Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
You know how long it takes before a nuclear power stations is build and really 100% operational, producing megawatts? These things aren't build tomorrow and operational the next year ;) New nuclear power stations operational in eight years, says Lib Dem Chris Huhne, (oh, and in the next link you can find the reality of the estimated 8 years)
And ofcourse the costs, Nuclear Does Not Make Economic Sense Say Studies (already posted this but don't think anybody has read it).
I've read a good question on a blog, would you let a construction company that only builds 1 apartment each 10 years build your apartment thinking this will be safe? ;)
(edited)
And ofcourse the costs, Nuclear Does Not Make Economic Sense Say Studies (already posted this but don't think anybody has read it).
I've read a good question on a blog, would you let a construction company that only builds 1 apartment each 10 years build your apartment thinking this will be safe? ;)
(edited)
My view is other sources should be looked into, but nuclear power is going to be the important thing for the next 20 to 30 years barring a major scientific power breakthrough.
Most nuclear power plants won't even be build and 100% operational within those years :) That's a dream for some, but not reality. Things that can be build tomorrow, and really operational within a year should be the future. We live near an ocean, in fact, almost all major cities in the world are near an ocean or rivers:
24/7 operational without dangers and can be build tomorrow and operational within a year. No dangers, no waste, no unreliable energy, affordable to make by many companies (good for competition so lower costs!) etc. At the end of the video you see a large 1, put a row of these in the Canal and we can all benefit. Nuclear power plants won't even come close to the production of electricity :)
(edited)
24/7 operational without dangers and can be build tomorrow and operational within a year. No dangers, no waste, no unreliable energy, affordable to make by many companies (good for competition so lower costs!) etc. At the end of the video you see a large 1, put a row of these in the Canal and we can all benefit. Nuclear power plants won't even come close to the production of electricity :)
(edited)
It doesent need to be huge. It must be big enough and , of course you need wind.
But you´re right, we will see nuclear plants for many many years. Why ?
Simply because you cant actually shut down a nuclear plant and forget it.
You still need to protect and guard it because it is not secure even when turned off.
I think there are few things more stupid than a nuclear plant.
You focus on power and turn around my first objection.
Do we really need that power ?
I mean what would mc donalds say if we ask him how many hamburgers i should eat ?
But you´re right, we will see nuclear plants for many many years. Why ?
Simply because you cant actually shut down a nuclear plant and forget it.
You still need to protect and guard it because it is not secure even when turned off.
I think there are few things more stupid than a nuclear plant.
You focus on power and turn around my first objection.
Do we really need that power ?
I mean what would mc donalds say if we ask him how many hamburgers i should eat ?
We are currently (or will be pretty soon) doing a tidal scheme minutes away from where i live.
http://www.the-bitches.co.uk/tidalenergy.html
We are using a technology made by delastream, explained in their video below.
(edited)
http://www.the-bitches.co.uk/tidalenergy.html
We are using a technology made by delastream, explained in their video below.
(edited)
You know what else is a big problem, the inefficient electricity grids in some countries. I know in the UK it was really bad and they are improving. More then 30% of the electricity was lost before it even reached the consumers. In the US it's really bad, we know of their black-outs, 67% of their electricity is lost.
And if your country has things like these, you know it can be done much better :P
(edited)
And if your country has things like these, you know it can be done much better :P
(edited)
Any transfer from one source of energy to another takes time. Nothing is built tommorrow if we agree on it today. Nobody would claim, that it's possible to replace a vast amount of our fossil fuelled plants with renewables in any short spand of time.
And your appartment analogy just doesn't make any sence. It needs at least one more factor - comparison with something else. Let's try to use wind mills as an example. In this case the question should be something like this:
What would you prefer:
1) A single appartment block with 1600 appartments built in 8 years *
2) 8 blocks containing 200 appartments each built in 1½ years = 12 years total **
Price and practicability are other factors, that should also be considered in the analogy. Then the question should be something like this:
What would you prefer:
1) A single appartment block with 1600 appartments built in 8 years - at a price of 5,3 billion euros, with a 60 year guarantee and a building quality where 10% of the appartments would be unavailable due to maintenance at any time. The price for each appartment is then 5,3 billion / (1600 * 60 - 10%) = 61343 euros *
2) 8 blocks containing 200 appartments each built in 12 years - at a price of 4 billion euros with a 25 year guarantee and a building quality where 56% of the appartments would be unavailable due to maintenace at any time. The price for each appartment is then 4 billion / (1600 * 25 - 56%) = 227273 euros **
I know this isn't a perfect analogy yet. Other expenses has an effect on the price per megawatt year delivered. A nuclear power plant would also need a number of operators plus fuel. Plus I've probably made a small mistake here and there. So consider this an rough analogy of the construction costs and practicability only.
*) I've used the numbers of the Finnish 1600 MW reactor Olkiloutu 3 currently beeing built. This is often reffered to as the "horror story" of delays and rising costs and is used as an argument to why nuclear power is "too expensive" by nuclear opponents. Construction was started in 2005 and is currently (after many delays) scheduled to be finished in 2013, so construction time is 8 years (not considering planning, licensing and commissioning). Construction costs are currently estimated at 5,3 billion euros. It is expected to be operational for 60 years and has an expected capacity of 90%.
**) I've used the numbers of the Danish 209 MW (~200 MW to make a clearer example) off shore wind mill farm Horns Rev II. Inaugurated in 2009 and the world's largest until september 2010. Consisting of 93 x 2 MW wind mills. It took 1½ years to build (not considering planning, licensing and commissioning). The construction costs were 3,5 billion Danish kroner ~ ½ billion euros. The wind mill farm is expected to be operational for 25 years, and it has an expected capacity of 44%.
Edit - In response to this posting:
You know how long it takes before a nuclear power stations is build and really 100% operational, producing megawatts? These things aren't build tomorrow and operational the next year ;) New nuclear power stations operational in eight years, says Lib Dem Chris Huhne, (oh, and in the next link you can find the reality of the estimated 8 years)
And ofcourse the costs, Nuclear Does Not Make Economic Sense Say Studies (already posted this but don't think anybody has read it).
I've read a good question on a blog, would you let a construction company that only builds 1 apartment each 10 years build your apartment thinking this will be safe? ;)
(edited)
And your appartment analogy just doesn't make any sence. It needs at least one more factor - comparison with something else. Let's try to use wind mills as an example. In this case the question should be something like this:
What would you prefer:
1) A single appartment block with 1600 appartments built in 8 years *
2) 8 blocks containing 200 appartments each built in 1½ years = 12 years total **
Price and practicability are other factors, that should also be considered in the analogy. Then the question should be something like this:
What would you prefer:
1) A single appartment block with 1600 appartments built in 8 years - at a price of 5,3 billion euros, with a 60 year guarantee and a building quality where 10% of the appartments would be unavailable due to maintenance at any time. The price for each appartment is then 5,3 billion / (1600 * 60 - 10%) = 61343 euros *
2) 8 blocks containing 200 appartments each built in 12 years - at a price of 4 billion euros with a 25 year guarantee and a building quality where 56% of the appartments would be unavailable due to maintenace at any time. The price for each appartment is then 4 billion / (1600 * 25 - 56%) = 227273 euros **
I know this isn't a perfect analogy yet. Other expenses has an effect on the price per megawatt year delivered. A nuclear power plant would also need a number of operators plus fuel. Plus I've probably made a small mistake here and there. So consider this an rough analogy of the construction costs and practicability only.
*) I've used the numbers of the Finnish 1600 MW reactor Olkiloutu 3 currently beeing built. This is often reffered to as the "horror story" of delays and rising costs and is used as an argument to why nuclear power is "too expensive" by nuclear opponents. Construction was started in 2005 and is currently (after many delays) scheduled to be finished in 2013, so construction time is 8 years (not considering planning, licensing and commissioning). Construction costs are currently estimated at 5,3 billion euros. It is expected to be operational for 60 years and has an expected capacity of 90%.
**) I've used the numbers of the Danish 209 MW (~200 MW to make a clearer example) off shore wind mill farm Horns Rev II. Inaugurated in 2009 and the world's largest until september 2010. Consisting of 93 x 2 MW wind mills. It took 1½ years to build (not considering planning, licensing and commissioning). The construction costs were 3,5 billion Danish kroner ~ ½ billion euros. The wind mill farm is expected to be operational for 25 years, and it has an expected capacity of 44%.
Edit - In response to this posting:
You know how long it takes before a nuclear power stations is build and really 100% operational, producing megawatts? These things aren't build tomorrow and operational the next year ;) New nuclear power stations operational in eight years, says Lib Dem Chris Huhne, (oh, and in the next link you can find the reality of the estimated 8 years)
And ofcourse the costs, Nuclear Does Not Make Economic Sense Say Studies (already posted this but don't think anybody has read it).
I've read a good question on a blog, would you let a construction company that only builds 1 apartment each 10 years build your apartment thinking this will be safe? ;)
(edited)
Do we really need that power ?
I mean what would mc donalds say if we ask him how many hamburgers i should eat ?
Cutting down on our energy demands is nothing but a dream. We've had a policy of inciting conservation of energy for decades now in Denmark, and the only thing we've achieved is putting a stop to the rise in our demand and keeping status quo. People still need refridgerators, tv's, computers, washing machines, ovens and stoves. Plus all the other stuff we consume. And we consume ever more - even if we don't eat at McDonald's. So even if we've changed all our light bulbs and utensils to more modern designs, we just can't cut our demand for energy.
And the world is going to need more energy in the future, that's for sure. All the peoples who are currently not as rich as we are are going to level in time with our standard of living. Unless you want to deny the Indians and Chinese (and many others) to have a taste of your own wealth..?
(edited)
I mean what would mc donalds say if we ask him how many hamburgers i should eat ?
Cutting down on our energy demands is nothing but a dream. We've had a policy of inciting conservation of energy for decades now in Denmark, and the only thing we've achieved is putting a stop to the rise in our demand and keeping status quo. People still need refridgerators, tv's, computers, washing machines, ovens and stoves. Plus all the other stuff we consume. And we consume ever more - even if we don't eat at McDonald's. So even if we've changed all our light bulbs and utensils to more modern designs, we just can't cut our demand for energy.
And the world is going to need more energy in the future, that's for sure. All the peoples who are currently not as rich as we are are going to level in time with our standard of living. Unless you want to deny the Indians and Chinese (and many others) to have a taste of your own wealth..?
(edited)
I don't say we can replace all power stations using natural resources in a few years. Although .. I think they could if they want, but that will never happen, I know :) But new nuclear power stations aren't needed, we have the alternatives to choose from and they will all do the job. And yes, building a complete new wind park costs more time, but the moment 1 is installed it can theoretically produce electricity, a nuclear power station only when everything is finished. And I can use that example for a lot of alternatives that are single units in a large group.
And I don't support the old inefficient wind mills, I think they are redundant already by new technology. But whole companies exists to build these things, they won't be happy to shut down the complete factory. And as I already wrote, wind parks aren't efficient sustainable energy producers as you have to rely on the wind. Somekind of reliable power station has to be a backup. That's not a solution, yeh for the electricity companies it is ofcourse, a wind park AND a power station, great :P
Electricity has to be produced always, no drops, that will hurt the economy, so we can only use what is constant in nature like the tides or heat of the earth or the sun, very efficient in some places, not were we live :P At least not yet with the solar panels we have now.
And I think it's a really good question to ask how much these construction companies really know of building nuclear power stations and the risks, as they are still rare. And the fact that 20% of all nuclear power stations are build near a fault line doesn't convince me more these people really know what they are doing ...
By the way, what do you think of the conclusion of Citibank? They are very clear in their statement.
The Citibank survey concludes that without taxpayers money there is "little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built ... by the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks. Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and/or government-backed power off-take agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built."
And I don't support the old inefficient wind mills, I think they are redundant already by new technology. But whole companies exists to build these things, they won't be happy to shut down the complete factory. And as I already wrote, wind parks aren't efficient sustainable energy producers as you have to rely on the wind. Somekind of reliable power station has to be a backup. That's not a solution, yeh for the electricity companies it is ofcourse, a wind park AND a power station, great :P
Electricity has to be produced always, no drops, that will hurt the economy, so we can only use what is constant in nature like the tides or heat of the earth or the sun, very efficient in some places, not were we live :P At least not yet with the solar panels we have now.
And I think it's a really good question to ask how much these construction companies really know of building nuclear power stations and the risks, as they are still rare. And the fact that 20% of all nuclear power stations are build near a fault line doesn't convince me more these people really know what they are doing ...
By the way, what do you think of the conclusion of Citibank? They are very clear in their statement.
The Citibank survey concludes that without taxpayers money there is "little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built ... by the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks. Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and/or government-backed power off-take agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built."
To be honest I trust the corporations actually building these things to have a lot more insight to the profitability than anyone else. After all they're the ones taking risks and making the investments. And you just have to take a look at the real world. Currently hundreds of reactors are beeing built and planned by private contractors all over the world. Nobody would do this, if they didn't consider it good business.
State subsidies doesn't exist in nuclear power, as far as I know. There are state investments beeing made in some countries, but that's only regarding research into new technology. Other state interferences are - as mentioned by yourself - financing guarantees and agreements on future trade. But that doesn't necessarily cost the state anything. Certain guarantees are needed when making investments of that magnitude. Otherwise you couldn't get any contractor to invest billions of euros in any project.
As I've already mentioned in a previous post, the Danish energy corporation DONG currently building a huge off shore wind mill farm (the 400 MW Anholt Vindmøllepark beeing built at a price of 10 billion euros) has only agreed to take on the project, because it's guaranteed an overprize by the state for every MWh delivered. The overprize is estimated at 14 billion euros over the next 12 years. Which makes it a clear case of state subsidy. Or rather: Consumer subsidy imposed by the state.
Edit: I don't mind too much however. Wind mills are only profitable if beeing subsidized, so if we wan't them, we'll have to make political choices. And I wan't wind mills. I just don't see them as anything but a small part of the total solution needed to combat fossil fuels effectively. Here in Denmark we've already got enough in my opinion. It's already causing us a bit of headaches to integrate 20% wind power in the total supply, and we rely heavily on our neighbours to make it possible.
(edited)
State subsidies doesn't exist in nuclear power, as far as I know. There are state investments beeing made in some countries, but that's only regarding research into new technology. Other state interferences are - as mentioned by yourself - financing guarantees and agreements on future trade. But that doesn't necessarily cost the state anything. Certain guarantees are needed when making investments of that magnitude. Otherwise you couldn't get any contractor to invest billions of euros in any project.
As I've already mentioned in a previous post, the Danish energy corporation DONG currently building a huge off shore wind mill farm (the 400 MW Anholt Vindmøllepark beeing built at a price of 10 billion euros) has only agreed to take on the project, because it's guaranteed an overprize by the state for every MWh delivered. The overprize is estimated at 14 billion euros over the next 12 years. Which makes it a clear case of state subsidy. Or rather: Consumer subsidy imposed by the state.
Edit: I don't mind too much however. Wind mills are only profitable if beeing subsidized, so if we wan't them, we'll have to make political choices. And I wan't wind mills. I just don't see them as anything but a small part of the total solution needed to combat fossil fuels effectively. Here in Denmark we've already got enough in my opinion. It's already causing us a bit of headaches to integrate 20% wind power in the total supply, and we rely heavily on our neighbours to make it possible.
(edited)
Nice to see that nearby :) Or actually, to know it's nearby, you won't see it :P But I wonder if it will work. The reason why they use the venturi turbine in that video I posted, in stead of the standard mill shape is because of efficiency and power of the construction. I know of an experiment in the Thames with that shape and the blade broke because of the power of water (I can't find the article at the moment).
In the Netherlands we have experimental projects, some really operational, but I don't think something like this. I hope soon as we have a long coast compared to the size of the country.
(edited)
In the Netherlands we have experimental projects, some really operational, but I don't think something like this. I hope soon as we have a long coast compared to the size of the country.
(edited)
Again: It comes down to price and practicability. A lot of research and proposals are made into how to harness the energy in waves. But if it was economically viable to make use of it, we would already see it happening.
Maybe in the future. But I'm concerned about the present.
That's why I haven't spend too much time in this thread talking about the future of nuclear power, although it looks extremely exciting - and should be developed. A few examples that are already happening:
Thorium as nuclear fuel
Breeder reactor
Generation 4 reactor
(edited)
Maybe in the future. But I'm concerned about the present.
That's why I haven't spend too much time in this thread talking about the future of nuclear power, although it looks extremely exciting - and should be developed. A few examples that are already happening:
Thorium as nuclear fuel
Breeder reactor
Generation 4 reactor
(edited)
Today there are some 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries, with over 60 reactors under construction in 15 countries.
world-nuclear.org
And those 60 are under construction or planned, some maybe never build after what happened in Japan. That's not really a lot of experience. And knowing more then 20% are build near or planned to be build near a fault line, that's more then 100 dangerous nuclear power stations, that's way to much. You can't support that, I don't believe that. They can build nuclear power stations to withstand earthquakes, but not earthquake proof. Nature is unpredictable, specially with earthquakes. We really have no idea when it can happen and how bad it will be. And not to forget all the other nuclear power stations that are build on dangerous spots worldwide nature can strike hard without warning. Watch some documentaries on National Geographic and you can see the force of nature and how little we know. And the evidence we still find of the violence of nature in the past that we never expected.
This video is controversial, but it's not something that can't happen. It can happen somewhere on the planet and already happened a lot in the past. It's only a matter of time we got hit by something bigger as we already know.
Funny story, I watched the Dutch news, a week ago or so. A Dutch geologist was telling he did research in the south of the Netherlands and North of Belgium and found evidence of an earthquake 7.0, 2000 years ago, no one would ever had thought that could happen over there. Just to show how unpredictable nature is.
And if I have time I will have a good look at the study of Citibank: ‘New Nuclear - The Economics Say No' (PDF. But looking at the conclusion we already know a bit.
And yes, a part of the renewable energy is subsidized but that is because they support the wrong group, for whatever reason ... money probably.
world-nuclear.org
And those 60 are under construction or planned, some maybe never build after what happened in Japan. That's not really a lot of experience. And knowing more then 20% are build near or planned to be build near a fault line, that's more then 100 dangerous nuclear power stations, that's way to much. You can't support that, I don't believe that. They can build nuclear power stations to withstand earthquakes, but not earthquake proof. Nature is unpredictable, specially with earthquakes. We really have no idea when it can happen and how bad it will be. And not to forget all the other nuclear power stations that are build on dangerous spots worldwide nature can strike hard without warning. Watch some documentaries on National Geographic and you can see the force of nature and how little we know. And the evidence we still find of the violence of nature in the past that we never expected.
This video is controversial, but it's not something that can't happen. It can happen somewhere on the planet and already happened a lot in the past. It's only a matter of time we got hit by something bigger as we already know.
Funny story, I watched the Dutch news, a week ago or so. A Dutch geologist was telling he did research in the south of the Netherlands and North of Belgium and found evidence of an earthquake 7.0, 2000 years ago, no one would ever had thought that could happen over there. Just to show how unpredictable nature is.
And if I have time I will have a good look at the study of Citibank: ‘New Nuclear - The Economics Say No' (PDF. But looking at the conclusion we already know a bit.
And yes, a part of the renewable energy is subsidized but that is because they support the wrong group, for whatever reason ... money probably.
Cutting down on our energy demands is nothing but a dream.
I'm not talking about a cut.
I don´t understand how a number like 250 kwh/day is built up.
An average american consum as electricity compnies says.
I mean a new nuclear plant increases the installed power of what ? 1-2 % ?
and on the other hand there is evidence i'm wasting 67% of the power i produce ?
It´s insane.
If you put 100l gasoline in your car and 67l flows away you dont solve your problems with 102l gasoline in your tank. Fill your leaks first.
I'm not talking about a cut.
I don´t understand how a number like 250 kwh/day is built up.
An average american consum as electricity compnies says.
I mean a new nuclear plant increases the installed power of what ? 1-2 % ?
and on the other hand there is evidence i'm wasting 67% of the power i produce ?
It´s insane.
If you put 100l gasoline in your car and 67l flows away you dont solve your problems with 102l gasoline in your tank. Fill your leaks first.
Fault lines are not a great problem. Not with today's reactors. Don't forget, that 4 nuclear power plants were hit by the tsunami in Japan - and the 9.0 earthquake. Only Fukushima Daichii has had serious problems, and it's 40 years old. The other power plants has been in cold shutdown for weeks now - for example the Fukushima Daini, that's only about 10 years younger than Daichi and only 15 kilometers away.
The problems at Daichi hasn't been one of not coping with the earthquake. Is has been one of poor construction and safety issues with too few options for emergency power supply, which has caused all the problems. It took the plant operators weeks to restore power - and that part actually makes me angry. It shouldn't be like that. Nuclear safety is generally hysterical, and it's a mystery to me, how they could not predict a 10-14 meters high tsunami wiping out the entire emergency power system. There are lessons to be learned from this, but those lessons are of improving technology (which has already been done a lot during the last 40 years), not abandoning technology.
Things can go wrong, no doubt about it. Nature is a strong mofo. But when things go wrong, as they've done in Japan, people on the ground will probably have much bigger problem than a bit of leaking radioactivity. The true disaster in Japan is a natural disaster and not a nuclear disaster - even if it's easy to forget watching the news these days. 20.000+ people has been killed, millions are homeless, entire communities has been washed away, financial damages are extreme. In light of all this the events at Fukushima Daichi seems pretty pale in comparison.
The problems at Daichi hasn't been one of not coping with the earthquake. Is has been one of poor construction and safety issues with too few options for emergency power supply, which has caused all the problems. It took the plant operators weeks to restore power - and that part actually makes me angry. It shouldn't be like that. Nuclear safety is generally hysterical, and it's a mystery to me, how they could not predict a 10-14 meters high tsunami wiping out the entire emergency power system. There are lessons to be learned from this, but those lessons are of improving technology (which has already been done a lot during the last 40 years), not abandoning technology.
Things can go wrong, no doubt about it. Nature is a strong mofo. But when things go wrong, as they've done in Japan, people on the ground will probably have much bigger problem than a bit of leaking radioactivity. The true disaster in Japan is a natural disaster and not a nuclear disaster - even if it's easy to forget watching the news these days. 20.000+ people has been killed, millions are homeless, entire communities has been washed away, financial damages are extreme. In light of all this the events at Fukushima Daichi seems pretty pale in comparison.
All I can say is, that we don't produce more energy than we consume. It would make no sence economically, and it would kill the grid.