And Wasserman didn't even mention the appalling accident at Tricastin last year (among others)...Originally Posted by Fear Dorcha
Anyway, just to show the extent to which James Lovelock has "lost it", look at what he wrote in The Guardian at the weekend: here. Sensible response here.
Wind farms and other alternative energy technologies are such a threat to the nuclear industry that Lovelock has to blunder in with his hopeless nimby arguments.
15 Jan 2001 -- Fine Gael pledged to end fluoridation because of "serious health concerns".
Wind farms are no more of a threat to nuclear than swatting flies. Winds energy makes up a very samll proportion of european energy and expanding it will casue massive expense.
31% of European energy is generated by nuclear. If you wish even to maintain current levels nuclear will remain.
I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers.
Siegfried Sassoon
You're misinformed, riven. Both wind and nuclear depend on big subsidies to get off the ground. They're not both going to get those subsidies in future. Wind is becoming so successful that nuclear's appeal is fading. The nuclear industry is desperate. Show me a successful nuclear industry -- in any country. France? Wasserman demolishes that case, and if that's not convincing enough for you, I can give you lots more details and references.
Wind energy is becoming less expensive all the time, and compared to nuclear it's a snip. Apart from money, wind's advantages over nuclear are innumerable. Spain, Portugal and Denmark are showing the way.Winds energy makes up a very samll proportion of european energy and expanding it will casue massive expense.
"31% of European energy"? I think you mean electricity. Whatever, nuclear is going down, and going out.31% of European energy is generated by nuclear. If you wish even to maintain current levels nuclear will remain.
What's your suggestion for dealing with nuclear waste, riven? What should be done with Sellafield, and Cap La Hague?
15 Jan 2001 -- Fine Gael pledged to end fluoridation because of "serious health concerns".
Hah. Why then did the high priest of nuclear feel the need to go out on a limb to swat it.
Wasserman could not have more shoddy arguments. He critises Areva monetary crisis yet the same could be said for most energy companies right now. I love his comment 'asset sales may be hampered by slumping market values'. That could be said for most companies right now.
The cost overruns for the Finnish site if you did your research were caused by Siemens not Areva. It pulled out just like Shell did on the London wind array which has also lost its deadline and will not be compete until 2017.
The flamanville reactor according to the EDF is on time and budget. The delay of one month did not affect completion time. The budget overrun that is mentioned is of course not referenced so I cannot verify it only that I cannot find it. And for some who works in the renewable sector, finding dirt on nuclear is easy. Amazing that.
His next point shows however his complete ineptitude in the argument. Frances nuclear drops 0.1% while wind grows 37%. How much wind energy makes up Frances national grid compared to nuclear (1% versus 87.5%)? No wonder there is not any growth in the French nuke market, it has complete market dominance. That is comparing apples and oranges. Also is it not interesting that in a country of nuclear dominance that prices are stable and affordable?
As for Frances waste dilemma; would you mind expanding upon the dilemma? France does not have its own waste depository because the EU has a centralized system for nuclear waste. And the ten thousand fuel rods; do you have any idea how much waste that is? It currently recycles more than 50% of the waste too. As for increased subsidies
'The 2006 Department of Energy research and development budget provides $1.2 billion for renewable and conservation, $800 million for clean coal, and $510 million for nuclear..... the current tax credit for wind power is $18 per megawatt-hour produced. Currently, no such production tax incentive exists for the nuclear industry.'
Michigan's Fermi I reactor: interesting that someone who is against nuclear has to resort to technology more than 40 years old. Would you use 40 year old cars to debate the need for cars nowadays? No you would not because it is not accurate.
'The costs from the earthquake last year that crippled seven reactors at Japan's Kashiwazaki are still rising' Of course it is. Every day something does not work costs money. And the plant is due to restart in 3rd quarter on time.
He quotes Schneider's report. The report that asserted the link between military and civilian power. You do know that that link is based on research as the conversion of civilian nuclear waste to weapons is impossible? He does raise some points about public opinion though you would have to say that the same could be said for coal gas oil etc.
Etc
In comparison for wind
'American Wind Energy Association has concluded that under the best of circumstances, wind energy could supply only about 20 percent of our nation's electricity by the year 2030.' A similar percentage should hold for France as GE is the major world supplier in wind turbines. Even then it does not replace the 31% of Europe’s energy.
The problems with nuclear are mainly two fold (return on investment more than makes up for the initial cost: 75 years of power is quite long)
1. Waste perception. The waste itself is not a problem (As I have stated before America's entire nuclear waste from weapons and power stations for the last 50 years take less than 56000 tones http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_reposito.../howmuch.shtml). It is the perception of the public who are used to the likes of dump trucks etc. I cant tell the difference between many beers blindfolded but will still choose one over another due to my perception. It is kind of worrying that an industry that deals in toxic waste in far less quantities than plastic industries (Freon, PCB etc) cannot seem to overcome this.
2. Sustainability. The future of nuclear power depends on generation 4 reactors (generation 3 are currently being build). If gen 4 come online in 2040-2060 there will be approx 7000 years worth of uranium left as they can use a far high percentage of the Ur in the fuel (over 80% compared to gen 3 of less than 5%) which will extend Ur supply to no more than 200 years. So the key is in 2040, a bit far away.
[quote]Hah. Why then did the high priest of nuclear feel the need to go out on a limb to swat it. [\quote]
I am not a high priest of any energy source. Refer to my previous posts for that.
I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers.
Siegfried Sassoon
Why should energy companies be facing financial problems? Energy is as much a necessity as food and water irrespective of what most companies are facing. The cost of non-renewables has decreased. The € now has more purchasing power against a weaker $.
Siemens pulled out of Finland because the France the majority shareholder in Areva blocked it's ambitions to become an equal partner in that venture. Thats another issue.
Wasserman main point about Flamanville wasn't that it was delayed but that it is $1B over budget.
As to France increasing its reliance on Wind here is an interesting fact about Areva itself investing in Wind.
Areva signs euro700M deal to sell wind turbines - Yahoo! Finance
The fact that repairs cost money is not an argument in defence of Kashiwazaki. The dispute centers on safety in earthquake zones.
As for American Wind Energy Association projections on Wind supplying up to 20% of energy. Surely that is quite a good figure when you consider that it doesn't include wave, solar and/or other sources and notwitstanding the fact that this figure is using current technology which I think is fair to say is still in its infancy so expect greater efficiencies not less.
I wasn't referring to you as the High Priest much as you might like to think that of yourself, I meant Lovelace.
Where is the EU waste depository then? Doesn't exist. The EU has rules, but no depositories.
I don't have time to respond to all the inaccuracies in your post.
It has serious quality control issues. Maybe it'll eventually be commissioned, but I wouldn't bet on it.The flamanville reactor according to the EDF is on time and budget.
It's 77%, not 87%, and wind is growing. The French will start learning from the Spanish. Why are the Spanish not building new nuclear?His next point shows however his complete ineptitude in the argument. Frances nuclear drops 0.1% while wind grows 37%. How much wind energy makes up Frances national grid compared to nuclear (1% versus 87.5%)?
Huh? Where do you think the French plutonium came from?He quotes Schneider's report. The report that asserted the link between military and civilian power. You do know that that link is based on research as the conversion of civilian nuclear waste to weapons is impossible?
That is deluded thinking.The problems with nuclear are mainly two fold (return on investment more than makes up for the initial cost: 75 years of power is quite long)
Hard to take you seriously at this stage. Do you know what's happening in Sellafield and La Hague? Any idea of the economics of those plants?1. Waste perception. The waste itself is not a problem...
The big IF? No, there are so many ifs in your "argument" that you really should go back to basics. And do a few sums. And read the Schneider paper.2. Sustainability. The future of nuclear power depends on generation 4 reactors (generation 3 are currently being build). If gen 4 come online in 2040-2060...
Last edited by soubresauts; 1st April 2009 at 08:56 AM.
15 Jan 2001 -- Fine Gael pledged to end fluoridation because of "serious health concerns".
CO2 Carbon taxes are a global scam and fraud to enslaves peoples of the world into a new tax system without representation. A wet dream for the new world banking order. The only nukes should be ones dropped from orbit on the heads of these power hungry heathens and a few commuter suburbs to get housing oversupply down to help the builders get back to building.
eskerman, no offence but your post is complete nonsense. The plant in Ringsend does not use older technology and the problems with the plant arise purely and simply because DCC's consulting engineers severely underestimated the design population equivalent. Also, your ascertions regarding the design lives of plants and DBO contracts imposing restrictions on the use of modern technology are simply wrong and ill-informed.Ringsend WWTW has been sold to the public in a very maligned way. Its a white elephant and its cost Dublin taxpayers a serious amount of money compared with similar plants in UK and Europe. Plants like these that service circa 1million people plus are common and most of them work very well. The plant design in Ringsend is based on older technology, and this means the value of investment is much lower then modern plants. The ultra conservative older design means that the contractors who are actually requested to submit proposals under "design & construct" (and in some cases operate for 20 years) are not allowed to actually use better and more efficient ways to build these plants, and this is because the likes of DCC do not want to embrace new ideas which will clearly save taxpayers money in the longer terms.
The days of build it to last 50 years are well gone, but there are people sitting in these councils who live in the past and who will NOT embrace change.
Modern plants are designed to give at least 25 years of good reliable service, this reduces capital costs and allows a more advanced technology to be used when these plants get to the 20-25 year life service. It makes so much sense to design with limited life and allow new technology to flurish
Ringsend is a classic example of this type of narrow minded thinking and the public only hear or see snippets of the reality of what's going on..or in the case of Ringsend the odours that are news headlines..
Tip of an iceberg of whats going on with taxpayers money...all over the country
Many of the larger service european companies will price all public works high as they know how difficult it is to do business in Ireland...Politics...again
As for the generation of CHP's from anaerobic digestion plants, this is used in quite a few plants around the country but the amount of power generated isn't a whole lot. You might be able to generate 20% of a plants electricity requirements if you were doing well but not much more. They are also a bit of a headache to maintain but rising energy prices have offset that concern in more recent times. On a wider scale this technology will only play a very small part in satisfying the future needs of the national grid.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote