Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 28.05.2019, 10:47
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,614
Groaned at 349 Times in 300 Posts
Thanked 13,674 Times in 7,515 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Keep nuclear power

Sensible advice from the International Energy Agency "Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals"

Source

It says "The lack of further lifetime extensions of existing nuclear plants and new projects could result in an additional 4 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions."

Some countries are reducing nuclear because of false concerns about safety. Byproducts from fossil fuels are believed to kill many thousands more people than nuclear ever did.
Reply With Quote
The following 11 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #2  
Old 28.05.2019, 10:50
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,628
Groaned at 210 Times in 178 Posts
Thanked 20,295 Times in 8,658 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Some countries are even shutting down and dismantling nuclear plants that are nowhere near their end of life. Thus causing a lot of nuclear waste without the benefit of the power that usually comes with it.
Reply With Quote
The following 7 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #3  
Old 28.05.2019, 11:09
Loz1983's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 3,030
Groaned at 649 Times in 413 Posts
Thanked 9,905 Times in 4,090 Posts
Loz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Some countries are even shutting down and dismantling nuclear plants that are nowhere near their end of life. Thus causing a lot of nuclear waste without the benefit of the power that usually comes with it.
My position is basically keep the nuclear power stations that are there running for as long as is safe to do so, but not to build any new ones. The economic argument for nuclear power just isn’t there when you factor in the costs of decommissioning them.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 28.05.2019, 11:23
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 13,240
Groaned at 268 Times in 174 Posts
Thanked 15,618 Times in 6,630 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Some countries are even shutting down and dismantling nuclear plants that are nowhere near their end of life. Thus causing a lot of nuclear waste without the benefit of the power that usually comes with it.
Yes, utterly stupid. Next they'll be taking down windmills to stop the windmill noise cancer.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #5  
Old 28.05.2019, 11:26
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 13,240
Groaned at 268 Times in 174 Posts
Thanked 15,618 Times in 6,630 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
My position is basically keep the nuclear power stations that are there running for as long as is safe to do so, but not to build any new ones. The economic argument for nuclear power just isn’t there when you factor in the costs of decommissioning them.
And I would say keep them and build more until most gas, coal and oil burning plants are replaced.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #6  
Old 28.05.2019, 11:36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 394
Groaned at 21 Times in 16 Posts
Thanked 396 Times in 230 Posts
dandi has earned the respect of manydandi has earned the respect of manydandi has earned the respect of many
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
My position is basically keep the nuclear power stations that are there running for as long as is safe to do so, but not to build any new ones. The economic argument for nuclear power just isn’t there when you factor in the costs of decommissioning them.
While I agree that the economic costs of decomissioning nuclear plants are astronomic, I would like to see a more thorough comparison between nuclear and coal that would include the cost of the pollution caused by coal and its CO2 impact - including mining pollution as well. I doubt think the economic argument would be so clear cut all things taken into account

And if we are purely based on economics, gas is probably the "cheapest" - but can you quantify its ecological impact in financial terms?
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank dandi for this useful post:
  #7  
Old 28.05.2019, 11:39
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,614
Groaned at 349 Times in 300 Posts
Thanked 13,674 Times in 7,515 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
My position is basically keep the nuclear power stations that are there running for as long as is safe to do so, but not to build any new ones. The economic argument for nuclear power just isn’t there when you factor in the costs of decommissioning them.
I wonder if they could better design such power stations to make decommissioning easier and cheaper?
Bit like Transformers; you pull a lever and it all folds in on itself
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 28.05.2019, 11:42
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 10,001
Groaned at 78 Times in 69 Posts
Thanked 15,092 Times in 6,711 Posts
aSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

I can not speak for my self so I will give the word to a person with more knowledge on the subject than I could ever have:



Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank aSwissInTheUS for this useful post:
  #9  
Old 28.05.2019, 11:43
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,628
Groaned at 210 Times in 178 Posts
Thanked 20,295 Times in 8,658 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
And I would say keep them and build more until most gas, coal and oil burning plants are replaced.
Most / many recently built plants (and those still under construction) have massively exceeded their budget. So either planners are intentionally low-balling the costs to get them approved, or there is something wrong with the planning process.

One would have thought that with all the cumulative experinece and the number of in progress going worldwide, that some standardisation should be possible, taking out some of the risk and cost overruns that typically occur when every project is designed completely from scratch.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #10  
Old 28.05.2019, 11:43
Loz1983's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 3,030
Groaned at 649 Times in 413 Posts
Thanked 9,905 Times in 4,090 Posts
Loz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
While I agree that the economic costs of decomissioning nuclear plants are astronomic, I would like to see a more thorough comparison between nuclear and coal that would include the cost of the pollution caused by coal and its CO2 impact - including mining pollution as well. I doubt think the economic argument would be so clear cut all things taken into account

And if we are purely based on economics, gas is probably the "cheapest" - but can you quantify its ecological impact in financial terms?
What’s the point? I assume we’re talking about Western Europe here where coal is more or less dead anyhow.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 28.05.2019, 11:50
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 26,376
Groaned at 1,637 Times in 1,257 Posts
Thanked 30,571 Times in 14,595 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
I wonder if they could better design such power stations to make decommissioning easier and cheaper?
Bit like Transformers; you pull a lever and it all folds in on itself
Just blow it up!

Tom
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 28.05.2019, 12:05
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,628
Groaned at 210 Times in 178 Posts
Thanked 20,295 Times in 8,658 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
What’s the point? I assume we’re talking about Western Europe here where coal is more or less dead anyhow.
Coal is nowhere near as dead as all the massive growth renewables would suggest.

In Germany the decomissioning of nuclear has even led to a ramping up of coal, with new plants added and existing plants upgraded. Some still under construction.

There was recently a massive protest against the cutting down of a forest that was in the way of an opencast lignite mine. Ironically many of the people at the protest were the same people who just a few years back were protetsing for the shutting down of nuclear.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #13  
Old 28.05.2019, 13:09
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 394
Groaned at 21 Times in 16 Posts
Thanked 396 Times in 230 Posts
dandi has earned the respect of manydandi has earned the respect of manydandi has earned the respect of many
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
One would have thought that with all the cumulative experinece and the number of in progress going worldwide, that some standardisation should be possible, taking out some of the risk and cost overruns that typically occur when every project is designed completely from scratch.
As with any large-scale projects, I guess there's a lot of factors that make them less standardizable. There's always pressures to get new technologies/techniques adopted just because someone has a new baby to breed and wants to burn some money on it - look at what happened with Hinkley Point C

I always wonder if it would be more economic to produce smaller-sized nuclear reactors (the kind used for marine propulsion for instance) at large scale and just use lots and lots of them - these could be standardized both in term of SOPs, maintenance, fuel, parts, etc
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank dandi for this useful post:
  #14  
Old 28.05.2019, 14:07
NotAllThere's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baselland
Posts: 10,824
Groaned at 166 Times in 144 Posts
Thanked 15,363 Times in 6,209 Posts
NotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Thorium reactors were looking quite promising at one time.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank NotAllThere for this useful post:
  #15  
Old 28.05.2019, 14:50
PaddyG's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pensier, Fribourg
Posts: 9,278
Groaned at 121 Times in 105 Posts
Thanked 16,854 Times in 5,910 Posts
PaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Thorium reactors were looking quite promising at one time.
They could be, but need a lot more development work before they become a viable option.

Quote:
I always wonder if it would be more economic to produce smaller-sized nuclear reactors (the kind used for marine propulsion for instance) at large scale and just use lots and lots of them - these could be standardized both in term of SOPs, maintenance, fuel, parts, etc
A US company is developing small-scale modular nuclear powerplants (probably not the only one), each with 200 MW capacity.

https://www.nuscalepower.com/
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 28.05.2019, 15:05
venetian's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Zuerich
Posts: 80
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 67 Times in 39 Posts
venetian has earned some respectvenetian has earned some respect
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
While I agree that the economic costs of decomissioning nuclear plants are astronomic, I would like to see a more thorough comparison between nuclear and coal that would include the cost of the pollution caused by coal and its CO2 impact - including mining pollution as well.
I think the real cost that matters when talking about nuclear power is the "perceived" cost in case of accident. Every other type of math disappears when people remember that in 1986 they were forbidden to eat vegetables and play in parks because of something happening 1000 km away (if you wonder, I am a nuclear physicist born in 1984 ).

And, of course, it's very difficult and very emotional to estimate the cost of an accident for the entire host region and its citizens.

From a technical point of view there is no doubt that nuclear is the most efficient and clean way to go, the real issue is all about safety and perceived safety - including weird ideas like a hijacked plane crasing on a reactor and so on.

On standardization: that may also not be a real issue. It's pretty much established that Chernobyl accident was caused by a human/procedural error and not by fatigue or cheap manufacturing; Fukushima was caused by lack of imagination in the design phase, having protection for earthquakes and tsunamis but not for both together and in any case not with waves that high.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank venetian for this useful post:
  #17  
Old 28.05.2019, 15:33
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 7,364
Groaned at 244 Times in 207 Posts
Thanked 8,881 Times in 4,643 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
A US company is developing small-scale modular nuclear powerplants (probably not the only one), each with 200 MW capacity.
Instead of a few big and highly dangerous plants you have many more small but barely less dangerous ones which, unless you accept higher running costs, are much less well protected, and probably kept by less-well trained personnel. That can only increase the risk of accidents and theft.

Especially in these times you want to minimise the risk of enabling dirty bombs.

And there is of course another elephant in the room:
You create nuclear waste with half-lives of thousands of years. No definitive storage facility (word? "Endlager") for highly radioactive waste exist, after 60 years of civil use.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at Urs Max for this post:
  #18  
Old 28.05.2019, 15:36
gbn's Avatar
gbn gbn is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Zuri Oberland
Posts: 2,705
Groaned at 108 Times in 73 Posts
Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,085 Posts
gbn has a reputation beyond reputegbn has a reputation beyond reputegbn has a reputation beyond reputegbn has a reputation beyond reputegbn has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
What’s the point? I assume we’re talking about Western Europe here where coal is more or less dead anyhow.
Doesn't matter what happens in Western Europe.

There's 2.5 billlion+ Chinese and Indians waiting to charge their electric toothbrushes. That charge is mainly coming from coal. Or more coal.

No amount of virtue signalling or hair shirting over here will make any difference
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank gbn for this useful post:
  #19  
Old 28.05.2019, 15:48
PaddyG's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pensier, Fribourg
Posts: 9,278
Groaned at 121 Times in 105 Posts
Thanked 16,854 Times in 5,910 Posts
PaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Instead of a few big and highly dangerous plants you have many more small but barely less dangerous ones which, unless you accept higher running costs, are much less well protected, and probably kept by less-well trained personnel. That can only increase the risk of accidents and theft.

Especially in these times you want to minimise the risk of enabling dirty bombs.

And there is of course another elephant in the room:
You create nuclear waste with half-lives of thousands of years. No definitive storage facility (word? "Endlager") for highly radioactive waste exist, after 60 years of civil use.
You're assuming nuclear power plants are "highly dangerous" and that theft or terrorism is a genuine threat.
Nice way to twist the narrative, well done
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank PaddyG for this useful post:
  #20  
Old 28.05.2019, 16:01
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 26,376
Groaned at 1,637 Times in 1,257 Posts
Thanked 30,571 Times in 14,595 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
You create nuclear waste with half-lives of thousands of years. No definitive storage facility (word? "Endlager") for highly radioactive waste exist, after 60 years of civil use.
If the half-life is thousands of years, it is NOT highly radioactive.

Tom
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Excursion to nuclear power-station Mariia Travel/day trips/free time 0 05.08.2015 20:27
Beznau nuclear plant e.kazemi Other/general 96 07.12.2012 22:24
can I re-apply for a new UK licence so I can keep my CH separate? keep my shelldo10 Transportation/driving 24 09.11.2012 18:17
Is nuclear power a necessity ?? miss_bean International affairs/politics 95 30.05.2011 18:49
Swiss nuclear smuggling. hoppy Swiss politics/news 1 25.10.2010 14:59


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:33.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0