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 

US: We need to expand nuclear energy
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:31 pm    Post subject: US: We need to expand nuclear energy Reply with quote

http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_6432631

Quote:
Salt Lake Tribune - 21/07/07

We are still debating if expansion of nuclear energy is necessary to meet electrical energy needs while the world moves ahead ("Global warming heats up the nuclear option," Tribune, July 15).

Pacific Rim countries are making massive investments in new nuclear plants to satisfy their energy demands for their growing economies.

China has purchased and will operate in 2013, four nuclear plants that equal the entire Utah electrical power output.

France, with 79 percent nuclear generated electricity, plans a new generation of plants.

Western European nations that previously restrained nuclear plant development are reconsidering previous policies because they see no alternatives to control climate changes.

Environmentalists assure us that wind and solar sources can provide the electrical power we will need in the next decades despite the fact that at present 103 U.S. nuclear plants provide over 76 percent of our emission-free electricity. There are no viable options for limiting greenhouse gases without nuclear energy.

Renewable energy sources should play their role, but technical realities and our absolute dependence upon electricity to power our homes, businesses and industries will demand expansion of U.S. nuclear energy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bollocks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
Bollocks!

I totally agree! Smile

At a time when we should all be investing heavily in renewable alternatives, most western politicians and energy company executives seem to be hell bent on taking us down the nuclear route.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Build no more nuclear power stations in UK, minister urges

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1616512007

Quote:
The Scotsman - 10/10/07

NO MORE nuclear power stations should be built in the UK, Scotland's energy minister says.

Writing in today's Scotsman, Jim Mather says the money needed for a new generation of plants could be used to develop long-term "clean" alternatives.

He adds: "With new nuclear power comes harmful radioactive waste, which cannot be ignored, and will leave a legacy lasting thousands of years.

"I believe the risks and uncertainties of nuclear power, in terms of waste disposal, decommissioning, security and health concerns, or cost, are far too great."

His comments come amid a UK government consultation on the future of nuclear power.

At last. A UK minister demonstrating some good sense. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7636

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't think energy policy had been devolved to the Scottish parliament...
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
I didn't think energy policy had been devolved to the Scottish parliament...

I take your point Chris. I just think it's refreshing to get this sort of feedback from ANY energy minister at this critical time in the debate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
I didn't think energy policy had been devolved to the Scottish parliament...


No I don't think it has. But planning policy, perhaps, might have been Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 4105
Location: outside Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So folks think no new nuclear power stations should be built in the UK. I wonder will you still be of that opinion when there is insufficient electricity for the whole of the UK and thus there has to be rolling planned and unplanned black-outs?

This looks to be a likely outcome according to a lot of investigation and analysis Chris (clv101) has done.

So not only will we not have any fuel for cars and ALL the other implications of oil depletion/shortage, but we will have to cope with intermittent electricity.

This will be a dire situation.......
_________________
Real money is gold and silver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 4105
Location: outside Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will also say that the deaths and destruction to society that would occur as a result of this situation will far outweigh all the deaths due to radiation and risks that nuclear power stations have entailed to date - worldwide!

Just my opinion.
_________________
Real money is gold and silver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bandidoz
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2705
Location: Berks

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even with new nuclear build, the lack of fossil fuels for "dispatchable" power will cause blackouts in any case (nuclear stations don't load-follow; they provide base-load). The people say, "Demand must be met!". The engineers say, "Demand cannot be met!".

I'd put my money on a system that accepts the "supply-controlled-demand" paradigm to provide more graceful (less random) disconnection from electricity.
_________________
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
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

snow hope wrote:
I will also say that the deaths and destruction to society that would occur as a result of this situation will far outweigh all the deaths due to radiation and risks that nuclear power stations have entailed to date - worldwide!


The Energy Consultation works on the basis (paragraph 66 I think) that by 2050 the national economy will be three times the size it is now. Assuming that is a load of C**P, we won't need half the electricity supply they're quoting. If we invest the money that they are proposing to invest in nuclear into renewables instead I think we might just get by.

The problem with building new nukes now is that when we come to decommission them we won't have the power available. The nuclear power companies will just go bust and leave us, or our children and grandchildren with rotting radioactive piles of concrete. They will be the future equivalent of land mines, only they will last about 30,000 years. Or until the next ice age spreads them round the world a bit.

We haven't even got rids of the last lot of nuclear waste yet, let alone adding another lot to it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Joules



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 255
Location: Canterbury, UK

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The pressure for new nuclear plants builds as 7 out of 16 plants go offline this weekend:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_nuclear_20071023.ram
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joules wrote:
The pressure for new nuclear plants builds as 7 out of 16 plants go offline this weekend:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_nuclear_20071023.ram


I'm not sure I follow their logic: "This type of generator has broken down, therefore we need more of it" Question

Also the point about energy needed to decommission is spot on. The only reason Nuclear comes out looking good in any of these daft 'studies' is that they conveniently 'forget' the cost and energy involved in decommissioning (because it's an 'Unknown'...but to misquote Mr Rumsfelt at least it's a 'known unknown'!).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Keepz



Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 478

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
Joules wrote:
The pressure for new nuclear plants builds as 7 out of 16 plants go offline this weekend:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_nuclear_20071023.ram


I'm not sure I follow their logic: "This type of generator has broken down, therefore we need more of it" Question


a new plant would be much more reliable, eg Sizewell B which has been running without interruption for nearly a year; the plants which are currently out of action are 20 - 30 years old
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keeper of the Flame wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
Joules wrote:
The pressure for new nuclear plants builds as 7 out of 16 plants go offline this weekend:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_nuclear_20071023.ram


I'm not sure I follow their logic: "This type of generator has broken down, therefore we need more of it" Question


a new plant would be much more reliable, eg Sizewell B which has been running without interruption for nearly a year; the plants which are currently out of action are 20 - 30 years old


Now Sizewell B...apparently it's Britain's biggest 'indivisible' generator. This means that when the chaps at the NatGrid are doing their grid reliability calculations, it's Sizewell B's massive capacity that they're thinking about. They have to factor in a very large margin precisely because there exists a generator of this size which might go offline at the drop of a hat.

It's good that SB is working well at present, but can you imagine the aggro at Grid HQ when it begins its trek up the bad side of the Bathtub Failure-rate Curve in the latter stages of its design life?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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