Feeds

back to article Fukushima fearmongers: It's YOUR FAULT Japan DUMPED CO2 targets

If the Fukushima crisis has proved one thing, it's that nuclear power is safe. Everything that could possibly go wrong did, the accident was agreed to be at the top of the international scale for seriousness, and yet in decades to come scientists will not be able to attribute any deaths to radiation released from the Daiichi …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

No middle ground for the hard Greens...

The trouble is that the hard left Greens would rather see the whole world freezing in sackcloth and ashes than burn a single molecule of "fossil fuel". They need to become more realistic.

They can't understand that the single greatest improvement in carbon emissions can only come from cleaning up the the third world where no modern emission controls have been implemented on power plants and cars. Old uncontrolled coal/oil fired Power Plants, Diesel cars, Open burning, wood/dung for cooking etc all do more to damage the atmosphere at this point in time than anything that the first world does. Cleaning them up would provide an immense immediate improvement to carbon (and more importantly SOOT) emissions.

In the first world where this emission control has already been done, there are no reasonable improvement to be made that do not adversely affect the economy and they can't bring any immediate change in carbon.

The first world can't be further penalized until the low hanging fruit have been picked.

19
14

Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...

"They can't understand that the single greatest improvement in carbon emissions can only come from cleaning up the the third world"

This just goes to show how ignorant your average person is about CO2. Whether you believe in global warming or not - the third world cranks out *a miniscule fraction* of anthropogenic CO2 - because they don't have any bloody industry. "Open burning?" You seriously think cooking fires are a major pollutant? ...We're all doomed. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

19
3
Silver badge

Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...

Burning wood or dung contributes no CO2, unless they have dug up 1000 year old wood and dung to burn.

15
5
Silver badge

Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...

Depends on what you mean by third world.

china and India don't have much of a green movement curtailing their emmissions

10
1
Gold badge
Unhappy

Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...

"This just goes to show how ignorant your average person is about CO2. Whether you believe in global warming or not - the third world cranks out *a miniscule fraction* of anthropogenic CO2 - because they don't have any bloody industry. "

That depends where you put India and China.

I'd say both countries have quite a few people with "3rd world" living standards.

2
0

Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...

Blaming industrialised countries problem on developing countries, we heard it before, it's nothing new, just a way to remove one's own responsibility upon others. Imperialism?

If anyone can do anything about it's emissions it's the developed countries. If they learn how to control it they can show the developing countries how to build their infrastructure. Not the other way around as you imply, that the developing countries should solve the industrialised countries problems for them.

If you wouldn't had been so incredibly ignorant of your own responsibility I would have voted you up. As I can't stand the logics from the green movements either. But in comparison to your logic they are Einstein's each one of them.

Fortunate for you, you understood to comment as anonymous.

1
2

Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...

That is just not true. Trees take carbon out of the atmosphere over hundreds of years which is then released in minutes when they are burned. Added to the fact the energy density of wood is nowhere near that of fossil fuels and we end up with massive deforestation

3
0

Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...

Some, understandably, are concerned at the future consequences for humans (i.e. themselves) so wrap themselves in the comforting blanket of carbon reduction. They form an easy market for scare stories but even so, it's bizarre that mainstream media is happy to run with stories from individuals and groups that are really advocating genocide. In any other context, the suggestion that the world should take an action that would have the effect of killing billions of people (billions not millions) would be ridiculed. But for some reason not in this context. Because the earth may warm up a bit in the next 100 years and some ecosystems may change, it appears to be acceptable to advocate policies that would have disastrous consequences. Fight a highly unlikely Armageddon with a certain Armageddon.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...

How ignorant are you? ALL FORMS OF COMBUSTION CREATE SIGNIFICANT CO2. Look at India, hundreds to thousands of smaller facilities add up to major uncontrolled pollution, China alone is unbelievably huge for uncontrolled burning, EVERY manufacturing facility is uncontrolled, un monitored and spewing ten thousand times the amount of emissions that any first world facility of the same type would. China had to shut down ALL manufacturing & power generation so the air was clean enough to hold the Olympics or did you not remember?

North Korea, old Soviet Union, the WHOLE Middle East all of Indonesia etc all do the same thing.

They are still the "third world" to me if they do not have and utilize emission controls like the first world does.

How about burning wood, garbage etc? How about burning forests to clear land? That covers most of Africa, and all of South America not mentioning that ALL OF THEIR INDUSTRY is ten thousand times dirtier as well!!!

Take some time to look up emission control and combustion controls, you may learn some things.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...

ALL TYPES OF STANDARD COMBUSTION (BURNING ANYTHING) WILL FORM CO2

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...

As if you are any less anonymous, "t,est"

The Developed countries can do nothing about other countries practices, especially when they turn a blind eye to doing even the smallest amount of emission control. You are obviously too ignorant on the subject to even comment as you know not the first thing about controlling the emissions from a coal fired power plant and I have spent 20 years designing and selling equipment to do so

China creates more pollution than almost any other country and yet the third world does nothing and expects the first world to clean up their shit.

Are you fukkin kidding me?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...

"the third world cranks out *a miniscule fraction* of anthropogenic CO2 - because they don't have any bloody industry. "

That depends where you put India and China.

I'd say both countries have quite a few people with "3rd world" living standards."

Quite.

If the West didn't buy manufactured goods from China but had them built in the West in pollution-controlled factories, and also avoided the apparently massive pollution from global shipping (sorry, no link) would it make a significant difference to pollution? Would it make a significant difference to profits? Which one (profit maximisation or pollution avoidance) is more important now? Same answer in fifty years time?

0
0
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Thank you Lewis

I know that many many will disagree with quite a few of your points.

I however am a pragmatist and a realist, not an ideologue. Thus although some of your data points will never be *either* proven or disproved, I must wholeheartedly agree with the overall sentiment.

We NEED nuclear. ITER is 15 or 20 years from fruition at best, and 50 or 60 years from being functionally working in the real world. There are nuclear options that *can* provide the energy we do need and will need in the future. Fossil fuels will come to an end. Perhaps not this decade or in the next 5. But they will end. Renewable energy sources are subject to the same vagaries of nature that we are saying will be horribly negatively affected by the carbon levels in the atmosphere.

Stop the evacuation from the nuclear energy lifeboat that is sitting here for us. Lets get back to reality and work on IMPROVING nuclear energy and start building the plants that will provide the energy the human race needs to keep moving forward.

I'll eat the downvotes for backing Lewis. This is something I believe.

78
5
Bronze badge

Re: Thank you Lewis

Re: We NEED nuclear. ITER is 15 or 20 years from fruition at best

Being conservative, I would suggest that the replacement for Uranium/Plutonium reactors is actually Thorium as it is known to work, unlike ITER, plus it provides a very simple and effective way of massively reducing the long-term waste from the Uranium/Plutonium reactors we are currently using. But this doesn't take the pressure off ITER to deliver, only that we aren't betting our future on it delivering anytime soon.

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Whoa!

It was a good article for a while there. Well reasoned. Logical. And then the "reveal" or the "comment" when suddenly it all went Bat. Sh*t. Crazy. and the author was revealed to be either a raving conservative alarmist who wouldn't clean an oil spill up if his children were drowning in it at best to verging into delusional paranoid schizophrenia territory.

Oil's going dude. Keep ignoring that and then you really will be living in the dark. Renewables are the future and nothing you say, do, or write is going to change that.

10
68
Anonymous Coward

Re: Whoa!

He's not talking about OIL, hes talking about nuclear power. He even says that it will be stupid to depend on Saudi or any other oil supply.

(Still, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant eh?)

57
2
Silver badge

Re: Whoa!

"Oil's going dude. "

We evidently need a new posting moniker "Anonymous knob".

There's no shortage of fossil hydrocarbons. Coal's plentiful, there's shit loads of "non-conventional" and tight oil, there's shitty shit loads of tight gas (and more than a little of conventional loose gas). And when all of that's gone, there, bazillions of therms of gas hydrates.

14
7
Silver badge

Re: Whoa!

"There's no shortage of fossil hydrocarbons. Coal's plentiful, there's shit loads of "non-conventional" and tight oil, there's shitty shit loads of tight gas (and more than a little of conventional loose gas). And when all of that's gone, there, bazillions of therms of gas hydrates."

And they're all OURS!!! Mwhahaha. We can do whatever we like with the planet's resources now, because the future doesn't exist, and there will never be a time when we will need those precious resources for something other than burning them.

10
9
Anonymous Coward

Re: Whoa!

"there will never be a time when we will need those precious resources for something other than burning them."

Some people act as though it's true.

Feedstocks for petrochemicals and agribusiness? To make (e.g.) plastics and fertilisers?

Grows on trees, those carbon based raw materials.

Unfortunately the trees it grew on all died rather a long time ago, and there's very little we can do now to replace the fossil fuels we're burning, not in any relevant timescale.

But let's all carry on using fossil fuels for energy as though there's no tomorrow. Because before too long, there probably won't be.

I'm not anti nuclear. I'm anti stupid. Carrying on the way we in the West have been for the last few decades, using fossil fuels for energy, is likely to turn out stupid.

8
2
Silver badge

Re: Whoa!

If renewables are the future I am glad I wont be living in it.

And glad I wasn't living in the past where renewables were the present.

Anybody who says renewables are the future

- hankers after the Dark ages

- wants to kill most of the human race (not an unreasonable position given how crowded with green idiots its getting)

- is lying

- has an interest in a renewables company

Or is simply a batshit stark raving bonkers swivel eyed loon.

11
7

Re: Whoa!

about the only thing you forgot was :

and doesn't 'think of the children' the majority of whom will live short brutalised peasant lives

4
0

Re: Whoa!

Yes I agree with the fact that all oil and methane will eventually be used up at some year and then it will revert to coal and nuclear power. It is a matter of time since industry is needed to create anything the human race requires. We are even looking at mining asteroids and other planets since the powers to be know the above is correct. My partner and I have looked into many things for energy and both of us have worked and done some designs on nuclear plants even the ones in Japan. To us the renewable option is the only way to supply energy to make this world survive. There are few options but Nuclear is one but has the problem of storage if spent rods in pools of water, two, Wind, Ocean Waves, Solar panels, Hot salt from directed sun through mirrors to drive electric steam turbans, all are electric power devices. Even though they are designing the electric car or Hydrogen car or Fuel cell car these devices all have to use the electric grid. The World electric grid even USA grid will not support the above without a total revamp. So we have looked for what is needed and come to the conclusion that if industry and personal and domestic travel is to survive there has to be a liquid fuel. So we have searched and found a special hybrid sorghum which is not a food can produce 2400 gallons of ethanol a year in warm areas and 1200 gallons a year in cold areas since it has been bread to grow in cold areas of Canada. Since it takes only 10% ethanol and lye to produce biodiesel meaning the diesel trucks and boats and trains and planes can move by biodiesel. So in my thoughts where is the vegetable oil found and it can be grown in the USA and warm tropical areas of the world. This is a renewable fuel and is clean. So in my thoughts the future is diesel engines and the phasing out of gas engines. Vegetable oil is a massy grown oil and will never run out in the world as long as humans are alive.

2
3
Gold badge
Unhappy

@Itzman

"Anybody who says renewables are the future

- hankers after the Dark ages

- wants to kill most of the human race (not an unreasonable position given how crowded with green idiots its getting)

- is lying

- has an interest in a renewables company"

Or maybe has a very narrow definition of what "renewable" means.

Can include

Anerobic digestion

Micro hydro

Geothermal from every oil well that has ever been dug and is no longer producing.

Space solar.

But these options are a bit complex and "industrial" for the wigwam living Jades.

And of course if you want large scale compact, no CO2 then logic --> nuclear systems.

0
0
Mushroom

No, the plan is feudal warlordism run by banks

>>But WWF and the other hard greens know the realities too: they know that no carbon + no nukes = economic misery. They just don't care - their plan is that humanity should abandon economic growth and sink into poverty.

We need to understand that the latter day trotskyite battle plan is de-engineer, de-evolve, and de-populate the planet into a neo-feudal caste stratified aristocracy plus peasantry arrangement that will suit the crypto-fascist banker oligarchy to a well tailored T. At the radical end of the political spectrum, occult elements of both the extreme right and the extreme left have identical aims in the salient economic battlefields. This is the cause of the left's schizophrenia re the feudal anachronistic aspects of Islam, which will become the global state religion during this little "transition". This is why radical environmentalism is, in fact, a right wing strategem as copiously explained here: http://www.ecofascism.com/. Once the actual shape and asset disposition of the Game Board are known, counter strategies become clear. The financial oligarchy will begin to shrivel like a green-skinned witcht as soon as Glass-Steagall laws are passed by nations.

4
11
Silver badge

Re: No, the plan is feudal warlordism run by banks

occult elements?

3
0
Silver badge

Re: No, the plan is feudal warlordism run by banks

occult ~ adj.

1. hidden and difficult to see

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: No, the plan is feudal warlordism run by banks

Sorry to rain on your rant, but Trotskyites, bonkers as they are in other ways, are all in favour of industrialisation and economic development. The hard left is bang alongside anything that raises the proletariat - and that means a focus on industrialised farming, mining, machinery, oil production, you name it. The former Soviet Union, when it collapsed, had a glut of technical commodities. Their problem was that they never worked out how to identify and supply consumer demand, owing to centralised planning.

As for Islamification, I cannot imagine anybody in the far Left supporting it for a moment. You are confusing the Left with multicultural liberalism, which is a completely different beast (are you American? They tend to do this.)

I agree that radical environmentalism is a de facto far right policy; the 1933-45 German government were certainly as Green as you get in many ways and their desire to keep the German people in a relatively deindustrialised state was a consequence of the influence of the East Prussians.

The root problem of the more left wing Greens is their utter scientific illiteracy which leads them to fear anything that emits radiation, unless of course it's the Sun.

7
1
FAIL

Re: No, the plan is feudal warlordism run by banks

>>Sorry to rain on your rant, but Trotskyites, bonkers as they are in other ways, are all in favour of industrialisation and economic development.

You speak of pre-"New Age" trotskyism. Post modern trotskyism is giving head to Fabian socialism while caught in a redux of steam engine artisan ennui coupled to caste system "Eastern spirituality" and its hideously pathological quantities of tree hugging empathy. I see no leftist elements humping in the May Day meadows today who are not fatally technophobic and hypochondriacal.

>>As for Islamification, I cannot imagine anybody in the far Left supporting it for a moment. You are confusing the Left with multicultural liberalism, which is a completely different beast (are you American? They tend to do this.)

D%d, stop hairsplitting and see that radical Islam is the de-nutted left's marcher lord. Where is the salient leftist hue and cry over the utterly feudal Sharia tenets from genital mutilation to child rape other than the occasional furrowed brow by the occasional feminist? If the Tea Party farts even upwind there is utter bedlam on the left. Some tribal goat herders stone an adolescent girl to death for opting out of an extortionary marriage and the ONLY ones reporting are the Western right wing press.

>>(are you American? They tend to do this.

Are you an academic? They tend to think the world is just a big textbook.

4
3
Bronze badge

Re: No, the plan is feudal warlordism run by banks

Holy Zarqhuan's Flying Fish!

Haven't heard the term 'crypto fascist' since Citizen Smith. And it still means as little now as it did then. A true linguistic survivor, that one!

3
0

Well, two thoughts...

The writer is absolutely correct about nuclear power. It is one of the most environmentally friendly ways of generating electricity there is, only solar and wind can compete*, and the environmental movements opposition to nuclear power has long since gone from being justified from the precautionary principle, to braindead dogmatism. It vexes me that fellow environmentalists seriously, for reals, think that coal, oil and hydropower* are more friendly to nature than nuclear power.

It especially vexes me when normally level-headed organizations like the WWF get swept up in the dogmatic anti-nuclear-power-ism. That harebrained organizations like PETA and Animal Liberation Front oppose nuclear power doesn't surprise me, but organizations like WWF and Sierra Club should know better.

* hydropower is _massively_ damaging to the environment, especially in the tropics. It is the only form of energy production which has made entire species globally extinct, and _a lot _ of species at that. It's got an undeserved reputation as environmentally friendly because it's renewable, but from a conservancy point of view it's probably the worst form of energy production there is.

33
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well, two thoughts...

"The writer is absolutely correct about nuclear power. It is one of the most environmentally friendly ways of generating electricity there is"

No, it's not, and I'm sick of the tired old misdirections on the attempt to paint it as such.

Running the nuclear power plant itself is "clean" - practically no emissions. But I have had it up to HERE with proponents of nuclear power proclaiming its environmental purity while completely and utterly avoiding the discussion of the waste from the uranium enrichment process, the transportation of materials to and from the plant, the processing and storage of the waste nuclear fuels and finally the eventual full decommissioning and deconstruction of the plant.

The uranium enrichment processing alone has created some of the worst polluted industrial areas of the planet. Once used, the nuclear fuels become energy sinks from the power grid, requiring continuous cooling for years afterwards during the fuel's initial decay stabilization. And then we won't even bother talking about how long it takes, and the complex processes involved, with decommissioning a plant - on second thought, lets. I would LOVE to have someone here prove that the nuclear power plant decommissioning process isn't as onerous as it truly is. The decommissioning process and handling of spent nuclear fuel will add MILLIONS of tons of CO2 back into the atmosphere from all the complex processes, including power usage over the lifetime of the spent fuel handling, required. I guess that, once hundreds of tons of toxic materials are buried, the world shouldn't bother itself to ever think about it again [/sarcasm]

Please. Spare us. You want to talk about the impact of the full production cycle of other energy source - fossil fuels, solar, wind, wave, etc. - and then completely and utterly ignore the parts of the nuclear production cycle that does not meet your discussion's agenda. If you want to talk apples-to-apples, please do so. But when you call nuclear "clean" and then completely disregard the pre- and post-production fuel and cleanup issues...you only prove yourself to be extremely biased.

20
30
Silver badge

Re: Well, two thoughts...

"The decommissioning process and handling of spent nuclear fuel will add MILLIONS of tons of CO2 back into the atmosphere from all the complex processes, including power usage over the lifetime of the spent fuel handling, required."

Dude, from the table in a post above, in 2008 alone the UK emitted 572m tonnes of CO2. If decommissioning the nation's nuclear power plants only MILLIONS of tonnes of CO_2, then that's fine, it's about 1% of our yearly output. If you want to use scare capitals, you need BILLIONS of tonnes, not MILLIONS.

22
2

Re: Well, two thoughts...

Yeah, because it's so much better to have the toxic waste spewed all over the plant for tens of years than to bury it in one place with safety mechanisms that are over engineered to hell and back few times over.

Maybe your organism can handle trace amounts of lead and mercury and high amounts of soot in atmosphere but mine will take twice as high background radiation any time of the year. Life in general have evolved to deal with the latter, not the former.

19
2

Re: Well, two thoughts...

"The uranium enrichment processing alone has created some of the worst polluted industrial areas of the planet. "

Eh?

I used to live about 10 miles from the UK's main enrichment plant at Capenhurst, It's in Cheshire, Close to Ellesmere Port. Here's the Google Maps link

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=capenhurst&oe=&safe=on&ie=UTF-8&ei=DESHUuquB4b07AbSp4C4DA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg

Looks rather green and unpolluted to me.

Here's the French equivalent - "Eurodif" at Tricasitn in South-West France:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=tricastin+eurodif&oe=&safe=on&ie=UTF-8&ei=D0WHUqTdCrPQ7AbHpoCoCQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg

A bit browner (well, it is southern France) but still hardly a polluted wasteland.

" Once used, the nuclear fuels become energy sinks from the power grid, requiring continuous cooling for years afterwards during the fuel's initial decay stabilization"

Again, eh?

within three years of being removed from a reactor, it's perfectly routine to move fuel into air-cooled natural storage circulation - a PWR or BWR assembly is making well under 100w of decay heat.

" I would LOVE to have someone here prove that the nuclear power plant decommissioning process isn't as onerous as it truly is"

you do know it's now been done at least a dozen times with LWRs in the US; here's a link to the highest profile example:

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/SITING/Pages/trojan.aspx

"Decommissioning is the process of removing the radioactive material from the site and restoring the site for other uses. PGE built Trojan on what was an already an industrial site before PGE bought it. Now that decommissioning is complete, the site is safe for any type of use, including industrial, commercial or even residential....

...The process took about 9 years. Trojan began decommissioning in earnest in spring of 1996. They completed decommissioning December 2004."

I have a sneaking suspicion you've not the faintest idea about what you're talking about.

30
3

Re: Well, two thoughts...

> No, it's not, and I'm sick of the tired old misdirections on the attempt to paint it as such.

Well, I'm happy you agree that the running of nuclear plants is environmentally friendly, and Andydaws has already given a nice rebuttal to your other points, so I'm instead going to focus on the only thing which is NOT environmentally friendly about nuclear power: uranium mining. If you want to criticize nuclear power from an environmental point of view, then it's the mines you need to concentrate on -- they've historically been poorly handled and have spread radioactive dust around them. That said, the effects are localized and even the worst uranium mines pale compared to mining of brown coal or extraction of oil from tar sands.

I honestly have no idea why the environmental movement has become completely irrational over nuclear power, to the point of embracing real horrors such as tropical hydropower.

11
1
Bronze badge
Holmes

ac @ 21:36 - Re: Well, two thoughts...

Wrote :- "I have had it up to HERE with proponents of nuclear power proclaiming its environmental purity while ... avoiding ...the transportation of materials to and from the plant, the processing and storage of the waste nuclear fuels and .. the decommissioning"

As it happens my job is dealing with those, so I at least cannot be accused of "avoiding". Because so much energy is derived from uranium fission, the transport of fuel to and from the plant is trivial, I am not even sure what you are on about - the fuel used by the transport?

Processing of fuel before and after use, at Capenhurst and Sellafield respectively, is a routine matter, not an issue except to those who wish to make it one.

Decommissioning is not rocket science, but I have to say that the plant staff THEMSELVES tend to make heavy weather of it and can drag it into years simply because thier jobs will come to an end when it is done. Being fairly senior, I have done a few things to cut through some of the unnecessary delays.

Storage of the final nuclear waste is also a straightforward matter - technically. Again, even some within the industry itself are making heavy weather of it, while I have always pushed for simplification and expediting things. However the indistry's hands are tied by politicians - it is a political and sociological problem and the cause of that is scaremongering.

16
3
Happy

Re: Well, two thoughts...

Radioactivity = energy. why throw away perfectly good energy sources. Convert Reactor waste to nuclear batteries. They run for decades and if done on a large scale they can be protected and supply supplemental energy.

4
1
Silver badge
Childcatcher

Re: Well, two thoughts...

Saying solar and wind can compete with nuclear is a bit like saying a clipper ship can compete with a nuclear submarine.

ESPECIALLY if you rule out hydro..

Let's run the idiot scenario of a solar wind and nuclear grid. Now these are technologies that actually do exist, so we don't need to invent pixie dust and powdered unicorn horn fuelled devices. We just go with what we know.

First of all, there will be times. Dark cold still winter evenings, typically in January or February when we will need around 60GW of power on today's grid, and the wind won't be blowing anywhere and the sun will have set.

So to cover these, we need 60GW of nuclear power.

That 60GW of nuclear power can run the entire nation. Its costly to build but its dirt cheap to run and emits no carbon. Neither does it need any fossil fuel. And without fossil fuel we have to have it anyway.

Why on earth would we add renewables to it?

To add energy security? we don't need to. Nukes already have a decade or two of fuel stored and to bulk buy more to make that 100 years would be peanuts.

To reduce emissions? Pardon me, emissions are, once the nukes are built, already zero. And you have to build the nukes. Building the renewables would increase emissions in the build process. And probably the maintenance phase as well.

To reduce fuel burn? why would we even BOTHER since nuclear fuel has a massive EROI anyway, and is dirt cheap.

No, gentlemen, once we have an adequacy of nuclear power, intermittent renewables simply cannot compete. They are more expensive they cannot be dispatched and they cannot be stored and they add nothing anybody wants or needs to an all-out nuclear grid.

They are all cost and absolutely NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER.

Once you say 'lets have some nuclear power' at ALL, the (rational*) case for having any renewables actually vanishes.

This is why the anti-nuclear lobby is so vociferous. The intermittent renewables have no chance whatsoever of competing with nuclear, which is why if you have companies like Vattenfall and Siemens in your country running your grid, you have to BAN nuclear altogether, or people will start asking questions.

As indeed they are, already...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-uk-nuclear-reactor-spurs-reexamination-of-german-policy-a-930822.html

The ONLY situation where intermittent renewables 'work' is there they can be offset with a lot of pre-existant paid for hydro that can't be run flat because its rainfall limited. THAT can then be turned down on windy or sunny days to conserve water.

But even there, the costs exceed using nuclear to do the same job. Switzerland is about IIRC 60/40 nuclear hydro and it works marvellously. The 60% nuclear covers the base load and the 40% hydro is used to cover the peaks.

IN short there is not a single job that intermittent renewables can do that can't be done better and cheaper by nuclear power.

Beware of people who say we will need, or the future is, 'nuclear and renewables': they are not logical people who understand power generation. They are politically motivated or profit motivated to keep 'renewables' alive long past the time when the stench of green corruptions has begun to become obvious to everyone.

*The 'case for renewables' is in fact not rational at all in any case, they represent a cosmetic solution that doesn't actually work (overall integrating them into a real world fossil grid makes no impact on its emissions commensurate with the amount they generate) to a problem that probably does not exist either. CO2 impact is widely seen as either insignificant, beneficial, or a mild combination of both. Its real purpose is top make money and capture the illiterate green vote.

15
1

Re: Well, two thoughts...

I could not have said it better myself!

0
0

Re: Well, two thoughts...

Ah, but there is a walk-away-safe molten salt nuclear reactor design that can all run for many decades just burning up the high level waste from those unsafe high-pressure water and solid fuel rods reactors that we made just because the military wanted more plutonium to make more bombs. Our biggest problem is to cut back our overused military, but it you worry about energy, and nuclear energy in particular, just invest quickly in WAMSR technology. Low pressure Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactors can burn up almost all of that waste that we have no way to safely store for tens of thousands of years. They run hotter so create electricity more efficiently and desalinate water too, solving another major problem. Carbon dioxide is proving not to be the huge threat that the fear mongers pretend, but the (radioactive) particulates from burning coal do kill lots of people and we should stop doing that as quickly as possible. Perhaps China will help us out if our own nuclear regulators take decades to do the right thing.

4
0

Re: Well, two thoughts...

stirling summary sir !

Anyone pushing for 'Renewable Energy' is either corrupt; ignorant or a political idealogue - or perhaps all three

0
0

Re: Well, two thoughts...

What about using the waste in modern Nuclear power plants that can (could as no one builds them).

That might very well be due to some countries want's nuclear weapons too, so they build power plants that would feed them with such waste materials.

But the designs that could use the waste from normal nuclear power plants have been out there for decades now, I assume as the first time I read about them is pretty long time ago. Still the designs that are built are based on tech from the 60's. Common build something that at least is based on the tech from the 80's why is it so hard to use all the research that has been done?

Are we afraid of building modern plants, is it that everyone want's someone else to take the risk of introducing something new?

I understand countries that have nuclear weapons, but smaller countries as those within EU who build nuclear power plants but have no intention of producing such weapons. Why buy the same old designs from Japan?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well, two thoughts...

A lot of his "rebuttal" is simple bogus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Eh?

I used to live about 10 miles from the UK's main enrichment plant at Capenhurst, It's in Cheshire, Close to Ellesmere Port. Here's the Google Maps link"

Well, good for you. Why don't you learn about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup/npl_sites.html

from

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup.html

"The total number of sites contaminated with radionuclides in the United States is in the thousands. Contaminated sites range in size from corners of laboratories to sprawling nuclear weapons facilities covering many square miles of land. The contamination extends to all environmental media, as well as to on site buildings and equipment."

The most damning point to your "reply" is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Resources_and_reserves

"In 2005, seventeen countries produced concentrated uranium oxides, with Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Argentina (2.1%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%) also producing significant amounts"

So you try to prove a point on how little environmental contamination occurs from uranium by quoting the fact that you live in a UK community. The UK does not even produce a major amount of uranium oxide for the entire world. Your statement is like saying that your life is so clean, that the world is so great...because China is handling all your toxic waste for you. Your UK comparison of "cleanliness" is completely irrelevant because the UK isn't even on the map in terms of having to deal with uranium processing cleanup in the first place.

Why don't you ask Russia and the United States about their nuclear processing and site cleanups? THEN you will have a sound argument.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Again, eh?

within three years of being removed from a reactor, it's perfectly routine to move fuel into air-cooled natural storage circulation - a PWR or BWR assembly is making well under 100w of decay heat."

Is your argument simply trying to blind us with apparent slight-of-hand? 3 years of cooling, then moved to a (still controlled environment of air cooling, then moved to processing or further storage...you, somehow, did not mitigate my statements but only redirected to a non-solution.

After 3 years of active, highly monitored, power-sucking cooling, the fuel as per your own comment then gets moved - more energy - to highly monitored air cooling, either passive or active. Afterwards...where did the fuel go, exactly? Nowhere. Still must be dealt with by yet more means, doesn't it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"you do know [decommissioning] now been done at least a dozen times with LWRs in the US; here's a link to the highest profile example:"

Decommissioned sites? A few. What are the sites being currently USED for? Very, very little. Most of them are considered brownsites and, while they technically are classified as "clean", they are monitored and NOT used for other purposes.

https://forms.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/13/idUS178883596820110613

"To date, all 10 of the fully decommissioned plants have met the NRC requirements for unrestricted use, which means the sites are safe enough to be reclaimed for any purpose including agriculture, housing or green space.

In the second option, called SAFSTOR, the plant is closed and awaits cleanup at a later time, offering plants like Zion extra time to increase their decommissioning funds. The NRC gives utilities up to 60 years to complete decommissioning."

So the reply is proud of the fact that, in the cleanup he mentioned, it took 9 years. A decade to clean up. 10 out of 23 decommissioned areas in the U.S. are at "safe cleanup" stage. 10 out of 23. And the NRC allows up to 60 YEARS to handle the issue.

"Of the 13 reactors currently being decommissioned, six chose immediate decontamination and seven remain in SAFSTOR conditions."

So the writer is proud that, after initial shutdown, some of the plants can take up to 3/4 of a *century" to clean up.

Several "cleaned up" sites are being "reused" as nature reserves, thereby 'eliminating' the issue of their (human) reuse (try a Google on that). In the UK, according to

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Land_released_for_reuse_at_Magnox_sites-0302124.html

"In 2006, Berkeley became the first site to achieve delicensing since the NDA was formed.

...

Last year saw the first time that UK land had been fully released for further use, when two plots of land at Capenhurst, totalling seven hectares, were transferred to Urenco's neighbouring site."

So, with all the nuclear sites decommissioned = "[2011] saw the first time that UK land had been fully released"

Reason to be proud [/sarcasm]

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Re: WWF

The Chernobyl power plant was capable of producing 4GW of constant electricity and 56 people died in an accident there. On the other hand this wind turbine might have been capable of occasionally producing 0.0005GW and 2 people died there.

Whilst any death is a tragedy, the figures claimed for Chernobyl were in the 10s of thousands so in this respect the actual figure of 56 is a "small number".

10
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: WWF

One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

- Joseph Stalin

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

- Adolf Hitler

Interesting company you keep

4
6

Your stats on Chernobyl are pretty misleading.

Can I direct you to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidator_%28Chernobyl%29

and specifically the biorobots

http://disinfo.com/2011/04/the-biorobots-who-cleaned-up-chernobyl/

2
4
Anonymous Coward

Its in wikipedia, it is about a controversial subject so it must be true.

I don’t think so.

Whilst I will happily defer to wiki on subjects such as the history of the USPS I do not trust it on any subject that is remotely controversial.

6
1
Silver badge

According to Forbes, they took the worst-case Chernobyl and Fukushima calculations. Take a look.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

7
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.