Re: NEF claims more nuclear power is not way forward

On Sep 4, 4:22 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"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.

But, that's why so many people are working on bio-diesel.
Since both the nuke and gas plant people are idiots.




daestrom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 71% Say Finding New Energy Sources More Important than Conservation
    ... Public Sees Need to be Less Dependent on Foreign Oil ... 71% say developing new energy sources ... 55% prefers building new nuclear power plants ... The cost of a new fission plant is stratospheric now ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • French Nuclear = Solar/Sterling
    ... Callaway Plant Facts and Statistics ... Nuclear plants may supposedly offer very compact sites of 500 to 1000 ... of which are rather substantial energy and space consuming process and, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • French Nuclear = Solar/Sterling
    ... Callaway Plant Facts and Statistics ... Nuclear plants may supposedly offer very compact sites of 500 to 1000 ... of which are rather substantial energy and space consuming process and, ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: 71% Say Finding New Energy Sources More Important than Conservation
    ... Public Sees Need to be Less Dependent on Foreign Oil ... 71% say developing new energy sources is more ... 55% prefers building new nuclear power plants rather ... The cost of a new fission plant is stratospheric now ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: 71% Say Finding New Energy Sources More Important than Conservation
    ... Public Sees Need to be Less Dependent on Foreign Oil ... 71% say developing new energy sources is more ... 55% prefers building new nuclear power plants rather ... The cost of a new fission plant is stratospheric now ...
    (soc.retirement)