Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

According to this Guardian reporter, the world is still better off with nuclear power than with the messy alternatives. An interesting and educational read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...apan-fukushima

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

I'm a big supporter of nuclear power. If you consider that if earthquake at Fukushim had happened 30 years ago at an older plant it would definitely have been a huge disaster we can see the technology is getting safer and safer all the time.

In the absence of a declining population and viable alternatives we don't really have a lot of choice really. I think there should be more thought put into where some reactors are located though...earthquake prone zones isn't the best idea!

N.

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

I don't really have too many issues with Nuclear power either... BUT, can you imagine how such a disaster would play out here?

The guys working on the Jap plants will almost certainly die for their efforts. They are doing this work for the greater good of their country, kudos, and because they want it fixed for their kids and gran-kids.

Now play that out here... A nice strong O&M team working under a contract. Plant goes wrong. The O&M team (which will be expats) leave by any means they can. The locals will either not be in work that day or will be on the first plane out. O&M contract is probably signed under UAE law and not really that enforceable, contractor never works in the UAE again - no big deal.

No one will put their life on the line as they are not working for their sovereign. Meltdown will be er... meltdown.

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

ive long since decided that the uae nuclear plan is our end date regardless of any other factors. the day they put the fuel rods in is the day after we fly out.

i've yet to see a house, building or anything else built here that is in any way anything other than a total pile of shite. its all been built by the cheapest bidder for less than quoted because so many people took a slice and substituted sub standard parts because they could get a deal on the side and pocket the difference.

they can afford to build the worlds safest possible nuclear power stations however we all know what will happen who will build it and who it will be staffed by. nuclear power here is possibly the stupidest idea yet to come out of the region. i absolutely guarentee there will be accidents, leaks and every horror imaginable and it will all "never happen"

as already said we dont need to imagine how different it would be from japan, we all know exactly how that one will pan out

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

I 100% agree with you here. It'll probably be the day we go too. Thankfully, it will be delayed well past 2017...

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

Solar! I'll say it again: SOLAR. If Aramco and the other nationals had put 1/10 of their profits into development of alternatives over the past 20 years, we wouldn't need oil or nuclear. It does tend to be a bit sunny out here.

I was dead set against nuclear--having lived in Kobe and seen what earthquakes can do, I was always anxious about the effects that a big one would have on a nuclear plant. Fukushima seems to have proved me wrong: yes, there probably will be some deaths as a result, but far fewer than from the supply chain and pollution of oil- or coal-fired plants.

Agree totally with the comments about building nuclear here. Total 'king lunacy.

And although Fukushima seems to have proved nuclear to be "safe" (its a pretty damned small statistical sample though), the decommissioning costs and the management of the waste for the next zillion years is a real concern.

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

Wouldn't the authorities just force expats to fix it in the event of a problem? How can the expats leave if the authorities prevent them from doing so?

Now I know there is a ocean of difference between how Asian expat blue collar are treated versus Western expats but if the situation was dire like with risk of Nuclear plant meltdown, wouldn't the authorities treat even Western expats working in the plant like they treat the Asians?

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

Probably that's why I said... by any means they can.

Makes you wonder if they could get an educated work force to sign up to the deal though.

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

I am mystified as to why places like the UAE aren't considering solar energy. I was told some story about the dust/sand causes problems with the panels, but there has to be a way around that. Surely every building should have a bunch of panels in their roof? :confused:

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

Considering the power usage of Emirati residents, solar panels on building rooftops would likely make a lick of difference. It depends on the building too, a high rise is a poor chice because it has high human density and low roof top surface area when compared to villas or small apartment complexes .

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...69C5FQ20101013

When Gulf nations surpass the US in per capita carbon emissions, solar is not going to help much unless they end covering miles and miles of desert with solar plants.

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/en...print-1.139335



Hardly surprising considering the AC usage and Dubai/Abu Dhabi's promotion of luxury lifestyle replete with all the big boy's toys that accompany it. But I think it's more than just luxury living as that is found elsehwhere, it just seems that the UAE is nonchalant about waste and doesn't think twice about energy usage, just looking at some of their projects, like The World, explains why the UAE has largest carbon footprint.

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

well they are. Shams in AD is a good (well bad actually) example of a large solar project. ( http://www.utilities-me.com/article-...habis-shams-1/ )

But, there are a number of problems. Namely:

1- cost

Gas works costs about 3-4cents/kwh, solar about 20cents/kwh. When you sell power to the end user at lower than the cost of production that is a big issue.

To put it in perspective, the shams project cost 600m USD - the cost for the same amount of conventional capacity would be around 80m USD. The shams project also consumes vast amounts of gas in pre-heating the plant. Some say shams by name, shams by nature.

2- technology
Dust here is an issue but like you say there are ways around this. The quality of light here is not great either (it is diffused in the dusty skys - i.e. we don't get blue skys here).

3- it's hot
Heat isn't great for PV panels.

4- Lack of supply
There are pretty much only two suppliers around and they are small companies. There is also concern about their ability to meet ongoing maintenance and warranty claims as they could simply go bust. People don't want to take the risk

5- Unknown
The technology degrades over time - sadly, we don't yet know by how much.

6- Tariff subsidies

People in the region have no idea how much electricity they consume due to it being sold too cheaply.

To get this to really work the regional governments need to lift the subsidy on electricity... can't see that going down well. Imagine your DEWA bill jumping 6 fold.


I could go on... but in short, it's not the no-brainier you think it is when you look at the economics. Of course, investment should be pointed that way to try and fix all of this and to give the region it's credit it is doing so. I agree that all new buildings should have panels on the roof - at least that way the primary cost is 'hidden' in the purchase cost of the apartments.

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

bollocks. just broken my 3 line post rule. Norm will have me now.

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

Thanks for the info. Very interesting.

Are solar panels not viable for villas? Fossil fuels won't last forever, the jury is still out on nuclear fuels (for many) and eventually we'll need an alternative. What will it be?

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

I would guess panels on villas makes sense. I think in Germany there are some rules on this now.

You may have read that the UK has just cut the feed in tariff for all wind projects.

A feed in tariff is effectively a concessional higher tariff paid by the government to encourage investment in that sector. For wind they were paying something like 30p/kwH. Anyway, they have just cut it to around 8p/kwH making a lot of existing schemes uneconomic (and possibly bankrupt). It will also rule out all future schemes as no one will trust the government anymore to behave on the feed in tariffs.

Spain has done the same. :thumbdown:

Re: Nuclear Power After Fukushima
 

any info on the UK's solar feed in tariff? saw a few solar farms has sprung up?