Shutting down fossil fuel electric plants

[Anomalocaris]

Panicking about climate? The solution is abundant, scalable, zero-carbon energy, including 4th-gen nuclear. Promising development: Terrestrial Energy’s Integrated Molten Salt Reactor clears a regulatory hurdle in Canada.
https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/2018/1...in-canada/

Terrestrial Energy is a developer of Generation IV advanced nuclear power plants that use its proprietary Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR®) technology.
IMSR® power plants will provide zero-carbon, reliable, dispatchable, cost-competitive electric power and high grade industrial heat for use in many industrial applications, such as chemical synthesis and desalination, and in so doing extend the application of nuclear energy far beyond electric power markets. They have the potential to make important contributions to industrial competitiveness, energy security, and economic growth. Their deployment will support rapid global decarbonization of the primary energy system by displacing fossil fuel combustion across a broad spectrum. Using an innovative design, and proven and demonstrated molten salt reactor technology, Terrestrial Energy is engaged with regulators and industrial partners to complete IMSR® engineering and to commission first IMSR® power plants in the late 2020s.

Nuclear technology faces a PR problem that technical facts have proven in principle to be inadaquate to overcome.   Until that is realized presenting promising technical facts is barking up the wrong tree.

[Fake Messiah]

Nuclear technology faces a PR problem that technical facts have proven in principle to be inadaquate to overcome.   Until that is realized presenting promising technical facts is barking up the wrong tree.

You would be surprised what is going on in nuclear power development. These are new generation reactors that are safe, can't overheat and are not dangerous.

Here is an article you need to read:
Explanation of 4th generation nuclear power: Next-gen nuclear is coming, if we want it

https://grist.org/article/next-gen-nucle...e-want-it/

[brewer]

I didn't think cost was the ultimate issue. Yeah it might hurt but considering the alternatives ..............................

If you can’t convince the rate payers to subsidize the higher cost, then the cost is the ultimate issue.

It so happens that, on the whole, those willing to pay extra to reduce green house gas emission also loath nuclear power with even more vehement passion.   So nuclear power is the evidence solution to the problem that is hated by those most concerned with the problem even more than the problem itself.

Then those people will need to grow up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_...er_sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nu..._operation

[Amarok]

But were going to have to do it or suffer the consequences

It’s not an all or nothing thing.

---

More nuclear generated electricity will need to be in the mix somewhere. Never said it was the total answer.

The problem with nuclear is unless the capital cost is greatly reduced, it is not economic on all-in cost of energy basis.   Particularly in the US.     Right now Solar, wind and fossil are all cheaper than nuclear.    This is discouraging the sort of investment needed to provide good prospect of improvement.    Trump restricting nuclear exports to China is not helping with nuclear power research in the US.

Yes it is all or nothing

---

If you can’t convince the rate payers to subsidize the higher cost, then the cost is the ultimate issue.

It so happens that, on the whole, those willing to pay extra to reduce green house gas emission also loath nuclear power with even more vehement passion.   So nuclear power is the evidence solution to the problem that is hated by those most concerned with the problem even more than the problem itself.

Then those people will need to grow up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_...er_sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nu..._operation

Tell that to the people who lived in Fukushima Daiichi

[brewer]

Comes down to what do you/they fear more, potential global catastrophe or potential localized catastrophe.

[Rahn127]

The climate will put an end to OUR burning and manufacturing of green house gases much faster than we were expecting.

The only question that really remains is, which generation will be our last ?

I'd like to hope that my grandson will have a good life.
And of course I want him to know what it's like to be a grandfather.

We simply can't sustain this kind of lifestyle indefinitely.

We can choose to change now or we all die.

[Amarok]

Comes down to what do you/they fear more, potential global catastrophe or potential localized catastrophe.

It was far from just local as contamination has entered the Pacific ecosystem 
causing damage well beyond Japan. And an increase in plant numbers just makes that more likely .

[Anomalocaris]

Nuclear technology faces a PR problem that technical facts have proven in principle to be inadaquate to overcome.   Until that is realized presenting promising technical facts is barking up the wrong tree.

You would be surprised what is going on in nuclear power development. These are new generation reactors that are safe, can't overheat and are not dangerous.

Here is an article you need to read:
Explanation of 4th generation nuclear power: Next-gen nuclear is coming, if we want it

https://grist.org/article/next-gen-nucle...e-want-it/

I would not be. I do long-term energy market forecast for living. I work with Los Alamo national laboratory On economic assessment of emergent nuclear technology for utility resource planning purposes.

[Alan V]

Ain't gonna happen until we have a replacement power source. My guess is that we'll need to step up the nuclear dance.

Fossil fuel power plants fulfill a vital need of the electrical power grid, that is for the ability to rapidly adjust power output on command in response to changes in load on the electric grid.  This is necessary for maintaining voltage and frequency stability of the lectric power grid.    If voltage and frequency stability are not maintained, bad things will happen to many heavy duty electrical equipment in commercial and industrial applications.

Nuclear does not address this need.  Nuclear power tend to be very stable and uneconomic to vary in output once the station is on-line.  So they have very limited ability to vary their output on command to compensate for rapid changes in system load.   At the moment nuclear is also far from price competitive purely from all-in cost of energy perspective.  

Existing or perspective renewable generation technologies do not address this need either.   In fact they make the need much greater because output from renewable technologies tend to fluncturate uncontrollably at the whim of wind and weather, thus increasing the need of the power grid for other resources to rapidly change in output on command to compensate.

Hydro-electric and pumped storage power plants can at times address some of this need, but they are subject to limited availability and other constraints.

At the moment, To completely replace fossil fuel fired power plants while still maintaining power grid stability requires sizeable breakthrough in other energy storage technologies.

What is your opinion about redundancy plus gravity and heat storage plus a smart distribution grid to deal with the intermittency of renewables?

[brewer]

Comes down to what do you/they fear more, potential global catastrophe or potential localized catastrophe.

It was far from just local as contamination has entered the Pacific ecosystem 
causing damage well beyond Japan. And an increase in plant numbers just makes that more likely .

Did it effect the entire planet? Did Chernobyl? Did the hundreds (500+) of bombs?

Let me put it another way, which is the planet (and the human race) more likely to recover from?

To my way of thinking we're going to have to pick. The fear of limited electric power is the greatest fear and a non option. Or maybe global warming isn't the treat I've been lead to believe. 

Read about the passive safety developments where Japan would not happen again. There is also micro reactors to take into consideration.

---

I  would not be. I do long-term energy market forecast for living.  I work with Los Alamo national laboratory On economic assessment of emergent nuclear technology for utility resource planning purposes.

Then you're just the person to ask, more nuclear reactors replacing fossil fuel reactors (as many as possible understand peak demand issues) or not?