Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 83

Thread: Phoronix 2011 Chernobyl Nuclear Tour

  1. #71
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    35

    Default

    :ottering money plants::
    Serously article with web cam images from Japan and jap.manufacturer list that could be affected by disaster will grab more attention.. and maybe some time later ukraine chernobyl footage.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrin View Post
    I doubt that these calculations include risk from severe catastrophes like from Tschernobyl or Fukushima. Would also be interesting to know if waste management/recycling costs are fully included in these calculations. And how much does human lifes, healthiness and nature cost?
    Those are excellent questions. According to a very recent report (freely downloadable), the nuclear industry (in the US) is heavily subsidised, being the shifting of risks from the the industry to the public one of the results of those subsidies, and generating a market distortion the neoliberal type of moron should abhor if intellectual honesty wasn't incompatible with this ideology.

    Conspicuously absent from industry press releases and briefing memos touting nuclear power’s potential as a solution to global warming is any mention of the industry’s long and expensive history of taxpayer subsidies and excessive charges to utility ratepayers. These subsidies not only enabled the nation’s existing reactors to be built in the first place, but have also supported their operation for decades.

    The industry and its allies are now pressuring all levels of government for large new subsidies to support the construction and operation of a new generation of reactors and fuel-cycle facilities. The substantial political support the industry has attracted thus far rests largely on an uncritical acceptance of the industry’s economic claims and an incomplete understanding of the subsidies that made—and continue to make—the existing nuclear fleet possible.

    Such blind acceptance is an unwarranted, expensive leap of faith that could set back more cost-effective efforts to combat climate change. A fair comparison of the available options for reducing heat-trapping carbon emissions while generating electricity requires consideration not only of the private costs of building plants and their associated infrastructure but also of the public subsidies given to the industry. Moreover, nuclear power brings with it important economic, waste disposal, safety, and security risks unique among low-carbon energy sources. Shifting these risks and their associated costs onto the public is the major goal of the new subsidies sought by the industry (just as it was in the past), and by not incorporating these costs into its estimates, the industry presents a skewed economic picture of nuclear power’s value compared with other low-carbon power sources.

    SUBSIDIES OFTEN EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE ENERGY PRODUCED

    This report catalogues in one place and for the first time the full range of subsidies that benefit the nuclear power sector. The findings are striking: since its inception more than 50 years ago, the nuclear power industry has benefited—and continues to benefit—from a vast array of preferential government subsidies. Indeed, as Figure ES-1 (p. 2) shows, subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced. This means that buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been less costly than subsidizing the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Subsidies to new reactors are on a similar path.

    [...]

    The most important subsidies to the industry do not involve cash payments. Rather, they shift construction-cost and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening taxpayers with an array of risks ranging from cost overruns and defaults to accidents and nuclear waste management. This approach, which has remained remarkably consistent throughout the industry’s history, distorts market choices that would otherwise favor less risky investments. Although it may not involve direct cash payments, such favored treatment is nevertheless a subsidy, with a profound effect on the bottom line for the industry and taxpayers alike.

    Reactor owners, therefore, have never been economically responsible for the full costs and risks of their operations. Instead, the public faces the prospect of severe losses in the event of any number of potential adverse scenarios, while private investors reap the rewards if nuclear plants are economically successful. For all practical purposes, nuclear power’s economic gains are privatized, while its risks are socialized.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrin View Post
    you spread only disinfo here without sources. Here is a list with solar power stations. Maybe your source is already very outdated

    Capacity of the biggest solar thermal station has a capacity of 354 MW. That is not bad. Would be very interesting to get info about construction cost, operation cost, dismantling cost, disposal/recycling cost, cost of possible risks with sources. Otherwise these numbers don't tell much.
    -> http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9993.html
    "Das Unternehmen ACCIONA Energy hat ein Solar-Kraftwerk mit einer Photovoltaik-Spitzenleistung von 46 Megawatt (MW) in Amareleja (Moura, Portugal) in Betrieb genommen. ACCIONA habe in die Solarstromanlage - die größte ihrer Art weltweit - rund 261 Millionen Euro investiert"

    which means in english: The company ACCIONA Energy has build and is operating a photovoltaik-powerplant with a possible peak of 46 MW in Amareleja (Moura Portugal). ACCIONA put 261 Million Euros into this powerplant which is the biggest of it's type worldwide

    http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9947.html
    "Deutschlands größte Photovoltaik-Kraftwerke sind komplett am Netz"
    "Germanys biggest photovoltaik-powerplants are now completely integrated into the power-delivery network"

    "In Waldpolenz schloss juwi-Niederlassungsleiter Ingo Rödner gemeinsam mit dem Bürgermeister der Stadt Brandis, Andreas Dietze, offiziell den Bau des 40-Megawatt-Solarkraftwerks ab, das die drittgrößte Photovoltaik-Anlage der Welt ist."

    -> In Waldpolenz juwi-branch manager Ingo Rödner and Brandis' mayoral Andreas Dietze officialy completed the construction of the 40-MW-photovoltaik-powerplant, which is the third biggest photovoltaik power plant worldwide.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    You're talking about photovoltaics, he's talking about thermal-solar energy.

    Photovoltaics are currently more suitable for covering the electricity needs of a home, other designs are better suited for large plants.

    But that's the beauty of photovoltaics -- you can put them everywhere, and they don't need to generate 1000 MW all at once.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidovitch View Post
    I am sorry, but have to react on this. What do you mean by the media is over reacting on this?
    The Surgeon General was misquoted by NBC(1) appearing to say that citizens on the west coast were right to purchase iodine tablets to prepare for radiation from Japan. RT(2) is reporting that the UN is saying a radiation plume will hit California tomorrow.

    That is an over-reaction.

    So anyway, now that the supporters of Nuclear power have cleared up the fact that nuclear energy is the only viable option for power, are they volunteering to store the waste in their basements and attics? Or should we just continue digging holes and dumping like Canada is currently doing next to Lake Huron and the U.S. wants to do in Yucca Mountain?

    (1) http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...118031559.html
    (2) http://rt.com/usa/news/us-nuclear-plume-usa-japan/

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    272

    Default

    In the Huffington Post it's reported that all wind turbines are fully functional in Japan
    Battle-proof Wind Farms Survive Japan's Trial by Fire

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    55

    Default

    So anyway, now that the supporters of Nuclear power have cleared up the fact that nuclear energy is the only viable option for power, are they volunteering to store the waste in their basements and attics? Or should we just continue digging holes and dumping like Canada is currently doing next to Lake Huron and the U.S. wants to do in Yucca Mountain?
    We should reprocess the fuel and bury the remaining amount of high-activity waste in the Yucca Mountain.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    Those are excellent questions. According to a very recent report (freely downloadable), the nuclear industry (in the US) is heavily subsidised, being the shifting of risks from the the industry to the public one of the results of those subsidies, and generating a market distortion the neoliberal type of moron should abhor if intellectual honesty wasn't incompatible with this ideology.
    Nope. This report is simply misleading. EVERY (yes, every) power generation method receives subsidies from the government. For the alternative generation methods (wind and solar) these subsudies so far exceed the commercial cost of generated power several times. For the coal, the figure is about 0.5 times and for the natural gas about 0.3 times.

    And the most expensive power generation method is hydro (if you consider the cost of flooded land).

    Also, authors of this report don't get it: there's NO free market where one can buy the same amount of power to replace nuclear.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Why some countries *already* produce 40% of its energy from wind sources and others no? why Spain has 40% wind and 15% nuclear and France has 75 nuclear and wind power at minimum amount?
    Spain generates 15% from the wind power: https://demanda.ree.es/demanda.html , far less than 40%.

    I answer you, because of politics and bad decisions. There are choices now, we are not in 50s, so making the right decision is important. This is the balance of exported power between france and spain during the last years:
    And compare it to the total power generation in France: 116GWe with peak at 100GWe.

    The whole power generation in Spain is about third of that, with wind power generation a meager 8% of France's power demands.

    Oh, and only 26GWe with average of 15GWe is provided by the fossil fuel plants in France.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrin View Post
    The electrical peak load in Germany is at about 83 Gigawatt/year and in 2009 they produced about 140 Gigawatt.
    (source)
    Does it really matter if other countries would have to replace power from German using fossil fuels?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •