Nuclear industry too big to fail?

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

Upto? [Citation Needed]

How droll. :colonhash:

In Japan, $1.4bn in financial securities.

As i said not important, but i'll try again. inextricably linked yes but had sea water magically not had corrosive properties the overheating alone would have caused irreparable damage.

Why are you continuing to argue this? We've established that the loss of coolant and subsequent overheating, and the necessity to replace the coolant with the first available liquid - seawater, are the same problem in terms of whether the reactor's going to go back into service. :s-smilie:

It's moot.

Reply 61

OP

Original post by HistoryRepeating

This is nonsense and Fukushima showed us nothing of the sort. Not only has TEPCO not gone into insolvency (and thus may well not need government money for cleanup).

But almost certainly will.

Original post by HistoryRepeating

In many countries the Nuclear Power industry is not even subsidised. The 8 new NPPs in the UK that are due to begin construction over the next few years are also not in any way publicly funded.

As long as they don't go wrong.

Reply 62

OP

Original post by Mad Vlad

How droll. :colonhash:

In Japan, $1.4bn in financial securities.

Not enough.

Reply 63

Aphotic Cosmos

17

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

But almost certainly will.

As long as they don't go wrong.

The company who owns Britain's nuclear power plants and that will build our next generation is EDF - the state-owned French energy supplier. France meets 80% of it's energy needs with nuclear power, if there's anybody I would trust to build and operate a new generation of reactors it's them.

On top of that there hasn't been a serious nuclear accident in Western Europe since the 50s, you know - when we were just starting out. Now we have half a century of experience with less reliable reactors than the EPR design that's being used for our new plants. Nuclear power is not a boogeyman.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 64

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

But almost certainly will.

TEPCO has the financial means to pay for the damage...

As long as they don't go wrong.

Which they won't.

Reply 65

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

Not enough.

Based on what figures?

Reply 66

HistoryRepeating

13

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

But almost certainly will.

As long as they don't go wrong.

That's true of any form of power plant, and its vastly, unthinkably less likely with Nuclear power.

Did you know, for instance, that several hundred people were killed in Japan (and a vast area of villages and farmland destroyed) when the earthquake caused the collapse of a hydropower damn in fukushima province, and yet there has been almost 0 reporting.

Hydroelectric power (to pick the most widely used renewable example) kills around 0.36 people a year per gigawatt of electricity produced compared to 0.0045 for nuclear.

Reply 67

OP

Original post by HistoryRepeating

That's true of any form of power plant, and its vastly, unthinkably less likely with Nuclear power.

But all the more expensive when it does.

Original post by HistoryRepeating

Did you know, for instance, that several hundred people were killed in Japan (and a vast area of villages and farmland destroyed) when the earthquake caused the collapse of a hydropower damn in fukushima province, and yet there has been almost 0 reporting.

Hydroelectric power (to pick the most widely used renewable example) kills around 0.36 people a year per gigawatt of electricity produced compared to 0.0045 for nuclear.

Yes i did. and it won't be anywhere near as expensive.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 68

CurlyBen

I'd love to know where this idea that nuclear power is too expensive to be viable is coming from. It's less than half the cost of offshore wind farms per kW/h for a start.

Reply 69

OP

Original post by CurlyBen

I'd love to know where this idea that nuclear power is too expensive to be viable is coming from. It's less than half the cost of offshore wind farms per kW/h for a start.

But that isn't factoring in all the costs of nuclear and offshore wind farms are clearly not viable, although wind is becoming more viable while nuclear becomes less viable.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 70

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110330-718125.html

OP

Reply 71

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110330-718125.html

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

$130bn? Seems a tad steep.

They better pull their fingers out then.

[EDIT] It won't go bust: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/01/us-tepco-nationalisation-idUSTRE73016V20110401

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 72

WelshBluebird

16

Personally, I don't think we can take TEPCO and what has happened in Japan as any indication of the Nuclear industry as a whole.

1 - The plant that has issues is a very old one that uses very old designs. Modern reactors and cooling systems would have coped no problem.

2 - TEPCO has a bit of a history in cutting corners and not being too honest with the government / regulators.

3 - The UK is not in a situation where we will have a magnitude 9 quake, followed by a huge tsunami.

Reply 73

OP

Original post by Mad Vlad

$130bn? Seems a tad steep.

They better pull their fingers out then.

[EDIT] It won't go bust: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/01/us-tepco-nationalisation-idUSTRE73016V20110401

Thanks to a government bailout. Hence the thread title.

Reply 74

Aphotic Cosmos

17

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 75

R92

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

But that isn't factoring in all the costs of nuclear and offshore wind farms are clearly not viable, although wind is becoming more viable while nuclear becomes less viable.

Well, lets say that are in control of the UK energy policy, without the use of nuclear, how are you going to supply enough energy to the UK without using nuclear and at the same time keep in line with EU requirements to cut the UK's CO2 emissions by 80% relative to 1990 levels? Remember that the national grid requires a baseload of constant energy.

I am interested to hear your answer to this one without the use of nuclear power.

Reply 76

OP

Original post by R92

Well, lets say that are in control of the UK energy policy, without the use of nuclear, how are you going to supply enough energy to the UK without using nuclear and at the same time keep in line with EU requirements to cut the UK's CO2 emissions by 80% relative to 1990 levels? Remember that the national grid requires a baseload of constant energy.

I am interested to hear your answer to this one without the use of nuclear power.

I stated earlier i believe nuclear to be necessary to some extent.

Reply 77

CurlyBen

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

But that isn't factoring in all the costs of nuclear and offshore wind farms are clearly not viable, although wind is becoming more viable while nuclear becomes less viable.

Yes, it does factor in all the costs. See this link. Nuclear is a similar or lower cost per unit than other 'sustainable' sources, but without the issues of availability or needing very specific conditions.
Wind's becoming more viable? How? Are wind speeds increasing? Nothing can be done to make the wind blow steadily all year round. That, and the huge amount of space required, are the biggest issues with wind power. Also, as a side note, why do you think renewables are offered very generous feed in tariffs by the government to induce private investment, but new nuclear stations are being planned without subsidy? Surely if renewables are more viable than nuclear the situation would be the other way round?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 78

OP

Original post by CurlyBen

Yes, it does factor in all the costs.

How can it we don't know the full costs.

Reply 79

CurlyBen