AzTeK

I generally am not even really opposed to nuclear, I find it a very reasonable choice, but what drives me mad is the masking of the costs of it. Nuclear energy is constantly described as "cheap and clean". You can argue about how clean it is, but it is certainly not cheap. In all the cost calculation, neither the billions and billions of dollars in government subsidies/funding (in Europe through EURATOM) nor the cost for safely disposing the nuclear waste (you have to take into consideration that the site where it is stored has to survive for thousands and thousands of years), in the cases where it is not resued, is figured in. Seriously, the US 2005 energy bill gave the nuclear energy industry $7 billion grants for research and $7.3 billion in tax breaks. Wtf? So is it cheap now or is it not? Obviously not, coz otherwise it wouldn't have to be funded by taxpayer money - the nuclear industry over the past 60 years in the US alone has received 30 times more taxpayer money than all other alternatives combined.

In any case, even if you look at pro-nuclear websites you'll see that nuclear has a hard time competing with wind, not to speak of hydro, and that's without taking into consideration what I mentioned above.

Also, a problem that is always brought up with wind is the intermittent supply of electricity. This problem does not really exist, since even nowadays it is common practice to use excessive windpower when it is not needed (in the middle of the night for example) to pump water up into pump storage powerplants, and then, when the demand arises, just let that water flow down again and generate electricity in regular turbines, like in this case or in this power plant. An overall explanation of the technology can be found here, but I guess the principle is pretty straight forward to understand. Wind energy can very effectively be stored using pump storage plants. Of course if you have a time when there is like absolutely no wind for a couple of days you have a problem, but then again the sites where wind powerplants are built are specifically chosen so that there is as always a pretty constant flow of wind available.

__________________

jaro

Austria certainly lacks engineers that have experience and training for working in a nuclear power plant, that's what I meant by "lack of knowledge how to run it". Sure new ones could be trained in simulators & existing power plants elsewhere, but the point is, there is nobody in Austria to speak against "green fanatics" . Sometimes, here we hear about Austrian greens asking Austrian government to demand closure of our nuclear power plants. Usually such demands by greens seem to be quietly ignored by Austrian government, but you can imagine the reactions in newspaper forums it produces when such news are presented.

That's a contradiction, are you neutral or quite opposed to it? Closure of Slovak nuclear plant in Jaslovske Bohunice won't cause insurmountable problems, since probably new blocks will be finished in Mochovce. Only a small percentage of total power is produced by nuclear power plants. But EU caused much more serious problems in Romania and Bulgary, which are much poorer countries and replacement will be a heavier burden for them. At least it was a good lesson that EU not always works to the advantage of member states.

I agree that it is expensive. But landblocked countries with few suitable rivers have only the choice to build coal/gas power plants or nuclear. Gas won't pay off in the future, and coal produces lot of CO2.

__________________
No loyalty towards the EU.

In Russia is freedom of speech. In America is also freedom after speech. -- Yakov Smirnoff

AzTeK

They have wind. Austria, specially the province of Styria, was always said to be completely unsuited for wind generation and yet after several studies, the province of Styria was found to sport some 28 areas where wind powerplants can be built under economic, energetic but also infrastructural standpoints. In total the province of Styria, again, a province that was said to not have any wind capacity, was found to have a potential of atleast 150 GWh/a of electricity generation from wind. Combined with the loads of pump storage powerplants we have in Styria and all of Austria, it presents a very viable alternative. Sure it's not "amazing" - only roughly 2.5% of total Austrian electricity consumption - but it's not bad. Other provinces have better win dressources, so added up, wind could make up a considerable amount of our electricity generation.

I have no info on Slovakia, but I am sure there must be some suitable regions there as well.

BTW, what do you mean by "gas won't pay off in the future"? Gas is really not much more expensive than coal (http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf) - both range at around 3 to 4 ct/kWh. In any case, with emissions rights becoming increasingly expensive (an dufel costs obviously as well), I wouldn't bet on coal and gas staying as cheap as they now where. Wind however is already competitive (at something around 6 ct/kWh), and for wind, the price can only go down.

__________________

jaro

Price of gas will go up in the future, as consumption increases. 15 years ago they started building gas pipes in many small Slovak villages, at a time when gas price was about 1/3 of the current price, and now it is slowly becoming unprofitable for heating in villages. I'm affraid price of gas will rise faster than of coal in the next 15 years. I agree that wind will become very competitive once price of gas goes up again.

__________________
No loyalty towards the EU.

In Russia is freedom of speech. In America is also freedom after speech. -- Yakov Smirnoff

AzTeK

Wind already is very competitive. Move government subsidies for fossil fuels away to renewables and wind will economically wipe the floor with anything else out there.

BTW, I also forgot that you always have biomass that you can use to power CHP plants. In Europe generally speaking, more forest grows back each year than is cut down, so there's a lot of room to implement a sustainable biomass industry as well. And that doesn't even really require any new technology.

__________________

Slartibartfas

Of course you can say that it lacks engineers that have gained working experience with a full scale nuclear power plant reactor within Austria.
Austria does have however working nuclear test reactors and actually a quite capable academic community with known names like Anton Zeilinger on the field of nuclear physics.

Of course you can insist on the fact that there will be a lack of skilled workers in Austria. But whats the point? So what? France is eager to sell the European reactor type to anyone. While I am certain that running a nuclear power plant is a real sophisticated task, I can't see major obstacles of building and running one in Austria, apart from the fact that no one would dare to build one because of the wrath of the public. Staff can be hired, trained etc.

jaro

I don't see a major obstacle of running a nuclear power plant in Austria if such a decision is made. I merely pointed at the fact that current lack of such staff might be the reason behind lack of people who argument in favour of nuclear power in Austria. To me it seems Austrians are being presented only one side of the argument, thats why they are so anti nuclear.

__________________
No loyalty towards the EU.

In Russia is freedom of speech. In America is also freedom after speech. -- Yakov Smirnoff

Grez

Look, if we use coal for gasoline, for the next 20 years say, it'll be a hell of a lot better than 10$ a gallon. I bet if gas gets to 10$ a gallon you wouldn't give a shit about the environment, it'd be too damn expensive, which is pretty much the case for most envrionmentally sound things today. How bout, lets just use the coal gas for military, that'd cut down a lot wouldn't it? Most people need a break right? Well, this would help. If you people would let us start drilling in ANWR it'd drop prices almost immediately, not a ton but it'd be a start. We should have had the tech to drive cars on 200 mpg now, but we don't (well, we actually probably do, but its not available). China and India are depleting the ozone layer at a way higher rate than we are now, get on their ass. We were depleting our ozone layer way faster in the 30 yrs+ ago than we are now, bitch us out for our shitty job back then. Survival is my first instinct, and we can't survive on gas at 10$ a gallon or even close. And really, I can't imagine coal gas knocking off the earth any quicker than what we are doing now, maybe by a year or so over the long run.

Wheeldog

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 05/23/2008 | Here're the savings from Arctic drilling — 75 cents a barrel

WASHINGTON — If Congress were to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of Energy projections issued Thursday.

The report, which was requested in December by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, found that oil production in the refuge "is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices."

It is a myth that drilling in ANWR would substantially reduce the price of oil and gasoline. The U.S. Dept. of Energy contradicts this assertion. It should be noted that Sen. Stevens asked for the study thinking that it would help to open up the refuge to oil development. After the report was published he tried to spin the findings but now has largely disassociated himself from it.

Insofar as us not being able to survive with gas at $10 per gal., you seem to have a low opinion of American ability to face adversity. Of course $10 a gal. gas will make life more difficult, but we can and likely will adapt. Gas in Europe is pushing $8 a gal., but they seem to be adjusting. Are we that much weaker or so spoiled that we will become helpless unless we have cheap gas? I am active in disaster preparedness planning and training. A fundemental rule in dealing with disasters is, if you think you can't survive chances are you won't. Survival success is greatly influenced by attitude - and the willingness to face facts.

Slartibartfas

We definitely have enough nuclear scientists who would be enough into the matter to argue in favour of it in my opinion. I dont think they dare to so as it would make them untouchables in their own country, the issue is extremely emotionalized and its extremely anti-nuclear.

But nonetheless one reads balanced articles in newspapers from time to time, at least in the quality papers, but more often you don't see them, thats true.

Btw, no one would stop a German specialist to write in an Austrian newspaper about it, if there should be a lack of local specialists.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Common insult examples and how to avoid them