Is nuclear the way to go?

[xpensive]

But we love our eight nuclear reactors in Sweden, and we will replace them with bigger ones, produces 50% of our electric energy and we have more uranium in the ground than Norway has oil and gas. If it wasn't for the "environmentalists", we would be nuclear-sheiks all of us, but we have no illusions of using it for cars as we know them today.

10 of them I assume you mean, unless they have become fewer since last time I checked. But they were originally 12 of them, plus a few research reactors that also was used to treat cancer patients and produce radioisotopes for various uses.

The uranium is however too expensive to extracts at current uranium prices since its low grade ore.

It's obviously ten of them now, my error, after those morons shut down two perfectly functioning units at Barsebäck in the southern part of Sweden as the Danes preferred their coal-fueled boilers. The cost of uranium will obviously go up in the near future and there are already several international mining companies lobbying for concessions at different sites in Sweden.

Last year they made an upgrade of Oskarshamn 3, increasing output with 250 MW at an investment of some 250 MEUR. Try to beat that with 1000 MW (at 25% efficiency)of installed windmill power. 400 of 2.5 MW units? What a joke!

[autogyro]

I suppose thats what comes from living in the freezing cold all the time.
We need far less power than that where I am and without ripping off the earth and risking a major disaster.

[xpensive]

I suppose thats what comes from living in the freezing cold all the time.
We need far less power than that where I am and without ripping off the earth and risking a major disaster.

Not at all Auto, the populated part of sweden is at the same level as Scotland, we use all that power to feed the heavy industry such as steel and pulp and paper. This is also why Finland is building the 17 GW EPR Olkilouto 3 and planning for an even bigger 4th reactor.

On my part, I feel that coal mining is far more ripping off the earth than anything else, bar those hideous windmills.

[autogyro]

I just hope it all does not blow up in your faces like it did in Russia.
A small volcano just stopped Europe air transport dead for a week.
The more you build the more vulnerable you will become to natural disasters and human mistakes.

[xpensive]

I just hope it all does not blow up in your faces like it did in Russia.
A small volcano just stopped Europe air transport dead for a week.
The more you build the more vulnerable you will become to natural disasters and human mistakes.

To compare the graphite Chernobyl without outer casing with a modern Swedish reactor wouldn't be xactly relevant.

[machin]

bar those hideous windmills.

I think the modern "windmill" is quite a majestic sight... especially a whole farm of them... I can't understand why people complain about them...

[autogyro]

It is the same evil substance that is under containment.
True your systems are safer but this is only a question of degree and a check on history will prove that human science almost always gives problems.
In this case such problems should never be risked and it should not be the decision of even a national body of humans, when the results of any disaster can effect, poison or even kill others with no connection to the stupidity.

[xpensive]

bar those hideous windmills.

I think the modern "windmill" is quite a majestic sight... especially a whole farm of them... I can't understand why people complain about them...

Unless you happen to be an xotic bird of sorts to be hit by a 70 m/s wingtip or live nearby to be tormented by the noise of course.
Future graveyards believe me.

[Ciro Pabón]

Guys, thanks for the reports about this thread going a little wild

Sorry, I don't have the time to wad through all the posts, so I renamed the thread. I'll split it as soon as I have more time. For the moment, let's try to educate (or indoctrinate, I'm not sure... ) the forum.

Please, feel free to discuss here any of the two issues: Nuclear energy or BMW Megacity (altought the last one has been forgotten even by the person that started the thread, that's the reason why I think it's better to change the name).

If I can contribute with something, I must say thanks to Edis, xpensive and Just a fan.. You're my kind of guys, supporting the less popular (but correct, from my point of view) idea.

Of course Flynfrog doesn't need to be encouraged... he ALWAYS follows the Straight Dope slogan. That's why we love you, man.



As nuclear energy does not produce global warming gases, it is better for the environment (I mean, for me and you). We already discussed this theme and it seemed to me that after reviewing the figures, the forum agreed that the way to go is nuclear.

If you want to understand Fly, Just a fan, X and Edis position, please, by all means, stop ranting and read.

FACTS:

A coal plant produces 100 times the amount of radioactive material produced by a nuclear plant.

France produces 72% of its energy using nuclear plants. Finland started to build one recently. Why? To comply with Kioto

These people are in favor of nuclear plants, changing their minds after reviewing the numbers:

- James Lovelock (author of Gaia theory)
- Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace)
- Hugh Montefiore (long time head of Friends of Earth)

... so, it's unjust to claim that some members have swallowed the arguments of green movement: they are outdated, simply. They still believe what they read in the 80's...

(the numbers say that the world could triple its demand of energy: China could build a Three Gorges Dam every year and still not cope with its demand)

However, the "granola crowd" thinks a lot about efficiency. Well, guys, we're engineers (or have the soul of one). Efficiency won't take us far. Energy is not something we can live without. So, it's time to say goodbye to the nuclear bogey man and start to think with our brains.

I'm sure people with more time than me can provide the links and figures this post sorely needs (I'm afraid this thread will become ugly until someone does). Anyway, there you have the simplest of notions:

"Despite all the hype, tax breaks, and incentives, the proportion of US electricity production from renewables has actually fallen in the past 15 years, from 11.0 percent to 9.1 percent."

So? What are we going to do? Claim that (sorry, Pandamasque) because one nuclear plant goes wild (lack of maintenance, in a very irresponsible way, if you ask me) we have to stop using the tools at hand? Same way you could ask for banning all chemical plants after the Bhopal disaster (also, gross negligence bordering on criminal intentions, if you ask me).

If someone (if I change just one mind, then you made by day, buddy) wants to explore the new world I foresee, check the article that changed me:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html

It's five pages long, don't stop after the first one, please.

So, final quote from it:

"The trick is to start building nuke plants and keep building them at a furious pace. Anything less leaves carbon in the climatic driver's seat."

[segedunum]

The above is just typical copy'n paste from somewhere, probably from the "green" windpower lobby.

Fact is that plutonium has been handled on an industrial scale for more than 60 years, with indeed a few casualties, but how many Chinese and Ukrainian coal-miners has died during the same time?

The biggest energy hoax in history is on the other hand those hideous windmills, which unreliably delivers pathetically little energy for its investment. In Scandinavia we calculate 2.5 MEUR per installed MW, but then utilization grade is only 25% at the very best and most stocastic, why you need the same energy investment from a reliable source as back-up anyway.

+1, that's all I've got to say about that.

This idiotic 'green' --- cheeses me off no end every time. It's just a money-making exercise along with all of that 'carbon credit' extortion. I always feel like I've been taking stupid pills when I hear about that crackpot scheme. The energy industry isn't exactly whiter than white, but with this 'green' and 'sustainable' nonsense what we're now getting is expensive ways of producing energy that are nowhere near the required levels of ouput to actually be 'sustainable'.

As for nuclear power, well, I suppose certain people who have been against it have to keep that pretense going rather than going back on their protestations over the years otherwise they'd look a little stupid.

[manchild]

Being against the nukes, doesn't mean that one is for coal plants. That is just shameless imputing in lack of better arguments. People who are against nukes are against coal power plants too.

There just aren't any excuses for nuclear power-plants. Once they pollute something life ceases to exist for good.

About a week ago, on anniversary of Chernobyl disaster, some 120.000 people protested in Germany, over gov. intention to keep nukes. Big bucks, right-wing conservative politicians and lobbyists praise them, organizations and people who promote healthy life, care for the planet, human right etc. condemn them. All evils have the same root and the same promoters. So, don't fall for the statistics taken out of contest.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvAJ_u3Q0Hw[/youtube]

[hollus]

bar those hideous windmills.

I think the modern "windmill" is quite a majestic sight... especially a whole farm of them... I can't understand why people complain about them...

Unless you happen to be an xotic bird of sorts to be hit by a 70 m/s wingtip or live nearby to be tormented by the noise of course.
Future graveyards believe me.

Well, I feel affected enough to pitch in, after all I live in this planet and neither CO2 nor radioactivity are very good at staying at the source. And although I am happy to learn from all sources, and I can see a debate in nuclear versus coal, I see wind (and distributed solar, do we really need red roofs?) as more desirable than nuclear, and their irregular electricity can be distributed and stored in a multitude of ways.
I was about to quote only the first sentence, but the third provoked me too, so there, nested quotes to challenge and I won't hide that I fully align with number two. I like windmills, I like a horizon with them peacefully spinning (or not sometimes) and standing directly under one is really awe inspiring, and safe.
1) Is really their external look the main complaint about windmills? Don't look at them! Find a serious complaint, please.
2) I read somewhere that 1 windmill kills 1 bird a year. Most buildings, trains and even cars can beat that. And I expect anyone using that as an argument to be a strict vegetarian or ashamed, even if I missed the number by a factor of 100.
3) The price of windmills would drop if they were mass procuced, as would solar. Well, they will in time, but they do so slowly now.
4) Please stop saying that an electric car is not usable because its battery cannot recharge fast enough. People that extensively depend on their laptops have 2 batteries, and so could cars. Keep two batteries, charge at home at night, slowly, when electricity is at its cheapest, and take the second battery with you for a long trip, you can change it in the time it normally takes you to refuel.

[xpensive]

In all honesty, to compare the caseless graphite reactor of chernobyl to anything in the western world would be like comparing a Lada to a Rolls Royce, nothing in common but the the process itself and hardly even that.

In 1979 there was a close to melt-down incident at Three mile island in PA, they managed to do just about everything wrong, how much radioactive substance leaked out? Zip! How many dead? None!

[autogyro]

So now we are asked to read an endless diatribe selling the benefits of an uncontrolled nuclear future, led by the 'wonderful' and super safe 'sic' United States.
Pull the other one it has got nuclear 'credits' bells attached to it for the benefit of greedy share holders.
They cant even decide how or where to store the waste already stuck at the production sites, let alone the new waste they intend to force everyone to accept.
They have the criminal nerve to think people should accept the continued transportation of this toxic filth to sites for re-processing at their convenience. Have they forgotten about 9/11 and how easy it was for a small group of fanatics to crash airliners into the state of the art American infra structure. How soon these greed merchants forget the risks.
Their nuclear Utopia, would supply fanatics with ready made targets, that if hit effectively could 'easily' wipe out most of America for years. And all this for profit because that is what it is realy about dont get conned by the pretty words. Carbon Credit BS and the defunct American Dreams, profit by any means.
All it takes is for the greedy bas--- to stop being so bl--- greedy and wasteful at the expense of everyone else, they have never had the moral right.

[dumrick]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html

That's a good read, Ciro. Unfortunately, the article did nothing to convince me that nuclear waste isn't a problem. The "magical solution" stated is something similar to putting dirt below the carpet and wait for it to be a problem again to find a new solution...

If it wasn't for the waste side, I would be vibrantly supporting nuclear power.