Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Japan shuts down last Nuke Plant.

V

Vaughn

Jan 1, 1970
0
Now we see the second half of the Fukushima environmental disaster. This
half will likely cause worse, longer lasting, and much wider damage than
the first half, but it won't make headlines. Japan has overreacted by
abandoning nuclear power. Since they haven't had the time to make up
the gap with alternative energy sources, it's safe to say the they are
doing it with fossil plants, and like China, doing so with little or no
regard to emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/05/japan-shuts-down-last-nuclear-reactor

Vaughn
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
Vaughn said:
Now we see the second half of the Fukushima environmental disaster.
This half will likely cause worse, longer lasting, and much wider
damage than the first half, but it won't make headlines. Japan has
overreacted by abandoning nuclear power. Since they haven't had the
time to make up the gap with alternative energy sources, it's safe to
say the they are doing it with fossil plants, and like China, doing
so with little or no regard to emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/05/japan-shuts-down-last-nuclear-reactor

After what nuclear power plants did to Japan, I'd hardly say they have
"overreacted".
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
Roberto said:
And what have nuclear power plants done to Japan ?

40 years of prosperity ?
less polluted cities ?
less energy dependence ?

You seem to be forgetting something.
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
Roberto said:
And what have nuclear power plants done to Japan ?

40 years of prosperity ?
less polluted cities ?
less energy dependence ?

from
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...shed-because-it-is-good-for-making-bombs.html

Forbes points out:

Nuclear power is no longer an economically viable source of new energy in the
United States, the freshly-retired CEO of Exelon, America's largest producer of
nuclear power [who also served on the president's Blue Ribbon Commission on
America's Nuclear Future], said in Chicago Thursday.

And it won't become economically viable, he said, for the forseeable future.

***

"I'm the nuclear guy," Rowe said. "And you won't get better results with
nuclear. It just isn't economic, and it's not economic within a foreseeable time
frame."

U.S. News and World Report notes:

After the Fukushima power plant disaster in Japan last year, the rising costs
of nuclear energy could deliver a knockout punch to its future use in the United
States, according to a researcher at the Vermont Law School Institute for Energy
and the Environment.

"From my point of view, the fundamental nature of [nuclear] technology
suggests that the future will be as clouded as the past," says Mark Cooper, the
author of the report. New safety regulations enacted or being considered by the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission would push the cost of nuclear energy too
high to be economically competitive.

The disaster insurance for nuclear power plants in the United States is
currently underwritten by the federal government, Cooper says. Without that
safeguard, "nuclear power is neither affordable nor worth the risk. If the
owners and operators of nuclear reactors had to face the full liability of a
Fukushima-style nuclear accident or go head-to-head with alternatives in a truly
competitive marketplace, unfettered by subsidies, no one would have built a
nuclear reactor in the past, no one would build one today, and anyone who owns a
reactor would exit the nuclear business as quickly as possible."

Alternet reports:

An authoritative study by the investment bank Lazard Ltd. found that wind beat
nuclear and that nuclear essentially tied with solar. But wind and solar, being
simple and safe, are coming on line faster. Another advantage wind and solar
have is that capacity can be added bit by bit; a wind farm can have more or less
turbines without scuttling the whole project. As economies of scale are created
within the alternative energy supply chains and the construction process becomes
more efficient, prices continue to drop. Meanwhile, the cost of stalled nukes
moves upward.

AP noted last year:

Nuclear power is a viable source for cheap energy only if it goes uninsured.

***

Governments that use nuclear energy are torn between the benefit of low-cost
electricity and the risk of a nuclear catastrophe, which could total trillions
of dollars and even bankrupt a country.

The bottom line is that it's a gamble: Governments are hoping to dodge a
one-off disaster while they accumulate small gains over the long-term.

The cost of a worst-case nuclear accident at a plant in Germany, for example,
has been estimated to total as much as ?7.6 trillion ($11 trillion), while the
mandatory reactor insurance is only ?2.5 billion.

"The ?2.5 billion will be just enough to buy the stamps for the letters of
condolence," said Olav Hohmeyer, an economist at the University of Flensburg who
is also a member of the German government's environmental advisory body.

The situation in the U.S., Japan, China, France and other countries is
similar.

***

"Around the globe, nuclear risks - be it damages to power plants or the
liability risks resulting from radiation accidents - are covered by the state.
The private insurance industry is barely liable," said Torsten Jeworrek, a board
member at Munich Re, one of the world's biggest reinsurance companies.

***

In financial terms, nuclear incidents can be so devastating that the cost of
full insurance would be so high as to make nuclear energy more expensive than
fossil fuels.

***

Ultimately, the decision to keep insurance on nuclear plants to a minimum is a
way of supporting the industry.

"Capping the insurance was a clear decision to provide a non-negligible
subsidy to the technology," Klaus Toepfer, a former German environment minister
and longtime head of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), said.

See this and this.

This is an ongoing battle, not ancient history. As Harvey Wasserman reports:

The only two US reactor projects now technically under construction are on the
brink of death for financial reasons.

If they go under, there will almost certainly be no new reactors built here.

***

Georgia's double-reactor Vogtle project has been sold on the basis of federal
loan guarantees. Last year President Obama promised the Southern Company, parent
to Georgia Power, $8.33 billion in financing from an $18.5 billion fund that had
been established at the Department of Energy by George W. Bush. Until last week
most industry observers had assumed the guarantees were a done deal. But the
Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group, has publicly complained that
the Office of Management and Budget may be requiring terms that are unacceptable
to the builders.

***

The climate for loan guarantees has changed since this one was promised. The
$535 million collapse of Solyndra prompted a rash of angry Congressional
hearings and cast a long shadow over the whole range of loan guarantees for
energy projects. Though the Vogtle deal comes from a separate fund, skepticism
over stalled negotiations is rising.

So is resistance among Georgia ratepayers. To fund the new Vogtle reactors,
Southern is forcing "construction work in progress" rate hikes that require
consumers to pay for the new nukes as they're being built. Southern is free of
liability, even if the reactors are not completed. Thus it behooves the company
to build them essentially forever, collecting payment whether they open or not.

All that would collapse should the loan guarantee package fail.
 
V

Vaughn

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Sat, 05 May 2012 14:53:27 -0700, Bob F wrote:


Correct.

But I though we where writing about Japan.
Japan has no shale gas. No coal. No oil.
And that changes the economics dramatically.

All true. Also, the economic argument is beside the point because Japan
already had the nuke plants, so the construction costs were all sunk.
Last I heard, fuel costs for an existing nuke plant are cheap compared
to alternatives.

Vaughn
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
Vaughn said:
All true. Also, the economic argument is beside the point because
Japan already had the nuke plants, so the construction costs were all
sunk. Last I heard, fuel costs for an existing nuke plant are cheap
compared to alternatives.

Maybe thay've already lost enough land and money to failed nukes.
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
bob said:
most of the japanese nuke plants are around 40 years old.........

thats the age they should be replaced.

japan nearly lost tokyo and its country. the fukashima plants have
elevated waste core storage pools nthat are structurally damaged by
hydrogen explosions during the inital accident.

another earthquake could collapse the pools

And it isn't anywhere close to over. It may still get much worse.
 
M

Mho

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yeah, cheap nuclear power generation. Can-du coming and better planning.
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
There are plenty of alternatives...wind, geothermal, tidal flow,
solar. At least Japan is taking a stand. We in the USA are always profit
motivated, regardless of the casualties.

Privatise the profits, socialize the losses (limits of liability via
Price-Anderson). Classical Republicon practice here in the US.
 
V

Vaughn

Jan 1, 1970
0
There are plenty of alternatives...wind, geothermal, tidal flow, solar.
At least Japan is taking a stand. We in the USA are always profit
motivated, regardless of the casualties.

I am in favor of maximum utilization of all the "alternatives" you
mention. I even have a modest solar power system myself! But none of
your "alternatives" can presently displace much base power capacity.
Delude yourself all you wish, but the truth is the only thing we have
that can replace nuclear power plants is fossil fuel plants. The
anti-nukes NEVER will honestly discuss the human-killing environmental
damage associated with replacing clean nuclear power with fossil.

Simple truth: With fossil power, the waste disposal problem remains
unsolved. The "waste" is dumped directly into our atmosphere where we
all breath it. With global warming, the health problems from power
plant air pollution may be the LEAST of our problems!

Vaughn
 
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
I am in favor of maximum utilization of all the "alternatives" you
mention. I even have a modest solar power system myself! But none of
your "alternatives" can presently displace much base power capacity.
Delude yourself all you wish, but the truth is the only thing we have
that can replace nuclear power plants is fossil fuel plants. The
anti-nukes NEVER will honestly discuss the human-killing environmental
damage associated with replacing clean nuclear power with fossil.

Simple truth: With fossil power, the waste disposal problem remains
unsolved. The "waste" is dumped directly into our atmosphere where we
all breath it. With global warming, the health problems from power
plant air pollution may be the LEAST of our problems!

Vaughn
The total annual energy used by the US, 40.1% goes to producing
electric power, and of that, a whopping 9% is produced by renewables,
and of that, less than half is produced by a renewable other than
hydro, but on the other hand, 21% is produced by nuclear.

So, not unless people are advocating turning the clock back to the
1890's, these rosy solutions need to get real, before people figure
out how much world population growth depended on cheap energy, and the
current world's population depends on cheap energy.

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

Curbie
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
Vaughn said:
I am in favor of maximum utilization of all the "alternatives" you
mention. I even have a modest solar power system myself! But none of
your "alternatives" can presently displace much base power capacity.
Delude yourself all you wish, but the truth is the only thing we have
that can replace nuclear power plants is fossil fuel plants. The
anti-nukes NEVER will honestly discuss the human-killing environmental
damage associated with replacing clean nuclear power with fossil.

Simple truth: With fossil power, the waste disposal problem remains
unsolved. The "waste" is dumped directly into our atmosphere where we
all breath it. With global warming, the health problems from power
plant air pollution may be the LEAST of our problems!

Early radioactive release estimates in Japan were way low.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/BRE84N0W3/US-NUCLEAR-JAPAN/
 
T

T. Keating

Jan 1, 1970
0
The total annual energy used by the US, 40.1% goes to producing
electric power, and of that, a whopping 9% is produced by renewables,
and of that, less than half is produced by a renewable other than
hydro, but on the other hand, 21% is produced by nuclear.

old data... from 2008...el-dumbo...

http://205.254.135.7/energy_in_brief/renewable_electricity.cfm
Electric power monthly May 16, 2012

Sources of Electricity generation, 2011 (EIA)
Renewable 13%
Nuclear 19%
Natural Gas 25%
Coal 42%

For the 1st tow months of 2012, January, Febuary verses same periond
2011.

Coal based electrical generation dropped by 21%,

Nuclear power output dropped another 1%,
(Likely to stay that way for a long time, 2200 MWe San Onofre is
down for the count, major problems with new steam generator design,
license to operate suspended.)

Non-hydro, renewable increased by 20%,
NG generation increased by 30%.


===snip the rest of the rant===.
 
T

T. Keating

Jan 1, 1970
0
The total annual energy used by the US, 40.1% goes to producing
electric power, and of that, a whopping 9% is produced by renewables,
and of that, less than half is produced by a renewable other than
hydro, but on the other hand, 21% is produced by nuclear.

old data... from 2008...el-dumbo...

http://205.254.135.7/energy_in_brief/renewable_electricity.cfm
Electric power monthly May 16, 2012

Sources of Electricity generation, 2011 (EIA)
Renewable 13%
Nuclear 19%
Natural Gas 25%
Coal 42%

For the 1st two months of 2012, January, Febuary verses same periond
2011.

Coal based electrical generation dropped by 21%,

Nuclear power output dropped another 1%,
(Likely to stay that way for a long time, 2200 MWe San Onofre is
down for the count, major problems with new steam generator design,
license to operate suspended.)

Non-hydro, renewable increased by 20%,
NG generation increased by 30%.


===snip the rest of the rant===.
 
T

T. Keating

Jan 1, 1970
0
The total annual energy used by the US, 40.1% goes to producing
electric power, and of that, a whopping 9% is produced by renewables,
and of that, less than half is produced by a renewable other than
hydro, but on the other hand, 21% is produced by nuclear.

old data... from 2008...el-dumbo...

http://205.254.135.7/energy_in_brief/renewable_electricity.cfm
Electric power monthly May 16, 2012

Sources of Electricity generation, 2011 (EIA)
Renewable 13%
Nuclear 19%
Natural Gas 25%
Coal 42%

For the 1st two months of 2012, January, February verses same period
2011.

Coal based electrical generation dropped by 21%,

Nuclear power output dropped another 1%,
(Likely to stay that way for a long time, 2200 MWe San Onofre is
down for the count, major problems with new steam generator design,
license to operate suspended.)

Non-hydro, renewable increased by 20%,
NG generation increased by 30%.


===snip the rest of the rant===.
 
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
old data... from 2008...el-dumbo...

http://205.254.135.7/energy_in_brief/renewable_electricity.cfm
Electric power monthly May 16, 2012

Sources of Electricity generation, 2011 (EIA)
Renewable 13%
Nuclear 19%
Natural Gas 25%
Coal 42%

For the 1st two months of 2012, January, Febuary verses same periond
2011.

Coal based electrical generation dropped by 21%,

Nuclear power output dropped another 1%,
(Likely to stay that way for a long time, 2200 MWe San Onofre is
down for the count, major problems with new steam generator design,
license to operate suspended.)

Non-hydro, renewable increased by 20%,
NG generation increased by 30%.


===snip the rest of the rant===.
So, what's your point genius, don't you even read the rest of the
random web-sites you post? "Generation from nonhydropower renewables
has more than doubled since 1990"
http://205.254.135.7/energy_in_brief/renewable_electricity.cfm
The data I posted is older, but unlike the random web-sites you
posted, is a fairly complete dataset.

It took 21 years for non-hydropower renewables to produce the about
same power as hydropower (all built before the 1970's) for a combined
total of ~350 million MW.

So, how many centuries at this whopping power increase take for
non-hydro renewable replace nuclear?

Like I said Einstein, get real, this is too serious a problem for
silly opinions.

Curbie
 
N

Neon John

Jan 1, 1970
0
This just in:

"Germany’s solar power plants produced a record 22 gigawatts of energy
on Friday, equivalent to the output of 20 nuclear plants. The country is
already a world-leader in solar power and hopes to be free of nuclear
energy by 2022."

I wonder if they'll report the solar output next winter when the weeks
of gloomy overcast weather that Germany experiences has set in?

John
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.fluxeon.com
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address
 
T

T. Keating

Jan 1, 1970
0
So, what's your point genius, don't you even read the rest of the
random web-sites you post? "Generation from nonhydropower renewables
has more than doubled since 1990"
http://205.254.135.7/energy_in_brief/renewable_electricity.cfm
The data I posted is older, but unlike the random web-sites you
posted, is a fairly complete dataset.

Actually the (US government) EIA web site is more up to date, and
completer. for example..

http://205.254.135.7/electricity/monthly/
"Electric Power Monthly"

Plenty of stats if you look for them..
It took 21 years for non-hydropower renewables to produce the about
same power as hydropower (all built before the 1970's) for a combined
total of ~350 million MW.

so what..
So, how many centuries at this whopping power increase take for
non-hydro renewable replace nuclear?

10 to 15 years.. If we don't **** it up..

A huge part of the problem has been lack of consistent government
policy torwards renewables. T
Like I said Einstein, get real, this is too serious a problem for
silly opinions.

One of the biggest problem is that we subsidize Fossil fuels, and
Nuclear energy wayyy too much.
 
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Actually the (US government) EIA web site is more up to date, and
completer. for example..
Agreed, the EIA web-site is more complete than either your random
web-site or my wiki, but you called me grade-school names for posting
older data more complete data, go figure.
http://205.254.135.7/electricity/monthly/
"Electric Power Monthly"

Plenty of stats if you look for them..


so what..
So, how many centuries at this whopping power increase will it take
for non-hydro renewables to replace nuclear?

10 to 15 years.. If we don't **** it up..
So we can replace nuclear with the whopping 21 year power increase in
non-hydro renewables in 10 to 15 years, absolute non-sense, get real
and show me your math.
A huge part of the problem has been lack of consistent government
policy torwards renewables. T
That was Morris's point and I agree, but energy policy has to be
founded on sound facts, not silly opinions.
One of the biggest problem is that we subsidize Fossil fuels, and
Nuclear energy wayyy too much.
This biggest problem is trying to solve a serious problem this huge,
with silly opinions.

Curbie
 
P

(PeteCresswell)

Jan 1, 1970
0
Per Neon John:
I wonder if they'll report the solar output next winter when the weeks
of gloomy overcast weather that Germany experiences has set in?

I cannot cite, but I recall reading about a (German?) project in
one of the Mideast countries (as in desert, sunshine most
days...) that was going to ship solar-generated electricity to
Europe.
 
Top