Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:40 am Post subject: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
Maybe our friends from Finland can comment on the following interview from BBC News
Quote:
Mikko Elo, an MP for Finland's Social Democrat Party, backed the country's decision in 2002 to build the first new nuclear reactor in Europe for more than a decade....
We need a lot of energy in Finland. We have a cold climate, long distances and an energy-intensive industry.
We make good use of almost every form of energy production. Hydropower, coal, natural gas, wood, wind and turf all play a part.
But if we are to help our economy as well as the environment, the answer has to be more nuclear power.
_________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:33 am Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
Starvid wrote:
Quote:
It is not good to go behind the public's back. And I truly believe that the more people understand nuclear power, the less they will oppose it.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Sorry to be a spoilsport old chap but I think we need to set the record straight about a few matters relating to nuclear power before proclaiming it as the techno-messiah;
1) "Nuclear power is price competitive with other methods of electricity generation." Unfortunately the nuclear power industry is unviable without significant government subsidy, see The True Costs of Nuclear Energy and Power Plant Costs.
2) "Nuclear power is a clean source of energy when it comes to greenhouse gases." In reality it creates significant carbon emissions due to the mining, transportation, refining, and waste disposal processes involved, see CO2 Emmisions and Nuclear Energy.
3) "We have enough supplies of the raw materials necessary to fuel the worldwide electricity supply for an indefinite period of time." In fact the rich ores necessary to fuel wordwide electrical demand from nuclear power are so limited that even if it were possible to do so these ores would be depleted within a few years, Fuel Costs and Uranium Deposits.
About the only thing that can be said in defence of nuclear power as a limited solution to future global energy needs is that the technology and infrastructure has already been established.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2888 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:25 am Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
Here we go again. Strom van Leuwen numbers have been disputed in other threads. Do a search.
But in short.
* Nuclear power is price competitive. The only thing cheaper is hydroelectricity and coal, when the high quality coal mines are close to the plants, like in Australia. For example, check the economy of Areva. That company has not received a single centime since it's inaguration and has been raided by the French government several times. Same thing with Vattenfall.
* The greenhouse gas emissions are very small, on par with wind power. Please see the massive EU ExternE study.
* Nuclear fuel. We have a long ass thread on that. Do a search. But in short. Fuel supply is huge because of: only one exploration cycle this far, MOX, seawater uranium, breeders, phosphates and thorium. Not all of these are needed for in practice unlimited nuclear fuel supply, just a few them will do. Nuclear fuel availability is a non-issue.
If we are to discuss that, let's do it in the relevant thread. _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3429 Location: California, USA
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:34 am Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
Good to hear about Finland.
Re. peripato's item, I'll disagree.
1) Price competitive: All factors in, it's only slightly more expensive than wind. Bottom line is, nothing will ever be as cheap as oil, coal, and natural gas; but aside from the price issues re. PO, we can't keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the present rate or we're done for.
2) Carbon emissions: Of all of the forms of "firm and dispatchable power," only hydro is lower than nuclear in terms of total CO2 emissions from the entire power production cycle. The foundation of any regional grid has to be firm & dispatchable power, otherwise grid instability can occur. This is why wind is limited to 20% under most conditions. A foundation of nuclear supports maximum development of renewables that are subject to intermittency, leveraging the CO2 reductions even further.
3) Fissionable uranium from the ground is limited to about a 40-year supply. Recycling nuclear waste into nuclear fuel, using breeder reactors, has a successful track record in France, and will extend the viable nuclear fuel supply to 200 - 250 years. During that time we can reasonably expect replacement technologies, and have time for a powerdown strategy if replacement technologies do not prove as feasible as desired.
4) "Advantage over renewables..." implies an "either/or" scenario. I'm promoting an "and/both" scenario: nuclear *and* maximum use of renewables *and* maximum use of conservation/efficiency.
Given the 7-10 year timeline for new nuclear construction, it's all the more important to get to work building those reactors right now, so we have that power when it's needed. Wind has a 3-5 year build timeline, so if we want to bring clean energy sources online together, we need to get started sooner on the nuclear part of the equation.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:56 am Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
Starvid wrote:
Here we go again. Strom van Leuwen numbers have been disputed in other threads. Do a search.
OK.
Quote:
* Nuclear power is price competitive. The only thing cheaper is hydroelectricity and coal, when the high quality coal mines are close to the plants, like in Australia. For example, check the economy of Areva. That company has not received a single centime since it's inaguration and has been raided by the French government several times. Same thing with Vattenfall.
"French Export Guarantee (COFACE) of non notified amount of 610 million EUR – to AREVA, the second highest ever reported for COFACE", p.13 Link. Isn't this a subsidy by another name?
Quote:
* The greenhouse gas emissions are very small, on par with wind power. Please see the massive EU ExternE study.
"wind power is inconsistent..."You have to combine huge-scale renewable wind along with coal to make it work", Ellenbecker - Wyoming Infrastructure Authority. If that's the case and greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear energy are on par with wind power then these must be very significant.
Quote:
* Nuclear fuel. We have a long ass thread on that. Do a search. But in short. Fuel supply is huge because of: only one exploration cycle this far, MOX, seawater uranium, breeders, phosphates and thorium. Not all of these are needed for in practice unlimited nuclear fuel supply, just a few them will do. Nuclear fuel availability is a non-issue.
Just because your thread on nuclear fuel is long doesn't mean all it's conclusions are right. The Bible is also very long...
"Current world annual mine production totals only 36,000 tonnes/annum of which only Canada and Australia produce ore of a high grade at around 10,000 tonnes and 8,000 tonnes resp. The balance of 30,000 tonnes required to meet the 2003 nuclear generators' demand for 66,000 tonnes/annum came from inventories, ex-weapons material, MOX and re-worked mine tailings. So primary production would have to be increased 167-fold to match the anticipated global energy needs exclusively from nuclear power in 2020." Link.
Quote:
If we are to discuss that, let's do it in the relevant thread.
Ah, isn't this thread about nuclear power? So people can't post here unless they are in favour of nuclear power?
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2888 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
peripato wrote:
"French Export Guarantee (COFACE) of non notified amount of 610 million EUR – to AREVA, the second highest ever reported for COFACE", p.13 Link. Isn't this a subsidy by another name?
Kind of. But reactor exports are like fighter plane exports, partly political. Domestic reactors are something entirely different.
Quote:
"wind power is inconsistent..."You have to combine huge-scale renewable wind along with coal to make it work", Ellenbecker - Wyoming Infrastructure Authority. If that's the case and greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear energy are on par with wind power then these must be very significant.
Hogwash. Wind power is intermittent, sure, but most ususally uses hydroelectricity as backup. Nuclear energy emitts about the same amount of CO2 as wind power, without backup capacity.
Quote:
Just because your thread on nuclear fuel is long doesn't mean all it's conclusions are right. The Bible is also very long...
"Current world annual mine production totals only 36,000 tonnes/annum of which only Canada and Australia produce ore of a high grade at around 10,000 tonnes and 8,000 tonnes resp. The balance of 30,000 tonnes required to meet the 2003 nuclear generators' demand for 66,000 tonnes/annum came from inventories, ex-weapons material, MOX and re-worked mine tailings. So primary production would have to be increased 167-fold to match the anticipated global energy needs exclusively from nuclear power in 2020." Link.
As you said above, a very big part of current nuclear fuel comes from dismantled weapons. This has kept uranium prices very low, and so has the collapse of new nuclear energy during the 80's. There has been no new prospecting, something that's being done know that will increase reserves. And then we have those other things I mentioned.
And no one has said nuclear energy should exlusively match anticipated energy needs, whatever they may be. Nuclear energy is today 6-7 % of global primary energy. It is very unlikely this should even double until 2020.
peripato wrote:
Starvid wrote:
If we are to discuss that, let's do it in the relevant thread.
Ah, isn't this thread about nuclear power? So people can't post here unless they are in favour of nuclear power?
Sure nuclear power is fun to discuss. But we have a certain thread just for nuclear fuel availability.
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:47 am Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
EnergySpin wrote:
Maybe our friends from Finland can comment on the following interview from BBC News
Quote:
Mikko Elo, an MP for Finland's Social Democrat Party, backed the country's decision in 2002 to build the first new nuclear reactor in Europe for more than a decade....
We need a lot of energy in Finland. We have a cold climate, long distances and an energy-intensive industry.
We make good use of almost every form of energy production. Hydropower, coal, natural gas, wood, wind and turf all play a part.
But if we are to help our economy as well as the environment, the answer has to be more nuclear power.
For once, I am happy with our politicians. We can meet the Kyoto agreement standards, we get the much-needed energy, and due our decision of not getting involved in military "adventures" in Middle East we have much lower risk of terrorism.
My mother-in-law is a scientist in Finland's Radiation Safety Research Centre and she opened my eyes, explaining how much medai hype there is around the dangers of nuclear power. It is our best bet for future energy supplies.
Plus if we keep this up we can start selling energy to Sweden. :D
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:42 am Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
Starvid wrote:
peripato wrote:
"French Export Guarantee (COFACE) of non notified amount of 610 million EUR – to AREVA, the second highest ever reported for COFACE", p.13 Link. Isn't this a subsidy by another name?
Quote:
Kind of. But reactor exports are like fighter plane exports, partly political. Domestic reactors are something entirely different.
There are also other subsidised projects quoted in that report.
Quote:
"wind power is inconsistent..."You have to combine huge-scale renewable wind along with coal to make it work", Ellenbecker - Wyoming Infrastructure Authority. If that's the case and greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear energy are on par with wind power then these must be very significant.
Quote:
Hogwash. Wind power is intermittent, sure, but most ususally uses hydroelectricity as backup. Nuclear energy emitts about the same amount of CO2 as wind power, without backup capacity.
But only usually, not in all cases as in Wyoming.
Quote:
Just because your thread on nuclear fuel is long doesn't mean all it's conclusions are right. The Bible is also very long...
"Current world annual mine production totals only 36,000 tonnes/annum of which only Canada and Australia produce ore of a high grade at around 10,000 tonnes and 8,000 tonnes resp. The balance of 30,000 tonnes required to meet the 2003 nuclear generators' demand for 66,000 tonnes/annum came from inventories, ex-weapons material, MOX and re-worked mine tailings. So primary production would have to be increased 167-fold to match the anticipated global energy needs exclusively from nuclear power in 2020." Link.
Quote:
As you said above, a very big part of current nuclear fuel comes from dismantled weapons. This has kept uranium prices very low, and so has the collapse of new nuclear energy during the 80's. There has been no new prospecting, something that's being done know that will increase reserves. And then we have those other things I mentioned.
And no one has said nuclear energy should exlusively match anticipated energy needs, whatever they may be. Nuclear energy is today 6-7 % of global primary energy. It is very unlikely this should even double until 2020.
peripato wrote:
Starvid wrote:
If we are to discuss that, let's do it in the relevant thread.
Ah, isn't this thread about nuclear power? So people can't post here unless they are in favour of nuclear power?
Quote:
Sure nuclear power is fun to discuss. But we have a certain thread just for nuclear fuel availability.
Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 29 Location: Viking land
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:01 am Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
I have asked this in other threads but I'll ask it here also. One of these days I'll get an answer
If nuclear power is so good, and France's plants so cost effective, why haven't any other country more than dabbled with nuclear energy in the past decades? Didn't the British government even have trouble _giving_ plants away, just to privatise them? I'm really curious.
I remember the talk about "electricity too cheap to meter" in nuclear powers infancy, so I have what I would like to call a healthy septicism (not that that is limited to nuclear power though ). _________________ "The so-called 'electromagnetic theory of light' has not helped us hitherto... it seems to me that it is a rather backwards step."
- Lord Kelvin
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:36 am Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
Starvid wrote:
Quote:
It is not good to go behind the public's back. And I truly believe that the more people understand nuclear power, the less they will oppose it.
Truer words have never been spoken.
They do understand it. And they've tended to oppose it, because of little things like the Windscale Fire of 1957; Three Mile Island & Chernobyl. Also, because they may have heard recently of 'swimming -pool sized leaks of radioactive liquid', which the UK authorities can't explain or account for.
It would be worth your while dusting off a copy of Rosalie Bertell's 'No Immediate Danger'.
Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 29 Location: Viking land
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:40 am Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
untothislast wrote:
Starvid wrote:
Quote:
It is not good to go behind the public's back. And I truly believe that the more people understand nuclear power, the less they will oppose it.
Truer words have never been spoken.
They do understand it. And they've tended to oppose it, because of little things like the Windscale Fire of 1957; Three Mile Island & Chernobyl. Also, because they may have heard recently of 'swimming -pool sized leaks of radioactive liquid', which the UK authorities can't explain or account for.
It would be worth your while dusting off a copy of Rosalie Bertell's 'No Immediate Danger'.
I want to make clear that I'm no big fan of nuclear power. What I am is (very) interested in objective information about all energy sources (and carriers). And while I appreciate that Chernobyl was a disaster, you have to put it into perspective. About as many have died in traffic accidents in Sweden since Chernobyl as have died from that accident in Russia and neighboring countries. About as many (order of magnitude, could be a bit off, _either way_) die EVERY YEAR from gunshot woulds in the US. Many more have died from McDonalds worldwide.
This doesn't make Chernobyl forgettable, nor the risks of nuclear accidents something to ignore. But I (as a nuclear sceptic) feel that the accident aspect gets blown way way out of proportion. I understand that this is natural, considering the unusualness of the possible accidents and the nature of everything nuclear. But I do feel that focusing too much on the accident bit will make us discuss the really important (important as in preserving civilization, not necessarily the exact present one, indeed hopefully not) issues that much less. And yes, the subjective feelings towards nuclear energy is one part of the whole issue, but it often BECOMES the issue. And I don't really think this benefits anyone. _________________ "The so-called 'electromagnetic theory of light' has not helped us hitherto... it seems to me that it is a rather backwards step."
- Lord Kelvin
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2888 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:13 pm Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
themotie wrote:
About as many have died in traffic accidents in Sweden since Chernobyl as have died from that accident in Russia and neighboring countries.
56 people have died because of the Chernobyl disaster this far. About 4000 more will die.
About 500 people are killed in the Swedish traffic, every year. This is an internationally low number.
Let's say 500 people have been killed in traffic every year since the Chernobyl disaster. 500*20= 10.000
So, Swedish traffic has since the Chernobyl disaster been more than twice as deadly as the Chernobyl disaster will ever be.
This doesn't in any way make the incident irrelevant, it was a _disaster_, but it shows that everything that has anything to do with radiation get unproportianely much negative media attention when something goes wrong. _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:03 am Post subject: Re: Why I support Nuclear Power: Interview at BBC News
Starvid wrote:
themotie wrote:
About as many have died in traffic accidents in Sweden since Chernobyl as have died from that accident in Russia and neighboring countries.
56 people have died because of the Chernobyl disaster this far. About 4000 more will die.
About 500 people are killed in the Swedish traffic, every year. This is an internationally low number.
Let's say 500 people have been killed in traffic every year since the Chernobyl disaster. 500*20= 10.000
So, Swedish traffic has since the Chernobyl disaster been more than twice as deadly as the Chernobyl disaster will ever be.
This doesn't in any way make the incident irrelevant, it was a _disaster_, but it shows that everything that has anything to do with radiation get unproportianely much negative media attention when something goes wrong.
The problem with these sort of comparisons is that, on face value, the applied logic seems compelling. Unfortunately, it misses the point.
When someone loses their life in a traffic accident, the fatality is localised, has a specific cause, and generally has no other widespread repercussions.
When radiation leaks out into the environment, its spread cannot be checked, and the long term consequences are pervasive and long lasting.
Welsh (UK) hill farms are still being monitored 20 years after the Chernobyl explosion. Not being able to see it - and thus avoid it - being but one of the dangers. And once it's entered into the food chain and water cycle, there's nothing we can do about it.
I'll bet no one is monitoring the residual effects of any traffic accidents which occurred in 1986, mainly because they're not likely to lead to an increase in the death rate via cancer within the population - or form the foundation of any other genetic abnormalities, subsequently undermining the genetic stock of all living things by degrees.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
).
