Quick! Evacuate Scandinavia now!

A discussion I’ve had on the Brave New Climate boards about Chernobyl culminated in this post. I love it!

Peak background radiation today in the region appears to be 25 microR/h, that’s 2.2 mSv/y. The red area. Since this only measures gamma radiation it accurately describes the cesium contamination dose rate. Well actually no, about half that peak dose appears to be natural, so likely we’re talking about roughly a 1 mSv/year peak from Chernobyl contamination in the worst affected areas today.

2.2 mSv/year is below the average natural background radiation of the world, due primarily to ubiquitous radon.

chornobyl.in.ua/en/radiation-background-ukraine.html

So, for talking points, you can say that the worst contaminated areas are considerably less radioactive than all of Scandinavia. Oddly enough there is no plan yet to evacuate and condemn Sweden, Finland and Switzerland, as their natural background radiation is worse than the worst areas around Chernobyl.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Nuclear. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Quick! Evacuate Scandinavia now!

  1. heavyweather says:

    The BR is not the reason why you can’t live in Tschernobyl.

    • heavyweather says:

      The wildlife and the soil is still conterminated. Mushrooms and bores in around the fallout area up to Austria are still unsave to eat. You would not want to drink milk from Tschernobyl.
      The sarcophagus is also very likely to collapse. The soviets have not set aside funds for such an event though. We are talking about today’s consequences and not even of the faith of the liquidators back then. A very dark chapter of history and not something to uneducated muse about on the other end of the word.

  2. Eclipse Now says:

    The point is we’re ALL bathed in it, and not just from Chernobyl. Try the sun! Try living in a higher plateau! Try being a pilot of airline stewardess. They’re taking more Sieverts than Chernobylites.

    • heavyweather says:

      How do you digest and breath in fallout from the sun?
      You can walk there as long as you stay in a safe distanz to the reactor but you can not live there.
      There are still plants on geologically aktiv lines in central Europe. They aren’t even insured. Why? Because the risc is so high that no insurance could cover it. We might not see 50k people die again from a nuclear disaster but the risk is not local. You eat fish? Our food chain is far a greater problem than BG radiation.
      I guess trying to ridicule the Tschernobyl disaster is the preferred way to advocate nuclear plants these days?
      As if there was not enough toxic waste already.

  3. Eclipse Now says:

    1. Nuclear waste = fuel for GenIV reactors, and China will soon be building them so fast that they’ll be cheaper than coal.

    2. I’m not ridiculing Chernobyl, but asking that we get a more peer-reviewed approach to radiation. Some people act as if it is the ONLY threat to humanity! Whereas I say 1 Chernobyl / generation would be a *small* price to pay to avoid the worst of climate change, and I don’t think we’ll actually see any of today’s Gen3 reactors melt down *ever*. Anyway, banning nuclear power because of Chernobyl or even Fukushima is like banning modern aviation because of the Hindenberg. We’re simply talking about completely different technologies!

    3. But speaking of Chernobyl, did you know “Hanna was among some 1,200 returnees, called ‘self-settlers’, most over the age of 48, who made their way back in the first few years after the accident,” and that the health of these women appears to be comparable to, maybe even *better* than those who left Chernobyl? Leaving caused depression and anxiety disorders, but the mental health effects of return home seem to have offset the ‘so high risk’ lifestyles of these women in the exclusion zone.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9646437/The-women-living-in-Chernobyls-toxic-wasteland.html

    4. I agree that toxic fish are a real issue: but it’s not Fukushima or Chernobyl that’s the problem here. It’s plastic bioaccumulating up through the food chain!

    5. Given that WHO think the final death toll from Chernobyl might be 4000 (see link above), and this is from a once-in-a-technology’s first stage of deployment accident, there’s every reason to see that nuclear power is far safer than hydroelectric or wind! More people die per terrawatt falling off wind turbines than have died from nuclear power accidents!

    6. France went from 7% nuclear to 70% nuclear in just 10 years, and is now majority nuclear and have some of the cleanest electricity in Europe. When you can show me a wind + solar country that has reached a *reliable* baseload supply of power from 70% wind and solar in that time, I might believe you!

    7. Once again: as James Hansen said
    “Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansen-energy-kool-aid/

    8. Do the maths on a deaths / terrawatt basis.
    Classic Monbiot quote: “….when coal goes right it kills more people than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. It kills more people every week than nuclear power has in its entire history. And that’s before we take climate change into account.”
    http://www.monbiot.com/2012/10/09/the-heart-of-the-matter/

    • heavyweather says:

      “despite the severely contaminated ground, government objections and the deaths of many fellow ‘self-settlers’,…”

      Good news…some may live longer when everybody else has died due to toxicity.
      Those happy settlers.

      Use the mandatory roping and nobody dies falling off a turbine. Non others have been killed by wind turbines. BTW you do not have any numbers on Chinese workers dying while building NPPs? That’s a lot of unsustainable concrete, way more than needed for those stadiums that killed so many construction workers.

      Built Kitepoweplants that nobody has to climb.

      Nobody is banning NP because of Tschernobyl. They are phasing out old plants and see that the economics and puplic opinion are not supporting new plants. Of course absolute regimes like China don’t care for either.

      Number games about Chinese “generation 4” solving any problems are not reflecting the state of the industrie which could not support anything near your needed numbers anyways. A dead end is a dead end. The Brits are not any wiser but who cares when the tax payer (and generations of tax payers to follow) finances the foolishness.

      Private Utilities will always cut on safety to maximize profits. How would a massive build out effect that praxis.

      It is not going to happen anyway.

  4. Eclipse Now says:

    1. Deaths / terrawatt still remains higher for wind than nuclear.
    2. Unsustainable Chinese concrete? Are you kidding me? Wind and solar require something like 5 to 10 times the ‘unsustainable concrete’ per terrawatt than nukes! Nukes are incredibly CONCENTRATED energy per unit of steel and concrete: wind and solar are diffuse, unreliable, and require 5 to 10 times as much steel and concrete because they’re so WEAK!
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/
    3. You haven’t provided the 7% to 70% increase in one decade I was asking about for wind and solar? Please try to demonstrate that this could occur. It hasn’t happened because it *cannot* happen, even in ideologically driven nations like Denmark and Germany. I really wish it COULD happen, because everyone’s brain shuts down when it comes to thinking about risk with nuclear power.
    4. Nuclear’s future is a dead end? Nobody is planning nuclear power because of Chernobyl? Are you *kidding* me? Please increase your news feed to include Next Big Future and other blogs. You’re way behind. The Chinese are looking to mass produce GenIV nukes that eat nuclear waste for 3 reasons: fix pollution in their cities, provide *reliable* baseload power, and to BECOME CHEAPER THAN COAL!
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/propects-for-lower-cost-nuclear-fission.html
    When you can show me solar and wind power that’s RELIABLE baseload power cheaper than coal, I might come around. But given it’s unreliable, requires 10 times as much steel and concrete, and also requires massive overbuilds and storage due to seasonal variation and just plain dropping out due to low capacity factor, I don’t think we’ll ever see ‘unreliables’ as cheap as *mass produced nukes*. (Sure, first-of-a-kind nukes are expensive: but once they are modularized and put up on an assembly line, they’ll be some of the cheapest, cleanest, most reliable and abundant baseload energy we’ve ever had. And far, far safer than coal, which kills more people in a week than nuclear power has in it’s whole history!)

    • heavyweather says:

      Most workplace accidents do not even happen at power stations…there you have it, people are falling down roofs because they don’t use the safety they are supposed to use and those roofs are even worse because they don’t produce any energy.
      How are people dying while building plants not counting? Lets take away the workforce and just count people that don’t get injured while working. Things turn because the risk of people getting killed by windturbines failing is so little that these plants even get insured.
      Try insuring a fictional genIV plant. We will see in 25+ years if there is any way to get those insured if they ever start to appear or get permission in any other country than China. Remember that GenIV are theoretical reactors still.

      If we are talking about theoretical plants then kitepowerplants just win hands down. You need 20x less material than conventional windturbines, can place them less than 100m from each other and they have availability up to 70%. Combine them with theoretical more efficient than today power2gas and you can use existing gas plants, pipelines, reservoirs and any other available gas infrastructure.
      Theoretically you can scale them up to 60GW if you run them on a ring configuration.
      Nobody will fall off because there is no tower to climb. You can use them afloat or on ships. They could be mass produced anywhere, no need to handle radioactive fuels.

      If burning less coal was the real goal China would just stop those plants burning coal. They are not shutting down any plants because there will always be more energy demand. It’s all just talking and no action while they discuss theoretical plants or make you discuss the virtues off theoretical plants.

      Now back to the bg radiation post. You would not go back to Tschernobyl and you know why. The “self-settlers” are poor people that are dying because of contaminated soil and the food they grow there. You can visit there, no problem but digging around, playing in the sand or eating Tschernobyl grown food is not what you would do.
      How is background radiation important then? Responding to you blog is necessary because it is cynical and highly disrespectful to the people that suffered from Tschernobyl.
      I hope you never have to live through a situation like that as we did living in neighbourhood countries.

  5. Eclipse Now says:

    “Most workplace accidents do not even happen at power stations…there you have it, people are falling down roofs because they don’t use the safety they are supposed to use and those roofs are even worse because they don’t produce any energy.
    How are people dying while building plants not counting?”

    I never made any such claim. What I did draw your attention to was that if there’s something about producing Chinese concrete that alarms you, please be aware that wind and solar use 5 to 10 times as much.

    “Lets take away the workforce and just count people that don’t get injured while working. Things turn because the risk of people getting killed by windturbines failing is so little that these plants even get insured.”

    Do you have any actual evidence, or is everything a word game to you?

    “Try insuring a fictional genIV plant.”

    1. Just because something is in development does not make it ‘fictional’, otherwise you would be utterly opposed to the myth of reliable wind and solar! There isn’t any on the planet right now, but you ‘believe in it’. Instead, if you bothered to read any of the reputable links I’ve given you China plans on building actual GenIV reactors in just 8 years.
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/china-seriously-looking-at.html
    2. But we don’t have to wait for that, as today’s Gen3.5 reactors (with passive safety systems Homer Simpson couldn’t break!) are coming off the production line, and they produce the perfect fuel for GenIV reactors.

    “We will see in 25+ years”

    Make that 8 years…

    “if there is any way to get those insured if they ever start to appear or get permission in any other country than China. Remember that GenIV are theoretical reactors still.”

    Incorrect: ‘not commercialised’ does not equate with ‘theoretical’. We have over 300 reactor years experience with breeder reactors, and the EBR2 produced power reliably, withstood every cooling system failure test they threw at it, and ran for decades at Argonne labs. It was one of the world’s first true Integrated Fast Reactors (IFR’s) and that’s a definite GenIV reactor. It was *real*, it *worked* and there was nothing theoretical about it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II
    I can’t mention the EBR2 without also mentioning that GE have a plan for a commercialised version based on the EBR2 called the S-PRISM. It’s ready to go the moment they get approval. There will be a commercial test, then full production.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor)

    “If we are talking about theoretical plants”

    We’re not. We’re talking about real world engineering solutions, not fantasies and wishful thinking.

    “If burning less coal was the real goal China would just stop those plants burning coal. They are not shutting down any plants because there will always be more energy demand. It’s all just talking and no action while they discuss theoretical plants or make you discuss the virtues off theoretical plants.”

    Please provide evidence that all the links I sent to you are just hype and not based on heavily invested industries already gearing up for full production. China *are* mass producing AP1000’s which are safe Gen3.5 reactors. You need to read a wider variety of sources.

    “Now back to the bg radiation post. You would not go back to Tschernobyl and you know why. The “self-settlers” are poor people that are dying because of contaminated soil and the food they grow there”

    Please provide evidence that radiation is killing them.

    “You can visit there, no problem but digging around, playing in the sand or eating Tschernobyl grown food is not what you would do.”

    Please provide evidence that radiation is killing them.

    “How is background radiation important then? Responding to you blog is necessary because it is cynical and highly disrespectful to the people that suffered from Tschernobyl.”

    It is not cynical at all: I recognise that WHO claim 4000 people will eventually die from radiation poisoning. It’s just that I also recognise coal kills 4 times that amount of people EVERY DAY!
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/

    “I hope you never have to live through a situation like that as we did living in neighbourhood countries.”

    I also hope the same thing, but I also hope for a world without coal. Do you? What do you *seriously* propose we do about coal and global warming? Wind turbines? Sorry, they’re too intermittent, require too much backup and overbuild, and cannot do the job. Period.

    But the irony is, that with a nuclear grid, they could provide a significant amount of energy. They can’t do it on their own, where a nuclear grid could. As France has shown us. But if we want to make our nuclear ‘waste’ last longer, maybe we should also add in some wind and solar. But they can only do what they’re good at if we let nuclear do what it is good at: providing abundant reliable clean power.

    • heavyweather says:

      The russian avademy of science estimates 90k Tschernobyl death. 50k of that figure Liquidatoren. Ukrainian officials are counting around 40k off there own people.

      The soviets did a good job at hidding up.

  6. Eclipse Now says:

    1. What other energy source is abundant, reliable, baseload and as *cheap* as nuclear power?

    2. Do the math! EVEN IF the un-peer reviewed, rather hysterical claims of the “Russian Academy of Science” are true, it’s STILL NOTHING compared to coal.
    But I have serious doubts: see here.
    http://atomicinsights.com/devastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment/
    But we could debate the ‘peer-reviewed’ status of these reports back and forth all night. For now, let me go with your figures to make a point (even though I disagree with them).

    Chernobyl’s melt down was a once-in-a-civilisation event: I repeat, it had NO CONTAINMENT DOME! Chernobyl is not a reflection of nuclear power but of Soviet stupidity. Even anti-nuclear activist Ian Lowe (formerly the head of the Australian Conservation Foundation) said that “Chernobyl was practically sabotaged!” He’s anti-nuclear, and he admits that.

    It says NOTHING about nuclear power: ZERO, and everything about the Soviets. But as we are discussing it, because the radiation around there simply isn’t as bad as people fear according to the WHO peer-reviewed work (that is a bit embarrassed about the Russian Academy), here’s the deal. Risk management is about mathematics. It’s about the best options available. As you have contributed NO ALTERNATIVE to nuclear power that can scale up the way the French already did (7-70% in ten years) then nuclear is all we’ve got.

    EVEN IF WE GO WITH YOUR FIGURES THAT’S STILL ONLY 4.5 DAYS OF COAL!
    Did you get that? The WORST nuclear accident in history, blowing far more material out over a far greater area than Fukushima, will still only kill as many as 4.5 days of coal. (If we go with your figures: I still believe who and that Chernobyl will kill just 1/4 of ONE day of coal deaths.)

    In other words, coal is 4000 times more deadly than nuclear.
    Here’s another link:
    Coal kills 170,000 people per trillionkWhr
    Nuclear is BETTER than solar (at 440) and Wind (at 150), and is all the way down at 90 deaths per trillionkWhr.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

    3. Today’s reactors have amazing concrete structures called CONTAINMENT DOMES! Did I already say that? Oh, yes, I did, a few paragraphs and posts up thread, but you’ve not replied to that. So I thought I would say it twice here: just to make sure that sinks in. Again, Soviet arrogance and stupidity. Did you know in the 9/11 attacks terrorists flew planes into buildings? Well, that obviously means we should ban all aviation forever! 😉

    4. But speaking of terrorists, did you know that in today’s reactors (that have CONTAINMENT DOMES) even the reactor core itself is a safety feature. It’s called passive physics. What does that mean? If a terrorist or tsunami or even a Homer Simpson knocks out every cooling pump and power cord leading into the plant, and EVERY means of cooling the core fails, guaranteeing a meltdown in an Gen1 and Gen2 reactor… what happens? It stops. Why? The metal in the fuel rods expands, leaks neutrons, and the reaction shuts itself down. Homer Simpson couldn’t break it.

    5. So what we have here is that nukes are HISTORICALLY safer than coal, do not contribute to global warming, and their waste = fuel for generations to come. We could shut down uranium mining worldwide for 500 years and still have enough fuel if we built enough Gen4 reactors. As the father who acted as carer for a 5 year old boy we thought was dying of Leukaemia (he survived), I can honestly say now that I would prefer to live next to a nuclear power plant rather than have coal in the same State as I am. Seriously. You’re going on and on and on about how lethal you think nuclear power is, but coal is the killer. And you’ve said nothing realistic about how we’re going to save SEVEN MILLION LIVES a year: and that’s before we consider the BILLIONS at risk from climate change.
    Nuclear power? Yes please.

    • heavyweather says:

      You still stand by your original statement that Tschernobyl is as safe to live as Scandinavia?
      You might want to review the WHO study yourself before jumping on the IAEO train and calling Russian Scientists names (they are also researching theoretical gen IV designs)
      We do not want to bury toxic nuclear reactors all over Europe. There are enough other options that are pursued all over the world. Then you have the stagnating nuclear industry with theoretical buildout and fictional features that are not ready to mass produce… whatever science fiction blogs write.
      You are completely ignoring the financial side. A theoretical reactor can be safe or not you have to find somebody to insure it note so if you believe you can install more than a couple. 8 years is no time and I can guarantee you that there won’t be mass production of whatever type of theoretical reactor in 8 years.
      Happy dreaming an d blogging anyway 😉

  7. Eclipse Now says:

    “There are enough other options that are pursued all over the world.” That’s a statement of belief, without evidence. Otherwise why would Dr James Hansen who described the climate problem to us prescribe nuclear as the climate solution? You also haven’t addressed any of the statistical information I’ve gathered above, but answer data with mere semantic games and belief-statements. I’m thinking of shutting this conversation down unless you can contribute some *evidence*.

    • heavyweather says:

      What about resettling Tschernobyl now?

    • heavyweather says:

      Yoi might want to relocate some Scandinavian people.

    • heavyweather says:

      There are lots oft other options pursued all over the world.
      Not even China is solely pursuing nuclear. In fact they are investing more money in the development of renewables.
      Over 50 years of use habe shown that it can’t do what you wish for. Not even in France where nuclear was and is heavily substituted.
      And still the French nuclear industry is in an devastating state.
      But there is hope because Germany will help them out with renewable technology France is failing to develop.

  8. Eclipse Now says:

    From my limited layman’s knowledge of this subject, and the extra reading your questions prompted last night, I guess the point of the opening post was not so much whether or not we should be moving back to Chernobyl but whether a casual walk, or even holiday there, would be very dangerous.

    So, knowing enough to see that not *all* radiation is deadly, I wandered across to the BNC forum and asked your quite interesting question there. Here is the answer. I was quite surprised! And a little disheartened. If this becomes public knowledge, then one of Europe’s best ‘wildlife parks’ – with predator category birds and mammals completing the ecosystem – could be resettled. Do we want that? Given the boundaries of all national parks keep decreasing with urban and agricultural sprawl, I don’t think so. But here is one commenter’s conclusion anyway:

    “Don’t see why not. Cs-137 is troublesome because the most likely daughter product decays with a hard gamma. Stirring it up makes little difference. Say, a few mm of soil on it (sediment since 1986) makes little difference in the gamma dose. Cs137 doesn’t bioaccumulate, biological half life is 2-3 months only, so its for all intents and purposes an external dose and it comes from gamma rays (from barium direct gammas and secondary Bremsstralung). The actual beta ray itself doesn’t get through shoes and clothes (in fact a short distance of air stops it) though it will increase if you stir buried Cs137. Still, even a 10x increase in dose rate from stirring would not be any risk to health.

    According to researcher Jerry Cuttler, there’s a sort of turning point in health effects above 2 rad/day.

    http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/Presentations/Guest-Speakers/2013/20130625-Cuttler-CNSC-Fukushima-and-beneficial-effects-low-radiation.pdf

    The worst areas near Chernobyl are below 0.005 rad/day above background.

    Finland background at 0.02 rad/day.

    Read more: http://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/488/chernobyl-quarantined-20-000-years?page=1#scrollTo=4301#ixzz37TyKKmFB

    • heavyweather says:

      You could check again and find out that the BBC has been there. Food has to be checked for radiation on the market, you can’t sell food without a certificate. They had mushrooms checked and surprise…not safe to eat by any margin….picked outside the exclusion zone.
      You can settle there if you check all your food for radiation. You can just accept that you eat contaminated food like the people living there. Maybe we just have another perception of “safe”.
      What about Strontium90?
      It is sad that poor people have to accept to live and work in a toxic place like that. I would not want to live there.
      Saying people should resettle in the Exclusion Zone under these circumstances is not very sensible though.
      You see – no need to fear for the wildlife, this place won’t be resettled any time soon, not for generations to come. It would have been a little funny if you where the person to find out that it could by asking a question on the BBC forum, don’t you think?
      You can visit there and experience the place for yourself. You could even work at Tschernobyl, there is still need for cleanup for the next 40 years. Specialists and workers are very welcome.

      ————-

      How about just using alternatives that are not fuelled by toxic products?
      You just have to combine windpower with gas to get baseload power.
      Kitegen could have powered the aluminium smelter in Portovesme with a 300MW (5000h availability) grid of kites on 1km² if there would have been commitment. Because they can provide cheaper than coal energy they could have held the plant.
      They are ready to mass produce anywhere. They do not need toxic materials to run. They would be faster to build and faster to deploy than even conventional wind turbines.
      Cheaper than coal….that is what you are asking for. What would be wrong about supporting this idea when it has the effect you are looking for?

  9. Eclipse Now says:

    You don’t seem to appreciate that the really toxic countries in the world are the ones that run on coal, which is 4000 times more deadly. Plutonium shmutonium. Coal is the killer. Once you get your head around this, nuclear and renewables can be friends, not enemies.

  10. Eclipse Now says:

    “What would be wrong about supporting this idea when it has the effect you are looking for?”
    Hypothetical, unreliable, unproven. When it’s reliable I’ll support it! But unlike GenIV reactors, these have *not* been demonstrated to work for decades.

  11. Eclipse Now says:

    Heavyweather, now you’re being silly and snide. When you can demonstrate baseload wind, get back to me. We’re talking about powering modern economies, not pumping water or grinding a little grain. Until then, why don’t you take up with Dr James Hansen how he became so silly as to support nuclear power?

    • heavyweather says:

      Now you are supporting coal by brushing away available options because they are not nuclear and can easily be available before 2030.
      Where is that nuclear baseload in Australia or is it rather coal that you are burning?
      Would a 300MW/km² windfarm at 30€/MW help your aluminium smelters? No?
      I will not stop you from talking about it for the next 20 years but all this talking will not even make a dent in your coal baseload.
      You put all your believe in some extreme and unproven technology. All the gen IV designs are new and unproven, there has been done some basic work but non of those designs has ever been produced significant “baseload” power. Germany played around with breeders so did France.
      You never address the issue off
      Wind+Windgas is baseload. How can you dispute that.
      We have two options on the table. One of them does not involve toxic nuclear material and can be mass produced everywhere.
      Do you really believe that mass producing reactors is like building cars? Who will produce all that turbines, all that containment for sodium and what not. How are you going to fuel them in a short time, who is going to do that? Where is the trained workforce for that? Do you know how long it takes to set up a new production line for industrial components?
      You can not seriously believe that something like that will cheaper than Kiteplants which need proven components and proven electronics that can be sourced from existing industries.
      When do you hope to get that mass production up and running? How long will it take to get the cost down to a level where it even can compete with gas or coal?

      Let’s talk again in 10 years and just see what has happened. Maybe there will be some non theoretical reactor with data to show.

  12. Eclipse Now says:

    “Now you are supporting coal by brushing away available options because they are not nuclear and can easily be available before 2030.”

    That’s EXACTLY what Dr Barry Brook, head of climate science, and Dr James Hansen, the modern day grandfather of climate science, would say about your refusal to support the biggest EXISTING, REAL WORLD tool in our kit: nukes.

    “You never address the issue off Wind+Windgas is baseload.”

    Oh wow. You’re so cliche’ you’re amazing!
    Let me quote from Tom Blees to answer you:

    “The willing acceptance of increased natural gas use by so many who consider themselves environmentalists is stunningly inconsistent with the science of anthropogenic climate change. The nearly religious fervor of the windies and sunnies virtually ignores this devil in the details.”
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/24/unnatural-gas/
    The problem is that the math doesn’t add up, and natural gas comes online to backup ENORMOUS gaps in wind profiles. Sorry. You’ve been had.

    “You put all your believe in some extreme and unproven technology.”

    My ‘extreme’ technology is TODAY’S AP1000’s, proven, demonstrable reactors that are coming online fast. It’s the dozens of other reactor designs we have out there. And then eventually it will be a mix of the DEMONSTRABLE benefits we had with the EBR2 which RAN FOR DECADES. (This information doesn’t stick with you, does it? I wasn’t kidding when I said GenIV reactors were an old technology: they’re just commercialising it, but the technology and physics and engineering has been proven. They’re just bringing the price down).

    There’s nothing ‘unproven’ about these reactors. Please show how the EBR2 didn’t exist. Perform your magic trick. Please show how a *variety* of *breeder* reactors just vanished from history. We know have about 400 reactor-years experience with them, and know how they perform.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

    You’re the one with faith in unproven technology.

    Your stubborn refusal to accept nuclear as a SAFE, PROVEN, BASELOAD, ABUNDANT technology that CAN be scaled up quickly (French example) makes you one of countless wishy washy, namby pamby hippies singing campfire songs while the planet burns because you and all your hippie buddies have refused the only real workable demonstrable solution.

    • heavyweather says:

      You fail to show that nuclear will have any effect on Australia burning coal in the near future.
      Maybe you are not opposed to coal that much when you brush aside solutions by stubbornly talking about the single magic bullet that does not show.
      Like a kid running around the pool wishing for chocolate instead of water.

      I was never talking about natural gas. How is Windgas now natural gas. How do gaps matter when they are backed up by storage? Even less if you tap into unused wind resources.
      Nuclear seems to be stagnating to me whereas windpower and solar are taking off.
      Again…just see who is right in 10 years.

      Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are a set of theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently being researched. Most of these designs are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030.

      I see that you are still repeating nuclear propaganda and fail to see the target – stop burning coal!
      Why is it a problem to understand that there are alternatives that might be even faster to implement?

  13. Eclipse Now says:

    You just talk and talk and make all these crazy assertions without a shred of something we call *credible evidence*. 2030 for GenIV, when I’ve shown you the Chinese are going to be mass producing them in 8 years? And the only reason I mentioned GenIV is the fact that they are our long term solution because they extract 99% extra energy from the uranium ‘waste’ that we currently try to ‘store’ for 100,000 years. I never said GenIV are our short term hope (even though they’re going to be built in 8 years). I said we could mass produce today’s reactors first. They’re safe enough. They’ll do the job. The French already did this decades ago with older technology, and haven’t had a dangerous melt down once. They showed us the way. It’s just sunnies and windies like yourself are so ideologically blind to it that you’d prefer to waste decades and trillions chasing the wind… chasing a ‘smart grid’ and then a ‘super-grid’ and then a bunch of overbuild in wind farms and solar farms and storage farms when all that money could have just shut down coal by deploying nukes in the first place.

    Coal kills more people in a quarter of a day than Chernobyl: and more in one week when it goes *right* than in the entire history of nuclear power going wrong.

    I’ll leave you with James Hansen’s thoughts once more:

    “Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansen-energy-kool-aid/

    Lastly, please don’t post any more whacky claims without the evidence to back them.

    • heavyweather says:

      Which theoretical generation IV reactor will you have up and running in Australia in 8 years to stop burning coal?
      How are you going to stop burning coal without implementing renewable energy?…nuclear is obviously no near term solution for your country.
      Just answer this question without resorting to nuclear once.

      For every person you are quoting there are others that say different.
      These people are obviously unaware of wind-technology producing at 30€/MW.
      I guess they would count it in as an option if they knew.
      Guess what the people at KiteGen would tell you if you contacted them.

      http://www.euronuclear.org/1-information/generation-IV.htm
      2030….at least 20-25 years for those theoretical designs to show up.
      Let’s see if they can compete with renewable energy then…

      The world is not just number games and unmet road maps by publicity departments 😉

      Your initial blog post was pure nonsense. I still don’t understand your motive for posting about Tschernobyl? It would have been a matter of minutes to find out how contaminated the area is.
      I hope you are a little embarrassed now after reading up on the situation of the people actually living there.

  14. Eclipse Now says:

    “Which theoretical generation IV reactor will you have up and running in Australia in 8 years to stop burning coal?
    How are you going to stop burning coal without implementing renewable energy?…nuclear is obviously no near term solution for your country.
    Just answer this question without resorting to nuclear once.”

    You need to change your needle: your record’s stuck in the one groove. I’ve already answered this:

    I never said GenIV are our short term hope (even though they’re going to be built in 8 years). I said we could mass produce today’s reactors first. They’re safe enough. They’ll do the job. The French already did this decades ago with older technology, and haven’t had a dangerous melt down once. They showed us the way. It’s just sunnies and windies like yourself are so ideologically blind to it that you’d prefer to waste decades and trillions chasing the wind… chasing a ‘smart grid’ and then a ‘super-grid’ and then a bunch of overbuild in wind farms and solar farms and storage farms when all that money could have just shut down coal by deploying nukes in the first place.

    “For every person you are quoting there are others that say different.
    These people are obviously unaware of wind-technology producing at 30€/MW.”

    Now we’re getting down to it. The problem with the kind of reporting you’ve been sucked into is that it is the same as the kind of reporting climate deniers get sucked into. You *want* to believe, and so read those quick, misleading, silly news snippets that promise the world but never quite deliver. You’ve probably read that solar PV is cheaper than grid electricity now? Yep, that’s true. Today. Now. Until. Until you try to make it baseload. Until you remove taxpayer subsidies. Until you try to buy the battery to run your own the 2/3rds the day it DOESN’T WORK, and actually buy another 3 times as much solar to charge that battery bank while your first lot of solar actually runs the house. So in other words, “Solar PV cheaper than grid” is NOT cheaper than the grid, because it still requires the grid to run the house overnight. Dick Smith (Australian entrepreneur) calculated that to take a house off grid with the right amount of power and 3 to 4 times as much solar PV (to charge the batteries while that first lot actually runs the house during the mere third of the day solar actually WORKS) would eventually, over the lifetime of the product, cost 4 times as much.
    I could link you to Beyond Zero Energy or Cleantechnica’s list of 20 or so worldwide reports about ‘going renewable’ but the problem is those reports are not actually put up to the harsh criticism of PEER REVIEW. They’re written by ideologically driven enthusiastic fan bois. I used to be taken in by them. But sadly, when I read Barry Brook, head of climate at Adelaide University, and hear his anti-coal passion, and yet see him debunk the silly arguments of all the fanbois, I’m convinced. This is not some climate denier NUTTER just out for attention. He genuinely wants us to turn off the coal ASAP. He’s convinced the only way we can do that is through nukes.
    But you don’t care about real world maths and real world engineering expenses. Just go back to your daydreams! Solar PV is cheaper than grid, and we’ll replace jet fuel with flying pigs.

    • heavyweather says:

      First you where telling nukes ARE mass produced somewhere in China now you are repeating again that they “could be mass produced” to help your coal burning.
      Actually there is no plan in Australia.

      In other countries including China they are actually building renewables.

      Just because one Australian is convinced that only nuclear power can be the savior of the world does not do anything. Then you are calling thousands of reputable scientists and whole governments that are pursuing non nuclear strategies “Nutters” and “ideologically driven fan bois”. But hey, at least they can play soccer 😉

      PV is part of the grid.
      How would you power your house off grid with a reactor? Sure that would be cheaper than PV?

      Real world data shows that an industry that was started 50 years ago with massive amounts of government money poured in and still is slowing down since can’t be the answer.

  15. Eclipse Now says:

    1. Chernobyl:
    The whole point of this thread was to show how utterly ignorant and ill-informed the public are about radiation. Most people probably think they’d have a much higher risk of cancer if they just took a short holiday in Chernobyl. That’s flat out wrong. I’ve quoted nuclear experts that show the radiation level there *isn’t* that high, and that people already live there. Fear seems to be overwhelming common sense. The American EPA seems to be on to this:

    There are some easy decisions to make that will save us a trillion dollars and they could be made soon by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA could raise the absurdly low radiation levels considered to be a threat to the public across the regulatory spectrum.
    These radiation limits would go from between 4 to 25 mrem (40 to 250 microSv) to more reasonable levels, like 500 to 5,000 mrem, depending upon the regulation and the particular office in EPA.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/07/13/absurd-radiation-limits-are-a-trillion-dollar-waste/
    I wonder how long before we have Chernobyl being declared safe and people going home to live there, and a public education campaign undoing all the hype. The maths just doesn’t add up. Hysterical fear mongers like ignorant, hypocritical old Helen Caldicott are winding people up over nothing.

    2. There’s no plan for Australia? I agree! That’s why I’m blogging. Education is our friend. I was quite passionately anti-nuclear for about 6 years of online activism: then I read Barry Brook at Brave New Climate, and learned that rather than being DANGEROUS, EXPENSIVE, AND LEAVES WASTE FOREVER nuclear power is the SAFEST LARGE scale energy source, CHEAP compared to the massive overbuild required of renewables, and nuclear waste is not waste but simply unused FUEL THAT COULD RUN THE WORLD FOR 500 YEARS!

    3. Inconsistency with renewable advocates
    I believe the peer-reviewed climate science precisely because it makes sense and is peer-reviewed. The tough questions of the critics have been answered, time and again. Now, I’m not very technical: so if even I can see a great gaping whole in so called energy ‘experts’ opinions, I find it alarming. The windies and sunnies make all these projections and get bold headlines, but don’t tell people some of their assumptions until you read the fine print! What I’m saying is energy supply does not appear to be written by peer-reviewed organisations, but by fanbois. They’re not lying, just adopting a consensus trance. They assume together that we’re all going to just cut energy use: like Beyond Zero Emissions, who together just assumed Australia would cut our energy use by half! Wow. Where do they get that belief from? iphones use a lot of energy. Not to charge, no, that’s nothing. For every iphone there is an equivalent investment in internet and server infrastructure to equal about a whole FRIDGE running for a year. In other words, an iphone equals a fridge worth of use: but it’s all the power use you *don’t* see behind that iphone purchase and service supply that’s important. We just keep finding more uses for electricity.
    And night time? So many windies and sunnies say that electricity consumption goes down at night because everyone’s knocked off work for the day and industry has closed down, so we don’t really need that much electricity at night.

    WRONG!

    The renewable energy lab says we’ll be charging our cars at night.
    ““For the United States as a whole, 84% of US cars, pickup trucks and SUVs could be supported by the existing infrastructure, ””
    http://climatecrocks.com/2010/02/08/plug-in-hybrids-renewable-energy-solution-of-the-month/

    Hang on, isn’t NREL the same organisation that sponsors all these studies into how renewables are going to run America, and how energy supply doesn’t have to be baseload… and then they go and say it does? That we NEED constant overnight supply because that’s how they’re going to charge most of their cars? (Smacks hand to forehead). I didn’t do science, but humanities, but even my background in welfare studies tells me that something doesn’t add up here!

    That’s just one problem. But the REAL problem is when energy experts like Barry Brook start asking the big questions, and debating other windies and sunnies about energy supply. That’s when the gaping holes appear in all these multiple studies into 100% renewable energy supply get REALLY SHONKY. And what I realised is that unlike climate, where I pretty much trust the IPCC, there’s no international energy organisation that I totally trust. They’ve all got an agenda, and the peer review process seems to be broken. They’re not reviewing each other or responding honestly to all the questions put by the other teams.

    4. Problems with wind

    If one simply looks at the statistics of the number of megawatt-hours of electricity produced by wind power in Denmark over the course of a year and divides it by Denmark’s electricity demand, the number does indeed come out to nearly 20%. But the devil is in the details….

    ….So while Barack Obama’s 20% number is nearly true in some sense, the reality is that wind has been supplying less than 10% of Denmark’s electricity on average over the last five years, and as little as 5% in the poor years. This despite a crippling level of subsidies that saddle Danish citizens with the highest electricity rates in the EU.

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/22/denmark-wind-experiment-awry/

    5. Chinese nuclear build out:

    China
    Chinese workers undergoing training for the AP1000 reactor. The Chinese units will be the first to be built.[5] The first four units will be built in China.

    Four AP1000 reactors are under construction in China, at Sanmen Nuclear Power Plant in Zhejiang, and Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong.[24] The Sanmen unit 1 is expected to be the first AP1000 to begin operating, from 2014 (it was originally scheduled to go on-line from November 2013). All four Chinese AP1000s are scheduled to be operational by 2016.[25] The first four AP1000s to be built are to an earlier revision of the design without a strengthened containment structure to provide improved protection against an aircraft crash.[26]

    China has officially adopted the AP1000 as a standard for inland nuclear projects. The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has already approved several nuclear projects, including the Dafan plant in Hubei province, Taohuajiang in Hunan, and Pengze in Jiangxi. The NDRC is studying additional projects in Anhui, Jilin and Gansu provinces.[27] China wants to have 100 units under construction and operating by 2020, according to Aris Candris, Westinghouse’s previous CEO.[28]

    In 2008 and 2009, Westinghouse made agreements to work with the State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) and other institutes to develop a larger design, the CAP1400 of 1400 MWe capacity, possibly followed by a 1700 MWe design. China will own the intellectual property rights for these larger designs. Exporting the new larger units may be possible with Westinghouse’s cooperation.[29]

    In December 2009, a Chinese joint venture was set up to build an initial CAP1400 near the HTR-10 Shidaowan site. First concrete was poured on March 28, 2014.[29][30]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#Construction_plans

    Then go on to read the rest of that wiki, as America will build out 4 AP1000’s, Bulgaria is planning one, and the UK are building 3. That’s just AP1000’s. Wait 8 years for the first GenIV reactors to come off the production line in China, then when the message gets out that today’s nuclear ‘waste’ stockpile is worth $30 TRILLION dollars the race will be on!

    • heavyweather says:

      Actually Germany is exporting more Power. For the 7th year in a row despite shutting down 8 reactors. Actually they exported 4 times as much last year then they did the previous year.
      Actually Hollande is seeking cooperation on renewable power in an effort to meet climate targets together.
      There is a whole list of incidents like Tricastin in summer 2008, the La Hague site with a mysterious 3 times higher cancer rate for kids…
      But yes, why not raise levels that have been calculated for adults…
      The Breeder program was stopped and now there is also no use for the waste.
      La Hague is producing 20 times the waste volume the fuel elements would represent. Technetium-99 which is pumped in the ocean at Sellafield is found all over the coast of Norway and Greenland.
      None of these problems would have been imminent if they would have started a renewable program in the first place…though then they might not had nuclear bombs which was the goal of the program in the first place.
      The French grid is rather unstable compared to other modern grids. Blackouts in summer are common due to warm cooling water.
      Something that has not happened to Germany despite hysterical warnings. The last big blackout was a grid operating failure by EON in 2006 that had nothing to do with renewable production.
      Germany is highly successful on its way and all the bad mouthing by people that have nothing comparable to show wont stop them to innovate. The French are trying hard to catch up and meet their set target of 23% renewable consumption to reach by 2020.

      While you are obsesses with genIV running of waste some time in the future (8-20years…) Areva is still mining for Uranium in Afrika…probably for another 60years. More problems, no solutions.

      So Germany will have no problem at all. With all they waste they got stocked they will be able to fund 3 times the renewable generation they need….

      We can start building Kitegens in Europe over the next 10 years, in units of 300MW or carousel plants between 1-20GWe, produce windgas and power to get Europe (and Australia if you like) off coal, wait till China can shut down their coal plants they are still building. The 2011-2015 plan said around 860 million tonnes of new coal production capacity will be brought into operation, as well as 300 more gigawatts of coal-fired power, twice the total generation capacity of Germany.
      Didn’t they promise to cut on their use of coal?????
      So maybe they can just add another 250GW of capacity if they manage to build some GWs of nuclear generation. The plan is 2%-6% nuclear…
      Wind left nuclear behind in China in 2012, still rising steep.
      http://www.imagebam.com/image/55986d339168644
      But it is a good thing that they will be producing a lot of fuel for the theoretical genIV.
      Are you starting to see the dimensions of the problem now?
      Now this is still the proven way of producing wind energy…now imagine what huge impact the next generations if KitePowerPlants will have.

      China will do its thing, Germany will do its thing, Australia will do nothing but be content with some talking about numbers. You might blame Barry for that in 20 years.

  16. Eclipse Now says:

    Woah, not so fast. First, are there AP1000’s currently being built? Are there plans to expand them? Do you at least have the intellectual honesty to admit yes, there are nuclear power plants being built in the world AND plans to expand into whole new types of reactors? I’ll comment on German renewables etc when you can at least come out and address maybe one of the points I made above. See, a debate includes rebuttal of previous points made: you’re just all unfounded, unlinked, unjustified assertion. You just ignore what you don’t want, and let your mouth go off running away with itself.

    So, first of all: are there AP1000’s being built or planned to be built, and how many? Were you wrong to suggest the world was not building more reactors?

    2. Is there a problem with false advertising of Denmark’s wind. Don’t go foaming at the mouth with over-excitement at OTHER wind projects you THINK you know the statistics on, answer the question about Denmark.

    3. What’s your position on baseload? Are you with those air-heads that just say “We don’t need it now, so we won’t need it in the future?”

    4. is the EPA massively increasing their allowance for radiation exposure or not? Could Chernobyl be resettled under those new terms or not?

    Thanks for staying on topic, and not getting too excited by every windie and sunnie agit-prop piece you see in the news. It’s good to take a chill pill, and come to Barry’s blog to read some real engineers crunch the numbers and analyse from another perspective. That’s called peer review!

    • heavyweather says:

      You are funny. 2GW AP1000 2017 and 2018 in the US and some in Asia are not mass produktion or anything near and still your excuse to do nothing but bash countries that are taking action.
      How much GW of coal do you run?

      What is so hard to get about the concept of stagnation, do you need a drawing?

  17. Eclipse Now says:

    You’re the one that’s funny: at least that graphic is nameplate baseload. *ANY* time one reads a windie or sunnie graph one has to ask if the figure is nameplate or capacity? The nameplate statistics are an outright lie, because the capacity is only 30% or 40% or some ridiculously low return for the enormous volumes of money and concrete and steel invested.

    You mentioned Germany before? What about their incredible solar investment, hey? Do you know how utterly pathetic the energy returns are on all that solar money? How absurd and what an outrageous waste of money it all is? That is, if the goal is to actually DO SOMETHING about climate change.

    An analysis by the Breakthrough Institute finds that the entire German solar sector produces less than half the power that Fukushima Daiichi – a single nuclear complex – generated before it was hit by the tsunami. To build a Fukushima-sized solar industry in Germany would, it estimates, cost $155bn. To build a Fukushima-sized nuclear plant would cost $53.5bn. And the power would be there on winter evenings.

    Did you get that? Nukes come in at a third the price AND they don’t even need expensive backup! Those figures tell me that solar will take 3 times as much money, and that’s *without* costing the backup. So if you want it to cost 5 or 6 times as much, AND take 5 or 6 times as long (because it takes time to earn money), then go ahead and ban our most effective tool in the kit to fight climate change. German solar? Pull the other one, it plays German Christmas bells, which is the sound of the regulatory mandated solar industry jingling all the way to the bank.

    Nukes could have done all that at a third of the price, AND run in winter. And at night time. Amazing technology, hey?
    Here’s a history lesson again: I don’t think you got the significance of it the first time around.

    2 Countries started a 20 year effort to get off fossil fuels.
    France went nuclear, Denmark went renewable.
    Denmark remains at 650g Co2 / kwh while France is at 90g Co2 / kwh.

    It’s nuclear power or it’s climate change.
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/24/np-or-cc/

    • heavyweather says:

      The red line shows your stagnation in generation.
      Nuclear is rising and next year is the year of the Linux desktop 😉

    • heavyweather says:

      Danish people pay a market price for energy. They pay 1.3cent for renewable. Comparing that to substituted French energy is not possible. This are two completely different economies also.
      Why shouldn’t they invest in future technologies which even the French are seeking? Danmark is exporting power. They are still doing better in cutting emissions than France…energy is not just power.
      It is a good thing that a rich country is pioneering renewable energy.
      What is it worth talking about scenarios that won’t happen in these countries that have just started the second phase of the Energiewende.

      Then there are other countries like China that have to built everything they can…including 300GW coal and the fastest wind build out. But this coal is OK because they are also building a little nuclear.
      The worst are those that do nothing but talk about technology that will not be available to them in 15 years.

  18. Eclipse Now says:

    Heavyweather, you just lied to us so I deleted your comments. When you can justify the following comment with links to evidence, I’ll allow it, but until then the following is a classic example of your fluffy headed nonsense, and defies the facts I just quoted above.

    “Why shouldn’t they invest in future technologies which even the French are seeking? Danmark is exporting power. They are still doing better in cutting emissions than France…energy is not just power.”

    Warning: until you can justify this statement with something we in the real world call evidence, it’s just out and out internet trolling, isn’t it? 😉 Come on mate: push me. Show me some evidence to challenge my worldview. Remember, I used to be antinuclear like you: until I saw the evidence.

    PS: I know Denmark sells excess electricity when the wind is actually blowing. It’s the high CO2 output of the rest of their grid that concerns me. Just because a country has lots of renewables does not mean that it has less coal! That’s the sad fact. I wish it were otherwise. But they still need power when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. And it shows. 650g/kWh is a FACT, and you need to get your head around it.

    • heavyweather says:

      Danmark is the only nett exporter of primary energy in the EU!
      Here you get the figures on power.
      2008 TWh import export saldo
      Dänemark 8,545 10,772 2,227

      They are cutting emission with efficiency which, as you know, is the cheapest and easiest way to do it. (no rationing electricity involved…)
      That is where they have very strict laws that France simply lacks.
      The program is called Energie-Strategie 2050.
      We are talking emissions from primary energy here which electricity is just a part.
      I am sure you can find out how much nuclear contributes to primary energy used by France, calculate the sum of the emissions and compare these figures with Danmark. The rate at which Danmark is cutting emissions is higher than in France.
      The lower CO2 Output of France is also part due to recession while the situation in Danmark is still better. Another Factor to consider is the climate.
      To get a better take on statistics you would also have to figure in other data such a CO2/GDP relations, population density,…
      These are also 2010 figures. The lack of action in France plus the aggressive Danish approach will have further brought them together since then thus Danmark cutting emissions faster. There is still way to go but the second phase of the Energiewende is just starting.
      CO2 per capita in tons
      Dänemark 8.34
      France 5.75
      Germany 9.06 (no new coal that has not been
      China 6.18 (see the problem here! Their 300MW new coal is not concerning you?)
      USA 17.50
      Australia 16.75 (and you are concerned about Danmark?)
      Finland 11.53 and rising (Olkiluoto – fun nuclear facts and cheap power.)

      GDP pc in US$
      Danmark 56364
      France 39771

      Maybe Danish people do not suffer all that much under their electricity prices.
      Those Danish friends of mine are rather proud of the development.

      You can also start to dispute German policy by calling their scientist names. Their conclusion and official statement after using nuclear energy for a not so short period
      “Germany rejects nuclear power because of the risks, the costs and the unsolved waste issue. In addition, nuclear power does not have the potential to play a major role in the world’s energy supply. ”

      Yes, I am very sceptic that nuclear power can do much good.

      Now how about the KiteGen.
      What do you think about it? Visitors are always very welcome in Italy. You can hear about the virtues of this technology first hand and see what they have archived.
      A lot of work was put in this and there are a lot of people from different countries and universities on board now.
      I would like to talk about that now.

  19. Eclipse Now says:

    “Danmark is the only nett exporter of primary energy in the EU!
    Here you get the figures on power.
    2008 TWh import export saldo
    Dänemark 8,545 10,772 2,227”

    What do you mean they are the ‘only net exporter of primary energy’? What does that sentence even mean? What does your number mean? What is it? Why don’t you bother to use units of energy to explain what you’re talking about? Why don’t you bother to try and justify your fluffy-headed claims with comparison to other countries?
    Instead, here’s the actual evidence: France exports the MOST electricity in the world, and Denmark comes in at number 21. Sorry dude, you lose.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_exports
    I have nothing against energy efficiency, but everything against just ‘believing in’ renewables based on fluffy headed internet memes you’ve picked up that DEFY real world evidence.
    I agree that we need to eliminate oil as well, and that the whole world (including the French) are still addicted to oil based transport. But as oil replacements are all basically ‘batteries’ that we ‘recharge’ (hydrogen, boron, synfuels, and of course EV’s), I’m more interested in the original source of energy. Right now, the LOWEST EMISSION BASELOAD FORM OF ABUNDANT BASELOAD ELECTRICITY IS NUCLEAR. Denmark remains at 650g/kWH electricity, and France is at 90g. The rest of the oil based carbon emissions don’t have a chance unless we get the supplying baseload electricity cleaned up. Of course we can work on both. Of course we can design better public transport systems, and I love Denmark’s emphasis on EV’s. But that’s all irrelevant if the grid is unreliable and needs coal backup, as Denmark has demonstrated over the last few decades!

    GDP pc in US$
    Danmark 56364
    France 39771

    Maybe Danish people do not suffer all that much under their electricity prices.
    Those Danish friends of mine are rather proud of the development.

    Can you please unpack this a bit more for me, and explain what it is, where you got the figures, and how it relates? I just want to make sure I understand you. Because a country’s GDP is not an automatic reflection of their energy policy: that’s ridiculously simplistic and ignores national resources and other little things like whether there’s a war or revolution or earthquake or just a completely different welfare state or political institution…. You know, the little differences! 😉 You must really be struggling to find evidence to come up with irrelevant stuff like that.

    You can also start to dispute German policy by calling their scientist names.

    I don’t think I did: I think I called anti-nuclear activists ignoring the raw data before their very eyes ‘fluffy headed’.

    Their conclusion and official statement after using nuclear energy for a not so short period

    Unsolved waste issues? Maybe I should start calling German scientists names if they are saying there’s an unsolved waste issue! Nuclear ‘waste’ = fuel, haven’t you got that yet? China’s building their GenIV reactors in just 8 years, and the EBR2 (and others) have run successfully for decades, equating to 400 reactor years.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

    A lot of work was put in this and there are a lot of people from different countries and universities on board now.
    I would like to talk about that now.

    Sorry but this isn’t your blog. I don’t really want to talk about weather dependent kite fantasies. I’d rather you actually TRY and justify your views with something we call EVIDENCE. You just seem to assert stuff again and again, and think that’s evidence? Sorry dude, but as you can see, energy debates depend on real world numbers.
    You have 2 eggs on your face right now:
    1. Denmark’s electricity exports are not so high, are they? In fact, they are ranked 21st in the world and France is number 1.
    2. Nuclear waste is not waste, but fuel. Do some reading.
    null

    • heavyweather says:

      France got massive hydro power. You could also argue that their export capacity comes from that source.
      The pc co2 emission does not readily reflect the different generation technologies. Norway’s pc emission is ~ 12t pa while they are using 99% hydro.
      Almost the same for Austria with one of the biggest renewable share.
      Danish energy security is the highest in Europe. The dirty power sources will be addressed, you need to bother to read up on different co2 reduction strategies. That involves all primary energy usage not the small electricity share. Denmark is doing both very successfully thus there faster emission cuttings and higher self set goals compared to France.
      It would also do nothing good to their economy to import nuclear technology as wind, biogas and other renewable technology make up an important sector.

      Good for future Germans..they will welcome their waste to money change. It would be great if they could take out credit on that resource today or if you would just buy their waste in advance.

      Just saying… you seem to have missed out on the kitegen technology so far. Interesting stuff.

  20. Eclipse Now says:

    The correct English is “France *has* massive hydropower”, but no, it’s not massive enough to cover your unfounded *assertion*. You can also see how quickly it turned off their oil generated electricity and handled the majority of their energy increase from 1978 to today. I *wish* the rest of the world had followed suit and done exactly the same thing. So no, the ‘massive hydropower’ is only a tiny fraction of their vast electricity export: and you can see that France is the world’s greatest exporter or electricity. They have to. Their neighbouring countries RELY on all that abundant baseload electricity to back up their stupid, fickle, unreliable windie and sunnie grids.
    French electricity sources
    We would have conquered all fossil fuels but oil, and would only have to rebuild our transport systems.

    The dirty power sources will be addressed, you need to bother to read up on different co2 reduction strategies.

    So are you saying the various CO2 output per country graphs I’ve been quoting are wrong? Are you saying Denmark are NOT currently at 650g / kWh? If so, please post the evidence. Otherwise you’re just hiding behind ideological words, because their ‘strategies’ are not working but the FRENCH NUKES ARE!

    Good for future Germans..they will welcome their waste to money change. It would be great if they could take out credit on that resource today or if you would just buy their waste in advance.

    Good, because they wasted over $150 billion in solar that can’t make $50 billion in nukes. Oh, and nukes burn day and night, summer and winter. Solar doesn’t. How much money does $150 billion in solar take to back up? An extra $50? Let’s say an extra 25% to backup: I actually think that’s *cheap*. So $200 billion for “baseload” solar (if there really is such a thing: remember I’m being CHEAP!)

    Or $50 billion for nukes. These are the statistics George Monbiot provided above. If you can debunk them, please go ahead with real world examples: not your hypothetical wishful thinking.

    Just saying… you seem to have missed out on the kitegen technology so far. Interesting stuff.

    I used to RAVE about kitegen back when I was anti-nuke. It was one of the ‘hypothetical’ technologies I used to desperately google around for, hoping I could find a cure for the modern world. Sorry. Kitegen’s not proven, not baseload, and not practical. Even fans of normal wind energy are questioning it.

    Viability Summary

    These factors, in addition to the significant design compromises outlined earlier, make airborne wind generation systems much less viable than ground-based solutions according to the draft analysis matrix I’ve put together. (Note that this analysis matrix is not deeply empirical, but my informed opinion on the comparisons between these devices and HAWTs.) And of course the wind energy market is voting for ground-based, horizontal axis wind turbines with billions of dollars annually, while no airborne wind energy system has built and sold a single production generation unit as far as I have been able to discover.
    ….

    In summary, the potential energy available in the wind flowing high above our heads is alluring, and harvesting it with tethered flying wings has great appeal, but as soon as you start engineering an airborne solution to harvest that energy, the compromises strip away the potential bit-by-bit until it just isn’t viable in any incarnation so far attempted. And it’s clear that many of the current organizations in the field were started at best with optimistic assessments issues regarding safety and aviation authority approvals.

    Regarding the longer term, I’ve done a couple of thought exercises on materials changes and potential systems solutions. The technical solutions mapped out, and expressed in articles and on the AWE forum all appear to multiply complexity — lowering viability — or to increase one negative compromise as they decrease the impact somewhere else. Two rotating kite systems on a single tether is fraught with failure conditions. Lighter than air lift with a separate crosswind kite flying off of it reduces strength of tether force and multiplies complexities. Arch kite concepts are so complex and fragile that they don’t seem worth exploring further. Nano material ultra thin tethers increase safety risks, increase winch engineering challenges and increase air safety regulation impacts in all likelihood.

    It doesn’t mean that there isn’t a way out of the thicket to something viable. But all conceptual solutions so far appear to multiply complexities and risks. There is no concinnity of design. It’s all platypuses instead of cheetahs.

    http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/03/airborne-wind-energy-platypuses-instead-cheetahs/

    That’s the summary from CLEANTECHNICA of all places: the absolute fanboi’s of renewable energy. If this is the kind of review FANS of wind energy are giving kitegen, then it’s *really* at the same level as 400 proven breeder reactor years. 😉 Yeah, really. 😉 Do yourself a favour? Don’t mention Kitegen again, it just makes you look like the frantically wild-eyed dreamer I was a few years back.

  21. Eclipse Now says:

    Oh, and German renewables are REALLY saving the world. No really! 😉

    German Renewables

  22. Eclipse Now says:

    Oh, calamity, FRENCH CO2 emissions went up 0.6%?!!!? Have you thought about that for a minute?
    1. I’ve already admitted that France, like the rest of the world, has an oil problem. But I also pointed out that really fixing that involves ENORMOUS volumes of clean electricity so we can ‘charge’ the alternatives. (Hydrogen, synfuel, EV’s, boron metal powder, trains, trams, trolley buses, etc).

    2. French electricity is ALREADY the LOWEST carbon emissions in Europe. Do you know what that means? Let me put it in other terms. I COULD WISH OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WERE ALSO INCREASING THEIR CO2 OUTPUT AT (ONLY) 0.6% — IF THEY HAD ALREADY FIXED THEIR DIRTY ELECTRICITY THE WAY THE FRENCH HAVE.

    3. So let me remind you of Denmark. Just as a TINY decrease in CO2 output doesn’t FIX their FOUL AND DIRTY 650g / kWh, so too a MICROSCOPIC increase in French emissions doesn’t tarnish their record breaking 90g / kWh.

    A tiny increase on nothing is nothing. Get it? The world could have done a France and ALREADY have eliminated coal and gas fired electricity.

    4. China?
    USA?
    Australia?????
    The answer? They should all go nuclear: because it WORKS!

    • heavyweather says:

      It does not work that great.

      France has to import power at two points when their system gets very volatile and is prone to blackouts…that’s the time when they are saved by Germany 😉
      Summerheat is the first problem…warm water forces them to throttle back reactors.
      The second and even more problematic time is winter. Every degree C needs two reactors…that’s because 1/3 of the heating is electric 80% of that radiators…which are banned in Denmark for their poor efficiency btw (among oil heating).
      Then the government sents SMS to the people asking them to turn down heating and about 3/4 of public lightning is switched off.
      There is no reserve for electric cars and what not in this system.
      Irony that this is also the time when German coal is running at its maximum…cold French winter and hot French summer.
      What’s that? Polution by proxy?

      There is less coal burned in Germany though it provides more TWh now. That is due to efficiency upgrades of the powerplants.
      Wind first substituted the power from nuclear which is good from a German view (I know you are seeing it not that way) because it means less waste and cost for the government to deal with.
      The problem with coal is that it stays cheap due to to cheap CO2 certificates and that upgrades can get them to switch faster (100MW/minute) and get CO2 emissions down under 150g. Fast switching means that they can be handled more and more like gasplants.

      the cleanest powered nations amon them also the leaders in renewable generation.

      1. Paraguay (100%)

      2. Iceland (99.99%)

      3. Mozambique (99.96%)

      4. Zambia

      5. Nepal

      6. Democratic Republic of Congo

      7. Albania

      8. Tajikistan

      9. Norway

      10. Costa Rica

  23. Eclipse Now says:

    Heavyweather, you asked about boron. You can learn more about that here. James Hansen thinks it’s a competitor in the race to replace oil: so there’s an endorsement for you!
    https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/

    • heavyweather says:

      I read about that. There are boron fuel cells but how is burning the metal going to work?
      You need high temperatures , the powder will get a solid when burned.
      Don’t see how this is ever going to work in a combustion engine. Even if ground to nano particles it will cool in the combustion chamber and destroy your engine in little time.
      You could burn it in a thermal plant but then you can also burn biogas/windgas.

  24. Eclipse Now says:

    First of all, you haven’t answered the points above. I address one issue, and you just reply “Oh yeah, well blah blah blah” and change the topic. Let’s finish what we were just discussing. DO YOU AGREE that our climate would be in a far safer place if the whole world had just (accidentally in this hypothetical story?) increased CO2 emissions just 0.6% from a French level of CO2 emissions / kWh? You haven’t addressed that. French CO2 / kWh is some of the lowest in the world, except maybe for countries blessed with abundant hydro power. (Which I of course classify as baseload renewable power, but most of the world’s hydro power is maxed out and we should probably ban further increases in it due to local ecological concerns with fisheries etc).
    I really WISH the hypothesis above were true, and that for some weird reason a worldwide majority nuclear electricity society had made some mistake and only increased CO2 emissions 0.6%!
    1. Climate change would be half what it is now if the world had enacted the French plan when they did
    2. It would make weaning off oil based fossil fuels so much easier for our transport networks if we had clean electricity.

    Now onto your other far less pertinent concerns.

    It does not work that great.
    France has to import power at two points when their system gets very volatile and is prone to blackouts…that’s the time when they are saved by Germany 😉
    Summerheat is the first problem…warm water forces them to throttle back reactors.

    Every energy system has problems, but this is nothing compared to trying to make intermittent, unreliable wind and solar baseload. If water temperatures continue to rise they’ll just have to build larger cooling towers which require far less water for cooling. Higher cooling towers are more expensive, but again NOTHING compared to the expense of trying to make wind and solar reliable. The overbuild wind & solar require is just downright unreasonable. Nuclear technology has a variety of solutions that are all clean, baseload, and very very safe. (Compared to coal which we all seem happy to put up with as it quietly kills 7 million people a year or 4 Chernobyls per day!)

    The second and even more problematic time is winter. Every degree C needs two reactors…that’s because 1/3 of the heating is electric 80% of that radiators…which are banned in Denmark for their poor efficiency btw (among oil heating). Then the government sents SMS to the people asking them to turn down heating and about 3/4 of public lightning is switched off.

    Do you think you’ll ever learn to back your statements with facts and data from peer-reviewed sources? I don’t really believe a word you’ve said above, but if it is true, it just means they need to build more reactors.
    Winter’s REAL challenge is to solar! Solar insolation drops dramatically, requiring insane overbuilds. As Professor Ted Trainer says (someone I admire and whom I have met),

    Solar thermal systems are best suited to the hottest regions and it is not clear how far into the mid latitudes they can be effective, apart from via very long transmission lines. They seem to be especially doubtful in winter, even in the best locations. (For a more detailed discussion of solar thermal’s limits and potential see Trainer, 2008.). Trough systems will be considered first, then dishes. …The winter electrical output for the US SEGS VI trough system is reported at about 20% of summer output…..
    ….Dishes.
    Dishes collect more energy in winter because they can be pointed directly at the sun, but there are two significant drawbacks. Their dollar costs are reported as being 2 – 4.5 times those of troughs (Sandia, undated), although costs will surely fall considerably with further development and mass production.
    The data I have been able to access indicates somewhat surprisingly low but useful winter output from dish–Stirling devices. Some US dishes seem to have an average 24 hour flow equivalent of around 20 – 30 W/m (Davenport, 2008.) An output plot for the Mod dish-Stirling device shows that the January average flow (averaged over 24 hours) was c. 18 W/m, and for December, 22 W/m. Commonly published power curves show that at 700W/m output falls to around half peak output.
    However this is not very relevant to our problem. If solar thermal systems are to provide electricity 24 hours a day, and also to solve the general intermittency problem set by other renewables, then heat must be stored. This means that the efficiencies will be much lower than those represented in the literature on dishes, which almost entirely deals with the direct generation of electricity via dish-Stirling systems. Dishes are not well suited to large scale heat collection.
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/31/solar-thermal-questions/

    So, basically, all that money they spent on solar in Germany? Waste of time and money. They should have been building nukes that run 24/7, summer and winter (with the right cooling towers, as you have already highlighted).

    There is no reserve for electric cars and what not in this system.

    Yeah, well if that’s what you think about nuclear power then I don’t know why you think wind and solar would make any difference! Remember I’ve already demonstrated that German solar was 3 times as expensive for unreliable daytime electricity only. Imagine if Germany had put that money into nukes! They’d have 3 times as much new power, or 3 times as much ‘bang for their buck’, and it would be reliable baseload power. Power that’s reliable day and night, summer and winter to charge all the EV’s (and boron and hydrogen and synfuel) you want. Are you getting any of this yet?

    Irony that this is also the time when German coal is running at its maximum…cold French winter and hot French summer.

    Yeah, it’s just great that Germany has increased their coal to compensate for shutting off their nukes. That’s just FANTASTIC news isn’t it? (slaps forehead).

    There is less coal burned in Germany though it provides more TWh now. That is due to efficiency upgrades of the powerplants.

    Great, now you’re an advocate for coal that kills 7 million people a year worldwide?
    (Slaps hand to forehead again!)

    Wind first substituted the power from nuclear which is good from a German view (I know you are seeing it not that way) because it means less waste and cost for the government to deal with.

    Wind did NOT substitute for coal: nuclear did. You seem to always forget that wind is not baseload and reliable and needs a baseload backer. Coal and nuclear have had wind’s back. It’s shut down no coal plant ever. Not one.

    The problem with coal is that it stays cheap due to to cheap CO2 certificates and that upgrades can get them to switch faster (100MW/minute) and get CO2 emissions down under 150g. Fast switching means that they can be handled more and more like gasplants.

    There are nukes that are capable of load following as well.

    the cleanest powered nations amon them also the leaders in renewable generation.
    1. Paraguay (100%)
    2. Iceland (99.99%)
    3. Mozambique (99.96%)
    4. Zambia
    5. Nepal
    6. Democratic Republic of Congo
    7. Albania
    8. Tajikistan
    9. Norway
    10. Costa Rica

    Can you please show a source for this claim? I’m not sure what they are measuring: electricity, electricity and oil, carbon emissions per TWH or per capita? I’ve got no idea, because once again you’re just quoting random stuff out of context. BTW, I agree that Iceland has very low carbon emissions because they have massive geothermal. Not all countries have that: so what are they to do? But some of these other countries on your list seem like 3rd world nations that aren’t producing a lot of power anyway: so I’m suspicious of your list including off-topic subjects like low CO2 emissions from countries that just don’t have a lot of power in the first place. That’s not a fate I want to wish on anyone, and not the topic of this thread. Again, we’re discussing the best way to have clean abundant electricity as a backbone for then replacing oil based transport.

    • Eclipse Now says:

      Just say that you do not have any clue about why France has nukes

      No, just say that you have no clue what you’re talking about and didn’t know winter is a real problem, even for solar thermal. Go on, try being honest for once!

      You need to learn how to back your tired old cliché opinions with something we call SOURCES! The French invested in nuclear after their entire energy system was threatened by the 1970’s oil embargo. They had no coal, or deserts for solar, and so went nuclear. I thought you would know this?

      Messmer Plan
      As a direct result of the 1973 oil crisis, on 6 March 1974 Prime Minister Pierre Messmer unexpectedly announced what became known as the ‘Messmer Plan’, a huge nuclear power program aimed at generating all of France’s electricity from nuclear power.[14] At the time of the oil crisis most of France’s electricity came from foreign oil, and while it was strong in heavy engineering capabilities, France had few indigenous energy resources,[15]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan

      and that you also don’t know how the whole think works or does not work.

      Define not working? They had some hiccups one hot summer. So? SOLAR doesn’t work because it costs so much it would bankrupt any economy, and it just doesn’t work for the whole season of winter. That’s bad. That’s about as bad as it gets.

      It would not work at all without the 13% hydro which is massiv!

      Massive is spelt with an e on the end, and tell me which is more massive? 13% or 75%? Hmm, think about that for a minute… 13% or 75%? Try again: 13% or 75%?
      Are you getting this yet? 😉

      It wouldn’t work without coal from Germany (That is a fact that not even their government can’t deny)

      They deny it and I deny it. France is the world’s largest electricity exporter, and Germany comes in third. That’s the difference between a Gold medal and Bronze. Sorry. Germany’s good, but not that good.

      and if you believe that power in France is cheap because of nukes you are also wrong.

      See the quotes from the wiki above: I’m right. You have no source or data. You’ve just stated a blind opinion, and have been shown to be wrong. Again. Do you see what an internet troll you’re becoming?

      Germany stopped their nuclear program because it was to expensive to run.

      Source please? They actually stopped as a result of misguided fears after Fukushima: and as I’ve said, banning modern Gen3 nukes because of Fukushima’s ancient Gen2 nukes is like banning modern aviation because of the Hindenberg. They also have a tradition of romantic nationalism combined with a form of socialism that is anti-nuclear in philosophy. It’s a long story, but basically they see nuclear power as somehow too ‘American capitalist’ and not as the French socialist energy program it could be.
      http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/06/11/germany-energiewende-oz-critical-review/

      They conclude that Wind and Water are the cheapest way to generate power.

      Incorrect: Fear Uncertainty and Doubt concluded that, for them, they just had to close down nukes. Unfortunately they’ve replaced that with COAL, not wind and solar!

      Nuclear is behind gas, and coal.

      Then why does France have some of the cheapest and MOST RELIABLE power in the world? Why are they the world’s greatest exporter of electricity? Dude, something we call REALITY is not matching up with all your ignorant rhetorical devices. (Otherwise known as lies).

      They include all cost, external and climate related. Sorry but that is what German scientists concluded after many peer reviewed work.

      Yeah, dream on! It’s ideology in practice, NOT real world reality. As I have shown, solar thermal and trough designs don’t work in winter, and the Solar PV I’ve referred to frequently is 3 times too expensive. Try again!

      The EEG is not an easy decision based on believe or any voodoo sorcery but a decision based on actual data, peer reviewed work AND the actual experience from running nukes since 1957. But obviously you know better than Germany and think it is funny to ridicule wind power…

      I think ideologically driven hatred of nuclear power, when what we should really be hating is coal, is sad. I think your pathetic attempts at debating this with me are sad. I think Germany’s nationalist romantic bias against nuclear is sad. I think the world ignoring James Hansen who first described the climate crisis to us is sad. I think delusional fantasies like KiteGen are sad. I think the list of pathetic excuses you’ve come up with here, ALL WRONG, against nuclear are all sad.

      Where is that peer reviewed external study that reviews the German Nuclear program and concludes that it is cheap?

      Dude, YOU are asking ME for sources? Now that’s rich!

      Where is your data for France and why do you not know about the true capabilities and cost of their nuclear fleet?

      It’s a very complicated topic, but basically nuclear power comes in best when governments ‘just do it’. It’s a big cost up front, then not much over time. Governments also need to create safe energy parks away from population centres and ‘just do it’ and deal with any accidents: even though Gen3’s + won’t have any.
      They’re slightly more than coal and gas, but much, much cheaper than the REAL cost of trying to make wind and solar reliable.
      Nuclear costs

      Please come forward with your explanation why France is aiming to reduce nuclear to 50% and below.

      Please explain why so many American’s are climate deniers? This isn’t about popular opinion but technological suitability. I readily admit that the sheer ignorance of radiation risks has freaked the population out. As you can see by the opening post on this thread, I think FUD about radiation is out of control. If we can already move back into Chernobyl, then maybe you’re over-reacting to a lifetime of conditioning. You’ve been brainwashed to hate nukes, and don’t even know the first thing about them, what they really cost, how reliable French power is compared to German power, etc.

      You can also stop talking about pv, I also think that pv is not yet there

      You can stop talking PERIOD if you don’t learn to curb your enthusiasm and actually present your outdated and ignorant opinions with SOURCES for your claims. One more trolling post like this and you’re banned from my blog.

      • Eclipse Now says:

        Once again, your ‘disability’ in regards to providing adequate sources has let you down and I’ve deleted your posts. I would like to LEARN from you: as in learn real facts about the real world. Debating on the internet is how I changed my mind about nuclear power. But I’m not learning a single fact about the real world from you: just getting your dogma. Your patronising rubbish. So congratulations, I deleted all 3 posts because you didn’t cite a single reference to back your claims. Rather than reducing nuclear power, the majority of the French seem in favour of it still.

        You also haven’t addressed the baseload problem of Solar thermal power (trough and dish) that I quoted a few posts up thread, and that power drops off to a tiny fraction during winter. Great, isn’t it, how utterly RELIABLE solar is? 😉 So what are we to do: build 5 times as many plants to try and cover winter? 😉 Oh, but you’ll point at tiny flaws in French nuclear cooling systems when there’s a great gaping hole in renewable energy called NIGHT TIME and WINTER! Please learn to quote real world facts. Like this:

        Public opinion[edit]
        Protest against new French nuclear plants (March 2007)Following the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents an OpinionWay poll at the end of March found that 57% of the French population were opposed to nuclear energy in France.[61] A TNS-Sofres poll in the days following the accident found 55% in favour of nuclear power.[61] In 2006 BBC / GlobeScan poll found 57% of the French opposed to nuclear energy.[62]

        In May 2001, an Ipsos poll found that nearly 70% of the population had a ‘good opinion’ of nuclear power, however 56% also preferred not to live near a nuclear plant and the same proportion thought that a ‘Chernobyl-like accident’ could occur in France.[63] The same Ipsos poll revealed that 50% thought that nuclear power was the best way of solving the problem of the greenhouse effect, while 88% thought this was a major reason for continuing to use nuclear power.[63]

        Historically the position has generally been favourable, with around two-thirds of the population strongly supporting nuclear power,[18][64] while the Gaullists, the Socialist Party and the Communist Party were also all in favour.

        When the Civaux Nuclear Power Plant was being constructed in 1997, it was claimed to be welcomed by the local community:

        In France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular. Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region was chosen. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear.[18]

        A variety of reasons were cited for the popular support; a sense of national independence and reduced reliance on foreign oil, reduction of greenhouse gases, and a cultural interest in large technological projects (like the TGV and Concorde).[18]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Public_opinion

      • heavyweather says:

        So now you are deleting posts that show how France is going to reduce it’s nuclear share.
        Whatever. Just watch real world development and see.

      • Eclipse Now says:

        Solar thermal? In winter? That’s where the conversation is now, mainly because I’ve already quoted the wiki’s that show how cheap nuclear power in France is.

        However, if you want to harp on about it there have been a few problems with individual plants lately. When a government backs it and just deploys nuclear power in a fast, strictly run build out, the costs come right down. When it’s a one-of-a-kind build with a wimpy government allowing all sorts of legal challenges and PR problems to creep in, nuclear power can have cost over-runs. This aspect of nuclear’s high up front costs is well known, and you can read all about it on the nuclear power economics wiki.

        The French have had one project recently run into cost over runs. It was a bit of an experiment, and seems to have been managed poorly. But this is in no way an indictment on the whole technology, as there are a variety of other reactor designs they could turn to or even other legislative approaches to build out this same reactor much faster and cheaper, if they wanted to do a mass deployment.

        EdF said its third-generation nuclear reactor EPR project at its Flamanville, northern France, plant will be delayed until 2016, due to “both structural and economic reasons,” which will bring the project’s total cost to EUR8.5 billion.[5] Similarly, the cost of the EPR to be built at Olkiluoto, Finland has escalated. Areva and the utility involved “are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default.[28] EdF has suggested that if the political environment causes the EPR costs to overrun, the design would be replaced with a cheaper and simpler Franco-Japanese design, the Atmea for which the design will be completed by 2013, or the already operating Franco-Chinese design, the CPR-1000.[29][30]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Management_and_economics

      • heavyweather says:

        Where is your fixation with solar thermal coming from?

      • heavyweather says:

        So EDF is just desperately pitching another money sink while they are trying to sell disaster to GB.
        Hilarious.

        Now that you have solved that how about Germany?

        Why not write a little browser game on that sure there must be some lobbying millions around to be wasted.

  25. Eclipse Now says:

    Lastly for you Heavyweather, and just because I have to be honest, there *are* some areas of Chernobyl we should avoid. But having said that, the exclusion zone is way too large. From the BNC forums just today.

    100 rem = 1 sievert.

    So, the new proposed standard of 500 to 5000 mrem/year would be 5 to 50 mSv/year.

    Still too low, 50 mSv/year is under 0.14 mSv/day. I encourage everyone to think about dose per day units. There is no point in considering any toxin on a per year basis, how much beer do you take per year, that’s not very relevant, unless you want to scare people, how much do you take per day is what affects your health. (think about taking one glass a day for a year or taking nothing all year and then 365 glasses on Christmas!). And use scientific units like Gray and Sievert. Rem is pointless, and just makes everything 100x larger and scary. Micro is completely scaremongering inflation of figures, use millisieverts.

    The link from Dr. Jerry Cuttler shows a threshold dose used in the 1930s that is very safe. It is 2 mSv/day. We know this to be a safe dose from actual exposed human, dog, and fruit fly populations. Not some silly theoretical LNT model, but real experiments, some

    Basically everywhere in the Ukraine is lower than that and thus habitable. However there are some patches of forest close to the Chernobyl reactor and of course the reactor itself which are above 2 mSv/day. The Red Forest is the worst affected area with spikes of 20 mSv/day though most of it is much less.

    20 mSv/day of Cs-137 and Sr-90(which is what the contamination in the red forest is for >>99%) would take about 100 years to get down to the safe level of 2 mSv/day, though most of the forest would be safe in less than 50 years.

    Just about everywhere else is still being needlessly condemned.

    Good read on the nuclear radiophobia:

    nuclearradiophobia.blogspot.nl/2011/07/nuclear-power-and-radiophobia.html

    Read more: http://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/488/chernobyl-quarantined-20-000-years?page=1&scrollTo=4335#ixzz38BVYzhMi

  26. Eclipse Now says:

    1. I would LOVE to be wrong: you’re just not proving anything though. I would seriously LOVE renewables to be able to do the job. Because not many people in Australia or America or Germany seem to feel the same as the French (who still do seem to support nuclear power, according to my referenced sources above. See how the source thing works? You get to be a little smug and condescending to those who don’t supply them. 😉 Are we getting this yet?)

    2. No, I’m not deleting your posts because they ‘prove’ anything. I would be geniunely interested in posts that challenged my views on this. I’m deleting them because they’re obnoxious error filled opinion pieces verging on internet trolling because you never really justify your opinions. You just state them. You don’t quote reliable sources. You just rant. I’ve warned you repeatedly: yet you go on doing it. So I delete them. Fair? I think so!

    3. YOU are the one avoiding MY posts: I quote articles referring to the benefits of nuclear power and the FATAL flaws in renewables and you just gloss past them, and assert silly glowing testimonials like a bad add.
    * You just ignored the FACT that solar thermal drops to 1/5th it’s power in winter
    * you just gloss over it (without peer-reviewed references) and talk about (largely imaginary) anti-nuclear feeling in France. (I quoted the wiki showing public support is still very strong).
    * This thread is about the viability of nuclear power as a reliable source of power, unlike ‘unreliables’. (Renewables).
    * This thread is about real world data that shows radiation is not as bad as many imagine, and that huge tracts of Chernobyl could be resettled completely safely, because 2 mSv / day is just not that bad. This thread is about how the French STILL love nuclear power.

    If you have links that prove otherwise, please contribute them. But so far, your rants on this blog have been unverified and pitiable. Every time you rant about something, I pretty much show the real world to be otherwise within a few minutes of googling. It shouldn’t be that way. I’m simply not that technically smart: so what does that make your unverified rants into Easter Bunny land?

    • heavyweather says:

      Never did I write about French feelings toward nuclear. Try to refute the posted link about cost, possibility if replacement and the uncertain future of nuclear in France.

      You don’t understand the economics behind decisions that countries like Germany are making.
      Every country has individual costs. Show how nuclear is cheap if you need to import it…show how France is going to ad cheap nuclear power or compensate in time for old plants that will be shut down in the 2030ties and 40ties.
      Too bad the Oxford link is gone and you can’t even come up with a cost analyses yourself.
      Tell me what you BELIEVE France is going to do.
      Its all just talking on your side with zero effects on CO2 reduction.

  27. heavyweather says:

    Please remove all my comments from this blog.

    • Eclipse Now says:

      No can do: I’m keeping it as a record of the misunderstandings and ignorant memes that sunnies and windies promote. There are certain technical realities about solar power you STILL haven’t addressed while you’ve been busy ranting about French nuclear costs (that I’ve already covered in links above). It’s not my fault you documented your ignorance here, but there you are.

  28. heavyweather says:

    We do have a problem here when you are deleting posts.
    You are still not responding to how France is supposed to maintain its nuclear share, why they are making losses while selling power and why you believe other countries in should repeat historical failure.

  29. heavyweather says:

    http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SP-32.pdf

    Who is going to pay 100€/MWh when Flamanville is going online?
    Superphenix was a 11.7billion adventure for the French tax payer.
    Thats something they can’t do again in a liberised EU market.
    Where will France collect the billions that are missing for building new plants or for keeping their fleet running? How can they correct the errors made in home heating and efficiency now?
    France is just a very poor example if you are trying to sell nuclear.

    http://www.ipfmlibrary.org/rr08.pdf
    Conclusion
    “Although there are safety issues generic to liquid metal fast reactors, it does not appear that they were the predominant reasons for the demise of the breeder program in the United States. More important were proliferation concerns and a growing conviction that breeder reactors would not be needed or economically competitive with light-water reactors for decades, if ever.”

    A dying industry is trying to sell their toxic product and you are not seeing that this is no way to overcome the real problems.
    There is no cheap nuclear fix nor is there one just on the horizon! You will have to invest in wind, windgas, hydro, storage, geothermal for heating and a multitude of EE solutions an there is no time to waste with gigantic fantasies of a sudden rise of some volks-reactor running of a production line!
    You are blindly following propaganda on promises that won’t hold up.

    • Eclipse Now says:

      That was actually an interesting PDF you linked to there: however it does not conclude what breeder reactors were uneconomic *against*. This is America, after all, where half the population don’t appear worried about climate change and one cannot automatically assume that the only alternative’s they are comparing are wind and solar. Nuclear is probably ‘uneconomic’ against coal! Well, duh. I’ve already admitted that up thread: and THAT is only if we don’t count the terrible public health cost of coal, which would DOUBLE coal. If we count all the costs, nuclear is far, far cheaper.

      As for the economics: once again, it depends. How expensive is a car? Hand build it individually and you’ve got a Rolls Royce. Mass produce it in a factory, and you can get a much cheaper family car. It’s the same with nukes. Depending on the right political framework – when people and governments finally come around to the truth – nukes can be mass produced for vast amounts of clean, RELIABLE electricity that will gradually fission away the world’s nuclear waste. Russia are building a few breeders, and China will be rolling them out progressively in about 8 years. So much for ‘blindly following propaganda’.

      So when are you going to address the tiny fraction of power we get from solar thermal during winter? When are you going to admit that going renewable means turning the gas or coal on for months at a time. The reality is 100% renewable advocates believe in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy, as James Hansen said.

  30. Eclipse Now says:

    Solar PV sucks for baseload, as you have admitted. But so does the ‘supposedly’ solar thermal tech that sunnies push. As I quoted above (when you were not paying attention):
    *****
    Winter’s REAL challenge is to solar! Solar insolation drops dramatically, requiring insane overbuilds. As Professor Ted Trainer says (someone I admire and whom I have met),

    Solar thermal systems are best suited to the hottest regions and it is not clear how far into the mid latitudes they can be effective, apart from via very long transmission lines. They seem to be especially doubtful in winter, even in the best locations. (For a more detailed discussion of solar thermal’s limits and potential see Trainer, 2008.). Trough systems will be considered first, then dishes. …The winter electrical output for the US SEGS VI trough system is reported at about 20% of summer output…..
    ….Dishes.
    Dishes collect more energy in winter because they can be pointed directly at the sun, but there are two significant drawbacks. Their dollar costs are reported as being 2 – 4.5 times those of troughs (Sandia, undated), although costs will surely fall considerably with further development and mass production.
    The data I have been able to access indicates somewhat surprisingly low but useful winter output from dish–Stirling devices. Some US dishes seem to have an average 24 hour flow equivalent of around 20 – 30 W/m (Davenport, 2008.) An output plot for the Mod dish-Stirling device shows that the January average flow (averaged over 24 hours) was c. 18 W/m, and for December, 22 W/m. Commonly published power curves show that at 700W/m output falls to around half peak output.
    However this is not very relevant to our problem. If solar thermal systems are to provide electricity 24 hours a day, and also to solve the general intermittency problem set by other renewables, then heat must be stored. This means that the efficiencies will be much lower than those represented in the literature on dishes, which almost entirely deals with the direct generation of electricity via dish-Stirling systems. Dishes are not well suited to large scale heat collection.
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/31/solar-thermal-questions/

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s