Nuclear Makes a Worldwide Comeback (Der Spiegel online)

[Dogmudgeon]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,565132,00.html">The Atomic Age Enters a New Dawn

It's a Special Edition for July 11th. Der Spiegel is running seven big articles on the renaissance (their word) of nuclear energy. And yes, there is plenty of "fair and balanced" nuke-bashing for the antis, too.

Germany may still be debating whether to abandon its nuclear phase-out plans, but the rest of the world is already moving full steam ahead into expanding the use of nuclear technology. SPIEGEL ONLINE examines a glowing comeback, from Switzerland to China.

...

Today the sinister technology, still more unpopular than almost any other, is experiencing an unexpected comeback. Thirty-six new reactors are currently being built worldwide, while another 81 are in the planning stages. And it has not escaped the attention of Germans that new nuclear power plants are not just being planned in the emerging nations of Asia and Eastern Europe, but are also back on the drawing board in the United States and Great Britain.

Two fundamental developments are fueling the nuclear energy comeback. The international effort to combat climate change favors power generation technologies that involve relatively low emissions of carbon dioxide. This includes nuclear reactors, which emit only a fraction of the amount of CO2 into the environment that comes from a coal-fired power plant, for example.

...

In light of these new realities on the energy markets, many are now once again seeing nuclear energy as the lesser evil.

Surprisingly good for the popular press -- even the parts I disagree with -- but then again, the European press depends on its readers to have attention spans longer than 30 seconds and to have more than 2 shades of opinions.

--p!

[druidity33]

1. interesting. K&R. nt

[bananas]

2. Of the 36 new reactors being built, 12 have been under construction for 20 years or more

"By the end of 2007, some 34 reactors were under construction worldwide, but 12 of these units have been under construction for 20 years or more."
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5447

[jpak]

3. and when ChimpCo bombs Iran's reactor

there will be 35...

[NNadir]

7. And of course, grateful racists are hoping this will happen.

We all know that one of the cuter sports of the anti-nuke cults is promoting war - as in the "Niger uranium" nonsense.]

No illiterate anti-nukes, no dangerous fossil fuel powered bombers indiscriminately bombing innoncent people.

In fact, the anti-nuke cults consist almost wholly of the kind of twits that join volunteer fire departments because they are arsonists.

[kristopher]

12. Actually nuclear is most strongly supported by the same folks who brought you Iraq

Actually nuclear is most strongly supported by the same folks who brought you Iraq and "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

The message you are peddling about nuclear power and renewables has been central to the Republican agenda since Ronnie Raygun. Bush, Cheney and John McSame LOVE nuclear and judging them by their policies, they have no use for renewables.

They envision a world of commercialized nuclear fuel reprocessing where nuclear proliferation is "controlled" not by silly things like international agreements, but by the commercial entities who control the reprocessing of the fuel.

I don't think that will work. All it would do is create and validate the very claim that Iran is now making - they are justified by their right to have energy security in controlling their own refinement and reprocessing of nuclear fuels. Give you your way and every nation on earth will have the same access to material with which to develop nuclear weapons.

[NNadir]

31. In fact, the only people who believed the crap about uranium were people who listened to uranium

propaganda, fundie.

I knew immediately that Cheney was lying.

You didn't, which is why you're here talking about a racist attack on Iran.

I knew Cheney was lying because I understand nuclear technology.

Mohammed Elbaradei, Egyptian, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, knew that Dick Cheney was lying.

You didn't.

In fact fundie, Dick Cheney relied entirely on nuclear ignorance of the type that you spew continuously. He couldn't care less about nuclear energy. His business is oil. He simply used your propaganda to kill innocent people.

Heckuva job, fundie. Heckuva job.

This by the way, is a Democratic website. I note with contempt that your fundie anti-nuke position has been rejected by the Democratic nominee.

As for the racist claim offered by the anti-nuke fundie religion:

Iranians have a right to nuclear energy. All of humanity does.

[kristopher]

34. Are you insane?

I wrote: "Actually nuclear is most strongly supported by the same folks who brought you Iraq and "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

The message you are peddling about nuclear power and renewables has been central to the Republican agenda since Ronnie Raygun. Bush, Cheney and John McSame LOVE nuclear and judging them by their policies, they have no use for renewables.

They envision a world of commercialized nuclear fuel reprocessing where nuclear proliferation is "controlled" not by silly things like international agreements, but by the commercial entities who control the reprocessing of the fuel.

I don't think that will work. All it would do is create and validate the very claim that Iran is now making - they are justified by their right to have energy security in controlling their own refinement and reprocessing of nuclear fuels. Give you your way and every nation on earth will have the same access to material with which to develop nuclear weapons."



To which you respond: In fact, the only people who believed the crap about uranium were people who listened to uranium

propaganda, fundie.

I knew immediately that Cheney was lying. If you are talking about the administration's use of fear of nuclear weapons to promote war with Iraq and Iran, that is different than what I'm saying. I'm talking about their support for widescale deployment of nuclear technology for power generation.

You didn't, which is why you're here talking about a racist attack on Iran. No, I was against the Iraq war from the moment it was mentioned; just as I would be against action aimed at Iran.

I knew Cheney was lying because I understand nuclear technology. I knew Cheney was lying because his lips were moving and because I understand military the difference between a bill of goods and the truth. A skill that comes in handy when dealing with certain people around here.

Mohammed Elbaradei, Egyptian, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, knew that Dick Cheney was lying.

You didn't. Again, you are wrong. Why bother with even asking to find out what I thought when you can just make up what pleases you - a talent I've often noticed among right wing "alternate reality" hacks pimping their flavor of the moment.

In fact fundie, Dick Cheney relied entirely on nuclear ignorance of the type that you spew continuously. He couldn't care less about nuclear energy. His business is oil. He simply used your propaganda to kill innocent people. No. Dick Cheney supports building more nuclear power plants and turning to the commercialization of fuel reprocessing to fuel them. It has been a cornerstone of the Republican party for more than 30 years. To date they've been blocked effectively by an aware public, thank goodness.

Heckuva job, fundie. Heckuva job.

This by the way, is a Democratic website. I note with contempt that your fundie anti-nuke position has been rejected by the Democratic nominee. No, it hasn't; but it is common to hear right wingnut dingbats claim that he has. His position is exactly the same as mine. Nuclear is on the table and just as soon as we can solve the problems of waste and proliferation, we can start building plants if it is profitable.

As for the racist claim offered by the anti-nuke fundie religion:

Iranians have a right to nuclear energy. All of humanity does. Under current law they certainly do. That is part of the problem. Obama today spoke of disarmament, locking down loose nukes, and a new global framework that restructures the Cold War era non-proliferation treaty. I have my thoughts about what that might cover, but I'm sure it will address the point of commercialization of fuel reprocessing leading to every country claiming the right to process their own in the name of energy security. It is hard to see how we can address that without a commitment to move AWAY from nuclear power, but there may be some other approach envisioned.

[bananas]

13. Anti-nukes are out to destroy the Great White Race!!!

Anti-nukes hate the Great White Race!!!
Anti-nukes hate Caucasians and Aryans!!!
Anti-nukes are always protesting against nukes in US, Europe, and Russia!!!
Anti-nukes are liberals who promote inter-racial marriage!!!
Anti-nukes are out to destroy the Great White Race!!!

[Nederland]

4. What's the hold up?

Why are those plants taking so long to finish? Are there technical issues? A shortage of skilled labor? What is the problem?

[Dead_Parrot]

5. A lot of it is people like Bananas...

It's a sort of perpetual motion - you hold up the process for years, even decades, in the courts, then argue that the process is taking years, even decades, so it must be a bad idea.

It's quite a neat trick, actually. Unless, of course, your biosphere is going down the toilet: Then it's a little annoying.

[bananas]

15. Wow! I did all that! I must be powerful! Like Superman!

Or maybe nucular ain't all it's cracked up to be.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. No, just really irritating.

I notice you haven't commented on the most recent thread about dead coal miners yet, or the dead silicon workers, or indeed any thread concerning climate change in the last few months.

Why is that?

Too profound a loss to put into words, or do you really not give a fuck if it doesn't match your agenda?

[bananas]

20. Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

"I notice you haven't commented on the most recent thread about dead coal miners yet, or the dead silicon workers, or indeed any thread concerning climate change in the last few months.
Why is that?
Too profound a loss to put into words, or do you really not give a fuck if it doesn't match your agenda?"

I've made a number of posts concerning climate change - go suck an egg.
My agenda is anti-boondoggle. Uranus worshippers can go suck a log.

"France's environment minister says nuclear will shrink as a proportion of the French energy mix"
You didn't comment on this - nor anybody else - cat got your tongue?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x160224

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Actually, I missed it

But I've commented on it and kicked it for you.

Feeling better yet?

Abe:"Uranus worshippers can go suck a log".

Hmm. Nope, no agenda there, then. :eyes:

[bananas]

18. Dead_Parrot, I'm surprised at you

What a screwed-up post that was.
Bertram Wolfe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertram_Wolfe
No scientific credentials at all.
Dead for 30 years and nobody misses him.
Appeal to misleading authority.
Etc etc.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Oh, I'm sorry.

Try one of these, then.

Better?

[bananas]

26. No, because it doesn't explain these.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=153252&mesg_id=153278

[Dead_Parrot]

27. It didn't explain rhubarb crumble, either

Or do you think "A lot of" = "All"?

[AdHocSolver]

6. A lot of the holdup has to do with significant cost overruns. Then there are safety issues...

that the "energy" companies don't want to pay for. Then there were Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Finally there were NIMBY issues.

It is only since the price of oil increased significantly that the "energy" companies are taking a second look at nuclear generating plants. This is not good for the environment.

There is profit in energy production. What we need is energy conservation. Most of the energy produced is wasted.

[NNadir]

9. Bullshit.

If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

The "safety issues" of nuclear power are trivial when compared with all other forms of energy.

[bananas]

24. Bullshit.

If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

The "safety issues" of nuclear power are a fucking nightmare when compared with all other forms of energy.

[aspergris]

10. Iconic and ridiculous

Probe an anti-nuke and you get "but Three Mile Island!"

One frigging incident, with ZERO casualties, and this is held up as some sort of logical reason to

PH33r the evul nuclear power!

The ironic thing is that every anti-nuke'er can spout three mile island. I doubt they can name even 3 or 4 significant (and you have SCORES TO CHOOSE FROM) incidents where many many many people have died in the production/refinement etc. of coal, oil, etc.

Those incidents haven't reached the iconic THREE MILE ISLAND (cue Fanfare) status because ... well... who cares about coal miners... or oil drillers... etc.

[AdHocSolver]

11. You conveniently ignore Chernobyl. The U.S. was lucky in the case of Three Mile Island.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. On the other hand...

...you conveniently ignore Americans getting their lungs burned out by silicon tetrachloride and their family fighting to find some sort of justice for years afterwards because it means people can be energy independent and stick it to the evil power co's.

Right?

[madokie]

21. Yes we were lucky and the preception of the luck on that fateful day was only because

we weren't told the full extent of what happened. :hi: The nuclear energy industry always has lied to us and I suspect they always will.

[aspergris]

29. riiiiiiiiiiight

It's all a conspiracy to keep the evul truth from us!

[aspergris]

28. I don't ignore chernobyl

I understand that the USSR is not the USA.

Comparisons between an incredibly backwards country that had nearly no concerns for the environment or worker safety and us are ridiculous.

[Nederland]

33. Question

Why do you think countries like France can create nuclear plants in short order while we can't? Does France not suffer from the same problems you listed?

[bananas]

16. Go to the IAEA PRIS website

get a list of the reactors that have been under construction for 20+ years,
and we can go thru them one by one.
There are only 12 of them.
Or you can be worship Uranus and believe 5th grade drop-outs like NNadir.
Your choice.
IAEA PRIS: http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

[Nederland]

32. That site tells me nothing

Yes, you can search the list and get the names and statuses of reactors, but it tells you nothing about why. There is one in the US that has been under construction for 20+ years, and that the WATTS BAR-2 reactor in Tennesee. I googled it to get more info and learned that construction was halted in 1988 (or 1985 according to one source) due to lack of demand. Construction was recently resumed.

[bananas]

35. One down, eleven to go. Oh wait, there may be more.

Unfortunately, it turns out there is another category.
I just took a quick look at the Keystone Report,
Table 7 on page 59 is "Status of Various Reactor Types",
and the column for "Under Construction***" has this footnote:
"***Excludes 14 plants whose construction has been stalled or suspended, of which perhaps as many as 5 may eventually be completed."

The Keystone Report can be downloaded from http://www.keystone.org/spp/energy07_policymain.html

[Nederland]

36. That is an interesting report

Seems that the bigget reasons construction has been halted or stalled are legal challenges by environmental groups and poor economics. Since the existence of $140 a barrel oil has clearly changed the economics, I wonder if the remaining roadblocks to construction will remain...

[NNadir]

8. Gee. They're being built much, much, much, much faster than the toy solar industry.

Your remark is rather like a guy who spray paints windows and then complains that the views from them are not very good.

In fact, dumb fundie anti-nukes have been trying to sabatoge nuclear construction programs all over the world through appeal to ignorance and innuendo. Even so, for more than 30 years, nuclear energy has been the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free primary energy.

The ignorance of the anti-nuke cults has killed many millions of people over the years - mostly from air pollution - but the cry of "nuclear power is dead" is clearly hallucinatory.

I note, with contempt though, that 50 years of "world's largest" solar plants have failed, after lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of stupid hype, to produce as much energy as three large nuclear reactors.

If one nuclear reactor comes on line each year, it will still be a more important industry than solar, wind, and geothermal <em>combined</em> for decades, if not centuries, to come.

[bananas]

19. NNutcase.

[madokie]

22. Yep, a squirrel could go up one of his legs and come down the other not hungry

plenty of nuts to eat there.

[NNadir]

30. Speaking of hallucinations, how about a round of 0.2 < 0.08?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

Of course, fundie, YYYou dddon't gggget it, because playing the game would require you to be able to subtract the 2006 figures for nuclear energy production from the 2007 figures, and then compare them to the figures for 2006 solar energy subtracted from the 2007 figures.

If, after struggling with this math - and there's zero evidence that you and your fundie friends can do math, indeed there's lots of evidence that you can't - if you still are having the hallucination that 0.2 < 0.08, there may be clinical trials underway that could produce some mitigation, though personally, I'm not optimistic, given the severity of the attack:

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00349973?term=schizophrenia&rank=4