Energy company tortures Belgian PM, forcing him to keep nuke plants open.

[Eddie Dane]

In this lovely video by our friends at Greenpeace.


The myth of the all powerful nuclear lobby taken to Nazi-era propaganda heights.

Bravo.

[Aepervius]

I can't judge anything since all I Hear and see is in foreign language.

[Cleon]

Does anybody speak Belgian?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Does anybody speak Belgian?

It's like French, but with a bowler hat, an umbrella, and a different kind of mustache.

/I learned everything I know about Belgium from Agatha Christie.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Does anybody speak Belgian?

Ja, vlaams

[DC]

he is forced to say, The Nuclearpowerplants have to keep running vor aditional ten years.

[DC]

pretty tasteless and ignorant propaganda.

[Travis]

Why does Greenpeace love coal power so much? That is the bigger question.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by Travis

Why does Greenpeace love coal power so much? That is the bigger question.

Haven't you heard?
Renewables is the way to go. It just takes political will. Just look at Germany.

I wonder what it takes to get some sense into the population.
Blackouts probably. But the sad truth is that as long as coal keeps the lights on, most people will keep telling themselves it is all going OK and we'll eventually switch to windmills.

Maybe an equally aggressive awareness campaign about coal would help?

[Travis]

Germany has some of the worlds largest coal mines and an enormous number of coal power plants. Since when is Germany run solely on wind and solar energy?

I mean I know that it is not your claim but it just baffles me.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Travis

Germany has some of the worlds largest coal mines and an enormous number of coal power plants. Since when is Germany run solely on wind and solar energy?

I mean I know that it is not your claim but it just baffles me.

who makes the claim? or is this a strawmen contest?

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by DC

who makes the claim? or is this a strawmen contest?

Nobody is claiming that, but many people believe that we can just switch to renewables, and that that Germany has initiated a process that will end with a completely wind-and solar powered Germany.
Just read discussions on various fora, like the comment section under the articles about nuke energy on the Guardian, for instance.

ETA:
I'd say on average, people have:
-A waaaaaaay overblown idea of the dangers of nuke energy.
-No frigging clue about the dangers of coal.
-A firm belief that we can just switch to windmills and solar panels.

The above is a very dangerous combination of misconceptions in the mind of the voting public.
It could literally drive the world's ecosystem of a cliff and cause wars over resources.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Nobody is claiming that, but many people believe that we can just switch to renewables, and that that Germany has initiated a process that will end with a completely wind-and solar powered Germany.
Just read discussions on various fora, like the comment section under the articles about nuke energy on the Guardian, for instance.

ETA:
I'd say on average, people have:
-A waaaaaaay overblown idea of the dangers of nuke energy.
-No frigging clue about the dangers of coal.
-A firm belief that we can just switch to windmills and solar panels.

The above is a very dangerous combination of misconceptions in the mind of the voting public.
It could literally drive the world's ecosystem of a cliff and cause wars over resources.

i agree that the dangers of Nuclear power are overblown by many

i don't really agree on the ignorance about the dangers of coal, Greenpeace is fighting the planned new coalplants in Germany for example. people are aware of it , the media just doesnt cover it as well.

Not sure about what people think about renewables, while there surely are a good deal of people that have those fantasies of just placing a few windturbines and solar pannels will do the job, i do know many people that are well aware of the problematics of storage and smartgrids etc.

but here you overblow a danger, the war danger?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Energy company Reality tortures Belgian PM, forcing him to keep nuke plants open.

FTFY.

My contacts in the nuclear community have been predicting for a year now that even the germans will have to reverse their cranio-rectal transposition at some point.

The math of energy production only points in one direction and theres no escaping it for anyone.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

ETA:
I'd say on average, people have:
-A waaaaaaay overblown idea of the dangers of nuke energy.
-No frigging clue about the dangers of coal.
-A firm belief that we can just switch to windmills and solar panels.

The above is a very dangerous combination of misconceptions in the mind of the voting public.
It could literally drive the world's ecosystem of a cliff and cause wars over resources.

Not so. As the UK goverment has found out the hard way over the last couple of years nuclear isn't financialy viable. As a result public opinion is largely irrelivant.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

FTFY.

My contacts in the nuclear community have been predicting for a year now that even the germans will have to reverse their cranio-rectal transposition at some point.

The math of energy production only points in one direction and theres no escaping it for anyone.

Even more coal? Well its possible but the need for short term solutions is pushing more in the dirrection of gas.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

FTFY.

My contacts in the nuclear community have been predicting for a year now that even the germans will have to reverse their cranio-rectal transposition at some point.

The math of energy production only points in one direction and theres no escaping it for anyone.

From the Economist:

Quote:

It will be years before the answers are known for sure. But the Energiewende, as Germans call the energy U-turn, has already produced one certainty: the country’s four giant power companies, which were already compelled last year to shut eight of their nuclear plants for good, are among the big losers. And their fate may revive heretical thoughts of a reprieve for atomic power.

Quote:

But then their fortunes turned (see chart). In short order, the firms were dealt two body-blows. The first they could have coped with: the European Commission forced them to spin off their transmission networks. But the effect was compounded by the Energiewende, which curtails the firms’ most predictable source of revenue. All nuclear plants have to be taken offline by 2022. And despite the shutdown, the companies have to pay a nuclear-fuel tax of around €2.3 billion ($2.9 billion) a year until 2016.

Quote:

The firms need to build new capacity, but what kind of replacements should they invest in as nuclear plants and ageing conventional power stations go off stream? Offshore wind farms are expensive and their income unpredictable. Low gas prices make the returns on gas-fired plants too uncertain. New coal-fired stations may look attractive now, but could falter if, as seems likely, charges for carbon emissions go higher. As a result, it is almost impossible to calculate the future returns on a new power station over the next 20 or 30 years.

Quote:

Various estimates say the U-turn will push up consumer prices by between 20% and 60% by 2020.

Quote:

Last February, with all the active nuclear plants working at full capacity, Germany’s energy producers were only just able to keep the lights on.

Article ( you need to subscribe)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by geni

Even more coal? Well its possible but the need for short term solutions is pushing more in the dirrection of gas.

In the short term, yes. Germany is currently committed to blanketing europe in coal ash.

But when fossil fuels run out, you need to have something with the right density and capacity factor. And you just can't run a technological civilization on sunshine, happy thoughts and unicorn farts.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

In the short term, yes. Germany is currently committed to blanketing europe in coal ash.

But when fossil fuels run out, you need to have something with the right density and capacity factor. And you just can't run a technological civilization on sunshine, happy thoughts and unicorn farts.

Current estimates of coal reservers are usualy in excess of a century. If your market for nuclear is reliant on coal running out we may have to wait some time.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by geni

Current estimates of coal reservers are usualy in excess of a century. If your market for nuclear is reliant on coal running out we may have to wait some time.

Not likely. With a century left to go and well over a century since we started using coal, "peak coal" is probably coming soon. Nuclear wouldn't need coal to run out, just get more expensive.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Not likely. With a century left to go and well over a century since we started using coal, "peak coal" is probably coming soon. Nuclear wouldn't need coal to run out, just get more expensive.

The problem with that argument is that:
1)coal would need to get a lot more expensive
2)Nuclear takes too long to build to react to price shocks so gas is a more likely responce.
3)Depending on use levels peak uranium is rather close.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by geni

The problem with that argument is that:
1)coal would need to get a lot more expensive

If governments start bringing in carbon taxes, it will.

Quote:

2)Nuclear takes too long to build

France built 56 reactors in 15 years, going from 5% nuclear to 85% of their total electricity production.

Quote:

gas is a more likely responce.

It's cheaper for now, but not quite in as much supply as coal. i've even seen proposals for nuclear to be used to extend natural gas stocks.

Quote:

3)Depending on use levels peak uranium is rather close.

Not for another 2.5 million to 3 million years.

[Fishstick]

Originally Posted by geni

The problem with that argument is that:
1)coal would need to get a lot more expensive
2)Nuclear takes too long to build to react to price shocks so gas is a more likely responce.
3)Depending on use levels peak uranium is rather close.

2) We shouldve been building modern design nuke plants 20 years ago, instead of cowtowing to radical "BUT, ATOMZ!" emotional fears constantly. The recent fukushima scare rippling to a general anti-nuclear movement is prime example of how the nuclear energy debate is almost entirely emotional, rather than rational.

3) Even IF the supply of uranium was close, which it's not, there are other sources of nuclear fuel which are arguably more desirable from a safety standpoint, such as Thorium.

One interesting, US-centric idea I've seen put forward is putting the military in charge of US nuclear power. Their engineers already have experience dealing with a variety of nuclear reactors in naval vessels, and the US military has never shied of investing billions into tech and development that will only come into fruition decades later.

[Fishstick]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

I can't judge anything since all I Hear and see is in foreign language.

In belgium , there are several nuke power plants. Their construction has mostly been funded by taxpayers, and the profits the power companies make of these has been a source of contention ever since. Everytime the nuke debate comes up in Belgium, its constantly muddied by these facts. Green parties say that the only reason Belgium is keeping up its Nuke plants is due to lobbyist pressure. While that may be a factor, realism also comes into the game as Belgium already imports a large amount of its power from France and Germany. Since Belgium is a tiny country and one of the most urban ones, there is simply no room for useful solar facilities, and limited real estate along the shore for wind. Belgium either has to turn to Coal/Gas for power, or invest in new Nuke plants, which, given the current 'oh no fukishima'-climate and politicians being politicians, is not likely.

The proper debate should not be 'should we keep these 40 year old plants open', which, even from a pro-nuclear stance, is arguably 'no', but, 'should we build more and/or replace our current ones', where the rational answer is 'yes'.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

If governments start bringing in carbon taxes, it will.

Carbon capture vs nuclear? Given the amount of pollution reducing tech they were prepared to load into drax I still wouldn't bet on nuclear.

Quote:

France built 56 reactors in 15 years, going from 5% nuclear to 85% of their total electricity production.

And Calder Hall was build even more quickly. Amazing what people will do when they think they need nuclear power for nuclear weapons.

Quote:

It's cheaper for now, but not quite in as much supply as coal. i've even seen proposals for nuclear to be used to extend natural gas stocks.

Cost vs build speed. Nuclear has triple dissadvantage of high cost, low build speed and limited ability to cover anything beyond base load.

Quote:

Not for another 2.5 million to 3 million years.

Err even the closed fuel cycle (which no one is even trying at the moment) people tend to max out at a few thousand. Even the most optimistic estimates have proven reserves only being enough to power our civilisation for a few decades if used in light water reactors (which is what people are pretending to plan to build).

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by geni

Carbon capture vs nuclear? Given the amount of pollution reducing tech they were prepared to load into drax I still wouldn't bet on nuclear.

There's simply no other option for when fossil fuels run out. We could start feeling the pinch from peak coal in less than 50 years.

Quote:

Amazing what people will do when they think they need nuclear power for nuclear weapons.

The French program had nothing to do with weapons.

Quote:

Cost vs build speed. Nuclear has triple dissadvantage of high cost, low build speed

Already dealt with.

Quote:

and limited ability to cover anything beyond base load.

Easily dealt with, run them at full power during off-peak hours and electrolyze hydrogen.

Quote:

Err even the closed fuel cycle (which no one is even trying at the moment) people tend to max out at a few thousand.

Unconventional Uranium is sufficient for 7 million years at 1983 power consumption levels.

Originally Posted by geni

Even the most optimistic estimates have proven reserves only being enough to power our civilisation for a few decades if used in light water reactors

Unconventional Uranium in a once-through cycle is good for tens of thousands of years.

Originally Posted by geni

(which is what people are pretending to plan to build).

The nuclear community is quite focused on Generation IV technology.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

There's simply no other option for when fossil fuels run out. We could start feeling the pinch from peak coal in less than 50 years.

Could but probably wont.

Quote:

The French program had nothing to do with weapons.

Which is why the massive state subsidies and continued financial issues are a bit worrying.

Quote:

Already dealt with.

Sizewell B took 8 years to build. There are no UK companies interested in building further plants.

Quote:

Easily dealt with, run them at full power during off-peak hours and electrolyze hydrogen.

We'll add that to the list of unproven tech.

Quote:

Unconventional Uranium is sufficient for 7 million years at 1983 power consumption levels.

Other than breeder reactors that requires technologies that do not presently exist and will in any case push the price of uranium through the roof. Since no one is building breeder reactors only the figures for LWRs matter at the moment and they don't look good.

Quote:

The nuclear community is quite focused on Generation IV technology.

Not the bits that are actualy generating electricty. Those are mostly focusing on reactor life extension and trying to work out how to get another load of state subsidies.

[ellindsey]

Originally Posted by geni

Other than breeder reactors that requires technologies that do not presently exist and will in any case push the price of uranium through the roof. Since no one is building breeder reactors only the figures for LWRs matter at the moment and they don't look good.

Extraction of uranium from seawater has been demonstrated. The amount of uranium in the oceans is essentially impossible for us to use up, especially since new uranium is constantly leaching into the ocean.

It isn't being pursued commercially because there are cheaper ways to produce uranium. The same goes for other alternate sources of uranium. There's not much financial incentive to produce them - the current supplies of uranium are more than sufficient for near-term use. There's not much demand for alternate uranium sources at the moment. This does not mean they don't exist. Furthermore, the price of the raw uranium is only a small part of the actual price of electricity from nuclear power - most of the cost is in the construction and maintenance of the plants themselves. So the price of nuclear power isn't tied to the cost of uranium anywhere near to the extent that the price of power from fossil fuels is tied to the cost of coal or gas, and the actual availability of uranium is not likely to be a factor in the adoption of nuclear power.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by geni

Could but probably wont.

You obviously don't understand how Peak Theory works. Coal has been around for 100+ year, we have maybe 100 years left... if you don't think that prices will start to go up by the time we have 25% of our total reserves remaining then you're just not thinking about this clearly.

Quote:

Sizewell B took 8 years to build. There are no UK companies interested in building further plants.

And the french took 15 years to build 56 reactors.

Quote:

Quote:

Easily dealt with, run them at full power during off-peak hours and electrolyze hydrogen.

We'll add that to the list of unproven tech.

My brother electrolyzed hydrogen from water when he was in third grade. He earned 2nd place at the science fair beating out a dozen baking soda paper mache volcanoes.

So you can take that off your list.

Quote:

Other than breeder reactors that requires technologies that do not presently exist

You're going to @#$% your pants when you hear that men have been to the moon and powerful computers can now fit in your hand (the people of Nagasaki would also like a word with you).

Uranium has been bred into plutonium on large scales for 60 years. As Dr. Eric Loewen, President of the American Nuclear Society and lead designer of the GE PRISM reactor points out, the next generation of breeders is less complicated than a WWII battleship.

Quote:

and will in any case push the price of uranium through the roof.

Multiplying the available supply of a resource by more than 100 times doesn't usually result in price increases. Even then, the price of uranium is currently roughly 50$ per pound. At current prices for electricity, the market is capable of sustaining prices as high as 7,000$ per pound.

Quote:

Since no one is building breeder reactors only the figures for LWRs matter at the moment

Nothing that could happen in the next 15 years should be considered when figuring out what's going to happen over the next 15 years?

Originally Posted by geni

Not the bits that are actualy generating electricty. Those are mostly focusing on reactor life extension and trying to work out how to get another load of state subsidies.

And yet the nuclear community remains intensely focussed on Gen IV technology. There is no one in the nuclear industry who thinks these things won't be built and in increasing numbers over the rest of the century.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

You obviously don't understand how Peak Theory works. Coal has been around for 100+ year, we have maybe 100 years left... if you don't think that prices will start to go up by the time we have 25% of our total reserves remaining then you're just not thinking about this clearly.

Err our proven coal reserves should last quite a bit beyond 100 years.

Quote:

And the french took 15 years to build 56 reactors.

Going by the constuction rate on sizewell C we can only assume that everyone involved in that is dead.

Quote:

My brother electrolyzed hydrogen from water when he was in third grade. He earned 2nd place at the science fair beating out a dozen baking soda paper mache volcanoes.

So you can take that off your list.

There is a reason that there are people out there who earn very large amounts of money for working out how to scale things up. Its not a straightforward process.

Quote:

You're going to @#$% your pants when you hear that men have been to the moon and powerful computers can now fit in your hand (the people of Nagasaki would also like a word with you).

Uranium has been bred into plutonium on large scales for 60 years. As Dr. Eric Loewen, President of the American Nuclear Society and lead designer of the GE PRISM reactor points out, the next generation of breeders is less complicated than a WWII battleship.

Err did you read what I wrote "Other than breeder reactors that requires technologies that do not presently exist". I'm well aware that breeder reactors have been constructed. I'm also aware that if you remove a couple of soviet BM plants which there is a lack of data for they tended to have issues. Perhaps thats why people have stopped building them although personaly I suspect it has more to do with the end of the cold war.

Quote:

Multiplying the available supply of a resource by more than 100 times doesn't usually result in price increases.

You are assuming a fixed cost of production which seems very unlikely. We are using very cheap sources at the moment.

Quote:

Nothing that could happen in the next 15 years should be considered when figuring out what's going to happen over the next 15 years?

And the ICF mob could get fusion power of the ground however its generally more useful to extrapolate from current trends. Which at the present time point towards LWRs if there is enough goverment subsidy on the table.

Quote:

And yet the nuclear community remains intensely focussed on Gen IV technology. There is no one in the nuclear industry who thinks these things won't be built and in increasing numbers over the rest of the century.

Well no one who is going to say they aren't for obvious reasons. Talk however is cheap. The current failure of the UK government to get nuclear newbuild off the ground suggests nuclear is not at the present time economicaly viable (the lib dems aren't prepared to support subsidies see?).

I have no objection to nuclear power. Indeed I work with radioactives on a regular basis. I'm just realistic about its economic prospects.