The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Requiem for a failed electricity system > Comments

Requiem for a failed electricity system : Comments

By Alan Moran, published 13/10/2016

Gradually the electricity price will rise to reflect the higher cost wind generation that is being substituted for the non-subsidised supplies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Craig,

If you look hard enough you will find an academic that will espouse any point of view, and the measure of intelligence is the ability to think independently and verify claims.

The IAEA has produced assessments of reserves that show that there are vast untapped reserves of uranium.

Uncritically linking to dubious articles reflects badly on you.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 14 October 2016 3:49:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, off you go and look, SM. I'm sure that shopping around for congenial opinions is one of your core skills so I'll defer to your expertise on the subject.
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 14 October 2016 3:54:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig,

Just because you linked to a stinker of an article and got called out by several posters does not mean that you should lash out impotently.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 14 October 2016 3:56:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM, I don't have an opinion on the article, other than that it is well written and interesting to read.

There may be flaws, I don't know, but given the record of those of you who seem to be extremely vexed by it, I'm sure they must be minor.
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 14 October 2016 4:03:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you liked that, then you'll enjoy this http://fairytalesoftheworld.com/all-stories/
Posted by Luciferase, Saturday, 15 October 2016 10:21:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig,

To say that this article might have some flaws is the understatement of the century, then to claim that the negative reaction of the 3 most technically savvy posters gives it credibility is counterintuitive in the least.

I previously gave one example of an outright lie in the article, but here are the most outrageous "flaws"

1 - There is enough fissile material to supply nuclear reactors for millennia assuming the use of existing plants, not 200yrs as claimed. New reactors such as fast neutron reactors can use U238 (99.5%) of the natural uranium that presently is not used and extend the supply 200x, then thorium which far more plentiful can extend nuclear power even further.

2 - Nuclear reactors are not on the way out, there are 440 reactors presently running, with 60 new reactors under construction. Reactors are being restarted in Japan, and further reactors are getting approval in many countries incl the UK, USA and Russia. On top of this the new reactors are far bigger than the handful being decommissioned, and existing reactors are being upgraded to produce much more power.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

3 - The 40yr life span of a reactor is a conservative financial estimate (most existing reactors are 50yrs or more). Most reactors can be upgraded and rebuilt to last >60yrs, and even at the end of the reactors life, the entire plant does not need to be rebuilt, and the reactors can be replaced extending the life of the plant > 100yrs.

4 - Nuclear fuel waste, the 10 000t/yr is again a lie. The waste of all the world reactors produces between 2000 and 2300 t/yr of spent fuel, with a total of spent fuel being less than 80 000 tonnes from the past 40yrs. You should read the following:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/what-are-nuclear-wastes.aspx
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx

5 - Prices, considering that the cost of energy from Nukes in the EU is less than half the cost of renewables, I find this part of the article hard to swallow.

Those are the biggest whoppers, but just about every assertion he makes is a half truth.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 15 October 2016 12:02:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy