Just Stop Oil Protesters

[Aqua sobriquet]

Nuclear energy.

 

[greenbliss]

Hi all,

The Haber (Bosch) process was originally developed <"not for agriculture">, but to provide the feed stock for explosive manufacture.

Before that we had to get by with the <"fixed nitrogen"> from natural processes (mainly fixation by legumes (via their <"symbiotic microbes">) & lightning strikes).

They do, phosphorus (P) is simultaneously a <"rare and declining resource"> and the major cause of eutrophication in both aquatic and terrestrial situations.

You would eventually run-out of phosphate PO4---, but it is estimated that in the UK, it would take a thousand years for the phosphate reserve to be be depleted back to background levels.

cheers Darrel

Yes this makes sense. Phosphorus specifically I know builds up in soils? I read that a healthy soil ecosystem liberates minerals from the organic and non organic parts of the soil but we still need the nitrogen for yields obviously...

I wonder if what is missing in the world is empathy. In terms of solving these issues.. I know someone mentioned here or on another thread 'we consider the wrong people disabled'? Then again not all psychopathic people are bad.... everyone makes choices after all. in life. Aren't a lot of surgeons psychopaths? But they still do their part to help out. Technically. Theres a lot of psychopathic people that are helpful to the world. It's like the empathetic people and the 'good' psychopaths need to join teams?

Could be rambling. But maybe there is something to it

I could give examples of experiences in my own life but I think everyone here is too science minded and logical to get it

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Phosphorus specifically I know builds up in soils? I read that a healthy soil ecosystem liberates minerals from the organic and non organic parts of the soil

It forms a lot of insoluble compounds and is also strongly bound to clay minerals. It usually ends up in water courses bound to soil particles or from manure <Phosphate pollution - CPRE Herefordshire"> and sewage works etc. running off, or being flushed, into the water course. Conversely both nitrate (NO3-) and potassium (K+) ions already in solution.

You can strip the phosphate (PO4---) ions <"from sewage discharge">, but diffuse agricultural pollution needs a more holistic response <"Focus on Phosphorus">.

Every Maize field along a watercourse is going to be a huge PO4--- source, just from the bare soil surface after late harvest <"River Stour phosphorus | Wessex Water">

cheers Darrel

 

[Bradders]

I hate these threads!

Mother nature (thus far) is very, very forgiving. As we evolve, she adapts - or eradicates -and it is a changing situation (i.e. constantly changing variable inputs/outputs). That is a very dynamic situation to create solid outcomes.

I think my view is that if we know something has the potential to impact the environment, then we should err on the side of caution and give it credence. We could spend the rest of our lives combining science, opinion, fact, and debate - or we could just say that this could be a problem, so how do we react?

 

[louis_last]

View attachment 223044

Have you actually read the report this graphic sites as it's source? It's extremely misleading and biased, using out of date figures and objectively incorrect estimates on the working lifespan of modern reactors in order to produce the result they wanted. It also doesn't sufficiently factor in energy storage costs for renewables or the actual g CO2/kwh on which nuclear wins no contest.

 

[greenbliss]

I hate these threads!

Mother nature (thus far) is very, very forgiving. As we evolve, she adapts - or eradicates -and it is a changing situation (i.e. constantly changing variable inputs/outputs). That is a very dynamic situation to create solid outcomes.

I think my view is that if we know something has the potential to impact the environment, then we should err on the side of caution and give it credence. We could spend the rest of our lives combining science, opinion, fact, and debate - or we could just say that this could be a problem, so how do we react?

Nature could eradicate us too.. Have to be careful no?

Every Maize field along a watercourse is going to be a huge PO4--- source, just from the bare soil surface after late harvest <"River Stour phosphorus | Wessex Water">

Isn't this where cover crops come in? All that maize being grown to feed cows most likely... I mean milk is nice but it's not really extraordinarily healthy or anything. I wonder why they don't mention no P input arable... I would imagine working with nature while producing slightly less calories would produce more nutritious food vitamin and trace element wise.. Don't we eat too many calories anyways in the west? I know even 15 percent lower trace element levels have been found to cause learning disabilities in children?

 

[Bradders]

Nature could eradicate us too.. Have to be careful no?

Yes. Which is why I said "As we evolve, she adapts - or eradicates -and it is a changing situation"

 

[greenbliss]

Yes. Which is why I said "As we evolve, she adapts - or eradicates -and it is a changing situation"

I mean we will be fine but its still interesting to talk about nature and such

it seems like common sense that once it all starts to get bad people will hopefully start stepping in en masse to stop it

if there is order at all levels of nature then there must be order in this too because it doesn't make sense otherwise

That is just what I think anyways

 

[Aqua sobriquet]

Have you actually read the report this graphic sites as it's source? It's extremely misleading and biased, using out of date figures and objectively incorrect estimates on the working lifespan of modern reactors in order to produce the result they wanted. It also doesn't sufficiently factor in energy storage costs for renewables or the actual g CO2/kwh on which nuclear wins no contest.

This isn’t the first time I’ve read about the cost of Nuclear energy compared to renewables. Another report from earlier this year. This time from Australia.

Report finds nuclear power six times more costly than renewables

The Clean Energy Council has commissioned an independent report, which found that nuclear power is the most expensive form of new energy in Australia.

www.energymagazine.com.au

“The research showed that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy and even on the most favourable reading for nuclear, renewables remain the cheapest form of new-build electricity”

 

[louis_last]

it seems like common sense that once it all starts to get bad people will hopefully start stepping in en masse to stop it

I think something that's sometimes overlooked, even if you 100% accept the dominant narrative around climate change and that it's caused by human co2 emissions, is that it really isn't going to "get bad" everywhere. It's never going to "get bad" in the Scotland. A warming climate would be a huge boon to Russia.
The problem lies in denseley populated areas that are already on the margins of habitability and particularly where there exists totally unsustainable populations dependant on foreign aid. Huge numbers of people could potentially be displaced and personally I think that's the bigger problem.
I believe the real problems presented by climate change are geopolitical rather than technical and that doesn't seem to change whether you assume that the change is man made or not.

 

[Aqua sobriquet]

“Wind and solar energy have become the cheapest source of energy and just within the past year, they grew so fast that newly installed renewables managed to reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions from electricity by 19% while saving consumers an estimated €50bn on their energy bills.”

Myth buster: Nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction - CAN Europe

Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe releases a myth buster to counter the recent hype around nuclear energy. It details why nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction from the transition to a fully renewables-based energy system and threatens to delay the urgently needed phase out of fossil fuels. %

caneurope.org

 

[louis_last]

This isn’t the first time I’ve read about the cost of Nuclear energy compared to renewables. Another report from earlier this year. This time from Australia.

Report finds nuclear power six times more costly than renewables

The Clean Energy Council has commissioned an independent report, which found that nuclear power is the most expensive form of new energy in Australia.

www.energymagazine.com.au

“The research showed that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy and even on the most favourable reading for nuclear, renewables remain the cheapest form of new-build electricity”

The previous report was also from Australia, did you mean to send a different one?
I'm not disputing that's what they report as their conclusions, I take issue with the calculations and figures they are using to arrive at those conclusions. For example they demonstrably underestimate the working lifespan of reactors in the CSIRO report and overestimate the working lifespan of wind turbines. There's no link to the actual report in the second case so I haven't read it yet but will do so with interest if I can find it.
Right off the bat though what's true for Australia may not be everywhere else. Calculations for the cost and efficiency of solar in Australia necessarily must be different than in the UK.

 

[louis_last]

“Wind and solar energy have become the cheapest source of energy and just within the past year, they grew so fast that newly installed renewables managed to reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions from electricity by 19% while saving consumers an estimated €50bn on their energy bills.”

Myth buster: Nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction - CAN Europe

Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe releases a myth buster to counter the recent hype around nuclear energy. It details why nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction from the transition to a fully renewables-based energy system and threatens to delay the urgently needed phase out of fossil fuels. %

caneurope.org

I find this lacking substance and credibility with a very obvious bias. There isn't even really much to respond to because they are mostly addressing straw men.

 

[louis_last]

Also both these reports seem to lean heavily on conclusions from Lazard which is heavily invested in non nuclear renewable energy solutions. A move towards Nuclear would be very bad for Lazard. I am as skeptical of funds heavily invested in wind and solar trashing nuclear as I am of anyone heavily invested in fossil fuels trashing wind and solar.

 

[louis_last]

The 2024 GenCost report’s 90% firmed renewables LCOE came out as $100/MWh to $143/MWh, while large-scale nuclear was estimated to be between $155/MWh to $252/MWh. This means the lower bound of nuclear is already fairly close to the upper bound of renewables.


But simply inputting more realistic values for economic life, capacity factor and uranium price into the GenCost model shows that nuclear falls well within the renewables cost range.


First, GenCost assumes an economic life of 30 years for nuclear plants. This is because GenCost estimates the costs an investor would face for different generation technologies, and investors typically want investments paid off within 30 years.


However, nuclear reactors are already being licensed for 60 years, with regulators even considering 100-year licences, given the longevity of central reactor structures. This means consumers can enjoy cheap electricity from a nuclear plant many decades after the capital costs have been paid off.


Second, GenCost assumes a capacity factor of 53% to 89% for nuclear plants. This is very low, as it assumes nuclear plants must ramp down to allow wind and solar to dispatch. For comparison, the US nuclear fleet averaged 93% over the last two years.


A better strategy to keep down costs for the whole grid would be to prioritise clean, reliable nuclear power rather than forcing it to ramp down to make room for unpredictable wind and solar output.


Finally, the GenCost model locks in for the entire life of a nuclear plant the uranium price spike of $1.10/GJ to $1.30/GJ resulting from the recent US ban on Russian fuel. This is despite GenCost, itself, projecting uranium prices will come back down to between $0.80/GJ to $1.00/GJ by 2030. Thankfully, because uranium is still a cheap fuel, this assumption has less impact than the previous two factors.

 

[louis_last]

But this only addresses CSIRO’s assumptions around nuclear – what about renewables? Instead of getting bogged down in theoretical modelling, let’s come back to the real world and look at just how much Australia is already planning to spend on firming infrastructure.


Tallying up the costs of the currently planned pumped hydro projects in the National Electricity Market – Snowy 2.0, Pioneer-Burdekin and Borumba – gives a total of $38.2 billion.


Doing the same for the many transmission projects currently being approved – VNI West, HumeLink, Central-West Orana REZ, New England REZ, Sydney Ring, Gladstone Grid Reinforcement, Queensland SuperGrid South, CopperString and Project Marinus – comes to a total of $34.6 billion.


This means Australians are set to pay $72.8 billion for pumped hydro and transmission that don’t produce any electricity and are simply there to firm intermittent wind and solar energy.


Taking at face value GenCost’s capital cost estimate of $8.7 billion to build a 1GW reactor, $72.8 billion is enough to buy eight large-scale nuclear reactors.


This $72.8 billion figure doesn’t even include the wind turbines and solar panels themselves, or the long list of battery projects currently underway, or the future transmission and storage projects that a renewables-dominated grid will need by 2050.


How many reactors could we afford if we added in just one more chunk of these significant costs?


A recent Centre for Independent Studies paper, The six fundamental flaws underpinning the energy transition, calculated the cost at today’s prices of all the consumer batteries we’d need to support the grid by 2050 according to AEMO’s Integrated System Plan, using GenCost’s capital cost estimates.


The total comes to $229 billion.


Adding the cost of these consumer batteries to the transmission and pumped hydro costs gives you an eye-watering $301.8 billion. That means the amount Australians are set to spend on firming infrastructure in the next few decades is enough to buy 35 1GW reactors.


To put this in perspective, the peak demand for the entire National Electricity Market in 2024 was 38 GW. So for the price we’re paying just to support intermittent wind and solar, we could afford to build even a 90% nuclear grid that is cheap, clean and reliable.