Britain to Build New Nuclear Power Plants
The British Labour government Thursday gave the green light for the construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants which it claimed would safeguard energy supplies while meeting the challenges of climate change.The controversial plan, presented to parliament in a White Paper Thursday, marks the renaissance of of atomic energy in a country which produced one of the first major anti-nuclear movements in postwar Europe.
Private investors will be invited to build the new plants, which are set to replace Britain's 19 old-fashioned nuclear power stations expected to be phased out by 2035.
Business Secretary John Hutton told parliament that the government was aiming to secure supplies through a "balanced energy mix" that would include a trebling of renewable energy resources by 2015.
The case for "clean and affordable" nuclear energy was "compelling," said Hutton, citing both the rising costs of fossil fuels and the need to meet carbon emission targets.
But critics attacked the plan, which they said was agreed by a cabinet some of whose members were once prominent supporters of the anti-nuclear movement.
Former Labour environment minister Michael Meacher dismissed the claim that nuclear power could assist in the fight against climate change as "the whitest of white elephants."
Environment group Greenpeace pointed out that nuclear power could, at best, deliver a 4-per cent cut in emissions some time after 2025. "That is too little too late at too high a price," Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said.
Instead of showing leadership on climate change, Britain was "trying to revive an outdated technology that has already failed to deliver," Greenpeace said in a statement.
"Nuclear power is a distraction which will do nothing but rob vital investment from the real solutions that are simpler, cheaper and safer.
The group, and other environmental campaigners, have threatened legal action against the government plans.
The first of the new generation reactors could go on stream "well before" 2020, said Hutton, who argued that the maintenance of "energy independence" was of "vital national interest."
Currently, Britain derives 19 per cent of its energy needs from nuclear power.
"The government believes it is in the public interest that new nuclear power stations should have a role to play in this country's future energy mix alongside other low-carbon sources," Hutton said.
Concurrently, the government published an energy bill signalling greater deployment of renewable energy and increased investment in carbon capture and storage as well as offshore gas infrastructure.
He said that energy companies would be compelled to meet the full costs of decommissioning and their "full share of waste management costs."
However, the government admitted that a long-term solution for waste disposal had yet to be found. The "geological disposal" of nuclear waste was both "technically possible and the right approach," said Hutton.
The government has pledged to present a separate White Paper on nuclear waste storage later this year.
Figures show that there is already a "mountain of nuclear waste" being held at the controversial nuclear reprocessing facility at Sellafield, in north-west Britain, on the Irish Sea.
A stockpile of 1,345 cubic metres of high-level waste and 350,000 cubic metres of intermediate level toxic waste has accumulated at the site.
However, the government's nuclear plans won backing Thursday from trade union leaders, who welcomed the opportunity for the creation of manufacturing and construction jobs.
Meanwhile, international energy giants, including Germany's E.On, EDF from France and Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) are queuing up to bid for contracts for the new power stations.
"We have submitted our new build design for approval in Britain and believe that our plans would provide a huge potential boost to British manufacturing," said Keith Bradley, regional vice president for AECL in Britain.
Vincent de Rivaz of EDF Energy, the British subsidiary of the French electricity giant, told the Financial Times Thursday: "This is an opportunity for Britain to be at the vanguard of the nuclear renaissance."
© 2007 - 2008 - eNews 2.0 All Rights Reserved
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
102 Comments so far
Show AllKem Patrick, if I may intrude on your conversation,, you have an open mind which is integral to understanding the ever changing world.
There are so many people who will say nuclear energy is the worst industry in the world.
The crowd cheers. End of story.
Score some easy political points.
Meanwhile what is really killing us is carbon, soot, mercury, arsenic etc.
You many not budge an inch from your original position. But you gave both sides some thought.
The devil's writer must be on strike.
I thought it was bats that were blind.
Kem,
As I understand it, birds actually can't see the blades.
Q: Do you know the last thing to go through a bug's mind as he hits the windshield?
A: His ass
Q: How do you know if a motorcyclist is happy?
A: Bugs on his teeth
I'm sorry; they're terrible. The devil made me do it.
Bill
The fuel costs are reasonable though and zero pollution. Uness one counts the dead birds. Any bird that flies into one of those big bladed towers is a dumb ass anyway. Like ramming a car' windshield, __ bad birdie.
Okay Bill Thank you, I understand that and now I'm becoming as smart as you are. ~Slowly~. Wind or tidal of course could not be of much assistance to a brewery for heating purposes. I do hope that does not mean to many, that those types of generating power, are therefore unacceptable.
Kem,
Ignorance is ok. Its curable. Its stupidity that's a problem.
Microgeneration is a buzz word pushed by Lovins of RMI as one of his big ideas.
Right now most power generation stations are big, be they nuclear, coal or gas. With a big central plant like these you have waste heat that you must get rid of. It may end up heating a river, an ocean or going up a cooling tower as steam.
Microgeneration is a concept of using a small generating station, usually powered by natural gas. The small generating station is located near someone who needs heat for some process. It could be a distillery, a water desalination plant or space heating for a factory or town. The waste heat from the generator is used for the needed process heat. This boosts the efficiency of the combined operation if the small generator has the equivalent efficiency. It is also called cogeneration or waste heat recovery.
As I said, it is usually based on natural gas. Gas can go small pretty well. Coal and nuclear don't go small very well.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Bill
Hay Bill, as I have stated before, (when I'm posting on a thread that is about to be buried in the archives), I'm undereducated and of course at times reluctant to display my ignorance. What is "microgerneration" mean in layman's terms? Could you lower your writing expertise to that of a ninth grader, or even an idiot?
Hi Bill. I can read the numbers just fine, but I don't know what it means. I do see it is a government paper. Are they saying wind and tidal generated power is far more expensive to have than nuclear?
For Matti, Kem and PaulMSmith,
I was looking at the white paper that the British government issued on nuclear power. There is a very interesting graph on page 64 of the report and includes estimates of the cost of avoiding carbon emissions per pound sterling. Except for the last number below, these are eyeball estimates off the graph. Negative values are conservation techniques and mean that the technology saves money:
Standard Insulation -180 # sterling/ton
Solid Wall Insulation -100
Domestic Lighting -60
Nuclear Power 5
Retrofit coal with carbon capture 40
Industrial use of biomass 60
Onshore wind 150
Offshore wind 300
Wave generation 800
Microgen electricity (ie. RMI-Lovins) 1474
I have not had the time to read the whole report.
Here is the link: http://nuclearpower2007.direct.gov.uk/bgoS/relateddocsS.asp
Bill
I left out an e.
http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/background.htm
PaulMagillSmith,
Yeah, probably the big thing to avoid is any turbine with exposed blades through which water and marine life must get sucked through (and minced).
PaulMSmith,
I'm not sure what the TV show presented but the biggest problem with low level contamination usually is that the contamination is dilute. Biological means can, in some systems, be used to concentrate contaminants.
Usually the controlling mechanism with uranium migration is the level of dissolved oxygen. If you have excess oxygen and mildly acidic water, uranium tends to be mobile (I believe it goes to the U+6 valence state). If you have lkaline or neutral oxygen free water uranium tends to be stationary (in the U+4 valence state).
I am a little outside my areas of expertise so I'm not sure what else I can offer. If the show talked about plutonium, I do know that plutonium chemistry is very complex, partially because of multiple valence states.
Regards,
Bill
Paul B.,
Actually, tidal is very ecologically friendly. The San Francisco Tidal Project has no working parts at all, using the flowing tides to create a suction that is transferred to land. No emissions, no damage to marine life, or even birds like land-based windpower.
Hi Paul, I agree, I'd prefer geo-thermal 100% and it is a very viable renewable energy and we should be using it full steam. (To phrase a pun there.) However any damage to the San Fran Bay's particular eco systems, could not possibly be near as bad as what burning coal does to the entire planet's enviroment.
Another way to prevent ocean power from being intermittant is to have generation technology on the surface for waves, and other appartus on the ocean floor 80-230 ft...meters? down for tidal, all of it interspersed with wind generation technology, of course.
Billy,
"...but very little incentive for load reducing."
Very astute, and the problem is compounded by certain idiots that suggest when we are attacked by some foreign elements to, "Defend America! Go shopping!"
It's about one third of what we pay, the rest is mostly government surcharges and taxes.
Kem,
You are correct. I've been to the Bay of Fundy a couple of times, as recently as two summers ago. Some of the largest tides in the world. New Brunswick is a beautiful place. But I don't believe tidal energy to be safe ecologically, however. Probably better to go with solar, wind, geothermal or hydrogen.
PaulMSmith,
If your numbers are real, I am suprised the Governator is not all over the SanFrancisco tidal project.
California has a long standing prohibition on any new nukes and recently prohibited (at some future date) the import of electricity generated by coal. They import serious amounts of nuke powered electricty from Arizona but they are limited by the size of the power lines. If they stick with this, it is going to get dark in California.
OBTW, Kem claims electricity from nuke power is 18 cents/kwh. I believe you live in the Dominion power service area which is heavily (over 50%) nuke. What is your electricity rate?
Bill
Matti,
You are correct about the low priority given to conservation. The market systems we have now in both the regulated and particularly the unregulated electric markets financially reward the utilities for selling as much electricity as possible.
There are pretty good market mechanisms for load shifting and some mechanisms for emergency load shedding but very little incentive for load reducing.
Bill
The Bay of Fundy I believe, has the highest and strongest tides. Also there are more tidal changes on the East Coast than on the west. I think I heard that. Someone __ other than Ken __ correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks Billy, yes the San Francisco plant is on temprorary hold. Google Hydro Venturi Inc. You the have to scroll down to the San Francisco article. They are curently doing enviromental studies, might be another year. __Maybe never. __ Their final design will produce over 2,000 megawatts at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt/hour. If I read it right.
Kem,
Good evening. The name calling usually doesn't get this far out of hand. Sorry to be so slow getting back-the nuclear salt mine demanded my time.
I looked at your referenced company. It looks from their website that they are dormant or close to it. Tidal power using currents is being tried in a couple of places but not in San Francisco Bay, as near as I can tell.
Current operated tidal power is a good idea if it can be cost effective and not environmentally damaging. Tidal has the advantage, like solar, of being predictable so it doesn't cause grid stability problems. I did see on one website where there is a trial in the Bay of Fundy. That would be pretty interesting to see the results. I understand the current really races in the Bay.
Tidal would also have an advantage if you did not concentrate it in one location but scattered it around. I recently read where slack water can differ by 3 or 4 hours from one end of the Chespeake Bay to the other. That would help for more constant generation.
Regards,
Bill
I told you why I wrote Albert Einstein, and I offered links, over ten to you, over the past few months. You ignore them. You started this silly argument over a post I made more than a month ago and I gave you the link then. I have to look it up again and I will, not for your convenience BTW, for mine. __ I'll be back.
bbr-001,
"My biggest problem with nuclear power is people. They get tired, have inadequate budgets, cut corners… ". No one who posts here has said it better. Chernobyl is the perfect example. Even with a crappy reactor design (and no containment), it took the dedicated efforts of a bunch of idiots who thought they knew what they were doing, to bypass all the safety features and operate the reactor in a way it was never designed for, to create that disaster.
Don't we just love what scientists can accomplish. Just imagine a bacteria which is developed, and that is their word, "develop", via cloning and genetics. Imagine a germ that can destroy atomic, man made waste, that mutates and is indestructable. Then it gets loose into our confined bio enviroment. It kills atomic waste, imagine what life forms it might kill? ~The BLOB is real~. We did it.
KEM,
I did say, and I am still waiting for your Einstein reference or any proof that my math or science is wrong.
Ken
Philly Electric (now part of Exelon) has some sort of elevated pond they fill with water during off peak hours, and run the water through a turbine during peak periods to level the load. (I don't know if they still use it as the Limerick nuke greatly increased their capacity.) Maybe something like that could level out tidal and wind power generation.
Regarding passive melt down resistance, its probably getting pretty close to melt down proof with some of the new designs, but I'm not sure. Some of the metallic rods in experimental reactors simply expand when overheated, and the expansion separates the atoms far enough to slow or stop the reaction.
Waste is a really big problem. Some engineers say some day fast neutron reactors will be eating that waste, and others say that won't ever happen. They're all experts, so it gets confusing.
My biggest problem with nuclear power is people. They get tired, have inadequate budgets, cut corners... The NRC can be spineless or overuled by politicos. Then there are criminals and terrorists... Maybe we need some sort of world-wide pseudo military organization to operate, or at least supervise, every nuclear power operation and material transfer everywhere. Have an IAEA person in every plant all the time and with every shipment of fuel and waste... with absolute authority to shut any operation down. If a national government doesn't agree, the marines come and "take away the keys".
PaulMagillSmith,
If you want to accuse me of spreading disinformation, then you are welcome to challenge my math above. I laid all my cards on the table. It is physical law and math, both immutable. You want to call names, that means nothing. Show me where my science is wrong.
Bioremediation is not new and has been experimented with for quite some time. There are certain plant species which are very effective at drawing up radionuclides from the soil, decontaminating it to a certain degree. Then the plants can be disposed of in a certified landfill. Chemical methods for separation of various components of the waste stream is still the most effective technology, but who knows what is around the bend. Bioscience is one of the most rapidly changing fields of current research.
Ken
PJD,
I think if you search this site you will find a wealth of info about various water/ocean projects:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/ocean_power/index.html
So you say KENDPOTTER
Billy, Kem, et al,
There was a show about this on TV last night, but I must repeat the caution they used (paraphrased):
These are emerging technologies, and so far only a very small experimental site shows promise. A larger test is needed to see if it will work on an industrial scale. One major problem encountered is the other highly concentrated metals in the holding pool they were trying to de-toxify had a tendency to kill the biological material that changes U6 to U4.
Anything you can add to this conversation, Billy, would be very welcomed.
"One technology that holds promise for eventually reducing the toxicity and amount of radioactive waste is bioremediation, using live bacteria. This technology makes use of the ability of live cells or enzymes to clean and reduce the volume of waste.
The organisms that are used metabolize anaerobically, i.e., in non-oxygen conditions, by chemically reacting with metal ions in solution, reducing them to lower oxidation states (lower ionic charge). For some elements, this reduced ion is insoluble, so it precipitates out of solution as a solid. For example, soluble Uranium6+ is reduced to insoluble U4+ which precipitates as solid uraninite, UO2. These precipitates can be recovered easily, then isolated and contained.
A British proposal describes a live cell "bioreactor" to treat liquid uranium waste. Using a specific species of microorganism results in uranium uptake equal to 900 per cent of the live cells' dry mass or 9 grams of uranium per gram of dry cells. Another species, which absorbs 11 grams of uranium per gram of dry cells, has been shown to precipitate relatively pure uranium oxide which is easily recoverable.
Similar organisms may be able to do the same for technetium (Tc) and plutonium (Pu). It has also been suggested that such a micro-organism could be injected underground into uranium-contaminated ground waters to form a barrier to future migration of dissolved uranium.
Many unknowns remain. However, with so few answers to the problem of radioactive waste, such explorations must continue."
http://www.nonukes.org/r09bior.htm
PaulMagillSmith,
Dr. Lueren Moret wrote, "Depleted uranium dust will continue to be an extreme hazard to soldiers, civilians, populations in countries downwind, and the environment as a radiological contaminant to all living systems for ten half-lives or 45 BILLION years."
It will absolutely be a, "radioligical contaminent for 45 billion years." The chemical toxicity will still kill you far quicker than the radiation and there is nothing you or the good Doctor can do to change that. DU is by virtue of definition almost entirely U-238. As I posted earlier, it has a half-life of 4.46 billion years and emits an alpha particle as it decays to thorium. Yes it is radioactive, but like in the movie, "Butch, I can't swim." and the Sundance Kid replies, "Hell, the fall will probably kill you." Such is the nature of DU. The chemical toxicity and the possible action as a catalyst at the sub-molecular level far outweighs any radio-biological effects. And nothing you can say, do, or post will change that.
Ken
That's correct, nuclear releases deadly poisons.
snydly,
The direct heat released by power plants, either nuclear or fossil, is not responsible for global warming. This amount of heat is negligible compared to solar insolation.
It is the CO2 in the exhaust of the fossil fuel plants (and other CO2 sources as well as other GH gases) that cause global warming.
If you want to stop global warming, the first step is to stop releasing CO2 when you generate electricity. Nuclear, as well as renewables, do not release CO2.
Bill
PJD Here is a link that will give you the data that I had posted. It will develop more than twice the power needed by The San Francisco Bay area. It is good to know you know so much about the issue PJD, the ones who designed it and have a pilot project already in operation have different opinons. Why don't you contact them and offer advice.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3339905
PJD,
Have you read anything recently on the Canadians and their Bay of Fundy tidal project? That made a big splash a while back, but I don't seem to recall hearing much about it lately.
Ken
RE: kendpotter January 11th, 2008 5:31 pm
KEM,
I've read your sources every time you've posted them and not a single one says DU is a radiological threat...
"Depleted uranium dust will continue to be an extreme hazard to soldiers, civilians, populations in countries downwind, and the environment as a radiological contaminant to all living systems for ten half-lives or 45 BILLION years."-Leuren Moret 2003.
How much more explicit does Dr. Lueren Moret have to be. Some people are just dense, others are just in complete denial, and then there are those who get paychecks from the MIC or nuclear industry to spread dis-information. Which category do you fall in Kendpotter?
I know I'm probably wasting my time, but here are a couple questions for you:
1) Is uranium radioactive?
2) Is indescriminate spreading around of a radioactive substance a 'threat'?
3) If DU isn't radiological & threatening to the enemy, why don't they use something less controversial like say depleted tin, or depleted cheese LOL?
KENDPOTTER, anyone who read those two links which are available, will realize you are either full of crap, or a liar, or both. You do that in a vain attempt to prove to others, that I'm some sort of an idiot.
I said Einstein because I have read some of his papers, available on the net, about the deadly dangers of uranium and radiation poisoning etc. There are over one million articles on the net just about DU. I did not post all of the ones I have previously posted here and the ones I specifically offered to you. You say all of those scientists are wrong and therefore, Kem Patrick is an udereducatd fool.
Remeber the day you told me to go fu&k myself? Well, I did, it was great, thanks for the advice. It's about the only thing you have ever posted that I found to be worthwile.
KEM,
Well, don't know what lie you might be reffering to, I just read your links (and while some of them are full of half-baked assertions, I didn't note any outright lies). There is no way I am lying about the half-life of U-238, though I admit that insuating that you use your toes to count was sheer speculation.
Ken
Kem wrote:
"all I do is offer opinions already stated by the hundreds of scientists who have studied the subject for many years...."
Fine, then surely you can find some references.
Because, as far as I know, no one is suggesting that wind and solar can completely replace central thermal power generation plants. Augment them and reduce the fossil fuel usage - yes. Replace them - no. I wish we could have a 100% renewable power systrem, but it simply isn't possible anytime in the forseeable future, unless we move to a economy with greatly reduced reliance on electricity - but we can't do that. because electricity is going to have to be used to eliminate greenhouse emissions from transportation - which is second only to fossil fuel electric generation.
As far as your tidal power system, i just did a search for something to substantiate your claim that tide power could generate twice the power used by the entire Bay Area. All I could find is that golden gate tidal current turbines could _potentially_ produce a total of 48 megawatts - that's about a 20th of a single nuclear or large coal generating unit - hardly the amount you are claiming.
And they will produce a complex, sinusoidally varying amounts of power - and none at all for about an hour or two, four times a day.
BTW, a best place for these seabed turbines would be along Florida, and maybe off Cape Hatteras, where the Gulf Stream sweeps close to shore - the power output would at least be continuous there.
So, that still leaves us with still needing a way to continuously generate electric power. That means coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. Which one doesn't burn fossil fuel?
THAT IS A LIE KEN!!!!!
KEM,
I've read your sources every time you've posted them and not a single one says DU is a radiological threat (apparently physics works differently in your universe - it just so tough to get past that 4.46 billion year half-life). On the other hand, everyone of them agrees with me that it is a heavy-metal, chemical toxicant.
Poor KEM, it is just so unfair when someone uses math and the laws of physics, instead of vitriol. Well, do your best. Go ahead, remove your shoes and use your toes to count if it helps. I know those are some big numbers.
I am still waiting on the Einstein reference.
Ken
Done
Well, I see the first link is not currently available and I mis-typed the third. IAMDUM.
There this one opens, and the second link I offered is 29 pages of good information, enough to give some decent opinions versis Kendpotter's blathering.
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_blowinginthewind.htm
You may assume about me whatever makes you happy KENDPOTTER. I am not always correct, I never lie. I have given you that link of where I derived my information and opinions from on several other threads in the past, and you refuse to acknowlege those very credible scientists are correct.
Here is one for any who wish to believe Kendpotter, but would like some other sources to check it out.
http://www.uraniumweaponsconfrence.de/background.htm
Here is another good one of thousands available for "free" on the web.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html
And another excellent read about DU and the dangers of such.
http://www.gulfwarvets.comdu_blowinginthewind.htm
PaulMagillSmith,
I have to admit to being shocked that someone who "manufactured & sold a bit over 50,000 NukAlerts", wouldn't know that the "bequerel" is the most current SI unit for radioactive source activity, indeed being derived from Henri Becquerel, the French scientist. Unfortunately, the original spelling went out at the same time they dropped the "Curie". At least you are somewhat familiar with the science.
As for you KEM,
Unless you can come up with a source for your statement "Dr. Frederick O'Neill and Albert Einstein" I will simply have to assume you are lying.
A nanoparticle of uranium contains approximately 20 to 24 atoms of U-238. The half-life of U-238 is 4.46 billion years. The definition of a half-life is, that half of the radioactive atoms present will undergo disintegration during that period of time. So, by the laws of physics in this universe, one U-238 atom (in your nanoparticle) will undergo disintegration approximately every 3.75 million years (while the curve isn't exactly linear, it is close enough), releasing an alpha particle having the energy of approximately 4.2 MeV (megaelectronvolts). That may sound like a lot of energy but electronvolts don't amount to much (4.6 megaelectronvolt = 7.370015579999999e-13 wattsecond). One forty watt light bulb uses 54,273,969,390,984 times as much energy in one second.
On the other hand a chest x-ray of Einstein's era could have been as much as 2.7 rem ESE (entrance skin exposure) and 1.17 rem to the lungs (Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 2003, Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedures). This exposure would have been given using a Westinghouse Fluorodex (photofluorographic) machine operating with a plate voltage of 60 - 120 thousand volts, 200 milliamps for seconds at a time. In order to be conservative let's assume 60kVp, 200 milliamps, and 1 sec. Convert to Watts using Ohms Law, W=EI where E is voltage and I is current, gives us 12,000 wattsecond to produce the x-ray. Assume whatever efficiency you want out of the process, but this simple exercise in science clearly demonstrates how ridiculous your statement is.
BTW, I am not a lover of nuclear energy. I think conservation is the first, most important step for us to take. I also think it is important to be educated in the sciences so that you will know when someone is trying to bullshit you.
Ken
Hi NSPIRE. Actually the design of the tidal power station for San Francisco, will place the turbines at seabed level, they will not interfere with shipping. The tidal action will produce suction and that in turn will draw air through large pipes, that air is then used to spin generators as the piped air flows through divergent ducts. It's very effecient, no fuel reqired and little mainteance down time if any. It will be cost effective, far cheaper than fossil or atomic energy costs and of course it creates no pollution. It is not without some problems, it can harm fish unless effective netting or screens are used at the turbine intakes. It MAY cause some problems with the natural eco-system in that immediate area of the bay.
One must weigh those problems, against those of continuing to pollute our atmosphere, global warming and the acidity of the oceans, where we will eventually kill all of the life in our oceans and everything else on the planet.
NSPIRE, don't worry about KENDPOTTERS words. He does not listen to anyone but himself and has NO sense of humor. It is quite apparant, he also has a reading disability, it's the same on every thread he ever posts on. He appears to be very intelligent. Well, Robert MacNammara was an intelligent, over educated idiot. ___ Ken makes a thread interesting anyway.
PJD, it is not my opinions you are arguing with, all I do is offer opinions already stated by the hundreds of scientists who have studied the subject for many years. If one were to believe you, they would have to believe, that the areas where wind/solar/geo-thermal and tidal power have already been well proven to be adequate, safe, clean and reliable __ are wrong. Don't you believe they are correct? If so why not? What sensible arguments do you have? All you do is make innacurate statements and repeat them over and over.
KEN POTTER -- You mistook my comment (elsewhere) … I see that you're one semi-log (plot) short of a logjam … as humorous.
It's similar to (someone) being a few frys short of a happy meal.
"The tidal plant planned for San Francisco will have full power 16 hours a day, every day of every year."
And the other eight hours?
Yes, I know tides don't have anythig to do with waves.
Quiz:
1. How many high tides occur in a day.
2. When does a spring tide occur?
And I know the wind is always blowing somewhere, but it duesn't always blow everywhere. Can you please provide me with a study showing it is feasable to constantly shuttle power around on continuous, hour by hour basis across the area of a continent, as the weather changes.
There are places where the wind blows in very reliable diurnal cycles, but even in these places, the wind is light or calm for at least a few hours at night. Places where the wind is as constant as a multi-unit power plant are extremely rare.
KEM -- Thanks for taking the time to look into the details.
SF tidal will almost certainly have even more water soon, so perhaps even more energy?
Yes KENDPOTTER it was a good one, got it from Dr. Frederick O'Neill and Albert Einstien. __ Of course it wasn't a joke.
As I've said before, you are a true soplist, an intellect, who by use of clever wording and specious arguments, which may sound to be plausable, but are actually unsound and tend to mislead by the use of sophistry. You are quite good at it BTW. __ Not good enough, your love of nuclear energy is your bane.
I understand Benjamin Franklin learned quite a lot from flying a kite, why don't you give it a shot.
RE: kendpotter January 11th, 2008 11:27 am
"PaulMagillSmith,
I haven't seen any evidence that you know the difference between a bagel and a bequerel.
Ken"
I know what a bagel is, but I admit I'm a bit out of the loop on a "bequerel". Are you speaking of "bequerelle", the name of a French family & also a church the Germans blew up during WWI, or are you referencing a "becquerel", a unit of the measure of radioactivity? Maybe I'm not a nuclear physicist (I'll leave that field to my two brothers who invented a little radiation detection device called the NukAlert), but at least I don't cause confusion with mis-spellings.
We've only manufactured & sold a bit over 50,000 NukAlerts (www.nukalert.com), so far, so I can appreciate your ignorance of them, but come on, Ken, if you want to try to insult me at least spell your slings properly. If a person can use a computer they ought to be able to turn pages of a dictionary, unless their nuckles are sore from dragging on the ground perhaps LOL.
If you are looking for university degree credentials, although I have several, they are in other sciences than nuclear physics. To comment on the subject at hand I must rely on good research capabilities, common sense, and the opinions of the friend of a friend, Dr. Leuren Moret...ever heard of her? I would rather take her words to heart (since her published works & Congressional testimony are known worldwide), my brothers' (since I've seen their capabilities & accomplishments over almost six decades) than an obscure blogger on CD.
Commentarian,
Point taken, about making absolute statements concerning 20 years down the road. I should know better.
I know of no fashion possible to make 02 unable to do any of the normal things 02 does chemically, like become ozone under certain circumstances. That includes irradiation. There is naturally occurring oxygen in various isotopes from 15 (atomic weight) the most common, all the way up to 18 which is only 2% of molecular oxygen. None of these are radioactive and the isotopic form doesn't change any of oxygen's chemical properties. You have to recall that nuclear properties and chemical properties are two completely separate issues. You can take heavy hydrogen like deuterium or tritium (nuclear changes in atomic weight) and when you combine them with oxygen (a chemical reaction) they still form water. The number of neutrons in the atom have no effect on the chemical reaction. Chemically, oxygen does not have a stable ionic form. It either wants to pair with itself in a covalent bond or make rust somewhere. Ozone is actually an ionic form but it is not stable and the molecules do not last long in a normal enviroment.
KEM,
I see you are up (down) to your usual standards. The scientific quality of your input is truly astounding. Why don't you tell us the joke about how the nano-particle is equal to ten thousand chest x-rays again? That was a good one.
Ken
PJD, the tide is as constant and pre-programmed, as the rotation of the planet and it's moon. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the waves. The tidal plant planned for San Francisco will have full power 16 hours a day, every day of every year. It will produce twice the ammount of power needed for the entire Bay area. In some areas of the country, the sun shines 350 days a year and in some areas near coast lines and mountain passes, the wind NEVER ceases. In addition, the Solar Power towers, a combination of solar/wind would be somewhat effecient even during some hours of darkness.
A combination of wind/solar/tidal and geo-thermal, would supply us with far more energy than we could EVER use, and we'd have enough left over to crack sea water at a very afforable cost to produce hydrogen fuel and purify sea water for home and industrial use in large metro areas.
As Paul M. Smith, a highly educated man, a geologist among other things, the very brilliant man KENDPTTER is always so critical of, stated it so well here. It's a lack of fair funding which prevents us from being able to shut down all coal and nuclear power plants.
BBR-001. You say, making a melt down, much LESS likely. How likely __ is acceptable? How much deadly waste do we have to SAFELY store, FOREVER, when we use totally clean energy, solar/wind/tidal/geothermal ?
PJD -- Give us a break, and "respect [our] opinions more."
The (damn) current grid losses generation capability every few days, and they respond by bringing 'on-line' capability up, or purchase externally.
¿ Why do progressive ideas and people have to re-invent the tech that is already present and working ?
Instead of throwing sand, either throw light or shut off your generators, please. Your comments do NOT have to come as attacks, or the promises of 'good boy' bones, if we just think like you do (or want us too).
Kendpotter: remember you said that about cold fusion, say 20 years from now. I see you're a funny guy from your posts, but for the audience here, the higher atmospheric ozone is essential to our existence (it regulates how much UV light hits the surface of the planet), which is why O2 that will not ozonate would be a serious problem. Ren ren: the O3 on ground level is a pollution problem if over 0.04 ppm in concentration. Ozone filters should have a safety level of that so they do not exceed this level. Atmospheric science and Ozone reactions are very complex as any student of air pollution science knows.
Kem,
They are not speaking directly to the cost of generation. They are speaking to the cost to avoid a ton of carbon emissions.
For those technologies that emit no carbon in generation it would be a direct comparison of relative costs (i.e. you can use it to compare the relative cost of nuclear vs wind vs wave).
For those technologies that reduce carbon but are not carbon emission free (such as microgeneration or biomass) it is a much more complex presentation. It does show that microgeneration is not very effective to reduce global warming.
The chart's value is in the context of global warming gasses, not in the context of the cost of electricty.
Regards,
Bill
I think the Brits can handle nukes if anyone can, and the new designs have better passive shutdown capability, making a meltdown much less likely. It is better than building more coal plants if you do it right. They did have a couple screw ups in the cold war era.
There was a "driveway moment" story on npr this morning. People living near landfills outside Naples, Italy are dropping like flies. Apparently organized crime has infiltrated the waste management industry there, and no one knows what kind of chemical or radiologic crap, or how much is in landfills designed only for municipal waste.
Nuclear energy is not compatible with a society that can let something like that happen. I'm not too sure about the US.
Please remember this history here, the only reason we have any nuclear power is that the subs needed to run silently and for long periods.
The idiot corpofascists just provided a slight face-lift to create the nuclear power industry (out of a mostly useless navy design), which has never been "profitable" other than from the perspective of the payoffs to construct the plants (and/or license the tech, or receive the bribes to sell the tech illegally - to wit, Sibel Edmond's case).
And as Jack Kennedy mentioned (roughly), these devils dance with death deviously (and propel further nuclear de-stabilization - to max out their creditability to make even more destructive, if not cataclysmic WAR)
Once again, I see all kinds of proposals brezzely propoosed for alternate energy sources without any discussion of the technical issues.
What do you propose when the wind stops blowing, the sea is calm, the sky is cloudy, and the four times a day that the tide is slack. (these probelms could be largely addressed with a centrally adminnstered transcontinental power grid, but many here are against that too. So if you write, "we will have to learn to live with regular, but usually predictable power outages and/or rationing", I would respect your opinions more.
KENDPOTTER
The only thing you ever see is the interior of your colon.
KEM
I live between Limerick and Philly. So I guess my bequerels better go well with cream cheese. A little Sr-90 in the milk, and I guess they do!
PaulMagillSmith,
I haven't seen any evidence that you know the difference between a bagel and a bequerel.
Ken
RE: nukewasted January 11th, 2008 5:57 am
Your pseudonym seems quite appropriate, while your comment of assuming those who oppose proliferation of nuclear usage, as ignorant of well established proven facts, speaks of your own ill placed self-righteous worth & bias. The jury of public opinion & scientific fact has ruled in favor of alternative power generation methods, so get over it. Would you rather be part of mankind's solutions, or continue to propagate problems?
Nuclear power, and others such as coal fired power plants, are the patient going into the doctor's office proclaiming, "Doc, it hurts when I do this", to which the logical rational healer replies, "Well, just don't do that".
This nuclear Rolls Royce has taken us for a too expensive ride for too long now. It's time to get out & take an alternative form of transport. The majority of the world's population have, in aggregate, more right to 'life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness' than a few fat cats in a luxury vehicle.
ubrew12--
"Nuclear power has received 1 trillion dollars in tax dollars for research in the U.S. over the last 40 years."
About 20-25 years ago, George McGovern said that if we invested the cost of a single aircraft carrier in photovoltaics, we'd be able to produce solar generated electricity at a competitive price.
One more piece of advice from McGovern that we should have listened to.
I marvel at the lack of knowlage about nuclear power out there. Educate yourselves without the bias.
My favorite part of these discussions is how little a Conservation Strategy is mentioned, and how a Low-use Electric or Non-Electric Future is NEVER brought up.
Electric Power Generation at Centralized Locations then Grid-Distribution is the problem short term.
And Technical not Biological Energy Reliance is the problem long term.
The focus seems stuck in the middle term.
-matti.
Kem, the tidal power project was a result of a competition in the '70s between universities in Britain to produce a viable alternative power generating system. A Scottish uni. invented the " nodding ducks " which do two jobs at the same time. They smooth the seas surface and produce power this means harbour walls are not required and land erosion is halted.
France have an enormous number of Nuclear power plants so it makes little difference to the British living on the south coast of England if the nuclear plants are in Scotland or northern England and it's the southerners who run the country.
Denmark are the leaders in the wind generating field and many wind turbines are being built around the coast of Britain.
nuclear power has received 1 trillion dollars in tax dollars for research in the U.S. over the last 40 years (current $).
It's also received 1 trillion dollars in the UK in the last 40 years (current $).
Now, if alternatives had received anywhere NEAR that kind of money we'd all be generating power from solar, wind, salinity gradients, wave, hydro, etc. (OK, not really, some would still have to come from nuclear, which is a good alternative).
My point is this: the 'alternatives' presented to the people as 'viable' are 'viable' precisely because the gov't (controlled by very $$$$ interests) funded them with tax dollars. Alternatives have largely had to fund themselves over the last 40 years while nuclear got a free ride. And here we are, 40 years later, and alternatives are STILL there, and getting cheaper all the time. Shame on the gov't for misusing our tax dollars against us!!!
Here is a good good starting point for research on 'ocean power':
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/ocean_power/index.html
Hey Billy, Kem, ezyflyer, et.al,
Imagine if instead of investing $145 bn in nuclear over the past 50 years, and only $5 bn in renewables, the numbers had been reversed. Frankly, isn't it foolish to keep throwing good money after a failed idea, when there are better options?
Rather than argue the de-merits of nuclear I've been trying to make my time more productive by researching alternatives. After minimul research effort it is easy to conclude other options are much more acceptable WITH the proper funding. The project in San Francisco (San Francisco Tidal Power Project)has been held up since 2004 for lack of funding, although there is little argument it is completely doable. The politics are in the way and being swayed by the existing BIG Energy interests.
I'm certain, that with the Queen of England sitting on an estimated $8-10 billion in uranium assets, she is twisting quite a number of arms to favor her financial position. I thought it was an obligation of the monarchy to protect the commoner in return for their fealty. Well it sure doesn't appear she's holding up her end of the bargain. I mean, it's bad enough trying to sweep the massive amounts of radioactive waste under the rug in a country as expansive as ours, so doing it on a small island (comparitively) is surely worse, especially with a higher average population density there than here.
From the studying I've done I can say with much certainty we have all the energy resources we need right here, in renewables...especially tidal, geothermal, wind, & solar...to make hydrocarbons AND nuclear passe technologies. The entrenched energy interests are going to fight tooth & nail to maintain the status quo, but time is running out, so we must join together and FORCE change.
BTW, the tidal project for San Francisco I told Kem about had an estimated cost of $600 million to provide twice the needs of the entire Bay Area, virtually forever, with no down time, and without radioactive waste dispoSal problems. Doesn't this seem a better investment than paying for only PART of the construction costs of ONE nuclear power plant?
Hi BILLY. I wonder if you have heard of corporation named HYDRO VENTURI? They are based in London and now have an office in San Francisco. They are operating a pilot project in Great Britian, using tidal power to generate electrical power. They plan on building a system in San Francisco that will eventally develop twice the engry needs of that city and metro area.
PAUL MAGILL SMITH gave me the information on this project, which has been approved by the city council of San Fran.
It is very cost effiective, developing 2,000 megawats at an average cost of six cent per kilowatt hour, about one third the cost of nuclear energy and a renuable, emmission free energy for up to 16 hours a day. They will sell excess electricty and have their cake and eat it too. That type of system is viable up and down our coast lines. Combine that with solar, wind and geo-thermal and who loses? ___ Who wins, ___ is the real and most important question?
How will those new plants work when the roads are under 20 feet of ice. Downed power lines and frozen pipes. Nuclear is part of the problem, not a solution. Each plant is a bloom of heat that stokes global climate change. Look at the IPCC ice core chart to see what happens when the temperature trigger point is reached.
Go solar, wind and tides, with decentralized grid and power.
Paul B,
You are correct that oil depletion/dependence is used as an argument for nuclear. This is disingenuous at best. Nuclear is not a direct substitute for oil. Very little oil is used for power generation.
Nuclear does displace coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas as fuel. It does not really compete with truly renewable sources of electricity either, except for captial.
The only way nuclear is a substitute for oil is if electricity displaces oil for space heating or transportation.
Bill
I get the feeling that oil is foil against nuclear. Keep in mind that not even a century ago Kuwait and Iraq, etc. were British colonies. Saudi Arabia, as well, has only been independent from the UK for 80 years or so.
So when did these UK colonies go from despotically governed to uncontrollable bad guys? Now that the Anglo-American Empire controls Iraqi oil, why has gasoline become so expensive? Halliburton itself is now based in Dubai. If dependence on mideast oil is such a nasty thing, the West should probably quit electing henchmen for OPEC, etc. who then explain how nasty the mideast is, and argue for subsidizing nuclear. They nail us coming and going.
Why is nuclear waste a problem? There must be thousands of terrorists out there willing to purchase it. Think of it as a win/win situation.
Shakker,
Yes, there is a massive subsidy for nuclear power and other non CO2 emitting forms of power generation. It is called cap and trade. This artificially raises the cost of fossil generated electricity with which non emitting generation must compete.
Wind generation is actually growing briskly in England. Nuclear is just on paper at this time.
Bill
If investors put their money into nuclear power, you know there are big subsidies by the english taxpayer.
If there is not massive subsidy and liability protection the new plants will stay safely on the drawing board.
"The "geological disposal" of nuclear waste was both "technically possible and the right approach," said Hutton."
"geological disposal" anywhere on planet earth guarantees its radioactive contamination, bioconcentration and the end of life on earth.
I see it was produced by the Australian Uranium Association, and the company/entity which conducted the British opinion polls was unnamed. It did mention the British Labour party. But as I indicated earlier, there have been reports of heavy lobbying (some of it possibly criminal, if I recall) between the nuclear lobby and British Labour.
Paul B:
My original source for the statistic is www.uic.com.au/nip84.htm. Since this is a clearly pronuclear source, I googled to see if I could find any other statistics. All the google results were either older or corroborated the uic information.
I have never found uic to be factually incorrect other than a minor technical error which they promptly corrected when I emailed them. They have a wealth of information.
Regards,
Bill
Billy_y4,
What's your source?
The great majority of Americans, for instance, have long been skewed away from their own class interests by the MSM and ruling class. Again, this skewing is not natural -- and is very carefully calculated by large sums of money, media monopolization, and carefully framed public opinion polls. One trick to frame things into a false dualism of pre-canned and limited choices. This is undoubtedly made easier here since GE and Westinghouse own/owned big interests two television networks.
KEM,
Most of the uranium mines in Africa are located in Mali and owned by the French (state owned) corporation Areva (used to be Framantone).
Commentarian,
Oxygen does not want to become ozone (O3) under ordinary circumstances. It is stable and quite happy as O2. It is primarily created in the upper atmosphere as a result of cosmic radiation colliding with molecules of O2.
Cold fusion is a myth. Modern day snake-oil.
Ken
Paul B:
You said: "It goes to show you how much people hate nuclear"
The latest statistic I could find:
"UK public opinion on the question of maintaining the share of electricity provided by nuclear power by building new reactors has reversed from 20% support and 60% oppose in July 2001, to 41% for and 28% against in November 2005."
Scotland is, at this time, clearly opposed to replacing the nuclear power plant in that country which is near end of life. That opinion is being honored by BE. All of the new plants are tentatively planned to be collocated with existing smaller nuclear plants in England and Wales.
Bill
Billy:
None of those countries is or even wants to be a nuclear weapons state. Its pretty much still the original Cold War club (US, UK, Russia, China)along with Israel, France, India and Pakistan. Maybe South Africa (ultimate honky equalizer)and someday(?)North Korea. (Kim Il wasshisface having the bomb is as scary as it gets!)
Even the former Soviet Republics are saying "Get these things(bombs)outta here!"
We do have to keep an eye on Iran. They could by a turn-key plant and uranium supply contract from several countries in a heartbeat. They don't need to be fooling around with centrifuges...
Duh! You were joking!
Denverjomo,
England is already well ahead of the US in electric cars. Electric vehicles are exempt from the congestion charge in London and thus their sales are fairly brisk.
Bill
Beam me up, Scotty!
http://www.aecl.ca/Assets/Publications/Fact+Sheets/ACR-1000.pdf