5 ms·

> a few years ago Germany built a coal power plant with two times 920MW for 2.4 billion Euro. The nuclear power stations built at Tianwan is then cheaper than

by catzaa 17y ago

> a few years ago Germany built a coal power plant with two times 920MW for 2.4 billion Euro. The nuclear power stations built at Tianwan is then cheaper than that. > Well, prices of nuclear power plants are so huge that only a few have been built in the last twenty years. Nuclear power has stagnated after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. After that a lot of governments stopped building or made regulation so tough that building one became infeasible. With the rise in awareness of global warming nuclear power is getting a second look. The problem is that the only viable alternative (with current technology here, today) is nuclear power. It is either that or coal power stations that emits a lot of Carbon Dioxide. > The future is described in the article and it is not nuclear. It is decentralized production of electricity and heat, energy efficiency, wind solar, biogas, etc. The future described in the IEEE Spectrum article is definitely not renewable. The problem is that renewable energy is simply a pipe dream in 99% of situations. All renewable energy projects are developed with incredibly large government handouts. So, either it is an increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions, a dramatic reduction in electricity usage or nuclear power. > They could park the waste cheap in Siberia... oh, they are doing it already. With reprocessing of spent fuel, the amount of nuclear waste is reduced significantly. A coal power plant also produces a large amount of nuclear waste. The only difference is that it is pushed in the air (in addition to carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide (which causes acid rain), particulate matter, etc…). With reprocessing a nuclear reactor probably produces less waste than a coal power station. > The price is huge environmental damage. Coal power plants already produce huge environmental damage (Global Warming). > If France wants to invest even more into nuclear energy, let's see how they deal with the costs. Nuclear power is a perfect fit for France since they are not blessed with coal reserves as large as that of Germany. It is better than any alternative (including importing coal or oil). Despite France’s lack of coal and a significantly smaller population, they produce as much electricity as Germany. They are also a net electricity exporter (which would indicate that they can sell their electricity for more than they can produce it).

lispm 17y ago
Sure nuclear power stations are cheaper in China then in Germany. All kinds of things are cheaper there. Still the first two reactors cost about 3.2 billion $. Try to build them for that money in Europe. Nuclear power is no viable technology. Mining is extremely damaging (including the emission of CO2) , substances handled are extremely dangerous, safety is not resolved and waste disposal is nowhere world wide solved. The IEEE article is mostly misleading. The offshore windparks are currently being built and planned. The government recently has summed up the plans and activities. The plan is to get 15 % of electricity by 2020 based on wind. All renewable energy is then planned to be at 30%. http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/windpark102.html http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/windpark102.html http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2009/09/2009-09-16-offshorepark-windenergie.html http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2009/09/200... That's the plan just last month announced. Reprocessing of spent fuel makes the material even more dangerous. Reprocessing is already a dangerous process that generates huge amount of waste (for example the chemicals used). France spends huge amounts of tax dollars for their nuclear industry, and has largely failed to invest money in other technologies like renewable energy. Let's see how France deals with their nuclear waste: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00.... No pretty sight, I'd say. Additionally it follows the usual strategy to build large players. Many here in Germany prefer to get rid of these large companies and get large parts of the energy production decentralized. The technology is now there and just needs to applied. Volkswagen now has a program for 100000 small 'Blockheizkraftwerke' ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk ) which will provide electricity and heating energy. They will also be able to generate electricity and provide it to the grid. Nuclear power plants are dinosaurs deserving to die.
- catzaa 17y ago
  > Sure nuclear power stations are cheaper in China then in Germany. All kinds of things are cheaper there. Still the first two reactors cost about 3.2 billion $. Try to build them for that money in Europe. Coal Prices are almost the same the world over. The price increased significantly the past few years (that is one reason for a steep rise in electricity prices in many countries). In my country we are lucky – we have low quality sulphur rich coal which we do not export. Thus we can burn it cheaply for electricity and the only side-effect is acid rain. > Nuclear power is no viable technology. Mining is extremely damaging (including the emission of CO2) , substances handled are extremely dangerous, safety is not resolved and waste disposal is nowhere world wide solved. Mining of Uranuim is much cleaner than coal – and much less needs to be mined. For coal they actually remove mountain tops to get to the coal. Remember that more than 5000 people die each year only in China from coal mining. > The IEEE article is mostly misleading. The IEEE article is extremely accurate. It is a magazine of the largest Electronic and Engineering groups (i.e. a specialist magazine). The article you linked to is for general consumption. > Reprocessing of spent fuel makes the material even more dangerous. Reprocessing is already a dangerous process that generates huge amount of waste (for example the chemicals used). Not true. > and has largely failed to invest money in other technologies like renewable energy. How much energy does countries with “renewables” generate? (hydropower excluded). There is no serious renewable energy projects – most of it is toys when compared to real power stations. It is just window dressing and none of it is feasible. > http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00... http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00..... No pretty sight, I'd say. Additionally it follows the usual strategy to build large players. The Spiegel article is sensationalist (and half true) as most of their articles are. The nuclear fuel are stored above ground in containment drums – this is quite normal. The problem is that the reprocessing has a huge backlog (since the demand is so high). > Volkswagen now has a program for 100000 small 'Blockheizkraftwerke' ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk ) And they should be driven either by diesel or gas. Will this really solve any problems? > Nuclear power plants are dinosaurs deserving to die. Another thing is happening and will happen more in the future. Manufacturing countries (such as China) will build nuclear power stations (as part of a sensible energy policy) and manufacturing will be exported. With high energy prices German products will become uncompetitive. I think that we can only agree to disagree.

by catzaa 17y ago

lispm 17y ago

Sure nuclear power stations are cheaper in China then in Germany. All kinds of things are cheaper there. Still the first two reactors cost about 3.2 billion $. Try to build them for that money in Europe. Nuclear power is no viable technology. Mining is extremely damaging (including the emission of CO2) , substances handled are extremely dangerous, safety is not resolved and waste disposal is nowhere world wide solved. The IEEE article is mostly misleading. The offshore windparks are currently being built and planned. The government recently has summed up the plans and activities. The plan is to get 15 % of electricity by 2020 based on wind. All renewable energy is then planned to be at 30%. http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/windpark102.html http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/windpark102.html http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2009/09/2009-09-16-offshorepark-windenergie.html http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2009/09/200... That's the plan just last month announced. Reprocessing of spent fuel makes the material even more dangerous. Reprocessing is already a dangerous process that generates huge amount of waste (for example the chemicals used). France spends huge amounts of tax dollars for their nuclear industry, and has largely failed to invest money in other technologies like renewable energy. Let's see how France deals with their nuclear waste: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00.... No pretty sight, I'd say. Additionally it follows the usual strategy to build large players. Many here in Germany prefer to get rid of these large companies and get large parts of the energy production decentralized. The technology is now there and just needs to applied. Volkswagen now has a program for 100000 small 'Blockheizkraftwerke' ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk ) which will provide electricity and heating energy. They will also be able to generate electricity and provide it to the grid. Nuclear power plants are dinosaurs deserving to die.

catzaa 17y ago
> Sure nuclear power stations are cheaper in China then in Germany. All kinds of things are cheaper there. Still the first two reactors cost about 3.2 billion $. Try to build them for that money in Europe. Coal Prices are almost the same the world over. The price increased significantly the past few years (that is one reason for a steep rise in electricity prices in many countries). In my country we are lucky – we have low quality sulphur rich coal which we do not export. Thus we can burn it cheaply for electricity and the only side-effect is acid rain. > Nuclear power is no viable technology. Mining is extremely damaging (including the emission of CO2) , substances handled are extremely dangerous, safety is not resolved and waste disposal is nowhere world wide solved. Mining of Uranuim is much cleaner than coal – and much less needs to be mined. For coal they actually remove mountain tops to get to the coal. Remember that more than 5000 people die each year only in China from coal mining. > The IEEE article is mostly misleading. The IEEE article is extremely accurate. It is a magazine of the largest Electronic and Engineering groups (i.e. a specialist magazine). The article you linked to is for general consumption. > Reprocessing of spent fuel makes the material even more dangerous. Reprocessing is already a dangerous process that generates huge amount of waste (for example the chemicals used). Not true. > and has largely failed to invest money in other technologies like renewable energy. How much energy does countries with “renewables” generate? (hydropower excluded). There is no serious renewable energy projects – most of it is toys when compared to real power stations. It is just window dressing and none of it is feasible. > http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00... http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00..... No pretty sight, I'd say. Additionally it follows the usual strategy to build large players. The Spiegel article is sensationalist (and half true) as most of their articles are. The nuclear fuel are stored above ground in containment drums – this is quite normal. The problem is that the reprocessing has a huge backlog (since the demand is so high). > Volkswagen now has a program for 100000 small 'Blockheizkraftwerke' ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk ) And they should be driven either by diesel or gas. Will this really solve any problems? > Nuclear power plants are dinosaurs deserving to die. Another thing is happening and will happen more in the future. Manufacturing countries (such as China) will build nuclear power stations (as part of a sensible energy policy) and manufacturing will be exported. With high energy prices German products will become uncompetitive. I think that we can only agree to disagree.