EDF Awards First 50 Million Pounds in Contracts On New British Nuclear Plant.

[NNadir]

At a supply chain event for UK contractors yesterday, EDF Energy announced that it has awarded over £50 million ($77 million) worth of contracts for the first nuclear power plant it plans to build in the UK.

Together with its investment partner, Centrica, EDF Energy plans to build four Areva EPR reactors by 2025, two each at its Hinkley Point and Sizewell sites. The company expects the first unit, at Hinkley Point C, to be operating by 2018.

Opening the New Nuclear Opportunities forum, Vincent de Rivaz, CEO of EDF Energy, said: "Already we have let 130 separate contracts to British companies with a total value in excess of £50 million." He added that there will be more than 150 major contracts to be tendered and "an even larger number of offers for subcontractors".

However, de Rivaz said that the "increased commitment" being made by EDF Energy needed to be matched by government. In a recorded address to the meeting, energy and climate change minister the Conservative Charles Hendry said he sees it as his job to "remove the barriers to new nuclear."

Further reassurance was provided by UK business secretary Vince Cable, part of the Liberal Democrat Party, who stated that there will be new nuclear plants on the condition that they will be built without public subsidy. Cable said that the coalition government has "a responsibility to maintain stability and continuity... which will enable new nuclear power to proceed."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_First_contracts_for_first_new_plant_1409101.html">First contracts for first new plant.

Hinckley C will be a 1600MWe reactor, an EPR design, with a flexible fuel option allowing it to burn MOX fuel, that is to burn reactor grade plutonium obtained from used nuclear fuel.

In 2008, the last full year for which figures are available from the EIA, Britain produced http://tonto.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=37&aid=12&cid=&syid=2004&eyid=2008&unit=BKWH">6.756 billion kilowatt-hours from wind energy in the entire nation. Thus on an average continuous power basis, this would be the equivalent of a 771 MWe power plant of any type, except that wind is not reliable and its generation is not in any way connected with demand.

Thus, to produce as much energy as the the entire nation of the United Kingdom can produce from wind, the new nuclear plant need operate only at 100*771/1600 = 48.2% capacity utilization, something it is very easy to do, since most nuclear power plants run much closer to 90% capacity utilization.

[peacebird]

1. wind has no downside - nuclear power on the other hand....

[NNadir]

2. Bull. Wind will NEVER be as clean as nuclear since wind is totally dependent

on dangerous fossil fuels to operate.

The wind industry is a impetuous waste of money that takes bread out of the mouthes of the poor to subsidize bourgeois people who have never read a scientific report on the external costs of energy in their lives.

If the gas industry was banned tomorrow - as it should be - the wind industry would collapse in twenty minutes.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be vastly superior to everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which happily, it is.

[peacebird]

3. Chernobyl. I think that alone proves nuclear is not "vastly superior to everything else"

When has any windmill negatively impacted anywhere near as many people as Chernobyl?

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Indeed, when has a hamster on treadmill ever hurt *anyone*?

Let's switch to hamsters on treadmills.

There, that's sorted.

[Nihil]

8. Umm ... there's a little chap at the door for you ...

Huh ... the image link broke so you'll have to go to the site to see it ...

http://theangryhamster.com/

[madokie]

5. They don't want to talk about Chernobyl

it was a bad design or it can't happen here or on and on. TMI was close, so was Davis-Besse www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops.../vessel-head-degradation.html
We've got so many aging nuke plants that I worry for the safety of millions who live near them. The thing of it is Nuclear power isn't the clean energy that so many would want you to think it is. From the ground to the waste disposal it barely breaks even on co2 produced if the energy used to build the plants, mine the ore, refine the ore into fuel and the disposal of said fuel at the end of its life cycle are taken into consideration. Of course its not because they never mention those things all the pro nuke folks talk about is how clean it is in producing energy with very little mention if any at all of the dirtiness of the whole process. I'll take my chances on spending our time, effort and money on developing more benign forms of producing out energy.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Sure, take all the time in the world

(glances at watch)

[madokie]

10. And just exactly what are we timing here?

[Confusious]

22. Global warming

We don't have all the time in the world, as a matter of fact, we might not even have ten years.

[madokie]

27. If that be the case then why are we even worried with GW

Increasing our nuclear energy percentage in the mix will have no effect on GW in ten years. Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you just confused?
Honestly what the fuck is the deal with you anyway?

[Confusious]

33. No, because some reactors don't need enrichment

All we need is mining. The same mining we need to get the metal for thousands upon thousands of wind farms, or to build solar farms. Comparing the amount of metal need to build windmills and solar farms, it probably all comes out equal in the end.

Some reactors don't even need enrichment. You can take uranium and pack it in a can and put it the reactor. Same with a thorium reactor.

As for what the fuck is up with me? Not really sure what you mean by that little gem.

[Nederland]

7. Chernobyl was a bad design

That is not an excuse, it is a fact. Opposing nuclear power because Chernobyl failed is like opposing aviation because the Wright Flyer crashed. It's idiotic.

[madokie]

9. We all agree on that

I don't oppose nuclear energy because of Chernobyl, rather Chernobyl simply shows what can happen not that it will happen. Personally I'd rather not take the chances myself. If you want to try to tell me it can't happen to one of ours then I see that as foolish.

I didn't expect you to understand that though, I also couldn't let your comment go unanswered either.
Have a good day anyway

[Confusious]

23. Foolish is not understanding the reasons it happened

and saying the same thing can happen to United States reactors.

Like saying that the Hindenburg goes up in the air, so anything that goes up in the air can blow up in a hydrogen explosion.

[madokie]

26. Aptly named

I didn't say or imply that the same thing can happen to one of ours. I simply said that it shows what can go wrong and when it goes wrong it can go wrong in a big way. Do you remember how close we came with TMI or are you in denial about how close that was? Anytime you have humans involved accidents can happen. Remember the nuclear plant, (no I can't name it right now,) that some of the personnel were found to be sleeping, catnaping if you will, on the job. It may have been the guards but either way that is dangerous
Personally I don't want to take the chances, do you understand that?

[Confusious]

31. We didn't come close to anything at TMI

Studies have shown that less radiation was released then people usually get in in one year from cosmic rays. (avg, per person)

newer designs work on principles that never fail, like hot water rises, cold water falls, so if the pumps fail, water still circulates in the core.

What do you concider the bigger threat? Global warming or a massive leak from a reactor. My money is on global warming.

Some people around here seem to think we have easy choices to make. We have hard choices to make, and I will take nuclear power over global warming, because I don't see renwables filling the gap in ten years. He'll, there isn't even a production tide generator working in the united states.

[DrGregory]

47. DISMISSED!!

Studies have shown that less radiation was released then people usually get in in one year from cosmic rays. (avg, per person)
================================

Which is why when neighbors of TMI sued; the Chief Judge DISMISSED
their case - without a jury trial. See:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

"...the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put
forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of
proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched
the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to
Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their
claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain. ..."

Dr. Greg

[NNadir]

11. Chernobyl v other reactors was discussed by Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe exhaustively.

The Secretary of Energy has a Nobel Prize in <em>science</em> and I assure you that he has no objection to nuclear power, a point he repeatedly makes in speech after speech.

Scientists are very busy people who work very, very, very, very hard on topics that take enormous amounts of intellectual effort to comprehend.

Obviously it is not the job of scientists to address the dogma of every pisant who objects to said science.

The UK is building reactors. It's a done deal. China is building more than 20 reactors. It's a done deal. The Netherlands is about to order reactors.

The world is in desparate circumstances, and there simply isn't time to waste.

As for Beese Davis it has applied for a license extension and will most likely get it. Tough shit. Cry all night. The world couldn't care less.

[DrGregory]

13. I';m one of said scientists...

Obviously it is not the job of scientists to address the dogma of every pisant who objects to said science.
==========================

I'm one of those said scientist. Yes - I am very busy
working on real science. However, I like to take some
time to correct some of the misinformation that is
spewed on forums such as this.

Even when I try to explain the science correctly; I
get tons of flack from people who don't know high school
level science; and they claim I'm wrong.

There are so many that want to think with their politics;
instead of their brains.

If the science doesn't support their political position;
then disregard the science. Then complain that the OTHER
side doesn't listen to science.

HYPOCRISY abounds.

Dr. Greg

[Dead_Parrot]

14. To be fair...

...you'd cop a lot less flack if you knew what the fuck you were talking about. Coming out with stuff like "a steam generator doesn't become radioactive just because some radioactive material was passed through it." - when that's exactly what does happen - isn't going to win any prizes at the E/E science fair.

Your attempts to make us all crave Bologna sausage through subliminal messaging are dead on, though. I've had 18 sandwiches already.

edit: PS - please look up 'semicolon' on Wikipedia or something.

[Confusious]

24. Maybe you should take some more science

Different materials are more or less susceptible to radiation. Water for example, can take quite a bit; Heavy water, a lot; aluminum, very little. If designed with the right materials, what he says is true, and what you say is false.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Maybe.

Maybe the core generates ⁵⁴Mn, ⁵⁹Fe, ⁵¹Cr, ⁵⁸Co, &⁶⁰Co.
Maybe those isotopes corrode into the coolant.
Maybe the coolant carries the isotopes throughout the loop.
Maybe isotopic exchange embeds them into the steam generator.
Maybe the guys who run the reactor are aware of this.
Maybe that's why they treat the generator as LLW in the first place.
Maybe they've written about it.
Maybe I've read it.
Maybe you and Greg haven't.
Maybe you should.

[Confusious]

30. Maybe you could have posted a link

If it maybe happened.

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Sure, knock yourself out

http://www.amazon.com/Water-Chemistry-Nuclear-Reactor-Systems/dp/0727729586/

Let me know if you want me to phone you from the library and read it out to you.

I'm still puzzled as to why you think Dr Baloney somehow knows more about the state of this unit (or indeed anything else) than the engineers at the plant. It's a bit surreal.

[Confusious]

34. I didn't say anything about him

I just said your statement was wrong.

And it's usually polite to post a link. I guess that's asking to much of you. So sorry.

[Dead_Parrot]

39. Hmm

"If designed with the right materials, what he says is true, and what you say is false."
Along with a cute suggestion that I need to study some science.

Dude, there's a whole team of nuclear engineers wrapping that fucker up and sticking "nuclear waste" labels on it. That should give you a bit of a clue as the state of the unit, regardless of what anybody on teh interweb says.

Or do you think they just got bored and fancied a laugh?

[Confusious]

35. Nice. A link that goes nowhere

I guess it was to much to ask.

I suppose you just expect people to believe you because you're you?

[Dead_Parrot]

36. No...

...I expect people to spend a little effort researching what they are talking about because they are not total fucking morons.

Of course, I may be wrong.

[Confusious]

37. As I said it's usually polite to include a good link

Again, it was too much to ask of you.

If I ask most people, they include it without much thought, as do I.

I see that is to much for you.

[Dead_Parrot]

38. Yeah, sorry.

I sometimes forget that you don't have shit like books and libraries in the US.

Here, I googled an on-line version for you:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1e97FOOsMtYC&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Confusious]

40. No, just not as generally rude as you are

If you're going to make a claim, back the shit up. It's not up to me to prove your point, it's up to you. If you don't want to do legwork, then don't make the claim. Otherwise, you look like you're pulling shit out of your ass, or you don't give a shit enough to back it up. Either one of the two, it's not worth my time trying to run down shit that could be a fantasy in your own mind.

[Dead_Parrot]

41. Yeah - if it's an extraordinary claim.

If I'd claimed the unit was made out of cheese I'd expect to have to have to back it up. When nuclear engineers are labelling it at nuclear waste, the claim that it's radioactive really shouldn't be that surprising.

I don't expect to be told "Maybe you should take some more science" by somebody who clearly hasn't got a fucking clue. And as for "it's not worth my time trying to run down shit that could be a fantasy in your own mind." - what, is my sole purpose to spoon-feed you because you're too fucking lazy to read a book or use google?

Whatever. Live in in ignorance, dude, see if I give a fuck.

[Confusious]

42. No, pretty much if I don't believe it

And ask for a link, you should be willing to provide. It's helpful, it's nice, and it backs your claim up, even if the demand for a link is proof that green cheese is green. Then you provide a link to color blindness.

I'm so sorry you had to demene yourself and drop a level to provide proof of your contention. Maybe you should find a group that takes everything you say on face value and doesn't question anything. You sound like you would be more comfortable there.

[Dead_Parrot]

43. "Maybe you should take some more science" is not a question.

Come to think of it, it not "helpful" or "nice", either.

I'm sorry I actually read a book. You'll notice I did find an online version to save you the arduous task of typing the title into google - or heaven forbid, having to go to a library - but sorry if I didn't quite do it fast enough for you.

Now: If we're settled that stuff labelled by nuclear engineers as radioactive waste really is radioactive waste, are there other stupid questions you'd like obvious answers to?



Yes, they do.

[Confusious]

44. Maybe you should take some more science

I thought it was, and it's what I usually get from you, as far as politeness goes. Now that I think about it, we've had this conversation before, with about the same outcome. Me asking for a link, and you acting like it's beneath you to help the great unwashed learn something.

( How could I have more important things to do then chasing down the articles or books or papers which you cite? I'm one of the great unwashed, for pete's sake. I should feel lucky you deem it worth your time to even answer.)

As I said before, it's up to you to prove your point. If I want to listen to unproven ramblings, I can go to a corner in town here and listen to the local crazy person spout bullshit. If you don't want to give a link, feel free. Just don't cry when I say it's bullshit.

Besides that, this is the internet. For all I know, you could be that guy who spouts bullshit on the corner. If you expect me to trust anyone I don't know on the internet, you're out of your mind.

As far as nuclear waste, I think you asked yourself that question. I never said anything about it. I stated that different materials deal with radioactivity differently. Some will become more radioactive, others not so much.

[Dead_Parrot]

45. And if I say water was wet...

...and don't provide a link, is that bullshit?
Nevermind, this is fucking pointless.

[DrGregory]

49. EASILY taken care of...

Maybe the core generates 54Mn, 59Fe, 51Cr, 58Co, &60Co.
Maybe those isotopes corrode into the coolant.
Maybe the coolant carries the isotopes throughout the loop.
Maybe isotopic exchange embeds them into the steam generator.
Maybe the guys who run the reactor are aware of this.
=====================================

I'm aware of this - which is why I keep referring to
"impurities" in the coolant. However, such
"surface contamination" is EASILY dealt with.

These radionuclides don't EMBED themselves - they can't
go through solid steel. They do ADHERE to the surface -
but are EASILY cleaned out.

Think about it - you could wash the surfaces with an
acid that would strip away the surface layers of steel
an any radionuclides adhering to it. One would then
have a radioactive acid solution. However the volume
of this solution would be orders of magnitude LESS
than the volume of a SG.

Why one would choose to treat the whole SG as
radioactive waste when one can easily CLEAN the
SG of any radioactive material produced in the core
that is adhering to the surface is beyond me.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

52. One wonders..,.,.

Why one would choose to treat the whole SG as
radioactive waste when one can easily CLEAN the
SG of any radioactive material produced in the core
that is adhering to the surface is beyond me.
-------------------------------------------

It's standard operating procedure to clean
the surface contamination.

It would be like a doctor not sorting his
trash. Would a doctor and his / her employees
take all the biohazard waste - the needles and
swabs, and test strips with bodily fluids, and
throw that into the same dumpster with the
office trash?

If they did so - the whole dumpster would have
to be processed as biohazard waste - since it
contains that - at a much higher cost. Why
would a doctor pay to have the office paper
trash treated as biohazard waste when it doesn't
have to be? Just keep the paper trash and the
biohazard stuff separate.

Same with the SG. The SG itself isn't radioactive.
It could have a thin film of corrosion products
on it - which would be standard procedure to
clean off before shipping.

Why treat the whole SG as radioactive waste
when it doesn't have to be?

Dr. Greg

[Dead_Parrot]

55. Interesting analogy

Why wouldn't said doctor remove only the active biological agents from the used swabs and needles? After all, the whole swab isn't a biohazard, only the used bit. That would cut down the waste, wouldn't it?

[DrGregory]

57. Sure...

Why wouldn't said doctor remove only the active biological agents from the used swabs and needles? After all, the whole swab isn't a biohazard, only the used bit. That would cut down the waste, wouldn't it?
=============================================

Sure - the doctor could do that. The part of the swab that the doctor
is actually holding is no more "contaminated" than the doctor's hand.

The part that comes in contact with the patient needs to be treated
as a hazard - so the doctor could cut the handle of the swab and
throw the part that contacted the patient in the bio-hazard bin,
but the part of the handle that has only contacted the doctor's
hand could go in the regular trash.

Dr. Greg

[Dead_Parrot]

59. So, why don't they? nt

[DrGregory]

50. and not just ANY radiation...,

Different materials are more or less susceptible to radiation. Water for example, can take quite a bit; Heavy water, a lot; aluminum, very little. If designed with the right materials, what he says is true, and what you say is false.
=====================================

Radioactivity is principally induced by NEUTRON radiation
from a reactor - not the radiation from radioactive materials.

The propensity of a substance to absorb a neutron is called
the "absorption cross section" and it depends both on what
substance we are discussing, and the energy of the incident
neutron. The cross section is a very complex function - so
we can't make generalities like, "ordinary Hydrogen H-1 has
a significant absorption cross section, so the next heavier
isotope Deuterium H-2 or D-2 must also have a significant
absorption cross section...."

It's MUCH more complex than that. Deuterium has a very
LOW absorption cross section - which is what makes it
valuable as a moderator in the form of heavy water for
a reactor fueled with unenriched Uranium where neutron
economy is at a premium.

Dr. Greg

[Confusious]

53. That's what I was aiming at.

You get too complicated, it gets ignored.

there's no neutron, alpha, beta, gamma radiation here. It's all the same, dangerous and terrifying, to some.

[DrGregory]

46. WRONG!!!

...you'd cop a lot less flack if you knew what the fuck you were talking about. Coming out with stuff like "a steam generator doesn't become radioactive just because some radioactive material was passed through it." - when that's exactly what does happen - isn't going to win any prizes at the E/E science fair.
============================================

You are falling for one of the anti-nuke MYTHS that somehow
radioactivity is "contagious". Just because something is
exposed to radioactive material doesn't make you radioactive.

First you have to understand that in order to make something
radioactive - you have to change the contents of the NUCLEUS.

As I explained before - go to the Chart of the Nuclides:

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/

For any combination of constituents of the nucleus - Z protons
and N Neutrons with A = Z + N being the mass of said nuclide;
the chart above will tell you if it is radioactive or not by
looking at the half-life T1/2. If it says STABLE below T1/2;
the substance is NOT radioactive.

There are 3 forms of radioactivity called alpha, beta, and
gamma. Alpha radioactivity is when the radioactive substance
emits alpha particles which are helium-4 nuclei. Alphas can
induce radioactivity at low levels - but ONLY under certain
conditions. Lord Rutherford discovered radioactivity from
alpha radiation. Beta radiation is the emission of electrons.
Electrons don't change the nucleus. Gammas are photons - like
X-rays. Do you think your teeth become radioactive because
the dentist X-rays them?

Just passing a radioactive material through the SG doesn't make
it radioactive.

What WILL make something radioactive are neutrons from a reactor.
Somehow these SG must have been exposed to reactor neutrons. In
US designs, the SG is shielded from reactor neutrons. I'd like
to see what the Canadians did to this SG. Perhaps they had activated
coolant impurities that they didn't clean out - but that would be
so easy to do - I wonder why they wouldn't clean that out. However
those impurities had to be activated by going through the reactor;
exposure to a radioactive substance does NOT induce radioactivity.

That is a popular MYTH that the anti-nuke community spreads in order
to make people who haven't studied grade-school science afraid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_radioactivity

"Induced radioactivity occurs when a previously stable material has been
made radioactive by exposure to specific radiation. Most radioactivity
does not induce other material to become radioactive.

Neutron activation is the main form of induced radioactivity, which happens
when free neutrons are captured by nuclei....."


So if these SGs are radioactive; it is NOT because of some material
passed through them - they evidently were exposed to reactor neutrons.
In a US plant; the SGs are shielded.

Dr. Greg

[Dead_Parrot]

54. Incidentally...

...you'd also cop less flack if you read the whole thread before hitting the "reply" button.

[DrGregory]

58. I do.

..you'd also cop less flack if you read the whole thread before hitting the "reply" button.
=======================================

I do read the whole thread

However, there's so much MYTH and half-truths being
passed off as science that I can't correct all of it.

So I'll quote the erroneous material and explain
why it is wrong.

Dr. Greg

[Dead_Parrot]

60. In that case...

Why are you coming up with stuff like "First you have to understand that in order to make something radioactive - you have to change the contents of the NUCLEUS." when I've already pointed out that the radioactivity is from isotopic exchange with the contents of the coolant?

You don't have to do anything to a ⁵⁶Fe nucleus in the steel if you're replacing it with a ⁵⁹Fe nucleus, nor a ⁵⁹Co nucleus if you're replacing it with a ⁶⁰Co nucleus.

[DrGregory]

61. The purpose..,.

You don't have to do anything to a 56Fe nucleus in the steel if you're replacing it with a 59Fe nucleus, nor a 59Co nucleus if you're replacing it with a 60Co nucleus.
===============================================================

The purpose is to answer the question of where you get the
radioactive species in the first place. Where did you
get that Co-60 nucleus that you are replacing the Co-59
with?

You get that Co-60 nucleus by neutron activation of Co-59.

The reason for mentioning it is to educate all the chowderheads
that think that beta radioactivity can induce radioactivity
in other species

Dr. Greg

[Dead_Parrot]

62. I see

Can you link to some these chowderheads? I seem to have missed those posts, but would be fascinated to read them.

[Confusious]

63. You want a Link?

Why don't you do it yourself? jebsus christ.

[Dead_Parrot]

64. Because I can't find any, genius. nt

[madokie]

15. From what I can see from what I've read that you've wrote so far here in the E/E forum

methinks you're something but a scientist is not it. What do you think about that big boy?

[DrGregory]

51. my take is...

methinks you're something but a scientist is not it. What do you think about that big boy?
=========================================

The fact that you don't know good science when
you see it says more about you than it does
about me.

Dr. Greg

[Kolesar]

16. you are so obtuse that you cannot spell Davis Besse

[NNadir]

17. Probably because I'm not obsessed with it. The Secretary of Energy, who has won

the Nobel Prize, and most other Nobel Prize winning nuclear physicists and chemists, couldn't care less about the quibbling nonsense that dribbles out of the mouthes of anti-nukes.

I don't think that spell checking by minor malcontents who have clearly never cracked a science book open in their pathetic lives is going to dissaude the major nations and scientists who are building and maintaining the world's nuclear infrastructure from doing their best to save humanity from its own stupidity. All I can say about anti-nukes, when I hear shit like this, is "QED. QED."

Have a wonderful day.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kolesar]

28. dribbles out of the mouthes

minor malcontents pathetic anti-nukes, when I hear shit

[DrGregory]

56. The difference is quality....

the Nobel Prize, and most other Nobel Prize winning nuclear physicists and chemists, couldn't care less about the quibbling nonsense that dribbles out of the mouthes of anti-nukes.

I don't think that spell checking by minor malcontents who have clearly never cracked a science book open in their pathetic lives is going to dissaude the major nations and scientists who are building and maintaining the world's nuclear infrastructure from doing their best to save humanity from its own stupidity. All I can say about anti-nukes, when I hear shit like this, is "QED. QED."
==================================================

The difference in quality of scholarship between the
pro-nuclear and the anti-nuclear is manifest. We have
Nobel Prize winners in Physics like Prof. Hans Bethe and
Dr. Steven Chu on the "pro" side. On the "anti" side,
we have political science types, and social science types...

Unfortunately, we also have a few on the anti side that
won't do a simple grade school level physics problem
correctly because it conflicts with their political leanings.

Deliver us from those who "think" with their politics,
instead of their brains.

Dr. Greg

[Kolesar]

29. dogma of every pisant

Tough shit. Cry all night. The world couldn't care less.

[DrGregory]

12. Chernobyl is the nuclear industry's Hindenberg

Chernobyl. I think that alone proves nuclear is not "vastly superior to everything else"
--------------------------------------------------

Chernobyl is the nuclear industry's Hindenberg.

The Chernobyl reactor - the RBMK - was actually a
old style nuclear weapons production reactor with
a Rankine steam cycle on it to produce electricity
in addition to fuel for Soviet nuclear weapons.

The RBMK looks NOTHING like a commercial power reactor;
either those already built or anything on the drawing board.

To cite the Chernobyl accident as "proving" anything about
nuclear power is equivalent to claiming that the crash of
the Hindenberg alone proves that a Boeing 777 is an accident
waiting to happen.

The Boeing 777 looks nothing like the Hindenberg. The technical
failings responsible for the crash / fire of the Hindenberg are
not present on a Boeing 777. The only thing they have in common
is that they both flew.

Likewise, the RBMK is 1940's reactor technology that looks
nothing like any commercial power reactor in the USA; either
built or contemplated. The only thing Chernobyl has in
common with a US power reactor is the name "reactor".

Dr. Greg

[Confusious]

21. Chernobyl blah blah blah

Have you ever read why Chernobyl happened and why that set of conditions would never happen in a United States reactor?

probably not, since you bring it up.

Hint: laws of nature.

[DrGregory]

48. No downside?

wind has no downside -
============================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o

I saw this on a TV program. They interviewed
a woman that lived nearby. She described the
experience of having pieces of wind turbine
fly over her house.

If a piece of wind turbine had LANDED on her house...?

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

19. The rest of the article From Nuclear Engineering International

When will EDF make a final decision about UK EPRs?
15 September 2010

...But despite spending GBP 50 million on preparatory works contracts, the company has yet to make a final decision to go ahead with the project, executives confirmed. Furthermore it remains unclear when exactly that decision will be made. When asked about the commercial decision, Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson, managing director of the utility's nuclear new-build organisation, said: "
No formal decision will be made until we start building; we need to watch developments over the next few months to making right progress.

It would be ridiculous to make the decision before we had a final engineering approval; it would be ridiculous before we had a site licence.

And it would be ridiculous to do so before putting into place market reforms...that we need to make sure that the market works properly as we develop low-carbon energy in the UK; we have spoken about the need for a floor price for carbon."

Here is what financial analysts in the Citigroup's energy division have to say:
Citigroup 2008 impact of renewables and energy efficiency

What the market should not take for granted

GDP impact on demand and load factors

Consensus view is that electricity demand in the wide European region will grow by 1.5% p.a. over the next couple of decades. This is a view shared by UCTE in its latest System Adequacy Report. Although it is virtually impossible to produce irrefutable electricity demand forecast we are tempted to argue that the risks are on the downside since:

1. During the boom years of 2003-07, when GDP growth was strong and infrastructure investment high on the back of very liquid debt markets and due to the convergence of the new EU joiners, electricity consumption grew by 2.1% p.a.

2. Energy efficiency is likely to become a bigger driver as technology advances and as awareness rises. It is important to highlight that such measures also fall under the Climate Change agenda of governments, which has been one of the driving forces behind the renaissance of new nuclear.

As a result, we would expect electricity demand growth to be in the 0-1% range for at least the next 5 years, before returning to more normal pace of 1.5-2%. We therefore see scope for an extra 346TWh of electricity that needs to be covered by 2020 vs. 2008 levels.

Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca.220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

(Bold in original)

Citigroup Global Markets European Nuclear Generation 2 December 2008

In other words, they are not going to be able to sell their electricity for the price needed to pay for it UNLESS they get the government to subsidize their existence by guaranteeing for 60 years the sale of all of their electricity at much higher than market rates. Remember, the justification for large scale plants like this is that the economics are supposed to be superior. Like most of the rightwing policies, the real economic picture isn't good for nuclear.

[madokie]

20. So in other words it was a bullshit post to begin with

Why am I surprised at that?