Countries Explore Reality of Shuttering Nuclear Power
http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2011-06-07/countries-explore-reality-shuttering-nuclear-power
Touched off by the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, a number of countries -- including industrial powerhouses Germany and Japan -- announced they will move away from nuclear power. So how will they meet their future energy needs? Right now, there are more ambitious goals for expanding renewable sources than there are details of how this can be done. We explore options countries are considering, and the impact their plans may have on the future of nuclear power.
Guests
Richard Lester
Head of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Phil Sharp
President, Resources for the Future
Arne Jungjohann
Director for the Environment and Global Dialogue Program, The Heinrich Böll Foundation (Washington Office)
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
http://architecture2030.org/hot_topics/nuclear-energy-fact-check
•The mean construction time (construction start date to first date of commercial operation) for the 104 nuclear reactors is 9.3 years
•The latest application for a new nuclear reactor (June 2009: Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Homestead, FL) estimates the total project cost between $12.8 billion to $18.7 billion for the two reactors (combined capacity of 2,234 MW
So, nuke plant take 10 yrsto build, cost $19 billion, plus $1 billion for fuel, plus $1/2 billion to decomission plus ~$6 billion to run, maintain etc for 40 yrs plus get rid of rad waste for total of at least $27 billion for 2.2 gigawatts peak
OR
spend $27 billion on PV 6 gigawatts at least
Sun shines avg 23% day for non tracking PV, 31% day for tracking PV
Can get same amout of de-centralized power using PV instead of nukes
PV is price competative NOW with Nukes and they don't kill or irradiate you
Only one safe nuke and it is 8.3 light minutes away (the sun)
Robert Winfield
Your "only one safe nuke" has a 100% guarantee that it will kill us all.
Not to mention the biggest issue with PV is that the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day. In case you missed the memo, there is NO ADEQUATE means of storing that power for use when the sun isn't around.
Electricity is not something that is easily stored and distributed. As demand goes up, power plants need to produce more and I don't mean more in the long run, but quite literally within minutes of the increased demand. If demand goes down, power plants scale down their energy production or else it goes to waste. Existing plants do that by turning on or shutting down generators, how do you do this with solar? If you unplug the line, you overcharge and blow the capacitors. If it's a cloudy day, you're BONED.
One of the biggest problems with Nuclear power in America right now is one of how we're handling the existing reactors. Since Three Mile Island (TMI) no new reactors have been built, while the percentage of energy gained from nuclear has only increased. This means newer reactor designs with better safety measures aren't being used while our older reactors are now pushing the limit of their capacities and working long past their intended lifespans. This is infinitely more dangerous than putting reactors near earthquake prone areas and the strawman issue of nuclear waste.
i am impressed at your knowledge "the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day'. perhaps you meant on differant parts of the planet perhaps?
If you read my initial comment, for the same present dollar$, you can have equivalent power
"Your "only one safe nuke" has a 100% guarantee that it will kill us all"
This is a total "non sequitor" unless you are looking 5 billion years into the future when SOL expands in size, otherwise
"there is NO ADEQUATE means of storing that power for use when the sun isn't around" at present.
I think you are discussing peaking plants that need to spin up and down rapidly, for high demands, when the SUN IS SHINING ON PORTION OF US and AC is needed, when PV can fill the need and is massively distributed at points of use, negating most of transmission losses.
Nukes are prone to shut downs just for the heck of it.
Nukes are baseload, not peaking, think "steady state"