| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| Nuke energy in decline |
| 2004-06-27 |
| A while ago we had a discussion on Nuclear Power not being the solution to the greenhouse effect. New Scientist just had a relevant article come up: --- Nuclear share of electricity predicted to fall 19:00 26 June 04 NewScientist.com news service New nuclear power stations are being built in Asia and Eastern Europe but hardly anywhere else, according to a new global analysis by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Twenty-seven reactors are under construction in 10 countries, led by eight in India, four in Ukraine and three in Russia. However none are being built in any of the other 22 countries with nuclear power, including the US, Canada and all of Western Europe. At the moment 442 reactors in 32 countries generate 16 per cent of the world’s electricity. On current trends, the IAEA predicts that this will shrink to between 11 and 12 per cent by 2030, in part due to the predicted increases in electricity generated by other methods. But the IAEA argues that an expansion to 27 per cent is needed to raise living standards and combat climate changeto protect their own jobs. what else do you expect the International ATOMIC ENERGY agency to say???. The agency, based in Vienna, Austria, is charged by the United Nations with both promoting and regulating nuclear power. "The more we look to the future, the more we can expect countries to be considering the potential benefits that expanding nuclear power has to offer for the global environment and for economic growth,"please save our jobs! says IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei. Wind energy However, this argument is rejected by Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Maryland, US. He argues that using nuclear power to tackle climate change would cost 40 per cent more than using wind energy and improved energy efficiency. To make a significant dent in emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, Makhijani says 2000 large nuclear stations would have to be built worldwide over 40 years. "This would be a huge proliferation, safety and economic issue," he warns. "Nuclear power is the wrong approach to addressing global warming." Two of the reactors currently under construction are in Iran, and one is in North Korea - both countries suspected by the IAEA of using civil nuclear technology to develop nuclear weapons. Elsewhere, China, Taiwan and Japan are each building two reactors, with South Korea, Romania and Argentina building one each. The IAEA accepts that new nuclear plants are expensive and time-consuming to build.also to decommission. Very expensive to dismantle an old reactor whose very walls and pipes have become radioactive waste. Oh thinking of waste.. those tiny spent fuel rods: there’s still NO safe permanent way to dispose of them. But in the future, says the agency’s deputy director general for nuclear energy, Yuri Sokolov, "new innovative designs, with shorter construction times and significantly lower capital costs could help promote a new era of nuclear power".Please save my job! |
| Posted by:Anon1 |
| #15 RC! Wash your mouth out with soap! That's Anon1 - long-standing ultimate authority of Rantburg! Why, I can almost recall the hundreds of deep-thought commentaries and remarkable analysis posts by this world renowned authority. We should be humbled he deigns to grace us with his thoughts. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-06-29 7:45:24 AM |
| #14 Criticism of the Nuclear industry is legit enough to make it to New Scientist magazine so it aint the province of hysterical greenies. Oh, well I guess we all forgot how New Scientist is the ultimate arbiter of what's Correct. They have absolutely no editorial position, and every one of their articles is guaranteed to be equivalent to the Word of God. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-29 7:23:36 AM |
| #13 Guess what? Criticism of the Nuclear industry is legit enough to make it to New Scientist magazine so it aint the province of hysterical greenies. Not only that but El Baradei is a complete LOSER who when not advocating that the west keep him relevant by building Nuke stations, runs around demanding that Israel give up all its nukes unless we let the third world despots have them. |
| Posted by: Anon1 2004-06-29 7:06:27 AM |
| #12 Most of the utilities have given up on Yucca Mountain happening anytime this century. My company plans to go into dry storage. Too bad about all the money we had to give the government for Yucca. |
| Posted by: davemac 2004-06-27 9:29:44 PM |
| #11 Iran is a good site for our nuclear waste. We can pour it down their old oil wells. The Soviets say it worked well for them in Poland. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2004-06-27 5:44:59 PM |
| #10 The irony of the brouhaha over the opening of Yucca Mountain Long Term Waste site is that the Navy has been putting their decommissioned reactors at the DOE's Hanford, Wahington site for years now. This picture always brings a tear to my eye. My old boat is in it somewhere :( If it is a DOE operation, I can not vouch for its safety. The DOE made a mess at Hanford during the pursuit of nuclear weapons. If it is a Navy operation, you can eat your lunch off the pit floor. The other much maligned method for decom is Davy Jones Locker. When the USS Thresher sank off the coast of Massachusetts in '63 :( she was fairly shredded to pieces. The Navy does rad surveys of the area including the sea floor where the remains ended. The results were always squat. Water makes a hell of a shield. |
| Posted by: Zpaz 2004-06-27 5:02:02 PM |
| #9 And how many eco-friendly, if undependable, bird-chop... er, windmills would it take, eh Arjun? |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-06-27 3:31:48 PM |
| #8 Nice try, Anon. Of all the attacks of knucklear power I have ever seen, the "Save My Job" attack is the most contemptible. I was a Navy nuke for 5 years and a civilian nuke for 6. Navy nuclear power operations were actually fun. Commercial - forget it. I never met a person in commercial nuclear power who was not contemptuous of their situation and did not yearn for a way out. If you want to meet a wild-eyed, unhinged lunatic, see any nuclear engineer after spending 5 days writing safety evaluations and planning a task that is the real-world equivalent of changing your lawn mower oil. And God help the poor dumb bastard who gets half way through the job and finds a complication. The money is good, but in the end, it is not worth the hassles. I made my Great Escape in 98. Thank God. So there, Anon, if you want ammo, use that. Please release that abused species, the nuclear workman, from your paranoid conspiracy theory. They deserve better. |
| Posted by: Zpaz 2004-06-27 2:19:14 PM |
| #7 Another lying opinion piece disguised as a commented article. This time on how bad nuclear power supposedly is. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-06-27 1:21:48 PM |
| #6 And ban the byproducts of that nuclear energy, like food. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-06-27 12:56:26 PM |
| #5 Solar Power is Nuke Energy. Mother nature's own. And please throw in the death toll annually from skin cancer into that calculation What! What! The Sun causes cancer! The Sun is nuclear! It must be banned immediately. And probably would be, if it wasn't for evil George Bush and Halliburton. |
| Posted by: A Jackson 2004-06-27 12:07:37 PM |
| #4 Actually, nucleaar power is a good option. The problem with the waste can be solved by recycling. It is the enviros that are very much against recycling. Nuclear waste can be recycled over and over until all that is left is very low level stuff. |
| Posted by: Michael 2004-06-27 11:34:53 AM |
| #3 correctamundo, Don, 1/3 of all Australians get malignant skin cancers in their lives. Most get them cut out but some die. |
| Posted by: Anon1 2004-06-27 9:29:02 AM |
| #2 Don't forget - Solar Power is Nuke Energy. Mother nature's own. And please throw in the death toll annually from skin cancer into that calculation. |
| Posted by: Don 2004-06-27 8:36:03 AM |
| #1 Al Gore demonstrated the power of wind energy this past week. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-06-27 3:21:13 AM |