US: We need to expand nuclear energy

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 22 Jul 2007, 23:31

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

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.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 23 Jul 2007, 04:23

Bollocks!

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 23 Jul 2007, 06:13

kenneal wrote:Bollocks!

I totally agree!

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.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 10 Oct 2007, 15:44

Build no more nuclear power stations in UK, minister urges

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

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.

Post by **clv101** » 10 Oct 2007, 17:15

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

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 10 Oct 2007, 19:06

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.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 11 Oct 2007, 10:21

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

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 11 Oct 2007, 12:52

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.......

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 11 Oct 2007, 12:56

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.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 11 Oct 2007, 13:19

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.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 12 Oct 2007, 02:33

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!

Joules · Post by **Joules** » 23 Oct 2007, 10:45

The pressure for new nuclear plants builds as 7 out of 16 plants go offline this weekend:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/liste ... 071023.ram

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 23 Oct 2007, 10:58

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/liste ... 071023.ram

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

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'!).

Keepz · Post by **Keepz** » 23 Oct 2007, 17:51

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/liste ... 071023.ram
I'm not sure I follow their logic: "This type of generator has broken down, therefore we need more of it"

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

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 24 Oct 2007, 11:25

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/liste ... 071023.ram
I'm not sure I follow their logic: "This type of generator has broken down, therefore we need more of it"
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?