SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Share
SelectSmart.com Your dialect reveals where you live.
What do you call this small freshwater lobster-like crustacean?
Crawdad
Crawfish
Crayfish
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France

Posted by Anonymous User 
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
January 30, 2011 05:55PM
Notice the lack of the words safe and economically viable from that comic?

Granted, I will concede that vast, full to capacity, leaking dumps housing nuclear waste "temporarilly" for decade after decade until some magic way of disposing of it all is invented are technically "low in greenhouse gas emissions and plentiful".

Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
January 30, 2011 05:58PM
And do you think for a second that France's nuclear energy production could exist on its own without constant and massive government subsidizing? In terms of what it actually costs, nuclear energy is the most expensive method of boiling water that has ever been devised.

Let's talk about the greenhouse gasses and environmental destruction involved in the mining of Uranium for a sec here okay?

Nuclear energy isn't free of greenhouse gasses nor from environmental damage. The strip mines used to mine uranium are massive and destructive on an unacceptable level. The need for trains, giant earth movers, etc all require petrol at levels far surpassing your average car. The transportation costs are phenomenal and then it all has to be refined using coal powered electricity.

While uranium may be "plentiful" it sure as hell isn't free of greenhouse gasses.
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
January 30, 2011 06:27PM
Quite true, Cas. The inefficiency of nuclear energy is staggering when all that is required to produce it is taken into account.

It's like using a flame thrower to heat a baby bottle.

Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quite true, Cas. The inefficiency of nuclear
> energy is staggering when all that is required to
> produce it is taken into account.
>
> It's like using a flame thrower to heat a baby
> bottle.

Wrong!

Nuclear reactors are very safe now and come in all sizes.

The old "Chernobyl" technology of 1986 is very outdated and no longer used.

Check this out.

By the way, check this out!

Facts about safe and reliable nuclear power in France:

• France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.

• France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.

• France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.

• It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.

• About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.


P.S. -- I must repeat these factual data for those who did not see or read it before it before.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 06:40PM by James Cessna.
While the technological advances of nuclear reactors may be safer than twenty years ago the waste storage facilities are not and the amount of waste has grown considerably.

You must take into account all aspects of the processes involved in nuclear power production, not just the safety of the current reactor models. When all is added up nuclear energy becomes a no-win game with larger side-effects and environmental damage than any existing means of energy production. Also add in the danger to human health and safety and you've got yourself one of the worst energy sources that you can find.

Unless we build thorium reactors there is no real future in nuclear power.
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
January 30, 2011 06:48PM
James, all you are proving is that it takes the focus and monetary backing of an entire country's government to support and "profit" off of nuclear energy. It can not exist by itself in the private sector. I'm not just talking about getting plants up and running. There is no "break even" point with it nor will there ever be. It can not ever pay for itself without massive government intervention and subsidies. No legitimately "efficient" system of energy production could say that.

You want an energy source that's great for the private sector? Go solar. It creates jobs that can't be shipped overseas, production can be done anywhere and promotes real competition, investments are returned in either energy saving gains or in direct to grid sales and anyone can get into it, you don't need massive government funding to start-up and you don't have toxic waste that will be deadly to people for hundreds of thousands of years to come.
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
January 30, 2011 06:56PM
Yes, but look at the expense and polution of mining all that solar ener... I mean... Solar energy is a finite resource that will eventually run out before... I mean... uh............

nevermind.

The only drawback to solar is storage and we'll solve that with investment in battery tech.
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, but look at the expense and polution of
> mining all that solar ener... I mean... Solar
> energy is a finite resource that will eventually
> run out before... I mean... uh............
>
> nevermind.

Solar energy will never be used as a primary energy source like nuclear power, clean coal and natural gas are well suited for.

See my next response to Cascade.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 07:19PM by James Cessna.
Cascade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You want an energy source that's great for the
> private sector? Go solar. It creates jobs that
> can't be shipped overseas, production can be done
> anywhere and promotes real competition,
> investments are returned in either energy saving
> gains or in direct to grid sales and anyone can
> get into it, you don't need massive government
> funding to start-up and you don't have toxic waste
> that will be deadly to people for hundreds of
> thousands of years to come.

Solar energy will never be used as a primary energy source like nuclear power, clean coal and natural gas are well suited for.

Significant problems with solar energy:

1. Solar cells by nature are very inefficient. Their conversion efficiency is only ~4.0% and consequently, they require a very large surface area over which to collect the sun's energy.

2. Solar panels do not work at night. Power production goes to zero.

3. Solar panels do not work when it is raining. Power production goes to zero.

4. Solar panels do not work during very cloudy days. Power production goes to zero.

5. Large-scale solar farms require a very intricate power distribution grid to deliver electrical power to consumers. These farms must be set up in sun-rich states like Arizona and New Mexico. Consequently, the very distant electrical power grid for these farms will be very expensive to develop and produce. It will also be very expensive to route this grid to the individual homes and hospitals and small businesses that will use it.

Case closed, problem source. Solar energy is good as a backup energy source for small, individual homes, but sucks for much larger applications.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 07:24PM by James Cessna.
James, that's why proponents of alt energy never just state that solar is the only way to go. When combined with geothermal, wind, wave and other tech we end up with enough power to feed our nation for decades without the risk of deadly radioactive waste piles that could wipe out all human life in some areas.

******************
"Scientists who work on solar panel efficiency believe that the 40% level is the highest efficiency that can be achieved with the standard silicon materials in most solar cells. Instead of focusing on making them more efficient, the current focus is on how to manufacture PV panels less expensively. However, new technologies have recently been developed that may make solar panels that are much less expensive while achieving an incredible 80% efficiency.

Steve Novack of Idaho National Laboratories has come up with a unique way of creating a cheap, foldable solar panel that has so far topped all records for solar panel efficiency. This new technology utilizes nanotechnology by printing the material’s surface with tiny nano-antennae. These nano-antennae capture infrared radiation which is the part of the solar energy normally utilized with traditional photovoltaic panels but the nano-antennae are able to harness much more than the silicon solar cells."
[poweredbysolarpanels.com]

***********************


Now imagine what solar would look like today if we had been throwing a half-century of research and trillions of dollars at it.
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James, all you are proving is that it takes the
> focus and monetary backing of an entire country's
> government to support and "profit" off of nuclear
> energy. It can not exist by itself in the private
> sector. I'm not just talking about getting plants
> up and running. There is no "break even" point
> with it nor will there ever be. It can not ever
> pay for itself without massive government
> intervention and subsidies. No legitimately
> "efficient" system of energy production could say
> that.

I respectfully disagree.

If France and Germany were able to do it, we should also be able to do it while at the same time avoiding their earlier mistakes.

By the way, if nuclear power is so bad, what is Iran so hell-bent in producing it as a reliable energy source for its very large Islamic population?


Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
January 30, 2011 07:36PM
Who said anything about it being a primary source? It doesn't have to be a primary source to be big help in many ways. Germany is on course to have a quarter of their electricity generated by solar. There is obviously going to be three quarters that are dealt with by other means. But the solar industry there is creating thousands of jobs, plants run at zero emissions helping decrease greenhouse gasses, and it's turning a renewable profit.

We in this country should be doing somewhat more than practically nothing in getting solar energy into our pantheon of energy production along with wind, geothermal, etc.

I wouldn't even have that much quibble with nuclear if they would seriously address the most pressing issues with it and actually deal with them. But hey, as unconscionably expensive a technology as nuclear is, ya gotta cut a few corners somewhere, eh?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 07:38PM by Ponderer.
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who said anything about it being a primary source?
> It doesn't have to be a primary source to be big
> help in many ways. Germany is on course to have a
> quarter of their electricity generated by solar.
> There is obviously going to be three quarters that
> are dealt with by other means. But the solar
> industry there is creating thousands of jobs,
> plants run at zero emissions helping decrease
> greenhouse gasses, and it's turning a renewable
> profit.
>
> We in this country should be doing somewhat more
> than practically nothing in getting solar energy
> into our pantheon of energy production along with
> wind, geothermal, etc.
>
> I wouldn't even have that much quibble with
> nuclear if they would seriously address the most
> pressing issues with it and actually deal with
> them. But hey, as unconscionably expensive a
> technology as nuclear is, ya gotta cut a few
> corners somewhere, eh?

like I said, If France and Germany were able to safely and reliably develop nuclear power, we should also be able to do it while at the same time avoiding their earlier mistakes.

By the way, if nuclear power is so bad, what is Iran so hell-bent in producing it as a reliable energy source for its very large Islamic population?




Did somebody say nuclear power!"
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
January 30, 2011 09:55PM
Are you really implying that because Iran is doing it, it must be ok?
jeff. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you really implying that because Iran is doing
> it, it must be ok?

Why would you come to that conclusion?

James Cessna
Like President Obama, I am a new "centrist" or a "moderate" and I strongly support “biconceptualism”.
Quote

Significant problems with solar energy:

1. Solar cells by nature are very inefficient. Their conversion efficiency is only ~4.0% and consequently, they require a very large surface area over which to collect the sun's energy.

2. Solar panels do not work at night. Power production goes to zero.

3. Solar panels do not work when it is raining. Power production goes to zero.

4. Solar panels do not work during very cloudy days. Power production goes to zero.

5. Large-scale solar farms require a very intricate power distribution grid to deliver electrical power to consumers. These farms must be set up in sun-rich states like Arizona and New Mexico. Consequently, the very distant electrical power grid for these farms will be very expensive to develop and produce. It will also be very expensive to route this grid to the individual homes and hospitals and small businesses that will use it.

Case closed, problem source. Solar energy is good as a backup energy source for small, individual homes, but sucks for much larger applications.

I think that you have some dated material. Regular off the shelf photovoltaics have typically 15-20% efficiency in recent years. Boeng SpectraLab has production units that get 38-40%, but their cost is quite high and the minimum order requirement is prohibitive for small companies.

Many of these problems (with a boost in efficiency as well) can be solved by using the photovoltaic output to generate hydrogen, and then using that hydrogen to operate conventional generators.

However, you are correct in that photovoltaic efficiency is very location-sensitive and even using the hydrogen generator approach the cost is still very high compared to conventional coal and gas techs.

Quote

You want an energy source that's great for the private sector? Go solar. It creates jobs that can't be shipped overseas, production can be done anywhere and promotes real competition, investments are returned in either energy saving gains or in direct to grid sales and anyone can get into it, you don't need massive government funding to start-up and you don't have toxic waste that will be deadly to people for hundreds of thousands of years to come.

Most studies would disagree with much of what you have here.
"It creates jobs that can't be shipped overseas, " - Aren't many solar cells currently being manufactured in China and Malaysia ?
"production can be done anywhere "
Surely you are not being serious here ? The textbook "Photovoltaic System Engineering" disagrees.with you. Just ofr fun, answer this question please. Would a photovoltaic array work better in Los Angeles, CA, or near Fairbanks Alaska ? Why ?

"investments are returned in either energy saving gains or in direct to grid sales and anyone can get into it, "

Ah, well that part makes it true. Let's everybody and his brother get into selling solar power components and lets all sell some poor residential Joe six pack a few panels,batteries, inverter kit and wiring ? You do understand that it is people like this who give solar power a bad rap ?
This is exactly why solar power at the home level will work.only for the few.

Quote

The only drawback to solar is storage and we'll solve that with investment in battery tech.

Or hydrogen storage, which is already a viable and available solution that solves many inherent problems with photovoltaics.



Quote

Quite true, Cas. The inefficiency of nuclear energy is staggering when all that is required to produce it is taken into account.

It's like using a flame thrower to heat a baby bottle.

Actually not true at all when looked at objectively.
Perhaps you do not understand that "nuclear energy" covers many different technologies from the liquid thorium reactor to D2O/T2O assisted Uranium fission to conventional plutonium to the fast breeder. to which of these do you refer ?

Of all the arguments that could be used against nuclear power, "Inefficiency" is not among of them. Study after study shows that, even with all mining costs factored in, nuclear energy is at least competitive with coal fired plants, and almost always much more efficient than photovoltaics in their current incarnation.., ,


Quote

James, that's why proponents of alt energy never just state that solar is the only way to go. When combined with geothermal, wind, wave and other tech we end up with enough power to feed our nation for decades without the risk of deadly radioactive waste piles that could wipe out all human life in some areas.

Let us hope we see these new cells in production sometime soon.and that they are of reasonable cost.

I build my own solar panels from cells (usually,second hand slightly damaged cells to keep costs down). In my own experience, using Boeing SpectraLabs 38% efficiency cells on my panels is economically impractical. I can use EverGreen Solar's 17-20% cells at 1/8 of the cost (I cannoteconomically justify an 800% increase in cell price for a 100% increase in efficiency)..

However according to power distribution and generation engineers and studies done by them *, solar power is usually one of the least economical options in terms of cost/kWH. See the studies quoted below

The Royal Academy Study(*) uses colloqially derived costs including cost of building the facility, maintenance, costs of source materials/transportation and removes government and private subsidies in order to get the true cost of various power generating technologies.
Here is what they conclude for the various technologies ;

Conventional Technologies

Technology Cost / kWH (pound.pence)
Gas-fired CCGT 2.2
Nuclear fission plant 2.3
Coal-fired pulverised-fuel (PF) steam plant 2.5
Coal-fired circulating fluidized bed (CFcool smiley steam plant 2.6
Coal-fired integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) 3.2

Renewable Technologies(*)

Poultry litter-fired bubbling fluidized 6.8 6.8
bed (BFcool smiley steam plant
Onshore wind farm 3.7 5.4
Offshore wind farm 5.5 7.2
Wave and marine technologies 4 6. 6.6

* - Solar not included due to very high colloquial cost/output ratio


Lazard Study of Power Generating Technologies 2009 (**)


Coal/Nuclear/Gas: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

Tech cost(US$)/kWH
Gas peaking: 2.5 - 34.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)
IGCC: 1.0 - 14.1 (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
Nuclear: 10.7 - 13.8
Advanced supercritical coal: 7.8 - 14.4 (high end includes 90% carbon capture and storage) (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
Gas combined cycle: 7.4 - 10.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)

Alternative Technologies:
Solar PV (crystalline): 16.0 - 19.6
H2 Fuel cell: 12.7 - 15.0
Solar PV (thin film): 13.1 - 18.2
Solar thermal: 12.9 - 20.6 (low end is solar tower; high end is solar trough)
Biomass direct: 6.5 - 11.3
Wind: 5.7 - 11.3
Geothermal: 5.8 - 9.3






* - "The Cost of Generating Electricity", study by the UK Royal Academy of Engineering (solar power was excluded from this study because of the high cost and colloquially low output relative to the British Isles
Executive summary - [www.raeng.org.uk]


** - In Feb 2009, the Lazard Firm did a study of comparative power generating Techs (results are above)
[www.cleanenergy.org]
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
January 30, 2011 10:49PM
James Cessna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jeff. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are you really implying that because Iran is
> doing
> > it, it must be ok?
>
> Why would you come to that conclusion?

Are you seriously asking that question?

"By the way, if nuclear power is so bad, what is Iran so hell-bent in producing it as a reliable energy source for its very large Islamic population?" -- you

The obvious implication behind your rhetorical question is that nuclear power must not be "so bad", otherwise Iran wouldn't be pursuing it.
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
January 31, 2011 12:41AM
It's not like Iran wants nuclear weapons or anything.
jeff. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James Cessna Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > jeff. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Are you really implying that because Iran is
> > doing
> > > it, it must be ok?
> >
> > Why would you come to that conclusion?
>
> Are you seriously asking that question?
>
> The obvious implication behind your rhetorical
> question is that nuclear power must not be "so
> bad", otherwise Iran wouldn't be pursuing it.

Wrong answer!

Here is why Iran is actively persuing nucler power.

Facts about safe and reliable nuclear power in France:


• France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.

• France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.

• France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.

• It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.

• About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.
"It creates jobs that can't be shipped overseas, " - Aren't many solar cells currently being manufactured in China and Malaysia ?

I was talking about instillation and maintenance jobs as well as production jobs. The cells themselves can be made anywhere and that production can fit well within our current global system but to actually install and maintain them you need boots on the ground wherever you are doing it.
Anonymous User
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
February 01, 2011 09:58AM
I remember when they first started building nuclear power plants in this country.
They claimed it would be "too cheap to meter"

They lied.

Unfortunately for the French, they have very little choice.
The have no hydroelectric, so they are left with nuclear, or oil and coal fired plants.


Mac
Public resistance to nuclear power in France:



History
Demonstration against nuclear tests in Lyon, France, in the 1980s.
Demonstration against French nuclear tests in 1995 in Paris.
A scene from the 2007 Stop EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) protest in Toulouse.
Anti-nuclear march from London to Geneva, 2008.
Anti-nuclear demonstration in Colmar, north-eastern France, October 3, 2009.

In France, opposition to nuclear weapons has been somewhat muted since they are perceived as a national symbol and as securing French independence. The strongest anti-nuclear opposition has emerged over nuclear power "as a reaction to the centralising traditions of the French state and the technocratic trends of modern society".[1]

France began a nuclear power program in the 1950s and announced a shift to the Westinghouse light water reactor in 1969. Following the 1973 oil crisis, the government announced a dramatic increase in planned nuclear capacity. These major decisions were put forward as a fait accompli, with no opportunity for meaningful parliamentary debate.[2] An intense extra-parliamentary opposition, of citizens' groups and political action committees, emerged. In the 1970s, there were many large and dramatic anti-nuclear protests and demonstrations in France.[2]

In 1971, 15,000 people demonstrated against French plans to locate the first light -water reactor power plant in Bugey. This was the first of a series of mass protests organized at nearly every planned nuclear site until the massive demonstration at the Superphénix breeder reactor in Creys-Malvillein in 1977 culminated in violence.[3] Between 1975 and 1977, some 175,000 people protested against nuclear power in ten demonstrations.[4]

Following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, radiation levels were much higher than originally thought, and some farmers in the eastern part of France had to plow under tainted lettuce and cabbage crops.[5]
[edit] Recent developments

In January 2004, up to 15,000 anti-nuclear protesters marched in Paris against a new generation of nuclear reactors, the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPWR).[6] Also in 2004, an anti-nuclear protester, Sebastien Briat, was run over by a train carrying radioactive waste.[7]

In 2005, thousands of anti-nuclear demonstrators marched to commemorate the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and demand an end to government plans to build a nuclear plant in western France.[8]

On March 17 2007, simultaneous protests, organised by Sortir du nucléaire (Get Out of Nuclear Power), were staged in 5 French towns to protest construction of EPR plants; Rennes, Lyon, Toulouse, Lille, and Strasbourg. [9][10]

On April 26, 2007 (the 21st anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster) around 30 protesters blocked entrances and chained themselves to cranes at the EPR site in Flamanville, some remaining on the site for 24 hours. A truck was also parked in front of the entrance to block its access.[11]

In 2008, twenty Greenpeace activists delayed construction of a new nuclear reactor being built in Flamanville for 50 hours.[12] In July 2008 there were a series of accidents at the French nuclear site Tricastin-Pierrelatte, and Greenpeace France launched two court cases in an effort to find out more details about these.[13] In August 2008, Sortir du nucléaire called Areva's radioactive emissions 'very dangerous' and sought an official safety inspection of its factories.[14]

[en.wikipedia.org]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login



Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!