Nuclear Power Debate Heats Up
MADRID - French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown are about to agree on a new generation of nuclear power plants in London this week, and plan to export the technology to the rest of the world, according to unconfirmed reports.
Downing Street has refrained from commenting on news of the deal, which was reported last week by The Guardian, a British newspaper. The move would fly in the face of the opinions of Germany and Spain, which wish to gradually phase out all nuclear plants for safety reasons, and generate electricity from renewable sources instead.
The governments of Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and Chancellor Angela Merkel will be observing closely as Brown and Sarkozy meet at the Arsenal football club’s stadium in London on Thursday. The summit is an additional sign that France is drifting closer to the U.K. and away from Germany, say analysts.
Potential Anglo-French cooperation on nuclear power will reopen the debate within the European Union between those in favour of shutting down nuclear reactors and those who support nuclear power because of its allegedly lower environmental impact, compared with oil, and due to the sky-high prices of crude.
Zapatero, of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE), who was reelected to a second four-year term on Mar. 9, said that his country would choose renewable energy sources rather than the “easy option” of nuclear energy, as long as the serious problems posed by radioactive waste disposal have not been solved.
The prime minister’s anti-nuclear position has not budged since the political agreement he signed with the Green Party prior to the legislative elections of 2004, in which he promised to gradually abandon nuclear energy in Spain in favour of safer, cleaner and cheaper alternatives.
Two months later, as prime minister, he announced that the Santa María Garoña nuclear power station in Burgos would be decommissioned by 2009, to be followed by the remaining seven plants, and said he would not authorise the construction of any new nuclear reactors.
The Garoña plant came on-stream in 1971, with an estimated useful life of 40 years. Its owners, the Endesa and Iberdrola power companies, now say that it can operate without risk for another 20 years and are asking the government not to close it down.
The two firms argue that nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels, and point out that it is advisable not to depend on other countries for electricity generation.
The nuclear power plant at Guadalajara, which was older than the Garoña station, was closed in 2006. The PSOE negotiated an agreement to dismantle it with the then ruling Popular Party in 2002, while the socialists were in opposition, although they were in power when the time came to shut it down.
That precedent puts the extension requested by Endesa and Iberdrola out of the question.
The soaring oil prices are changing the minds of people in Europe who turned against nuclear power after the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, in 1986, and uncertainty about the energy model Europe should follow is increasing daily.
The debate is also happening among the oldest and most industrialised EU member states, which do not want slower growth, and are beginning to view nuclear energy as an alternative to the energy crisis.
Central and Eastern European countries are refusing to dismantle their old Soviet-era reactors by 2009, as requested by the EU, arguing that the nuclear plants ensure their energy supply.
Today it is the governments of Germany and Spain that are most firmly opposed to nuclear power plants.
Spain must resist the temptation of using nuclear power, and must opt for renewable energy sources, as its vast capacity for solar and wind energy would make it a world leader, Zapatero said in a radio interview two days before the recent elections.
But even within the PSOE there are those who differ with the prime minister, such as former Prime Minister Felipe González, former Industry Minister Juan Manuel Eguiagaray, EU Economic Affairs Commissioner Joaquín Almunia, and EU High Representative for Security and Foreign Policy, Javier Solana.
There is also division within the conservative PP, where a minority in favour of extending the nuclear moratorium coexists with party leader Mariano Rajoy, former Prime Minister José María Aznar and their followers, who favour a return to nuclear power.
Nuclear physics expert Guillermo Valverde said in a report for the Foundation for Analysis and Social Studies (FAES), headed by Aznar, that Spain’s high energy dependence and its Kyoto Protocol commitments underline the advantages of nuclear energy for the country.
The Kyoto Protocol requires industrialised countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, most of which arise from burning fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal.
The London summit meeting may reopen, at national and European levels, the discussion that was silenced by the tragedy at Chernobyl and also, possibly, for electoral reasons.
The general secretary of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (CCOO), José María Hidalgo, has said that he is in favour of the debate, which can be frank and uninhibited in Spain, now that the elections are over.
© 2008 Inter Press Service
Nuclear power requires the outsourcing of carbon emissions. The acquisition and processing of fuel for nuclear power plants is a highly carbon-emission production operation. For Britain and France to choose this option over domestic carbon-emission-heavy energy production options is reminiscent of their respective endeavours in colonial resource theft.
It is a shell game.
Britain and France must choose conservation if they are to honestly fulfill their Kyoto commitments. At the same time, they must embrace what Germany and Spain cogently see as the future of energy production.
The party is nearing its end, and there will never be a party like the one that’s been going on. It’s time to prepare for the hangover, and to think about what to do the next day.
The first and foremost thing is: ENSURE THERE IS ANOTHER DAY.
The mining, transportation, processing and disposal of uranium results in the burning of lots of fossil fuel (not to mention the fossil fuel used to construct new nuclear power plants).
With the upcoming proliferation of new nuclear plants in the US and in many other nations, the high quality, easily extracted uranium will be used up quickly. The more difficult to extract, lower grade uranium that remains will require burning more fossil fuel to mine and process per kilowatt of power generated.
The greenhouse gases that result from nuclear power production, however will not be the worst aspect of choosing nuclear over renewables. The proliferation of additional nuclear material will cause more health problems and increase the risk of very destructive terrorist activity.
On the positive side, nuclear material disposal creates lots of job opportunity. Not long ago, my employer offered me job opportunities at disposal sites Rocky Flats, Colorado or Hanford,Washington with unbelievable job security…500,000 years ! Needless to say I jumped ship shortly thereafter.
The Debate is over, it has been over since 2003, and with improvements since then, it is really over big time. Putting Global warming aside and just discussing the economics of the thing, Wind produces 5 times more electricity than nuclear on a equal cost basis. It produces 3 times more jobs. Wind doesn’t produce radioactive waste, wind can’t cause a nuclear catastrophe in case of a terrorist attack…this is a no brainer Nuclear makes no sense, no wonder venture capitalists are pouring their money into wind but won’t touch nuclear with a 10 foot pole…nuclear made sense 50 years ago it does not make sense today! Sarkozy better do what is smart and morally correct and not what is stupid and corrupt, otherwise the French people will bring back the Guillotine!
If the choice is between the battery technology necessary to make wind and solar workable and nuclear, I’ll take the battery option. Dirty, toxic, and not without substantial energy input, but not as dangerous as accumulation of waste biologicaly harmful for hundreds of thousands of years.
Lets start the proposals for this insane idea right after the repeal of Price Anderson. Thats the 1958 bill that gives us as taxpayers the liability for nuclear accidents, since insurance companies wouldn’t even consider doing so.
To phrase the debate in terms of nuclear energy versus renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.) leaves renewable energy the clear winner. Unfortunately , to reflect reality, the debate must be coal and oil versus nuclear. In Spain, for example, 3% of energy is from renewables, 10% from nuclear. Fossil fuels are burned for over 80% of Spain’s energy.
True, building nuclear power plants as well as transporting and mining uranium is not carbon neutral. However, no matter how you break it down, nuclear power results in much less carbon emissions, and far less air pollution. Remember that a lot of our oil comes from the Middle East, thousands of miles away.
Objectivity is almost always missing from anti-nuclear debates, as evidenced in this article which makes it sound like by closing the nuclear power plants, all of the energy would be coming from lovely windmills. Simply not the case.
” thewonderingyou March 26th, 2008 10:17 am
Nuclear power requires the outsourcing of carbon emissions.”
Huh, head-scratcher this one is; but who are they going to ‘outsource’ the emissions to, and are there any takers on this “offer” yet? Businesses outsource, f.e., work to contractors, including foreigners in their own countries, en masse too; but outsourcing CO2 emissions? I don’t imagine that there’d be any takers, and figure that ‘production’ must be what’s meant; I think.
Or maybe what’s meant by that is that the CO2-producing part of the overall operation would be done elsewhere than in the USA; like the US paying some other country to do this part or phase. ?
As for others on wind generation of electricity or simply usable power, it seems like a fine idea to me, as long as it’s determined how to make these so that they don’t wipe out avians. Other than for that personal concern, the only serious issue I’ve heard or read of there being with wind generation of power is that people don’t like to look out their home windows with endless wind mils to fill up the view.
I am not totally certain of this, but think that the province of Quebec is in a good position for setting up wind generation of power and without disturbing anyone’s scenery. If, f.e., the Gulf of St Lawrence or the St Lawrence Seaway Gulf, how ever it is called, has sufficient winds, then the govt could install very many wind mills there.
Wind mills, or whatever they’re called. Turbines, maybe?
There was a lot of anger when RFK Jr et al killed a wind mill project hoped for placement off of either Martha’s Vineyard or a nearby island, killing this due to the wealthy elites with residences there not wanting their scenery filled up with these mills. I don’t think I’d like it, either, though could surely become accustomed to the reality, if it was made reality; whereever I’d be living. At first, though; no, I wouldn’t be appreciative of the idea.
However, I wonder if they gave any thought to alternatively placing the mills further away on the ocean, so that they wouldn’t mess up views from land. It’d cost a little more for the extra cabling, whatever, I guess; but money doesn’t seem to be a real problem in the U.S., when it is conducting a war of aggression that has been estimated to eventually total $3TN in cost, and with that being only the U.S.A.’s share of the cost; there being another $3TN in cost for the rest of the world. So I read anyway.
The extra cabling surely wouldn’t cost anywhere as much as nuclear plants do; ETC.
So I wonder why such a project that seemed to be otherwise fully agreed to was killed. Would it be because RFK Jr et al, and behind closed doors, worked with the nuclear and oil industry elites? I wonder; wondering being like a constant thing with me.
Mike, when it comes down to a choice of people living, or some avians (birds) dying…screw the birds. The people who complain about looking out their windows,then complaining windmills aren’t as aesthetically appealing as what they are used to…they are birdbrains, too.
Are you aware of the recent articles showing if a human lives within 30 Km of a nuclear plant they have a greater risk of dying early than if they don’t live near one? What effect does this have on birds (think canary in a coalmine)? Many of these studies come from Spain & Germany. Is this a reason they reject the option of nuclear power?
Uranium, just like oil (or even eventually coal) is finite, and will run out. We’d all better get used to windmills because they are the future, while other fossil fuel & nuclear methods of power generation represent the past. The only thing that keeps them in the public discourse at present is the greed of a very few elites who stand to gain massive amounts of money at the expense of the majority, i.e. we’re being scammed.
Tidal, wind, geothermal, and solar have the ability to meet the whole world’s energy needs, but are continually blocked by the current energy producers because of greed & a desire to control all of us. Frankly, I’d much rather see windmills turning out my back door, than the ugly dome & heat exchange stacks of a nuclear power plant.
We are in complete agreement about the absurd cost of this insane war. If we had spent our money wisely a few decades ago, going with ‘green’ existing technologies instead of nuclear & fossil fuels, we wouldn’t have needed to invade other countries to STEAL their oil, and the rest of the world would see us as the solution rather than the greatest problem.
Gotta change the way we think. With the time, money, and resources we’ve pissed away fighting the inevitable change to ‘green’, it might already be too late.
Screw the birds & the birdbrained. Let’s get busy…the clock is still ticking on humans for a decent standard of life…or our species’ survival even.
thewonderingyou,
Nuclear power has about the same carbon footprint as PV solar; and a little bit more than wind. From a carbon standpoint, nuclear needs to rank with the renewables, regardless of how uncomfortable that makes you feel.
Nuclear has no CO2 emissions during operation. Its carbon footprint comes from building and dismantling the power plant and mining and processsing the uranium fuel.
Approximate numbers in grams CO2/kilowatthour:
Coal 900
Natural Gas 400
PV solar 40
Nuclear 25
Wind 15
(The exact numbers will vary depending on the study you look at.)
Germany and Spain are both wrestling with adding new coal fired generation. That really is the tradeoff: coal vs nuclear. In Germany, at least, it is the power and money of the coal industry and the coal miners union that is driving the anti-nuclear agenda.
Bill
Birdflewunder,
Do you have a credible reference for your economic claims?
It is true that wind is the fastest growing power generation source in the US at this time. It is a very attractive investment because of renewable generation credits. As long as the production credits last (Congress is very fickle but they are intended to be permanent) adequate return on investment is essentially assured.
Baseload electricity is the power that is always there and always needed (think your refrigerator at 3am or the emergency room at the hospital). It is generally provided by either coal or nuclear in the US. Wind is not a consistent and reliable source of power and is unsuited to baseload. In most locations, when wind generation is working, gas powered reserves used for peaking are taken offline.
Bill
Andersdl and Paul,
Uranium is mined from the earth today because that is the lowest cost source. The spot market price recently spiked a little over $100 per pound because of short term availability issues. The cost of production is, however, much lower than that (think ~$15/pound).
Seawater contains uranium and the Japanese have prototyped a seawater extraction system that should cost less than $200 per pound. (They are obviously not going to commerciallize it when uranium is available on the market for less than half that price.) Seawater is not an inexhaustable source but it should be good for a couple of thousand years.
Bill
US consumers should not be concerned about people and planet. You should instead embrace the luxury and convenience that the capitalist offers via monopoly energy utilities. Let the capitalist assist you in taking care of nobody else but you and God bless the United States of America!
The Brits are building a 1 gW windfarm in the North Sea called the London Array. The builders expect it to cost about $3bn, but its new territory. The cost of a nuclear reactor of similar output has in the US has ranged as high as $5bn, but is substantially less in France, and Westinghouse claims its standardized A1000 will eventually cost as low as $1bn with a 60 year life, but it still would have fuel, waste disposal and decommisioning costs. The costs are more or less in the same ballpark.
The London Array will cover 90 square miles in shallow water with almost constant wind, and is a convenient distance from greater London. One, two or more large nuclear reactors, each equivalent to this giant windfarm, can be placed on less than 1000 acres along a river or bay almost anywhere in the world.
There are advantages to each technology. Wind is clean but takes a lot of area and good locations. Nuclear is compact, very powerful and steady, but has the radioactive waste problem. Both technologies replace fossil fuels and have a place in our future. Both technologies will continue to develop with experience, and nuclear has the potential to become low waste and essentially “renewable” some day.
We have no “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions. Even Kyoto signatories are building ships and coal fired plants, extending runways for more aircraft…
Thanks, Billy, for bringing the reality of the ‘tradeoff’ Spain & Germany are making with coal. I do have an issue with you here for exclusion of vital information, to wit:
“Nuclear has no CO2 emissions during operation. Its carbon footprint comes from building and dismantling the power plant and mining and processsing the uranium fuel.”
The 1 kiloton gorilla in the room is your failure to deal with nuclear waste disposal in your equation. With the even current rate of inflation where does that put us fiscally in say a hundred years…compounded. We’re buying a pig in a poke here. We don’t really know what waste storage and/or disposal will cost in the future, OR even if it is possible, OR will be done properly (safely). Why take unnecessary risk?
Fund the ones I mentioned in the earlier post (tidal, wind, geothermal, & solar) and we are debating a moot issue. We meet eye-to-eye on burning coal, Billy, but otherwise on nuclear. I still have the highest respect for you though, Billy, but what I’m wondering now is where is KEM?
BBR,
With the recent runup in raw materials, particularly construction steel and concrete, the cost of nuclear plant construction has escalated. FPL, which I believe is planning 2 new EPR reactors at Turkey Point, has priced them, with some infrastructure at something like $15B. It has not deterred their filings however.
In your comparisons between nuclear and wind, remember the comparative capacity factors: Onshore wind is about 30%, offshore wind about 40%, and nuclear about 90%.
Bill
Paul,
I certainly agree that progress needs to be made on the ultimate waste disposal questions. I do not personally think that this is a serious technical issue but it certainly is a political hot potato and a perception problem. In other words, it needs to be dealt with in a politically responsible manner (not the long suit of our current administration).
The used fuel inventory constitutes an enormous energy supply and should not be considered or disposed of as waste. Only about 3% of the potential nuclear power in the fuel has been consumed with one pass through a light water reactor.
Technologically, the best solution for used fuel is probably a fleet of fast (or epithermal) reactors generating either electricity, fresh water or possibly hydrogen.
The fast reactors would use the used fuel as feed stock after necessary reprocessing. Reprocessing has a very high level radioactive waste stream that must be disposed of. This is the appropriate material to go to Yucca mountain or a similar repository elsewhere. It is intensely radioactive but would die out to near background in less than 500 years.
Fast reactors and reprocessing for used fuel processing need to be addressed and work initiated but they are not on the critical path to reducing global warming with nuclear power. For that, the current suite of available water cooled reactors is suitable (at least for the US market).
Kem appears to be MIA but I did see him on another string.
Bill
Bill
Germany and Spain are not adding new coal fired power stations, and the choice is not between coal and nukes, two bad options, but between those bad options and clean renewable energy.
Germany, Spain, Belguim, Sweden and the Netherlands have all pledged to phase out nuclear energy. In 2002 the German parliament was presented with an energy scenario according to which their entire supply could be achieved through renewable forms of energy, which naturally excludes nuclear power and coal. That year some 30 000 people were employed in the nuclear industry, on the other hand 53 000 people are now presently employed in that country on wind power alone, and 120 000 people in the renewable energy sector as a whole.
German engineers are currently working on a ‘Combined Power Plant’ which links and controls 36 wind, solar, biomass and hydropower installations throughout the country, making the power supply as reliable as any large scale conventional power station.
Finally, Nanosolar from Silicon Valley recently announced they can reduce the cost of photvoltaic solar units by 80% using a new manufacturing process.
Renewable energy is getting cheaper by the day, but decommissioning costs for nuclear plants in the UK are now “out of control”. With nuclear energy we are leaving a terrible legacy to future generations no matter which way you look at it.
I’m here BILLY. Had to drive 200 miles yesterday to see a doctor about my one good eye. He said the macular degeneration has stopped and said I’ll be dead and gone long before I go totally blind. __ So good news there.
I enjoyed the ride and still love driving, didn’t see many cars on the road, guess the high fuel prices are starting to have an effect on traffic. Of course my wife said there were lots of cars and trucks, she slept in the back seat on the way home, had pillows stacked all around her. She’s funny some times.
Hey guys, you are talking forty, fifty, even a hundred years here. ___ How come?___ We aren’t going to be here in twenty years, ___ none of us, or our children and their kids.
ZAP!! That Arctic methane gas I harp on is going to burst out into the atmosphere any time now and kill all of us. So don’t worry about the small shit like nuclear energy. and fossil fuels.
___GOOGLE ____ arctic methane gas.
Then scroll down to the article titled __ ~Methane burps, a Ticking Time Bomb~__.
If you don’t like what it says, IGNORE IT. Read articles on the subject such as the ones Rush Limb-boo quotes and feel good about it and continue to write comments and argue with Billy about nuclear energy, versus solar wind/power.
Buttt, just keep in mind, that perhaps the author of that article is totally correct, and then think about your kids or grandkids. ___ Do you really care about them?
Another wonderful read is geologist, Michael J. Benton’s book, “When Life Nearly Died, The Greatest Mass Extinction In All Of Time”.
The leaders of this man polluted world, better get their shit together and initiate a MASSIVE program to eleminate the use of fossil fuels and do it right away quick. Then start doing away with nuclear energy plants before that stupid disaster gets totally out of control.