Nuclear power faces reduced share in global energy supply

[jpak]

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=127360&version=1&template_id=48&parent_id=28

LONDON: Nuclear power’s share of global power supply is likely to shrink over the next few decades as political indecision and public opposition stunt its growth.

Even optimists do not see a big expansion in nuclear power’s share of electricity production over the next few decades, despite governments warming to it as fears over climate change and security of energy supply intensify.

“In relative shares, in most projections out to 2030 nuclear power is going to decline,” Hans-Holger Rogner, head of nuclear energy planning at the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Reuters.

The IAEA expects nuclear power to produce 12%-13% of global electricity by 2030, down from the current 16%, while the International Energy Agency forecasts 10%-14%. But Rogner said that long construction times, planning obstacles, a lack of trained nuclear engineers and lingering public fear all hindered the progress of nuclear energy.

<more>

[poopfuel]

1. but... but....nuclear power has killed no one!

http://www.thefarm.org/nuke/nuke.html

Must read, including the Moyers link at the bottom.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. You're kidding, right?

Are you sure you want to get snarky?

You cited a document from The Farm, a cult commune. The Farm bills itself as a bunch of old hippies but is a religious organization that has some pretty strict rules. Granted, it's no Opus Dei and Stephen Gaskin is a little more sane than Claude "Rael" Vorilhon, but The Farm isn't just a bunch of mellow old stoners grooving to Jerry and The Dead, either.

So we have yet another case of a religious organization getting involved in scientific and governmental matters. But I guess it's different when it's "our" pseudoscientists.

The page is a copy of a certiorari petition (of dubious seriousness) from 1982. In the very first section, it claims that nuclear energy is deliberately intended to kill people ("... the activities of the United States in fostering and regulating the production of nuclear energy, by causing planned, non-accidental deaths to citizens, foreign nationals, and unconsenting future persons, and damage to the genetic inheritance (of) all living beings ... "). Where are all the dead people ("The order and judgment of the Court of Appeals will cause the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens and millions of persons as yet unborn") and the million dead embryos, fetuses, and children cited in the certiorari plea? Shouldn't the body count be pretty high by now? Chernobyl itself caused less than 10,000 deaths. Not trivial at all, and certainly worthy of the title "disaster," but still at least two or three orders of magnitude smaller than "millions".

There's more ... but I'll leave it.

The linked documents -- not just Moyers' hasty 9-11 remarks, but to Harvey Wasserman's essay-cum-sci-fi-story -- are the stuff of comic books. Remote possibilities are certainties; Chernobyl workers are dying in droves (one drove = 14 people; 2 droves of workers, note the plural, have died of radiation sickness); the corpses of animals were piled high in Amish Country (no evidence cited); one jet can take out two nuclear reactors in one shot, turning all of New York City and northern New Jersey into a killing field with the dying afflicted by a metallic taste in their mouths.

The Holocaust was also trotted out, I guess as a way for Moyers to lump the Arabs, the nuclear industry, and the Nazis together. Push all the emotional buttons at once, "that's the ticket!"

And as always, the argument is "Arab Nuclear Death! Arab Nuclear Death! Arab Nuclear Death!"

Isn't that kinda how the plot of 24 works?

--p!

[poopfuel]

9. snarky? Moi?

Or shouldn't I say, Snarky, toi?

While the Commission hastens to characterize all the injuries as "potential" rather than "actual," the distinction is of no practical or legal significance. By all reasonable estimates of present science, some fatal health effects not only will occur, but are now occurring from population exposures of the magnitude which the NRC allows (ie: 32,000 leukemias per year).

And this doesn't include Chinese or Indian reactors. US reactors alone.

Oh, well, I guess some people can live with it.

[GliderGuider]

10. Could you point to those estimates?

I've had a hard time coming up with agenda-free estimates of fatal health effects, especially "potential" ones. That doesn't mean they're not out there, or that one or the other side is correct even though both sides are agenda-driven, but I'm always skeptical of emotionally loaded terminology such as was used in this writ (which is hardly an epidemiological document).


And yes, some people can live with very high levels of perceived risk, depending on their perception of the benefit. Look at automobile deaths, Aspirin deaths etc. etc.

[hunter]

2. So, coal wins...

That's just great.

:eyes:

[jpak]

3. No - coal doesn't win - renewables and energy efficiency "win"

:eyes:

[hunter]

4. That's not what the article cited says.

It says electricity production will increase, mostly fueled by coal and natural gas.

[jpak]

6. No - the article said "coal, RENEWABLES and natural gas.

The new EU plan calls for 20% of all energy (not just electricity) to be produced by renewables by 2020.

The "plan" for the US is 25% renewables (all energy) by 2025...

23 US states already have Renewable Portfolio Standards with goals of 10-30% of their electricity produced by renewables by 2015-2020.

The US will soon have a some type of carbon cap/rollback policy - plans for new US coal and natural gas plants are going to be scaled back.

Once the Chimp and Cheney are impeached, we will see real action on US CO2 emissions - action - not words.

...and China's coal craze is unsustainable...

So I don't think that growth in fossil fuel consumption will be as great as many wish to believe.

[hunter]

7. So you'll jump for that one little bone they throw?

Renewables. A single word tossed in, entirely unsupported, out of more than six hundred... Yes, greenwashing is cheap and effective. In many cases you don't even have to pay for it.

The goal I'm after would be the complete elimination of coal as an energy source. We can do that for ourselves, or have it done for us. Currently we are pursuing the "done for us" option. Global warming will probably cause an economic collapse that reduces our energy consumption dramatically. This will be a very bad thing for most people.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Yeah, here's ~150GW of renewables rushing to fill the gap

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=78433