Fri Sep 14, 2012, 06:17 PM

bananas (20,292 posts)

Nuclear power champions Japan and France turn away

Source: Reuters

Two of nuclear power's greatest champions dealt the industry a heavy blow on Friday, with Japan deciding to phase out its plants and France confirming plans to cut its heavy reliance on the technology following concern over the Fukushima disaster.

Japan, which produced more than 10 percent of global nuclear power before it suffered last year's accident at Fukushima, joins Germany, Switzerland and Belgium in deciding to shut down nuclear plants and to spend money on renewable energy instead.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced Japan would pull out of nuclear power by the 2030s and triple the share of renewable sources to 30 percent of its energy mix.

In Paris, President Francois Hollande confirmed his campaign pledge to cut the share of nuclear power in France's energy mix to 50 percent by 2025 from 75 percent. At the same time he urged the European Union to set tough targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions for 2030 and 2040.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-energy-nuclear-idUSBRE88D1DR20120914

It's a shame so many fell for the nuclear industry PR campaign.

7 replies, 1500 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

7 replies	Author	Time	Post
Nuclear power champions Japan and France turn away (Original post)	bananas	Sep 2012	OP
What's a shame	a geek named Bob	Sep 2012	#1
The UK government just issued another report debunking the thorium hype	bananas	Sep 2012	#2
Atomic batteries have been around for a while...	a geek named Bob	Sep 2012	#3
I agree whole heartedly.	defacto7	Sep 2012	#4
All we need...	a geek named Bob	Sep 2012	#5
More localized sources?	Heywood J	Sep 2012	#6
The way you word it, I agree...	defacto7	Sep 2012	#7

Response to bananas (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 06:19 PM

a geek named Bob (2,715 posts)

1. What's a shame

is that we collectively chose the wrong style of nuclear power to work with.

Reply to this post

Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 06:46 PM

bananas (20,292 posts)

2. The UK government just issued another report debunking the thorium hype

It's a shame so many fell for the thorium hype.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/13/thorium-alternative-nuclear-fuel-overstated

Benefits of thorium as alternative nuclear fuel are 'overstated'

A report on thorium's potential says the UK should continue to research the technology but downplays proponents' claims

Mark Halper
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 13 September 2012 02.00 EDT

The benefits of an alternative nuclear fuel that could offer a safer and more abundant alternative to the uranium that powers conventional reactors have been "overstated", according a new government report on the potential of thorium.

The report says the UK should continue to be engaged with the technology but downplays claims by thorium proponents who say that the radioactive chemical element makes it impossible to build a bomb from nuclear waste, leaves less hazardous waste than uranium reactors, and that it runs more efficiently.

"Thorium has theoretical advantages regarding sustainability, reducing radiotoxicity and reducing proliferation risk," states the report, prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change by the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL). "While there is some justification for these benefits, they are often overstated."

<snip>

"Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that worldwide there remains interest in thorium fuel cycles and this is not likely to diminish in the near future," the report concludes. "It may therefore be judicious for the UK to maintain a low level of engagement in thorium fuel cycle research and development by involvement in international collaborative research activities."

<snip>

Reply to this post

Response to bananas (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 06:49 PM

a geek named Bob (2,715 posts)

3. Atomic batteries have been around for a while...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/yemane1/
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/chenw1/

Even a simple battery of Carbon 14 would give a good power source.

RTG's are a good solution for long term power.

It's a shame that so many people regard "Nuclear Power" as some sort of boogeyman...

Reply to this post

Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #3)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:39 PM

defacto7 (3,616 posts)

4. I agree whole heartedly.

There are nuclear alternatives to the massive power plant type. That was the mistake. Why think in terms of massive plants when smaller more efficient and localized energy sources would have been a better more practical, less likely to fail, systems could have been made? With the technology of the '70's we could have done so much better.

Now we have new nuclear technologies and system designs but no money to develop them nor the interest and of course irrational fears. The value of money/materials then could do incredible things now.

As far as fear of nuclear energy is concerned, I do have doubts of the safety and controllability of the old style plant. But I have a lot of confidence in the smaller localized methods that are (could be) coming into view. Doubt I'll see them in my lifetime though.

Reply to this post

Response to defacto7 (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:43 PM

a geek named Bob (2,715 posts)

5. All we need...

is for somebody to perfect the minute amount matrix power grid...

picture a grid of little RTG's, each below the 40 microcurie limit. Each providing a small bit of power...

Reply to this post

Response to defacto7 (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 11:41 AM

Heywood J (2,254 posts)

6. More localized sources?

I don't even trust a town to supply clean water. Why would I want/trust some local Boss Hogg to have any kind of responsibility over nuclear power?

Reply to this post

Response to Heywood J (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:07 PM

defacto7 (3,616 posts)

7. The way you word it, I agree...

But there are interesting new technologies that have emerged, that have been shelved or have little financial backing to continue serious development that are (for lack of a better term) exponentially safer and much smaller. Smaller units can be much safer just because of the ratio of active material to containment that is impossible for the mega plants we have now and also because they can run on a different mechanical principal.

I need to clarify that I am simply a novice. I'm basically passing along what I have gathered over some years. I'm interested in many and any non-fossil fuel power sources. I'm not an advocate of nuclear necessarily. I'm not an advocate of nuclear power as it is produced in the mass theatres they are now, but I am very interested in the new technologies that are known to science. I think there is too much fear of nuclear energy in general because of mistakes of the past. We don't have to stay in the past and the future does not have to repeat those mistakes.

My personal choices for non-fossil fuel energies: Wind, Solar, Wave, any of these in localized form and finally new and improved nuclear sources.

Reply to this post

Latest Breaking News (Forum)