Nuclear power essential to cut emissions: UK expert
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Oceanographer says beachcombers on West Coast may find bones in tsunami debris
( 5 )
-
Hosono visits Fukushima No. 4 reactor amid concern over fuel pool
( 8 )
-
MLB players contribute $310,000 to build mobile cafe for areas hit hardest by tsunami
( 0 )
-
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ reverses Iran account freeze
( 7 )
-
Man cooks, serves own genitals to 5 paying diners
( 130 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
78 Comments
Login to comment
0
some14some
Every nation is free to set its only policies, if UK wants Nuclear Energy and people there support the idea...OK.
-1
realist
As a UK citizen, I know that the majority of people in the UK are against Nuclear power, especially after Fukushima. This man Beddington represents no-one but himself. A growing number of UK citizens no longer believe the lies of the scam called "global warming." Climate change is not man-made, it is a natural phenomenon that has been going on for thousands of years. Beddington is merely a well-paid mouthpiece for the people with a vested interest in promoting the false ideology of "global warming." Only the other day, the so-called scientific "experts" who have been warning us of increasing global temperatures finally admitted what the rest of us have known for a long time - that world temperatures are actually cooling, and have been for the past decade and more.
Enough is enough. People need to wise up to the propaganda, especially since Fukushima. Nuclear power is too dangerous. We need to use more fossil fuels, which produce lovely CO2 gases, so that all the plants and trees can drink them in and produce oxygen for us to enjoy. All this talk of "cutting emissions" is rubbish. The whole scam is simply a massive con game, to force us to pay more taxes and so that governments can have more control over our lives than they already have. Time to say NO.
0
realist
Oh, and Id rather have a lot of CO2 emissions than chronic radiation emissions anyday. Perhaps Mr Beddintgton should ,move to Fukushima City, and take up residence there, if he is so sure its not harmful. Another news item on JT today is quite alarming in this respect.
1
wanderlust
Beddington is still tied to the "nuclear village" as the official government scientist. The UK govt and nuclear industry made a concerted effort to play down Fukushima, as many emails have shown; they did not want anything to impact on their own investment and plans, though the UK is different in that it does have a significant working reprocessing capacity and a nuclear weapons programme that requires plutonium. However, its own MOX programme (and 840 billion yen investment) has just been abandoned, maybe a lesson their for Monju afficionados in knowing when to stop pouring money into a bottomless pit, or reactor pool?
1
NetNinja
John Beddington has obvously been paid off. Someone should serious investigate this guy. Off shore accounts and what not. Time to move on from nuclear energy.
2
tamanegi
Finally some good news for tepco!
0
zichi
Nuclear power only generates 13% of the world's total power. Big Nuke will strike back following the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
1
Utrack
Waste to energy plants aka trash to steam plants cut emissions and cleans the environment by eliminating the need for landfills.
-2
ebisen
he's right - nuclear plants basically emit no CO2 or other harmful gasses. He never considers Fukushima's situation, where the plants emit some very harmful metals, which could kill thousands in the longrun.
The only reason nuclear energy is so cheap is because they run without any insurance. Nuclear plants should be requested by law (as with any other risky business) to be legally insured. Good luck finding the company (or the country) willing to do that. Until then, they are just unfair competition.
-1
WilliB
He is just stating the obvious, but the politically correct crowd wants to have it both ways.
0
zichi
ebisen
The Fukushima power plant was insured. The companies are deciding whether to drop their policy.
Nuclear energy is very expensive.
Nuclear power plants cost billions to build. Billions to decommission. Billions to deal with the nuclear waste which will last for more than 10,000 years. Trillions to clean up when they go wrong!!!
The Monju fast breeder reactor has cost ¥2 trillion so far and only managed to generate one hour of power.
Altogether, a very expensive way to boil a kettle.
-2
ebisen
Not the kind of insurance I am talking about - take the whole risk and cost, even in case of a multiple Level 7 nuclear disasters. There is no company who can do that right now, and even the whole of Japan as a country can't.
Except for the insurance in case of boom!!, nuclear energy is very cheap, the cheapest we have (and by a large margin, as well). It is also very reliable, not being dependent on the season (as hydro), weather (as solar and wind). Never mind fossil.
1
SquidBert
In principal I agree, as long as they guarantee to keep the radioactive cloud inside their nations borders when things go awry.
2
zichi
ebisen
nuclear energy is the most expensive way to generate power but because of all the grants and tax breaks generates billions in profits for the power companies.
A study group from the MIT, stated that between 2005 to 2050, there will be at least five major nuclear disasters. We have had one of those in this prediction.
Solar panels are coming online which can operate in low light including moon light. Hydro isn't seasonal or are tidal generators. Biomass isn't seasonal.....
3
SquidBert
Zichi here makes a very valid and important point.
It is important in ways that might not always be considered. In order to combat Co2 release developing countries need to be targeted as well as "developed". When the economically and politically stable countries of the world uses nuclear energy it legitimizes its use to the developing and often politically unstable countries as well. In fact countries like Japan actively tries to push it's nuclear tech to these countries as emerging markets.
When it has been proven numerous times that not even a highly organized country, like Japan, can safely run nuclear power plants (I am not just talking about Fukushima here), do we really want this tech in the hands of countries with questionable leaders? If the world community demands political stability, proper safety measures and responsible handling as a prerequisite to operate NPPs then most countries are going to be left out. And NPP energy generation will never be a major part of the worlds total energy supply.
So I propose, that to combat Co2 release might be better to help all countries develop and use "green tech" to their full potential, rather than converting a few rich countries (and their lap dogs) to nuclear.
-4
Wolfpack
@realist:
Fantastic post! If the man made global warming crowd were as worried about some future environmental catastrophe that they are convinced will come, then they would be pushing their governments for more nuclear energy. Nuclear can produce huge amounts of energy with absolutely no green house gas emissions. Zero. Wind mills, solar panels, and biomass are interesting but nascent technology that are not even close to being economically feasible. Even if they were, they cannot provide the amount of power necessary to run a modern society. But for some reason they are against nuclear power too. The amount of deaths and health problems that have been attributed to nuclear are miniscule compared to fossil fuels even if you include the Fukushima disaster. The global warming scaremongers are primarily concerned with controlling the lives of people that given the choice would not live their lives the way they want them to.
I think that nuclear power has it's place but that fossil fuels remain the future for the next century or more. Just recently huge new discoveries have been made that makes it all but certain that fossil fuels will be around for a long time to come.
2
Utrack
Japan Can survive without NPP's EASY. From 1965 to 1996 Japan had converted 130 incinerators to generate electricity of the some 2,000 incinerators in Japan, 130 were producing a total of 640 megawatts of power, or an oil equivalent of 232,000 kiloliters. So each incinerator outfitted to generate electricity is producing 4900+ kilowatts of electricity just by burning the trash it would normally burn anyway.
640 megawatts = 640 000 kilowatts.
http://web-japan.org/trends98/honbun/ntj970709.html
Turning Trash Into Cash In Japan, high-tech furnaces are vaporizing toxins and generating clean electricity
Excerpt: There's another benefit to such micro-gasification units. Big cities such as Tokyo produce enough garbage to feed huge waste-to-energy incinerators that churn out electricity. But that's not possible in small communities. So engineers at the state-funded New Energy & Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) have developed a superefficient engine for use with gasifiers. "This will make it possible for towns to produce their own energy," says Mizuhiko Tanaka, a NEDO project coordinator.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_43/b3855017.htm
I wish every Prefecture Official would visit Osaka's Beautiful Waste Power Plant and get the idea to add WTE (waste to energy ) Plants in all Prefectures just by converting their incinerators.
Excerpt: The incinerator heat is used to create enough electricity to run the entire plant's operation, with the leftover sold back to the city (32,000kw).
http://www.newcolonist.com/osaka_waste.html
-3
JapanGal
Glad to here this. Finally someone talking reality. Pro Nuclear is a good and logical policy. Learn from mistakes and move on.
0
Heda_Madness
I think that the two most asinine comments that I've read recently were the poster who claimed that most Chernobyl victims died of stress and the claim that most people in the UK are against nuclear power.
Utter nonsense. If that was even vaguely true (ie a large minority) there would have been daily demonstrations against Sellafield (famous for making the Irish Sea the most polluted Sea in the World). The most that anyone in Britain ever got worked up about was when America stored it's nuclear weapons at Greenham Common and a few bored housewives went along to demonstrate.
Britain is not anti nuclear power as we are a country that fully understands the impact of fossil fuels on our environment.
And I'd be interested to know what alternative 'realist' suggests? Especially given that the UK is likely to face an energy shortfall due to decomissioning and closure of coal power stations.
5
Mikey K
@realist, really？ really now？ its insulting that you consider yourself educated, and worse probably that you are. Unfortunately "global warming" isn't a scam. And your insistence that its a worldwide government conspiracy is simple fear or anger mongering.
Yes, global temperatures are cooling, and warming is a natural process. To this end you are correct. That is why the phenomenon 's name has been changed to "global climate change". Keep yourself informed please.
Climate change (no matter the direction of temperture) is real, its happening, and its being escalated by human impact. Droughts, storms, flooding, etc are influenced by human behavior. More importantly we should recognize that we have the knowledge and capability of doing something about the causes and effects of climate change.
The only people who still call it "global warming" are those who want to denounce the climate change phenomenon and deny copability so they can put thr ENTIRE world in danger while raking in massive profits.
0
JapanGal
Nice info Heda and Mikey. Global change is an ongoing process since the formation of the Earth. This is an active alive planet. Humans are causing problems with climate before, and one of the best ways is to use nuclear. It can be done safely.
1
kurisupisu
If the experts are so 'expert' - why didn't the experts construct the nuclear plant to withstand a major earthquake of the one we had at Fukushima?
Expert opinion?
No thanks!
1
ebisen
zichi (and others marking me with minus):
<>http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
I'm agains nuclear energy myself, and unlike most of you, I put my money where my mouth is, having a 5.75kWh solar power generator on my house. That still doesn't change the FACT that nuclear is the cheapest to produce and sell, IIIIF it is not insured, mmkay? Unlike green technologies (again, I am a supporter of those), nuclear does not require grants, gov. support, etc. It will require an insurer from now one, and that is close to impossible to find.
1
yildiray
It would help your point if you realised he was talking about Tokyo being safe and in no need for evacuation measures.
4
zichi
ebisen, you are wrong about what you said, I don't down people I debate with. I have been an environmentalist for 40+ years and I have played my part too. Like not even owning a car or even hiring or driving one for 30+ years. I live in a low energy house.
But I totally disagree that nuclear energy is the cheapest to produce, the real figures suggest otherwise. Nuclear power plants can only be built with some kind of financial support and in Japan that's big.
1
zichi
Heda_Madness,
your last comment is insulting and incorrect. Have you never even hear or read about CND in Britain. To say the women who protested at Greenham Common about American nuclear missiles were a few bored housewives is demeaning to those who gave many years of their lives for the campaign.
0
JapanGal
Cool job Zichi. I recycle everything, use very little electric and gave up the car. I still think though in these times we still need nuclear electric until further notice.
-1
Heda_Madness
CND - members in the mid 80's 100,000. Members in the mid 90's - less than 50,000. It's fair to assume that the vast majority of members weren't active. Just like any group.
And perhaps it was harsh to suggest that they were all bored housewives. But a lot were.
1
zichi
Chernobyl nuclear power plant is now encased in a huge sarcophagus that will have to be maintained for hundreds of years to prevent radiation leakage, and a 2,800-square-kilometer area around the plant will be completely off-limits for a similar amount of time.
The proposed storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was recently rejected by President Obama, partly on the grounds that it could only guarantee that radioactive material wouldn’t leak after 10,000 years of storage, while the minimum safety requirement established by the US Environmental Protection Agency is 1 million years.
Government subsidies have made nuclear energy appear to be a relatively cheap option.
Eliminate subsidies for nuclear power, especially those that shift long-term risk.
Require nuclear power plant owners to buy full-coverage insurance against accidents.
Require plant owners to also maintain an assurance bond adequate to cover decommissioning and waste disposal costs.
So let’s remove the subsidies, require nuclear power plants to be fully insured, and put aside adequate funds for decommissioning and long-term radioactive waste disposal. Let’s do the same for all energy sources. Then we can use the market mechanism to find out whether nuclear power plants should be part of the energy solution.
In Japan, the true cost of power from nuclear energy is above ¥200/kWh.
Following 3/11 77% of Japanese were against nuclear power. The cost of the clean up will run into ¥trillions and affect millions of people for decades, that is the human cost of nuclear energy.
A pair of proposed nuclear power plants in Florida have "overnight" costs of $3,800 per kilowatt, but since nuclear power plants actually take eight years to construct, the total estimated project costs are closer to $6,800 per kilowatt (kW) of capacity. This figure is reinforced by an estimate for Progress Energy's two new units ($8,800 per kW), and Georgia Power's new plants ($6,335 per kW), both still incomplete.
The Monju fast breeder reactor has cost so far, ¥1.7 trillion to generate 60 minutes of power.
1
zichi
Heda_Madness,
The most polluted sea in the world is the Gulf of Mexico caused by the British Oil Company, BP?
1
warnerbro
Humanity is using energy of all forms at an unsustainable rate. We will have to use less, either by plan or by necessity. It's up to us.
-1
Heda_Madness
It's a well known fact for anyone with a passing interest in environmental studies, and as you've been an environmentalist you should know that the Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK regularly leaked radioactive waste into the Irish Sea causing it to be called one of the most polluted seas in the world and arguably the most radioactive. Infact Greenpeace has gone on record as saying it is the most radioactively contaminated.
I'm surprised you didn't know that.
-1
yildiray
It's a privately owned company, please don't confuse it with a country
0
zichi
yildiray,
I don't understand your comment?
1
Farmboy
If people in Japan could trade carbon emissions for that quite moderate danger, I think they'd go for the emissions in a heartbeat.
0
zichi
Heda_Madness
All the more reasons not to have type of nuclear plant which you seem to support. I think the situation with the Irish Sea has improved.
0
Heda_Madness
I support nuclear power as a neccesary evil. I'm not convinced that there is enough 'green' energy to ensure that we can do without it. Certainly there are not enough alternatives in the UK. We've had terrible issues with pollution from fossil fuels and we don't have the sunlight or even the wind for the more obvious renewable fuels.
Since university I've felt that nuclear power stations should not be located in countries prone to earthquakes, nor should large dams for that matter. However I'm more concerned that as a result of the Fukushima disaster we're going to have older plants on line for longer because they've scrapped the more modern and therefore safer plants. I'd like Japan to use completely renewable energy but until it gets there I would prefer if they used modern nuclear plants with 21st century technology.
The situation in the Irish Sea has improved because BNFL finally plugged the leak but there was a lot of contamination in that sea and people on both sides of it ate food from there that had higher than usually acceptable levels of radiation. And survived.
There is a period of Britain's history that we can link deaths as a direct cause of what we did to the environment - 4-12,000 people over a winter died. That's in one country in one winter. Chernobyl was bad, Fukushima less so. But there are far, far more deaths can be attributed to Fossil Fuels than can be attributed to nuclear.
As far as the options go in the UK, I'll take nuclear because it is safer. Which doesn't mean I'm pro nuclear. Nor would I ever want to live near one. Or an electric power station. Or a recycling plant. Or any other area where statistically you have a higher chance of cancer.
-1
Heda_Madness
Oh and Zichi, I may not agree with all of your posts. But I get you. And as a result I respect your opinion. Whether it's the same as mine or not is immaterial but I'd gladly share a pint and discuss our opposing views because I feel that you've forgotten more about environmental issues than most on here will ever know.
0
zichi
If nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, cheapest energy to use to generate power why does Big Nuke need to prop up their argument with the climate change debate?
Why have both Germany and Switzerland decided to end their nuke power.
The British nuclear industry can only survive because of government subsidies, and every year the industry calls for more of them.
The link is an excellent report on the British nuclear industry and the real cost of nuclear power. It also provides the figures for using renewables.
http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/private/nuclear_subsidies1.pdf
also another good report,"Reports on the feasibility and costs of decarbonising the UK, Europe and the world—and the costs of not taking action."
http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/scenarios.htm
0
lastog
zichi: nuke power does not generate CO2. If nuke is so bad, how come Hiroshima and Nagasaki are booming cities? They are the only cities where nuclear bomb was detonated. Are those cities contaminated and unlivable?
-1
ebisen
zichi: I gave you my sources, and can find hundreds of other stating that the nuclear power is the cheapest around. Could you share yours stating that is costs 200Yen/kWh (about 25 times more than the official and statistical value)?... Because it's easy to do BS cheap talk and just state a number, without anything behind it, and this is ALL YOU'VE DONE...
You said you never used a car in your life - oh yes you did.. do you do online shopping (being sent to you by a truck?), do you ever have your purchases delivered home for you(also by truck).
Did you use only a bicycle for everything ? (I highly doubt it). Will you use an EV when they become cheaper later? (psssst: those are also 20-40% nuclear powered, so don't even start thinking EVs are ecological)...
0
MasterHu
Need nukes? Why not try rationing power? There is no real need to meet demand. Make people's breakers trip enough times, and they will learn.
If nukes make up 13 percent of Britian's power, do you think power usage can be reduced by 13 percent? I do. But you can't be all wishy washy and limp wristed about it.
0
zichi
ebisen,
I don't normally respond to personal insults especially when typed in caps, you can just read the links I provided.
1
zichi
The true cost of power generated by nuclear power would have to include,
Cost of building a nuclear power plant.
Cost of mining uranium.
Cost of processing uranium and making fuel rods.
Cost of importing uranium and fuel rods.
Cost of plant maintenance. In Japan, every reactor must be shut down every 13 months.
Cost of dealing with spent fuel waste.
Cost of insurance for the plant.
Cost of decommission.
Cost of necessary safety and atomic agencies.
Cost of training highly qualified nuclear engineers, technicians and operators.
Cost of accidents and major nuclear events.
In Japan, the cost of nuclear energy tax to prefectures and secret donations.
While a nuclear reactor does not emit CO2, the nuclear industry is not free of CO2 emissions. Mining and processing reactor fuel is also energy intensive, so the overall nuclear system is not actually carbon free.
The total cost of using nuclear energy to generate electrical power is enormous. About 450 reactors in the world only generate 13.8% of the world's electricity.
The clean up at the Fukushima nuclear power plant will cost more than $152 billion. Japan could buy 33 gigawatts of geothermal power for $150 billion, at a cost of $4.5 million per megawatt. That's 10 times as much power as the entire Fukushima Daiichi was producing when it was hit by the earthquake and tsunami, and seven times as much as it could produce when it was running flat out.
Each gigawatt reactor costs upwards of $14 billion. The price is increasing year-on-year.
-1
Heda_Madness
Nuclear power makes up about 20% of the UK's energy. There are also some coal fired power stations which are being phased out which means that by 2015/2016 the UK is expected to have an energy shortfall.
-1
Heda_Madness
Germany have the Green Party who are very strong with regards to forming environmental policy hence the reason they've phased out nuclear power. You can't be in government in Germany without their support or a strong green policy. Yet more evidence to support why it's ludicrous to suggest that everyone in the UK is against nuclear power. Switzerland has the geography that will allow them to use renewable, it's significantly smaller, has less industry and needs less electric. It's kind of like asking why solar power works in the Sahara but not in Southern Chile.
ANd any new nuclear plant built in the UK needs to be funded by private money.
0
The Munya Times
I don't like it nuclear power either. I know I can even walk out to demonstrate, but then I go home by train, use the elevator, at home I turn on the lite and the the water, take some drink out my fridge, switch on the heating, use my hoover etc. even the pump for water supply for my huge mansion building uses electricity, without it I can't even flush my toilet. Even to write a protesting comment needs electricity. What can I do, move back and live in a tent like a neanderthal?
If we turn back to burn fossil energy carriers to produce electricity in a year or two we can't even breath.
On the other hand, its not like I don't trust in nuclear energy, I don't trust in these unscrupulous pigs who build and run these NPPs. That's the problem not the nuclear energy. Once it is placed in the hand of businessmen we are all walking dead men.
0
cleo
There are lots of wasteful uses of electricity that can easily be cut back without you having to resort to flushing your loo with a bucket or putting up with lukewarm drinks - just try turning off unnecessary lights, turn down the brightness on the computer screen and TV, turn off the TV when no one's actually watching it. Our electricity bill has fallen some 25% since 3/11, and we haven't been having lukewarm drinks or tripping over things in the dark. Outside, getting rid of automatic doors and turning down the too-bright lighting can make a huge difference. 'If you use electricity you have to let the nuclear people do what they want' is an argument put out by the pro-nuclear lobby, and it doesn't hold water.
0
The Munya Times
@cleo
Good point fair enough, I try it all the time I don't think I am the greatest talent , though. But what to do with the carbon emissions if we get back to thermal power plants. Either humans abandon all NPPs or....? Decommissioning a few ones and let the rest work doesn't make sense. What about Chin , without nuclear energy they wipe the world dry of all fossil energy carrier in no time considering the frightening rate their energy consummation grows.
0
The Munya Times
amendment: What about China
-1
cleo
We don't 'get back to' thermal power plants. They stay the same as they are now and we cut back the amount of power now provided by nuclear. Then we work on boosting renewable energy sources plus making appliances more energy-efficient and learning to do without stuff we don't need like stiflingly hot indoor spaces in winter where people walk around in shirtsleeves and electrically-heated loo seats, and gradually cut back on fossil fuels.
China is a different problem altogether, and I don't think Chinese energy policy will affect your fridge or lights, at least not directly. Left to their own devices though, surely it would only be a matter of time before there was an 'unforeseeable accident' at some huge NPP in China and the wind would blow the contamination all over Japan, like it now blows the yellow dust.
1
zichi
Since 3/11 and with the shut down of so many reactors, there was an increase in the oil/gas/coal burnt by those fossil fuel power plants. How much? I don't know?
Japan will need to generate power from nuclear energy until it can be replaced by renewables but I believe the country does not need the current 54 reactors nor the 12 that were planned for building.
Britons should take a leaf out of the Japanese book. Following the 3/11 disaster many people are replacing their old appliances with newer more energy efficient ones.
1
zichi
So that means, no new nuclear power plants will be built in Britain because the profit margin for power companies will be greatly reduced. Eventually all the plants will be closed down and not replaced.
Unsafe and subsidised nuclear energy power plants will generate power at a cheaper price than most renewables, with maybe the exception of wind or tidal power. Britain does at least, have the highest wind rate in Europe.
Safe nuclear power plants, build to the state of the art safety standards, like the one being built in Finland, and without subsidies will cost more than renewables. Commercially operated plants will always fail to meet those state of the art standards.
The following is a quote from a comment made by Johannes Weber on this forum. I respect his opinions on these matters.
The third Olkiluoto reactor will be the new European Pressurized Reactor. Scheduled to go on line in 2013 at fixed price of [euro] 3 billion ($4.1 billion), it will have a power output of 1,600 MWe. [...] The Olkiluoto-3 reactor is at least 37 months behind schedule after 42 months of construction, and some 50% over budget.
These numbers are one of the best arguments against building nuclear plants: they are far, far to expensive.
0
Heda_Madness
There are many arguments as to why wind technology is neither renewable nor environmentally friendly. In fact I've seen arguments recently to suggest that using wind farms can have a negative impact on global weather patterns and increase global climatic change. Not to mention the more obvious impact on wildlife.
It looks increasingly likely that Britain will continue with nuclear power plants that are due to finish in order to meet their energy needs. I'd actually prefer Japan to build 12 new power plants if it meant the older, unsafe versions were no longer in use.
1
zichi
Wind turbines-
That is only a design problem which should be changed.
Japan does not need 54 reactors nor the 12 that were planned. All the old plants could be shut down, and even better, changed so that they use another energy. The turbines are still good for a 100 years, its the nuclear reactors which are the problem. Probably half of the reactors could be shut down.
Wind farms having an impact on the climate sounds like fantasy? I guess tidal power would do something to the moon?
Japan badly needs a unified power grid system because the current two electrical system is plain stupid. The British grid system is one of the best.
I have strong concerns that most power companies in Britain are now foreign owned?
-2
Star-viking
@Zichi Oct. 06, 2011 - 06:47PM JST
This is meaningless. We need to know how many turbines they're talking about, and the world wide consumption of electricity. The comment about their rated capacity is a red herring designed to divert the reader from the fact that most turbines, over the course of a year, will only get 20% of their rated capacity, so the 2.5 MW turbines mentioned are equivalent to only a 500 kW generator.
The need to store and move the electricity to where it is needed is not mentioned too. Energy storage is usually only 50% efficient ( 500 kW in, 250 kW out) and expensive, delivering power over long distances is also inefficient.
Now Wiki gives the average electrical annual power generation of the world as around 20,000 TeraWatts in 2008, in MegaWatts that's 20,000,000,000 MW. Divide that by 0.5 MW (the 500kW output of our 2.5 MW wind turbines and we get 40,000,000,000 - that means you need 40 Billion turbines to achieve that annual generation - and power storage needs would bump that up more.
If that seems crazy, then consider the fact that wind turbines have to be given an area of half a square metre per watt output, so by providing all the world's electricity needs these turbines will occupy:
10,000,000,000,000,000 square metres ( 20,000 Terawatts multiplied by 0.5 watts per square metre)
That's 10,000,000,000 square kilometres!
The surface area of the Earth's land is 148,940,000 square kilometres - so we're talking about needing 67 times more land area on the Earth to accommodate these turbines, without accounting for power storage. Insane.
-1
Star-viking
zichi Oct. 07, 2011 - 01:33PM JST
And yet, using those figures Johannes Weber stated that the reactors would be paying off their costs in 26 years. He added four more years to account for maintenance. That leaves 10 years of pure profit, assuming a 40 year operating lifetime. It's a fact that nuclear plants are expensive to build, but they are cheap to operate - it's misleading to only talk about construction costs.
-1
Heda_Madness
Wind farms having an impact on the climate sounds like fantasy?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/07/canwindfarmschangethe_weat.html
Birds flying into them may be a design flaw but unless they've made them completely and utterly quiet they still have an impact on animals. And there have been many claims of adverse health effects on humans. Whether this be due to the noise pollution or other reasons, I don't know but there's enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that windfarms are not the green energy that has been put forward by environmentalists.
And my opinion on wind farms has nothing to do with the fact I failed an interview after university at a major UK windfarm company ;-)
-1
Star-viking
@zichi Oct. 06, 2011 - 06:47PM JST
Because of irrational fears?
Because they're afraid of 16-metre tsunami's knocking out their nuke plants? And apropos the looming climate change disaster Germany has committed to replacing their nukes with dirty, CO2 spewing coal plants.
1
nandakandamanda
If we want to cut emissions, we also need to cut the amount of power we use every day.
Humans need to take more exercise. Little things like grinding coffee do not have to be done with electric grinders.
Uranium Nuclear power looks at how much power we will need in a totally selfish lifestyle, and offers to provide that.
So by making more effort , to sleep earlier, etc., let's help bridge that gap between what renewables can provide, and what thorium reactors could generate if we all became slugs.
For a radiation-free planet! Yay!
(Well, already badly irradiated, but no more than this, please.)
0
zichi
Thorium reactors have their dangers too.
0
nandakandamanda
zizhi, so I understand, but considerably less, no?
0
nandakandamanda
make that zichi, sorry. (A Chinese word/name?)
1
zichi
From the U.S. to Japan, it’s illegal to drive a car without sufficient insurance, yet governments around the world choose to run over 440 nuclear power plants with hardly any coverage whatsoever.
The cost of cleaning up the Fukushima power plant will be more than $250 billion and TEPCO have stated it could take more than 30 years, so that figure could easily double or treble. There will also be a massive payout of compensation claims. Most likely the Japanese taxpayer will be footing the bill and not TEPCO. TEPCO overcharged it's customers by ¥600 billion and they won't be getting a refund. In fact, TEPCO wants to increase it's power charges by 15% for three years.
More than one million people have been directly affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster. More than 100 million cubic meters of contaminated soil will have to be removed from the power plant and surrounding area. Enough to fill the giant Tokyo Dome, 80 times. That estimate was made by Yuichi Moriguchi, a professor of environmental systems engineering at the University of Tokyo, who sits on the Environment Ministry panel tasked with developing standards for removing radioactive materials.
Moriguchi estimates that radioactive materials will have to be removed from 2,000 sq km. It will cost ¥160 billion to build a low level radioactive waste disposal center at Rokkasho. A planned storage at the Rokkasho plant will cost ¥80 trillion. Japan’s taxpayer, not the nuclear industry or insurers, will cover most of the eventual cleanup cost. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ2011091510556
In 2010, Japan raised an operator's liability from ¥60 billion to ¥120 billion. At the time of 3/11 TEPCO was worth about $157 billion but today the share price is worthless and they are selling assets to raise money.
At Chernobyl, the cleanup took decades and is not over yet; 180 tons of radioactive material remain sitting in a concrete sarcophagus over the plant. The sarcophagus cracked last year and is emitting radioactive gases.
The total cost of resettling inhabitants, cleaning and sealing the area and paying off medical claims is estimated by Belarus to be around $235 billion--add to that another billion or two to replace the sarcophagus.
After the 1979 Three Mile Island, the cleanup cost $975 million and took 14 years.
1
nandakandamanda
Quote: He also said the danger posed by crippled reactors at Fukushima was “quite moderate,” citing expert studies to determine whether Britons should be evacuated.
Ha! Sounds like our John Beddington could be full of chocolate pudding.
1
zichi
nandakandamanda
serious downplaying by Beddington, and many others, because he and the Brit gov remain bedfellows of Brit Big Nuke Unlimited and was seriously trying to divert any negative reactions back home. The fact is he made that statement via a phone conference directly after 3/11 to inform all us Brits were safe and no gov emergency evacuation was needed. Quite a different statement came from America.
Next time there's a big disaster don't expect any help from the Brit Gov.
-2
Star-viking
@zichi Oct. 07, 2011 - 06:49PM JST
And we don't have any cover for the dangerous changes that Coal, Oil and Gas power plants are causing to the climate.
First, are you sure the figure TEPCO quoted was in dollars? Strange for a Japanese utility not to use Yen. However, with the current exchange rate that's 19 Trillion Yen. Over 30 years that's about 630 billion Yen per year. Now TEPCO sold 280 TeraWatt Hours of electricity in 2009 - that's 280,000,000,000 KiloWatt Hours, the standard billing unit. Absorbing that cost yearly would cost 2.25 yen per KiloWatt Hour - not so large.
In terms of area that's equivalent to a facility 2 kilometers square with a retaining wall 5 metres high. Big, but do-able.
No, the article states that the temporary storage centre will be in Fukushima, and it will only cost ¥80 trillion if it is constructed in the same way as the Rokkasho plant, which is already built and stores contaminated nuclear plant clothes and metal. I doubt the Fukushima facility will be built in the same way as we are talking about soil as opposed to contaminated nuclear plant material. If you look at the figures someone took the volume of contaminated soil, 100 million cubic metres and divided it by the volume of contaminated material stored at Rokkasho, 0.2 million cubic metres. There's a factor of 80 difference between these, as there is between ¥80 trillion and ¥160 billion. Someone did some very basic maths - with no deeper analysis, so these figures are nothing to get excited about. Personally I think we'd be talking in the hundred of billions, not trillions, for the Fukushima facility.
-2
Star-viking
@zichi Oct. 07, 2011 - 07:52PM JST
Actually, it was nice to have scientific advice. Lots of people were evacuating from Yamagata Prefecture for no good reason, and Beddington's phone conference was reassuring for me.
The American viewpoint was that they didn't want their nationals clogging up systems in the evacuation zones in case things got worse, not due to any deeper insights into the events at Fukushima Dai-ichi.
As for Beddington being in the pay of 'Big Nuke', that's just conspiracy theory stuff. I've a degree in Physics and what Beddington said made perfect sense to me. Your mileage may have varied.
-2
Star-viking
zichi Oct. 07, 2011 - 02:31PM JST
The only energy the steam turbines could use would be Coal, Oil, or Gas. Is that something we want to de doing in an era of man-made climate change? Might as well rip up the Kyoto Protocol and let Big Oil, King Coal, and Lil' Gas get on with the planet-wrecking exercise.
2
zichi
Star-viking
Coal, gas and oil are not the only energies power plants could be converted to. Nuclear energy isn't the only way to reduce CO2 and carbons.
I don't remember Beddington coming for a visit to Japan? Could be wrong? The Brit Gov supports Big Nuke and control damage has been in play since 3/11.
Beddington stated danger posed by crippled reactors at Fukushima was “quite moderate,” what when it was a Level #, Level 5, or Level 7? There wasn't anything quite moderate about the worse nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.
You have quoted what TEPCO generated and what profit it made during 2009. That's when it had both Fukushima plants and the one in Niigata. It has lost one plant at Fukushima and it's not clear about the second one. The governor has stated there will be no more nuclear power plants in Fukushima.
You know as well as I do, if the clean up at the power plant take 30 or more years, the costs will raise and could be more than the double estimate.
The article states it will cost ¥160 billion to build a temporary shelter at Rokkasho for the contaminated soil and ¥80 trillion to build a storage at Fukushima for the nuclear waste from the power plant. Is that wrong?
2
zichi
Star-viking
TEPCO have lost the Fukushima 1 power plant to the disaster. It won't be allowed to restart the Fukushima 2 plant and at the Niigata plant only 2 of the 7 reactors are working. When they are shut down for maintenance, TEPCO will have no working reactors.
For the FY to Mar. 2012 TEPCO have stated it will lose ¥2 trillion. TEPCO had been able to generate 63 million kW but without the nuclear power plants that will be reduced to about 45 million kW max.
2
zichi
Oct.3 a government panel have submitted a final report to the PM on TEPCO's current management and financial position. The task of the panel was to investigate ways TEPCO can raise asset funds to pay compensation to the victims of the nuclear disaster. The total redress to the end of Mar.2012 will be ¥4.5 trillion. TEPCO expect to make a loss of ¥2 trillion during the same period.
The panel has called on TEPCO to: -raise ¥707 billion by the sale of its assets, mostly property owned by the company, including the TEPCO Tokyo HQ. -reduce costs by ¥2.6 trillion over 10 years. This is 2x what TEPCO had planned. -cut the workforce by 7,400 or 14%. -reduce pensions for current and retired workers.
Public money will be used if TEPCO fails to raise the ¥4.5 trillion. More taxpayer's money going down the nuclear energy drain.
2
zichi
John Beddington Britain's chief scientific adviser
The full record of transcripts of telephone conferences held by Beddington and the British Embassy in Tokyo are available on the Embassy website www.ukinjapan.fco.gov.uk. Calls were held on 15 March [12], 18 March [13], 25 March [14] and 7 April [15]. It should also be noted that the travel advice issued by the Foreign and Commonweath Office also took account of other factors, including the devastation caused by the earthquake and tsunami that occurred in NE Japan on 11 March and the resultant power shortages, transport and supply disruptions. Press reporting of the Fukushima crisis was extensive and sometimes based on scant factual information. The critical moment came around 16–17 March when it became apparent that the situation at Fukushima was more serious than previously anticipated. Beddington was accused of "misinforming" the British Government over the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. The Whitehall Correspondent of the Independent reported that he initially underestimated the seriousness of the incident by "unequivocally" saying there was no danger from radiation, but 24 hours later said he was "extremely worried". This resulted in "significant delay" in evacuating British citizens from Japan, according to a British minister.[16]. Other commentators also reported on the position taken by Beddington and the change in the science advice that took place around 16–17 March, commenting that although the situation was "definitely more serious" the "Japanese are doing the right things". [17].
-2
Star-viking
@zichi Oct. 07, 2011 - 11:34PM JST Star-viking
What energies are we talking about then? Steam turbines can be used in fossil fuel and nuclear plants, and large geothermal plants. The latter are unproven in Japan.
I didn't say he did. I said "phone conference"
Well, the had to go on the facts given to him at the time.
It will still have to provide power - if I recall correctly it can ramp up power production in it's fossil fuel plants.
True, but we have to work with what we've got.
Yes. The article says the following about Rokkasho:
So not for contaminated soil, and not to do with the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster - it's already built.
It says the following about the Fukushima storage facility:
and
As I pointed out, they've just taken the size factor difference between the volume of the Rokkasho facility and the volume of the soil needed to be removed in Fukushima and multiplied the cost by this. Very simplistic, does not account for fixed-price costs, the fact that the soil can be dumped en-masse, and have only a few isotopes to worry about, and also that soil can be compacted. This shows that little thought has gone into this.
-2
Star-viking
zichi Oct. 08, 2011 - 03:38AM JST
And that's the way science works - when more information comes to light you have to check it, and if necessary change your position. Perhaps we are too used to the politicians promising the earth and never changing their viewpoints no matter what new facts come to light?
As for the delay in evacuating British Citizens from Japan, well that turned out to be a bust anyway. I know of a lot of people who spent a lot of time and money 'evacuating' from Japan or their prefectures only to have to come back later, to a safe environment, a lot of yen poorer.
BTW. the link that [16] gives is to the Independent, which says:
Well, as we know that 'Evacuate Tokyo' alarm turned out to be a big waste of time - so maybe John Beddington was being more spot-on than the politicians.
-2
Star-viking
@zichi Oct. 08, 2011 - 12:11AM JST
Do you have a reference for this you could pass my way? I'm a bit doubtful, as NHK News mentioned during the week that the cost of getting in fossil fuel for Tepco's 'Burners' will cost around one trillion yen per year - this does suggest spare capacity.
1
zichi
Better to be a load of yen poorer than dead. As soon as there were any signs of meltdown the order to evacuate should be given to at least 50 km. I believe there were not that many British nationals living in Fukushima Prefecture? We are not in a "safe environment", it's one that could change weekly or even daily. There are still places even in Tokyo with very high levels of radiation.
British nationals didn't have to leave Japan just Tokyo. They could have taken a vacation on Osaka which many did, until the picture became more clear.
But there again, I won't put my life on the line based on a decision by the likes of Beddington, or for that matter even the British Gov.
-1
Star-viking
Well, I'll have to disagree with you then zichi, I'll listen to the experts, though I'll make my own decision.
Back to top