Why not abandon nuclear power?

[grumpy_old_man]

Hi,

As mentioned in this blog, the Belgian government voted in 2002 a law to abandon nuclear power. One has made several attempts not to implement and thus cancel out this law.
The real truth is that Electrabel - the nearly monopolist power supplier in Belgium - doesn’t want these nuclear power plants to be closed. Built with tax money, they are already marked down (for depreciation) for years now and thus each day that those plants remain open are extra profit.

How is you government thinking about abandoning nuclear power?

[Karl]

There is one major reason why we can never abandon nuclear power - this is because we are (directly or indirectly) almost 100% dependent on energy from one nuclear reactor - the SUN.

Admittedly, when most people hear of "Nuclear Energy" they immediately think of man-made fission-based reactors here on Earth, not the fusion-based one, outside, that has been powering all life as well as the very base of our food supply (via photosynthesis) all this time!

While, the sun as a source of nuclear energy is the origin of wind energy, hydroelectric, oil, gas, coal, it also affords the reality of nuclear energy that is sustainable, low-cost, waste-free...for example, by a simple act of hanging your clothes outside to dry (weather conditions permitting of course) you are making use of a nuclear powered dryer!

[grumpy_old_man]

I was indeed thinking of/refering to the man made nuclear power whith the atomic waste

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by grumpy_old_man

I was indeed thinking of/refering to the man made nuclear power whith the atomic waste

France is about 80% nuclear power.
What would/could replace that?

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

France is about 80% nuclear power.
What would/could replace that?

That would be a major consideration of course - how to replace (or substitute) the installed capacity currently supplied by nuclear. Perhaps this means there is serious consideration of using solar energy collected (and exported) from Western Sahara to power Europe. Could this be one of the reasons for the talk of a "Mediterranean Union"? (conceptually along the lines of the EU involving all states bordering the Mediterranean Sea - Southern Europe, North Africa, Middle East...)

In terms of any plans for phasing out nuclear energy, the official description will not be "abandoning" nuclear plants - they will use a title such as "decommissioning" of the facilities. So apart from having to find a way to replace the percentage of the supply now derived from nuclear, there will also be a major problem with the decommissioning plans - not only in terms of how to safely dispose of the accumulated radioactive wastes (which may or may not be stored on site), but even the infrastructure of the facility itself. What is the "salvage value" of used nuclear infrastructure/equipment?

Further to that, I have recently read of the considerable investment of France in facilities to prepare nuclear wastes for re-use in the energy generation processes (and that their technologies were some sort of example for all nuclear states to follow).

Returning to the original article referenced in this thread...

The Belgian government voted in 2002 a law to abandon nuclear power and stated that “The nuclear power plants intended for industrial electricity generation by fission of nuclear fuel, will be deactivated forty years after date of entry into their industrial and can no longer produce electricity”. This will probably happen between 2015 and 2025 for all Belgian nuclear power plants.

Considering that it is further stated that 55% of Belgium's electricity comes from nuclear energy, it will be very interesting to see how this is handled...

[grumpy_old_man]

Belgium is looking at France as use that as an argument to stick to nuclear power. Not surprising. As mentioned in the blog, Eletrabel is didacting everything. And who ownes Electrabel? Suez, which is a French company. So Suez is determining the nuclear strategy in both countries and doesn't care about the environmental issues with it, as long as they can make huge profits.

[August]

Originally Posted by Karl

In terms of any plans for phasing out nuclear energy, the official description will not be "abandoning" nuclear plants - they will use a title such as "decommissioning" of the facilities.

- Don't we all just LOVE the Orwellian language skills of our present political-economic ruling class?!

- --

National Nuclear Security Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The NNSA maintains a database containing personal information on 37,000 persons who design and maintain nuclear weapons for the U. S. government.

The NNSA's Office of Secure Transportation (OST) provides safe and secure transportation of nuclear weapons and components and special nuclear materials, and conducts other missions supporting the national security of the United States of America. Since 1974, OST has been assigned responsibility to develop, operate, and manage a system for the safe and secure transportation of all government-owned, DOE or NNSA controlled special nuclear materials in "strategic" or "significant" quantities. Shipments are transported in specially designed equipment and are escorted by armed federal agents.

Now, apart from the problems concerned with the handling of nuclear wastes (which can still be solved by new technological breakthroughs, of course), here is my other main objection against the use of nuclear energy systems: the simple fact that the security problems involved with the production of nuclear energy (and nuclear weapons) has its own way of legitimizing the political and societal powers of half-secret government agencies that very often go about their work in rather a fascistoid manner.

Nuclear power production carries with it the obvious political side-effect of keeping the bullies in power. Acting on their own fears and anxieties, they instruct their security personel to treating every the citizens of the states as a complex group of potential terrorists that the ruling class of society must certainly be committed to keeping under strict control.

It's a pity, really. Because I guess it is still true to say that, if only the waste problem would be solved, nuclear energy is an energy system that is clean.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Karl

That would be a major consideration of course - how to replace (or substitute) the installed capacity currently supplied by nuclear. Perhaps this means there is serious consideration of using solar energy collected (and exported) from Western Sahara to power Europe. Could this be one of the reasons for the talk of a "Mediterranean Union"? (conceptually along the lines of the EU involving all states bordering the Mediterranean Sea - Southern Europe, North Africa, Middle East...)

I suppose, with HVDC transmission, it might be technically feasible. Financially and commercially, I just don't know.
Even if technical and financial considerations can be resolved/justified, I think politics and national interests will be the biggest stumbling block.

Originally Posted by Karl

In terms of any plans for phasing out nuclear energy, the official description will not be "abandoning" nuclear plants - they will use a title such as "decommissioning" of the facilities.

Not just will. Do. In UK.
Nuclear plants are being decommissioned here. As yet, there is no replacement programme.
We are going to be in the sh one t.
It's when rather than if.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Karl

That would be a major consideration of course - how to replace (or substitute) the installed capacity currently supplied by nuclear. Perhaps this means there is serious consideration of using solar energy collected (and exported) from Western Sahara to power Europe. Could this be one of the reasons for the talk of a "Mediterranean Union"? (conceptually along the lines of the EU involving all states bordering the Mediterranean Sea - Southern Europe, North Africa, Middle East...)

But the Solar power idea won't work without nuclear to back it up. Even with increased wind turbine capacity in Europe, solar and wind cannot provide the reliable supply that Europe needs.

Even with molten salt, there are many issues with reliability, environmental impacts, and cost with CSP.

In terms of any plans for phasing out nuclear energy, the official description will not be "abandoning" nuclear plants - they will use a title such as "decommissioning" of the facilities. So apart from having to find a way to replace the percentage of the supply now derived from nuclear, there will also be a major problem with the decommissioning plans - not only in terms of how to safely dispose of the accumulated radioactive wastes (which may or may not be stored on site), but even the infrastructure of the facility itself. What is the "salvage value" of used nuclear infrastructure/equipment?

Any supply of energy has a finite life, even if its solar, wind etc. Ie. All equipment will need to be decommissioned at some point. For example, Denmark has already decommissioned some of its wind turbines.

There are no unsolved problems in decommissioning modern nuclear power plants, as they are designed to be one day decommissioned (unlike the early ones).

Much of the scrap metal will be able to be sold for scrap, some won't won't. But none of this is a problem, as nuclear waste is not a technical problem. We know how to deal with it.

Further to that, I have recently read of the considerable investment of France in facilities to prepare nuclear wastes for re-use in the energy generation processes (and that their technologies were some sort of example for all nuclear states to follow).

Indeed, there are still improvements and refinements to be made to make nuclear energy even more efficient.

Considering that it is further stated that 55% of Belgium's electricity comes from nuclear energy, it will be very interesting to see how this is handled...

Indeed

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by grumpy_old_man

Hi,

As mentioned in this blog, the Belgian government voted in 2002 a law to abandon nuclear power. One has made several attempts not to implement and thus cancel out this law.
The real truth is that Electrabel - the nearly monopolist power supplier in Belgium - doesn’t want these nuclear power plants to be closed. Built with tax money, they are already marked down (for depreciation) for years now and thus each day that those plants remain open are extra profit.

How is you government thinking about abandoning nuclear power?

The Australian Labor party simply said, "Capital N, Capital O!!", to Nuclear Power/Waste in Australia.