Comments on: UK Plans “Significant” Increase in Nuclear Power http://priceofoil.org/2008/03/06/uk-plans-%e2%80%9csignificant%e2%80%9d-increase-in-nuclear-power/ Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of oil and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy. We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming political barriers to that transition. Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:45:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Rod Adams http://priceofoil.org/2008/03/06/uk-plans-%e2%80%9csignificant%e2%80%9d-increase-in-nuclear-power/#comment-262646 Rod Adams Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:43:30 +0000 http://priceofoil.org/2008/03/06/uk-plans-%e2%80%9csignificant%e2%80%9d-increase-in-nuclear-power/#comment-262646 I fail to understand the relationship between an aggressive program of new nuclear construction in the UK and nuclear proliferation. If I am not mistaken, the UK has been a nuclear weapons power for more than 50 years. It not only knows how to build weapons, but it already has a sufficient number of them for effective deterrence. If nuclear fission power - which is clean enough to run inside a submarine is not a tool that can be used in the battle against climate change, then is climate change really that important to you. Not only is fission a proven source of emission free power, but it is one that has already proven that it can be rapidly employed on a large enough scale to make a difference. The world's nuclear power plants provide more than 16% of its electricity, and that market share was essentially captured over a 20 year period of construction. The construction process stopped as a result of many factors, but the active opposition from competitive energy sources played a huge part in that process. We know exactly how to handle the by products safely - we have been doing it for more than 50 years and not a single person anywhere in the world has been harmed by accidental exposure to the routine by products. In comparison, the WHO estimates that tens of thousands of people die prematurely each year because of exposure to the deadly emissions from fossil fuel energy sources. In the US, average nuclear production costs are about $17.20 per MegaWatt hour. That compares pretty favorably with coal at $23.70, natural gas at $67.50 and oil at $96.30 (all figures from Global Energy Decisions 2006). Sounds pretty darned economical to me. Definitely worth minding. I fail to understand the relationship between an aggressive program of new nuclear construction in the UK and nuclear proliferation. If I am not mistaken, the UK has been a nuclear weapons power for more than 50 years. It not only knows how to build weapons, but it already has a sufficient number of them for effective deterrence.

If nuclear fission power - which is clean enough to run inside a submarine is not a tool that can be used in the battle against climate change, then is climate change really that important to you. Not only is fission a proven source of emission free power, but it is one that has already proven that it can be rapidly employed on a large enough scale to make a difference. The world’s nuclear power plants provide more than 16% of its electricity, and that market share was essentially captured over a 20 year period of construction. The construction process stopped as a result of many factors, but the active opposition from competitive energy sources played a huge part in that process.

We know exactly how to handle the by products safely - we have been doing it for more than 50 years and not a single person anywhere in the world has been harmed by accidental exposure to the routine by products. In comparison, the WHO estimates that tens of thousands of people die prematurely each year because of exposure to the deadly emissions from fossil fuel energy sources.

In the US, average nuclear production costs are about $17.20 per MegaWatt hour. That compares pretty favorably with coal at $23.70, natural gas at $67.50 and oil at $96.30 (all figures from Global Energy Decisions 2006). Sounds pretty darned economical to me.

Definitely worth minding.

]]>