OK RAM it is obvious you have no real facts.Sure Bill Gates has only invested $1 billion in Terrapower but it has entered into a $40 billion MOU with the Chinese to develop nuclear power stations-
TerraPower, CNNC team up on travelling wave reactor
Bill Gates has not invested $1bn in Terrapower = FACT. Please disprove this.
The article you cite does not backup any of your claims.
Bill Gates HAS NOT INVESTED $1bn in TerraPower, nor the $40 billion you claimed earlier he invested in Chinese Nuclear projects.
FAKE news.
Meanwhile as of 30 June 2017 - Terrapower 'hopes' to have a demonstration reactor within the next decade.
Terrapower has not been named by the Chinese authorities as the supplier for even one nuclear plant. Perhaps as Terrapower does not even have the design currently for a prototype.
The Chinese have
not entered into a $40 billion MOU with Terrapower as you claim this version.
The above article you cite does not backup any of your claims.
If I am wrong - please provide a link to ANY statement by TerraPower that cites either:
- Bill gates has ever invested $1bn in TerraPower.
- The Chinese signed a MOU for $40bn with TerraPower.
Here is their web site to help you... About TerraPower
Until then, FAKE news.
Now as to nuclear being uneconomic v wind in the USA.As I have been saying it is not a level playing field.Subsidies my dear man-
.
Those are US EIA figures.
Sorry about that chief - I did not realise "Tax Credits" could not be counted as subsidies - definitions and all.
H.R. 1551 – Modifying Advanced Nuclear Power Tax Credit
The articles I have previously provided state that DESPITE the US FEderal Govt providing billions in subsidies to the two plants in construction that have now been abandoned - they would never be economical vs Gas, solar, hydro, PV. EVER. Those included figures provided by the companies developing the projects themselves. Nice try showing a graph that has nothing to do with the two projects that have been scrapped despite around $20 billion in sunk costs (including Fed and State Govt subsidies and above-market PPAs.
These subsidies cannot be graphed as they are an infinite subsidy per watt hour generated - since the projects have and will never generate a single watt second let alone mega watt hours.
Separating subsidy paid per mega watt hour generated from subsidies paid for construction is not an apples with apples comparison. Misleading even.
Now to waste-
.
Those are figures for toxic waste.With the nuclear waste it will eventually be of no concern but with solar it includes heavy metals which remain toxic forever and do leach into water tables.
Solar panels can be recycled (and are) so that there is no heavy metal waste dumped in the environment. BTW have you researched the negative by-products from uranium mining?
Conventional uranium ore treatment mills create radioactive
waste in the form of
tailings, which contain uranium, radium, and polonium. Consequently, uranium mining results in "the
unavoidable radioactive contamination of the environment by solid, liquid and gaseous wastes".
Many of these effects are similar to those encountered in other types of mining, although there are some unique risks posed by uranium mining and processing due to the presence of radioactive substances, and co-occurring chemicals such as
heavy metals.
Ranger mine's uranium spill revealed to be Rio Tinto's second in a week
www.smh.com.au › News › National
Dec 11, 2013 - The chemical
spill at
Ranger Uranium Mine last weekend was the second such incident in a week for the mine's parent company, Rio Tinto, ...
Ranger Uranium Mine - Wikipedia
Ranger Uranium Mine - Wikipedia
The
Ranger Uranium Mine is a uranium mine in the Northern Territory of Australia. .... More recently, the ARRAC report from 2002 details a major
leak of about 2 megalitres of potentially polluted water, over a number of months. In 2007, water ...
Rio Tinto refuses guarantee to cover reclamation cost of Ranger mine
Rio Tinto chief executive Sam Walsh has refused to guarantee that his company will cover the cost of rehabilitating the Ranger uranium mine near Kakadu, building on uncertainty that was created last month by the Rio subsidiary in charge of the mine.
Energy Resources of Australia - which is 68 per cent owned by Rio - raised eyebrows when it revealed it may need to find new sources of money to meet its rehabilitation commitments for Ranger, which is entirely surrounded by Kakadu National Park. Under the Ranger permit, ERA must have rehabilitated the site by 2026, and a review of the rehabilitation strategy in 2013 found the cost would be A$ 603 million on a net present cost basis. ERA has A$ 357 million on hand and has ceased mining at Ranger, with the company now exploring for more uranium underground in a bid to find future revenue streams.
Then to total resources used for a common power output-
]Look at all that steel,cement and concrete needed compared to nuclear.By the way aren't they major sources of CO2 emissions>?
Why yes.So nuclear is the cleanest energy in respect to CO2 emissions.
And as to the closed nuclear power stations.Well California CO2 emissions have risen significantly since the closure of San Onofre and will rise even further if Diablo closes.
Please provide the link in a readable size so i can have a look into what assumptions have been used.
And here is a different story on the forced stoppage of the South Carolina nuclear reactor-
Wind Energy Still More Expensive Than Nuclear Reactors Halted for Cost Overruns
Curious article by the Nuclear industry funded organisation interestingly called "Environmental Progress" who's aim is to promote the use of nuclear power.
I did like, however this admission that disregarding the billions already spent, based on the current expected cost to finish...
"Bottom line though? Finishing the reactors would be more expensive than building new gas-fired power plants"
I prefer articles provided by outlets not funded by vested interest groups - or perhaps the nuclear companies themselves (links previously provided) that stated their projects were not financially viable unless provided even more subsidies.
Following the links to its supposed 'supporting' pieces actually came up with such gems as:
- After countless years of delays and billions in cost over-runs workers had been expecting them to be abandoned but still it comes as a shock when the day finally comes.
- The first nuclear reactors to be built in the US in decades have been abandoned due to their inability to compete against other generation sources despite the massive payments received by the projects to date.
- Either company could potentially get the one-third-finished reactors for pennies on the dollar
So the projects are running years over projected completion dates and are JUST one-third finished and bankrupted one of the top three Nuclear reactor builders in the world and then went on to effectively bankrupt one of the remaining top two.
Certainly says much about what a great business Nuclear reactors are.
And then there is of course Germany shutting down it's nuclear power.Unfortunately most replaced by coal power so causing a rise in their CO2 emissions.
And for a final statement which was the only source of power to keep operating during the hurricanes in Texas and Florida.I'll leave that to you to guess.
"Hurricane Irma also affected Florida’s two nuclear power plants, which are among the largest power plants in the state. One reactor at the
Turkey Point nuclear power plant in south Florida was shut down as a precaution before the hurricane arrived. The other nuclear reactor at the plant was later shut down because of a mechanical issue." Source EIA
The Florida nuclear reactors took until Sept 18 (15 days) to return to full production - source EIA.
So much FAKE news.[
