Its going Nuclear !!! - Page 4

RoryT · November 15th, 2009, 11:15 PM

good news... i read a while ago that the UK imports alot of its electricity from France at peak periods and over tast decade demand has stretched british electricity supply.

Apparently importing the electrickery was pretty expensive too.

More long term cash saved... also, ever lowering stocks of coal and oil will push the price up, so nuclear energy is economically sustainable too!

Just need to re-start the mining industry in this country when coal prices hit the roof - export it and bobs your uncle

pixel2006 · November 16th, 2009, 12:37 PM

Here some stuff taken from this week's Economist on both planning and the economics of nuclear. Food for thought:

"Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) ... have promised to scrap the commission if, as expected, they win office next year. They will continue issuing the grandiose National Policy Statements, but would subject each one to a review by Parliament: vital, they say, to protect democratic oversight."

And similar to a point I made early about community based schemes, "Tony Travers, a local-government expert at the London School of Economics, thinks that it is possible to build infrastructure without resorting to anti-democratic diktat. Britain’s over-centralised tax system, he says, currently means that locals receive no benefit from living in the shadow of airports, power stations or railway lines. 'A local council could approve ten nuclear-power stations and not see a penny of revenue,” he says. If councils were allowed to tax such developments and keep the proceeds (as they are in other developed countries), then a bargain could be struck, with local people offered better services in return for hosting a noisy new road or an unsightly sewage works.'
"

The reamaining quotes are from the article "Splitting the Cost: The Economics of Nuclear Power"

On the cost front they have this to say "Two new reactors of the type Britain may choose are being constructed in Finland and France. Discouragingly, the Finnish reactor, originally priced at €3 billion (£2.1 billion at the time), is three years late and around €2 billion more expensive than expected. The French plant is also thought to be over budget, by around 20%."

On the positive side, "Critics also worry about the cost of disposing of the waste, which must be stored for hundreds of years. But Dieter Helm, an energy expert at Oxford University, thinks that, through the magic of compound interest, a relatively small down-payment by the builders of reactors could cover clean-up costs at the end of their 60-year lives." Not a technical solution as such, an economic one, that would need to be added to the build cost.

The article concludes with economic answers for all energy options, "To nuclear boosters, however, these are mere teething problems. The designs are new, they say, and costs will fall as more are built; in Asia reactors built at the end of a batch have proved cheaper than earlier ones. And they argue that simplistic comparisons with other electricity sources are unfair: fossil-fuel plants pay too little for their planet-warming carbon emissions, while renewables benefit from generous subsidies."

"Since nuclear-power plants must recoup their high construction costs over decades, they start losing money if the spot price of power falls too low...Nuclear energy’s best hope lies in carbon pricing, which forces fossil-fuel plants to pay for the environmental cost of the carbon they generate. The price of carbon under Europe’s emissions-trading scheme is currently around €14 (£12.65) per tonne, far short of the €50 that power-industry bosses think would make nuclear plants attractive. People in the industry are arguing for a price floor. Since that would boost every form of low-carbon generation equally, setting one would allow ministers to observe their no-subsidy pledge, and still see the reactors built; but the floor would have to be set high to make a difference."

This last point is significant in a number of ways.

* To make nuclear work, coal will have to pay; meaning the consumer will have to pay.
* Carbon pricing will work for renewable schemes as well - It also means that government will not choose the solution by subsiding their preferred options (currently offshore wind, although that might have changed to on-shore now local planning is less of a problem).

Britain's liberalised energy markets have failed to deliver the large scale energy sources that the country needs. In the next 5 - 7 years (note the recession has helped put back the pinch point) the lights will either start going out or we will renege on climate change commitments and keep the coal power stations going. Note 5 nuclear power stations are due to close during this period. But my point is 'was the market really that liberal'. Coal and gas do not have to pay for the pollution; the economy has a whole in the form of future generations will pick up that tab. In essence, fossil fuels have been given a huge subsidy, and if that is reversed then other forms of energy production makes sense. But are we all prepared to pay more for our electricity? Higher prices will force us to be more efficient, and better social tariffs will help those who cannot pay.

JonH · November 17th, 2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

It's never going to do a Chernobyl though is it?

In what respect? Release of radiation? Or blast damage to the surrounding area?

Unless Flixborough and Buncefield were just bad dreams I had!

SOMtastic · November 17th, 2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerbil

... and if the statistic is 4000 people got fatal cancer from Chenobyl, that's about 30% of people within 9 miles, i.e. if it were Carrington, at least the western half of Manchester/all of Wigan/Warrington and perhaps Bolton would be exposed to that, making about say 1.5m * 30% = 450000 cancer deaths. That's what I call apocalyptic.

... or about 4 months worth of Malaria deaths.. that goes on and on and on....And that’s assuming someone would be daft enough to build a nuclear plant in the middle of Manchester, AND that it malfunctioned in such a way as no-one twigged there was anything wrong, AND it exploded all over the place. .. Get it in perspective !!
There are hundreds of nuclear plants all over the world in 30 countries, hundreds more research reactors and, hundreds more in ships and submarines.
Serious incidents are few and far between .. they will happen for sure, but technology has moved on a lot since winscale etc, and the risk of catastrophic meltdown is tiny. Moreover, the consequences - while sounding like our worst nightmares - are pretty inconsequential compared with the risks we all face every day. Even with a catastrophe 10 times the severity of Chernobyl - say 100,000 deaths - it pales compared with :

Malaria 1,000,000 deaths annually,
Road traffic accidents 1,200,000 deaths annually,
Lung cancer 1,200,000 deaths annually,
Alcohol 2,000,000 deaths annually.

... that’s over 120 million deaths since Chernobyl from the above alone !! .. and it continues.

Many of these deaths are completely preventable one way or another, yet no-one bats an eyelid .. why ? Because there are no images if mushroom shaped doom clouds, or the endless speculation about preposterous terrorist plots. This stuff sells news papers, but is does not make it any more likely.

Talk of cost on the other hand... that is very much quantifiable and worthy of serious debate.

yoshef · November 18th, 2009, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOMtastic

Even with a catastrophe 10 times the severity of Chernobyl - say 100,000 deaths - it pales compared with :

Malaria 1,000,000 deaths annually,
Road traffic accidents 1,200,000 deaths annually,
Lung cancer 1,200,000 deaths annually,
Alcohol 2,000,000 deaths annually.

... that’s over 120 million deaths since Chernobyl from the above alone !! .. and it continues.

Many of these deaths are completely preventable one way or another, yet no-one bats an eyelid .. why ?

How many Malaria, RTA, lung cancer and alcohol related deaths were there in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone ?

andysimo123 · November 18th, 2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yoshef

How many Malaria, RTA, lung cancer and alcohol related deaths were there in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone ?

Six.

Gerbil · November 19th, 2009, 02:56 AM

About 50,000,000 people die each year. Therefore I declare any act which kills a mere 40% of that to be perfectly acceptable. I feel like going on a killing spree ... anyone got a machine gun (and 20 million rounds)?

You can quote any figures you want, but a single event which results in a possible 400,000 deaths is ridiculous.

However, you seem to have misconstrued that my stance is against nuclear. This couldn't be more wrong, I think it's a very good idea, I'd feel perfectly safe living near one (after all, like you say the probability of me individually dying is tiny in comparison to other dangers). However I was just saying that the idea that if we built one at Carrington it would be acceptably safe is wrong. Build them in areas of low population, but we must acknowledge that if there's a melt down at Sellafield then we won't be going for walks in the lakes any time soon (though I'd rather that than die in a car crash, which is thousands of times more likely).

SOMtastic · November 19th, 2009, 01:38 PM

I think perhaps we’re talking crossed purposes Gerbil. ... where does 40% of 50m come from ?
I am not suggesting building a nuclear plant in Carrington or any other built up area would be a good idea. Although the probability of one doing a Chernobyl is tiny, the consequences would be huge - as you say. I guess this is where talk of 400,000 casualties comes from ?
A Black Swan event I think it’s called.
Therefore build them in remote places where the consequences of failure are less severe.

The point I was trying to make was that the fear of nuclear technology among the general public is hugely irrational... We tend to over estimate the riskiness of things with which we are not familiar (ie scared of), and underestimate the risks of everyday hazards.
A lot of it is to do with prevailing media attitudes geographically. In the states for instance the attitude to nuclear is much more cautious than in Europe.. we’re seen as being completely comfortable with it.
Genetic Modification on the other hand is a total non-issue over there, where as over here it may as well be the work of the devil.

The bottom line is we need a nice mixed portfolio of energy sources.. renewable of various kinds, clean coal and gas, and nuclear. Otherwise we’ll end up with too many eggs in one basket.
In my mind a far greater amount should also be spent on working out how to capture carbon.
We can be as green as we like, but we’re pissing in the breeze if we can’t prevent developing countries (or others) setting fire to everything. Once we have the technology, it can be scaled to counteract the refusal of any particular country to cooperate... Call it an insurance policy.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

November 15th, 2009, 11:15 PM	#61
RoryT I even eat Blue Smarties Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Manchester Posts: 229	good news... i read a while ago that the UK imports alot of its electricity from France at peak periods and over tast decade demand has stretched british electricity supply. Apparently importing the electrickery was pretty expensive too. More long term cash saved... also, ever lowering stocks of coal and oil will push the price up, so nuclear energy is economically sustainable too! Just need to re-start the mining industry in this country when coal prices hit the roof - export it and bobs your uncle

November 16th, 2009, 12:37 PM	#62
pixel2006 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 42	Here some stuff taken from this week's Economist on both planning and the economics of nuclear. Food for thought: "Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) ... have promised to scrap the commission if, as expected, they win office next year. They will continue issuing the grandiose National Policy Statements, but would subject each one to a review by Parliament: vital, they say, to protect democratic oversight." And similar to a point I made early about community based schemes, "Tony Travers, a local-government expert at the London School of Economics, thinks that it is possible to build infrastructure without resorting to anti-democratic diktat. Britain’s over-centralised tax system, he says, currently means that locals receive no benefit from living in the shadow of airports, power stations or railway lines. 'A local council could approve ten nuclear-power stations and not see a penny of revenue,” he says. If councils were allowed to tax such developments and keep the proceeds (as they are in other developed countries), then a bargain could be struck, with local people offered better services in return for hosting a noisy new road or an unsightly sewage works.' " The reamaining quotes are from the article "Splitting the Cost: The Economics of Nuclear Power" On the cost front they have this to say "Two new reactors of the type Britain may choose are being constructed in Finland and France. Discouragingly, the Finnish reactor, originally priced at €3 billion (£2.1 billion at the time), is three years late and around €2 billion more expensive than expected. The French plant is also thought to be over budget, by around 20%." On the positive side, "Critics also worry about the cost of disposing of the waste, which must be stored for hundreds of years. But Dieter Helm, an energy expert at Oxford University, thinks that, through the magic of compound interest, a relatively small down-payment by the builders of reactors could cover clean-up costs at the end of their 60-year lives." Not a technical solution as such, an economic one, that would need to be added to the build cost. The article concludes with economic answers for all energy options, "To nuclear boosters, however, these are mere teething problems. The designs are new, they say, and costs will fall as more are built; in Asia reactors built at the end of a batch have proved cheaper than earlier ones. And they argue that simplistic comparisons with other electricity sources are unfair: fossil-fuel plants pay too little for their planet-warming carbon emissions, while renewables benefit from generous subsidies." "Since nuclear-power plants must recoup their high construction costs over decades, they start losing money if the spot price of power falls too low...Nuclear energy’s best hope lies in carbon pricing, which forces fossil-fuel plants to pay for the environmental cost of the carbon they generate. The price of carbon under Europe’s emissions-trading scheme is currently around €14 (£12.65) per tonne, far short of the €50 that power-industry bosses think would make nuclear plants attractive. People in the industry are arguing for a price floor. Since that would boost every form of low-carbon generation equally, setting one would allow ministers to observe their no-subsidy pledge, and still see the reactors built; but the floor would have to be set high to make a difference." This last point is significant in a number of ways. * To make nuclear work, coal will have to pay; meaning the consumer will have to pay. * Carbon pricing will work for renewable schemes as well - It also means that government will not choose the solution by subsiding their preferred options (currently offshore wind, although that might have changed to on-shore now local planning is less of a problem). Britain's liberalised energy markets have failed to deliver the large scale energy sources that the country needs. In the next 5 - 7 years (note the recession has helped put back the pinch point) the lights will either start going out or we will renege on climate change commitments and keep the coal power stations going. Note 5 nuclear power stations are due to close during this period. But my point is 'was the market really that liberal'. Coal and gas do not have to pay for the pollution; the economy has a whole in the form of future generations will pick up that tab. In essence, fossil fuels have been given a huge subsidy, and if that is reversed then other forms of energy production makes sense. But are we all prepared to pay more for our electricity? Higher prices will force us to be more efficient, and better social tariffs will help those who cannot pay.

November 19th, 2009, 02:56 AM	#67
Gerbil 11th March 2009 Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 127	About 50,000,000 people die each year. Therefore I declare any act which kills a mere 40% of that to be perfectly acceptable. I feel like going on a killing spree ... anyone got a machine gun (and 20 million rounds)? You can quote any figures you want, but a single event which results in a possible 400,000 deaths is ridiculous. However, you seem to have misconstrued that my stance is against nuclear. This couldn't be more wrong, I think it's a very good idea, I'd feel perfectly safe living near one (after all, like you say the probability of me individually dying is tiny in comparison to other dangers). However I was just saying that the idea that if we built one at Carrington it would be acceptably safe is wrong. Build them in areas of low population, but we must acknowledge that if there's a melt down at Sellafield then we won't be going for walks in the lakes any time soon (though I'd rather that than die in a car crash, which is thousands of times more likely).

November 19th, 2009, 01:38 PM	#68
SOMtastic Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Manchester Posts: 195	I think perhaps we’re talking crossed purposes Gerbil. ... where does 40% of 50m come from ? I am not suggesting building a nuclear plant in Carrington or any other built up area would be a good idea. Although the probability of one doing a Chernobyl is tiny, the consequences would be huge - as you say. I guess this is where talk of 400,000 casualties comes from ? A Black Swan event I think it’s called. Therefore build them in remote places where the consequences of failure are less severe. The point I was trying to make was that the fear of nuclear technology among the general public is hugely irrational... We tend to over estimate the riskiness of things with which we are not familiar (ie scared of), and underestimate the risks of everyday hazards. A lot of it is to do with prevailing media attitudes geographically. In the states for instance the attitude to nuclear is much more cautious than in Europe.. we’re seen as being completely comfortable with it. Genetic Modification on the other hand is a total non-issue over there, where as over here it may as well be the work of the devil. The bottom line is we need a nice mixed portfolio of energy sources.. renewable of various kinds, clean coal and gas, and nuclear. Otherwise we’ll end up with too many eggs in one basket. In my mind a far greater amount should also be spent on working out how to capture carbon. We can be as green as we like, but we’re pissing in the breeze if we can’t prevent developing countries (or others) setting fire to everything. Once we have the technology, it can be scaled to counteract the refusal of any particular country to cooperate... Call it an insurance policy.