Re: NEF claims more nuclear power is not way forward

On Sep 6, 11:53 am, Rolf Martens <rolf.mart...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <46ddbe6a$0$17072$4c368...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...



"Rolf Martens" <rolf.mart...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O__Ci.7781$ZA.4126@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <46d83bab$0$32563$4c368...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

"EnergyForum.cc" <fab...@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

Rolf is correct. Once infrastructure is in place: factories to build
the components (there is only 1 in the US after all the others
shutdown) are built, then the US should be building at least 2 a month
on average.

Let's look at what is going on now. There are 33 "planned" with one or
two (I forget which) that have filed C&O license. It takes 2 to 4
years to get approval. There are about 12 more with C&O L being
submitted over the next 2 years. This is of course *nothing* to what
we need but we can look at it's expansion. To wit: the 33 "planned"
all get approved and break ground in 4 to 5 years. At that point, with
the world infrastructure back up to snuff, we can plan 2 a month, 24 a
year, 100 every 5 years for the next 30 years bringing us (in the US)
up to the *originally planned* 600-800 GWs of power.

This is completely doable and ALL for under $1 trillion US dollars, or
about 3 years of the US defense budget.

The US energy load is about 1,000 GW. 600-800 is what we could
effectively use right now with current designs. Loading and 'peaker'
nukes can be built and have been so it's not inconceivable that a 100%
nuclear-to-load project is possible out toward 2040/2050. This would
presume breeder and smaller HTR type plants in mix as well.

David

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: This months popular science - hydrogen powered hyper jet
    ... fuel and petro-based ag-chems vs. ethanol yield. ... However the nuclear plant has an economic lifespan of less than 40 years. ... Nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to ... Nuclear power plants in a "war" situation are very attractive targets. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Why We Need The Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now
    ... chemical engineer and nuclear engineer. ... Today's energy systems did not arise ... Fuel combustion from automobiles and power plants is the primary source ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Why We Need The Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now
    ... chemical engineer and nuclear engineer. ... Today's energy systems did not arise ... Fuel combustion from automobiles and power plants is the primary source ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Carbon Dioxide Emissions May Harm Ocean Life
    ... really hot days does A/C start pushing the energy grid. ... with an investment that has to be made anyway due to the plants age. ... >> efficiency ensuring that more CO2 is put in the atmosphere for every ... It is not the major cost of the power plant. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: McCains energy plan
    ... I don't consider the fact that systems left to their own devices increase the energy of the universe, but by pollution, I meant the production of excess energy in a local environment where it upsets the ecological balance. ... The storage of the small quantities of solid waste remaining notwithstanding, nuclear power plants have to vent excess heat in the water used to generate the steam which drives the turbines. ... his plan becomes essentially no different from John McCain's who says give tax credits to industry and let them develop it without government interference. ...
    (soc.retirement)