RSS

January 11, 2010

Tadeu Caldas

The time is not for accusations but for cooperation since only multi-lateral interdisciplinary intercontinental and intercultural approaches will be able to deliver the solutions we require. If it was not for environmentalists Germany would not have the current technology and production capability in place to deliver alternative energy solutions to cover part of its needs and of other nations that are happily importing these.
Nuclear energy is not a global solution, it is an expensive elite technology that still poses many major problems and risks and can be easily hijacked by real world despots such as North Korea and the Iranian government as well, and eventually terrorists. Just think of what could happen to Pakistan's nuclear technology if it falls in the hands of the Taliban who are closing their grip on the country ? At this time, want it or not, Germany is showing the necessary leadership in terms of finding energetic pathways that are climate-friendly together with its partners. Eco-despots might be a harsh title to the thousands of concerned scientists, engineers, investors and consumers that see the results of climate change as they affect their areas of action and are still able to express their views through our democratic process. Having said that, I agree with Dr. Bonnenberg that all avenues should be open to scrutiny and further research and development. I guess, I could say that what happened last year in relation to biofuels and the absolute one-sided, misinformed campaign by some known NGOs followed the same lines as Dr. Bonnenberg sees in relation to the nuclear sector. The difference is that while nuclear waste and nuclear bombs can produce large scale destruction, and the end of civilization as we know it biofuels are still able to deliver a transitional answer to fossil fuels and can be produced by any peasant farmer in Africa in order to drive his electricity generator or his motorcycle. So I return to the first line. We need to cooperate, and in a very pragmatic way find solutions in the middle ground between eco-despots and climate change deniers.

January 11, 2010

Member deleted

This is really a massive discussion on several fronts :

(1) Germany, US and China's attitudes toward Copenhagen Accord :

Germany - probably did not consider Copenhagen Accord a highly successful one since the accord is not legally biding and the standards could have been set at a higher level, but not a failure either.

China - did the best she could to be international, pending People's Congress and Politburo's approval, probably facing enormous internal resistance.

US - never really recognized any of the climate treaties, but did recognize the Copenhagen Accord, pending Senate approval, probably after the mid-term election. It would likely be a hard fought uphill battle.

(2) History keeps repeating itself :

Mentality of WWI, WWII, and the cold war kept coming back when facing difficulties in communications. That should be able to be resolved by meetings like the Copenhagen conference, seen as an EU commission-like arm of the UN, a first step.

(3) Scientific evidence for global warming :

It is generally believed that GHG traps some excess heat from the burning of fossil fuels and etc., breaking the dynamic equilibrium of heat balances, thus, causing global warming and climate change. Which in turn probably will cool off the depleted ozone layer, further damaging the ozone layer.

Therefore, it's important to carry out a global experiment on a set amount of fund, set amount of time and, if possible, a set target(s) GHG reduction level. Followed by a close examination of the results, namely the extent/degree of global warming as a function of the set parameters dictated by the Copenhagen Accord, before next steps.

(4) A balance of a variety of alternative energies to oil and gas from supply and demand, without the pretext of a planned economy :

For China : the 12th 5-yr development plan include all these options
For Japan : recently proposed to prop up economy and create jobs through new and green energies and health care sectors.

It's a little difficult to define market economy nowadays, e.g. who is to run the macroeconomic and who is to run the microeconomic aspects of the economy.

(5) Global ethic :

This is where the world government - UN arm of the EU commission-like Copenhagen conference - comes into play.

Sincerely hope that the ministerial-level conference in Germany and the ensuing Mexican conference - the summit - will be a successful second step onward.

January 11, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz

It is somehow interesting to read how Mr. Bonnenberg calls for a new global ethic and at the same time practices undifferentiated verbal bashing of those who happen not to share his views on nuclear energy ("eco-despots", "self-interested groups", etc.). The very aggressive undertone of his writeup and the picking of pretty biased arguments does not suggest that he is really interested in an open and productive discussion on how to solve the many problems facing mankind ...

Now let's assume that there should be some new kind of ethics (which could indeed prove helpful), and let's assume that new ethic is not to be dictated by some who follow just their business interest or their strong aversion against other groups for whatever reason.

We might come to a set of goals for those new ethics, which ought to:

+ make life better for the people living on this planet today

+ ensure that coming generations will not have to suffer from our doings

One should assume that those two goals should be agreeable to most people ...

Now let's assume that the old Romans (who had reached a pretty high level of technology) had already found out how to exploit nuclear technology. The course of history might have been quite different, and chances are that nuclear resources were now depleted so there would be no more nuclear material available today. Maybe there would be no more mankind either, but let's leave that aspect aside.

Chances are that previous generations would have wasted those very precious resources just to heat up water in order to lighten the dark, warm their homes and put theirselves in motion. Mankind might now be at a stage where it becomes necessary to do deep sea mining and/or interplanetary flights - but the resources of nuclear material that would be extremely helpful with those distinct features of high energy density and low mass are now depleted ...

So we would have hard feelings about those earlier generations that left us just radioactive poisoned waste that we have to take care of for many more milleniums. The behaviour of the old Romans would not have been in line with the second goal listed above.

Then there is the risk factor. Nuclear technology is inhumane in that sense that to err is human but that technology does not forgive errors - it requires an extreme level of scrutinity. That can not always be guaranteed, Tschernobyl did happen and more disasters will happen in the future if we insist on widespread use of nuclear technology. We would also see nuclear extortion and nuclear attacks by terrorists.

In comparison, the risks linked to regenerative energies are very small. These are humane energies.

Then there is the economic factor. Assuming that politicians back in the 60's had all the knowledge of today, had acted ethically and would have decided solely based on the total cost for society - chances are they would have decided against nuclear energy.

Now, can regenerative energies (sometimes wrongly called "renewable energies", but we don't have to do anything to renew them) really support the entire and still growing mankind at a generally improving lifestyle ? Not as of today, but it can be done in the future.

The sun sends us about three orders of magnitude more energy onto our planet each day - and the sun doesn't send any energy bills. We can use solar energy directly or indirectly eg. via the wind, ocean waves, water running downhill or leveraging organic material that contains stored solar energy. And even solar power plants can store that energy, see the DESERTEC approach.

The DESERTEC foundation (made up by large corporations like Deutsche Bank, Münchner Rück, Siemens, ABB, E.ON, RWE, Abengoa Solar, Cevital, HSH Nordbank, M+W Zander Holding, MAN Solar Millennium and Schott Solar) have put a lot of money on the table to develop regenerative energies on a large scale. They show us how the industry in our part of the world can benefit from developing such regenerative energies - and they won't be overly happy about stubborn people protracting ideological battles of the past.

January 11, 2010

Friedemann H. Müller, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, (9)

It is not easy to respond to an article that contains notions like "Eco-despot" without defining them. My hypothesis says the writer, with a high probability, is an ideologist too narrow-minded for a fair debate. But sometimes hypotheses are wrong and since Dr. Bonnenbergs article proposes an alternative ethic I feel with him and have published since 1993 on the deficiency of such a global ethic in the climate change debate.
Nevertheless I still guess to be a member of the Eco-despot group because I disagree with the basics of the first part of the article and thus I have a number of questions to the author:
1. If he opens his argument by writing: "To me, China and the USA ... are not a quantité négligeable", to whom is?
2. If "sun and wind are by far insufficient to cover the increasing need" will nuclear energy be sufficient? Is the (particularly during its French directorship of Claude Mandil) very nuclear friendly International Energy Agency totally wrong if it says that under no circumstances nuclear energy will contribute more than 6 percent of world energy demand in 2030 and the higher share in Europe will definitely decline?
3. Are there only two alternatives existing, a "planned economy" and a plan free "market economy"? Does a market economy make sense without state regulations such as anti-monopoly or consumer protection regulations or environmental standards, all in order to provide a fair competition?
4. Does the author agree to or reject the main thesis of Nicholas Stern (Stern report 2006) that not solving the climate change problem costs the world economy at least five times as much than solving the problem? Does he know any comprehensive article or argument that disproves this thesis?
5. If the Stern thesis turns out to be correct in principle, which means that environmental costs are externalized, the polluter pays principle not applied and the market signals distorted, does the "market economy" still solve the problem?
Yes, I agree with Dr. Bonnenberg's answer: "We need a global ethic ... the foundation of this ethic is that ... people have to live within closed material cycles". If the ability of the atmosphere to absorb greenhouse gases (GHG) is limited this is a part of the material cycle. The ethics comes in if we want to define who will have which share in the scarce good of depositing GHG in the atmopshere. This is a question like who has the right to use limited parking space in the center of a city and - if we organize it according to the rules of a market economy including its price setting of demand and supply - who will beneft from the income of the system? Let us start from where we agree and have a fruitful discussion.
Friedemann Müller

Dr. Friedemann Müller
The German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)
Advisor
friedemann.mueller@swp-berlin.org

January 11, 2010

Member deleted

Dear Mr. Müller,

you are right, an economy in fact does not internalize external effects by itself as they are external, e.g we have to do this.

But the point Mr. Bonnenberg mentioned is, that the Eco-movement appears to develop a dynamic. This dynamic is perpetrated by people who earn money with alternative energies.

As nuclear energy should not exceed 6% share among other sources, alternative energies will not exceed x % subjected to a economic equilibrium at a fixed date t in the future.

The problem is that a highly emotional issue like the dangers that root from global warming increasingly invite popular pressure (lobbyism) on public spending that would invest an amount that projects an alternative energy share x + n % in t.

Hence x+n is a share that will not be reached but prepared by our societies based on taxpayer money, thus respectively most likely wasted and/or not be spent on more pressing issues that appear less important under the influence of apocalyptic scenarios.

So DESERTEC for example obviously is part of a wisely projected x, but Mr. Bonnenberg fears n...

January 11, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz, Hewlett-Packard, Silver Contributor (27)

Dear Mr. Awwad,

you do mention that the Eco-movement dynamics is perpetrated by people who earn money with alternative energies. This is certainly true to some extent, and this is not unethical per se. The dynamics that brought up the nuclear industry in the first place were to a much larger extent driven driven by commercial interests. And there are interesting effects like the DESERTEC project being critized by people who have invested into another regenerative technology (photovoltaic energy) which is not deployed there.

But there needs to be a remark to your formula. The energy resources on this planet are definitely limited (if you don't trust that logic, look at the development of the oil price over the last century) and those resources will be entirely depleted at some point in the future. Then, regenerative energies will reach a market share of full 100% (provided that mankind still exists and consumes energy). That's the final economic equilibrium - it may still be a long time away, but starting to adapt now can't be entirely wrong.

The taxpayer money that has been thrown at developing nuclear technology over the last fifty years is also to consider. Was it worthwhile, when we plan for only 6% of worldwide energy consumption ?

That money has been spent in the past, and there is a saying that one should not throw good money at bad money. Seems that companies like E.ON and RWE (who do run existing nuclear power plants and do invest in DESERTEC at the same time) have learned that lesson. They are not too bullish on building new nuclear power plants. All they want is to leverage the existing ones as long as possible, thereby maximizing their profit.

January 11, 2010

Laurelle

To realise general sustainability through causal resource management, does it not require the multilateral calibration of the state's policy-making framework?

ie whereby the state's trade and industrial practices are
rationalised and accordingly systemised, within the geopolitical (regional) framework for regulation, in respect of global enviromental factors?

With every resoect to Dr. Bonnenberg,
how else do policy-makers transcend the diffusion of 'eco-despots', 'climate skeptics', the economic rationale of hard core industrialists, single-minded mining companies, weak state heads, etc. etc., not to mention the current bench-marking dichotomy of developed and non developed states for a usless ETS (that would only up non-sustainable productivy rates and increase population growth as subject to burgeoning financing between the dev. and non.dev. ratio), and all the obfuscating NGOs?

What policy maker, or scientist can determine clear data devoid of a stream-lined causal framework embodying the state and the world?

Without the geo regional framework, how can any one state, be it China or the US, determine sustainable population levels in respect of generally sustainable productivity rates, let alone clarify the nuclear/solar,wind energy debate in respect of the nuclear energy/defense issue bedevilling the MIddle East ... and the world?

Is not defense regulation and developing the Middle Eastern regional framework of accord, now critical to determining energy efficiency when it comes to nuclear technology? Current UN treaties on nuclear practices, aren't working. The poltical void between the centalised global body of the UN and the state, defies causal systemic regulation. The point is, without the Middle East geo framework, no other regional set-up within the world - EU, Asean etc., can effectively co-ordinate trade practices and productivity rates ... which comprise the nuclear defence industry, in respect of global resource management and energy efficiencies. I think.

January 11, 2010

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

This is a very important article. For far too long, the environmental movement has sustained itself with a toxic brew of junk science, quasi-religious anti-science, moral preening, and utopianism.

Economically sustainable, even profitable, solar and wind energy has been promised as "just around the corner" for my entire adult lifetime (I am 43)! Many traditional energy companies started side-ventures in wind and solar (profitable only because of massive subsidies above and beyond those for fossil fuels, and because of the publicity value of appearing green), thus disproving the canard that traditional energy companies were inherently opposed to these new technologies and would make every effort to sabotage them. The future seemed bright; we were promised that with proper investment, the technology would mature, markets would develop, and costs would come down, and subsidies would no longer be necessary.

It didn't happen. Without subsidies, the wind and solar industry would be a niche industry, a tiny fraction of its current size, and unlikely to grow much for the foreseeable future.

And what is its current size? Cynical engineers and lobbyists exploited the traditional industry standard, in which power generation facilities are rated according to their capacity, rather than their output. For conventional and nuclear plants, this makes sense, since these plants can and do run at 100% of capacity for months at a time. However, the data from Denmark show that wind and solar typically output only about 10% of their capacity, since there is no way to control the wind or the sun to ensure optimum conditions, nor is there any way (so far) to ensure optimum conditions coincide with peak demand.

The same is true for post-consumer recycling. Changes in technology, changes in manufacturing (including redesigning products to make them more easily disassembled) and efficient markets for post-recycled "raw" materials, were supposed to make recycling pay for itself...it didn't happen. The free market sometimes fails, but in the case of recycling, it beat all the experts and correctly judged that supply and demand were too far apart. In response to consumer demand (for which the environmental movement deserves some credit), the free market did do a reasonably good job of promoting reduction and reuse, which are far, far superior to post-consumer recycling, and also pre-consumer (factory-to-factory) recycling which can be cost-effective if done right.

Today, post-consumer recycling is too often a very expensive and circuitous route to the landfill. In that respect, it produces net damage to the environment, since the path of mines-factories-markets-landfill is often less energy intensive than recycled material-factory-markets-recycled material. Worse, some of the more economically viable recycling (electronics in Asia, for example) occurs under utterly appalling conditions of human slavery and chronic, long-term exposure to toxic materials. It is hard to quantify these health effects, since the societies that host these obscenities are in denial, as are the environmentalists that support them; but I wouldn't be surprised to find that electronics recyclers suffer a Chernobyl worth of health effects every year, perhaps even every month. Yet it is all good and Green, so we are encouraged to avert our eyes.

Nuclear power has risks. However, it has matured a great deal since the 1950-70's and these risks are now well-understood. Any advanced materials scientist could have proven that the so-called China Syndrome was physically impossible. Interaction with the ground causes a super-heated core to spread out into a molten puddle which disrupts the fission process, rather than remaining a compact, exothermic mass; what's more, the floor of containment vessels are specifically designed to promote this disruption. Chernobyl (which had no containment to speak of) should have resulted in the China Syndrome; the fact that it did not, proves the China Syndrome doom-mongers wrong.

Modern nuclear reactor containment systems have at times failed as designed, but they've never had a catastrophic failure. Containment, standardized reactor design, extensive operator training in simulators (comparable to aircraft pilot training), and most importantly, fuel re-processing (which greatly prolongs fuel life and reduces waste volume and make the waste less radioactive and chemically inert), are the reasons why nuclear power should be the "alternative" of the future. Also, there are plenty of regions with rich deposits of uranium and without the instability that so distorts the global political economy.

A correct understanding of the science of radioactive decay indicates that isotopes with 10,000 or million year half-lives are not a problem; their slow decay means they emit negligible total radiation during an organism's lifetime. Five hundred years is an appropriate time-frame.

Just think about it: sequestering a few thousand tons of radioactive waste for about 500 years is incomparably more practical than sequestering a million (billion?) tons of CO2 and Methane, forever.

The supposedly prohibitive costs of nuclear power are disproven by the French, for whom nuclear power is a profitable export commodity. Alternatively, there are promising, radically simplified new designs such as the pebble bed reactor which have been generating inexpensive electrical power for years, albeit on an experimental basis.

As to global warming, I am a skeptic. To understand why, please read the excellent, peer-reviewed science summarized in the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report at http://www.nipccreport.org/

Your thoughtful article raises an interesting possibility that the global warming movement might finally become realistic and embrace nuclear power; even though I think there is no major danger from greenhouse gasses, we need to move away from fossil fuels for other reasons. In the spirit of cooperation, I might consider an alliance with the global warming movement, if it seriously embraced nuclear power.

January 11, 2010

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

@Friedemann H. Müller, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik

"4. Does the author agree to or reject the main thesis of Nicholas Stern (Stern report 2006) that not solving the climate change problem costs the world economy at least five times as much than solving the problem? Does he know any comprehensive article or argument that disproves this thesis?"

I can't speak for the author, but documents that refute the Stern report quite thoroughly exist and are easy to find. I encourage the reader to read everything and decide for themselves which reports are more persuasive.

Specific WSJ article in which Bjørn Lomborg responds to the Stern report:

"Stern Review" http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

Sample: "...the report seems hastily put-together, with many sloppy errors. As an example, the cost of hurricanes in the U.S. is said to be both 0.13% of U.S. GDP and 10 times that figure"

Richard Tol's detailed, four-page critique of the Stern report (MS Word document) (includes 3 additional pages of citations)

http://www.euractiv.com/29/images/sternreview_tcm29-159365.doc

"Conclusion: In sum, the Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes on the impacts of climate change. The selection bias is not random, but emphasizes the most pessimistic studies. The discount rate used is lower than the official recommendations by HM Treasury. Results are occasionally misinterpreted. The report claims that a cost-benefit analysis was done, but none was carried out. The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent."

Hat tip for link to the Tol report: Euactiv blog: http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/stern-report-alarmist-inc...

Detailed, peer-reviewed analysis from the Copenhagen Consensus group of authors:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

January 11, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

This is a usefully provocative article that directly corresponds to comments I have posted elsewhere on the subject of Global Warming. I reproduce several as I think they are cogent and very relevant to this article,

"Innovation has led to practically all the changes in human history that have enabled man to constantly improve his material (if not spiritual) lot in life. Mandatory cuts in emissions may spur innovation, but it seems much more beneficial for an international pool of capital to be placed at the disposal of our great minds in order to not just develop the possible, but to develop the practical. That is the carrot approach.

It seems ironic that for so many adverse to using sticks in the security arena want to embrace sticks in this arena where, arguably, those sticks will have even less potential to create the desired outcomes than they do with respect to security...

To take decisions that will have a draconian impact on the global economy is not wise. America, Europe, and the "wealthy" won't even be the ones most harmed by cap and trade and other prospective emission control regimes. It will be the world's poorest and hungriest. They will suffer and they will die as the economy slows down (further than it already has in the wake of the financial crisis) and as food production and distribution also slow down.

I do not believe doing nothing is an option. Further investment in technologies that can wean the industrialized (and industrializing) world from fossil fuels and carbon emission is correct. In fact, the investments should probably be far larger than they are. A "Manhattan Project" that could be global, with a certain percentage of GDP placed into an internationally administered pool of money where the best ideas would recieve somethink akin to venture capital seems a good place to start.

While there would be obvious issues that would have to be resolved regarding how funding is distributed and corrpution avoided, the concept of providing seed money seems wise and plausible. A command and control imposed solution only increases the likelihood of corruption on a high scale, probably even worse than any prospective corruption involved in administering the "venture capital" (can you imaging the market bubbles emerging from cap and trade emission credits?). Also, the global nuclear energy boon should be pushed far more aggressively by the United States (though security must remain a consideration)."

January 12, 2010

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

for once, I am happy to read such an article

now about some erroned opinion on civil nuclear reactors and military nuclear reactor

"Nuclear energy is not a global solution, it is an expensive elite technology that still poses many major problems and risks and can be easily hijacked by real world despots such as North Korea and the Iranian government as well, and eventually terrorists"

civil enriched uranium can't be easily transformed into a military weapon, because of the sophistication of the process and the tiny result at the end. Up to now, rogues states can't afford the infrastructures that only a few countries posess, us as Russia, France, US, Canada, though in the early seventies this grade of sophistication wasn't the norm, and some countries used uranium as mere, ie Candu Americano-Canadian process. And Canada sold a few of nuclear reactors of that type to Pakistan, and India, it is with the kind of used uranium that they managed to get their weapon. Not anymore possible by the nowadays norms, it's why Iran is having so much trouble to get its arm too, no knoledgeable country (apart North Korea, bt still well surveyed) could provide Iran the enriched uranium or plans to built infrastructures to transform pure uranium.

The author is right, civil nuclear reactors are the solution, just that the wastes have to be treated, also only very few countries transform them, Russia, France in La Hague, (dunno for the others),

more infos here :

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDIwMjVjMTIyZTQ1NTJhNjM1YzFmZm...

January 12, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz, Hewlett-Packard, Silver Contributor (27)

This is an interesting discussion here - for one, as there are apparently more promoters of nuclear energy participating here than would be found in an average sample of the population. It is also encouraging to see that the content of blunt ideology at least in the comments added so far is rather low.

Nevertheless, some bias can be sensed in most contributions (including mine), and that's only natural and facilitates a lively discussion. However, some arguments brought forward so far come with some weaknesses inside, here is an example:

"A correct understanding of the science of radioactive decay indicates that isotopes with 10,000 or million year half-lives are not a problem; their slow decay means they emit negligible total radiation during an organism's lifetime."

The above sounds very convincing and might lead to the question why Plutonium is transported in heavy Castor containers weighing up to 120 tons. Wouldn't it be much more effective to send Plutonium via DHL or some other parcel service, as it apparently isn't dangerous at all ? Okay, we all know that nuclear weapons can be built with it so it might be better to use some heavily guarded armoured car service, but still couldn't we transport Plutonium in a cardboard box ?

We can't, as Plutonium produced in nuclear reactors comes as a mix of many isotopes, their half-life being between 80 million years for the most stable one (244Pu) and only 5 hours for the most quickly decaying isotope (243Pu). These two extremes do not cause much headache, The others do, coming with half-lifes in the range of months, years, decades, centuries and milleniums and their decay products mostly being radioactive too.

So yes, mankind will have to take good care of that radioactive waste which by the way is poisonous too - and 500 years are not enough ...

January 12, 2010

Florian Kuhne, Freie Universität Berlin, Gold Contributor (116)

What a nice debate.

I am astonished how many people think in favor of nuclear energy, doubt the effects of global warming and tackle the ones who are trying to think of a better future and less pollution. I am absolutely concerned about nuclear energy. Why not use the free energy there is (wind, sun)? And what kind of argument is it to attack someone who has been wise and invested in regenerative energies speeding up the process of pushing for that technology. In this logic you should attack every carmaker who is talking in favor of cars and everyone at RWE and Vattenfall who is pushing for nuclear energy. I can hardly understand the point.

I just tell anyone discussing the good of nuclear energy to move to Asse or Gorleben or other repository dumps and live with the fear of contamination every day (cool feature: move there with your children!).

January 12, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

I don't think it is wise to be dismissive of the concerns over Global Warming.

I believe what has somewhat soured many on this policy issue, including I confess myself, is the seeming disregard for economic well being exhibited by many pushing for huge caps on carbon emissions while disregarding nuclear energy as an option. It seems many want to argue that Global Warming is so catastrophic in implication that no amount of economic hardship is too much to bear to fix the problem and fix it right now.

Certaily, I do not think it is wrong to embrace solar and wind energy, but, and please do correct me if I am wrong, if it were economically feasible to deploy with enough capacity, why has it not been done? It seems the answer is because while technically possible, there is a major difference between the possible and the practicle.

Belching carbon into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing, at best, even to skeptics, it can only be considered a relatively incosnequential thing. Reducing this cannot be a "bad thing" and should be done, but again, we can't allow our economies to be dragged down.

Flagrant disregard for economic impact will create such a backlash where very few of what might be termed "average people" will support these efforts. If you can't eat tomorrow because you just lost your job or because the food in the food producing areas of the world can't be transported to the area where you live, you're not going to care about what happens in fiifty years much less over a century away. Abstract dagners are always more difficult to address and require much more policy sophistication. Bludgeoning the industrialized (or in India and China's case the rapidly industrializing) world appears counterproductive.

As I suggested in my earlier comment, we need to push much more research into alternatives. A pool of "venture capital" perhaps even a designated percentage of GDP could be offered. I am even willing to provide some governmental support for marketizing new resources out of such a pool. It is the entrepreneurial mindset that is more likely to find long-term solutions. In the meantime, we should speed up the deployment of nuclear plants, something that, I believe was alluded to above, France has done rather well with. A combination of these policies will, over time make a real difference without the draconian up front consequences.

I am aware that those prone to alarmism will assert that this is too little too late and will still promote unrealistic objectives ans the "only serious" way of fighting Global Warming. I hope, that as the entire world continues to get increasingly serious about Global Warming, however, those voices will be the minority and that those serious about addressing the issue will be allowed to take substantive and pragmatic steps forward.

January 12, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz, Hewlett-Packard, Silver Contributor (27)

Interesting ...

"In the meantime, we should speed up the deployment of nuclear plants ..."

Why ? Is there a global shortage of electric energy ?

Or is it just due to some ideological preoccupation that more nuclear energy by definition is good and less nuclear energy is evel ?

Shortage of electric energy is usually found in developing countries that do not have the resources and skills to run nuclear power plants. For them, regenerative energy is a much better option - less cost, less risk, not being seen as maybe secretly thriving for nuclear weapons ...

Of course they also have the option of building conventional power plants burning eg. coal or oil. They are likely to go for that, if the investment cost is lower than for regenerative energy. Here the international community might kick in and help those developing countries to go for regenerative energy. The benefits are:

+ no fuel cost

+ no CO2 is released

+ technology can be understood and maintained by local people, no dependency on foreign knowhow

+ benefitting from many installations and the resulting economics of scale, the price for regenerative energy comes down

Conventional energy will still be needed to help out when there is not enough regenerative
energy available. Conventional power plants are quite flexible to step in when this happens, nuclear plants only to a much lesser extent.

January 12, 2010

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

Gerhard Schwartz,

the trucks that transport uranium batons are conditionned so because of the greenies protestors (in our countries), they can do such silly and grave things that are damageable to other people

and still uranium in this conditionnement can't be hold with naked hands, you need some protecttion against radio activity a bit like astronauts outfit

Also the drivers that bring uranium to nuclear sites don't know their mission until the last moment, and yes, police, renseignment services are aware of their route

"Shortage of electric energy is usually found in developing countries that do not have the resources and skills to run nuclear power plants. "

uh, seems that the former soviet republics that have become "european", are crually experiencing their lack of energy independance too

Also, tell me if countries like Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Iran ... need alternative energies, they don't care, for they will cost them much more than their oil, and also because you can't forecast an industrial development based on aleatory alternative energies, it's where nuclear energy is useful, also in the perspective of the end of the oil era, their responsibles are wise (or clever) enough to decide the SUSTAINABILITY of their development in a geopolitical concurrence

To me alternative energies are good for induviduals, if you want to expend them to poor countires, that means that you don't want them to manage their own develpment,, and in the end they cost more with maintenance that they are obliged to hire from counties that provide them the materiam

January 12, 2010

Member deleted

I tend to agree to Mr. Schwartz, as especially in terror-endangered countries a nuclear plant could be infiltrated, detonated or else...

The question of whether or not to build new nuclear plants will be one of economic calculations and governmental tenders.

But Mr. Schwartz, honestly, as we did not have access to regenerative energies in an extend that would compete against nuclear energy over the last 50 years, I want you to agree that nuclear energy until today was worth the effort, wasn't it?

Especially as powers were hunting for the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, prestige and deterrence, energy has been a great side-effect. Furthermore nuclear science is fundamental to the understanding of countless of organic processes, physical theories aso.

But the important point is, that Mr. Bonnenberg provided his piece in German for Germans.
In Germany our "green" movement has anathematized every conventional energy by the arguments you mentioned before entering the political process with the demand to close all the nuclear power plants at a time when it was absolutely unclear in how far regenerative energies would be efficient a decade ago.

Gifted people among the green movement, entrepreneurs who are undoubted pioneers on their field, established enterprises taking the risk as mentioned above. With the global economic crisis approaching, however, lobbying green energies became aggressive to an extend that the nuclear-lobby started to sell nuclear energy as "clean". Could it be that some of those purely "green" companies calculate to bolster their balances by more taxpayer money? Is it exactly this connection that Mr. Bonnenberg mentioned indirectly, isn't it?

For me, on a German level, the discussion appears to be as "two devils" fighting for political legitimation.

The central argument of Mr. Bonnenberg is: "As a side note, icebergs do not melt because of green house gasses, and certainly not because of CO2, rather they melt due to endogenous climate change, intensified by the exogenous materials, chlorine and above all bromine nitrate."

For the transatlantic audience it should be clarified, that "side-note" is used in German as slightly ironic.

But there is no doubt that green energy for Germany is a future market, if not "the market" at all.

To bring it to a nutshell, I would like to let the powers of the free market decide which of all is the more legitimate source of energy... prognosis: Alternative when the rest depleted, but unlikely before that day to an extend the green movement and Eco-despots would like to see.

January 13, 2010

Hans Reuther-Fix

All contributions above re " Eco-Business/ Fear Mongering" are most interesting.

On my return from a Ranch in West-Texas, a Ranch of around 35 000 acres, I could not help but notice
many, many windfarms with quite sizeable windmills.---- All this in oil-rich Texas.

--" Energy is not so much of concern", said the Rancher,"our Colorado River has hardly enough water
now to reach the ocean".----
Interestingly in the Middle East War between Syria and Israel, Water Rights was one of the
main concerns in settling the conflict.

Truth is actuality and reality and no Free Market System with its paper and bond engineering will add water to the Colorado River.

HRF

January 13, 2010

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

The eco-activists need to look past the (at times) less-than-friendly rhetoric and the accusations of hypocrisy; they need to understand that statements like mine are also tentative outreach and an invitation to compromise. Is this possible? Most of what I am writing has been known for years, it just isn't discussed. Now it is time, and if fear over global warming makes the nuclear discussion possible, that's a welcome silver lining.

@Gerhard Schwartz:

"Wouldn't it be much more effective to send Plutonium via DHL or some other parcel service, as it apparently isn't dangerous at all?"

In one of life's little ironies, you can actually get low grade uranium in the mail, for research purposes. Until recently, you didn't even need a permit.

Nothing that you wrote really conflicts with my statement "isotopes with 10,000 or million year half-lives are not a problem". Note that I said isotopes, not elements.

As you correctly point out, Plutonium is an element that exists in a variety of isotopes. All isotopes are, chemically speaking, quite problematic (they are reactive with other elements; Pu itself would be toxic to most organisms, even if it weren't radioactive). But, this can be solved a number of ways, including glassification which the French have perfected. For this and other reasons, it requires special packaging and handling during transportation and storage.

As Marie-Claude indicated, some of these other reasons include an exaggerated fear of any incident involving nuclear materials, as well as a conscious strategy by certain anti-nuclear activists to intentionally create such incidents. Most activists don't attempt to create an actual spill. Rather, they attempt to cause delays and procedural violations (involving fines), or perhaps, breach the outermost of multiple containment layers. Thus the activists get in the newspapers and increased the cost to the industry, supposedly denying them profits which are "evil". These incidents are profitable for the activists; suddenly profits are no longer evil when it is time to fundraise.

You seem to suggest, if these materials are mostly safe, why do they require such elaborate precautions? Many transport and storage precautions are elaborate theatre. If you're visualizing today's airport security, then you understand! Still, I don't propose we eliminate these precautions. The real cost savings comes from reprocessing the fuel, which France does quite successfully, and which greatly reduces the volume (and cost) of handline both fuel and waste. The US does not reprocess much, thanks to a catastrophically misguided policy created by President Carter. This policy was inspired in part by the Three Mile Island incident (even though that incident had nothing to do with reprocessing). The policy was also a diplomatic gesture to the diplomatic community to promote non-proliferation (the gesture was, generally, not reciprocated). Too many others have followed this absurd US policy.

As to the nuclear properties of elements such as Pu; after a sample of Pu (or other fuel) has been through the fuel cycle several times, the proportion of useful isotopes (which in very general terms means the dangerous ones with short or medium half-lives) is greatly decreased, and the proportion of useless isotopes (which means very long half-life, with some exceptions) is greatly increased. So that waste sample is already much less dangerous than the fuel. But it still contains a mix of isotopes.

If this mix of isotopes is stored for a reasonable period, about 500 years, the short- and medium-life isotopes exhaust themselves (decay is logarithmic). Their remaining radiation becomes as weak as that from the long-life isotopes; a total rate so low that it isn't significant. The idea that we need to design storage facilities that can guarantee isolation of this isotope mix for thousands or millions of years, is a myth.

Only if someone decided for some unknown reason to concentrate these weak, long-lived isotopes into a large mass of incredibly pure, dense material would they become a significant source of radiation. This would be technically difficult and incredibly expensive. What more, there's no reason to do it; the volume of waste produced is quite low (as compared to e.g. the naturally radioactive fly-ash from a coal plant) so there is no need to concentrate it in order to store it. If you really wanted some radioactive materal for some reason, it would be much, much easier to simply mine the raw ore, and then refine it, rather than trying to concetrate the greatly degraded waste.

Storing something safely for 500 years is a non-trivial exercise. Careful thought must be given. Still, it is far more practical than e.g. carbon sequestration, which must be free of leaks basically forever. The myth that we need to design 100% guaranteed million-year nuclear storage facilities is absurd.

The fears of nuclear proliferation, dirty bombs, etc. are real; but if a group or a country has no interest in cooperation on nuclear questions, what makes anyone think they will be willing to cooperate on issues of global warming? Should we cripple the life-saving chemical and medical industries because someone might use chemical or biological weapons? Any technology involves risk.

The nuclear materials handing industry is mature and reasonably well-understood; materials (for research, power, weapons, medicine, etc.) are constantly in storage and in motion around the globe. As long as we remain prudent (the ordinary sort of prudence that keeps aircraft from falling from the sky, even though they are heavier than air!), it simply isn't much of a problem.

Solar and wind have a niche role, but they just don't have the energy density to meet people's expectations. A modest proportion of the global population is capable of living a lifestyle that is healthy and prosperous while using dramatically less energy, but most of the global populate is not able (or not willing; why should they?) In some cases, the healthy, low-energy lifestyle is only possible because of what economists call the free-rider problem; think of an alpine hiker ascending the peak with just the equipment he can carry. But, he can't avoid being influenced by the knowledge that there is a vast infrastructure prepared to rescue him, and yet another vast infrastructure to help him recover from his injuries!

January 13, 2010

Member deleted

Power Vacuum

It is rather obvious that along with GHG cuts, reduced usage of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and etc. will create a power vacuum that must be filled, by new and green energies, by increased efficiency, and by traditional nuclear energy - before the cleanest man-made sun on earth is commercialized around 2040.

So, the time frame of the following discussion is from 2010 to 2040, with a review coming up in 2015 according to the Copenhagen Accord.

Thus, base on pure economy, with the help of physicists, chemists and engineers, a global optimization model can be developed, relatively easily, in that :

(1) The objective function being minimized unit energy cost after amortization over the designed lifetime, as a function of time and the cost of various forms of available alternative energies in different sizes.

(2) Boundary and limiting conditions are budgetary constraints and physical constraints of earth.

Therefore, the shares of each and every alternative energies can easily be obtained. But in real life, there are other considerations such as political, environmental - nuclear waste, safety and etc.

The scenarios that could come up include, and with reference to above optimization :

(1) Available alternatives could not fill the power vacuum within the time frame (2010 - 2040) or to the review point (2016), and thus, the rest must be filled by nuclear power.

(2) Available alternatives could fill the power vacuum, then there is no need for nuclear energy - rather unlikely, but a possibility.

This above approach could be done for each and every individual nation to distribute the share of nuclear power from the global model, if warranted.

For example, Russia's approach to fill the power vacuum is to :

(1) Increase it's nuclear power share (to around 20% or more)
(2) Expand new and green energies
(3) Operate with Increased efficiency

with GHG reduction level comparable to that of EU's.

Then again, discussions are academic, it takes actions to materialize.

January 13, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz, Hewlett-Packard, Silver Contributor (27)

For me, this is indeed a interesting discussion and I feel honoured having been adressed personally by several participants. I'l try to keep my responses short ...

@Marie-Claude Corneauster:

"the trucks that transport uranium batons are conditionned so because of the greenies protestors ..."

Nice try, but not true. The Castor containers for transporting up to 180 kg of nuclear fuel or waste do weigh about 120 tons mainly because they have to withstand accidents and have to shield and dissipate the nuclear heat in a secure and controlled way. New Castor container are designed to dissipate 56 kW of thermal energy. Many tests are made that these containers remain functionally intact even when eg. falling from a road bridge that is 40 meters high, or when a bypassing gasoline truck explodes. These are certainly reasonable accident scenarios (not "elaborate theatre", as another participant suggested).

If it weren't for these necessary thermal and safety precautions, it would be much more effective to transport nuclear fuel/waste in a clandestine way using small and unmarked vans or trucks - this would easily avoid all the protesting that comes with such transports.

@John Hadjisky:

"Nothing that you wrote really conflicts with my statement "isotopes with 10,000 or million year half-lives are not a problem". Note that I said isotopes, not elements."

Here we come to the issue of comments sometimes being too biased/engineered and thus misleading. Your statement would appear okay to a lawyer who is used to scrutinely analyse legal wording, but can (and I suspect, is designed to) mislead people interested in the subject but not being experts in nuclear physics. Reading your contributions, it appears that you do have some level of knowledge in this field and thus people are likely to trust you. Please don't disappoint them.

Along these lines - the radiation of nuclear waste does not necessarily decline all the time, for instance the decay of 241Pu produces Americum and thereby results in higher radioactivity. After being deposited for about 70 years, highly radioactive nuclear waste emits more radiation than at the time of disposal (if I recall correctly, I can't find the reference to this at the moment).

"Any technology involves risk"

Certainly true, but we need to look at the level of risk. There may be a explosion in a conventional power plant, which can kill a number of workers. Also, a rotor blade might fall off a wind turbine and might hit a farmer working on the field underneath.

Tschernobyl: According to Wikipedia there were just 56 people killed directly, but many thousands were impacted resulting in their sickness and earlier death. The exact health damage will never be known and could be argued endlessly.

Cynics may now start to compare this with the death tolls caused by smoking, traffic accidents, the many small wars and conflicts going on all the time etc.

Here it may be hinted that due to the Tschernobyl disaster in 1986, an area of 4.300 square kilometres is still closed and abandoned today - that's more than five times the size of the city of Hamburg.

BTW, not too long ago there were several significant incidents in two nuclear reactors in the vicinity of Hamburg. Had one of those incidents resulted in a similar disaster like Tschernobyl, at least the entire city of Hamburg (1.7 million inhabitants) plus surrounding suburbs would have had to be abandoned. One can roughly imagine the financial damage resulting from this ...

"The nuclear materials handing industry is mature and reasonably well-understood"

Another contributor already mentioned the situation in Asse, a former salt mine in Germany where large amounts of less radioactive waste had been deposited (read: abandoned) in a rather unprofessional way. Even if you don't understand German, it might still be interesting to watch this video ... and remember, this happened in high-tech Germany and not in some underdeveloped country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51fK-Yuu15o&feature=PlayList&p=3D778...

In the Asse case, it can be discussed whether the nuclear industry or the government agencies involved are more to blame. Today, nobody knows how to resolve the situation. But it is already clear that this will cost billions of Euro's and this will be taxpayer's money.
Trust in both the nuclear material handling industry and the related government agencies has of course suffered ...

@Samir Awwad:

"But Mr. Schwartz, honestly, as we did not have access to regenerative energies in an extend that would compete against nuclear energy over the last 50 years, I want you to agree that nuclear energy until today was worth the effort, wasn't it?"

Not so sure. Suppose all the taxpayer's money that has been invested into developing the nuclear industry had been invested into developing regenerative energy instead. Industrialized countries would still have had enough electric power all the time, and regenerative energy would certainly have a much higher market share today. Even with much less subsidizing, wind power contributed about 7% of Germany's electric power consumption already back in 2007.

Another even more important effect: It was already pointed out in this discussion that imported nuclear power plants enabled countries like India, Pakistan and even North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. While one may argue that mutual nuclear deterrance might have helped to avoid military conflicts between India and Pakistan, on a global scale this planet would probably be safer without nuclear power plants. Sure, that option is no longer available - but is it really a good idea to build many more nuclear power plants in all parts of the world, as some people in this discussion seem to suggest ?

"Could it be that some of those purely "green" companies calculate to bolster their balances by more taxpayer money? Is it exactly this connection that Mr. Bonnenberg mentioned indirectly, isn't it?"

Of course, companies involved in regenerative energy would love to get a similar level of subsidizing like the nuclear industry has already enjoyed for decades. And of course there is quite some bickering. But regenerative energy has meanwhile broken out of the solid confinement around those "purely green companies" that you are referring to. Regenerative energy is no longer limited to former hippies that have set up small startup companies.

Big business has now discovered that there is money to earn, and that there is less financial risk - just think about the planning uncertainty, high investment cost and long lead times when building a nuclear power plant. Deutsche Bank and Munich Re do know how to calculate financial risk - and are investing heavily in the Desertec project. They are joined by industrial giants, including RWE and E.ON who still do operate a number of nuclear power plants today.

More on Desertec: http://www.desertec.org/en/

So I guess it is now about time to stop those old and fruitless quarrels of the last century that don't benefit anybody. The world has changed. Don't be late to adapt ...

January 14, 2010

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

Gerhard Schwartz,

well you're advocating alternative energies, I know that this is one of the german commercial main concurrence with our nuclear approach in Magreb and Africa, though I still remember that leaders like Kadhafi who made the choice for a nuclear ractor while Germans had lobbied him for a long while there, eagered your press, we could read in most of your papers how the french were unfair....

that said, both solutions are a money business, and I understand your position defending your country's.

Now, the nuclear solution, can only be a state political choice, because of the inherent "fears", and that the agreement to deliver such a mean, must be made through control organisations such AIEA, also the counties that opt for nuclear energy must have enough finances fo such a "hudge" project ; sure, third world counties can't afford it, and of course, they will never be able to become industrialised counties that count in GDP rank

About Tchernobyl, our nuclear technicians were ask to make an audit of the site, one told me that Tchernobyl construction compared to what we have in France is of the order of a cigarettes paper, also volontary technicians were requested to go there, there wasn't a crowd of them, as the norms were so different, it would have been like to add some plaster on a wall fissure

Also about the trucks again

"to transport nuclear fuel/waste in a clandestine way using small and unmarked vans or trucks - this would easily avoid all the protesting that comes with such transports"

precisely they are alike, but I didn't enter into the technical precisions, but just that I used one "image"

now, for your info, I live near a nuclear site (15 km), our landscape is still nice, the site improved the economy of the region with its contribution of "educated" ingeenors, technicians, movement of many maintenance technicians from diverse other enterprises...

I know quite of the deal, I host some of them, particurlaly the "trucks drivers", but I won't tell you more about their work, secret, secret !

one more thing , our nuclear sites produce energy for Germany, Italy and Spain too, I understand that spain and Italy had not enough means at the time to decide to construct nuclear sites, but Germany Had, and didn't want because of the green lobby.

Also, our Areva technicians maintains nuclear sites in the world wide, UK, US, China, Southern Africa, Spain (now) ... until when Germany will avoid nuclear energy ? , cuz seems that the global worming is reversed to a global freezing, and d'ya know, our Brittons that refused a nuclear site in the eighties (the international socialist greenies brainwashed them), they had electricity cut down for a few days last week, hey, not enough energy to supply, when the whole Europe is expecting us to warm populations. But I'm not naive, might be a politicalintervention to make them understand that the nuclear "pollution" is quite a lesser desease than the nitrate pollution by industrial pigs husbandry !

January 14, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz, Hewlett-Packard, Silver Contributor (27)

Marie-Claude,

thanks for your comments, but I don't think that economic competition between French and German companies that are in the business of building power plants should be the governing factor in this discussion. It is certainly not for me, I'm not even German and just happen to live in Germany.

As you state, French nuclear industry tries to sell nuclear power plants to the Magreb and Africa - and one of my concerns is whether this is really a good idea. Political regimes in those countries tend to be not that stable, you might be doing a deal with a friendly government you do trust - and a few years later they might be overthrown by some local dictator or religious fundamentalists who could not care less about some paperwork carrying the seal of IAEA or the pope himself.

So go and sell them regenerative energy instead. They can't do any mischief with that. And I'm very sure that french industry can master that new technology too ... (;-))

Regarding Tschernobyl, I'd readily agree that safety standards in western countries are probably higher than in the former Soviet Union. And I also do refrain from adding links describing the severe leakages that happened fairly recently in the Tricastin facility near Pierrelatte. I'm not claiming that the French nuclear industry has sloppy safety practices, they probably are as good as the German ones. But incidents can and did and will happen, in every country, and the risks linked to those incidents need to be taken into account.

In general, there is little economic difference between comparable countries despite they may have different strategies on how they produce their electricity. France is almost entirely depending on nuclear power, Germany for about a third of their consumtion, and Austria decided not have any nuclear power plant at all. If nuclear energy was so decisive as their promoters do suggest, then France must be truly an economic paradise with a life standard far above the one of Germany, and Austrians would live in sheer misery.

January 14, 2010

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

Gerhard Schwartz,

Trecastin and Pierrelate are the earliest sites, still built with american plans

uh, you didn't read me, civil nuclear power is not military nuclear power :-)

Also Didn't Bush administration not remove Lybia from the "rerrorist list " ?

now, the deal with this nuclar reactor is assorted with 20 years of maintenance, only Arava technicians will have access to the heart of the reactor

" then France must be truly an economic paradise with a life standard far above the one of Germany, and Austrians would live in sheer misery"

uh, doesn't seem that these persons find France so weak : we might not be the 2nd world exportaor, but still we fare not too bad :


http://www.internationalliving.com/Internal-Components/Further-Reso...

January 15, 2010

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

@Gerhard Schwartz

"And I also do refrain from adding links describing the severe leakages that happened fairly recently in the Tricastin facility near Pierrelatte"

There is no need to refrain! Please, do provide those links showing severe leakages.

There are plenty of links to news stories discussing those leaks, for example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/world/europe/18iht-leak.4.1461585...
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/tricastin-nuclear-power-plant-r...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Center#Incidents

Were these severe leaks? According to http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/France-bans-water-consum...

"The incident at Tricastin ranked as a level-one incident on the seven-point scale to rank nuclear accidents."

Level-one is the lowest level, not the highest.

The fact that they banned swimming and consumption of water from some nearby rivers reflects over-reaction to the point of paranoia that the author of "Eco-Business through Fear Mongering" discusses. Apparently, any leak is "severe". If any other power production industry got this much attention, there would be a constant state of emergency.

For example, I wouldn't be surprised if a wind-turbine farm kills as many animals during a year of normal (no accident) operation as do accidents such as Tricastin (in both cases I think the number of animals killed would be very low).

January 15, 2010

Eyal Brin

Dear friends.
I think, it is today no chance to save the atmosphere without a nuclear power stations.
The combinations between High temperature reactor and fast breeding reactor is an example
for the possibility, of using clean technique.
With sensuality
E.Brin

January 15, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz, Hewlett-Packard, Silver Contributor (27)

@John Hadjisky:

That Wikipedia article about the Tricastin incident referenced by you starts with:

"In July 2008, 18,000 liters (4,755 Gallons) of Uranium solution containing natural uranium were accidentally released."

Now, 18.000 litres would fill 90.000 bath tubs - can you seriously deny this to be a severe leakage ? Would you call this "just a minor leakage" ? I can only sincerely hope that you do not work in the nucklear industry ...

Classifying this event only as a level 1 incident is just another scandal that ought to be investigated. According to the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), that Tricastin event would have to be rated at least as a level 3 incident, as some radioactivity was brought to the environment. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale:

" Level 3
A very small off-site impact, public exposure at levels below the prescribed limits."

For me, it is getting somewhat scary to see how many intelligent people have internalized their belief in a certain technology to such an extent that it gets near to religion ...

January 15, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz, Hewlett-Packard, Silver Contributor (27)

@Eval Brin:

As you say, you *think* that there is no chance to save the atmosphere without nuclear power stations. And you readily define a mixture of nuclear technologies that you think are clean technologies.

Many other people do think that there is no need to do anything to save the atmosphere, as they don't see it in danger at all.

Maybe we should look at the global warming issue with a more holistic view. It seems pretty clear that mankind has started to change the composition of the atmosphere to a significant scale about 200 years ago. But we don't have exact models that can reliably predict what is going to happen in the future. So it is certainly the right approach to reduce the production of CO2 and other green house gasses, but let's do it in a thoughtful way.

Electric power generation is just one factor in GHG production. Methane produced by cows is another and maybe even more important factor ...

The easiest way is to modify our behaviour to some extent - maybe eating less hamburgers and more vegetables and salads, which is healthier anyway and will reduce the number of cows that will add methane to the atmosphere in the future. Maybe it might be a good idea to stop buying big USV's if we don't need their offroad capabilities. We can buy a luxury sedan instead, which will also impress our neighbours but saves a lot in terms of fuel consumption and CO2 released.

And of course, we should also aim for ways to produce electricity without producing CO2. But there are different ways to do so, and they do come with different levels of risk which we should not ignore.

Furthermore, nuclear fuel has one property which makes it really precious: The highest energy density, ie. a lot of power within a very small mass. This makes it the ideal fuel to supply power where you can't build power lines. Nuclear power is actually a niche energy, but will be very important eg. in deep sea mining or to power spacecrafts. A very small niche today, but future generations will be very greatful if we leave them that option.

January 15, 2010

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (531)

@ John Hadjisky:

Regenerative energies were indeed around the corner for a long time, but they weren't exploited, which is very regrettable. Today were are paying the price for these missed opportunities, and it's getting more expensive every day.

As economic law tells us, they will only be exploited when you make the best profit. Unfortunately, when this happens, climate change will be there, and more people on earth will have less energy sources available because we wasted those which are most easily accessible.

Economically, this failure is connected with an insufficient consideration of the hidden costs of fossil fuels - or, in a way, with the tragedy of the commons. From a behavioural point of view, this failure is connected with a mentality formed in the seemingly never-ending riches of a continent, where resources seemed infinite and only the direct costs mattered.

I don't know whether the current climate change impact, resource wars, and oil price shocks have escaped your notice, but I'd say that perspectives for the near future look pretty dim. I hope I'm wrong - but it would be interesting to see how the mentality of people will change who used to live on seemingly infinite, cheap resources, and discover some day in a shockingly short time that there are limits to growth.


@ Nuclear:

I was a supporter of nuclear energy until I worked professionaly into the issue. Now I think only one thing: Let's get out of this mess as soon as we can. As long as we can't use plutonium (in the "fast breeder") or nuclear fusion (and we might never be able to do so), the risks and technical problems are simply not worth it. The nuclear future might be even more frightening than keeping on with fossil sources.


@ Renewables:

We can generate 100% of our energy needs today from renewable sources if we just want to. By the way, in this context, our greatest energy source is still saving wasted energy. Again, we have the technology, we just need to use it. Embarking on regenerative energies will create a huge economic boom, create jobs, and lead to a re-distribution of capital - away from the few monopolists, to the benefit of many small companies. That this is not yet done has to be called a failure of the elites, which are probably too closely connected with the fossil capital accumulation. I'm sure that future, possibly impoverished generations will call this decadence.

January 15, 2010

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

just a few questions :

is Haiti earthquake the result of "global warming"

and how many persons it killed ?

was Tsunami also the result of "global worming"

and how many persons it killed

so we see that natural catastrophes kill by far more persons than radio activity, except in Nagasaki and Hiroshima

and Lac Baikal is refloading, how happens that no Toundra melted ?

no just that some irrigations have been cut down !

how many persons have died in Tricastin and Pierrelate from radioactivity ? "0"

and the facts were largely exagerated by "greenpeace" for which nuclear energy is the cherished bone to get some money in court

also radioactivity is likely to disappear quicker in water than on soil

and probably that you drink radioactivity in water sources by grantic soils.

Neris les Bains in Massif Central is a well know cure station for its radioactive waters, and none is dead from them.

My hubby who used to manage an etablishment there was told by an expert that these water contain sometimes more radioactivity than it is authorised to the persons that interven in nuclear sites

January 16, 2010

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

@Gerhard Schwartz:

"Now, 18.000 litres would fill 90.000 bath tubs"

Umm...are these bath tubs designed for mice?

But seriously, the point you were trying to make is that 18.000 liters is a lot of liquid. I agree.

Still, natural uranium is, just simply, not very radioactive. Its chemical properties (risk of heavy metal poisoning) are more important than the radiation. And as others have pointed out, natural uranium in a liquid solution dilutes very quickly, so even the toxicity isn't a big problem, as long as accidents are rare and reasonable actions are taken.

You try to make the point that some radioactivity was brought to the environment, therefore it ought to be a level 3. You've discovered a scandal! And yet, in the Wikipedia article you cite,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

One of the specific examples given for a Level I event is:

"SOCATRI (Drôme, France), July 2008; leak of 6000 litres of water containing 75 kg of Uranium into the environment."

According to your reasoning, the SOCATRI event would also qualify a Level 3, since some radioactivity was brought to the environment. The very same page you cite, seems to indicate you are incorrect!

The Tricastin incidents seem exactly like the prototype example of a Level 1 incident, except that the volume of the spills were larger. You have yet to present any evidence that a larger spill justifies a Level 3 classification.

------

For more perspective, here is a nice photo of a unit train of coal:

http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/coalweb/trains/unit.aspx

Just 3.000 homes consume this much coal for electricity per year (a little less coal in Europe since your homes use less electricity). According to http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html, at least 1 ppm (part per million) of this massive load of coal is natural uranium. It adds up very, very quickly to a massive amount of natural uranium in the fly ash that is typically put underground (does this remind you of the Tricastin spills?) or used to create plaster walls, in homes and buildings! And all this is normal operation.

One day, the environmental movement will re-discover science. Then, eventually and painfully, they may even come to understand engineering. Then, finally, we can all work together to make the world a better place.

January 17, 2010

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

The Curse of Gorleben: Germany's Endless Search for a Nuclear Waste Dump http://bit.ly/7J8W7Y

I am afraid that lot's of ignorancce is displayed to the public

It's time fto built a second "La Hague" infrastructure to treat the wastes

January 18, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz, Hewlett-Packard, Silver Contributor (27)

@John Hadjisky:

Ooops, you are right, I made a mistake - 18.000 litres would "only" fill 90 bathtubs. Thanks for pointing that out. I do apologize.

Thanks also for admitting now that spilling 18.000 litres of radioactive and poisonous liquid isn't exactly a minor leakage but something that ougth to be taken serious. Your previous message suggested otherwise.

Furthermore, thanks for highlighting the fact that manipulating the classification of nuclear incidents in France wasn't just a single occurrance. Whether or not this ought to be considered a scandal may be a point for discussion - but you can twist it around any way you like, the very hard and indeniable fact is that both in the Tricastin and the Socrati incident some amount of radioactivity was released into the environment. And at the time this happened, the International Nuclear Event Scale INES as defined jointly by the IAEA and OECD / NEA defined level 3 as:

3 SERIOUS INCIDENT

VERY SMALL RELEASE: PUBLIC EXPOSURE AT A FRACTION OF PRESCRIBED LIMITS

Source: http://www-news.iaea.org/news/inesmanual/INES2001.pdf , Part I, Fig. 1 (page 11)

Now, subsequently to those Level 3 incidents the IAEA changed the related classification, helping France to downplay the severence of those incidents. The new definition given in the version of the INES manual released in May 2009 now states that it takes an amount of ten times the natural radiation to be released from a nuclear facility to call it a level 3 incident. Permanently releasing just 9 times the amount of natural radiation is perfectly okay, don't worry ... as long as no member of the public acquires a radiation dose of more than 10 Millisievert, which would warrant a level 2 incident.
See http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf (table on page 3 of the main document). The foreword of that new manual does state that the new version of the INES definition was influenced by new research done in France and Spain ...

So it seems pretty obvious that the INES definitions have been changed by the IAEA to help France to make these incidents appear less serious ... again, at the time they did occur they were clearly level 3 incidents.

January 18, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz, Hewlett-Packard, Silver Contributor (27)

@Marie-Claude Corneauster:

Thanks for pointing out that there are indeed severe problems on how to handle the nuclear waste produced in Germany. I've already referred to the Asse scandal and included a video link. In a nutshell: 126.000 barrels containing nuclear waste have been dumped into a former salt mine in Germany. Some of those barrels have been damaged, many more of them are in the process of rusting apart. Significant amounts of water infiltrate into that former salt mine which speeds up that process. The mine is very likely to collapse within a few years.

Yesterday the related government agency (BfS) came up with the official recommendation to remove those 126.000 barrels from that salt mine and put those somewhere else. This is going to cost several billion Euro's of taxpayers money. There are some significant difficulties, eg. at least partly there are no records about the content of those barrels. As of today, general concensus is they contain waste that has only slight or medium amounts of radioactivity.

Nevertheless, this is certainly not a great story for German government agencies and the German nuclear industry. From a legal point of view the nuclear industry is not to blame, as many years ago the government took responsibility of the nuclear waste (another form of subsidizing the nuclear industry). But of course the industry knew exactly what was done with the waste, and could have warned accordingly (somewhere at the beginning of this discussion there was some call for ethics).

But nuclear recycling plants like La Hague don't solve the problem with the waste at all. Germany sends used nuclear fuel rods to La Hague to be processed there, but has to take back the processed material afterwards - it is still highly radioactive. The Gorleben facility is discussed for that - another salt stock ...

So this is not about whether France or Germany or some other nation have better or worse practices for handling nuclear material. There is a general concensus that the problem of securely depositing nuclear waste for a long time has not been solved in any country yet - not even in France. It is a general and worldwide problem.

January 18, 2010

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

Gerhard Schwarzt

"But nuclear recycling plants like La Hague don't solve the problem with the waste at all. Germany sends used nuclear fuel rods to La Hague to be processed there, but has to take back the processed material afterwards - it is still highly radioactive. The Gorleben facility is discussed for that - another salt stock ...
"

say it reduces considerably the space where they can be stocked

" All of France’s nuclear waste from 25 years of producing 75 percent of its electricity is stored beneath the floor of one room at Le Hague. The lifetime output for each French citizen would fit in a soda can. That’s what the incredible energy density of nuclear power can do for the environment."

from my above link

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDIwMjVjMTIyZTQ1NTJhNjM1YzFmZm...

"Now how about that matter of “nuclear waste?” Once again it pays to know what you’re talking about. Basically, there is no such thing as “nuclear waste.” It’s not like you’re burning coal — where you end up with gargantuan amounts of something you can’t use, like carbon dioxide. Nearly all the material in a spent fuel rod is recyclable or easily handled. Ninety-five percent of a spent fuel rod is U-238 — the same natural uranium that comes out of the ground. We could just put it back where it came from. The other 5 percent is fissionable U-235 (1 percent), various “fission products” from the breakdown of U-235 (2 percent), plus a group called the “minor actinides” which are formed when U-238 is transmuted into heavier, man-made elements (2 percent). Among the minor actinides is plutonium (1 percent), one of whose isotopes can be used for making bombs.

So why are we do we need Yucca Mountain, a huge repository designed to “bury” 77,000 tons of “nuclear waste,” when 95 percent of the material is non-fissioning natural uranium? We’re doing it because in 1976, President Jimmy Carter — a President many people feel Barack Obama may eventually resemble — got cold feet and outlawed the reprocessing of spent fuel. Instead of treating it in an environmentally efficient way and recycling, we ended up with huge, mixed-up gobs of material that we can’t think of anything to do with except “throw it away.”

#ad#Almost everything in a spent fuel rod can be recycled. The U-235 can be used again for fuel. So can the plutonium. Among the fission products and minor actinides there are lots of useful isotopes used in medicine and industrial procedures. Forty percent of all medical procedures now involve some radioactive isotope and nuclear medicine is a $250-billion industry. Unfortunately, we must now import all our medical isotopes from Canada because ours are all being treated as “nuclear waste.”

The French have complete recycling. (I know you talk about France’s nuclear power a lot but I doubt you know this.) They take plutonium from spent fuel, mix it with uranium depleted by enrichment, and call it “mixed oxide fuel.” It’s sold all over Europe and Japan. They’re also importing bomb-grade uranium from old Russian nuclear weapons, mixing it with the tailings from uranium mines (another “waste product”) and shipping it to the United States of America as reactor fuel. It’s a treaty engineered by your old colleagues Senators Pete Domenici and Sam Nunn in the 1990s. One out of every ten light bulbs in America is now being lit by a former Soviet weapon! It’s the greatest swords-into-plowshares effort in history — although very few people know about it. Things nuclear, of course, are not the subject of polite conversation.

January 19, 2010

Heinrich Bonnenberg, Energiewerke Nord
DGAP, Platinum Contributor (358)

It is very boring and frustrating that there is always this esoterically influenced anti-nuclear discussion by poorly informed and extremely indoctrinated people. The opinions expressed in these comments prove that their authors are living in a mainly affluent society. Please notice that there are various types of nuclear waste, mainly with low danger, like ASSE or the radioactive waste from medical services. The so called problem of really dangerous nuclear waste is not a question of quantities, above all not of big quantities. Actually, it is a question of handling comparably small quantities of high quality, but decaying radioactivity. The question of how to handle this type of waste should not be solved by physicians, priests, teachers and other important people. It has to be solved – it can be solved, and it will be solved – by natural scientists and engineers.

The really very small quantities of very risky radioactive waste can be stored in intermediate overground storages until the question of closed material cycles, also for electricity production by nuclear plants, will be solved. The solutions are:

1. to destroy the radiating isotopes of heavy metals (transuranium elements) by bombarding them with especially produced neutrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation and www.fzd.de/DB/Cms?pNid=249 and www.scienzz.de/ticker/art9483.html ); and

2. to store the radioactive fission products with comparitively short times of decay of radioactivity in underground storages for time periods that are ethically acceptable.
The missionaries should be imaginative – if they can – and tell the community which length of radioactive disposal is acceptable instead of preaching fear and misinformation.

Dear community, be so kind as to discuss solutions, mainly the ethic of closed cycles, instead attacking nuclear and coal or gas fired powerplants, which are needed for the future of mankind – by the way economically, too. Please, do not be so self-indulgent, self-centered and technophobic living in an affluent society, as Germany is one! Please watch out for Eco-despots!

January 20, 2010

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

@Gerhard Schwartz:

I like that you are willing to link to primary source documents, rather than rely on secondary sources that so often get it wrong. Your willingness to do that is the main reason I'm still bothering with this conversation, since you've conveniently ignored all my other points that thoroughly refute your original claim that there was a "severe leakage".

Regardless of any differences between the 2001 and 2009 IAEA documents, both of them require that the public be exposed to some measurable level of radiation, in order for an event to be higher than level 1. We agree that some radiation was released into the environment, but from what I can tell it was all underground. Any stuff from the leaks is highly diluted by the time it gets near people, crops, animals, etc. 18.000 liters is a lot of bathtubs, but it was released slowly, over a number of years. Also, it is a tiny, tiny amount compared to the water in a typical underground aquifer, or a river. There was radiation detected near the plant, and in the river, but was it due to natural Uranium? If so, was were there abnormal quantities of natural Uranium? Are there any other nearby sources (naturally occurring or artificial) of natural Uranium? So far you've presented zero evidence that the public was in fact exposed to any measurable radiation dose that was caused by the leaks.

On the other hand, you seem to have uncovered yet another scandal! This new one appears to be an international (!!) conspiracy to help the French cover up the original scandal of the mis-classified event. Your evidence is that standards charged, and the French are cited in the footnotes. Wow, that's two scandals for you -- or whatever you prefer to call them.

What's next...are we going to hear about a third scandal? I'll tell you right now, I can't be bothered to read a single additional word from you, unless you finally present overwhelming evidence that 1) measurable public exposure actually occurred (please document the amount of exposure), 2) the original event rating was corrupt or in error, and 3) the IAEA is guilty of a cover-up after the fact.

January 20, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz, Hewlett-Packard, Silver Contributor (27)

@John Hadjisky:

Thanks for your contributions, but I must admit that I'm not really appreciating their undertone.

As you don't like the term "severe leakage" for an incident that dominated the international headlines for several days, let's talk about an overspill instead - which is actually a more precise description.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Center:

"In July 2008, 18,000 liters (4,755 Gallons) of Uranium solution containing natural uranium were accidentally released. Due to cleaning and repair work the containment system for a uranium solution holding tank was not functional when the tank filled. The inflow exceeded the tank's capacity and 30 cubic meters of Uranium solution leaked with 18 cubic meters spilled to the ground. Testing found elevated uranium levels in the nearby Gaffière and Lauzon rivers. The liquid that escaped to the ground contained about 75kg of unenriched uranium which is toxic as a heavy metal while possessing only slight radioactivity. Estimates for the releases were initially higher, up to 360kg of natural uranium, but revised downward later. [3] Ground and surface water tests indicated that levels of radioactivity were 5% higher than the maximum rate allowed. In the near vicinity and above ground, the local watchdog group CRIIRAD has detected unusually high levels of radiation. [4]

French authorities have banned the use of water from the Gaffière and Lauzon for drinking and watering of crops. Swimming, water sports and fishing were also banned. This incident has been classified as Level 1 on the International Nuclear Event Scale [5].

In July 2008, approximately 100 employees were exposed to radioactive particles that escaped from a pipe in a reactor that had been shut down.[6] Additionally, a nuclear waste leak that apparently had remained undiscovered since 2005 spilled into a concrete protective shell in Romans-sur-Isere. Areva, who owns the site, ensured that the leak had not caused harm to the environment, but the issue sparkled discussion[7]about an old French army terrain, where nuclear waste was deposited in shielded dumps. The layer of dirt covering the waste is reported to have been thinned due to wind and rain erosion, directly exposing nuclear waste material to open air. Also, the speed with which the Tricastin incident was reported to the Autorité de sûreté nucléaire (8 hours) and subsequently to local authorities (another 6 hours) is subject of ongoing discussions. The European Commissioner Andris Piebalgs may send inspectors to the sites to investigate recent events further."

Anyone can judge by himself whether he considers these two incidents as severe or not. However, it is clear that the 18.000 litre incident was a sudden one - caused by a pretty stupid operational mistake, which does not really increase public trust in the way how nuclear plants are run. The liquid was not "released slowly, over a number of years" as you try to make us believe. Please don't twist facts ...

I'm not going to involve myself into a lengthy discussion about how much radiation was released into the environment and how serious this is to consider. Twist it any way you like, at the time of occurence this was a level 3 incident. IAEA shortly afterwards changed the rules - of course this had nothing to do with any political influence whatsoever, and we also do firmly believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny ...

January 20, 2010

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

Gerhard Schwartz

Wikipedia isn't considered as a trustful information source, I had supposed that you would know it, as you want to give us the impression of a person well aware on all about nuclear energy.

Now, if you don't like it, and if the poor French's fate of Tricastin aeras is worrying you, I recommend you to lobby your government to give up buying our electricity, we need it in Brittany

Now, suppose that Gazprom is your favorite energy supplier !

Tricastin is going to close in a couple of years (or rather in 2010), because it 30 years old
I'm going to ask four alternative energy wind mills soon !

January 20, 2010

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

http://www.ushuaia.com/ushuaia-terre/info-planete/actu-en-continu/environnement/0,,3905311,00-nucleaire-rejet-accidentel-confirme-.html

precaution measures don't mean that there is a grave incident, it just make sure that none will be contamined

L'IRSN confirme par ailleurs une "diminution régulière de la concentration en uranium des eaux en aval de la Socatri" qui atteignent depuis jeudi "une valeur proche de la normale".

http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/07/11/463790-Fuite-d-uranium-a...

January 22, 2010

Heinrich Bonnenberg, Energiewerke Nord
DGAP, Platinum Contributor (358)

Two remarks on the comment by Friedemann H. Müller, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik from January 11, 2010:

I wrote that China and the USA are not a quantité négligeable. Why? On December 26, 2009, Süddeutsche Zeitung announced: “The Federal Minister of the Environment Norbert Röttgen raised serious reproaches against the USA and China after the failure of the world climate summit in Copenhagen. While the USA did not manage to win majorities for climate protection, China would have only prevented it with the climate summit.” That is hardly a fair appraisal of another view, which our German Environment Minister gave there. Besides a low appraisal, his attitude especially signals an arrogant underestimation.

What is an eco-despot?
A despot is someone who purports what truth is, and in that way obstructs the freedom of thought and action, prohibiting those who hold other views – even segregating them. He does this to assert his interests: proselytizing for esoteric world improvements, as well as power and business. In addition, despots prevent progress.

January 24, 2010

Gerhard Schwartz, Hewlett-Packard, Silver Contributor (27)

@ Dr. Heinrich Bonnenberg:

Not trying to respond in place of Mr. Friedemann H. Müller whom you are adressing here, I'd still like to comment on the term "despot" which you have introduced already in your initial message, and which you and others in this discussion continue to use for verbal bashing of people who happen to have somewhat different views on nuclear energy than you have.

According to "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, ISBN 0-671-41819-X", a "despot" is described as follows:

"1. originally, a title meaning "master", applied to certain classes of rulers, as Byzantine emperors, bishops of the Greek church etc.

2. an absolute ruler; king with unlimited powers; autocrat

3. a tyrant

Synonyms: Tyrant, autocrat, master, oppressor, dictator"

You will probably agree that someone needs to be in absolute power and capable to dictate people under his reign in order to be called a "despot". Furthermore, a despot is a single person - the idea of many thousands of "despots" jointly collaborating in order to achieve a certain goal is just absurd. And also, a despot is extremely unlikely to be driven by esoteric thoughts.

Just for completeness, the German meaning of "Despot" is just the same as in the English language, no difference here.

The only act that could be described as "despotism" which came up in the discussion so far is the arbitrary changing of the INES standard by the IAEA shortly after the Tricastin incident. The IAEA has the power to define such standards, and it has used that power for merely political reasons. There was no need to change that standard, France could have lived with a level 3 incident. The USA, the UK and Brazil even had level 5 incidents, not to mention the former Soviet Union who went all the way up to level 7.

In an earlier contribution, you stated:

"It is very boring and frustrating that there is always this esoterically influenced anti-nuclear discussion by poorly informed and extremely indoctrinated people."

I'd certainly leave it to others to judge whether that statement really applies to this particular discussion here. As to my person, I do hold a degree in electrical engineering and I have been working in IT for more than thirty years, so my background is certainly not an esoteric one. In contrast, I have been highlighting how the industry has started to move forward with regenerative energies as these now promise better profits too, in addition to less risk. I am open for replacing old power plants using fossile energy with newer ones that produce less CO2, and I don't think it will be the end of the world if some of Germany's nuclear plants destined for shutdown this year under current law will have their lifetime expanded for some time, as long as a fair share of the additional profits derived will be used for developing regenerative energies (which is the current plan).

My perception on some of the contributions here is that some people must have become really religious about a certain technology. I don't want to interfere with their religious beliefs, and everybody should have the right to pray to the Twin Gods of Uranium and Plutonium, and should be free to worship Don Quichotte as the holy prophet and famous warrior against windmills and all other kind of evel ...

However, open-minded people might rather discuss in a more holistic way how to deal with global warming and the corrective measures needed in many areas, including the production of electric energy. Using less energy in the first place (eg. by improving the isolation of buildings) is certainly a very good start.

And by the way, the vast majority of thoughtful people are very sorry about the failure of the recent Copenhagen conference ...