Better Environment with Nuclear Energy

Foxwood

I came across this article the other day:

New group campaigns for nuclear power plant

The generation of electricity by nuclear fission is banned under the Electricity Regulation Act 1999.

Yet, Ireland imports nuclear power from Britain via electricity interconnectors with the UK, the group notes.

Better Environment with Nuclear Energy (BENE) aims to persuade government, policy makers, industry and the public of the benefits of nuclear power.

Ahead of the Government’s plan to publish a green paper on energy policy shortly, the BENE hopes to mobilise public support for the nuclear option.

“We believe that the Government has a role in leading public opinion on this matter and we do not feel it has led public opinion in a positive manner,” said BENE spokesman John Stafford.

The group believes there are risks associated with nuclear power but claim they are manageable and acceptable. On the other hand, the group says, the risks associated with global warming are not manageable or acceptable.

“The nuclear debate in Ireland has been more emotional than rational,” said Mr Stafford, an accountant, business adviser and consultant.

The group said recent comments by the Economic and Social Research Institute that the Republic was too small for nuclear power were “mistaken”. It claims nuclear power stations can be as small as 650 megawatts in capacity.

A statement said members of the group were private individuals representing only themselves and BENE was not funded by any company or organisation associated with the nuclear industry.

Members of the group include David Sowby, former scientific secretary to the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

Another member is Philip W Walton, who worked at NUI Galway as Professor of Applied Physics from 1978, for 27 years. He is retired.

Frank J Turvey is a former assistant chief executive of the Irish Radiological Protection Institute. Another member, Jim Morrissey, has 15 years’ experience in a nuclear research centre.

Theirs is the second call for a rational debate on nuclear energy in recent months. Earlier this year, the cross-party Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources said a calm debate was needed rather than emotively dismissing nuclear power out of hand.

I can't find any website or other information about the group, but I though that some people here might be interested in looking into this further.

Pocari Sweat

The dismissal of nuclear power has always been an emotional one in Ireland, and without any first hand experience or rational information on the benefits of nuclear power, the Irish public, often protesting en mass against mobile phone transmitters, are not likely able for the foreseeable future to get their heads around what its all about.

The greenest countries in the world use nuclear power, Finland for one. France is now 80% nuclear powered and is ramping up to further expand and export the construction of reactors elsewhere with concerns like Ariva based in France.

Most western and forward thinking countries either have nuclear power or are expanding on what they have.

The Irish were claimed to be the hands that built America by U2 in their theme tune for the Gangs of New York, so this probably includes their help in the development of some of the largest nuclear plants found in America.

Quite rightly, in the OP, nuclear electric is imported into Ireland, so Ireland can't claim to be totally against it yet import it at the same time. Its like mobile phones, there is widespread acceptance of mobile phones, but not the acceptance of harmless transmitters, with doomsday scenarios suggesting they send out some sort of death rays.

Emotion and fear are one thing, but what is wrong with wanting rational debate. Most of the German public, having implemented wind power decades ago, now have much of their landscape obliterated by wind turbines and they are in uproar about how they have fecked up the countryside and the whole programme only delivers 3% of electric into the grid. They are saying the wind power idea was a cock up, but they were not to know at the time they were implemented, and despite having wrecked people's quality of life, they deliver little or feck all power.

France have proved that not only can they supply up to 100% of their power from nuclear, safely and effectively, but they have the means to be energy stable for hundreds of years ahead.

With the end of current global oil supplies in sight, Germany must be thinking that France have made them look like right eejits and will probably sail past them in the world economic league table, and they undoubtedly will.

abetarrush

Jaysis, we already have a Springfield, next a power plant!.....

Doo doo doo doodooo doo doo doo DOO-DOO-DOO-DOO!

SeanW

and it didn't take long for the FUD artists to come out with the ultra-emotional nonsense to kill it.

http://wood-pellet-ireland.blogspot.com/2006/07/oh-god-save-us-all-they-are-insane.html

I can't believe I once thought like that >_< man what was I thinking?

Anyway I'll be looking out for these BENE guys. Finally someone's talking sense.

lostexpectation

why is ther need for second debate so soon after the next one, maybe to give the new groups press release a reason to exist,

it should be less bad environment in the short term with nuclear energy

I think the problem is mistrust not emotion, the same with mobile phone masts, which disturb householders with kids much more then lefty environmentalists, so just like with windpower it is problem with planning and democracy, easy pancias rather then difficult changes of your lifestyle methinks emotions are urging on nuclear not preventing it with the majority of the population.


whats happen if in hundred years france disintegrates like the russia and it takes it eye off safety.

alot of these scientist are quite right it emphasing the relative safety of nuclear beyond its reputation but they forget politics and mismanagement and greed.

Pocari Sweat

If in 100 years France somehow, (why they would want to) take their "eye" off safety, obviously they will have lost their will to live as a nation and turn the nuke stations off and go and dig turf from the bogs instead or make loads of windmills, but how likely is this?

For a leading world power, to say turn into a badly run autocratic communist state, taking into account their own proud history of doing things right when it comes to technology (nukes, railways etc) and having the benefit of hindsight also with the historic communist cock ups, then put their ultra high saftey plants (which in 100 years you will expect to be terrorist proof and altogether fullproof) through the most rigourous doomsday nuke power cock up scenario, then so be it, but how likely is that?

Odaise Gaelach

I believe that nuclear power is the way forward. Very few greenhouse gases, a lot of energy generated... until fusion or renewable sources of energy can constantly meet our energy demands, then I see it as a great idea.

But, as Alexander Yuvchenko says, safety is paramount.

Even if things do go wrong, there are safety measures to compensate. The containment vessel in Three-Mile-Island managed to contain the partically-melted reactor. There were only a few (horribly flawed) safety systems working inside the Chernobyl nuclear reactor when the team in 1986 began the safety test, and the reactor was flawed from the start.

If the contractors building the power plant could guarentee that it was built and operated properly, then I would be all for it.

Apart from Irish opinion, the only major stumbling block to building a nuclear reactor in Ireland would be Britain. Frankly, I don't know whether they'd be delighted, or furious that (after so long complaining about Sellafield) we're finally building a nuclear reactor of our own.

As long as it's done right...

democrates

deja vous et vous et vous:D

Again it's amusing to see the pro-nuclear argument focus around accusations of irrationality on the part of those who are not enthusiasts. The irony is they are the ones refusing to answer key rational questions.

I'd like to know how much nuclear costs. Not a big question, but one it seems impossible to get an honest answer to. How much is France paying for the anti-aircraft batteries around its facilities? How much for armed escorts of materials? How much for mining and transport? How much for disaster contingency preparations? Most of these are stealth taxes born by the taxpayer, and hidden from the electric bill. That's dishonest. How much will it cost to clean up and store the vitrified waste securely? We don't know because most of the waste is being stockpiled. Why is that, if the waste disposal problem has been solved and it's really a viable option?

One of the costs is hard to quantify, that of risk. The nuclear industry has lobbied hard to limit it's financial liability under law (yet when anyone else raises the question of risk they are labelled as scaremongers). There are international conventions on liability, but not all countries are signed up. The UK 1983 Energy Act and amended 1994, sets £140m as the limit for each major installation, the utility must provide insurance cover for that amount. The taxpayer is liable for any further damages up to £360m.

It's a joke when you think about it. BNFL went bust as soon as they put the cost of decommissioning one plant on their books. The taxpayer is now landed with the bills for all BNFL plants decommissioning and indefinite waste storage while investors have kept their divvies. In the event of a Sellafield disaster, the Irish would have to fight for a share of the claims, presumeably pro-rata to our share of damages.

The people of each territory affected can then choose to either spend no more than the claim amount finally awarded on the clean up, or to complete the clean-up, and that full cost could be anything. So in fact there is no limit to the taxpayers liability, but the investors risk is limited. With such a sweet deal on offer no wonder they're lobbying so hard.

I'd love to see a viable option, so I think the research should continue, pbr is a step in the right direction but no silver bullet. Sadly it seems the pro-nuclear lobby fight tooth and nail not to give the full facts in order to protect their sweet deals, so we're left depending on independant research to uncover the truth.

Renewables are a fledgling industry. They'd advance a lot faster if anything like the hidden and overt subsidies for nuclear were available. I think wind farms could be a lot more economic and practical if they compressed air directly using the rotor. That compressed air can be stored within the pylon body as well as piped to a central tank, and used by the generator as demanded, instead of having a turbine on top of every mill generating electricity as the wind blows.

Heat pump technology is another promising area, same technology as keeps your fridge/freezer working. These are being used already to heat domestic water but will become far more effective as development continues. Vested interests have ridiculed some research ideas calling them perpetual motion fantasies, but the fact is you're just drawing latent solar heat energy from the air or sea, and using that energy to drive the device to draw in more energy at an increasing rate up to the devices optimum. Could be very beneficial in countering global warming...

There are indeed crackpot perpetual motion fantasies out there on the fringe such as the magic generators powered only by permanent magnets, any of which it seems to me can equally be modelled with springs and weights which should be a clue, or the joe cell which draws 'orgone' energy from the ether and only works if you have a positive attitude (google for yourself, this is what they claim) and all of which will be ready any day, and if the revelation deadline passes it was men in dark suits who suppressed it.

There are many more areas of research and despite being very sceptical I have to be rational and concede that it's possible that there may be a way to produce cheap clean energy. But maybe there isn't, or if there is we mightn't discover it any time soon. But I can't just accept the nuclear industries analysis on face value, they're liars of omission.

Silverharp posted a great link (most enjoyable read) involving rational thought in relation to growing population and its implications including peak oil. People expect to continue to increase energy consumption indefinitely, despite knowing it's not the best thing to do. Would it be out of line to call that irrational? Could it be that excessive energy demand is rooted in emotions? A fear of changing to a thrifty lifestyle and not having badges of consumerism to flaunt? Tiny women ab-sailing out of gargantuan SUV's, honestly.

lostexpectation

democrates wrote:

deja vous
Silverharp posted a great link (most enjoyable read) involving rational thought in relation to growing population and its implications including peak oil. People expect to continue to increase energy consumption indefinitely, despite knowing it's not the best thing to do. Would it be out of line to call that irrational? Could it be that excessive energy demand is rooted in emotions? A fear of changing to a thrifty lifestyle and not having badges of consumerism to flaunt? Tiny women ab-sailing out of gargantuan SUV's, honestly.

thanks for saying all I wasn't able to.... damn right, and pocari, all safety systems come down to human control and mismanagement and corruption... you build them safe as you wnat, what we need is safe humans.

SeanW

I'm not saying nuclear power is cheap - but I'd really like to see some facts surrounding the FUD being spread about France's nuclear programme, and what the author of said post suggests the French do instead of nuclear power? I'm waiting for someone to show us a large scale, environmentally friendly, reliable alernative to fossil fuels - and so far I've only found 2 - biofuels and nuclear power.

And please stop trying to frame the debate as nuclear vs. renewables as it's not an either-or. People have funded renewables, as said before, the Germans went all out to use wind. Yet they only managed to get 3% of electricity needs from it and they're as vulneranble to oil shocks as anyone else ... and they're the most commited environmentalists in Europe!

It's been said before and I'll say it again - we need ALL the tools we have to combat the problems caused by fossil fuels. And that includes Nuclear Power.

stealth taxes born by the taxpayer, and hidden from the electric bill.

Yet none of you anti-nukes talk about the staggering price of fossil fuels which are not on the electric bill but price that is paid, a toll extracted just the same.

Like coal, it's the worst per-kW/h generator of the greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It also spews mercucry into the atmosphere, an horrific toxin. In the U.S, it is estimated to cause 25000 deaths annually among other serious damages to the environment and human health. Coal is also the worst contributer of acidic compounds (Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides) to the atmosphere, these are absorbed into moisture and cause acid rain. As most winds in Europe go in a Northerly direction, most of these acid rain compunds end up in Scandinavia where they kill fish and acidify lakes on a horrific scale. Norway, for example spends NOK 100,000,000 (about 12,000,000 Euro) treating its lakes with alkaline compunds such as lime and suchlike, this is necessary just to keep its aquatic ecosystem alive. Oh dear. An Oak Ridge National Laboratory study found that Americans living near a properly functioning nuclear power station, had less radioactive exposure than one living near a coal plant of similar megawattage. Even worse, especially in the case of fireplace use or old power stations, if there's enough coal burning going on, particle matter (smoke) will be so bad that air quality and visibility will be noticeably reduced.

None of this ever appears on your ESB bill.

Natural gas and oil are slightly cleaner but our dependence on them is leaving the developed world in a precarious state - plus they're just going to run out one day.

The way some of you go on about conservation, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that the only way to reduce energy consumption enough to switch off both fossil fuels and nuclear, would be to initate a total global economic collapse. Chaging to CFL lightbulbs and using the bus more won't cut it for the kind of conservation some of you seem to demand.

But it's not going to happen. Sacrificing everything at the alter of conservation is a mugs game and no-one's going to try it. Face it. We've got to choose between environmentally hostile and unsustainable fossil fuel fuel usage and the alternatives, including clean, abundant, and above all safe nuclear power (Chernbobyl doesn't count because the Soviet's carry on was openly inviting disaster - do some research).

Rather than constantly framing the debate as "nuclear vs. renewables" maybe we could all get real for a second and tell it like it really is "everything vs. FOSSIL FUELS."

Nuclear power isn't the environmental equivalent of Friday 13th and Halloween rolled into one. Fossil Fuels are. Nuclear power isn't the problem, it's the solution.

lostexpectation

SeanW wrote:

I'm not saying nuclear power is cheap - but I'd really like to see some facts surrounding the FUD being spread about France's nuclear programme, and what the author of said post suggests the French do instead of nuclear power? I'm waiting for someone to show us a large scale, environmentally friendly, reliable alernative to fossil fuels - and so far I've only found 2 - biofuels and nuclear power.

what's FUD again, and remind me also is what type of 'fuel' is uranium? if its not fossil and its not renewable...

SeanW

FUD, Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Like when someone mentions nuclear power and someone else replies by showing a picture of a Chernobyl child with a brain hanging out the back of their head, twisted limbs, or a pic of Pripyat city, or the plant itself, completely ignoring the reality that the Chernobyl plant and practice compares to modern nuclear power plants and practice in the same way that giving an experienced programmer a new Compaq will yield different results to letting drunken fool at a faulty 1920s vaccum tube computer. Chernobyl, given the direness of the technology used and the awfulness of the government running the show, was inevitable. It was just a question of when and where.

As for Uranium, it's not a fossil fuel, it's a metal. And it's not combusted, it's fissioned. Totally different thing altogether and vastly superior.

Although there are 'only' 50 years of assured reserves, that's only because the Uranium suppliers have taken a number of hits over the last 3 decades and noones been looking for new reserves. Increasing demand or falling suplpy causes a number of things to happen in an open market. 1: more exploration by suppliers, 2: more efficient usage by customers and 3: interest in alternatives such as Thorium. more info here

As for cost, well the Ukranians are broke (their economy collapsed after the breakup of the Soviet Union) they have vast reserves of coal that they could be using, and are scarred by the legacy of Chernobyl, which is inside their borders. Yet they can't seem to get enough nuclear power ... one has to wonder, if nuclear power is such a bad idea, why - and how - the broke, coal-rich and Chernobyl scarred Ukrainians:
1: haven't learned their lesson
2: Waste money they don't have on flights of fancy
3: Are not burning lots of coal.

They're going with nuclear power, despite all the reasons not to, because it makes sense.

lostexpectation

SeanW wrote:

FUD, Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Like when someone mentions nuclear power and someone else replies by showing a picture of a Chernobyl child with a brain hanging out the back of their head, twisted limbs, or a pic of Pripyat city, or the plant itself, completely ignoring the reality that the Chernobyl plant and practice compares to modern nuclear power plants and practice in the same way that giving an experienced programmer a new Compaq will yield different results to letting drunken fool at a faulty 1920s vaccum tube computer. Chernobyl, given the direness of the technology used and the awfulness of the government running the show, was inevitable. It was just a question of when and where.

As for Uranium, it's not a fossil fuel, it's a metal. And it's not combusted, it's fissioned. Totally different thing altogether and vastly superior.

Although there are 'only' 50 years of assured reserves, that's only because the Uranium suppliers have taken a number of hits over the last 3 decades and noones been looking for new reserves. Increasing demand or falling suplpy causes a number of things to happen in an open market. 1: more exploration by suppliers, 2: more efficient usage by customers and 3: interest in alternatives such as Thorium. more info here

As for cost, well the Ukranians are broke (their economy collapsed after the breakup of the Soviet Union) they have vast reserves of coal that they could be using, and are scarred by the legacy of Chernobyl, which is inside their borders. Yet they can't seem to get enough nuclear power ... one has to wonder, if nuclear power is such a bad idea, why - and how - the broke, coal-rich and Chernobyl scarred Ukrainians:
1: haven't learned their lesson
2: Waste money they don't have on flights of fancy
3: Are not burning lots of coal.

They're going with nuclear power, despite all the reasons not to, because it makes sense.

because they already have plants, thats why?

iplogger1

relevant and newsworthy I think:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5241780.stm
News from Sweden. I see Sweden plans to phase out its nuclear
plants over the next few years too...


~ipl

Odaise Gaelach

SeanW wrote:

They're going with nuclear power, despite all the reasons not to, because it makes sense.

Even Chernobyl continued to generate electricity long after the disaster in 1986. The plant was offically shut down in December 2000, amid mixed feelings.

democrates wrote:

I'd like to know how much nuclear costs. Not a big question, but one it seems impossible to get an honest answer to.

That's a very good point there. Can the Irish people afford a nuclear power plant, or will they pay for one?

democrates

Interesting link there from the World Nuclear Association SeanW.

None of this is to make the claim that specific mineral resources, once mined and their metals put to use, are not physically non-renewable (at least on human time scales). But if this were the only dynamic at play, minerals would long ago have become scarcer and their costs much higher. Numerous economists have studied resource trends to determine which measures should best reflect resource scarcity (Ref 4). Their consensus is that costs and prices, properly adjusted for inflation, provide a better early warning system for long-run resource scarcity than do physical measures such as resource quantities.

Brilliant logic. Past economic trends are now immutable laws applicable to all mineral deposits, we can use them to predict what is left in the ground and ignore any other evidence. Sack the geologists and hire economists?

These historic data show that the most commonly used metals have declined in both their costs and real commodity prices Figure 1 over the past century. Such price trends are the most telling evidence of lack of scarcity.

Dross. Lots of cheap apples in the market today don't guarantee the same next week. That 'telling evidence' is not all the evidence, it is a half-truth. Costs (real?...) and real commodity prices can still be low while you consume the last half of the resource, big oil industry players have already lied about known deposits, the truth was hidden to maintain the share price - but I'm not a brilliant economist so I won't assume Uranium suppliers will lie.

To cite one example, world copper reserves in the 1970s represented only 30 years of then-current production (6.4 Mt/yr). Many analysts questioned whether this resource base could satisfy the large expected requirements of the telecommunications industry by 2000. But by 1994, world production of copper had doubled (12 Mt/yr) and the available reserves were still enough for another 30 years. The reserve multiple of current production remained the same.

The Copper industry got it wrong, so maybe everyone else is wrong too! Let me see if I follow this extrapolation methodology: reserves will always be 30 years of current production levels.

Another way to understand resource sustainability is in terms of economics and capital conservation. Under this perspective, mineral resources are not so much rare or scarce as they are simply too expensive to discover if you cannot realise the profits from your discovery fairly soon. The economic system therefore discourages companies from discovering enormously more than society needs by sending messages of reduced commodity prices during times of oversupply. Economically rational players will only invest in finding these new reserves when they are most confident of gaining a return from them, which usually requires positive price messages caused by undersupply trends. If the economic system is working correctly and maximizing capital efficiency, there should never be more than a few decades of any resource commodity in reserves at any point in time Figure 2.

Priceless. Suppliers deliberately preserve ignorance about reserves in order to keep the price high and ensure investor profit. But on behalf of the industry he can tip us off that there's probably no end of Uranium out there. What if the market get's hold of this information? Won't Uranium futures plummet? Is he blowing the whistle on some facts or is this PR water muddying for the masses? Seems they want to have their yellow cake and eat it too - keep the market on the back foot with scarcity risk to keep prices high, yet simultaneously gain public support for government subsidies to the industry by tipping us off that there's ample supply. He's won my trust.

Also, if the price begins to rise they'll dig up stuff they wouldn't have bothered discovering before because it wasn't economic. What a relief, there I was foolishly thinking about the ratio of units of energy expended, to units of energy-producing raw materials extracted in an era of rising energy prices. Eureka! Expend energy today so the bit you dig up will be worth more tomorrow! Capitalism is the best system for managing resources after all, the carbon industry proved that.

New resource discoveries are very difficult to precisely match with far-off future demand, and the historic evidence would suggest that the exploration process over-compensates for every small hint of scarcity that the markets provide.

Well I'm convinced. So long as we have exploration we'll find reserves. So based on that look at land prices, that's it, I'm off exploring to discover new land. I can remain aloft in my balloon levitated by these economic theories and whip up every need throughout the journey just by 'exploring' which will always give me 30 years of supplies. Itinerary: Madlantis, Tir na nUke, Cloud Cockoo Land...

Uranium - rare or just a metal?

Hi, I'm Troy McLure, you may remember me from such papers as "The Dodo - extinct or just a bird?".

By jove, he's invented anti-logic! The author should retain a pet amoeba to peer-review his work. But seriously, just as economic extrapolation is not sound evidence concerning the unknown, all I can assert about Uranium supply is that known reserves are finite, and real reserves are finite. It's possible that there's enough for a thousand years, and surplus nuclear energy could indirectly power its extraction. It's also possible that deposits are not abundant. In this oil endgame Uranium offers another energy industry bonanza, we have a race to grab whatever's going, and if possible what there is of it will be extracted by rich countries at commodity prices using the usual tactics, then sold to consumers with the usual mark-up.

Anyway Uranium supply is not the prime source of my reservations about nuclear power, but I couldn't let that sham paper slide.

SeanW wrote:

I'm not saying nuclear power is cheap - but I'd really like to see some facts surrounding the FUD being spread about France's nuclear programme

I think someone else raised France as a glowing example...

FUD. F = Fear. I didn't build the anti-aircraft batteries around their facilities, the French did. They are afraid, and I'm not surprised given so many eggs in the nuclear basket and the simmering Islamic unrest in their midst, they obviously noticed a few street disturbances. U = Uncertainty. They have the information about true costs and risks, but where are these figures to be found? I'd love to see the facts, but they preserve uncertainty, now why could that possibly be if nuclear is such a Godsend for the people? The nuclear industry claims to require uncertainty about Uranium deposits in order to keep prices high and keep the all important investors in silk. D = Doubt. Implicit given uncertainty, if you're rational that is.

The nuclear industry deliberately operates behind a cloak of FUD, and I'm happy to highlight that fact, but I'm not the cause of that FUD.

democrates

SeanW wrote:

and what the author of said post suggests the French do instead of nuclear power? I'm waiting for someone to show us a large scale, environmentally friendly, reliable alernative to fossil fuels - and so far I've only found 2 - biofuels and nuclear power.

If I hear of a silver bullet solution you'll be the first to know. There are a range of renewable technologies we can develop further and scale up, is there uncertainty, yes, but it seems that while supplies, risk of attack or accident, and true costs all appear acceptably uncertain for nuclear, no such latitude for renewables.

So let me turn my attack on renewables. If they're so great, why aren't they doing better? A prime reason I believe, is that big energy investors prefer us to depend on scarce supplies, be that scarcity artificial or actual. Biofuels suit because land is scarce. They have no interest in developing say a serviceable heat pump that costs 5k and will supply a dwelling with energy for 150 years. Building things to last is out of vogue, from cars to kleenexe, it's the disposable dream. Except it's an environmental nightmare and a foundation of sand for the economic wellbeing of society. Same way as big Pharma invests in treatments rather than cures because it enables rapid and sustained wealth concentration, I don't expect anything from energy investors but demands on my purse and perpetual FUD.

We even see capitaist pollution in wind farms. How much profit do you make putting a high-maintenance turbine on top of every one, versus one gennie per farm and low maintenance compressed air storage to allow supply to match demand, or to generate once air capacity maxes and let the grid use temporary excess to pump water up for hydro. The fact is the best new technologies can only become mainstream when the dysons and baygens of this world go it alone, R&D is funded by government, and sustainable policies are implemented.

Nuclear is another opportunity for investors to socialise the risk and privatise the profit, the double-whammy is it simultaneously undermines efforts to develop renewables.

SeanW wrote:

Rather than constantly framing the debate as "nuclear vs. renewables" maybe we could all get real for a second and tell it like it really is "everything vs. FOSSIL FUELS."

Looks to me like you're proposing a frame yourself. Besides, my view is "Renewables vs everything else" as a subset of "thrift vs excess", and to achieve that and justice, "the many vs the few".

SeanW wrote:

People have funded renewables, as said before, the Germans went all out to use wind. Yet they only managed to get 3% of electricity needs from it and they're as vulneranble to oil shocks as anyone else ... and they're the most commited environmentalists in Europe!

Denmark meets 18.5% of electricity demand with wind energy, well ahead of the posse. Germany are a huge economy and had zero wind power little over a decade ago, yet CO2 emmissions of 24.6Megatons have already been avoided by wind. Not such bad news, you could even call it progress. Still, it hasn't been planned properly, wind farms have been thrown up and just plugged into the grid. Wind requires complimentary storage, for years hydro has pumped water up to reservoirs to use on demand. UG cavities can store compressed air for months on end with virtually no loss, and in these scenarios turbines can be replaced with much cheaper water pumps or air compressors, with the gennie throttling the water or air as required. This method also mitigates emi. Geothermal is also operational and can be scaled up, as can heat pumps, and we've yet to see what the hydrogen or solid-state fusion folks come up with. Direct solar is a slow burner, pv is not a great technology, but continue the research, don't give up.

Some of these are viable at the community level too, but we've got to build plant to last and be maintainable. A little extra expense up front will save a fortune over the lifetime of a device. This cannot be left to the market, investors priorities are strategically opposed to our best interests, so we need to support government in making the right choices.

SeanW wrote:

It's been said before and I'll say it again - we need ALL the tools we have to combat the problems caused by fossil fuels. And that includes Nuclear Power.

Fossil fuels caused no problems for millions of years, it's our excessive human activity, setting fire to it as fast as we can, and otherwise consuming and polluting amok that is the problem.

SeanW wrote:

<summary>Using coal as a fuel is disasterous.</summary> Natural gas and oil are slightly cleaner but our dependence on them is leaving the developed world in a precarious state - plus they're just going to run out one day.

Agreed. Though I'm sceptical I'm ready to listen if a clean coal technology is found.

SeanW wrote:

The way some of you go on about conservation, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that the only way to reduce energy consumption enough to switch off both fossil fuels and nuclear, would be to initate a total global economic collapse. Chaging to CFL lightbulbs and using the bus more won't cut it for the kind of conservation some of you seem to demand.

But it's not going to happen. Sacrificing everything at the alter of conservation is a mugs game and no-one's going to try it.

I don't think anyone suggested an immediate switch-off, as I clarified on the previous thread, but a phasing out as fast as possible. I'm not in favour of a total global economic collapse or sacrificing 'everything' any more than I favour a Sellafield meltdown, but I realise human numbers multiplied by activity is already beyond what it should be and needs to reduce. The globe is warming. Icecaps melting. Sea levels rising. Frozen peat bogs thawing and releasing methane. Climate changing. Forests shrinking. Land, sea, and air ever more poisoned. Every major ecosystem is in accelerating decline.

Are the lives of millions of humans in peril due to our excess activity? Yes. Are we ethically obliged to reduce our activity? Yes. Can we reduce our activity? Yes. Are people willing to reduce their activity enough? Of course not. Sacrifice more lives on the alter of excess consumption. Make no mistake, human life is the price of giving in to those ads that whip up a frenzy of desire for things we don't need. Look closely at their attempted influence, the values they promote, the type of relationships they glorify, and contrast with reality and the value system we were brought up with. Pure anti-social engineering. For the love of God people, resist! Reconnect your backbone and do what you know is right!

SeanW wrote:

Face it. We've got to choose between environmentally hostile and unsustainable fossil fuel fuel usage and the alternatives, including clean, abundant, and above all safe nuclear power (Chernbobyl doesn't count because the Soviet's carry on was openly inviting disaster - do some research).
Nuclear power isn't the environmental equivalent of Friday 13th and Halloween rolled into one. Fossil Fuels are. Nuclear power isn't the problem, it's the solution.

This is an over-simplification. You lay all the blame on fossil fuels, and hope we can deftly switch to nuclear and keep the economic growth party going. But overpopulation and economic growth is driving everything. Demand for wood, water, metals, energy, food, land, everything, even if we had clean energy it would have little impact on all the other excesses which are destroying our planet.

It must become more economically viable for the burgeoning poor to have fewer children. Free birth control for starters, and varying state pensions could be influential. It's a thorny nettle, but one that must be grasped. Aside from that, what can the average joe in a rich country do. Thrift, it's that simple. Start off small, and develop it. That's what I did. No overnight calamity, but a growing number of measures. I'm healthier, wealthier, and also happier because I know it's wiser and my conscience is clear. How do I get this contentment accross, it's like an orgasm, in that you have to experience it to appreciate it.

banaman

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/
plus the French had to shut some of their power stations during the recent heatwave as the river water used to cool the reactors was too warm to provide enough cooling.
So as Global Warming gathers pace how safe are existing nuclear plants?

SeanW

Well yes actually the market economics do hold up on that one. There aren't any Uranium suplpying boogeymen hiding huge reserves of Uranium that we don't know about. The Uranium industry has taken a number hits over the last 30 years, the price of Uranium fell dramatically after the Nuclear industry took a number of hits, and cold-war/government stockpiles of Uranium were dumped onto the market.

Resource exploration costs money, and the private sector won't spend the money when there's oversupply in the market, as there had been. Less supply > Higher prices > more exploration for the resource, more efficient use, more use of alternatives (Thorium is being looked at), other less cost effective sources are examined etc. If you're a Uranium supplier there's no point in going hell for leather exploring for new deposits until the price of the resources justifies it. They haven't preserved ignorance, they just haven't been looking.

We even see capitaist pollution in wind farms. How much profit do you make putting a high-maintenance turbine on top of every one, versus one gennie per farm and low maintenance compressed air storage to allow supply to match demand, or to generate once air capacity maxes and let the grid use temporary excess to pump water up for hydro.

Again, simple profit and loss economics. Electricity sells for X cents per kilowatt, the cheaper you make it the more your profits. So while your ideas about one big wind turbine generating compressed air may have merit, the question now is, why aren't a whole bunch of people doing it? Remember the likes of Airtricity are in the business of making money, they wouldn't be using the current "high maintenance turbine" of direct transmission if there was a more efficient, reliable way of doing the job.

Coal excells in this area because the true costs of coal generation are never charged off against the actual operation. It appears cheap, that's why its the largest form of electricity generation in the world.

As for my views that fossil fuels are the fundamental problem, yes that may be a simpistic view but I stand over it. As far as I'm concerned it really is that simple. Wherever I see destruction, suffering and turmoil, there's usually a fossil fuel of some kind nearby. Those 25000 deaths? Fossil fuels. Iraq? Fossil fuels. Rich world policies on supporting dictators and toppling democrats in the 3rd world? Usually an oil well or gas field close by. Environmental destruction, global warming, acid rain, toxic emissions ... yep you guessed it. More fossil fuels. As you say there are other root problems with overpopulation and overconsumption but in my view energy is one of the biggest ones.

So how do we deal with this problem? For any job, you use a tool. To drive a nail, you use a hammer, to cut wood, use a saw, and so on. But to mitigate the multiple, horrific consequences of continued reliance on fossil fuels, it's a very big job and it requires the whole toolbox. Nuclear power offers a real chance to significantly reduce fossil fuel reliance, cleanly, reliably, along with the other tools, biofuels, renewables and conservation. Each has a role to play, a function to perform.

Pocari Sweat

Once Democrates has stepped off his soap box and gets some perspective as to what is actually happening with regard to electric power generation around the world now oil is on the decline, he may understand that most of the largest western and eastern economies do actually have nuclear power and well established programmes have existed for the past 50 years in many of the largest economies and are on the increase.

Despite Sean W's excellent attempts to illustrate common sense to the pro-fossils / renewables, I expect because Ireland is inexperienced in the facts about nuclear power and has not entered into the building of nuclear power stations, many views here are certainly an issue of FUD because emotional and irrational arguments will always ignore debating topics like;

France is 80% nuclear powered and still expanding the programme and planning to export nuclear on a big scale.

Finland the Greenest country without doubt in the world, has a nuclear programme.

Britain has seen sense and is now set on going all out for nuclear power.

America is expanding its nuclear base, and so is most of western europe and the larger eastern economies.

Germany started its wind power programme DECADES ago and got to only 3% of their total generation output and wrecked the quality of life and natural beauty of much of their finest rural landscape, with massive expense in running costs due to capital invetsment versus return and the varying and unreliable nature of available wind.

Ireland doesn't want nuclear, but does want it at the same time by importing it via interconnectors from the UK.

There is big fear of nuclear in Ireland and to keep it away from us, but we visit the Anglesea nuclear plant every time we get off the ferry in Wales and pass it on the road leading out of the ferry port.

Sean W has clearly won the debate on why coal has been a murderous weapon of decimation for users / miners / ozone / fish etc, and its days are numbered with regard to green issue, cost effectiveness and safety, being the Victorian technology it is.

Nuclear power is certainly ozone friendly factoring in all aspects of production from mining to turning on yer lights.

Oil, gas, coal are definitely not ozone friendly. It is now clearly understood that we need to act in a way that is a lot more ozone friendly.

Nuclear can be satisfied by mined reserves way into the future, the usual fossil alternatives are running out, and rapidly.

Nuclear power always has always maintained, by a massive long chalk, the safest record of operation since its inception, with annual global reported deaths often counted in single figures, than oil / coal / gas, understanding the tens of millions that have perished using fossil fuels and the mind blowing figures of 25,000 US coal user deaths per year, let alone the super high death levels in worldwide catastrophies pursuing fossil fuels.

Emotional popularism focussing on emotive issues like the total of 9 Chernobyl deaths of Belarus citizens in the last 20 years, caused by an unrepeateable communist state cock up, with the worst possible, plant, workers and methods put into action, and ignoring real disasters that were utterly reprehensible caused by firms from western economies like the US Union Carbide, Bhopal disaster in India killing over 30,000 civilians instantly and up to a further 70,000 to date without prosectution of the AWOL directors who fled from the scene.

Also deaths in the pursuit of power generation using fossil fuels where the multi - thousand death statistic disasters are listed decade by decade.

In terms of cost, this year reports on TV and the papers detailed how cost effective nuclear was compared to fossils and put it at top of the table for being low cost per unit of electric produced with a sliding scale comparing the higher costs of the fossils and the 4 fold factor in cost using wind energy and other technologies.

I could write this list all day long, and go back on more detailed stuff in other posts, but the above are just off the top of my head for the time being.



Although Sean has the experience of having looked from both sides of the debate like myself and chosen the obvious answer, I reckon it would be very hard to pursuade the average punter on the street in Ireland, to not just back nuclear as an option but even to suggest a possible debate on the matter, except some posters here of course.

If it is turf power stations that hit the spot, then fair enough. If Ireland wants to import nuclear from the UK as it does at the moment and from France and Europe in the future because of Nimbyism, then fair enough. If Ireland can categorically say that Ukranian nuclear plants are easily able to maim and kill here in Ireland, and more so those plants in the UK, then why the sheer and unnecessary silence about the 100 nuclear plants just across the coast in France, 5 times as many than the UK? That question is a killer for most pro-fossil anti-nukes in Ireland, they simply cannot answer it and thats when emotional FUD enters the debate in trying to get their response right if any at all.

Massive fear from UK nukes, oh...? France has 100 nuke plants across the coast, mmmm.... ahh they seem ok, mmm.. will be okay, mmm..?
That Anglesea ones ok though fer sure, never mind it too much when getting off the ferry. Holiday in France, no problem, or is it, mmmm..? all those nukes?

Remember 35% gas price increases shortly and similar oil increases, with the approach to declining reserves from now on, and all the oil and gas boilers heating houses in Ireland. Back to turf if there will be enough left for the future, get the wellies out.

democrates

Pocari Sweat, I've already dealt with your points, including the usual slurs and wrong assumptions regarding me and other posters who are not pro-nuclear.

I could go through your post sentance by sentance and repeat points I've already made, but why should I bother? Please feel free to counter any point I made instead of blatently trying to portray my pro-renewables position as a pro-fossils position, I resent that, whatever goes on in your head remember that anyone else can read all posts and see your errors.

As it is all we have is a brew of slurs and another bout of previously addressed factoids, some of which I can see straight off are factually erroneous, regardless of their relevance weighting, but crucially absent from the pro-nuclear side is a comprehensive world view. SeanW has in fairness responded to parts of that, and stuck to his pro-nuclear position, that I can respect, he's willing to think and discuss. I don't expect others to accept instantly views that took me considerable time to coalesce. But please tell us what world order you foresee and how nuclear fits in.

Bear in mind before you restart your tactics, I have set up my own business, have a 160 IQ, and have spent decades studying these and many other issues. These and other credentials don't mean I'm always right, but don't embarass yourself any further by trowelling out any further propaganda to the effect that those who don't share your views are intellectually lacking in their analysis.

Odaise Gaelach

Sorry, just to hijack the thread for a second:

One of the covers from Private Eye a few months ago, about the UK and nuclear power.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pages.php?page=cover&issue=1159

Pocari Sweat

Democrates, there is no proof your IQ is 160, just as there is no proof in most of the things you say. If you have bothered to take a Mensa organised sit down test and wish to quote the percentage of population you beat on the cert. they sent you back, please quote it, and I will laugh at it.

My post was indeed perfectly correct and strengthened the point of your emotional weaknesses by not being able to respond properly without spitting the dummy out of the pram, and answering the questions, that you quite rightly could not.

Foxwood

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Democrates, there is no proof your IQ is 160, just as there is no proof in most of the things you say.

Whereas you always quote sources for your sometimes surprising "facts".

Oh, wait a minute, no, you don't.

Pocari Sweat

You still have not responded constructively, pointing out exactly what you reckon is off kilter with what I posted, and I did predict that all the fossils will get emotional, instead of getting factual, and twice already now I was right.

If all you are is emotive Foxwood, then go post yer quibbles elsewhere. Any more takers?

Pocari Sweat

Remember, subject matter, rather than suggested IQ's and emotional posturing is the only way to debate the issues.

Foxwood

Pocari Sweat wrote:

You still have not responded constructively, pointing out exactly what you reckon is off kilter with what I posted, and I did predict that all the fossils will get emotional, instead of getting factual, and twice already now I was right.

If all you are is emotive Foxwood, then go post yer quibbles elsewhere. Any more takers?

Typical, anyone who doesn't agree with you is written off as "emotional".

You're the one who described the Germans as having "wrecked the quality of life and natural beauty of much of their finest rural landscape". Rather emotional language, and not actually backed up by citations. SeanW is the one crying about all the dead babies killed by coal (after he finally admitted that he'd overstated the numbers by a factor of 10).

And that little "you could hold your liftimes supply of nuclear waste in the palm of your hand" line keeps being trotted out - clearly an emotional appeal, because the rest of us noticed that you'd be dead pretty quickly if you tried.

And then there's the "America is expanding its nuclear base, and so is most of western europe and the larger eastern economies" line despite the fact that there isn't a single commercial nuclear power plant under construction in America, or in "most of Western Europe". You never let the facts get in the way of a good emotional lie, do you?

I said it before (but you ignored it, because you prefer to browbeat people rather than engage in fact-based arguments), I'm not anti-nuclear. I spent 10 years living withing 25 miles of a nuclear plant, and never lost a nights sleep over it. But despite the fact that you and SeanW keep ignoring it, the nuclear waste problem is not a solved problem, and we've been "15 years away from a solution" for the last 40 years. Dumping the costs and dangers of nuclear waste on our kids and grandkids and their kids, etc, is not a minor little thing, and pretending that it is exposes you as a hypocrite who is doing exactly what you accused those who do oppose nuclear power of doing - making emotional arguments because you can't argue the facts.

You're full of it, PS. You prove it every time that you get emotional and defensive when someone calls you on the lies you spout.

bk

The problem is that China and Indian plan on building a massive amount of new power plants over the next ten years to cope with their quickly growing industrialised economies.

The decision they are making isn't Renewables versus Nuclear, it is Coal versus Nuclear.

If they decide Coal, then the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by these new plants will be many times greater then the amount of emissions saved by the Kyoto agreement.

Here in Ireland we might get away with sticking our heads in the sand, being all righteous saying "we don't have Nuclear", while buying lots of Nuclear power from Britain and France. But in the wider aspect of world energy needs, the world is and most go Nuclear.

Sarsfield

bk wrote:

Here in Ireland we might get away with sticking our heads in the sand, being all righteous saying "we don't have Nuclear", while buying lots of Nuclear power from Britain and France.

Too true. We have a long and embarrassing history of exporting our problems. Why stop now?

Pocari Sweat

Before Foxwood chipped in with the histrionics, I was asking for a response for some of the points in my post, and alas there were at least some in Foxo's last bit of bolshyness, ending up in calling me a liar, thanks.

Right, so forgetting about any further insults, a few responses, firstly the german landscape issue, two or three mornings ago a german woman came on the gerry ryan show (i think it was in case i'm called a liar), and she was living currently in Cork and gave a bit of a chat about her experience of the blight on the german landscape regarding wind turbines, and went in to fairly good detail for some time during the discussion as to how in her long experience, growing up in germany in the 70's and 80's how wind turbines got out of control with regard to where they were put and how little inconsistent power they gave out.

She was quite dismissive about them having first hand experience how they affected daily life in germany when living near them, not only about the sounds, and look of them in otherwise nice scenery, but particularly the "shadow blade" effect of being caught by repeating rotating shadows living further down stream / behind the reflection of the sun and also repeating flashes caught in peoples living rooms when the sun caught the blades and gave repeating glares, to such an extent as many residents had to buy window blinds or special blinds to counteract them, rather than get annoyed by the daily effects of them. Now this was stuff she was talking about in her own experience. So if it appears a bit FUD, it was actually fresh in my mind from earlier in the week from someone who knew, on Irish radio.

I never mentioned about holding a lifetimes supply of nuke waste in the palm scenario, but if this is viewed as being emotional, it does come from the fact that a rod of uranium which is roughly the size of a broom handle gives the equivalent energy output of burning 300 tonnes of coal, which is not in the spectrum of emotion or lies, its simple understood fact if you know anything about nuke power generation, it does not take alot of the stuff to get a huge return.

Spent rods are then put in sealed indoor cooling ponds, and the high level waste products, unable to be dealt with, which I think was probably being discussed in the palm of the hand scenario, obviously wouldn't be offered to the public to be held in their hands, that would be a bit emotional.

The high level waste had pioneering techniques, first developed in the 1970's for being vitrified or heated with glass and made into manageable palm size vitrified discs which were then put into sealed zirconium flasks and buried often a mile down into bedrock at selected sites.

Now, this has been understood to be safe for 30's years of pontifications about costs etc, but the overall costing plan is for thousands of years anyway, and the bedrock bunker proposed for sellafield was in the daily mail last week, in pictures and print and the discussions on cost.

So to say nothing is being done about it now or in the future, then just look back to the 1970's, and the paln to now get enough of it (remember its only very small amounts!) and build a cost effective mile deep bedrock bunker for enough vitrified discs, which is what sellafield is all about, getting enough countries to get enough discs to make a bunker worthwhile digging.

Its a big industry so they do have long term plans after all. The way you see posts thrown about on boards.ie about disposal, you would think it is a last minute, faffing about cock up they did not think about, when actually its a no brainer, and the laymans talk about it really is a lot of FUD, i'm sorry but i have to confirm that one.

I'm off for a brew, and will give you a level headed response about any other fears ye have in half an hour.

Pocari Sweat

Right then Foxo, just to carry on to further respond to your points, you also called me a liar about expansion of nuclear east to west, america included.

You probably know about France's 80% nuclear programme and nuclear plant building exports with the huge Ariva from previous posts, which is in Europe but looking at the US just look at GW Bushes last discussion on it in the space of just over a week ago:

George Bush:

“We must expand our nuclear power industry if we want to be competitive in the 21st century. We have got to be wise -- we have got to push hard to build new plants. " -- President Bush addressing the National Association of Manufacturers, July 27, 2006.

I know he is a boll*cks but this is just what he said at the end of July and he runs the country.

If you want a bit more detail from the nuclear energy institute in the US, cop on this:

The 104 U.S. nuclear power plants are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate for 40 years, and can renew their licenses for an additional 20 years. To date, 44 have received license renewal and 34 more are expected to have their licenses renewed. Eventually, virtually all U.S. nuclear plants are expected to apply for license renewal.

Now you may take that as replacements of the existing, but Bush was just last week on about "expansion" and pushing hard etc, so we are not talking decline here.

Pocari Sweat

A bit more of it in full from Bush and his mates, (listed in www.nei.org) :

"[W]e must -- we must expand our nuclear power industry if we want to be competitive in the 21st century. We have got to be wise -- we have got to push hard to build new plants."
—President George W. Bush
National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, D.C.
July 27, 2006

“[Nuclear power] is a very important part of our [energy] mix today. We cannot afford to be without it at this point. The record across the country is not one of recklessness. The relicensing has been pretty responsible up until now.”
—Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)
The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, Mass.)
February 15, 2006

“I firmly believe that nuclear power is a key technology for addressing climate change. As we develop strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we simply cannot ignore this emission-free technology. While there are other sources of low or zero emission power sources, they simply do not have the power density to match that of nuclear power plants. . . . I strongly believe nuclear energy can and should play an even greater role, not because I have some inordinate love affair with splitting the atom, but for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Clean Cities Congress and Exposition 2006
May 8, 2006

“America is poised to reinvest in nuclear energy as part of a larger strategy to move away from our over-reliance on natural gas. Nuclear energy is clean, reliable and affordable. We are planning the construction of new nuclear power plants and the implementation of improved waste strategies.”
—Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.)
February 2, 2004

"I was reminded again of the amount of carbon dioxide that nuclear power plants do not put into the air, . . . the amount of dollars that reliance on nuclear energy does not add to our trade deficit,...the reduction in imported oil that a reliance on nuclear power for the generation of electricity affords us. t is important that we continue to maintain and strengthen going forward our reliance on nuclear energy."
—Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.)
Hearing, U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works
May 20, 2004

Pocari Sweat

Now Foxo, its not all bad news for ye, I was looking at western europe in terms of future plans for nuclear, and you were actually right in the main part about me blagging on about most of western europe expanding, and I must apologise, knowing most were nuclear, but a few have had second thoughts since public fears after chernobyl and the worry of politicians not getting re-elected must have put the wind up a few political parties in Germany, Spain, Sweden, Italy and so on. But I think there have still been debates in these countries over the last two decades, and now with the sharp turn in oil and gas prices, you are likely to see a lot more debates.
So to be a bit more illustrative of the countries that are going ahead and a few that are in a bit of a stale mate, here is a list for ye:

France
Working nuclear reactors 59
Reactors decommissioned/ out of use 11
Electricity from nuclear power 78%
France has been Europe's most enthusiastic devotee of nuclear power, constructing dozens of reactors since the 1970s oil crises spurred on its desire for energy independence.
It has become the world's biggest net exporter of electricity, and is also a major exporter of nuclear technology.
France began a public debate in 2003 on future energy policy, but the government seems committed. President Jacques Chirac has announced the fourth generation of nuclear reactors, using nuclear waste as a source of energy, while France will be the site for the international Iter experimental reactor.

Lithuania
Working nuclear reactors 1
Reactors decommissioned/ out of use 1
Electricity from nuclear power 72%
Lithuania is second only to France in its dependence on nuclear power for its electricity.
It pledged to close its Ignalina plant - based on the same design as Chernobyl - by 2009 as part of its negotiations to join the European Union. But it has been seeking a delay to allow it to find other energy sources.

UK
Working nuclear reactors 23
Reactors decommissioned/ out of use 21
Electricity from nuclear power 20%
The UK was the first country to use nuclear energy to generate power for large-scale civilian use, opening its first plant in 1956.
The last new reactor was opened in 1995, and Britain has been steadily decommissioning its old plants, with many set to close in the next few years.
However, the government has recently prompted debate on whether new nuclear plants should form part of the UK's future energy policy, to help it meet ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Ukraine
Working nuclear reactors 15
New reactors planned/ under construction: 2?Reactors decommissioned/ out of use 4
Electricity from nuclear power 51%
Ukraine's Chernobyl plant was the site of the largest nuclear accident in history in 1986, when an explosion blew the top off the site's number four reactor and sent a radioactive cloud across much of Europe.
Ukraine has remained committed to nuclear power, and is building two more reactors and planning as many as 11 more by 2030, as it seeks to reduce its dependence on energy from Russia.

Finland
Working nuclear reactors 4
New reactors planned/ under construction: 1
Electricity from nuclear power 27%
In 2002 Finland's parliament voted to approve building a fifth nuclear power plant, to be in operation about 2009.

Czech Republic
Working nuclear reactors 6
Electricity from nuclear power 31%
The Czech Republic's site at Temelin has strained relations with nearby Austria, which opposes nuclear power, especially after various problems and safety scares before its launch.
Nonetheless, the country plans further reactors at Temelin, to replace its second site at Dukovany after 2020.

Romania
Working nuclear reactors 1
New reactors planned/ under construction: 1
Electricity from nuclear power 10%
A tenth of Romania's electricity comes from its Cernavoda nuclear plant, where a second reactor is nearing completion.

Bulgaria
Working nuclear reactors 4
Reactors decommissioned/ out of use 2
Electricity from nuclear power 42%
Concerns over safety standards led Bulgaria to close two of the six reactors at its Kozloduy plant, and it is due to close two more before it joins the EU in 2007.
However, Bulgaria is aiming to renegotiate the closure date, and the issue still hangs over Bulgaria's accession to the EU.
Bulgaria is also pressing ahead with a new plant at Belene on the Danube.

Sweden
Working nuclear reactors 10
Reactors decommissioned/ out of use 3
Electricity from nuclear power 52%
While a large proportion of Sweden's electricity is generated by hydro-electric power, Stockholm decided in the 1960s and 70s to increase nuclear capacity to reduce dependence on oil.
In 1980, amid heightened fears over nuclear power, Sweden decided to phase out nuclear power, though its closure programme has been delayed several times.
Sweden recently announced it hoped to wean itself off fossil fuels completely, without building more nuclear plants, by expanding its extensive renewables programme.

Italy
Working nuclear reactors 0
Reactors decommissioned/ out of use 4
Electricity from domestic nuclear power 0%
Italy was an early pioneer of nuclear technology, and built four reactors, but these had all been shut down by 1990, following the Chernobyl disaster.
Italy is now the world's largest net importer of electricity, with more than 10% of its electricity coming from foreign-produced nuclear power.

Foxwood

There you go, some bimbo on Gerry Ryan complaining about windmills in Germany, what more could one ask for by way of facts or citations! I mean, Gerry Ryan! Wow, how could anyone possibly argue with something presented on the Gerry Ryan Show!

If that's the best you can do, I think we can safely ignore the destruction of the rural way of life in Germany.

You're still sidestepping the lie about "America is expanding its nuclear base, and so is most of western europe". There is exactly one new Nuclear Power plant under construction in America and western europe. The thing about the Olkiluoto plant, though, is that it's not being built to supply electricity to the public grid, but by an industrial consortium that supplies electricty to it's members. So it won't have to compete on the open market with other sources (and the members of the consortium will have to pay for the plant whether they use it's power or not, so they'll end up using it's power even if it costs more that alternative sources). Here's a quote from a recent New Scientist article:

A relatively new design of pressurised water reactor, the EPR is being built jointly by the French nuclear company Areva and the German company Siemens, and is being financed at extremely low rates of interest by French and German state-owned organisations. The scheme is being investigated by the European Commission, following a complaint by the European Renewable Energies Federation that the financing breaches the commission's rules.

If the complaint is upheld, it will be a serious blow to the nuclear industry, which likes to point to Olkiluoto as evidence of the viability of new nuclear stations. That argument, however, is questionable whatever the outcome of the complaint. The company the plant is being built for, called TVO, is not a conventional electricity utility, but a company owned by large Finnish industrial concerns that supplies electricity to its owners on a not-for-profit basis.

"The plant will have a guaranteed market and will not therefore have to compete in the Nordic electricity market," says Steve Thomas, an expert in nuclear economics at the University of Greenwich in London. What's more, he says, suspicions have been raised that the Areva-Siemens consortium is so anxious to showcase its technology that it has "offered a price that might not be sustainable" just to get the plant built.

As for your hand waving about vitrification, you have just proved my point about the solution to nucear waste always being "just 15 years away". All you find words about "pioneering techniques" developed in the '70s don't change the fact that the high level waste being produced today is NOT being vitrified and "put into sealed zirconium flasks and buried often a mile down into bedrock at selected sites". Maybe you don't count not mentioning this as a lie, but unless you actually don't know the current state of play in nuclear waste management, it's cleary a lie of ommission.

As for GWB - yes, he is the man in charge in the US. For the next 3 years. Guess how long it takes to build a nuclear power station? A bit more than 3 years. Unfortunately, they've done away with open and honest debate in the US, with government scientists complaining that their reports are being rewritten by political appointees, so decisions about "new nuclear" in the US will have more to do with who can write the biggest subsidies into some unrelated bill than the actual economic and scientific arguments for or against nuclear power.

Here's another quote from New Scientist:

In January, the financial analyst Standard & Poors issued a report saying that even the new incentives for the US nuclear industry will not be enough to persuade investors to climb aboard; from a business perspective, nuclear remains the highest-risk form of power generation. That's because the subsidies don't deal with the capital, operating and decommissioning risks that most concern the capital markets, says Amory Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a Colorado-based energy analysis firm. "The effect of even such huge subsidies will be the same as defibrillating a corpse," he says. "It will jump, but it will not revive."

Pocari Sweat

With shock oil and gas prices rocketting, I'll have no fears about investing in nuke shares and reckon if I put 10k in this year, I will definitely get a return, regardless of world markets over the next say 5 or 10 years.

Would you be willing to invest in the shaky windmill programmes?

Odaise Gaelach

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Ukraine
Working nuclear reactors 15
New reactors planned/ under construction: 2?Reactors decommissioned/ out of use 4
Electricity from nuclear power 51.

Only 4 reactors decomissioned? Ukraine has only decomissioned Chernobyl's four nuclear reactors?

Pocari Sweat

Yeah, Odaise, they only shut the rest of them down apparently up until 1999, as the country still needed electric, as it got over half the electric by nuclear.

They knew chernobyl was a bit of a cock up, but there were only 9 civilian deaths in total over 20 years by the main affects of radiation, which were thyroid or throat cancers. A thousand were affected by throat cancers, but only 9 in total died.

So although public opinion in the rest of europe was fuming about the whole fiasco, and horror stories were born, especially in the wild west of europe in countries without nukes and who didn't understand the stuff, the ukraine still had to get electric to their people, and nuclear was best.

Pocari Sweat

If a builder made a right cock up of building a house, and it would not pass an engineers report on completion and was a right shoddy job, then it does not mean that all builders are dodgey and do a crap job.

There are some high flying, expert builders out there that do amazing jobs. It was the same case with nuclear programmes in the west, with all the experts and experience in the west, and during the cold war the ruskies were cut off with their own ideas, a bit skint and doing a cocked up job of it.

But since the fall of communism, they have the opportunity to get their act sorted out, and can share in the wealth of experience from the west in how to do the job right.

Foxwood

Pocari Sweat wrote:

With shock oil and gas prices rocketting, I'll have no
fears about investing in nuke shares and reckon if I put 10k in this year, I
will definitely get a return, regardless of world markets over the next say
5 or 10 years.

Would you be willing to invest in the shaky windmill programmes?

In the real world, there's a hell of a lot more private investment going into Wind Generation than into Nuclear. And that's not going to change, unless (or rather until) certain governments intervene in the market by "nationalizing" the risk, while leaving the profit in private hands.

The much vaunted "market" isn't going to build nuclear power plants in the prime "market driven economies" (the US and the UK) - even with oil and gas prices rocketing. And the star nuclear performer in the EU (France) is precisely the country that tends to have the most "statist" approach to such projects.

By the way, do you want back up, claify or even withdraw your statement that "Germany only gets 3% of their total generation output from wind" before someone decides to point out it's wrong?

Odaise Gaelach

Pocari Sweat wrote:

So although public opinion in the rest of europe was fuming about the whole fiasco, and horror stories were born, especially in the wild west of europe in countries without nukes and who didn't understand the stuff, the ukraine still had to get electric to their people, and nuclear was best.

I know about Chernobyl being shut down in December 2000. I didn't know if Ukraine had discontinued any of its other reactors.

I read on the BBC website that Chernobyl's closure had caused some concern for people in Ukraine, particularly the 3000-or-so employees that had lost their jobs. Many people feared that they would not have enough electricity to get through the winter. I think that Ukrainian public opinion of Chernobyl isn't really as bad as everyone thinks that it is.

Pocari Sweat

Foxwood, I take it you are all emotional about the nuclear issue then.

Pocari Sweat

German wind power = 3% + fecked up landscape and reduced quality of life.

mjffey

Germany started its wind power programme DECADES ago and got to only 3% of their total generation output and wrecked the quality of life and natural beauty of much of their finest rural landscape, with massive expense in running costs due to capital invetsment versus return and the varying and unreliable nature of available wind

Have been away for a couple of days, so a late response to this. Being Dutch I speak and read German fluently and thought "Come. I have a look at yahoo.de because this looks a bit strange to me"

I found this:

Germany (incl the people themselves) is PRO wind turbines and more then 6.4% of their total enegry comes at the moment from wind turbines.

Your response gives the idea as if Germany is filled with wind turbines. Well it's not. You shoudn't forget that Germany is a lot larger then Ireland so it can hold a lot of turbines before "the natural beauty of the rural lanscape" is wrecked.

And if I have to choose between seeing turbines on the horizon or a big nuclear powerplant, then I will choos for the first. Living in county Mayo I see a lot of turbines and I think they look wonderfull. We have a 4 arce field and live rural and we are planning to have a couple of turbines next year. I know not eveybody can do something like this, but ireland has a lot of wind and water to generate a lot of energy before thinking of going nuclear.

Pocari Sweat

The wind was blowin strong in the last month in Germany, take the 3% as a mean average.

Pocari Sweat

Ireland should not go nuclear anyway. It may take decades before they have the infrastructure and knowledge to support such a programme.

Foxwood

Pocari Sweat wrote:

German wind power = 3% + fecked up landscape and reduced quality of life.

You could have got away with claiming ignorance (you've already demonstrated that you're not that well informed about this stuff). You could have backed your claim up with some citations. But it looks like you've decided to stick to the lies, in the hope that you can fool some of the people some of the time.

A quick google search turns up a variety of sources that state that wind power accounts for 4.3% of electricity use in Germany or that Some 5 per cent of Germany's domestic energy needs are met by wind power.

In fact in at least one state in Germany (Schleswig-Holstein) wind currently generates over 30 percent of all electricity consumed.

Foxwood

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Foxwood, I take it you are all emotional about the nuclear issue then.

That's fairy typical - you attack me personally because because I've exposed you as someone who isn't quite as smart as you like to pretend, and because I've exposed some of the lies you like to trot out.

I've already told you how to win your argument. Just provide accurate and up to date citations. Vague handwaving about half understood issues won't convince anyone, and will only weaken the position of more rational people who are trying to make the argument that you're screwing up.

(Here's a hint - I posted the news article that started this thread to show that there are actually some clued in individuals in the pro-nuclear camp, and that they're not all fan-boys who don't actually understand what they're posting about).

Pocari Sweat

Foxo, wrong again, as for investment in wind, with poor wind speeds in 2001 - 2003, read on;

Wind Power Monthly gives the impression that corporate developers have lower costs and better cheaper means of investing in wind power. This does not stand up to serious analysis. The fact that wind power deployment rates are declining in Germany and practically stationery in Denmark is because of faltering levels of subsidies, not because of a surfeit of amateurism at a local level.

Despite the fact that the average windfarm in the UK will be able, because of higher windspeeds, to produce around 50 per cent more electricity per MW, subsidy levels in Germany are no more than around 10 per cent more than what developers will receive per kWh of electricity produced in the UK (Toke 2005a). Subsidy levels are now being reduced further, and may disappear altogether with a CDU/CSU/FDP Government.

Another factor is that the years 2001-2003 were unusually low windspeed years, especially 2003. Some developers ran into financial problems. Up until now around half of German wind power has been funded by companies who sell shares to high income earning members of the general public. They make use of German tax laws which mean that high income earners can offset their high marginal tax rates by investing in wind power. They are corporate concerns known as kommandisten gedellschaften, although they are different to British corporate developers since they sell their equity shares to the general public. They are finding it more difficult to sell shares, but declining subsidy levels are a key cause of declining enthusiasm among investors.


It seems quite obvious that with nuclear power generation, each year you produce power, you know what you are going to get.

With wind power, looking at recent years, you just may get bugger all power into the grid. Its seems like a lottery.

Just to repeat, I would invest in nuclear and be confident of a return. With wind you could hit a few years of crap wind and blow your savings.

Foxwood

Pocari Sweat wrote:

The wind was blowin strong in the last month in Germany, take the 3% as a mean average.

You know you can actually look these things up on the web?

http://www.dwd.de/en/FundE/Klima/KLIS/daten/online/nat/ausgabe_monatswerte.htm

The column headed FMM is the Mean wind-force

(For anyone who doesn't want to waste time double-checking PS's "facts", he made this one up too).

Pocari Sweat

I'm sticking to the mean figure of 3% overall, as I can see that you are blowing hot air with all sorts of figures - either 4.3% or 5% or 30%, but you won't stick to a clear mean figure. You are all over the place.

Pocari Sweat

Foxo, you are getting too emotional, half your posts are a stinting quippery of personal abuse, calling other posters liars and thick.

I think most of what you write is mostly autobiographical anyway.

As for your claims of up to 30% being the figure of wind power in Germany, lets not get too over dramatic. I reckon, although just a little over one percent of my figure, Wikipedia claims it as 4.3% and that was your lowest mention yourself, but you were using up to 30%, so who is worse?

Wikipedia
Wind power is the conversion of wind energy into more useful forms, usually electricity using wind turbines. In 2005, worldwide capacity of wind-powered generators was 58,982*megawatts, their production making up less than 1% of world-wide electricity use. Although still a relatively minor source of electricity for most countries, it accounts for 23% of electricity use in Denmark, 4.3% in Germany and around 8% in Spain. Globally, wind power generation more than quadrupled between 1999 and 2005.
Most modern wind power is generated in the form of electricity by converting the rotation of turbine blades into electrical current by means of an electrical generator. In windmills (a much older technology) wind energy is used to turn mechanical machinery to do physical work, like crushing grain or pumping water.
Wind power is used in large scale wind farms for national electrical grids as well as in small individual turbines for providing electricity in isolated locations.
Wind energy is abundant, renewable, widely distributed, clean, and mitigates the greenhouse effect by replacement of fossil-fuel-derived electricity.



Foxo, the ongoing development of wind power is going to end up being weighed against a scale of diminishing returns, as the best sites will have already been previously chosen, the public concern will raise with the increase of more sites, the search for other alternative sources will put further pressure on investment for wind power, periods of low wind speed will further hamper investors, sharp oil and gas price increases will further give the push for serious replacements to oil and gas power generation such as nuclear, and wind which is around 1% globally, like hydro-electric, will settle into a small percentage of power provision for any given country, and still will not guarantee continuous power unless the wind is blowing for the expected amount of time it is meant to blow in any given year.