# The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
I have said that one billion humans will produce as much CO2 ceteris paribus as eight billion, given eight times as long, and that therefore such drastic population reduction would simply kick the climate change can down the road - if the current population faces disaster in 25 years, the lower one would face the same disaster in 200 years, unless they stop burning fossil fuel. And if we can power civilisation without burning fossil fuel, then the population reduction becomes needless.

All arguments for anything can be made to seem ridiculous if you strip away the nuances, to leave only the straw.

But ceteris isn't paribas, is it? Has it really not occurred to you that present dams will deliver (more than) eight times their current power per capita, if the population were eight times smaller?
That has nothing to do with carbon dioxide
And do you hate the concept of renewability so much that you think 1/8 the present population will deplete aquifers just as much proportionally as now?
Still has nothing to do with carbon dioxide
"Diminishing returns" is another concept you may want to read up on to correct your misconceptions on this topic. Also, I've taken the liberty of reddening one of your sentences. Is it really your opinion that fossil fuels (and helium!) are the ONLY scarce resources in the world?
That’s not only my position, it’s also the first law of thermodynamics
(In fact, naturally occurring U235 is also scarce!)
Only for a bizarre definition of ‘scarce’ that doesn’t account for the existence of fertile isotopes, and presumes that U235 is the only fissile one.
Finally, here's a pro-tip. When defending over-population, avoid the meme "Disproved in the 1960's! Ha ha ha." That meme gets filed under Arguments Too Fatuous to Bother Answering and leads people to ignore the rest of your post.
Unfortunately, your desire to ignore an argument isn’t evidence that it’s wrong.
ETA: I like to attack overly glib arguments wherever I see them. If the consensus here were pro-renewable and anti-nuke, I'd be taking the pro-nuke side!
That’s just a stupid(er) version of the argument from popularity.

I am not even sure why you are derailing this current discussion to discuss something we already did elsewhere; If you want to continue that conversation, I am happy to refute your strawmen to whatever degree of detail you need in the appropriate place.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
We don’t have 25 years. And in 25 years, we will have fusion, as well as storage, both being predicted to become available in 25 years time…

bilby paraphrased said:
My comment about fusion was a joke.
(I've paraphrased bilby's "fusion == joke" comment. The quoting facility with this software is atrocious.)

I'm sorry. Perhaps the rest of you have Super-Google installed, and when your eyes pass over the first "fusion" a sultry voice intones "Based on prior posts, bilby is being sarcastic here." But I don't have Super-Google. I'm a Luddite and find the default Google already malicious enough.

But anyway, the insistence that fusion and storage being delayed means they won't happen at all seems odd coming from the side dependent on cost-effective breeder reactors. These were first touted in the 1940's, no?
Storage is just as big a joke as fusion. That’s my point.

My argument is in no way dependant on cost effective breeder reactors; They would be a nice bonus, but my position is perfectly sound if we only use current in-service reactor designs.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germeny's electrical needs are now met by renewables.
What is that supposed to mean? I have seen no one say that renewables are not a source of power. The question is reliable power 24/7/365. Renewables can not do that no matter how many solar panels and wind mills are installed. Would you be happy only having power to turn on your computer and lights during sunny days and/or windy days?

And how green is getting 46% of the power from biomass, hydro, wind, and solar and most of the rest from coal fired plants?
Biomass and hydro are very far from “green”. Wind and solar are a small fraction of that 46%, and have their own environmental issues too.

I love the way wind and solar advocates pad their figures with hydroelectricity and biomass. It’s amazing how much better wind and solar look when you use ‘installed capacity’ instead of power generated, and when you claim a percentage of power generation that is mostly not from those sources.
Yes, people making such arguments are demonstrating their ignorance of the difference between power (Watts) and energy (Watt-hours). The propagandists they get their 'information' from rely on their ignorance to convince them that their arguments make sense.

Power companies understand the difference. That is why they charge usage by the Watt-hour consumed rather than the Watt.

Last edited:

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.
Only if the the tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of forests and fields that are destroyed by flooding to make the reservoir is ignored. If instead, those forests were clear cut by logging rather than killed by flooding then you would likely see that as not a green activity.

Last edited:

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.
Only if the the tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of forests and fields that are destroyed by flooding to make the reservoir is ignored. If instead, those forests were clear cut by logging rather than killed by flooding then you would likely see that as not a green activity.
And of course you need to ignore the fossil fuel burned by the trucks and heavy plant used to build the dams, turbines, generators and races; And the carbon emissions from the concrete for the dam wall; and the methane produced as the flooded vegetation decays.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.
Only if the the tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of forests and fields that are destroyed by flooding to make the reservoir is ignored. If instead, those forests were clear cut by logging rather than killed by flooding then you would likely see that as not a green activity.
And of course you need to ignore the fossil fuel burned by the trucks and heavy plant used to build the dams, turbines, generators and races; And the carbon emissions from the concrete for the dam wall; and the methane produced as the flooded vegetation decays.

Nukes of course don't use trucks, steel, concrete or large amounts of water for cooling. They are built from fairy dust.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
All electricity generation implies some level Carbon Dioxide emissions.

According to IPCC and Electricitymap, the emissions in gCO2eq/kWh are:

Wind: 11g
Nuclear: 12g
Hydro: 24g
Geothermal: 38g
Solar: 45g
————————————
Biomass: 230g
Battery Storage: 253g
————————————
Gas: 490g
Oil: 650g
Coal: 820g

Clearly there are five ‘green’ options; Equally clearly, the class ‘renewables’ becomes nonsensical as an indication of environmental impact, if you include biomass therein, or if you exclude nuclear therefrom.

Nuclear is the second best option to keep carbon dioxide emissions low, and the best of the reliable options.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.
Only if the the tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of forests and fields that are destroyed by flooding to make the reservoir is ignored. If instead, those forests were clear cut by logging rather than killed by flooding then you would likely see that as not a green activity.
And of course you need to ignore the fossil fuel burned by the trucks and heavy plant used to build the dams, turbines, generators and races; And the carbon emissions from the concrete for the dam wall; and the methane produced as the flooded vegetation decays.

Nukes of course don't use trucks, steel, concrete or large amounts of water for cooling. They are built from fairy dust.
Of course they do; But far less than hydro, per unit of electricity generation.

Nuclear plants emit about half the carbon dioxide as hydro plants, per kWh; And about a quarter of the emissions of a solar power system.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
The U.S. is also no building any more big dams. You are now no longer making any arguments worth any replies.

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germany's electrical needs are now met by renewables.
I note that Germany gets 9% of its electrical energy from solar. How much of that is generated during the night?
If solar cannot produce 24x7 it is should not be called reliable.

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.
The Victorian parliament, under pressure from the greenies, in 1982 passed an act that forbade the damming of the Mitchell River, the last river in Victoria worth damming.
The greenies in Australia have never met a dam they didn't like. Notwithstanding its benefits as green energy.
Might be different in other countries

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.
That will be expensive. Watch the rentiers raise the price of renewable energy.

#### bigfield

##### the baby-eater
Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.
The Victorian parliament, under pressure from the greenies, in 1982 passed an act that forbade the damming of the Mitchell River, the last river in Victoria worth damming.
The greenies in Australia have never met a dam they didn't like. Notwithstanding its benefits as green energy.
Might be different in other countries
Are you sure that happened? It doesn't come up on legislation.vic.gov.au.

Seems to have been overshadowed by the Tasmanian environmentalists who lobbied the Federal government to prevent the Franklin River from being dammed.

After its election, the Hawke government introduced new regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 and passed the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 that protected the Franklin River, which had been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in December 1982.

I suppose one more hydroelectric dam in Tasmania would slightly increase the percentage of renewable energy on the NEM, but it's never going to be anything more than a small supplement to more scalable technologies, which means it probably wasn't worth the environmental damage.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.
That will be expensive. Watch the rentiers raise the price of renewable energy.

You mean like the price of oil and natural gas? Our natural gas bill has doubled over last year. And has increased electric bills. You know, supply and demand.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
The U.S. is also no building any more big dams. You are now no longer making any arguments worth any replies.
Your inability to refute my arguments is and indication that they are probably right, not that they are unworthy of your greatness.

And no part of my position in any way necessitates that the US build more dams; That would be supportive of your false claim that the mass storage demanded by wind and solar can possibly be achieved. It’s another factor against your position.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
The U.S. is also no building any more big dams. You are now no longer making any arguments worth any replies.
Your inability to refute my arguments is and indication that they are probably right, not that they are unworthy of your greatness.

And no part of my position in any way necessitates that the US build more dams; That would be supportive of your false claim that the mass storage demanded by wind and solar can possibly be achieved. It’s another factor against your position.

You really have not posted any arguments. The U.S. is building lots of solar and wind. I have told you why. In the U.S. nuclear is not being built in large amounts of projects. I have told you why.

The U.S. has 55 nuclear plants with 93 reactors. These produce 20% of U.S. electrical needs. To reach 100%, the U.S. would have to built 465 new reactors. To get to 50%, 232 new reactors. At about $8 billion each reactor would be about$1.8 trillion.

Obviously, the energy industry does not have that kind of money and is not going to take on that debt which means no profits for 15 or 20 yearss. If you cannot understand the issues here, I cannot make it more plain and simple.

If because of the GOP we cannot pass a Build Back Better Plan, we sure are not going to get trillions for government owned and run nuclear reactors. Dream on!

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
The U.S. is also no building any more big dams. You are now no longer making any arguments worth any replies.
Your inability to refute my arguments is and indication that they are probably right, not that they are unworthy of your greatness.

And no part of my position in any way necessitates that the US build more dams; That would be supportive of your false claim that the mass storage demanded by wind and solar can possibly be achieved. It’s another factor against your position.

You really have not posted any arguments. The U.S. is building lots of solar and wind. I have told you why. In the U.S. nuclear is not being built in large amounts of projects. I have told you why.
I know why.

The US elected Donald fucking Trump as President. Politically stupid behaviours that are directly harmful to the people who support them are not particularly uncommon nor particularly remarkable.

Nor do they constitute evidence for what the optimum course of action might be.
The U.S. has 55 nuclear plants with 93 reactors. These produce 20% of U.S. electrical needs. To reach 100%, the U.S. would have to built 465 new reactors. To get to 50%, 232 new reactors. At about $8 billion each reactor would be about$1.8 trillion.
And a quarter of that if you didn’t multiply the likely costs by four.

But of course, most of that ‘cost’ is the cost of getting past stupid opposition, and needless regulatory hurdles. It could be made vastly cheaper by the stroke of a pen.
Obviously, the energy industry does not have that kind of money and is not going to take on that debt which means no profits for 15 or 20 yearss. If you cannot understand the issues here, I cannot make it more plain and simple.
I understand the issues just fine. When people deliberately make something as expensive as possible, and then argue that we can’t do it because it’s too expensive, they are indulging in political shenanigans that tell us nothing useful about what the right move will be.
If because of the GOP we cannot pass a Build Back Better Plan, we sure are not going to get trillions for government owned and run nuclear reactors. Dream on!
Yeah, your country is totally fucked.

This isn’t stopping South Korea, or France, or Sweden, or Ontario, or Taiwan, or even the UAE from doing the smart thing. Or any other part of the 95% of the planet that’s not the US.

The USA has a simple choice to make: Lead; Follow; or Get out of the way.

If your country is too stupid to spend money on a solution that works, because a solution that doesn’t and cannot work looks cheaper when you do a half-arsed analysis, then you are going to have a shit time of it. Sucks to be you.

Enjoy your blackouts and soaring energy bills.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
Trillions of dollars nobody has. And by 2050, a lot of existing reactors will be reaching end of life and will decommisioned. We still can't even solve the nuclear waste problem. Maybe we can ship al that nuclear waste to Australian and bury it all in the Outback.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
The U.S. is also no building any more big dams. You are now no longer making any arguments worth any replies.
Your inability to refute my arguments is and indication that they are probably right, not that they are unworthy of your greatness.

And no part of my position in any way necessitates that the US build more dams; That would be supportive of your false claim that the mass storage demanded by wind and solar can possibly be achieved. It’s another factor against your position.

You really have not posted any arguments. The U.S. is building lots of solar and wind. I have told you why.
Yup. Because some politician said that solar power is the solution to our power needs. Politician worship is more pathetic than the Jesus freaks.

The U.S. could pave the the entire country from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from Mexico to Canada with solar panels and no one would have any power after sunset to allow them to switch on a lightbulb.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
Again, solar and wind are popular since they can be built relatively cheap and quickly. They start paying profits quickly. These technologies are mature enough to work today, and are attractive business opportunities with low risk. Nuclear energy cannot offer good and sure money quickly. Solar and wind are exce)ent examples of disruptive technologies.

We keep seeing GOP attempts to hobble renewables. Such recently passed laws in South Dakota making it illegal for state agencies to buy electricity from renewable sources. Or laws in South Carolina banning creating electric vehicle recharging stations along South Carolina state highways. Or numerous attempts to ban offshore wind projects. Or offer continuing incentives to build renewable projects while offering massive incentives to the oil industry.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
Again, solar and wind are popular since they can be built relatively cheap and quickly. They start paying profits quickly. These technologies are mature enough to work today, and are attractive business opportunities with low risk. Nuclear energy cannot offer good and sure money quickly. Solar and wind are exce)ent examples of disruptive technologies.

We keep seeing GOP attempts to hobble renewables. Such recently passed laws in South Dakota making it illegal for state agencies to buy electricity from renewable sources. Or laws in South Carolina banning creating electric vehicle recharging stations along South Carolina state highways. Or numerous attempts to ban offshore wind projects. Or offer continuing incentives to build renewable projects while offering massive incentives to the oil industry.
The question is what is the best way to assure sufficient and reliable power available constantly, not what is the cheapest even it it can't do that. Again, I would suggest you compare France's and Germany's opposing philosophies on electrical power. As a side note, electrical power is much cheaper (and cleaner) in France than in Germany.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
We will not have a competent energy policy until the last republican politician is strangled with guts of the last right winged media pundit.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
We will not have a competent energy policy until the last republican politician is strangled with guts of the last right winged media pundit.
Is it your worship of politicians that has you believing that solar panels are magic?

#### No Robots

##### Maykkerz
We keep seeing GOP attempts to hobble renewables. Such recently passed laws in South Dakota making it illegal for state agencies to buy electricity from renewable sources. Or laws in South Carolina banning creating electric vehicle recharging stations along South Carolina state highways. Or numerous attempts to ban offshore wind projects. Or offer continuing incentives to build renewable projects while offering massive incentives to the oil industry.

Whoa! Is all that true? Do you have a few links?

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germeny's electrical needs are now met by renewables.

Latest figures for Germany are a joke.

The problem here is that renewables aren't reliable. You need other generators to take over when the renewables don't work. They're still using Russian gas to make up the shortfall.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.

Dams aren't exactly green and anything worth damming has already been dammed--there's almost no expansion possible.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Trillions of dollars nobody has. And by 2050, a lot of existing reactors will be reaching end of life and will decommisioned. We still can't even solve the nuclear waste problem. Maybe we can ship al that nuclear waste to Australian and bury it all in the Outback.
It's purely a political problem. We have no technical problem dealing with waste.

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.
That will be expensive. Watch the rentiers raise the price of renewable energy.

You mean like the price of oil and natural gas? Our natural gas bill has doubled over last year. And has increased electric bills. You know, supply and demand.
In Australia our gas/oil and consequently energy costs are exploding. Due in large measure to the foolishness of our politicians making decisions without thinking beyond the next election (3-4 years).

On a side issue when will the increase in renewables cause the much mentioned downward pressure on energy prices? 10% of supply? 20%, 40%, 60%, never?

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Trillions of dollars nobody has. And by 2050, a lot of existing reactors will be reaching end of life and will decommisioned. We still can't even solve the nuclear waste problem. Maybe we can ship al that nuclear waste to Australian and bury it all in the Outback.
What, exactly, do you imagine the “problem” to be with nuclear waste, that you think we cannot solve?

Is it the number of people who are killed and/or injured by it? The damage it has done to the environment?

What, in your opinion, is this problem that hasn’t been solved?

You keep talking about it, but you just seem to assume that everyone else knows what it is, and agrees with your claim that it hasn’t been solved. And yet, I look around and see no problem whatsoever with nuclear power plant waste. It’s the only industrial waste stream that is completely and effectively managed; If anything, it’s an exemplar of best practice in waste management.

Why do you think otherwise?

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
What should be and what is are two very different things. The disencentives to nuclear power at present are great and as long as the GOP remains powerful, the only realistic solution, a massive government program to build, own, and operate a massive nuclearprogram will never happen. And that is that.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
Trillions of dollars nobody has. And by 2050, a lot of existing reactors will be reaching end of life and will decommisioned. We still can't even solve the nuclear waste problem. Maybe we can ship al that nuclear waste to Australian and bury it all in the Outback.
What, exactly, do you imagine the “problem” to be with nuclear waste, that you think we cannot solve?

Is it the number of people who are killed and/or injured by it? The damage it has done to the environment?

What, in your opinion, is this problem that hasn’t been solved?

You keep talking about it, but you just seem to assume that everyone else knows what it is, and agrees with your claim that it hasn’t been solved. And yet, I look around and see no problem whatsoever with nuclear power plant waste. It’s the only industrial waste stream that is completely and effectively managed; If anything, it’s an exemplar of best practice in waste management.

Why do you think otherwise?

It is a massive problem. It is not getting solved. End of argument. You knoweth not. Things like this are why so many people do not like nuclear power. Moron politicians that can't pour piss out of a boot. We have been fighting this issue now for 40 effing years.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
What should be and what is are two very different things. The disencentives to nuclear power at present are great and as long as the GOP remains powerful, the only realistic solution, a massive government program to build, own, and operate a massive nuclearprogram will never happen. And that is that.
So you can choose between climate change or regular blackouts.

Or persuade the idiots in charge to change their minds.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Trillions of dollars nobody has. And by 2050, a lot of existing reactors will be reaching end of life and will decommisioned. We still can't even solve the nuclear waste problem. Maybe we can ship al that nuclear waste to Australian and bury it all in the Outback.
What, exactly, do you imagine the “problem” to be with nuclear waste, that you think we cannot solve?

Is it the number of people who are killed and/or injured by it? The damage it has done to the environment?

What, in your opinion, is this problem that hasn’t been solved?

You keep talking about it, but you just seem to assume that everyone else knows what it is, and agrees with your claim that it hasn’t been solved. And yet, I look around and see no problem whatsoever with nuclear power plant waste. It’s the only industrial waste stream that is completely and effectively managed; If anything, it’s an exemplar of best practice in waste management.

Why do you think otherwise?

It is a massive problem. It is not getting solved. End of argument.
If it’s a massive problem, you shouldn’t have any difficulty telling me why. You haven’t even started to present any arguments - you just keep insisting that there’s a massive unsolved (and apparently undefined) problem.

Are people dying, or getting sick?

Is some part of the environment being harmed?

Give me some details.
You knoweth not.
True enough.

So tell me.

Or do you not know, either?
Things like this are why so many people do not like nuclear power. Moron politicians that can't pour piss out of a boot. We have been fighting this issue now for 40 effing years.
Sorry, but you are not making any sense here.

What are the things that cause so many people not to like nuclear power?

Who has been fighting, and most importantly WHAT ISSUE??

You seem to think that nuclear waste (the only completely managed industrial waste stream in the history of human endeavour) is a problem. What’s the problem?

You have made it very clear that there’s a big problem that needs to be addressed. What, exactly, is that problem? And given that it apparently hasn’t been addressed, despite having been urgently in need of a solution for “40 effing years”, could you at least tell me what harms have occurred due to power plant waste in those four decades?

What’s the death and injury toll due to this huge unsolved problem?

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
The big nuclear waste problem is not being solved. Because stupid. That is why. It is not as important as fighting CRT. It doesn't get votes from the morons out there in the heart of darkest America.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
What should be and what is are two very different things. The disencentives to nuclear power at present are great and as long as the GOP remains powerful, the only realistic solution, a massive government program to build, own, and operate a massive nuclearprogram will never happen. And that is that.
So you can choose between climate change or regular blackouts.

Or persuade the idiots in charge to change their minds.

In case you did not notice, in the U.S. millions think climate change is a hoax. Thus things like Build Back Better that do represent a start to fight climate change have been strangled by America's conservative politicians. Because stupid. Stupid. Stupid! Change their minds. Until Miami is under water, nothing is going to change any minds.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
The big nuclear waste problem is not being solved. Because stupid. That is why. It is not as important as fighting CRT. It doesn't get votes from the morons out there in the heart of darkest America.
What is the “big nuclear waste problem”?

You can’t solve what you can’t even define as a problem.

What is the problem? What makes it a big problem?

How many are dying or being injured? What species are being driven to extinction? What environmental damage is being done?

Please, for the love of God*, tell me what this problem is.

*Who appears to be as real as this “problem” is

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
What should be and what is are two very different things. The disencentives to nuclear power at present are great and as long as the GOP remains powerful, the only realistic solution, a massive government program to build, own, and operate a massive nuclearprogram will never happen. And that is that.
So you can choose between climate change or regular blackouts.

Or persuade the idiots in charge to change their minds.

In case you did not notice, in the U.S. millions think climate change is a hoax. Thus things like Build Back Better that do represent a start to fight climate change have been strangled by America's conservative politicians. Because stupid. Stupid. Stupid! Change their minds. Until Miami is under water, nothing is going to change any minds.
I am painfully aware of the existence of stupidity.

It’s not an argument against trying to persuade the powers that be to do the smart things, rather than the stupid things.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
Long ago, nuclear plant operaters were assessed a fee to deal with nuclear waste disposal. Which never realily ha]ened. This fund over time grew to $44 billion dollars. A lawsuit finally was filed that ended that fee. The accumulated$44 billion was then dissolved and returned to the general fund. So today we have no money to deal with the serious accumulated nuclear waste problem. Stupidity rules. Can you see now why nuclear power is distrusted by many intelligent people?

Nor are the moron politicians capable of solving the issue of paying the trillions of dollars to move nuclear power beyond the 20% of electrical capacity nuclear now contributes.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Where is the money going to come from? Who can come up with $8 billion dollars for a reactor that won't pay any profit for 10 - 15 years? Whether something is expensive is not an absolute; It’s a function of the cost of the alternatives. As the cost of 100% wind, solar and storage is$ ♾, and the cost of fossil fuels is the entire ecosystem, it seems like nuclear power is a bargain at any price.

Infrastructure isn’t meant to be profitable; It’s meant to underwrite other activities that are profitable.

The national highway network doesn’t turn a profit. But it’s still worth having.

#### Cheerful Charlie

Another fun fact. The two reactors nearing finishing in Georgia thanks to over budget costs are going to cost $30 billions. This is just the sort of unpleasant surprises making desire to start major nuclear projects uninviting. #### bilby ##### Fair dinkum thinkum Another fun fact. The two reactors nearing finishing in Georgia thanks to over budget costs are going to cost$30 billions. This is just the sort of unpleasant surprises making desire to start major nuclear projects uninviting.
It’s not really a surprise; It’s the result of deliberate and concerted obstruction by idiots who have been desperately trying to make nuclear power as expensive as possible for no other reason than that they don’t like it.

And at $30billion, they are a damn sight cheaper than enough wind, solar, and storage to give the same output of reliable power. And I note that you have been too busy looking up “fun facts” to find out what the “serious waste problem” you were so concerned about a few posts back actually entails. Are you happy to concede that no such problem exists? Is it possible that you really have no rational objection to nuclear power, other than your vague belief that other people probably won’t put up the money for it? If so, isn’t that a decision for those investors (including various governments) to make? Whoever is paying that$30billion is probably smarter than you.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
Nobody is doing that. I don't think you have ability to understand any of this. The Georgia project was the project stung by Westinghouse's utter failure that lead to this fisco. The government failure would have been lack of supervivsion of Westinghouse that resulted in catching their massive screwup while it was on paper only. I am going to stop responding to you. You are wasting time. You don't understand the basic economic roadblocks to large scale nuclear power in the U.S. even though I have explained it several times now.

Nobody wants to start a project that cost bilions, and will tie up vast sums of capital for 15 - 20 years with no profit. And most likely will not be finished on time and on budget. There are not the trilions of dollars out there to finance a nuclear project to get most of the U.S. electical needs supplied by nuclear.

This debate is now over. You have lost.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
This debate is now over. You have lost.
What a shame.

We never did find out what the “serious waste problem” actually entails.

Oh well.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
The lack of ability to successfully and permanently deal with tons of nuclear waste that will remain dangerously radioactive for at least 250,000 years. Obviously this is not going to win friends for the nuclear industry from thoughful and competent people. All the waste from present day reactors are stored on site.

#### bigfield

##### the baby-eater
The lack of ability to successfully and permanently deal with tons of nuclear waste that will remain dangerously radioactive for at least 250,000 years.
There is already a successful and permanent solution to nuclear waste:
All the waste from present day reactors are stored on site.
It's not contaminating the environment, it's not hurting anyone, and there's plenty of storage space.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
The U.S. has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. There are absolutely no plans on where it can be permanently buried safely. Yeah, just kick that can down the road. Let our descendents deal with it. Such a plan. It is not getting done, is it? Maybe we can somehow get right winged politicians to get as excited about America's nuclear waste problem as they are about CRT or Don't Say Gay? Or obstructing Build Back Better.

#### bigfield

##### the baby-eater
There are absolutely no plans on where it can be permanently buried safely.
Who cares? Just leave it where it is stored now.