Mise
isle of lucy
Normally those figures are with reduced consumption from the West (for environmental or economic reasons, whatever). Though I was exagerating a wee bit........newfangle said:
Nuclear Energy - the Great Comeback
- Thread starter Heffalump
- Start date
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Bozo Erectus said:
The problem is technically solved. The only thing we must do is to spend some money for building a permanent disposal site.
Nuclear energy, like it or not, is the only alternative we have, if we want to continue in the economic growth. Fossil fuels are producing greenhouse gases and are quickly running out, the so-called "green" sources of energy cannot provide us with all the power we need and are very expensive.
Until nuclear fusion power becomes feasible, we have to stick to the nuclear fission, simply because we don't have any other option. Needless to say, that sources of uranium aren't usually located in countries ruled by religious fanatics...
Heffalump
Proboscidea Heffalumpus
The consensus seems to be towards an opinion that nuclear energy is safe and relatively clean -- if done right.
This begs the question -- what if it's done wrong?
The renewed spread of nuclear plants in the developed world will spur on it's use everywhere. Personally I wouldn't think much if a new nuclear plant is built in a Finland or France. But what about countries where corruption is rampant and enforcement of government regulations is weak? Do we want say, a Nigeria (random high corruption country) with nuclear power?
A lot of countries can't enforce earthquake building codes for office buildings ... do we want them toying with nuclear reactors? Can we trust that safeguards will be put in place to keep fissile materials from being sold to any buyer with cash?
The question is patently paternalistic, but fair I think given the stakes.
This begs the question -- what if it's done wrong?
The renewed spread of nuclear plants in the developed world will spur on it's use everywhere. Personally I wouldn't think much if a new nuclear plant is built in a Finland or France. But what about countries where corruption is rampant and enforcement of government regulations is weak? Do we want say, a Nigeria (random high corruption country) with nuclear power?
A lot of countries can't enforce earthquake building codes for office buildings ... do we want them toying with nuclear reactors? Can we trust that safeguards will be put in place to keep fissile materials from being sold to any buyer with cash?
The question is patently paternalistic, but fair I think given the stakes.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Heffalump said:
Well, the obsolete nuclear reactors in Eastern Europe are now being phased out and that's all we need to know. I don't care if some reactor blows up in Nigeria, it is far enough from Europe.
Gladi
The ignored thread killer
Winner said:
bright day
You should.
Such accudent would lead to another round of "3vi1z at0m" hysteria.
But this won't happen to one reason- the power plant would never be locally produced- and no international company could effort the fallout
.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Gladi said:bright day
You should.
Such accudent would lead to another round of "3vi1z at0m" hysteria.
But this won't happen to one reason- the power plant would never be locally produced- and no international company could effort the fallout
Yeah, you're probably right about that it would start another anti-nuclear hysteria.
(Stop Temelín!
)
Winner - I've explored the concept of nuclear power, and I don't think it's really cheap. If it was cheap, private industry would be interested. But it isn't, unless there are huge government consessions.
Gladi
The ignored thread killer
El_Machinae said:
Actually it is!
The latest czech nuclear plant has been wholly financed by the CEZ (Czech Energy Works). The company is mostly state-owned but its assets are clearly distinguished from state and is run like a normal company- ie for managerial pay
. The wholle debate about it costs to state was problem of distinguishing between stare company's assets and state's assets.
Are the numbers available, then? Could you tell us the capital costs?
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
Nuclear Fission always has the chance for nuclear meltdown. Thus coal is better. We could go solar power, but that would take lots of panels over a large area to generate an equivalent amount of energy.
Gladi
The ignored thread killer
El_Machinae said:
Will see what I can do.
EDIT: Tank Guy- and there is allways chance you may be hit by meteor while outside, better stay home all the time, you never know :/
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
But there is still a far greater chance that someone will be human while controlling the reactor, and everyone knows all humans make mistakes. And depending on the size it won't matter. It's moving so fast that it will be so hot that it would probably cauterize the wound (I assume it would be similar to a gunshot wound, but that generally doesn't cauterize). Besides, I'm generally indoors anyhow. But who knows, it could be made of some extremely precious metal or something, and I'm told that meteors are quite valuable, regardless of what it's made of.
And unless you built it in the most disaster free areas on the planet, you may still have a meltdown. I am wondering what happens to a reactor that has a sizeable earthquake hit nearby, or perhaps for those in the United States a tornado or flood?
Murphy's Law: if anything can go wrong, it will. If a coal or gas power plant blow up, there is just a big fire. If there's a meltdown, radiation pours out everywhere.
And unless you built it in the most disaster free areas on the planet, you may still have a meltdown. I am wondering what happens to a reactor that has a sizeable earthquake hit nearby, or perhaps for those in the United States a tornado or flood?
Murphy's Law: if anything can go wrong, it will. If a coal or gas power plant blow up, there is just a big fire. If there's a meltdown, radiation pours out everywhere.
Gladi
The ignored thread killer
According to some internet sources the cost of Temelin Nuclear poer plant was roughly 2.5 milliard dollars (long live the long scale!) which is about half of all CEZ investments in the last thirteen years. The company had last year rough profit (unknown to me english terminology) of roughly 3.5 milliard dollars and clear profit of 0,5 milliard.
Tank Guy-AFAIK in the Indian state of Kemala there exists large depostis of radioactive sands, the backgroung radiation there is higher than in many areas around Chernobyl: if you want numbers I ask for few days reserve. Oh and most universities have reaserch reactors- there is even one reactors sitting in middle of Vienna :/
Tank Guy-AFAIK in the Indian state of Kemala there exists large depostis of radioactive sands, the backgroung radiation there is higher than in many areas around Chernobyl: if you want numbers I ask for few days reserve. Oh and most universities have reaserch reactors- there is even one reactors sitting in middle of Vienna :/
Wow. And the cost of 2.5 milliard (million?) was the absolute cost, including subsidies and grants? I have trouble believing that.
Gladi
The ignored thread killer
milliard is billion on short scale...
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
I've worked in the power industry.
That we abandoned nuclear power after TMI was among the stupidest economic moves in the last 30 years.
Nuclear power is safe. It is MUCH cleaner than coal.
Aside//I've worked at coal power and oil fire plants. You walk in with clean clothes, you walk out covered in soot, and thats having a desk job.
Hurrah to the OP and the Greenpeace guy.
I'm guessing alot of people didn't read about how nuclear waste is handled now...There's going to be alot less due to fuel recycling...oh and the fact it loses radioactivity after 40 years =)
We have had 1 incident in the US. How many nukes do we have? How many years have they been around?
That's like saying you're not going to fly because you're afraid the plane will crash. When more people die in auto-accidents...and here, the auto-accidents are dirty power plants.
sigh...
Edit #2 Nuclear POWER is cheap. It is the CHEAPEST form of power except for solar (which sadly, doesnt produce reliabily enough for mass use). It is the startup cost of building the plant that is the most expensive (Fixed Cost) The variable cost is laughably small.
You can verify this by looking at the fuel curve for any power region. You'd see solar, then nuclear, then hydro, then coal/oil, the natural gas, and finally diesel.
That we abandoned nuclear power after TMI was among the stupidest economic moves in the last 30 years.
Nuclear power is safe. It is MUCH cleaner than coal.
Aside//I've worked at coal power and oil fire plants. You walk in with clean clothes, you walk out covered in soot, and thats having a desk job.
Hurrah to the OP and the Greenpeace guy.
I'm guessing alot of people didn't read about how nuclear waste is handled now...There's going to be alot less due to fuel recycling...oh and the fact it loses radioactivity after 40 years =)
We have had 1 incident in the US. How many nukes do we have? How many years have they been around?
That's like saying you're not going to fly because you're afraid the plane will crash. When more people die in auto-accidents...and here, the auto-accidents are dirty power plants.
sigh...
Edit #2 Nuclear POWER is cheap. It is the CHEAPEST form of power except for solar (which sadly, doesnt produce reliabily enough for mass use). It is the startup cost of building the plant that is the most expensive (Fixed Cost) The variable cost is laughably small.
You can verify this by looking at the fuel curve for any power region. You'd see solar, then nuclear, then hydro, then coal/oil, the natural gas, and finally diesel.
JerichoHill said:
Hmm? I've heard figures that say it's dangerous for something more like 10,000 years (thus the impetus for long-term underground storage). And anyway, I think breeder reactors are illegal in the US.
If solar is cheap, why isn't it more common? If nothing else, you'd use solar during the day, and supplement with coal at night?
And isn't the amortized fixed cost of nuclear really huge?
And isn't the amortized fixed cost of nuclear really huge?
