[virgincrude]

Many Peakers believe nuclear power is the only solution to PO electricity needs, more and more countries are stepping up their construction plans and dusting off shelved plans. Here in Spain the government recently decided to ask who was willing to have a nuclear waste depot built in their back yard. One tiny hamlet's mayor took up the proposition and was promptly run out of office by the community.

It seems inevitable that more nuclear power stations will be built in countries which up until now had a moratorium (Spain's government has pledged not to return to nuclear) the UK most recently joining the pro-nuke group and we hardly need mention Iran's plans.

Community opposition to nuclear power and waste storage is the main stumbling block. In Germany, protesters regularly chain themselves to the rails in front of trains loaded with waste on its way to storage facilities outside the country. A mayor can lose his seat of power, it could lead to violent disturbances, especially among the young.

In Europe, we remember Chernobil, and sheep in Wales still show high levels of radiation as a result of wind-borne contamination (not that they're complaining) but the disaster is a very powerful argument in the hands of the anti-nuke brigade.

So, if you are pro-nuke, how often do you pose yourself the question: would you accept the government's proposal to build a new power plant in your community? If it's not in your community, it's bound to be someone else's, or in any event, close enough to somebody's back yard. If they reject it, would you voluntarily suggest a change of site to your back yard? If you think it's just inevitable, would you be willing to accept your government's plans to build a nuclear power station right in your back yard?

[AirlinePilot]

I think this is all a moot point at this time. We won't seriously consider accelerated permitting and construction until crisis levels get reached. At least here in the US I believe that to be true. By that time (and I believe we are already too late) you wont be able to get anything completed due to a collapsing world economy.

But thats just my doomer opinion!

[Grifter]

My dads a retired nuclear engineer and he reckons you can build a nuke plant in about three years(with much reduced red tape). I don't know much about it but I believe him.

He doesn't take into account the increased demand for uranium though.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'I') think this is all a moot point at this time. We won't seriously consider accelerated permitting and construction until crisis levels get reached. At least here in the US I believe that to be true. By that time (and I believe we are already too late) you wont be able to get anything completed due to a collapsing world economy.

But thats just my doomer opinion!

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Grifter', 'M')y dads a retired nuclear engineer and he reckons you can build a nuke plant in about three years(with much reduced red tape). I don't know much about it but I believe him.

He doesn't take into account the increased demand for uranium though.

[Grifter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Grifter', 'M')y dads a retired nuclear engineer and he reckons you can build a nuke plant in about three years(with much reduced red tape). I don't know much about it but I believe him.

He doesn't take into account the increased demand for uranium though.

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('virgincrude', 'S')o, if you are pro-nuke, how often do you pose yourself the question: would you accept the government's proposal to build a new power plant in your community? If it's not in your community, it's bound to be someone else's, or in any event, close enough to somebody's back yard. If they reject it, would you voluntarily suggest a change of site to your back yard? If you think it's just inevitable, would you be willing to accept your government's plans to build a nuclear power station right in your back yard?

[Tyler_JC]

Oh?

Electrical consumption amounts to only 2.5% of GDP.

Doubling that % would increase the electricity supply dramatically by making alternative energy sources more competitive.

Moreover, uranium is a very small % of a nuke plants operating budget.

Nuclear power at 6 cents per kwh doesn't seem too unreasonable even once you factor in delivery costs. That's about what people in low cost electricity states currently pay.

Electrical Generation Cost By Source

[AirlinePilot]

How much are you going to charge your nuke customers who cant afford to buy food for that electricity? If and when we have a depression/collapse you have to get the money to build and operate the power stations somehow. Right now you get it from revenue, grants and a viable growing economy.

Your comparision of the Empire state building isnt quite a valid one because everyone knew at some point the economy would get better. The realization of PO is a different animal IMHO. The realization that we havent prepared for a massive powerdown and the ensuing economic chaos is going to make the depression of the 30's look like a picnic.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'H')ow much are you going to charge your nuke customers who cant afford to buy food for that electricity? If and when we have a depression/collapse you have to get the money to build and operate the power stations somehow. Right now you get it from revenue, grants and a viable growing economy.

Your comparision of the Empire state building isnt quite a valid one because everyone knew at some point the economy would get better. The realization of PO is a different animal IMHO. The realization that we havent prepared for a massive powerdown and the ensuing economic chaos is going to make the depression of the 30's look like a picnic.

[AirlinePilot]

I agree with your premise about oil and electricity having little to do with each other. No disagreement there at all. What I forsee however is that since we are doing NOTHING to mitigate the effects of Peak Oil, that sometime in the next 2-3 years we will see a large economic contraction on a global scale. Electricity will not exist in an economic vacuum. The rising cost of energy is going to cause ramifications throughout the economy, not just in the energy sector. The GAO in it's report (and also the Hirsch report to a greater extent) acknowledges that the result of continuing the path we are on is disastrous. Mitigation should have started years ago. If you believe PO is either upon us, or even a few years away, we are already far behind where we need to be with regards to hydrocarbon consumption and it's effect on the global economy.

I cannot see a way out after PO that is anything other than a very hard landing at best. Without a viable economy and cheap energy it will be difficult at best to press on with major civic and private projects. You would acknowledge I believe that undertaking a large construction project involving many nuclear plants is going to require robust economic activity and at least a healthy functioning economy.

This is where I think we part company. There are many folks who draw the conclusion that failing oil and NG supplies and production will naturally be replaced by some "other" form of energy or technology. As prices for resources climb other things become "cost effective". I dont share the cornucopian economic outlook at all. If you really understand PO, I dont see how you could either.

The bottom line for me is I am all for Nuclear power and immediate construction of as many plants as possible. Right now however I doubt it will happen. My guess is over the next 2-3 years someone figures out we must do it, but at that point it is already too late. You'll probably move into the depression with a bunch of half built nuke plants standing silent sentinel to our energy folly, never to be completed.

They will stand as monuments to mankind's technical prowess and also his immense stupidity and hubris.

[AirlinePilot]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'A')nd no, a doubling of electricity prices would not cause a permanent global depression, mass starvation in the industrial world, and a collapse of the financial system. Money isn't destroyed, it is relocated. In this case, money would move from consumer discretionary spending into energy.

What we really need to do right now is get oil out of the transportation sector. If we can't do that fast enough while oil is still cheap and plentiful, there will be a painful transition for those left holding on to SUVs.

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'T')he bottom line for me is I am all for Nuclear power and immediate construction of as many plants as possible. Right now however I doubt it will happen. My guess is over the next 2-3 years someone figures out we must do it, but at that point it is already too late. You'll probably move into the depression with a bunch of half built nuke plants standing silent sentinel to our energy folly, never to be completed.

They will stand as monuments to mankind's technical prowess and also his immense stupidity and hubris.

[virgincrude]

AirlinePilot and Tyler-JC both make very good points. I lean more towards the less doomerish Tyler, but have to wonder: the building of nuke plants may be simpler than we assume, take less time, etc, however, given the increase in fuel costs for providing the materials at the site, the overall cost (already huge) will rise exponentially as gas prices rise. No?

How do we get supplies to the site, not to mention the workforce, engineers etc., ?

Of course, electricity supplies have nothing to do with oil based transport. But electricity supply is vital to practically every industry, there's no doubt nuke plants will be built whether the NIMBYS like it or not.

I also can see how the NIMBYs could be made invisible given the updated powers of your government/police state, but how about ordinary citizens having to be fenced off the site because of looting of basic supplies i.e gasoline. The extra costs of policing the sites will have to be taken into consideration.

Still, neither AirlinePilot nor Tyler have answered the question: would you accept, or even choose to live near, say a nuclear waste depot? Given the high state of alarm your government propaganda machine also has you in, permanently, and given that due to hyped fear of Islamists mixing explosive cocktails on board, within Europe we can't get on a plane with more the 100cl of liquid, (why isn't this taken into account for other forms of mass transport?) what kind of security measures (and at what cost) would be acceptable for these kinds of areas?

[AirlinePilot]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('virgincrude', 'S')till, neither AirlinePilot nor Tyler have answered the question: would you accept, or even choose to live near, say a nuclear waste depot?

[mlit]

I really think NIMBYISM is overly charged with causing our energy problems. Building Nuclear / Oil infrastructure takes a large amount of investment.

If during the 90's boom you had a billion to invest where would you put it. Build a nuke plant, build a refinery? or throw it in the stock market when the rate of return was. After it crashed would you invest that billion in energy? Or being we where not doing good and the rate of return would not be high invest it in government bonds with no risk and at least some guarantee of return?

Also while I do support Nuclear Energy I havn't a clue what the regulations are and I'm not sure they should be reduced. A screw up in the building or operation of a nuclear facilty is not something to take lightly. I don't want any built in my area as its geographically unstable, not many earthquakes but it only takes one to end a lot of lives.

I'm willing to bet if you removed any chance of lawsuits or regulations on the building of new nuclear facilities that there would be little effect. The risk / reward ratio is to great compared to other investments. Companies can't think long term enough when there is easy quick money elsewhere.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'v')irgincrude wrote:
Still, neither AirlinePilot nor Tyler have answered the question: would you accept, or even choose to live near, say a nuclear waste depot?

[peaker_2005]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', 'H')ow do you make sure it stays out of the groundwater? Our record at building "holes" for containing nasty things effectively isn't exactly great.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', '[')b]How do you make sure it stays out of the groundwater? Our record at building "holes" for containing nasty things effectively isn't exactly great.

[AirlinePilot]

My older brother did his thesis on nuclear waste storage. There are several places around the country deemed stable enough over very long time periods to allow what Tyler is talking about. I agree with him, its a non issue that only becomes a political football from lack of knowledge and fear.