World Atomic Output Falls by Record in Fukushima’s Aftermath

[kristopher]

World Atomic Output Falls by Record in Fukushima’s Aftermath
By Kari Lundgren on July 06, 2012

World nuclear power production dropped by a record 4.3 percent last year as the global financial crisis and the Fukushima disaster in Japan prompted plant shutdowns and slowed construction of new sites.

Reactors generated 2,518 terawatt-hours of electricity, down from 2,630 terawatt-hours in 2010, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012 published today. Atomic power accounted for 11 percent of all electricity generation.

The meltdown of Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501)’s Fukushima Dai- Ichi plant in March last year drove countries including Germany, Switzerland and Taiwan to announce their withdrawal from nuclear power. Global output was further restricted as nations put new- build plans on hold amid safety concern and economic stagnation, forcing utilities to study extending the lives of current sites.

“The situation is much worse for the industry than after Chernobyl,” said Mycle Schneider, co-author of the report, referring to the 1986 accident in Ukraine. “New projects have a very dull future, but it will put enormous pressure on extending lifetimes and that raises obvious safety issues.”

Seven ...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-06/world-atomic-power-output-falls-by-record-in-fukushima-aftermath

[GliderGuider]

1. As long as the global economy stays in the toilet, nuclear power will continue to die.

Right alongside the real threat to the future of humanity, fossil fuels...

[NNadir]

2. Oh look, another rote anti-nuke cheering for climate change.

The world set a record last year for the consumption of coal, natural gas, and quite nearly, oil.

The hundreds of billions of euros, dollars, yen and yuan sucked down the gas bag solar and wind industries did nothing to help, nothing at all, but to bankrupt governments and make them incapable of dealing with issues like education, research, the environment, help for the poor, the sick and the aged

Heckuva job anti-nuke. At its current pace, the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste will rise by the fourth or fifth largest year to year increase ever measured in history.

Heckuva job.

You must be very proud.

I'm sure too that the families of 3.3 million people killed last year by air pollution are thrilled that we have appeals to fear, superstition and ignorance winning the day over engineering and science.

Heckuva job. Thanks for your enthusiasm for earthquakes and tsunamis, even if you don't give a fuck about the cause of death for 20,000 people in them because of all the time you spend hoping that someone, anyone, will die in order to validate your, um, fear, ignorance and superstition.

[kristopher]

3. Oh, look, another bunch of antirenewable BS by a nuclear greenwasher

Go to any right wingnut website and you find the same kind of screeds every day of the week.

After 50 years of massive government promotion of nuclear:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/112719061

Our solution: Solar power
07/06/2012

Pakistan is living through a severe energy crisis. Though it hurts every thing but the worst hit is industry. As energy security and overall development are closely linked, the latter is deteriorating rapidly and will continue to suffer this, if power outage is not addressed. The economy just cannot recover till the demand-supply gap of power is bridged.

Hour after of load shedding and power cuts are a daily routine in Pakistan. Hence foreign and even local investors are reluctant to invest as electricity - the basic necessity of life - is becoming rare. Here it is quite plain that we must also develop some non-conventional sources of energy. We need to pay attention to alternative sources of power such as solar and wind power etc.

The big tragedy is that our leaders (national, provincial and of industrial community) are not doing much on RE sources, and there has been virtually no improvement on this front. Some areas have the potential power generation and their development will benefit the economy and people alike. Solar energy is one such sector which can be developed fast and could help tackle the energy crisis. Solar power is converting sunlight into electricity, either directly by using photovoltaic or indirectly by using sun's heat for producing steam and running steam turbines.

Both systems can be linked to national or local grids to transmit electricity to individual houses and buildings. Power produced by the two can be stored and integrated with mini grids to ensure its availability even during insufficient solar radiation. Sun's diameter is 109 times larger than that of earth and its radius is 696,000 km while earth's radius is only 6,376 km. Sun's average surface temperature is 5,700C and of earth it is 20C. Amount of solar energy falling on earth's surface is enormous.

All the ...

http://www.power-eng.com/news/2012/07/06/our-solution-solar-power.html

[Fledermaus]

4. Thanks Nuclear industry for adding your unique contribution to the toxic soup our food lives in.

Apparently, mercury and pesticides weren't good enough for you.

[GliderGuider]

5. OECD Nuclear consumption looks like it's set to fall significantly

Non-OECD, not so much.

[kristopher]

6. That's not particularly useful

In fact, it could be effectively argued that the type of "projection" you've presented is 'worse than useless' as a tool for anticipating future trends because it does not take political and economic factors into account at all. The analysis referenced in the op* is designed to look at future capacity and it is probably the most comprehensive analysis on the topic generally available.


* "The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012" by Mycle Schneider and Antony Froggatt
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/

[GliderGuider]

7. Well, at least it's a more optimistic curve than the one for fossil fuels...

I don't intend these to be a "comprehensive analysis". These are just little polemical prods to get people thinking - without having to read great big boring comprehensive analyses.

The takeaway is that the big users of nuclear power have at the very least stopped expanding. The world's nuclear industry has been stagnant now for a decade, with strong signals of decline in the developed nations. In stark contrast, the world's use of fossil fuels, with their inherently global impact, is on a very strong expansionary trend that shows no signs whatsoever of abating.

IMO nuclear power isn't going to kill us all - it physically can't. Fossil fuels, however, can and quite possibly will.

[kristopher]

8. "polemical prod" = misinformation

Frankly you should be excluded from the group for your continued use of this tactic.

[GliderGuider]

9. What, for using trend lines in Excel?

Rly?

[kristopher]

10. For deliberately and regularly promoting the spread of misinformation.

You have often admitted you engage in the practice though you cloak it in euphemisms such as the one above.

[GliderGuider]

11. Well, if you feel that strongly about it

Feel free to ask for me to be banned.

I think that what you characterize as misinformation is more like "willful disagreement with kristopher in ways he personally disapproves of."

Although I think nuclear power is a dangerously unreliable energy source, I think fossil fuels are a much greater existential threat to humanity, and are deserving of most of our effort to combat their use. I make that point in a number of different ways, one of which is by pointing out what might happen if we continue BAU in both cases.

[kristopher]

12. I always disagree with misinformation

In your own words:
"I don't intend these to be a "comprehensive analysis". These are just little polemical prods to get people thinking - without having to read great big boring comprehensive analyses. "

"without having to read great big boring comprehensive analyses"

Your goal is to distract people from accurate information and feed them misinformation.

[GliderGuider]

13. I don't believe that anything I post is deliberate misinformation.

I sincerely don't. It's my own point of view, and my own way of looking at things which others may not share, but I post nothing with an intent to mislead.

You post things that accord with your point of view, that present information in the manner you prefer. So do I. Neither you nor I have any control over whose information others choose to think about or ignore. I generally don't like long articles any more, so I tend not to read them unless there is something extraordinarily compelling about them. I'm sure others feel the same way, so I tend to offer smaller pieces of information that may grab peoples' attention.

The way I see it, what I do with my graphs is no different than what you do, except that my graphs are my own product instead of the second-hand material you tend to favour. We both try and make our own points in the way that suits us. That's the way blogs on the Internet work.

On edit: Just to be clear. I have no problem with you continuing to disagree with me. That's your right. and it's my right to post material I think is interesting and useful, regardless of what you may think of it. Unless we're being disruptive or engaging in personal attacks, we both have the right to post on-topic material as we see fit.