Re: NEF claims more nuclear power is not way forward

In article <46ddbe6a$0$17072$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...



"Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O__Ci.7781$ZA.4126@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <46d83bab$0$32563$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...



"EnergyForum.cc" <fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1188307286.595929.34720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello newsgroup members,

This might be of interest to someone:

An environmental think-tank in the UK, New Economics Foundation (NEF),
has said that more nuclear power plants in the country is not the way
forward for cutting carbon emissions from the power generation sector
and reducing the consumption of imported fossil fuels because
implementing a nuclear building programme will be slow, expensive and
risky. Additionally, it will not have enough of an impact to prevent
climate change nor guarantee energy supply security. According to NEF,
the cost of building new nuclear reactors is actually triple what is
being claimed by supporters of such plans.
Source: Energy Business Review

This news item is brought to you in association with EnergyForum.cc
www.energyforum.cc/forum
Your global energy forum on the net!


While I agree that building nuclear plants is 'slow', and you'd have to
build a lot of them if that is the only action you take to reduce CO2
emissions, where is the proof that costs are 'actually triple what is
being
claimed'? Is this political group (NEF) more informed about construction
costs? Why are they more 'expert' than the 'experts'??

daestrom

Ther're not, of course, but are a reactionary propaganda institute.
"Manmade global warming" is a hoax too, as is the propaganda against
nuclear energy. The common denominator is that the reactionaries
want to make all energy scarce and expensive, out of very bad
political motives.

And building nuclear power plants is not "slow" either.

Experience here in Sweden in 1970-1985, before the ban set in,
shows that a population section of 1 million people easily can
build 1 reactor of 1 GW in 15 years. That would be 300 such
in the USA in that time, for instance.


But 300 in 15 years does not mean 1 reactor every 6 months. It does take a
lot longer time to build a 1000 MW nuc plant than it does to build a 1000 MW
natural gas turbine plant. There's just no denying that.

daestrom

Well, it should mean 1 every 6 months.

Now it also has been said that reactor building in the USA
has been less effective than in Europe - one of a kind often
has been built, instead of several of a standard model.

But anyway, a lot of such, technically, could be built in the
USA too.

Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com

.

Relevant Pages