69th Nuclear Blogs Carnival @ Atomic Power Review

Atomic Power Review is hosting the 69th iteration of the Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers. The last dozen or so carnivals have been obsessed with the Fukushima meltdown and subsequent wave of anti-nuclear hysteria sweeping around the globe. Carnival topics are just now returning to items of interest. Excerpts:

Brian Wang - Next Big Future

The Institute of Energy Economic of Japan (IEEJ) says that for the past five years the cost of nuclear generation remained stable at around ¥7.00 ($0.09) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, even if compensation of up to ¥10 trillion ($130 billion) for loss or damage from a nuclear accident is taken into account, the cost of electricity generation with nuclear reactors increases to some ¥8.50 ($0.11) per kWh.

Link: Nuclear Cost Still Competitive / Uranium moves forward

--------------------

Rod Adams - Atomic Insights

Link: Wind & solar are not "intermittent"; they are unreliable, unpredictable, uncontrollable and worthless

Americans most likely associate the word “intermittent” with their easily controlled windshield wipers that can be adjusted to match the demand of clearing their windshield through a variety of conditions. However, people also describe wind and solar power as "intermittent" energy sources.

We have been using the wrong word and conveying the wrong meaning. Unlike our intermittent windshield wiper systems, with their responsive control systems that allow drivers to pick exactly the right speed to respond to changing demands, the desired output of wind and solar power systems are completely dependent upon the input weather conditions. No human can control the weather or make systems dependent on the weather produce the right amount of power at the right time.

We want our power to smooth, reliable, and utterly under control. Wind and solar do nothing to assist grid operators deliver a product meeting those requirements.

--------------------

Dan Yurman - Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes

Link: China Restarts Progress on its Nuclear Energy Program

China restarts progress on its nuclear energy program. Post-Fukushima safety checks are done, but the size of the new build will be smaller. This blog predicted last December that the size of the new build in the next ten years would not be 80 GW, but something closer to 25 GW. According to the latest statements in China’s state-owned media, the amount of construction by 2020 will be 30 GW with another 28 GW built between 2020 and 2030.

Also, China has hooked up a fast reactor to the grid supplying electricity from one for commercial use for the first time in that country. The China National Nuclear Corporation plant is generating 20 MW and has a capacity of 65 MW. It was built with help from a consortium of Russian state-owned companies.

--------------------

Gail Marcus - Nuke Power Talk

Link: Uranium - Not Just For Reactors

Gail Marcus takes a break from writing about Fukushima and, triggered by a new stamp from the US Postal Service, makes note of how uranium was used in days before the first the reactor ever split an atom.

APR note: Folks, this is really a fun post.

--------------------

Margaret Harding - 4Factor Consulting

Link: PEST(EL) in the Nuclear Industry - Social Factors (Part 6.)

Margaret is continuing her evaluation of the nuclear industry by looking at social factors affecting the industry. This week she examines the industry demographics of age and education.... _69thNucularBlogCarnie

Full carnival at the link above.

Pronuclear environmentalist Charles Barton takes a critical look at the anti-nuclear campaign of the Big Green lobbies, which are otherwise known as faux environmentalist dieoff.orgiastic energy starvationists.

Advanced nuclear fission can provide Earth with abundant power and heat for thousands of years. Controlled nuclear fusion can provide abundant power for tens of thousands of years.

The question before modern governments is whether they will give up on clean, abundant, inexpensive sources of energy before they have even begun?

There is no reasonable choice between fossil fuels, bioenergy, and nuclear power. No, every reliable form of energy and power must be utilised as we bridge the gap between combustion energy and power, and nuclear energy. In fact, nuclear power can help us utilise more difficult to obtain fossil fuels, which will then help us to bridge the gap to more advanced nuclear power.

We should always think in terms of multiple streams of energy, power, and fuels, from multiple sources.

Even when humans have permanent colonies in space, and when most advanced human societies are using controlled fusion, there will still be societies cooking with woodfires and using combustion engines and boilers for transportation, heat, and power.

More on the incredible disaster of the big wind agenda. From an economic standpoint, from an energy standpoint, and from an aesthetic standpoint, these unreliable monstrosities are a curse placed upon taxpayers and citizens by their own governments.