PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Ten reasons why new nuclear was a mistake – even before Fuku

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:52 pm    Post subject: Ten reasons why new nuclear was a mistake – even before Fuku Reply with quote

Interesting Transition Culture post on the arguments against nuclear power, and a good starting point for a discussion.

I did notice that the subject got cropped, but thought it summed up the government and nuclear industry attitude quite well Laughing.
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mean Mr Mustard



Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Cambridgeshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clusterfuku...?
_________________
1855 Advertisement for Kier's Rock Oil -
"Hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s laboratory."

The Future's so Bright, I gotta wear Night Vision Goggles...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bandidoz
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2705
Location: Berks

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lol Laughing Laughing Laughing
_________________
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's just one minor point that fails Alexis Rowells post: it's almost entire bollocks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
There's just one minor point that fails Alexis Rowells post: it's almost entire bollocks.

Rolling Eyes Just when we thought it was over ....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
2 As and a B



Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 2592

PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
There's just one minor point that fails Alexis Rowells post: it's almost entire bollocks.

Well, we'll just take your word for that shall we? Or would you like to elucidate?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

foodimista wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
There's just one minor point that fails Alexis Rowells post: it's almost entire bollocks.

Well, we'll just take your word for that shall we? Or would you like to elucidate?


Quote:
Over its lifecycle a nuclear power station produces as much carbon dioxide as a gas-fired power station.
and so forth ad nauseum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
2 As and a B



Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 2592

PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
Quote:
Over its lifecycle a nuclear power station produces as much carbon dioxide as a gas-fired power station.

By which you mean this report: http://www.stormsmith.nl/. I'm sure the authors would value your comments
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Err, I have already commented on that/those papers:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6157&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Quote:
His analysis is extremely torturous, but I believe it is also very seriously flawed. There are several quite simple errors.

1)
He double counts the on-site, operational power consumption (or house load) for a nuclear plant when he is determining lifetime energy budget. The quoted load factors for existing and planned nuclear plants are based on NET energy production, never GROSS energy production. He bases his output energy budget calculation for a 1,000 MW plant on the assumption that the output figure is GROSS output, but this is never the case. All load factor reports are NET. The difference between the two calculations gives Leeuwen a result pessimised by nearly 25 %.
2)
He states a decommissioning cost of 100 billion euros for the 14 UK domestic nuclear plants. This is not the case. The sum quoted is for the decommissioning of ALL the UK's nuclear sites including all the nuclear research facilities back to pre-war days, the maintenance facilities for the UK's weapons programme , and other miscellaneous sites. The cost of decommissioning the magnox nuclear stations is in actuality about 1 billion euros each. Remember, these plants were not designed with any forethought given to decommissioning. And it should also be remembered that the huge cost figure quoted is that without any form of discounted cash flow applied. That is not how project costs are usually assessed or presented.
3)
He states an energy budget for decommissioning that is equivalent to running a conventional plant of 50 MW rated capacity for 100 years. This is ludicrous.
4)
He states a design life of 40 years. The French nuclear power stations, now approaching 40 years old, are undergoing refurbishment work to run them through another 20 years. The design life of the next generation of nuclear stations is 60 years.

That's just what I picked out in a brief reading. It does not give me much faith in Leeuwen's claims.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12463
Location: York

PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding decommissioning, yes it does include everything, but that "everything" is all the research necessary to have brought the nuclear industry to this point. And research, as per the Profs at Manchester, is presumably still ongoing.

Also just out of interest point (4), how comprehensive is the refurbishment? Presumably they have to replace any containers, which would otherwise be at increased risk of cracking? And for that, do they have to remove, and safely park, the fuel rods...which presumably isn't cheap.

But I'm more of an objector to the sheer complicated-ness of the entire system necessary to deliver nuclear power, rather than its cost per se. Strictly speaking, the cost should include a share of all the evacuations, re-housings, repairs, higher security in times of "tension", healthcare, health lawsuits, I could go on...OK that's not much in the UK yet, but give it time...
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
Regarding decommissioning, yes it does include everything, but that "everything" is all the research necessary to have brought the nuclear industry to this point. And research, as per the Profs at Manchester, is presumably still ongoing.


It also includes, in very large measure, all the nuclear facilities associated with the production of atomic weapons and the operation of nuclear powered submarines. Many of the research facilities were involved in this work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RGR
Banned


Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2011
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="An Inspector Calls"]

Last edited by RGR on Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Nuclear Energy Advocates Insist U.S. Reactors Completely Safe Unless Something Bad Happens

WASHINGTON—Responding to the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan, officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sought Thursday to reassure nervous Americans that U.S. reactors were 100 percent safe and posed absolutely no threat to the public health as long as no unforeseeable system failure or sudden accident were to occur. "With the advanced safeguards we have in place, the nuclear facilities in this country could never, ever become a danger like those in Japan, unless our generators malfunctioned in an unexpected yet catastrophic manner, causing the fuel rods to melt down," said NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko, insisting that nuclear power remained a clean, harmless energy source that could only lead to disaster if events were to unfold in the exact same way they did in Japan, or in a number of other terrifying and totally plausible scenarios that have taken place since the 1950s. "When you consider all of our backup cooling processes, containment vessels, and contingency plans, you realize that, barring the fact that all of those safety measures could be wiped away in an instant by a natural disaster or electrical error, our reactors are indestructible." Jaczko added that U.S. nuclear power plants were also completely guarded against any and all terrorist attacks, except those no one could have predicted.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nuclear-energy-advocates-insist-us-reactors-comple,19740/
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group