If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because production in a gas power plant is simply regulated by burning more or less gas. If you need more gas, you can likely buy more. While production in a hydro power plant…
Not the parent, but I don't think you can seriously argue that all political decisions are for the good of the many. Most decisions have a vocal minority and the majority doesn't care left or right, which means the…
I've never heard of countries considering the entire danger zone from a large hydroelectric dam uninhabitable. They're so large that it's simply not feasible. Take the largest hydro station in Sweden for example,…
Yes, but by using that definition all baseload power generation (coal, gas, hydro, nuclear, etc.) are "energy batteries", which makes the term meaningless. By "energy batteries" when talking about the electric grid,…
I countered this in another reply to you, but the levelized cost of energy is not a good way of comparing intermittent and baseload power sources since it completely ignores the costs associated with intermittency.…
I know that this is a big issue for some people, and I understand that. However, the limits are set way below the level considered dangerous and are political. Countries with lower problems or that want to be seen as…
To be fair, that statement was in the grandparent and not the post I replied to. However, I'd argue > Large steam thermal baseload plants are increasingly uncompetitive, coal or nuclear. is generally wrong, since gas…
Not the parent, but if you look at what's currently replacing nuclear power world-wide it seems to be gas. Gas extraction is also not very environmentally friendly and releases a lot of nasty toxins into the air and…
A hydro power plant can't be used as a battery, it must be purposely built as a pumped storage plant. The cable in question allows Norway to sell hydro power to Germany (and if Germany has a surplus, they can sell…
> These events release a lot more radiation than coal plants. Unless you have data that supports this statement, I'd state the opposite. It's easy to think nuclear accidents release a lot of radiation, but the actual…
That's true, but I think most other models assume there's a lowest dosage which is totally safe? For very low doses, even if LNT predicts a very low rate, it still a lot of cancer cases for a population of several…
We've got the same problem over here in Sweden, granite in a lot of places. We also, just for good measure, constructed a lot of buildings in the 50s and 60s from radioactive autoclaved aerated concrete made from alum…
Wait, how did you arrive at that conclusion? All nuclear accidents so far have resulted in very low doses to the average individual. Of course this doesn't apply to plant workers in the direct vicinity of e.g. the…
Yes, due to radon gas from the ground which is really a big problem in Scandinavia. Just making sure nobody thinks a big part of the accumulated dose when living here is due to Chernobyl.
You're ignoring one of the largest problems with renewables: they're not actually replacing fossil fuels, they're replacing nuclear power which was almost carbon neutral to begin with. The intermittency of wind and…
Those numbers simply don't make sense for several reasons. They are with subsidies (not without) as the web page itself states. The numbers for nuclear are likely based on the failed European projects as China and…
There's no insurance that insures a hydro power plant against dam failure either, nor large chemical industries. It's nothing abnormal.
All large power plant installations are given such loan guarantees, including wind power and solar power farms. It's a pretty good way for the government to make sure they are built. A lot of countries, such as here in…
Because the price per kWh for renewable sources is artificially low. To give you some examples: Renewables still have various subsidies (e.g. in construction) while non-renewables are taxed, wind power plants in…
I don't get why you're being downvoted. China is building a lot of power plants, a lot of them are nuclear (and coal, etc.).
Nuclear power hasn't become magically more expensive in the last decade or so, it's because it's been hit with taxes and fees in a lot of countries while renewables haven't (or, in some countries, renewables are still…
No, it's likely due to hydro power. Hydro has had several large scale accidents killing and displacing hundreds of thousands of people, such as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam in China. Coal kills slowly…
That's preposterous. Wild boar is hunted, eaten and sold everywhere here in Sweden. The radioactivity (among other things) is measured and there are about a handful of animals above the limits for cesium-137 each year.…
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because production in a gas power plant is simply regulated by burning more or less gas. If you need more gas, you can likely buy more. While production in a hydro power plant…
Not the parent, but I don't think you can seriously argue that all political decisions are for the good of the many. Most decisions have a vocal minority and the majority doesn't care left or right, which means the…
I've never heard of countries considering the entire danger zone from a large hydroelectric dam uninhabitable. They're so large that it's simply not feasible. Take the largest hydro station in Sweden for example,…
Yes, but by using that definition all baseload power generation (coal, gas, hydro, nuclear, etc.) are "energy batteries", which makes the term meaningless. By "energy batteries" when talking about the electric grid,…
I countered this in another reply to you, but the levelized cost of energy is not a good way of comparing intermittent and baseload power sources since it completely ignores the costs associated with intermittency.…
I know that this is a big issue for some people, and I understand that. However, the limits are set way below the level considered dangerous and are political. Countries with lower problems or that want to be seen as…
To be fair, that statement was in the grandparent and not the post I replied to. However, I'd argue > Large steam thermal baseload plants are increasingly uncompetitive, coal or nuclear. is generally wrong, since gas…
Not the parent, but if you look at what's currently replacing nuclear power world-wide it seems to be gas. Gas extraction is also not very environmentally friendly and releases a lot of nasty toxins into the air and…
A hydro power plant can't be used as a battery, it must be purposely built as a pumped storage plant. The cable in question allows Norway to sell hydro power to Germany (and if Germany has a surplus, they can sell…
> These events release a lot more radiation than coal plants. Unless you have data that supports this statement, I'd state the opposite. It's easy to think nuclear accidents release a lot of radiation, but the actual…
That's true, but I think most other models assume there's a lowest dosage which is totally safe? For very low doses, even if LNT predicts a very low rate, it still a lot of cancer cases for a population of several…
We've got the same problem over here in Sweden, granite in a lot of places. We also, just for good measure, constructed a lot of buildings in the 50s and 60s from radioactive autoclaved aerated concrete made from alum…
Wait, how did you arrive at that conclusion? All nuclear accidents so far have resulted in very low doses to the average individual. Of course this doesn't apply to plant workers in the direct vicinity of e.g. the…
Yes, due to radon gas from the ground which is really a big problem in Scandinavia. Just making sure nobody thinks a big part of the accumulated dose when living here is due to Chernobyl.
You're ignoring one of the largest problems with renewables: they're not actually replacing fossil fuels, they're replacing nuclear power which was almost carbon neutral to begin with. The intermittency of wind and…
Those numbers simply don't make sense for several reasons. They are with subsidies (not without) as the web page itself states. The numbers for nuclear are likely based on the failed European projects as China and…
There's no insurance that insures a hydro power plant against dam failure either, nor large chemical industries. It's nothing abnormal.
All large power plant installations are given such loan guarantees, including wind power and solar power farms. It's a pretty good way for the government to make sure they are built. A lot of countries, such as here in…
Because the price per kWh for renewable sources is artificially low. To give you some examples: Renewables still have various subsidies (e.g. in construction) while non-renewables are taxed, wind power plants in…
I don't get why you're being downvoted. China is building a lot of power plants, a lot of them are nuclear (and coal, etc.).
Nuclear power hasn't become magically more expensive in the last decade or so, it's because it's been hit with taxes and fees in a lot of countries while renewables haven't (or, in some countries, renewables are still…
No, it's likely due to hydro power. Hydro has had several large scale accidents killing and displacing hundreds of thousands of people, such as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam in China. Coal kills slowly…
That's preposterous. Wild boar is hunted, eaten and sold everywhere here in Sweden. The radioactivity (among other things) is measured and there are about a handful of animals above the limits for cesium-137 each year.…