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

[JohnB]

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 .

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Clusterfuku...?

[Bandidoz]

lol

[An Inspector Calls]

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

[Aurora]

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

Just when we thought it was over ....

[2 As and a B]

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?

[An Inspector Calls]

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?

Over its lifecycle a nuclear power station produces as much carbon dioxide as a gas-fired power station.

and so forth ad nauseum.

[2 As and a B]

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

[An Inspector Calls]

Err, I have already commented on that/those papers:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... c&start=15

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.

[RenewableCandy]

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...

[An Inspector Calls]

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.

[RGR]

[quote="An Inspector Calls"]

[biffvernon]

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/nuclea ... ple,19740/