Comments on: What are your thoughts on nuclear power as a base load power supply? Discussion. http://www.sustainableenergyblog.org/posts/2007/12/12/what-are-your-thoughts-on-nuclear-power-as-a-base-load-power-supply/ Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:59:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Christian http://www.sustainableenergyblog.org/posts/2007/12/12/what-are-your-thoughts-on-nuclear-power-as-a-base-load-power-supply/comment-page-1/#comment-149 Christian Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:06:26 +0000 http://www.sustainableenergyblog.org/posts/2007/12/12/what-are-your-thoughts-on-nuclear-power-as-a-base-load-power-supply/#comment-149 Yes this interview is full of BS. Wider deaths from increased cancers due to Chernobyl are far in excess of 60. Due to prevailing winds at the time Belarus took the brunt of the fallout and has yet to recover. And her claim that there are only 3 forms of baseload energy ignores geothermal and energy storage systems such as pumped hydro, compressed air etc. I agree that Nuclear is a good source of Baseload but IMHO Nuclear power can be supplied safely, it can be supplied cheaply but you cant do both. There are two things Ms Craven is either deliberately or ignorantly missing out on: 1)If nuclear power maintains its current contribution -- roughly 2.5% of the world's energy -- it can continue for about 75 years, under ideal conditions. If we ramp it up to supply 100% of the world's electricity, it could last only about 6 years, under ideal conditions. It simply cannot bridge the energy gap. 2)What nobody in the Nuke industry will tell you is how much it will cost to store the waste. Thats the real cost of nuclear power. Not the cost of mining it and fissioning it but the cost of storing and guarding it forever. Not to mention that no electorate in the country will accept a plant. How on earth do you let a contract for 100,000 years of guarding waste? Imagine still guarding Sumerian nuclear waste dumps or Roman ones. How much would that have costed so far? All in all a pretty shoddy interview. I've seen better nuclear advocacy in chat forums on the internet than what she presents in her interview. The fact she is a "a novelist, journalist and former nuke protester" should trigger the alarm bells. Obviously she has no technical comprehension whatsoever. Yes this interview is full of BS. Wider deaths from increased cancers due to Chernobyl are far in excess of 60. Due to prevailing winds at the time Belarus took the brunt of the fallout and has yet to recover.

And her claim that there are only 3 forms of baseload energy ignores geothermal and energy storage systems such as pumped hydro, compressed air etc.

I agree that Nuclear is a good source of Baseload but IMHO Nuclear power can be supplied safely, it can be supplied cheaply but you cant do both.

There are two things Ms Craven is either deliberately or ignorantly missing out on:

1)If nuclear power maintains its current contribution — roughly 2.5% of the world’s energy — it can continue for about 75 years, under ideal conditions. If we ramp it up to supply 100% of the world’s electricity, it could last only about 6 years, under ideal conditions. It simply cannot bridge the energy gap.

2)What nobody in the Nuke industry will tell you is how much it will cost to store the waste. Thats the real cost of nuclear power. Not the cost of mining it and fissioning it but the cost of storing and guarding it forever. Not to mention that no electorate in the country will accept a plant. How on earth do you let a contract for 100,000 years of guarding waste? Imagine still guarding Sumerian nuclear waste dumps or Roman ones. How much would that have costed so far?

All in all a pretty shoddy interview. I’ve seen better nuclear advocacy in chat forums on the internet than what she presents in her interview. The fact she is a “a novelist, journalist and former nuke protester” should trigger the alarm bells. Obviously she has no technical comprehension whatsoever.

]]>