China may build an undersea train to America

[Nikitn]

No good arguments yet in your first sentence you betrayed you don't actually understand the economics. The new UK nuclear reactor was given a price guarantee to sell electricity at more than 100% of its current wholesale cost with adjustments for inflation as time goes on. Price guarantees are not a shock because if you want private capital to invest such sums this is what they ask for.

So it received a small government subsidy (a bit over 100% of its current price). What is your point? What does focusing on minor cases have to do with the big picture; the astonishing amount of political opposition nuclear power receives?

This is just one of many good arguments against it, but if you don't know the fundamentals I'm sorry but I'm not wasting my time.

No I haven't done detailed research on minor economic subsidies of specific nuclear plants in the UK; but that's obviously irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The point still stands that nuclear power is by far the best (safe, cheap, clean) alternative for subsidizing clean energy, yet all the government money goes to subpar hippie-projects.

Africa is the next likely powerhouse in terms of GDP growth and cheap manufacturing.

I can't see physical land links being a bad thing if it is possible.

Which parts? Because to attract that kind of investment you need proper infrastructure, a minimum of education and political stability.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

We'd need Carbon Nanotube cables and structural Graphene to build them anyways.

EDIT: Damn I missed a whole page. That was in regards to a Trans-Oceanic bridge.

[Denny Crane!]

A bit over its current price Nikitin?

If you have indeed done your research how are you misunderstanding me that it is double the normal price not a bit over its current. Perhaps I phrased that badly but if you don't already know this I question whether you accidentally meant to say you were researching salmon farming instead of UK nuclear power . Bit of a glaring point.

Double the current price of electricity and linked to inflation so it remains so.

[Denny Crane!]

And god knows if providing DOUBLE the normal price that is not even the only subsidy and also completely undermines the idea that electricity is to cheap for nuclear at present. They are getting a vastly inflated price.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Holy Grail would be Fusion.

Fission reactors are for countries who feel the need to have energy independence, if they have no secured sources of oil reserves.

[Denny Crane!]

The Holy Grail would be Fusion.

Fission reactors are for countries who feel the need to have energy independence, if they have no secured sources of oil reserves.

Fusion and Thorium shows a great deal of potential promise, probably a lot sooner than Fusion.

[Nikitn]

Yeah, thorium and fusion are the ways to go. Can't wait for my nuclear physics course next year.

A bit over its current price Nikitin?

I misunderstood you. I thought you said a bit above 100% of the current price (100% of current price = current price).

If you have indeed done your research how are you misunderstanding me that it is double the normal price not a bit over its current. Perhaps I phrased that badly but if you don't already know this I question whether you accidentally meant to say you were researching salmon farming instead of UK nuclear power . Bit of a glaring point.

Double the current price of electricity and linked to inflation so it remains so.

Fair enough, so there's a cut-throat market for nuclear power in the UK. I haven't done in depth research on the economics. But what does this have to do with government funding being used inefficiently due to irrational fears?

At any rate, I am aware that there are tough economic issues with nuclear power now a days, but that doesn't mean nuclear power is unprofitable. In fact, despite some subsidies for that new UK plant, the power market has been liberalized in Western Europe and as part of that, government funded nuke plant construction there has become a thing of the past. How easy is it for private companies to take on the massive burden and risk of construction a new nuclear plant, when gas is cheap and efficient? Hell, governments in Germany and Japan are actively fighting nuclear power due to vocal environmentalists who think nuclear power = chernobyl. Aren't the Germans actually reopening coal plants due to the phasing out of nuclear ones?

The main reason I brought up nuclear power in the first place was to show how unlikely we are at actually curbing the (accelerating!) CO2 emissions to a sustainable level. Seems to me it's better to just prepare for the consequences at this point.

And could you substantiate on the following claim? I am asking out of curiosity.

Africa is the next likely powerhouse in terms of GDP growth and cheap manufacturing.

I can't see physical land links being a bad thing if it is possible.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I can see countries like Tanzania, Kenya, and South Africa industrializing like India and China have, although a decent ways in the future. Whole place is loaded with resources like industrial diamonds, uranium, etc.

[Denny Crane!]

Yeah, thorium and fusion are the ways to go. Can't wait for my nuclear physics course next year.

I misunderstood you. I thought you said a bit above 100% of the current price (100% of current price = current price).

No a 100% on top of the current price linked to inflation to make sure it stays that way.

Fair enough, so there's a cut-throat market for nuclear power in the UK. I haven't done in depth research on the economics. But what does this have to do with government funding being used inefficiently due to irrational fears?

It doesn't but then that isn't what you said. "Honestly there isn't one single reasonable argument against nuclear power." Well I think having to pay double the cost for your electricity through the life of the plant is a damn good argument against it.

At any rate, I am aware that there are tough economic issues with nuclear power now a days, but that doesn't mean nuclear power is unprofitable. In fact, despite some subsidies for that new UK plant

Not some, subsidies all over the place, massive massive amounts far in excess of anything that is paid to any other form of technology including the most expensive wind projects. You obviously have a thing for nuclear so you are fundamentally intent on being absolutely dishonest about this it seems. The most subsidised form of power to a huge degree far and above any other form of power. The subsidies I have mentioned are only a start as I did say, there is also a £10 billion credit guarantee underwritten by the government.

, the power market has been liberalized in Western Europe and as part of that, government funded nuke plant construction there has become a thing of the past. How easy is it for private companies to take on the massive burden and risk of construction a new nuclear plant, when gas is cheap and efficient? Hell, governments in Germany and Japan are actively fighting nuclear power due to vocal environmentalists who think nuclear power = chernobyl. Aren't the Germans actually reopening coal plants due to the phasing out of nuclear ones?

How easy is it? No private capital wish to invest in it without mass subsidy or credit guarantees underwritten by the government that is how easy it is. Every current build, the very few that exist in the west particularly (UK Finland canada USA) experience mass delays and cost over runs. There is a lot of hype over new tech and new ways of building them, they aren't what are proposed or what have been built and very much failed in cost projections and time.

The main reason I brought up nuclear power in the first place was to show how unlikely we are at actually curbing the (accelerating!) CO2 emissions to a sustainable level. Seems to me it's better to just prepare for the consequences at this point.

I'd rather wait for some decent technology than beggaring economies for the sake of a little energy.

And could you substantiate on the following claim? I am asking out of curiosity.

Started happening years ago.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle...art-making-lot

I know people talk about the need for infrastructure but its a big continent and its not just a bunch of black people in reed skirts chucking spears at people.



or?





or?

[Condottiere 40K]

I believe the Indians are supposed to be busy beavering away at Thorium, since they have a very vested interest in energy independence, especially if more Indians start using electrical appliances. Don't know about the PRC.

[Nikitn]

No a 100% on top of the current price linked to inflation to make sure it stays that way.




It doesn't but then that isn't what you said. "Honestly there isn't one single reasonable argument against nuclear power." Well I think having to pay double the cost for your electricity through the life of the plant is a damn good argument against it.

I was speaking in a specific context, looking at the big picture on renewable technologies.

You obviously have a thing for nuclear so you are fundamentally intent on being absolutely dishonest about this it seems.

What a bunch of nonsense. If there's something I'm not aware of, it doesn't mean I'm trying to lie to you or whatever you got into your head that I am doing.

Not some, subsidies all over the place, massive massive amounts far in excess of anything that is paid to any other form of technology including the most expensive wind projects. The most subsidised form of power to a huge degree far and above any other form of power. The subsidies I have mentioned are only a start as I did say, there is also a £10 billion credit guarantee underwritten by the government.

More than any other project? And what kind of subsidies are we speaking of; risk-negating ones like price guarantees on electrical power? No, fact of the matter is that wind power, solar power clean coal and so on receive subsidies in the tune of 15-20 times more than nuclear per mWh.

I'd rather wait for some decent technology than beggaring economies for the sake of a little energy.

Like what? Solar power? Wind power? The math doesn't go up. Thorium? It'll be too late by then; and thorium reactors require even more capital to build than nuclear, so same problem. Perhaps if they intensified research on it earlier instead of pissing away money.

If the governments had imposed tough penalties on using fossil fuel from the start, especially on coal, the market would eventually re-adjust towards the like of nuclear. Sure you might say it would be tough for the power companies and national economies would slow, but that's the price ya gotta pay.

Started happening years ago.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle...art-making-lot

I know people talk about the need for infrastructure but its a big continent and its not just a bunch of black people in reed skirts chucking spears at people.



or?





or?

We'll see. I'd like it to be true, but low infrastructure, urbanization and population density, along with a culture not based on a good work ethic, it seems difficult to me. Perhaps South Africa is the exception in everything but culture.

And I can't read the economist as I'm not a subscriber, but thanks I'll find out the rest by myself.

[Mayer]

Like what? Solar power? Wind power?

europe could also build giant hydroelectric dams

[Denny Crane!]

I was speaking in a specific context, looking at the big picture on renewable technologies.

Well Nuclear is a non renewable as much as coal or gas. There is enough gas for 100 years or more, enough coal for 200 and enough uranium for 1000 although that figure is based on low current usage.

But the fact that you have to end up paying more than double the price for your power is a good enough argument and that is enough said.

What a bunch of nonsense. If there's something I'm not aware of, it doesn't mean I'm trying to lie to you or whatever you got into your head that I am doing.

Seems like it, lets look below and see you are claiming 15-20 times the subsidy? So we pay thousands upon thousands of pounds per megawatt hour for electricity in wind power? What absolute rubbish.

Doubling the price of all electricity generation linked to inflation is the biggest possible subsidy ever offered. I notice you say that cost guarantees well lets ignore them....

So ultimate cost to the taxpayer is not how we measure these things?

Well our government dishonestly tried to claim the same things. There are subsidies in storage and the infrastructure developed for the first generation of plants, subsidies in decommissioning . Subsidies in guaranteeing and underwriting credit and subsidies in price. We had a select committee inquiry on this which had this to say:

The Hinkley Point C deal will be scrutinised by the European Commission for state aid implications. It makes no sense to claim that a subsidy applicable to more than one technology therefore does not constitute a subsidy. It is already clear that new nuclear is being subsidised. The contractor for Hinkley Point will be able to use the guaranteed strike price for the electricity generated to raise capital at lower cost. It is debateable which of the various other Government-termed 'support mechanisms' and 'insurance policies' also constitute subsidy. Even in terms of the Government's 'similarity' definition of 'no public subsidy for new nuclear', there are aspects of support which are not 'similar' to that provided for other types of energy, notably on decommissioning and waste. (Paragraph 51)

http://www.ewea.org/blog/wp-content/...peacestudy.pdf

Just skip to 2.4.4 if you like. The highest cost is nuclear in Germany.

Nuclear without such enormous subsidy would presently be a bit cheaper than onshore and offshore wind

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ts-update-.pdf

But they don't exist without subsidy, our last generation have cost us up to 100 billion in subsidies to date after taking into account projected levelised cost from cradle to grave including storage. The next planned ones aren't existing without subsidies and why would any company take them on without subsidy?

They all without fail, fail. Their construction beset by delays and cost over runs. In Finlands case it is now over 4 times the projected £3 billion cost.

But this is off topic and I care not for it.

We'll see. I'd like it to be true, but low infrastructure, urbanization and population density, along with a culture not based on a good work ethic, it seems difficult to me. Perhaps South Africa is the exception in everything but culture.

And I can't read the economist as I'm not a subscriber, but thanks I'll find out the rest by myself.

I am not a subscriber either so I don't know why you are getting that. But it is already happening so there clearly isn't a big problem there. There is a reason why foreign investment has been flowing into the place and its GDP growth has been consistently high and stable. Pretty funny that you can generalise about a continent of people with the idea of poor work ethic.

[kanecaston]

Renewables wont take over from fossil fuels simply because its cheaper and less complex to do fossil fuels than any renewable in the vast majority of cases.

Not that is until fossil fuels run out.

The transition will be hard and sharp not gradual as would be best for society, and the reason for this is that profit not sense rules the market.

Russia meanwhile will benefit greatly from global warming. Other countries not so much. I am worried about Australia but then again we have always been dry, maybe global warming will make us wetter and we can open up the interior to farming.

[Denny Crane!]

Renewables wont take over from fossil fuels simply because its cheaper and less complex to do fossil fuels than any renewable in the vast majority of cases.

Not that is until fossil fuels run out.

The transition will be hard and sharp not gradual as would be best for society, and the reason for this is that profit not sense rules the market.

Russia meanwhile will benefit greatly from global warming. Other countries not so much. I am worried about Australia but then again we have always been dry, maybe global warming will make us wetter and we can open up the interior to farming.

Hubberts bell curve disagrees with you.

[Condottiere 40K]

You have to hit them simultaneously at the consumer side, and manufacture stuff that are increasingly efficient in energy use.

[Luke Evans]

When its built i will go there and try to live in it and create a subterranean city. That would be pretty sweet. If anything people should invest in stuff like tidal and wave power near oceans, wind power where its windy, nuclear power where there aren't tsunamis and a lot of earth quakes, then there's little sources of power like even speed bumps that generate power, geothermal where you can do that, solar power where its clear alot, you can ever heat a water heater with a few solar panels. People don't really need to 100% eradicate fossil fuels, just use them significantly less and in purposes that nothing else can fufill. Im not too down with hydropower, what about salmon and sturgeon? They cant get to the ocean.

[conon394]

Im not too down with hydropower, what about salmon and sturgeon? They cant get to the ocean.

You can work around that but like everything else there a trade off for all types of power.