• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Provocative statements around energy
 

Provocative statements around energy

on

  • 524 views

Don't believe what is written in these slides.

Don't believe what is written in these slides.

These statements are just provocative statements, most of them found on internet, here for discussion and for brain storming.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
524
Views on SlideShare
524
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as OpenOffice

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Provocative statements around energy Provocative statements around energy Presentation Transcript

    • PROVOCATIVESTATEMENTS AROUNDENERGY “Provocative” statements. Do not take them as conclusions, just a list of statements found on internet.
    • Taiwan: HVDC connections to other countries ? I asked several times. Some people told me: “this will never happen, because of political issues.” Others said “It will be done, because it is good for everyone.”
    • Nuclear power in Taiwan orno nuclear power in Taiwan ? Active seismic faults run across the island, and some environmentalists argue Taiwan is unsuited for nuclear plants.[1]
    • 4,000 Times as Many People Die Per Unit of Coal Energy as Per Unitof Nuclear Energy http://www.geekosystem.com/coal-oil-nuclear-deaths-chart/
    • Casualties ///// FUKUSHIMAAccording to the Japanese Government, over 160,000 people in the generalpopulation were screened in March 2011 for radiation exposure and no casewas found which affects health.[318] Thirty workers conducting operations at theplant had exposure levels greater than 100 mSv.[319]As of September 2011, six workers at the Fukushima Daiichi site have exceededlifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significantradiation doses.[320] Still, there were no deaths or serious injuries due to directradiation exposures. Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposurescannot be ruled out, and according to one expert, might be in the order of 100cases.[321]Frank N. von Hippel, a U.S. scientist, has estimated that “on the order of 1,000”people will die from cancer as a result of their exposure to radiation from theFukushima Daiichi disaster, that is, an increase of 0.1 percent in the incidence ofcancer, and much less than the approximately 20,000 people killed directly bythe earthquake and tsunami. Because contaminated milk was “interdicted inJapan” the number of (mostly non-fatal) thyroid cancer cases will probably beless than 1 percent of similar cases at Chernobyl. Von Hippel added that “fear ofionizing radiation could have long-term psychological effects on a large portionof the population in the contaminated areas”.[67]
    • According to Wikipedia in French+English, thecasualties at Fukushima:1) <= 5 at the accident itself2) when people were leaving in a hurry, 40-503) <=20 more than 20mSv4) between 100 and 1000 persons for low irradiation (the lower limit is not defined)Total casualties including long term cancer: 1000 people (according to english webpage)Additionally: 20 000 to 50 000 persons moved
    • August, 1975: TheBanqiao Dam flooded in theHenan Province of China dueto extraordinarily heavy rainsand poor construction qualityof the dam built duringGreat Leap Forward,immediately killing over100,000, plus over 150,000died of subsequent epidemicdiseases and famine, totaldeath toll around 250,000,making it the worst technicaldisaster ever.
    • English summary:- the price of nuclear electricity is under-estimated, due to nuclear lobby- the price of nuclear electricity never takes into account the researchwhich has been necessary for it- my personal photovoltaic installation is cheaper than nuclear powerOlivier: je vais pas rentrer dans le debat sur le prix. Je suis sur que tu connais dejatous les arguments autour du prix du nucleaire. 1. Le prix de l,a R&D de la technologienest pas inclu (cest letat via les budgets de larmee qui a participe au developpementdurant des decennies), 2. le prix de demantellement des centrales nest pas inclu (cestdu boulot sur des dizaines dannees) 3. le prix de de gesiton des dechets nest pasinclu (idem mais des centaines voire millier dannees), 4. lassurance en cas dincidentnest pas inclu (aucune assurance naccepte dassurer et cest letat qui en dernierrecours prendrait en charge). Le prix, en general, est plus representatif de la volontepolitique en faveur ou non de la consommation delectricite et de la repsonsabilite dansla gestion, quautre chose. Aussi, pour finir, je reviendrais sur le fotovoltaique qui pourune installation personalle et independente est deja (calculatrice en main, et pour moncas, en Espagne) moins cher (meme sans subvention) que lelectricite du reseau.Meme si trois ou quatre calculs faciles de prix de revient sur une quinzaine dannees lemontre, le lobby nucleaire aide les medias a transmettre une image differente.
    • ChernobylFrom 1986 to 2000, 350,400 people were evacuated and resettled from themost severely contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.An UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64as of 2008.The Chernobyl Forum estimates that the eventual death toll could reach4,000 among those exposed to the highest levels of radiation (200,000emergency workers, 116,000 evacuees and 270,000 residents of the mostcontaminated areas)[...].The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that, among the hundreds ofmillions of people living in broader geographical areas, there will be 50,000excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths. For thisbroader group, the 2006 TORCH report predicts 30,000 to 60,000 excesscancer deaths, and a Greenpeace report puts the figure at 200,000 or more.The Russian publication Chernobyl, which has received criticism for itsmethodology and sourcing, concludes that among the billions of peopleworldwide who were exposed to radioactive contamination from the disaster,nearly a million premature cancer deaths occurred between 1986 and 2004.
    • FRANCE ELECTRICITY GENERATION
    • Coal power plants produce more radiation than nuclear power plantsIn fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal forelectricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than anuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. Scientific american, citing http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short
    • Environmental impact of the coal industryIn 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) andother organizations calculated that coal particulatespollution cause approximately one million deathsannually across the world,[4] which is approximatelyone third of all premature deaths related to all airpollution sources.Even in developped countries: nearly 24,000 lives ayear in the United States
    • U.S. ELECTRICITY GENERATION
    • Data source IEA/OECD, cited on Wikipedia
    • Frank van Mierlo (on Wikipedia)
    • HVDC connections do not work. and they will never work. (anynomous expert)
    • Association for the Study of Peak Oil,Wikipedia
    • Dr. Christoph Rühl, chief economist of BP,repeatedly uttered strong doubts about the peak oilhypothesis:[168]Physical peak oil, which I have no reason to acceptas a valid statement either on theoretical, scientificor ideological grounds, would be insensitive toprices. (...) In fact the whole hypothesis of peak oil– which is that there is a certain amount of oil in theground, consumed at a certain rate, and then itsfinished – does not react to anything.... (GlobalWarming) is likely to be more of a natural limit thanall these peak oil theories combined. (...) Peak oilhas been predicted for 150 years. It has neverhappened, and it will stay this way. (cited in Wikipedia) .
    • However, Physicist Bernard Cohen has proposed thaturanium dissolved in seawater, when used infast neutron breeder reactors, is effectively inexhaustible,and could therefore be considered a renewable source ofenergy.[90][91]
    • STABILITY OF WIND POWERCritics have raised the issue that the unpredictable intervals of near-zero output render windpower unsuitable as a base generating capacity.This, they say, creates a situation where alternative fast-responsegenerating capacity must always be on standby, negating any fossil-fuelsavings or reduction in carbon dioxide output.[22]In view of these findings, and of the heavy subsidy provided at publicexpense to UK windpower operators, as of February 2012 over ahundred MPs have written to the Prime Minister urging a reduction inthis subsidy. [23]
    • Hydroelectric power is dangerous, limited, and has serious environmental impactHydroelectric power is now more difficult to site in developed nationsbecause most major sites within these nations are either already beingexploited or may be unavailable for other reasons such as environmentalconsiderations.In the last twenty years international organizations like InternationalRivers, Hydropower Reform Coalition, World Commission on Dams,UNEP, World Conservation Union (IUCN), and the World Bank consideredchanging politics on large dams, as awareness about dams and hydro-energy generation environmental disadvantages grew, especially amongaffected populations. Hydro-energy and large dams may not beconsidered "clean" nor "renewable" sources of electricity because of theirserious social and environmental impacts.[32][33][34][35][36]
    • Geothermal resource is not strictly renewableThe government of Iceland states: "It should be stressed that the geothermalresource is not strictly renewable in the same sense as the hydro resource." Itestimates that Icelands geothermal energy could provide 1700 MW for over 100years, compared to the current production of 140 MW.[84] Radioactive elementsin the Earths crust continuously decay, replenishing the heat. TheInternational Energy Agency classifies geothermal power as renewable.[85]
    • DesertTecDESERTEC officials say the project could one day deliver 15 percentof Europes electricity and a considerable part of MENAs electricityDemand.Comment by an (anonymous :-) ) Taiwanese expert: it will never work.
    • Peak coalPeak coal is the point in time at which the maximum global coal production rate isreached, after which, according to the theory, the rate of production will enter to aterminal decline. Coal is a fossil fuel formed from plant matter over the course ofmillions of years. It is a finite resource and thus considered to be anon-renewable energy source.There are two different peaks: one measured by mass (i.e. metric tons) andanother by energy output (i.e. petajoules). The energy output per mass hasdropped significantly since 2000, so the energetic peak will come much soonerthan the mass peak.The estimates for global peak coal extraction vary wildly. Many coal associationssuggest the peak could occur in 200 years or more, while scholarly estimatespredict the peak to occur as soon as the immediate future. Research in 2009 bythe University of Newcastle in Australia concluded that global coal extractioncould peak sometime between the present and 2048.[1] Global coal reserve datais generally of poor quality and is often biased towards the high side.[2] Collectiveprojections generally predict that global peak coal extraction may occur sometimearound 2025 at 30 percent above current extraction.[3][4]
    • Cambridge Energy Research Associates authored a report that is criticalof Hubbert-influenced predictions:[53]Despite his valuable contribution, M. King Hubberts methodology fallsdown because it does not consider likely resource growth, application ofnew technology, basic commercial factors, or the impact of geopolitics onproduction. His approach does not work in all cases-including on theUnited States itself-and cannot reliably model a global productionoutlook. Put more simply, the case for the imminent peak is flawed. As itis, production in 2005 in the Lower 48 in the United States was 66percent higher than Hubbert projected.
    • Anonymous source: Electricity should be at least 30%more expensive in France.
    • Prices, all consumers merged:Taiwan 7 to 17 US cents / kWhRussia 9.58USA 11.20France 19.39Belgium 29.06Germany 36.48France has the lowest pre-tax price forelectricity in Europe, at 4.75 Eurocents/kWh,and second-lowest price with tax of Europeancountries.
    • “If research on nuclear energy is stoppeddue to Fukushima, this is the real tragedy of Fukushima.” Please dont ask me who said this.