Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
Millions have not.
Noone has demonstrated to keep using nuclear power either. ;-)
Noone has demonstrated to keep using nuclear power either. ;-)
People who are pro have better thing to do. Work, to name an example. :)
Millions have not.
Maybe they just hope that they dont need to do it (make protest for nuclear energy) to have nuclear energy :-)
Maybe they just hope that they dont need to do it (make protest for nuclear energy) to have nuclear energy :-)
Millions have not.
Noone has demonstrated to keep using nuclear power either. ;-)
I would demonstrate if they decided to close the nuclear power plants
Noone has demonstrated to keep using nuclear power either. ;-)
I would demonstrate if they decided to close the nuclear power plants
If you would have demonstrated before the build it could have saved your country billions of euros ;)
(edited)
(edited)
If you would have demonstrated before the build it could have saved your country billions of euros ;)
Wow it's good to know that a drastic shortfall in energy production can save billions of euros!
Wow it's good to know that a drastic shortfall in energy production can save billions of euros!
Read the costs of the nuclear power station and delay in Finland and you know what I mean.
Read the post I wrote to you on page 37 of this thread about the costs and practicability of nuclear power versus wind power (the one with the appartment analogy - I'm using the Finnish power plant as an example), and you'll know what the proponents of nuclear power mean. Even the "horror story" of modern nuclear power is waaaaay more attractive than most alternatives..
Actually I'll just repost it - since I put so much work into it and you obviously haven't read it...
In response to this post by you:
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? ;)
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%.
In response to this post by you:
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? ;)
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%.
Have you read the post that nuclear does not make economic sense, study of Citibank, the link I posted on page 37? :)
You can use 1 example (not even true, but with your numbers it is), that's still only 1 example.
You can use 1 example (not even true, but with your numbers it is), that's still only 1 example.
No, I haven't read the Citibank analysis. I tend to put my trust in the real world - and the facts are, that huge investments are beeing made in nuclear power all around the world. Those investments wouldn't be made, if the investors didn't expect a solid return of their investment.
But I've read the summary you made on page 37 - and answered it, in case you've forgot. No taxpayer money is needed, but sure, certain guarantees are needed (which is what the analysis concludes according to the summary). Just as with any other huge investment beeing made be private contractors on behalf of the public. Like with wind mill farms - to name just one example among many. No wind mill farm would ever be built, if the contractor didn't get any guarantees on price and demand from the public.
(edited)
But I've read the summary you made on page 37 - and answered it, in case you've forgot. No taxpayer money is needed, but sure, certain guarantees are needed (which is what the analysis concludes according to the summary). Just as with any other huge investment beeing made be private contractors on behalf of the public. Like with wind mill farms - to name just one example among many. No wind mill farm would ever be built, if the contractor didn't get any guarantees on price and demand from the public.
(edited)
It is, actually. It gives reason to believe, that both prosperity and clean technology on a large scale is possible.