."

        Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

        by Just Bob on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 02:16:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site