What could possibly go wrong?

[kristopher]

MENA = Middle East North Africa

Nuclear Energy Insider: Post Fukushima, Intensified Interest in Nuclear Power in the MENA Region Continues
Thursday, May 17th 2012

In a bid to meet increasing energy demands, the last decade has seen energy-rich countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) turn to alternative energy sources such as nuclear power and renewable energy. However, in the last few years the interest in nuclear energy has intensified despite issues raised following the accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan.

There are a number of key challenges facing countries in the MENA region that are driving plans towards nuclear power generation, ultimately making this the most exciting region for nuclear contractors globally. In particular, countries in the region face:

Increasing energy demands due to population and economy growth
Energy independence
Reduction of reliance on fossil fuels
Increasing revenue on fossil fuel exports
Reduction of carbon emissions

As a direct result of these challenges there are significant plans in place to deliver considerable nuclear generation capacity in the region by 2030. The Middle East Nuclear New Build Report 2012 has summarised these announced plans below:

...

http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2012/05/17/nuclear-energy-insider-post-fukushima-intensified-interest-nuclear-power-mena-region-cont

I'm sure it is an "exciting" and profitable market for the corporations that make money selling nuclear technology, but to many the term "exciting" really doesn't capture the feeling that goes along with watching the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the world's most unsettled region.

[madokie]

1. In the reality of today how anyone can still see nuclear as safe and sane is beyond my comprehension

How do they do that?
Would having their heads in the sand explain it, or is it something more sinister at work here

[ZombieHorde]

2. They probably see it as safer than other alternatives.

For example, coal pollutes the air.

[kristopher]

3. Solar wind wave tidal and geothermal don't.

The use of coal as the only alternative to nuclear is a framing that is encouraged by the nuclear industry and contradicted by all independent energy systems analysts.

[madokie]

5. But thats all the pro-nuclear folks have

They don't see an alternative to coal except for nuclear to replace all the coal plants. Could you imagine the price of electricity if we were all nuke, right now. It would be astronomical both in the cost to rate payers in money and the world in the environment. Nuclear is neither cheap nor clean when you look at the big picture, the picture that many pro-nukies don't want to be reminded of. When you look at that big picture nuclear is no where near clean co2 wise either. Dangerous as hell to boot. Shut the bastards down, the last thing we need is another Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster no matter on what countries soil it happens. No one in the nuclear power industry knows what to do when shit like this happens as what is going on in Japan right this minute is proof of. We can get to where we need to be energy wise without either coal or nuclear in the mix.

[kristopher]

6. Please don't think that anyone who says that is automatically pronuclear.

Most all the players in the established energy industry have put a lot of resources into cultivating that false belief and some very well intentioned people whose motives are beyond reproach have accepted it without examination of the evidence supporting the claim.

[ZombieHorde]

7. I am pretty sure I have read a rebuttal against that, but I can't remember what it is.

What do pro-nuke folks usually say to you when you mention green energy? Inefficacy? Too much land?

I can't remember. We need a pro-nuke person to come and speak for him/herself. I don't want to build strawmen.

[kristopher]

8. It is a claim made without the support of analysis.

The existing literature produced outside of the sphere of the "nuclear village" (as it is called in Japan) is unequivocal in the conclusion that renewable resources can not only provide for the energy needs of our global culture, they can do it safer, more sustainably, more dependably and for lower long term costs than nuclear.

There are lots of studies that *start with the assumption* that nuclear power is needed, but all that look at the actual performance of nuclear as an alternative to carbon find it to be a substandard alternative.

[XemaSab]

9. I am one of the eeeeebil so-called pro-nukes.

I used to be against nuclear energy under any circumstances, but after a few years here it became clear that renewable energy has significant problems that will keep us from going 100% renewable any time in the foreseeable future.

According to the wikipedia, this is where energy in the US came from in 2009:



Note well that solar, wind, and geothermal together were 3.6% of our electrical generation, and nuclear was 20.3%. Conventional hydro was 6.9%.

I think we should make it a priority to get off that 44.9% from coal ASAP, and right after that we should try to cut way, way, way down on that 23.4% from natural gas. (And I'm not even talking about oil, just electrical generation.)

Between coal and natural gas, we would have to replace up to 68.3% of our existing generation. If we throw nuclear out of the mix, that number goes up to 88.6%. No amount of light-bulb changing or window-replacing is going to get us there.

Meanwhile, although there have been many significant advances made in renewable technology, there are serious limitations to the existing technologies.

Wind energy is very irregular, and needs to be buffered out with hydro power or natural gas. I think there are many places that are great for wind energy, but I am very uncomfortable with the thought of putting heavy machinery in our forests and other wild places. Of the wind farms that I have seen in California (Altamont, Hatchet Ridge, Bird Landing, Tehachapi, that one up above San Luis, and that one south of Joshua Tree, the one south of Joshua Tree is the only one that isn't smack in the middle of a wide area of good open habitat. The others are in the middle of grasslands, woodlands, and forests that don't currently have a large human footprint.

Similarly, solar energy does not provide a steady source of power either. That being said, I am a huge fan of solar panels, and I think we should put panels on houses, municipal buildings, parking lots, and brownfields as quickly as possible. It costs money, yes, but it creates jobs, saves the planet, provides shade, and generates energy right where it is needed.

I don't think huge solar farms out in the desert make any sense other than from a capitalist standpoint. These solar farms are built out there because it's public land. I think there's a lot of sleaziness that goes along with these projects, and the point of a lot of the projects isn't to generate clean energy but rather to generate venture capital. Because it's supposedly "clean" and because nobody gives a shit about the desert, there isn't a lot of scrutiny of these projects, but again, why are we so willing to put industrial equipment out in wild areas? Even the supporters of these projects say that we would need 10,000 square miles of desert covered in solar panels to power the US (though I don't remember whether this is for 24 hours of energy or for just peak usage). Why is it acceptable to take 10,000 square miles of open space and pave it over so that we can run our flat screen TVs and keep our McMansions at 68 degrees all summer? If we were talking about paving over ONE square mile of ANWR or Yellowstone or the Everglades or the Amazon rainforest there would be riots in the streets, but because it's the desert it's ok to trash it.

Geothermal is great. I can see two massive active volcanoes from my house, so why should I get any of my energy from fossil fuels at all? It's good for baseload, it's totally clean, and it never runs out.

I don't see our large dams all going away any time soon, so we may as well get as much energy from them as possible for now.

In summary, I think the future looks good for renewable energy, but I am worried that we will destroy more of our open space in the name of saving the planet. I think we need to keep our nuclear plants running while we are figuring out how to scale up our renewables. Right now if we got rid of nuclear energy, it would just mean burning more fossil fuels, and that is a step backwards.

This perspective, of course, makes me the bastard offspring of Sarah Palin and Hitler here in the E/E.

Now cue the screeching from the usual suspects telling me that everything I said is a Koch brothers talking point and I am wrong about every single thing I said here including but not limited to the number of active volcanoes visible from my house, rooftop solar creating jobs, and the future looking good for renewable energy.

[madokie]

4. but that is a whole different ball game

We need to stop using coal no doubt. What we really need to do is get rid of shit like Japans Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Get rid of the nukes and you've done that other wise there will only be more down the road.