Russian or nuclear dependency?

[Loppan Torkel]

A bunch of wiki articles/quotes -

France:

Nuclear power is the primary source of electric power in France. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%), the highest percentage in the world.[1]

France is also the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe.[1][2] France's nuclear power industry has been called "a success story" that has put the nation "ahead of the world" in terms of providing cheap, CO2-free energy.[3] However, France's nuclear reactors are mainly used in load-following mode and some reactors close on weekends because there is no market for the electricity.[4][5] This means that the capacity factor is low by world standards, which is not an ideal economic situation for nuclear plants.[4]

As of 2002, Électricité de France (EDF) — the country's main electricity generation and distribution company — manages the country's 59 nuclear power plants. As of 2008, these plants produce 90% of EDF's and about 78% France's electrical power production (of which some is exported),[4] making EDF the world leader in production of nuclear power by percentage.

In 2006, the French Government asked Areva and EDF to build a next generation nuclear reactor, the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor), at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant. This was followed in 2008 by a Presidential announcement of another new EPR, spurred by high oil and gas prices.[6] The second French EPR reactor will be built in Penly. Construction work should start in 2012 and completion is scheduled for 2017.[7]

Following the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents, in a letter dated March 23, Prime Minister Francois Fillon asked the Nuclear Safety Authority to carry out an 'open and transparent' audit each of its nuclear installations, looking at the risks of flood, earthquake, loss of power and cooling, and accident management processes, in order to identify any improvements that should be made in the light of lessons learned from Fukushima. The initial conclusions are expected by the end of 2011.[8] France conducted a more limited review following flooding at its Blayais Nuclear Power Plant in 1999.

UK:

Nuclear power currently generates around a sixth of the United Kingdom's electricity. As of 2011, the United Kingdom operates 19 nuclear reactors at nine locations. The country also operates a nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

The United Kingdom's first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in 1956 and, at its peak in 1997, 26% of the nation's electricity was generated from nuclear power. Since then a number of stations have closed and the share had declined to 19.26% by 2004 and approximately 16% by 2009. The two remaining Magnox nuclear stations and two of the seven AGR nuclear stations are currently planned for accounting purposes to close by 2016. This is a cause behind the UK's forecast 'energy gap', though secondary to the reduction in coal generating capacity. However older AGR nuclear power station have been life-extended, and it is likely many of the others can be life-extended, significantly reducing the energy gap.[1][2]

In October 2010 the Government of the United Kingdom gave the go-ahead for a new generation of up to 8 nuclear power stations to be built.[3] The Scottish Government, with the backing of the Scottish Parliament, has however made it clear that Scotland will have no new nuclear power stations and is aiming instead for a non-nuclear future.

Germany:

On 30 May 2011, Germany formally announced plans to abandon nuclear energy completely within 11 years. The plan includes the immediate permanent closure of seven nuclear power plants that had been temporarily shut down for testing in March 2011, and an eighth nuclear power plant that has been offline with technical problems. The remaining nine plants will be shut down between now and 2022.

Chancellor Angela Merkel said the phase-out of plants, previously scheduled to go offline as late as 2036, would give Germany a competitive advantage in the renewable energy era, stating, "As the first big industrialized nation, we can achieve such a transformation toward efficient and renewable energies, with all the opportunities that brings for exports, developing new technologies and jobs".

Sweden:

The government decided to use hydropower and supplement it with nuclear energy to avoid falling victim to the perennial volatility in oil prices. Six nuclear reactors began commercial service in both the 1970s and 1980s, with one unit closed in 1999 and another in 2005.

Sweden currently has three operational nuclear power plants, with ten operational nuclear reactors, which produce about 45% of the country's electricity.

Sweden formerly had a nuclear phase-out policy, aiming to end nuclear power generation in Sweden by 2010. On 5 February 2009, the Swedish Government announced an agreement allowing for the replacement of existing reactors, effectively ending the phase-out policy.

US:

Spoiler :

As of 2008, nuclear power in the United States is provided by 104 commercial reactors (69 pressurized water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) licensed to operate at 65 nuclear power plants, producing a total of 806.2 TWh of electricity, which was 19.6% of the nation's total electric energy generation in 2008.[1] The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.

As of 2010, the demand for nuclear power is softening in America, and some companies have withdrawn their applications for licenses to build.[2][3] Ground has been broken on two new nuclear plants with a total of four reactors. The only reactor currently under construction in America, at Watts Bar, Tennessee, was begun in 1973 and may be completed in 2012. Of the 104 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1974 or earlier.[2][3] In September 2010, Matthew Wald from the New York Times reported that "the nuclear renaissance is looking small and slow at the moment".[4]

Following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced it will launch a comprehensive safety review of the 104 nuclear power reactors across the United States, at the request of President Obama. The Obama administration "continues to support the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, despite the crisis in Japan".[5] Following the Japanese nuclear emergency, public support for building nuclear power plants in the U.S. dropped to 43%, slightly lower than it was immediately after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, according to a CBS News poll

Russia's role in Europe:

Russia has a significant role in the European energy sector as the largest exporter of oil and natural gas to the European Union. In 2007, the European Union imported from Russia 185 million tonnes of crude oil, which accounted for 32.6% of total oil import, and 100.7 million tonnes of oil equivalent of natural gas, which accounted 38.7% of total gas import.[1]

The Trans-Siberian Pipeline was constructed in 1982–1984 with Western financing to provide Soviet gas to the Western European market.

The Russian state-owned company Gazprom exports natural gas to Europe. It also controls a large number of subsidiaries, including key infrastructure assets. According to the study published by the Research Centre for East European Studies, the liberalization of the EU gas market has driven Gazprom's expansion in Europe by increasing its share in the European downstream market. It has established sale subsidiaries in nearly all its export markets, and also gained direct access to industrial and power generation sectors in Western and Central Europe. In addition, Gazprom has established joint ventures to build natural gas pipelines and storage depots in a number of European countries.[2] Transneft, a Russian state-owned company responsible for the national oil pipelines, is another important Russian company supplying energy to Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector

It seems there are a lot of different views of the future for the nuclear power. I've cut some nations' situations from wiki just for a bit of background.
What would you prefer - An increased dependency on Russia for energy or to keep/expand the use of nuclear power? No alternatives!

 

[Veles]

Better Russian, than nuclear, if you ask me

 

[Leoreth]

Being Russian, you'd likely get both

 

[Veles]

Being Russian, you'd likely get both

I'd be a much happier Russian if we ceased using nukyular energy

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I'd be a much happier Russian if we ceased using nukyular energy

We'd probably all be happier. At least safer.

Russia, which seems to be coming from a different direction:

Spoiler :

In 2005 total electricity generated in nuclear power plants in Russia was 137 TWh, 16% of all power generation. The installed capacity of Russian nuclear reactors stood at 21,244 MW.

The Russian energy strategy of 2003 set a policy priority for reduction in natural gas based power supply, aiming to achieve this through a doubling of nuclear power generation by 2020. In 2006 the Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) announced targets for future nuclear power generation; providing 23% of electricity needs by 2020 and 25% by 2030.[1]

Russia has made plans to increase the number of reactors in operation from 31 to 59. Old reactors will be maintained and upgraded, including RBMK units similar to the reactors at Chernobyl. China and Russia agreed on further cooperation in the construction of nuclear power stations in October 2005.

Through membership in the ITER project, Russia is participating in the design of nuclear fusion reactors.

 

[Veles]

There's a huge nucular lobby here. They need to make moneyz. Nothing new here.

 

[amadeus]

Which one is cheaper?

 

[Silurian]

using less power.

 

[Veles]

Which one is cheaper?

Installing a bunch of solar plants in Sahara for generating unlimited energy for the the whole world would be the cheapest.

 

[BirraImperial]

Nuclear Power. With the appropriate maintenance and disaster recovery protocols, nuclear power plants are safe, and provide clean energy.

 

[Silurian]

Nuclear Power. With the appropriate maintenance and disaster recovery protocols, nuclear power plants are safe, and provide clean energy.

but if you include the cost of decommissioning they are not the cheapest.

 

[History_Buff]

Installing a bunch of solar plants in Sahara for generating unlimited energy for the the whole world would be the cheapest.

Doubtful. The upfront cost would be huge, there would likely be shortages in production if you tried to do it quickly, and maintaining such delicate objects in an environment full of sand and far from people would be a frightening undertaking.

 

[Ekolite]

The whole desert solar power idea is a bit sci-fi but I could see the technology needed to make it possibly viable as a potential source of power arise in the next 50-100 years or so. Not to the degree that it supplies the whole world though of course.

Eventually renewables like solar and wind power should become more efficient as their cost decreases relative to oil/coal/gas and new technology develops. In the mean time, Nuclear Power is an excellent source of electricity and should be increased imo.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Installing a bunch of solar plants in Sahara for generating unlimited energy for the the whole world would be the cheapest.

Not even remotely, transmission losses from sending it from the sahara to the rest of the world would cause this energy to be much pricier than you are thinking.

 

[warpus]

We'd probably all be happier. At least safer.

Nuclear power is pretty safe.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Nuclear power is pretty safe.

Russian nuclear plants - safe?!

 

[History_Buff]

Nuclear power is pretty safe.

Shockingly safe. Safer than just about any power generation method on earth. Hydro might be the one exception.

Russian nuclear plants - safe?!

Coal mining industry - safe? Mercury - safe? Fracking for gas - safe?

 

[Veles]

Russian nuclear plants - safe?!

Wait, wait, wait, why the emphasis on Russian plants? If anything, our plants are the bestest. It's either we get rid of nuclear energy for good, or every country gets a Russian nuclear plant because of its bestness. Far superior to your capitalist ones.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

All those extra rules and safety measures just add extraneous expense anyway. I mean Chernobyl only happened once, seriously, what are the chances it could happen again? Cheap pre-fab Russian reactors for everyone! All hail our new Russian overlords!

 

[Veles]

All those extra rules and safety measures just add extraneous expense anyway. I mean Chernobyl only happened once, seriously, what are the chances it could happen again? Cheap pre-fab Russian reactors for everyone! All hail our new Russian overlords!

Exactly

Seriousely, though, why is it automatically assumed that Russinas are less keen on applying those "extra rules and safety measures"? Dat's Rasist.