I'm reading "As Oil Prices Stay High, China Doubles Down on Wind Power/An industrial policy of subsidies and import restrictions laid the foundations for China to become almost as dominant in wind turbines as in solar panels" (NYT).
Do you wish we were more dominant in wind power, with more hilltops are dotted with wind turbines? Do we want long rows spanning many miles?
China does not have that option. It must import oil and gas.
China is now racing to build offshore wind turbines, which tend to catch steadier breezes and sit much closer to coastal power users than desert turbines do.
China has something we don't have — people who seemingly need to put up with what the government is imposing on them:
The push has faced little public resistance because of strong government backing. Even though local residents complain, they have little power to stop projects from moving forward.
“The noise from these turbines is quite loud,” said Wang Cuifen, who lives on a small farm outside Yancheng, near the base of towering turbines in a tidal zone. “They run nonstop from around 4 p.m. to 4 a.m., and it affects our rest.”
Posts
155 comments:
How many coal fired plants do they have: pull my other figure
Tommy Explains Why Even Wind Turbines Depend on the Oil Industry Yah, it's fiction but there's not much fiction in the explanation...
I'm for doing all of it simultaneous, but nuclear is the long game: cleanest, most compact, most scalable, most portable, most reliable, easiest to protect. The fact that we have submarines and aircraft carriers running on it proves all that.
China has a history of massive, government mandated, boondoggles. Not saying this is one, but it has that smell.
The intent of the NYT story is to manipulate China's rather desperate energy situation in to the latest iteration of Green New Deal but China isn't investing in turbines because they're a superior source of energy they do it because they need all the power they can find. They'd be thrilled to use more petroleum but can't, or also yes narcisco coal and hydro- nuclear? Pretty much whatever they can acquire. The point is they have to invest in more costly sources like wind. Ask any leftie how damaging higher energy costs are. Don't bother they're lecturing us every day about gas prices...
Let’s start with the cities. Windmills on every rooftop! Dead birds falling on the sidewalks!
Wind energy is about 15X more expensive that a new natural gas power plant. So, I am glad they are so desperate that they are have to resort to wind on a mass scale.
About 20 years ago I got a copy of the alumni magazine from the small Maine college I attended. On the cover was a formerly pristine mountainside and ridge with 12 or 15 massive wind turbines surrounded by the cleared spaces where they stood. It looked horrific--I thought the article would be about how turbines are despoiling the landscape (which is the primary feature and revenue source of northern New England states like Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire).
I was of course wrong. The article was a paean to some alum who was making bank by developing wind energy (with massive government subsidies and tax breaks, of course).
John Hinderaker of Powerline had a piece a couple of years ago about how much virgin copper each of those turbines requires, and what is involved in mining the copper. Almost 4 tons of copper required for each--and recycled copper doesn't work (I don't remember why). Although I'm sure that the Chinese use only the most environmentally sound mining techniques.
For the commenters scratching their heads thinking, "the media says that wind power is equal in cost to natural gas power", let me explain. When it is said that the cost is the same, they are talking about "rated power". In the US, a wind turbine produces rated power about 30% of the time, natural gas produces rated power abut 98% of the time. The average life of a wind turbine is 12 years, for natural gas it's about 65 years. So, for the same installed cost you get 15X+ more power from the natural gas plant.
The climate system is not infinite, otherwise we wouldn't worry about dumping pollutants or carbon dioxide into it. But wind turbines remove energy from that system, convert it to electricity and send it elsewhere, where about half of it is turned into heat. The answer, my friends, is not blowing in the wind.
If we had started out with wind and solar rather than fossil fuels, the world would be a much uglier, more cluttered place. We would see fossil fuels as a wonderful new and improved power source that required less resources, was softer on the environment, and produced less trash, and it would probably be getting government subsidies to clean up the planet.
Almost everything you read about green energy in the lefty press is misleading or a lie.
If they make economic sense, then they bear consideration. Coincidentally, with the end of government subsidies, the boom is dying out. They do make a significant amount of noise.
Nuclear energy is really the only format that beats out the energy density of hydrocarbons, and the latter still offers nonpareil portability.
The hills are alive with the sound of ... propellers?
Between 2018 and 2027, an estimated 1.9 billion pounds of copper will be required for new solar installations in North America.
Is that why we stopped making pennies?
The dishonest, manipulative NYT is trying to suggest that the Chinese wind industry is tied to the recent uptick in oil prices, i.e. it’s Trump’s fault that China is gaining in so-called “green” energy approaches. Giant wind installation projects take years to realize, and have nothing to do with events in the last couple of months. And the NYT still won’t admit that when looked at from an overall standpoint, wind power is the least green approach to major energy sources.
The push has faced little public resistance because of strong government backing.
They do love and respect their government in China, don't they?
Even though local residents complain, they have little power to stop projects from moving forward.
Oh.
At least they only buried that fact - not the lede exactly, but still a fact - behind the one sentence. But if local residents are complaining, isn't that resistance? Or do you have to, what, take to the streets or something in order for it to count? I know when my kids complained about putting on a coat, for example, I certainly considered it resistance even though they didn't actually hit me or run away from me as I stuffed their little arms in the sleeves.
I DESPISE wind turbines. Hate them with the heat of a thousand suns.
China is run like California. They waste enormous amounts of money of things that don't benefit the people, but make the connected rich, and the people put up with it. Both run entirely on top down power and party loyalty, and both have huge numbers of people who want to escape.
Intermittent, unreliable electricity and a Green blight.
China has something we don't have — people who seemingly need to put up with what the government is imposing on them
Are you seriously suggesting that the current energy policy of the U.S. is not being imposed on us? Trump has spent the last year gutting the EPA, denying climate change and withdrawing from the Paris Accords, and has even gone as far to bribe foreign companies not to build wind projects.
Of course the current energy policy of the U.S. (basically, Drill baby Drill and Dig baby Dig) is being imposed on us.
"Is that why we stopped making pennies?"
It costs more than a penny to make them, even now that they're made of zinc instead of copper.
Lots of blades to "recycle", lots of open space to leave them.
What Dude said! Was in my home state of Wyoming about a year ago. Rape of endless virgin landsight. Destroy every last one of them. It's not like Wyo is about to run out fossil fuels.
Is that why we stopped making pennies?
Pennies haven't been made of copper since 1982.
The hilltops are not "dotted". Nothing about a wind turbine is small and insignificant, or barely visible. It's like saying your head is "dotted" with a sombrero.
Do you wish we were more dominant in wind power …
Hell no. Bald eagles are no longer listed as endangered, but they are protected and wind turbines kill them by the thousands. Every wind turbine operates with a waiver that allows it to kill eagles and other protected raptor species.
There is nothing green about most green-tech. It's more expensive and inferior. As you suggest, China would not be doing this if they had another choice.
Fortunately, they are an authoritarian society so they don't need to worry about petty things like public perception (or environmental impact assessments.)
The key point is that a totalitarian government isn't held accountable for either the cost or negative consequences of reliance on wind--including the certainty of blackouts--usually at the time when electricity is most valued. The US government is getting out of the business of mandates and subsidies and "renewables" will have to stand on their merits. There's a role in the grid for renewables--but that role is minor. Simple fix: require all renewable power generators to sell "firm" power--make them responsible for providing power (usually from natural gas plants) when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. This really isn't that complicated.
Nuclear energy is really the only format that beats out the energy density of hydrocarbons, and the latter still offers nonpareil portability.
Then why is Nuclear so expensive?
Building massive amounts of wind farms doesn’t equal massive amounts of electricity production. Installed kws never equals actual kw production. This is all gaslighting. As Narciso asked in the first comment, how many coal powered plants do they build every day? Yeah, let’s not talk about that. Also, the price of oil has nothing to do with the price of electricity. The price of natural gas and coal do.
I used to be pretty neutral on wind farms - in an empty, rural area where the wind is always blowing, why not? But the more I learn about their resource cost and their inefficiencies, the more I think they're like those stupid CFL bulbs - you know, the ones that can't be used with a dimmer, shatter into a million dangerous shards when dropped, and contain lots of toxins. Those things were an absolutely awful alternative to incandescents.
LED bulbs are much better - in my opinion, superior to incandescents because they run cool, use much less electricity, can be tuned to cooler or warmer light in addition to colors if you're in a party mood, and - now - are reasonably priced. But when CFLs came out, LEDs weren't ready for prime time. So... what technology is in the wings while we struggle to convince ourselves that wind turbines are good?
Now, the wind farms remind me of the tripods in The White Mountains. I think it was maybe an old book cover?
When I'm traveling the interstate I dread driving through fields of turbines even more than I dread road construction. Wind farms are a horrific blight on the earth. Fields of solar panels are ugly, too, but at least they don't dominate the skyline.
The religion of wind and solar demands awful sacrifices.
Trump has spent the last year gutting the EPA, denying climate change …
@Fredo Frederson, I prefer bitter clingers to guns and religion over people like you who bitterly cling to debunked junk science like anthropogenic global warming.
Hell no. Bald eagles are no longer listed as endangered, but they are protected and wind turbines kill them by the thousands.
You do know that fossil fuel usage (especially coal) kills a bunch of birds (and people) ?
Most of the lead editors are skydragon worshipers and lesuo compromised by the chinese
"Then why is Nuclear so expensive?"
Ask the guy in the mirror. He seems like the the type to have carried a sign saying "NO Nukes".
Fields of solar panels are ugly
So are fields of corn and soybeans (and most row crops, except rapeseed for a week or two in late spring).
Well we need corn and soybeans for food
Ask the guy in the mirror.
Well I did. And it turns out that turning uranium ore into reactor fuel is an extremely complicated and expensive process that has profound bad effects on human health and the environment. You also have that itty-bitty problem with what to do with high level nuclear waste. And while they are not common, a nuclear meltdown has the potential to destroy the economy of nations. Reagan didn't cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, Chernobyl did.
Are you seriously suggesting that the current energy policy of the U.S. is not being imposed on us?
Insofar as it's pretty well out of the range of individuals to build a personal power plant and electricity delivery system, sure. But we can protest without fear, lobby our representatives, join or form organizations to explore alternatives to government policy. We can (or most of us can - I don't know what CA and NY have these days) seek alternative energy providers that put more emphasis on renewables, if that's important to us. In many places, we can install our own solar panels or single-user wind turbines or whole-house generators. I'll bet you could install a water wheel if you had the space and the water. Are you seriously suggesting that the American government oppresses its populace the way the Chinese government does?
As to why nuclear is so expensive, you know the answer to that. Regulation. Obviously.
Feeder Frederson asks, why is Nuclear more expensive. It’s only more expensive in countries that don’t want it. It’s regulated purposefully to be non competitive. Over a twelve year period the UAE built four nuclear power plants side by side in succession. It cost them $32 billion dollars. 5600 MW
I prefer bitter clingers to guns and religion over people like you who bitterly cling to debunked junk science like anthropogenic global warming.
And that has been debunked as junk science exactly by who and what evidence?
Where I live, the fields alternate between corn, soybeans, millet, and various cover crops like rye and oats. Every couple of months the landscape picture changes to a different pallet of colors and textures. The fields are not always beautiful, but most of the time they are. Solar panels are always ugly and don't change ever.
Then why is Nuclear so expensive?
Have you ever toured a nuclear plant Fredo?
I have. They are remarkably overbuilt and over regulated because of fear.
We cannot have nuclear plants because so many people died because of Three Mile Island. Wait ..;
Well michael manns fraud scheme has beem unveiled
Story is fake news -- POTUS has said many times that -- "They make [windmills], they sell them for a fortune… but they don’t use them themselves."
Surly Trump is a more reliable source of accurate information that the commies at the NYT. Don't be fooled people.
Wind turbines simply don't deliver the amount of power industry needs. Maybe the unreliable scanty supply from wind power is going to the people who can't complain. It's disgusting to see how autocratic regimes keep trying to appeal to the Dems who've only heard 1/2 of any issue for the last eight years and who've become mental couch potatoes. A story in regime-acceptable media and Pavlov's Dems believe. The worst thing I've seen is the way the Iranian IRGC is hoping for the Dems to win in the mid-terms so the IRGC can double down on massacring their own people. And the Dems are good with being HOPE to the IRGC. "Help us, Hakeem Jeffries, you are our only hope."
a wonderful new and improved power source that required less resources, was softer on the environment, and produced less trash, and it would probably be getting government subsidies to clean up the planet.
Have you ever seen a coal mine tailings pile, or analyzed the contents of coal ash? And oil spills are just wonderful for the environment.
Over a twelve year period the UAE built four nuclear power plants side by side in succession. It cost them $32 billion dollars. 5600 MW
I thought Althouses (ridiculous) point is that here in 'Murica we get to choose what kind of energy we use. That it is not dictated by the government. Tell me all about how the residents of UAE get to decide anything?
Freder. Every source of energy has downsides, and every form of energy production and use has environmental costs. Natural gas has remarkably few and they're well managed. Hydrocarbons as a general class are safe to use even for the lower end of the bell curve, environmentally low-cost now that they're well mitigated, easy to produce, very well understood from cradle to grave, abundant, super portable, and important in the production of a whole lot of other important products.
What is a better alternative?
Climate change is inevitable. Anthropogenic climate change appears to be somewhere between a scare tactic and one more pretty minor environmental effect to be mitigated and adapted to like everything else we humans do, such as - as you mention - growing row crops instead of gathering seed heads from wild grasses by hand. Why does the Left cling so tenaciously to the fantasy of King Canute instead of doing what we humans do best - managing our environment to our benefit?
I have. They are remarkably overbuilt and over regulated because of fear.
So maybe we should just follow the lead of the Soviet Union. Wait..;
bagoh20 @8:42, that made me LOL!
"Seven US refineries have shut down since 2020. This removed 1.2 million barrels per day of distillation capacity. China overtook America as the world's largest refiner in 2022. US jet fuel supply is dropping to 21 days, the lowest since 1963. Every barrel of crude oil on Earth, 82 million per day, enters a column like this one. At 66 meters and 1,300 tonnes, it is taller than the Leaning Tower of Pisa. There are over 40,000 of them across America. They distill crude oil, ethanol, and pharmaceutical solvents. Each barrel is heated to 400°C and separated by boiling point. Gasoline rises. Asphalt sinks. Distillation consumes 40% of all energy used in the chemical process industry. The process was invented in the 8th century. America hasn't constructed a new refinery since 1976. No country has built a viable replacement at scale."
https://x.com/Gaurab/status/2051442756414025819
"Do you wish we were more dominant in wind power, with more hilltops are dotted with wind turbines? Do we want long rows spanning many miles?"
No, we do not.
In the US - most of our large scale and civic solar and wind projects are all for show - with NO electrical connectivity.
If this article is accurate (if) -- China is less of a Potemkin Village, than the United States.
Why would we want that?
Other than surface of the sun temperatures in summer the worst thing about Palm Springs are the unsightly bird choppers sitting idle mostly, covering dozens of square miles. California made it worse with policies that forced utilities to use wind and solar, which drove our average monthly electricity bills to double.
I urge China to waste as much time and money chasing the wind as possible. Hee hee.
China still gets most of its energy from coal. They open a new coal fired plant a day on average.
Jim# has it back asswards as usual. Trump did this. Ending subsidies for wind and solar coupled with deprivation of oil has put a kink in Xi’s plans and what was once for show now has to be part of the inputs to keep China Inc. humming.
Every time you “catch Trump” it’s actually you who are fooled.
Fredo Frederson doubles down on stupid, then doubles again.
Radioactive elements will decay, whether we tap into the energy released for our own uses or not.
Althouse and Fredo want protected bird species to die. Arrest them!
Trump is tilting against windmills ... but unlike Don Quixote, he will never regain his sanity.
Trump has a particular animosity towards wind farms. He has called them the “worst form of energy” and said his “goal is to not let any windmill be built”.
Trump turned against wind farms after one was built off the shore in North East Scotland, in what he thought spoiled the view from his golf course there. There really is no rational behind his turn other than this. The US falls behind in terms of energy security while China powers on.
As the Iran conflict intensifies the global push for energy security, investors are pouring money into clean energy. Donald “Greta” Thrumpberg strikes again — the accidental climate activist.
The cost of electricity produced by sun and wind has become cheaper than oil & gas (and nuclear). The problem is that electricity is quite a small proportion of the world's total power consumption, the vast majority of which fed by fossil fuels.
What is needed is a big push towards electrification, as has happened in the auto sector.
The current geopolitical shock will certainly help in this regard, but there is probably a limit to what Western governments can do politically, given the inherent flaws in our democratic system, now widened by social media and polarization. Almost all of the issues in renewables relate to policy and not lack of capital.
We will probably have to rely on China for real movement in this area, and hope that everyone else can benefit from their innovations and scale economies.
"China is now racing to build offshore wind turbines, which tend to catch steadier breezes..."
Donovan & Crystal Gayle -- Catch The Wind
And when the wind stops blowing ...
The cost of electricity produced by sun and wind has become cheaper than oil & gas (and nuclear).
Really? Evidence?
What is needed is a big push towards electrification, as has happened in the auto sector.
I think that you really are this ignorant. Where does this magic substance, "electricity," come from?
And why did the auto sector make a "big push" towards electricification (which they are currently retreating from as fast as they can retool)?
Radioactive elements will decay, whether we tap into the energy released for our own uses or not.
We are not capturing the decay of radioactive elements to power a nuclear plant. Fission creates more radioactive elements. There are very few places on earth where natural fission occurs.
Do you really not know that?
From the electrical outlet obviously
I get the feeling that Freder is OK with nuclear for Iran but not for the US.
Dude1394 said..."I DESPISE wind turbines. Hate them with the heat of a thousand suns."
Me too.
Hey Freder, ever figure out what happens to the waste heat of a light bulb?
Heat pumps are going crazy in my market, I cannot get a technician to send me an offer for an installation at the moment, that's how busy they are.
Hey Freder, ever figure out what happens to the waste heat of a light bulb?
And now I can bring up you believing that nuclear reactors work by radioactive decay whenever you say something that I disagree with.
Increasing less bothered by the idea of China superseding America as the global superpower -- the US is just getting embarrassing. China is investing huge amounts of money into green energy, R&D for green tech, EVs, batteries, solar, wind, high speed rail...
Whereas the Trump administration is cancelling all their renewable projects, repeatedly launching new wars, massively increasing public spending only on the military, and basically following a Mad Max guzzling monster truck transport policy.
I am lost in wonder as America regresses under its own Cultural Revolution guided by its own Great Leader. In Beijing the irony must be delicious.
"And now I can bring up you believing that nuclear reactors work by radioactive decay whenever you say something that I disagree with."
Well, you'd be lying. I know how a nuclear reactor works.
Freder Frederson said...
I have. They are remarkably overbuilt and over regulated because of fear.
"So maybe we should just follow the lead of the Soviet Union. Wait..;"
We don't. Which is why the nuke plants in the west are much safer.
"Fission creates more radioactive elements. " Up to a point.
The average service life of a fuel rod is 3 to six years.
I haven't read the comments, so maybe this was already mentioned: The IPCC has dumped their high-emissions RCP8.5 scenario. The one that was used to gin up the doomsday predictions.
The equipment replacement cycle is what will kill wind and solar power in the long run.
Well, you'd be lying. I know how a nuclear reactor works.
Well then, why did you bring up the irrelevant point about radioactive decay?
We don't. Which is why the nuke plants in the west are much safer.
But Maynard's point was that nuclear plants are too safe and we should relax safety standards. And of course, it is not only Soviet plants that melt down, we have come damn close here, and it happened in Japan.
“Do we want long rows spanning many miles? “
We already have that in some parts of the country. My wife and I have spent the last five summers driving around the western part of the country, and, many times, you can’t escape the turbines and solar panels.
I’d much rather see faster development of small modular reactors.
"There are very few places on earth where natural fission occurs."
Actually, I'm not sure what you're claiming here. Natural radioactive decay of U-235 is fission.
"Well then, why did you bring up the irrelevant point about radioactive decay?"
I didn't. What comment are you referring to?
@Freder: Tell us what your plan is for disposing of obsolete wind farm turbine blades. In fact, tell us what your proposal is, for anything you're opposed to in this blog. Or is your purpose simply to oppose?
07 AM
“ said...
"Fission creates more radioactive elements. " Up to a point.
The average service life of a fuel rod is 3 to six years.”
The local nuke refuels one of its two reactors annually. I suppose they must swap out 4 or 6 year old fuel bundles.
Rods fresh out of the reactor are deadly radioactive, and physically hot. They are stored in water until the short lived isotopes fade out, and then go to racks in the air. I don’t know if they’re ever moved offsite. They should get reprocessed to get more energy out of them, but they aren’t.
Clueless Freder,
For many of us who voted for Trump over Shelob or Harris, one of the big selling points was him helping to scale back the various green energy scams (plural, because there's more than one.)
This is replacing coal not liquid petroleum, so it's a good thing considering China doesn't like to spend money on air scrubbers.
Nuclear is less expensive after cost amortization, reliable electricity production, and reduced environmental impact.
The aesthetic choices of our presidents are distracting wastes of time.
"Natural radioactive decay of U-235 is fission."
OK, that's wrong. U-235 decays into Th-231.
China is investing in Green schemes where industry, people, and environment matter less. China has one-child. America has selective-child.
Fritz,
> [spent rods] should get reprocessed to get
> more energy out of them, but they aren’t.
"Should"? What do you know that the nuclear plant operators don't?
Cost per kilowatt produced by solar or wind might, might, be approaching the CPK produced by natural gas-fired plants or hydro. Storage is a problem for wind/solar outputs . Not an issue with hydro, where the water just bypasses turbines when not needed. Mismatch between wind and solar is most obvious at night, but can occur anytime, making the CPK stubbornly high for most purposes.
Years ago, perhaps as many as 30, a preacher in West Virginia erected three crosses on a hillside in the southern part of the state to represent the crucifixion. A gold (yellow) cross flanked by two white ones. They have since proliferated. The self-styled intelligentsia love to sneer and mock at these displays. Maybe a decade ago I was returning from day out golfing and my playing partner for the day was my passenger. We came onto a ridge and in the distance was a long line of wind turbines. I knew his politics were reflexively democratic and I knew how he liked to make fun of the crucifixes. When the windmills came into sight, "I love seeing those," he rhapsodized.
"Ah yes," I said, "the crucifixes of the environmental movement." Silence and shortly thereafter a return to golf as the topic du jour.
If only some disused oil rigs had been parked 4km off the Aberdeen coast (Trump's golf course) within sight of his golf course back in 2018 instead of the construction of a wind farm -- it might have changed the course of history.
Trump's vindictive not strategic.
Natural radioactive decay of U-235 is fission.
While you are technically correct, when we are talking about nuclear fission as a way to boil water to generate steam to produce electricity in a turbine, we are referring to controlled nuclear fission chain reactions where we are concentrating radioactive elements, creating a chain reaction, and splitting atoms into components that are not normal products of natural radioactive decay.
Fission creates more radioactive elements. There are very few places on earth where natural fission occurs.
Do you really not know that?
@Fredo, you make two assertions that are Tre, but from a technical perspective are utter non sequiturs. How can you not realize that?
Note to the other commentators. You should not attempt to use things like facts or logic in engaging with Fredo Frederson. He has a memorized a handful of facts — let me put that into scare quotes — “facts” that may or may not be true, and if true probably aren’t relevant. Is he even aware that the infamous IPCC has been forced to admit that the alarmist climate scenarios it pushed to drive climate “research” actually range from implausible to impossible. If he knew, would he even care?
Just laugh at him.
The temoles of the skydragon
I don’t know if they’re ever moved offsite.
Not in this country, they don't. The government has been trying to site long term storage since at least the early '80s. Reprocessing is possible but it is extremely expensive and you end up with a lot of plutonium which is a proliferation risk.
but from a technical perspective are utter non sequiturs. How can you not realize that?
As was your comment about natural radioactive decay. How can you not realize that?
Yes, looking at a ridge in PA that could use some ornaments.
(though many of my neighbors disagree with me.)
"While you are technically correct, "
No, I was wrong.
Hadn't had my coffee yet.
But it does look like you've figured out the difference between me and Big Mike.
Wind turbines and photovoltaic cells are not reaching cost parity through their life cycles, including: reliable energy, environmental impact, and subsidies through credit and arbitrage.
Is he even aware that the infamous IPCC has been forced to admit that the alarmist climate scenarios it pushed to drive climate “research” actually range from implausible to impossible. If he knew, would he even care?
I did not know this. Can you provide a link? Certainly nothing about it on the IPCC site.
"I did not know this. Can you provide a link? "
See my 10:13 comment.
Hes doing atandup now
“> [spent rods] should get reprocessed to get
> more energy out of them, but they aren’t.
"Should"? What do you know that the nuclear plant operators don't?”
Nothing really. They know it too. The decision to not reprocess spent fuel was a national one, based mostly on the plutonium in spent fuel, the idea being to keep it out of civilian hands.
Only a fraction of the U-235 is used in a fuel cycle. Rods slow down the fission rate as neutron absorbing byproducts build up. By reprocessing the fuel and topping off the U-235 content the same amount of Uranium mining would support much more energy production.
And don’t get me going about our complete disregard for the option of breeder reactors.
Freder: https://substack.com/inbox/post/195733015
“ 38 AM
Original Mike said...
"Natural radioactive decay of U-235 is fission."
OK, that's wrong. U-235 decays into Th-231.”
Both are right. Most U-235 decays towards Th-231, but a really tiny fraction by comparison fissions, hence the stray neutrons that initiate spontaneous chain reaction in enriched U.
Spontaneous fission of uranium-235 (\(^{235}\text{U}\)) is a form of radioactive decay where the nucleus naturally splits into two lighter nuclei and releases neutrons and energy without any external trigger. While \(^{235}\text{U}\) is famous for induced fission in nuclear reactors, its spontaneous fission is an extremely rare event, occurring in only about 0.000000007% of its total decays. - Wikipedia, which can often be trusted for apolitical things.
The cost of electricity produced by sun and wind has become cheaper than oil & gas (and nuclear).
Bollocks.
In California, which has gone all in on "renewables", electricity costs three times as much per Kwh as Idaho, where there isn't a single farging windmill trashing the horizon.
Germany, farther gone than CA, spends five times as much as the US average, which is elevated by CA and its ilk.
I lived for five years in Germany. Those damn windmills are a pox upon the landscape.
Freder Frederson said...
We don't. Which is why the nuke plants in the west are much safer.
"But Maynard's point was that nuclear plants are too safe and we should relax safety standards. "
That's not what he said at all. re read it. They are safe because they are overbuilt.
Japan isn't a good comparison. Fukushima failed because the tsunami and earthquake overwhelmed the back up cooling pumps. Subsequent action saved most of the reactors containment vessels. Nobody died from radiation.
It is still the most reliable source for generating electrical power along with falling water.
Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor. The explosion was a steam explosion, not a nuclear one.
I prefer bitter clingers to guns and religion over people like you who bitterly cling to debunked junk science like anthropogenic global warming.
Freder, unless it was IEE: And that has been debunked as junk science exactly by who and what evidence?
Reality. Every prediction made by climate cultists that was supposed to have happened by now has failed.
Exhibit A: The Maldives.
The most fundamental prediction is rising sea level. Except it hasn't happened. Which means either melting isn't what it has been cracked up to be, or the oceans themselves haven't warmed the way they were supposed to.
There are far more examples out there. AI overview:
Failed climate predictions, often cited to argue against climate urgency, include early 1970s warnings of a coming ice age, premature claims of ice-free Arctic summers by 2013-2016, and forecasts of catastrophic sea-level rise drowning cities within decades. Many predictions failed due to overestimated warming rates or flawed assumptions about emission rates and natural feedback loops.
Failed 'Doomsday' Predictions: Early forecasts often predicted rapid, extreme consequences. Examples include the claim that the Maldives would be completely underwater by 2018 (30 years after 1988) or that gasoline would be over $9 a gallon by 2015.
The 1970s "Big Freeze": Some scientists in the 1970s warned of an impending ice age caused by industrial cooling.
Arctic Ice Miscalculations: Former US Vice President Al Gore and others predicted an ice-free Arctic by the mid-2010s, which did not materialize.
Overestimated Warming (1988 Hansen Model): While James Hansen correctly warned of warming, his 1988 projection overestimated the pace, though his moderated Scenario B proved relatively* accurate.
Himalayan Glacier Error: The IPCC's 2007 report included a false claim, based on a faulty report, that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035.
Misleading Narratives: Many commonly cited "failed" predictions originate from media reports or alarmist statements rather than peer-reviewed science.
Failed Predictions of Stability: Some recent analysis suggests some climate events, such as the German floods and North American heat dome, were not predicted well in advance, indicating models have trouble with extreme, intense weather events.
These failed forecasts are often attributed to the complexity of modeling a chaotic climate system, including uncertainties in cloud cover, ocean interaction, and human emission behavior.
*"Relatively" is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence.
If you think solar is cheaper than conventional gas then you don't understand that it is only AVAILABLE half the day in optimal conditions. The real world is rarely optimal for 100% sunlight. Without massive storage, which we have not invented, solar can NEVER replace conventional electrical production. And since we have 300-400 years of conventional gas on earth I'm in no rush to create giant batteries.
Same for wind. Unreliable energy source.
Didn't the Chinese attempt to improve their agricultural productivity by killing all the birds a generation ago?
This is under-discussed.
China Steps Up U.S. Sanctions Fight, Defying Blacklisting Over Iranian Oil ~ WSJ
“China escalated its fight against the U.S. over Iranian oil, defying American sanctions in a show of resistance ahead of President Trump’s visit to Beijing planned for next week.“
They planted a billion trees and shifted their rainfall to disastrous effect.
Because no one trusts WSJ reporting anymore. Bad juju.
Fredo and others need to tour a nuke plant before they opine on safety.
Yes they have blotted out tbeir copy
Why do we power aircraft carriers with nuclear?
The many reasons tell a story about the superiority of nuclear power. If you have a choice, and the need is important, you choose it.
There is great progress taking place right now in new and revised nuclear reactor technology with mini and micro reactors using a variety of different methods with some that use very low grade or spent uranium. Nuclear has none of the basic problems of available power to harness. It's problems are ancillary, and solvable in multiple ways. You don't need to figure out how to make it more powerful, reliable or scalable. You just need to control it, which is a straight forward problem.
"China escalated its fight against the U.S. over Iranian oil, defying American sanctions..."
It's nice to see them having to work for it instead of just taking advantage of our feckless leadership of the past.
This post and comments are an excellent example of why I so love the Althouse blog.
I'm the Special Knox County, Nebraska Attorney defending it against Big Wind in federal court.
Unlike in China, the people have a say in what industrial uses are sited in their neighborhoods.
The Board of Supervisors banned wind energy in Knox County for very sound reasons. One reason is tourism. The Niobrara River empties into the Missouri River in Knox County. Chief Standing Bear brought his son's body from Oklahoma to bury it in Knox County. Knox County also has the Lewis and Clark Lake. As Ann Althouse once wrote, "we want to keep America beautiful in our minds and imaginations."
In China, Big Brother and Big Wind can jam expensive and inefficient wind energy down the throats of the people and there's nothing they can do about it. In America, different deal.
And the comments above about wind being expensive are absolutely true. Big Wind and Wall Street (Lazard) don't add all the costs of inefficient wind energy; green plating the grid is one giant unaccounted for cost.
I've told the OPPD Board many times, if wind and solar energy are so cheap then why is electricity in the EU 3x-5x the cost in Omaha.
Why do we power aircraft carriers with nuclear?
Why are aircraft carriers the only surface ships in the fleet currently powered by nuclear. We used to have nuclear powered cruisers, but retired them all (too expensive to maintain).
I remember a time when the future of civilian cargo ships was going to be nuclear. Three or four were built. That never really worked out. The German ship was converted to diesel in 1982, finally scrapped in 2009.
Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor. The explosion was a steam explosion, not a nuclear one.
Did I ever say it was a nuclear explosion? However, the explosion resulted in a melt down.
That's not what he said at all. re read it. They are safe because they are overbuilt.
And why did he say they are overbuilt? Oh yeah they are "overbuilt and over regulated because of fear".
Japan isn't a good comparison. Fukushima failed because the tsunami and earthquake overwhelmed the back up cooling pumps. Subsequent action saved most of the reactors containment vessels. Nobody died from radiation.
And tsunamis, earthquakes, and hurricanes never happen in the U.S. And just because very few people died doesn't mean the cleanup was cheap, quick or easy. 164,000 people were displaced and the cleanup cost at least $220 billion.
I don't have a problem with the looks of electric windmills. The problems I have is that the blades are not recyclable and power grids like to have constant, steady power. We really need to develop cost effective, reliable storage for large power before we start putting solar panels and wind turbines up. It's amazing how many large, civic projects don't take basic infrastructure problems into account before they start building the project.
I think you require a certain scale of demand like a carrier to make nuclear practical
bagoh20 said...
“The hilltops are not "dotted". Nothing about a wind turbine is small and insignificant, or barely visible. It's like saying your head is "dotted" with a sombrero.”
5/5/26, 8:42 AM
Try driving the 580 westbound on a sunny summer day, approaching the Altamont Pass. Those turbines combined with the sun’s glare are scarily mesmerizing. Not a good thing on a five-lane freeway when everyone’s easily doing 80 mph.
The NYT is a cheerleader for windmills and solar panels. Good for us that China (not so much for the Chinese) is and wants to be No. 1 in windmills.
Are you seriously suggesting that the current energy policy of the U.S. is not being imposed on us? Trump has spent the last year gutting the EPA, denying climate change and withdrawing from the Paris Accords, and has even gone as far to bribe foreign companies not to build wind projects.
And this - in a nutshell - is Freder's mindset ... relieving businesses of onerous regulations and removing mandates is an imposition.
Then why is Nuclear so expensive?
Because thugs like you impose costly regulations and restrictions.
Get it yet?
And just how did I know - before I even clicked on the comments - when I saw there were 133 of them ... a huge chunk would be Freder's steaming pile of bullshit.
Freder: And tsunamis, earthquakes, and hurricanes never happen in the U.S. And just because very few people died doesn't mean the cleanup was cheap, quick or easy. 164,000 people were displaced and the cleanup cost at least $220 billion.
Earthquakes and hurricanes haven't caused a nuclear power plant failure since ... well, since forever.
It wasn't the earthquake, it was the tsunami that got Fukishima.
And the US has lots of empty land that isn't prone to any of them.
"a huge chunk would be Freder's steaming pile of bullshit."
Harness the energy in that steam and who knows how low prices might go.
@HeySkipper: "In California, which has gone all in on "renewables", electricity costs three times as much per Kwh as Idaho, where there isn't a single farging windmill trashing the horizon.”
Would that were true - too many on I-84 between Mountain Home and Twin Falls and then again on I-15 north of Pocatello. They’re a blight on the landscape and despoil the view.
"I haven't read the comments, so maybe this was already mentioned: The IPCC has dumped their high-emissions RCP8.5 scenario. The one that was used to gin up the doomsday predictions."
From the link:
What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment, and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible: They describe impossible futures.
The High Priests of Global Warming are now saying: "You fucked up. You trusted us."
Reaction from the congregation to follow...
It wasn't the earthquake, it was the tsunami that got Fukishima.
And the US has lots of empty land that isn't prone to any of them.
Both statements are true. And, yes it is true that tsunamis are a rare event, as is a nuclear reactor accident. In the insurance industry they are called a "low frequency, high risk event". The U.S. west coast is at risk of tsunamis, mostly from Alaska to northern California. They are also prone to earthquakes all the way down the coast. And of course there are several active volcanoes. That is why the entire Pacific Rim is called the Rim of Fire.
As to your second point. Of course we could build nuclear plants in geologically stable and remote areas of the West. But the problem is, that is not where we need the electricity. Google "transmission loss" for more information.
The drivers are green. The converters are a Green blight on flora and fauna with unreliable benefits and forward-looking waste.
"But the problem is, that is not where we need the electricity. Google "transmission loss" for more information."
Now do wind farms in the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, …
Now do wind and solar farms in the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, …
Can a hailstorm destroy a nuclear plant? Because they certainly make a mess of a solar facility.
Gordon Pasha: “ Would that were true - too many on I-84 between Mountain Home and Twin Falls and then again on I-15 north of Pocatello. They’re a blight on the landscape and despoil the view.”
Absolutely right in both regards. I don’t drive the stretch of I-84 very often, but have done it often enough to know better.
Freder: “ As to your second point. Of course we could build nuclear plants in geologically stable and remote areas of the West. But the problem is, that is not where we need the electricity. Google “transmission loss’ for more information.”
Ever heard of Four Corners?
Almost all of the US doesn’t suffer the geologic events that imperil Japan. Okay, don’t build a nuclear power station in Alaska, on a fault, or obvious areas right on the Pacific.
That leaves, oh, 95% of the continental US.
Google [common sense] for more information.
Oh, and what Mason G said.
“ Feeder Frederson asks, why is Nuclear more expensive. ”
Because of Union field construction labor, I was there, there were paid off weld inspectors that required gouging and rewelding work just to create more labor hours. Field construction is a practical impossibility.
That is why the future is SMRs. They can be built in factories under controlled conditions without a flood of itinerant traveller construction labor.
Since China is communist they don’t produce for demand, they force people to demand what is produced. Windmills, solar panels, and evs were seen as sure things that China could produce that the whole world would pay for, and it worked for a while but today China is using all that crap because they built the factories and dedicated employees than need jobs to build them. Sure they use them because they can get them below cost locally while they try to sell at a premium overseas.
There is a limit to the amount of wind and solar you can have on your grid, there is no inertia, as Europe is finding out.
“ Google “transmission loss’ for more information.””
But this article specifically praises China for sending wind power thousands of miles!
One of my problems with wind power (though certainly not the only one) is the urban leftists who have bought into the climate catastrophe thesis have parked these landscape-ruining monsters out where they don't have to see them. These same people decry putting industry in poor communities (they have some derogatory name for it which escapes me).
“ It's a special problem to be going after your underlings in the workplace.”
I guess we have all grown up now. No one has mentioned that was Clinton’s particular sin, and he did not lose his job, but got a perjury verdict.
"urban leftists who have bought into the climate catastrophe thesis have parked these landscape-ruining monsters out where they don't have to see them."
One might wonder how welcoming those same leftists are to eagle cuisinarts in their own backyards...
At Sea And On Land, Protests Against Vineyard Wind
At sea and on land, Nantucket residents protested on Sunday against Vineyard Wind and the development of offshore wind energy in the waters southwest of the island.
https://nantucketcurrent.com/news/at-sea-and-on-land-protests-against-vineyard-wind
OK, Freder.
Nuclear power frightens you. I get it. I know of one instance in the United States that resulted in a meltdown. That was a small experimental reactor run by the government.
Most reactors shut down because they become unprofitable when compared to natural gas.
It is still far safer than other forms of generating electricity.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.