Sweden had been a socialist leaning country for a long time. That made it only natural that decisions would be made on the basis of feelings rather than facts. Consequently, after the Three-Mile-Island incident in 1979, the Swedish government made a decision which would become a role model for other countries to follow, most prominently Germany after it got a Socialist/Green Government in the 1990’s: Sweden decided in 1980 to stop any activity in building new nuclear power plants and phase the old ones out.
Fast forward to today: Like in many other European countries, and as opposed to the trend in the U.S., the Swedes decided that they needed to revert from socialism and they elected a center-right coalition government in 2006. As part of a revision in policies, this center-right government made a landmark decision on February 5, 2009 to rescind the ban of nuclear power and to call for the construction of new reactors as old ones are phased out.
Not only has this bill the Swedish opposition and the environmentalists around the world in arms, it also brings the German government into difficulties in explaining its current official anti-nuclear course. For various reasons, it is clear that a generation of alternative energy must be advanced (the environmental nuts around Al Gore say it’s because of CO2 generation which, as it turns out, is a completely bogus reason – others say, rightfully so, it is to become independent from energy sources in countries which don’t have our future at heart). Since most alternative energy sources have major disadvantages, a rapid conversion is not possible. Since nuclear power does not have these disadvantages, it would be the ideal source to fill in the blanks. But that goes against the feelings of the left wing nuts.
Other small and large European countries are relying more and more on nuclear power: Italy has reversed its prior decision to stop nuclear power (after it changed from a socialist to a conservative government), France has launched two new nuclear plants, Great Britain will built eight new ones. In Finland, a new nuclear plant is under construction, and other East European countries plan to put nuclear power plants back on the grid. The reasons are simple: Increasing electricity consumption, new renewable energy not sufficiently available, and the increasing power play by the Russians with the supply of gas. This dependency on Russian gas has become of similar importance and as critical as dependence on the sheiks in the Middle East.
After the demise of the leftist Schroeder government in Germany, one of the important themes of the election campaigns two years ago was the potential reversal of the stop of nuclear power implemented by the Schroeder government. Unfortunately, the Conservatives with the centrist Free Democrats could not achieve a majority in the Parliament, a government was formed in a so-called “Great Coalition” between the Socialists and Conservatives, and the reversal of the nuclear stop could not be achieved. But the Conservatives have never given up on their position, and this item will certainly be one major item in the Federal elections to be held in German in the autumn of 2009. And the reversal of position by the Swedish government will certainly not make it easy for the Socialists in Germany to maintain their position, particularly since every energy supply study in Germany shows that there will be a substantial gap between demand and supply in the future. That gap would be substantially enlarged in case of their taking the nuclear power plants off the grid, and could not possibly be compensated for by renewable energy. But then, there is this European Grid Agreement, through which Germany will be able to buy electricity from France, generated by…… nuclear power plants.
The U.S. needs to learn from this experience and build nuclear power plants – that is currently the only way to help ensure independence from ME oil; all other renewable energy sources will first have to be fully developed before they have an effect larger than the famous drop in the bucket.
A complete story including several very interesting diagrams.
By Mr. Z
29 comments:
Mr.Z, I thought we were building more nuclear plants? I'm I wrong?
WhooHoo, I'm the first post.
I mean commenter.
My only concern with increasing nuclear power facilities is the nuclear waste. The half-life of this stuff is longer than we will all live, what effect will it have on generations to come and to what extent will it damage the ecosystem?
I am not a nuclear physicist, so I wish someone who is could explain these things in laymen terms.
Mr Z,
Since I'm in the process of reading Sowell's Basic Economics, I feel obliged to comment on the line about demand exceding supply. I think we are remiss to leave off "at current prices."
IHS: Apparently, there are currently no plants under construction, but 17 applications pending. Approval of these applications will depend on the Government policy - remember the election campaign, where McCain wanted to build 45 new plants (rightfully so), and Obama didn't want to take the word in his mouth? My assessment is that they will not allow new nuclear power plants.
LASunsett: Next to the safety of operating these plants, the nuclear waste is the subject which most aggravates the left wing nuts. There are, however safe technologies available and applied. It consists basically of putting the waste into housings built of metal and concrete, and then stow them in old mines deep under the earth, and then enclose the mine shafts.
To read more about the status of nuclear power in the US, including waste, click on:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html
Mr.Z
If the proceedures are followed in disposing of the waste then I don't understand the problem with building more sites, especially if, and I'm guessing, the overall goal is to get away from foreign oil dependency.
Why not build enough until the other alternative things are in place?
Blessings.
Anonymous: You are absolutely right, price is a huge factor in the assessment of feasibility. The price per kWh is lastly dependent on the construction cost (amortization, unless it is subsidized by the government). And then there is the factor that a people can decide that they are willing to pay a higher price for electricity in order to become independent from ME Oil.
The measure for construction cost is the cost per installed kW power. For solar installations, that is about $5k per KW, for wind mills about $1.5k per kW, and for coal or nuclear plants about $300 per kW.
That translates into prices for electricity of 3 cents/kWh for large power plants, 20 cents/kWh for wind plants, and 50 cents/kWh for solar installations.
Additionally, wind and solar plants require enormous investment in infrastructure (power lines to connect with the electricity grid) which are normally not shown together with the above figures about construction cost to keep those figures lower than they should be.
It also must be considered that wind and solar energy is not always available, so you need either huge electricity storage facilities, or have reserve power plants to cover up the deficit.
Mr.Z
IHS: Because it is the religion of the Left to be against nuclear energy. For the same reason that it is the religion of the Left to follow Al Gore and his stupid climate change thing. I guess, it is anti-establishment, and has only to do with feeling and not with facts.
You should see the left wing nuts chain themselves to railway tracks in Northern Germany when a transport with nuclear waste arrives at the waste disposal plant. Unreal. Regularly requires thousands of police to remove them.
Mr.Z
So, are you saying that the power plants although somewhat costly in the beginning works itself out over the course of use?
Blessings.
They'll chain themselves to tracks and then once home use the electricity provided by nuclear power plants.
Is it me or does this seem somewhat HYPOCRITICAL?
Blessings.
IHS: That is correct. There is a factor commonly known as "cost of ownership" which is a combination of amortized construction cost, operation cost (consumption material, personnel, etc.) and maintenance cost. That is then used to determine the cost (and then the price, including profit) for the goods delivered, in this case kWhs of electricity.
Mr.Z
Now, if I can understand the initial cost really will work itself out down the road, and compared to some of the other options; solar and wind which have similar high initial costs but come short in the long run compared to nuclear. Why can't those intelligent individuals in DC get it? Or do they and don't care?
The only arguement I see they have is the waste. Which can be dealt with effectively.
Blessings.
I.H.S. and Mr. Z (!), I think, with the left, this all goes back to BAN THE BOMB when I was a younger woman...
And, obviously, NOBODY wants a nuclear accident!! Everyone remembers Chernobyl, and I must say I worry with nuke plants because I've heard they do such lousy vetting and some dangerous types have been allowed to work in them, and now with terrorism, REALLY dangerous types could do something awful.....but, all things considered, IF we ran them correctly, IF we vetted really strictly and dilligently and properly, and IF people could realize no European country other than Third-World Russia has had a problem, it would work!(remember how much better Three Mile Island's problem went than Chernobyl because we DO know what we're doing?!)
But the left can't get past equating nuclear plants with nuclear bombs, I'm convinced of that.
Wow, what a missed opportunity!
(in regards to the folks who chain themselves to the train tracks!)
And the police could have a vacation day to boot!
The Left is incapable of supporting any form of power short of "immaculate" (ie - future 'green' technology investments). In fact, they're incapable of making any political decision that doesn't please "everybody" in their coalition of whacko environmentalists.
They're basically "Good news Charlies"... and will leave it to the next Republican administration to what's necessary, be it drill for oil, build offshore windmills, construct nuclear plants, install hydro-electric dams... so that their whacko environmentalist political base can later complain about what "bad choices" Republicans always make.
Better a bad choice than no choice, I always say.
In Maryland, Democrats refuse to spend money on widening highways or alieviating traffic congestion. They call "doing nothing" smart growth. Meanwhile, the rush hours get longer... and longer... and longer and the traffic jams extend ever greater distances from city centers.
FJ: You are very right with your comments. Particularly the last one is remarkable, isn't it? For the sake of (wrong) principle, these idiots don't recognize that any decision (or no decision) may have unwanted side effects. They don't want growth so that "the environment is saved", and don't recognize that cars standing idle in traffic generate substantially more CO2 than they can possibly save.
Mr.Z
The problem is that the current "green" sources of power cannot possibly fill the need for energy in today's world. Thus, a push for nuclear energy to fill the shortfall is feasible until more efficient energy sources are developed. (I've also noticed that the environmentalists are against clean coal burning power plants, which makes absolutely no sense.)
The last cost estimate that I have heard for constructing a nuclear power plant is roughly $1 Billion, but should last 20-25 years. There are alternatives to using uranium and plutonium in nuclear power plants, which is thorium.
The main radioactive waste coming out of nuclear plants is low level (booties, tools, etc.), which has a relatively short half-life. If properly processed, the nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and reused with the spent radioactive fuel can be disposed of safely by the methods already described earlier.
Pebble fuel reactors and reprocess the waste.
Thing is though the issue isn't losing dependence on foreign oil, it's losing the dependence on oil, period.
The foreign oil business is just marketing for Rollo.
I have no problems with nuclear power in the hands of civilized, rational human beings... but what happens when europe turns into eurabia. then i have a problem.
Ducky: You are right, PBMR is one of the concepts for new NPs, all effort to build Generation IV plants is directed to efficiency and safety. And reprocessing is certainly the way to go.
I also agree that we must become independent from oil - because it will be running out sometime in the (far) future. But for the time being, we must be grateful that we have oil and coil to generate electricity at reasonable prices.
Incognito: I hate to say it, but the time to look down on Europe is over. Europe (and particularly Germany) is doing much more than the US to get a grip on the Muslim situation. With this new government in the US driving the country with an unbelievable speed into a communist disaster, I'd rather rely on a democracy like under Merkel in Germany than on the disastrous activities under His Majesty Obama I. who is transforming the once formidable security in the U.S. into a public debating club.
Mr.Z
Anybody here believe that the Obama Administration is going to approve a single nuclear power generation project in the next four years? I don't. Here are some "selected" quotes:
OBAMA: I start out with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. So I'm not a nuclear energy proponent.
OBAMA: Until we solve those problems and until the nuclear industry can show they can produce clean safe energy without enormous subsidies from the U.S. government, I don't think that's the best option.
OBAMA: I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.
but...
Obama opposes reprocessing because that technology generates weapons-grade plutonium. And Obama opposes Yucca Mountain, as he told Nevada voters during a primary debate in January.
OBAMA: I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure the people of Nevada that they're gonna be safe.
HOLSTEIN: Senator Obama believes that the project has failed on the technical merits and also that it has failed to sustain the public trust and confidence, which is essential if you're going to build a project of this scale.
YOUNG: Holstein says Obama favors dry casks for long-term storage until better waste disposal is found. That's a system being used in Illinois, Obama's home state. Illinois gets almost half its electricity from nuclear power – the highest rate in the country – and ten of the state's 11 reactors are run by the Exelon corporation. John Rowe is Exelon's CEO.
Exelon employees gave $190,000 to the Obama campaign. That's despite an episode two years ago when Obama criticized Exelon for failing to notify the public about leaks of radioactive material. Obama wrote a bill to force disclosure of such leaks, but the bill failed in the face of industry lobbying.
So until nuclear energy becomes an "immaculate" energy source, I wouldn't count on any reactors coming on line in America whilst a Democrat has any say in the process.
Hey Mr. Z,
Perhaps Germany is doing well on that count, but the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Brain and other countries are hopelessly caving in.
Incognito: Looked like that, didn't it? Not anymore. Islam is one of the major reasons why several of the countries you named are turning their back on Socialists (because they know that the Socialists are letting anybody come into the country). One can argue whether it's too late, but the fact of the matter is that Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium etc. have recently changed to Conservative government. We shall see how much can be turned around. Only the Brits with their Socialist government are dragging their feet, but my belief is that the next elections will be won by the Conservatives - they have had it with the "please come all here" attitude of the Socialists.
FJ: I completely agree - Obama will do no such thing. As we had predicted, he does everything wrong he could possibly do wrong. That is the reason why we said at the end of the article that the US should reconsider nuclear energy.
Mr.Z
Hope you're right Mr.Z. but with the current situation with Geert Wilders and a cartoonist who is in jail or about to go to jail I have to wonder. I hope it's not too late.
We must have a two fold plan- l)...drill oil from our God given troves and 2)....build nuclear power plants...
Thank you for the insight-filled post-Mr. Z...
carol-CS
I am all for nuclear power, but I confess I don't want one of those things near me, or upwind of me. The "not in my backyard" syndrome I guess.
We need to start building Nuclear Power plants and Clean Coal Plants immediately.
I'll fall into the category of "liberal" on this one.
I don't like nuclear power. Never have, and I don't think I ever will. I don't see how encasing it in concrete and burying it is a suitable long-term solution.
And I've got NIMBY syndrome on this one, too.
But I concur with FJ that there probably is no perfect solution.
Great post, Mr. Z!!
Post a Comment