Monbiot on FITs, etc.

[wookey]

Billi, I didn't think I was being 'religious'. I try and avoid that. I was just doing some very 'envelopy' sums to compare the overall costs of new nuclear and PV, in the light of the overruns in the new Finnish plant. It seems to me that even with the overruns that plant will produce power at reasonable rates, but I do admit to not knowing much about Nuclear and find it very hard to get much in the way of objective information on the subject - it is a very polarised issue.

I much prefer renewables and efficiency improvements in general, but I also prefer Nuclear over Coal for GHG reasons, but what I prefer isn't really very important in the wider scheme of things.

I was using those projected numbers because those were the ones quoted and I didn't know of any others. Sadly I also don't have sufficient expertise to judge their veractity. Clearly there can only be projected numbers for this plant as it's not running yet. On the other hand I'd expect the build costs to be becoming fairly clear by now. Ultimately we have to end up in a world run almost entirely by renewable energy, but that's going to take quite some time. Until the Uranium runs out too there is a place for Nuclear energy, so long as it is economic. The evidence I've seen suggests that it is.

[Ancient Brewer]

Billi, I didn't think I was being 'religious'. I try and avoid that. I was just doing some very 'envelopy' sums to compare the overall costs of new nuclear and PV, in the light of the overruns in the new Finnish plant. It seems to me that even with the overruns that plant will produce power at reasonable rates, but I do admit to not knowing much about Nuclear and find it very hard to get much in the way of objective information on the subject - it is a very polarised issue.

I much prefer renewables and efficiency improvements in general, but I also prefer Nuclear over Coal for GHG reasons, but what I prefer isn't really very important in the wider scheme of things.

I was using those projected numbers because those were the ones quoted and I didn't know of any others. Sadly I also don't have sufficient expertise to judge their veractity. Clearly there can only be projected numbers for this plant as it's not running yet. On the other hand I'd expect the build costs to be becoming fairly clear by now. Ultimately we have to end up in a world run almost entirely by renewable energy, but that's going to take quite some time. Until the Uranium runs out too there is a place for Nuclear energy, so long as it is economic. The evidence I've seen suggests that it is.

Billi has already proven that point, inadvertently with his own figures

http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10467.0.html


3.8 cent subsidy per kwh of nuclear power from 1950-2008 (Germany). Basically the difference in cost between nuclear and fossil fuels.

[martin]

The only way it's "economically viable" is to not do it safely/properly, or to not clear up completely afterwards (no government has done so yet, can't see 'em starting now!)- witness the fact that the government is already trying to hide many of the true costs so as to make it appear viable. There were reports around 6 years ago that very comprehensively dismissed nukes on several grounds - the ONLY reason they are back on the agenda is because of the strength of the incredibly well-funded and connected lobbyists , (as personified in *Ancient Brewer's "lobbyists lines"), and a degree of desperation by uninformed (or bribed incentivised  members of government to gain "green brownie points" - Nukes are no way renewable, sustainable, or green!

 
One wonders how much the UK equivalent of China's "50 cent army" get paid to spam fora with their pro-nuke disinformation and "positive spin"

[Ancient Brewer]

The only way it's "economically viable" is to not do it safely/properly, or to not clear up completely afterwards (no government has done so yet, can't see 'em starting now!)- witness the fact that the government is already trying to hide many of the true costs so as to make it appear viable. There were reports around 6 years ago that very comprehensively dismissed nukes on several grounds - the ONLY reason they are back on the agenda is because of the strength of the incredibly well-funded and connected lobbyists , (as personified in *Ancient Brewer's "lobbyists lines"), and a degree of desperation by uninformed (or bribed incentivised  members of government to gain "green brownie points" - Nukes are no way renewable, sustainable, or green!

 
One wonders how much the UK equivalent of China's "50 cent army" get paid to spam fora with their pro-nuke disinformation and "positive spin"

With the one exception being Chernobyl it has by and large been done properly. The empirical epidemiological evidence backs that position up all the way. The impact of nuclear installations is probably the most studied and well funded area of occupational epidemiology since 1950.

Compare that to mass coal burn which is the only real viable alternative

[Ancient Brewer]

The only way it's "economically viable" is to not do it safely/properly, or to not clear up completely afterwards (no government has done so yet, can't see 'em starting now!)- witness the fact that the government is already trying to hide many of the true costs so as to make it appear viable. There were reports around 6 years ago that very comprehensively dismissed nukes on several grounds - the ONLY reason they are back on the agenda is because of the strength of the incredibly well-funded and connected lobbyists , (as personified in *Ancient Brewer's "lobbyists lines"), and a degree of desperation by uninformed (or bribed incentivised  members of government to gain "green brownie points" - Nukes are no way renewable, sustainable, or green!

 
One wonders how much the UK equivalent of China's "50 cent army" get paid to spam fora with their pro-nuke disinformation and "positive spin"

I'm not directly involved in Nuclear nor in any way a lobbyist. At times I am ambivalent towards atomic power. I am currently in Brewing, shortly moving over into Oil and Gas in the Gulf region.

Will be interesting to see if Aramco really do hook up a Nuc to this baby to provide all the process heat, Desal and Electricity. Very efficient use of both electrical and thermal output.

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

One hell of an engineering project that's for sure.