Russian gas cutoff energizes nuclear comeback - C.S. Monitor

[Eugene]

Source: Christian Science Monitor

Russian gas cutoff energizes nuclear comeback
Italy, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Britain are
among those giving nuclear another look.

By Anna Momigliano
Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the January 16, 2009 edition

Milan, Italy - Europe's natural gas crisis is
causing a nuclear fallout of sorts.

With the squabble between Russia and Ukraine leaving
much of the continent with uncertain gas supplies,
some governments seem to be getting over their
"Chernobyl complexes" and are returning to nuclear
energy, hoping it will provide a form of reliable,
domestically produced energy.

Slovakia and Bulgaria, among the worst hit by the
gas cutoff, announced this week that they may reopen
Soviet-era reactors that had been dismantled in recent
years, before the countries joined the European Union.

-snip-

Leaders of Russia and Ukraine are expected to meet in
Moscow Saturday to discuss the crisis, which began
Jan. 6. Even if natural-gas supplies are fully restored,
many worry the crisis will only be repeated next winter
– after all, this is the third year in a row for a
energy spat. Experts say the underlying causes of
corruption and political disputes show no end of
abating.

These factors helped prompt the Italian government to
recently declare its intention to return to atomic
energy, despite two decades of officially shunning
the power source.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0116/p06s01-wogn.html

[GliderGuider]

1. NG disruptions have nasty environmental consequences

Bangladesh turns to coal, Bulgaria and Slovakia restart old nukes...

How come these people aren't just putting up windmills? I thought wind and solar were supposed to be a slam-dunk?

[kristopher]

2. That's the same logic of a climate change denier

Who cherry picks nodes in a much larger matrix and attempts to use them as representative of what that matrix means.

We have the technology, the industrial base and the existing energy infrastructure that permits us to exert an inertia sufficient to alter the global energy path. Bulgaria, Bangladesh and Slovakia are not comparable.

[GliderGuider]

3. You don't have much room for cynical humour on this issue, do you?

Climate change denier? I'm the guy who thinks billions may die before the end of the century because of climate change.

The point of my post that was obscured under my cynicism is that countries (being human) will choose the most expedient means available to deal with NG disruptions. The more sudden the disruption, the more expedient the response. A long slow decline in America's NG supply will have a much different outcome than a sudden disruption in these countries, and the underlying point is that there could be a lot of countries for whom gentle, ethical, green responses are not possible or desirable for a variety of technical, political or economic reasons. It doesn't take a lot of smaller countries doing damage like this to offset any good the USA may be able to accomplish.

[kristopher]

4. I understood you point

Both the original and the modified version. Yes, they are going to behave like economic animals, however we have the ability to alter the nature of the choices available not only in extreme circumstances, but in more mundane conditions also.

IF we create the manufacturing base needed to satisfy our needs in the timeframe required, the result will be an altered order of preference for energy related economic decisionmaking for the entire world.

[GliderGuider]

5. The key is "in the timeframe required"

I rather suspect that the required timeframe is one to two years -- at least for countries in Eastern Europe. If it takes one year to re-start a mothballed nuke and 5 years to acquire the same amount of wind power from American suppliers, what are they going to choose? Especially when the capital costs of the reactor are already sunk?

[kristopher]

6. The timeframe reference was to the US. nt

[GliderGuider]

7. If your (USA) required timeframe is 10 years

how will that provide "an altered order of preference for energy related economic decisionmaking for the entire world" when the rest of the world needs it in two?

[kristopher]

9. WTF are you talking about.

You are forever going off the original discussion into diversions that are totally irrelevant.

This is your original post:
"Bangladesh turns to coal, Bulgaria and Slovakia restart old nukes...

How come these people aren't just putting up windmills? I thought wind and solar were supposed to be a slam-dunk?"

You're obviously saying that since those countries don't respond to their current energy needs with wind and solar, the claims that are being made HERE regarding wind and solar are false.

My response points out that this argument is specious since those countries don't have the same framework for economic decision making regarding energy that WE do.

Since, you've tried to tap dance with diversionary nonsense instead of just admitting that your original claim has the same merit as the argument of someone pointing to a cold winter as evidence of a global warming hoax.

At no point did I indicate that the choices available to US are an answer to the immediate problems facing Europe.

[madokie]

8. That has to be the most asinine reply I've read yet

:rofl:
I suppose it would be possible to build and deploy a wind turbine, like right now. :rofl:

Obama won not mcCain't
:rofl: