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.
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 759 Location: Illinois
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
yesplease wrote:
The liability insurance is proportional to the risk, which is anecdotally very low
That is not true. The nuclear industry gets liability waivers from the government in the event of a catastrophic disaster. Commercial and nuclear industry derived insurance will cover up to 10 billion in damages(Originally, commercial insurance only covered up to 60 million, but this was later upped). Everything above 10 billion is paid by tax payers. A worst case scenario was estimated to cost between 1.1 and 2.1 trillion dollars.
There are other criticisms of the liability waivers as well. Such as:
Quote:
Price-Anderson has been criticized by many of these groups due to a portion of the Act that indemnifies Department of Energy and private contractors from nuclear incidents even in cases of gross negligence and willful misconduct (although criminal penalties would still apply). "No other government agency provides this level of taxpayer indemnification to non-government personnel"
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
Plantagenet wrote:
Germany's future path is clear...Germany is failing to honor their commitments under the Kyoto Treaty and becoming MORE dependent on fossil fuels, not less. :)
It will work even without nuclear.
now we have 22% nuclear, 14% renewables, 24% lignite, 23% hard coal, 12% gas, 1% oil and others...
take 22% nuclear away, increase renewables to 30% in the same time, replace some old coal plant (35% efficiency) with new ones (45-50% efficiency) and increase natural gas plants to 15-20%.
This will lower carbon emissions and it will also stop our dependence on uranium imports.
Carbon footprint would be lower with nuclear instead of lignite (both base load), but should that really have high priority now?
I see absolutely zero carbon reduction plans in USA, and China at all, so it doesn't matter anyway...
The fight against global warming is lost already mainly because the biggest poluters in the world didn't even -try- to do anything. So tell me one reason why we shouldn't use our lignite, whichi the only source of fossil fuel that we have in significant quantities?
Last edited by cephalotus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:12 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 6374 Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:01 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
cephalotus wrote:
tell me one reason why we shouldn't use our lignite, whichi the only source of fossil fuel that we have in significant quantities?
No problem. I'll give you two reasons.
(1) Germany is building new coal (lignite) power plants to replace operating nuclear power plants. If Germany would keep the existing nuclear power plants they could save the huge amounts of money they are wasting by needlessly replacing modern technology with more primitive technology.
(2) Germany signed the Kyoto Treaty and promised to reduce carbon production. Replacing non-CO2 emitting nukes with lignite power plants that emit huge amounts of CO2 will make Germany break their Kyoto Treaty obligations by an even greater amount then they would otherwise.
Cheers! _________________ "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
kublikhan wrote:
yesplease wrote:
The liability insurance is proportional to the risk, which is anecdotally very low
That is not true. The nuclear industry gets liability waivers from the government in the event of a catastrophic disaster. Commercial and nuclear industry derived insurance will cover up to 10 billion in damages(Originally, commercial insurance only covered up to 60 million, but this was later upped). Everything above 10 billion is paid by tax payers. A worst case scenario was estimated to cost between 1.1 and 2.1 trillion dollars.
There are other criticisms of the liability waivers as well. Such as:
Quote:
Price-Anderson has been criticized by many of these groups due to a portion of the Act that indemnifies Department of Energy and private contractors from nuclear incidents even in cases of gross negligence and willful misconduct (although criminal penalties would still apply). "No other government agency provides this level of taxpayer indemnification to non-government personnel"
Compared to the supposed cost of externalities from coal, at ~150 billion/year, we could have one of these ~2 trillion dollar catastrophes every decade and a half and still be in the black. Anecdotally, we haven't had any of the trillion dollar (or even billion dollar?) accidents and unlike coal nuclear power doesn't have the huge externalized impacts on health and well as climate change. Like I said, with the addition that current energy generation methods are much more risky, nuclear power receives those waivers because statistically speaking it is much safer than alternatives, and will only get safer w/ next gen plants. _________________
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
Plantagenet wrote:
(2) Germany signed the Kyoto Treaty and promised to reduce carbon production. Replacing non-CO2 emitting nukes with lignite power plants that emit huge amounts of CO2 will make Germany break their Kyoto Treaty obligations by an even greater amount then they would otherwise.
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 759 Location: Illinois
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:24 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
yesplease wrote:
Like I said, with the addition that current energy generation methods are much more risky, nuclear power receives those waivers because statistically speaking it is much safer than alternatives, and will only get safer w/ next gen plants.
No, they got the waivers because without them investors would not touch nuclear with a 10 foot pole. If nuclear was so safe it would not need liability waivers from the government in the first place. _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
kublikhan wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Like I said, with the addition that current energy generation methods are much more risky, nuclear power receives those waivers because statistically speaking it is much safer than alternatives, and will only get safer w/ next gen plants.
No, they got the waivers because without them investors would not touch nuclear with a 10 foot pole. If nuclear was so safe it would not need liability waivers from the government in the first place.
Do you have any proof of this? Nuclear plant issues, what can do damage, are relatively infrequent, and as such, even though the liability waivers are for potentially large amounts and risky in terms of damage per incident, compared to the alternatives are anecdotally deemed as an acceptable risks since the probability of an incident is much lower, unlike alternatives like coal, where the externalities are consistent over the power plant's lifetime. For instance, given the ~2 trillion price tag of cleanup you mentioned earlier and the core damage frequency, in Europe, coal is ~200-2000 times more costly (depending on how much value a human life is given IIRC) than nuclear power in terms of externalized costs. I'm not sure about the core damage frequency in America but I would imagine it's still pretty unlikely to have a serious issue, not to mention the newer designs have core damage frequencies that are hundreds of times lower than what Europe's current setup has. _________________
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 759 Location: Illinois
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
yesplease wrote:
Do you have any proof of this? Nuclear plant issues, what can do damage, are relatively infrequent, and as such, even though the liability waivers are for potentially large amounts and risky in terms of damage per incident, compared to the alternatives are anecdotally deemed as an acceptable risks since the probability of an incident is much lower, unlike alternatives like coal, where the externalities are consistent over the power plant's lifetime. For instance, given the ~2 trillion price tag of cleanup you mentioned earlier and the core damage frequency, in Europe, coal is ~200-2000 times more costly (depending on how much value a human life is given IIRC) than nuclear power in terms of externalized costs. I'm not sure about the core damage frequency in America but I would imagine it's still pretty unlikely to have a serious issue, not to mention the newer designs have core damage frequencies that are hundreds of times lower than what Europe's current setup has.
The proof was listed in the Nuclear Industry Indemnity Act I posted earlier. It mentions investors were unwilling to invest in nuclear power without an indemnity from the government. If everything you say is true, if nuclear has very little risk of an accident and insurance can cover that risk, then why is this act still being renewed? Why are public tax payer dollars still on the hook in the event of a nuclear accident at a private nuclear plant? Why are there negligence waivers as well? _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2888 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
cephalotus wrote:
import rate of U235: 100%
import rate of lignite: ~0%
My dear friend, there are absolutely no geopolitical risks on the international uranium market. The big exporters are Canada and Australia. And in the event of some absurd situation, Swedish uranium would become competitive, and Sweden has a history of supplying Germany with metals no matter what, if you catch my meaning.
Quote:
coal power is also cheaper than nuclear power if you cover all costs.
No, no, no!
Not when you include the external costs, the environmental damage and health costs. And even if you just look at it from a strictly monetary basis, new nuclear is cheaper than new coal because coal prices have risen so much in the last few years.
Quote:
The good thing about our "old" nuclear power plants is that they are already payed of, so if U3O8 gets very expensive (demand can't be met by mining since many years), let's say 1000$ or 2000$/kg those power plants could still operate on a profit, because the capital costs are already payed .
The capital costs are indeed crucial for nuclear energy, which is why closing old nuclear power plants for political reasons is such madness. The things are essentially printing presses.
Quote:
Those how build new nuclear power plants have now to pay an arm and a leg for it (as you said there is a HUGE price increase) and it would be difficult for the to compete with the old already existing cheap plants.
New nuclear power plants have risen about 50 % in cost during the last few years. But so has new coal and new wind. And new plants don't compete with old nuclear, they compete with new plants of other kinds.
Quote:
There is also next to no technological advantage in efficiency between old an new nuclear plants, those are still somewhere between 30% and 38(?)%,
Oh there, is! Old plats are about 30 % or a bit more, while new plants are about 38 % efficient. If you make them CHP (kombikraftwerk) they can have an efficuency of about 90 %.
Quote:
I do believe that nuclear IS an option for many countries, especially those that have large areas, enough cooling water and (most important) a secure supply on U235 for the next 40-50 years.
The uranium issue is really a non-issue. Check the lastest Red Book. There is so much uranium around that people are falling over it when they start prsopecting.
Quote:
It is extremely unlikely that Germany will built a new nuclear reactor. Maybe some of the old plants will run longer than expected.
This is the wet dream of the Swedish nuclear industry. Building half a dozen new really big reactors in southern Sweden and HVDC-lines to the massive German market... _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2888 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
cephalotus wrote:
change in CO2 emission from 1990 to 2004:
Germany: -17,2%
USA: +15,8%
It's not a fair comparison as 1990 is before German reunification. As soon as that happened huge amounts of uselessly inefficient East German industry and power generation was closed down which made CO2 emissions plummet.
Why don't you compare CO2 emissions of West Germany 1990-2004 with the US instead? _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2888 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
kublikhan wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Do you have any proof of this? Nuclear plant issues, what can do damage, are relatively infrequent, and as such, even though the liability waivers are for potentially large amounts and risky in terms of damage per incident, compared to the alternatives are anecdotally deemed as an acceptable risks since the probability of an incident is much lower, unlike alternatives like coal, where the externalities are consistent over the power plant's lifetime. For instance, given the ~2 trillion price tag of cleanup you mentioned earlier and the core damage frequency, in Europe, coal is ~200-2000 times more costly (depending on how much value a human life is given IIRC) than nuclear power in terms of externalized costs. I'm not sure about the core damage frequency in America but I would imagine it's still pretty unlikely to have a serious issue, not to mention the newer designs have core damage frequencies that are hundreds of times lower than what Europe's current setup has.
The proof was listed in the Nuclear Industry Indemnity Act I posted earlier. It mentions investors were unwilling to invest in nuclear power without an indemnity from the government. If everything you say is true, if nuclear has very little risk of an accident and insurance can cover that risk, then why is this act still being renewed? Why are public tax payer dollars still on the hook in the event of a nuclear accident at a private nuclear plant? Why are there negligence waivers as well?
The fact is that nuclear power plants pay more insurance than other industries.
Where is the insurance hydro power pays for massive flooding disaster? Who pays if an airliner crashes into a city killing thousands? If a chemical factory blows up and spews posing all over the place? Who pays if a coal power plants spews dangerous toxins into the air, creating huge amounts of respiratory disease (oops, they do that all the time)?
The answer to all these questions is the State. The nuclear industry is the exception that pays insurance at all. _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 759 Location: Illinois
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
Starvid wrote:
The fact is that nuclear power plants pay more insurance than other industries.
Where is the insurance hydro power pays for massive flooding disaster? Who pays if an airliner crashes into a city killing thousands? If a chemical factory blows up and spews posing all over the place? Who pays if a coal power plants spews dangerous toxins into the air, creating huge amounts of respiratory disease (oops, they do that all the time)?
The answer to all these questions is the State. The nuclear industry is the exception that pays insurance at all.
No. When a chemical plant explodes, they go after the chemical company and sue them. When a power plant explodes, they sue the power company. But not nuclear. They get a liability waiver. _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
kublikhan wrote:
The proof was listed in the Nuclear Industry Indemnity Act I posted earlier. It mentions investors were unwilling to invest in nuclear power without an indemnity from the government. If everything you say is true, if nuclear has very little risk of an accident and insurance can cover that risk, then why is this act still being renewed? Why are public tax payer dollars still on the hook in the event of a nuclear accident at a private nuclear plant? Why are there negligence waivers as well?
The rational behind the waivers/insurance are in the first link you posted earlier. Tax payer dollars and waivers are used because w/o them investors wouldn't deal w/ nuclear power, likely regardless of if the core damage frequencies were 1,000s of times what they are in the current gen plants because they don't have an accurate gauge of the risks compared to those of alternatives. While investors may not have an accurate assessment of the externalized costs of nuclear power compared to alternatives like coal, the NRC and probably others do, which is likely why they feel that offering liability waivers/insurance is worthwhile compared to the externalized costs of coal. _________________
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
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
Anecdotally, we haven't had any of the trillion dollar (or even billion dollar?) accidents and unlike coal nuclear power doesn't have the huge externalized impacts on health and well as climate change. Like I said, with the addition that current energy generation methods are much more risky, nuclear power receives those waivers because statistically speaking it is much safer than alternatives, and will only get safer w/ next gen plants.
