The document discusses various statements and opinions on energy sources, particularly focusing on nuclear power, its associated risks, and comparisons with coal and other energy sources. It highlights controversies surrounding Taiwan's nuclear energy potential, the Fukushima disaster's impact, and the ongoing debate about the economic viability of nuclear energy versus renewable sources. Additionally, the document touches on the environmental implications and mortality related to energy production methods, emphasizing the complexity of energy policies and public perception.

1. PROVOCATIVE
STATEMENTS AROUND
ENERGY
“Provocative” statements.
Do not take them as conclusions,
just a list of statements found on internet.

2. 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.”

3. Nuclear power in Taiwan or
no nuclear power in Taiwan ?
Active seismic faults run across
the island, and some
environmentalists argue Taiwan
is unsuited for nuclear plants.[1]

4. 4,000 Times as Many People Die Per Unit of Coal Energy as Per Unit
of Nuclear Energy
http://www.geekosystem.com/coal-oil-nuclear-deaths-chart/

6. Casualties ///// FUKUSHIMA
According to the Japanese Government, over 160,000 people in the general
population were screened in March 2011 for radiation exposure and no case
was found which affects health.[318] Thirty workers conducting operations at the
plant had exposure levels greater than 100 mSv.[319]
As of September 2011, six workers at the Fukushima Daiichi site have exceeded
lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant
radiation doses.[320] Still, there were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct
radiation exposures. Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures
cannot be ruled out, and according to one expert, might be in the order of 100
cases.[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 the
Fukushima Daiichi disaster, that is, an increase of 0.1 percent in the incidence of
cancer, and much less than the approximately 20,000 people killed directly by
the earthquake and tsunami. Because contaminated milk was “interdicted in
Japan” the number of (mostly non-fatal) thyroid cancer cases will probably be
less than 1 percent of similar cases at Chernobyl. Von Hippel added that “fear of
ionizing radiation could have long-term psychological effects on a large portion
of the population in the contaminated areas”.[67]

7. According to Wikipedia in French+English, the
casualties at Fukushima:
1) <= 5 at the accident itself
2) when people were leaving in a hurry, 40-50
3) <=20 more than 20mSv
4) 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

8. August, 1975: The
Banqiao Dam flooded in the
Henan Province of China due
to extraordinarily heavy rains
and poor construction quality
of the dam built during
Great Leap Forward,
immediately killing over
100,000, plus over 150,000
died of subsequent epidemic
diseases and famine, total
death toll around 250,000,
making it the worst technical
disaster ever.

9. English summary:
- the price of nuclear electricity is under-estimated, due to nuclear lobby
- the price of nuclear electricity never takes into account the research
which has
been necessary for it
- my personal photovoltaic installation is cheaper than nuclear power
Olivier: je vais pas rentrer dans le debat sur le prix. Je suis sur que tu connais deja
tous les arguments autour du prix du nucleaire. 1. Le prix de l,a R&D de la technologie
n'est pas inclu (c'est l'etat via les budgets de l'armee qui a participe au developpement
durant des decennies), 2. le prix de demantellement des centrales n'est pas inclu (c'est
du boulot sur des dizaines d'annees) 3. le prix de de gesiton des dechets n'est pas
inclu (idem mais des centaines voire millier d'annees), 4. l'assurance en cas d'incident
n'est pas inclu (aucune assurance n'accepte d'assurer et c'est l'etat qui en dernier
recours prendrait en charge). Le prix, en general, est plus representatif de la volonte
politique en faveur ou non de la consommation d'electricite et de la repsonsabilite dans
la gestion, qu'autre chose. Aussi, pour finir, je reviendrais sur le fotovoltaique qui pour
une installation personalle et independente est deja (calculatrice en main, et pour mon
cas, en Espagne) moins cher (meme sans subvention) que l'electricite du reseau.
Meme si trois ou quatre calculs faciles de prix de revient sur une quinzaine d'annees le
montre, le lobby nucleaire aide les medias a transmettre une image differente.

10. Chernobyl
From 1986 to 2000, 350,400 people were evacuated and resettled from the
most severely contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.
An UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64
as of 2008.
The Chernobyl Forum estimates that the eventual death toll could reach
4,000 among those exposed to the highest levels of radiation (200,000
emergency workers, 116,000 evacuees and 270,000 residents of the most
contaminated areas)[...].
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that, among the hundreds of
millions of people living in broader geographical areas, there will be 50,000
excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths. For this
broader group, the 2006 TORCH report predicts 30,000 to 60,000 excess
cancer deaths, and a Greenpeace report puts the figure at 200,000 or more.
The Russian publication Chernobyl, which has received criticism for its
methodology and sourcing, concludes that among the billions of people
worldwide who were exposed to radioactive contamination from the disaster,
nearly a million premature cancer deaths occurred between 1986 and 2004.

11. FRANCE ELECTRICITY GENERATION

13. Coal power plants produce more
radiation than nuclear power plants
In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for
electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a
nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
Scientific american, citing
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short

14. Environmental
impact of the coal
industry
In 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) and
other organizations calculated that coal particulates
pollution cause approximately one million deaths
annually across the world,[4] which is approximately
one third of all premature deaths related to all air
pollution sources.
Even in developped countries: nearly 24,000 lives a
year in the United States

15. U.S. ELECTRICITY GENERATION

16. Data source IEA/OECD, cited on Wikipedia

19. Frank van Mierlo (on Wikipedia)

21. HVDC connections do not work.
and they will never work.
(anynomous expert)

25. Association for the Study of Peak Oil,
Wikipedia

26. Dr. Christoph Rühl, chief economist of BP,
repeatedly uttered strong doubts about the peak oil
hypothesis:[168]
Physical peak oil, which I have no reason to accept
as a valid statement either on theoretical, scientific
or ideological grounds, would be insensitive to
prices. (...) In fact the whole hypothesis of peak oil
– which is that there is a certain amount of oil in the
ground, consumed at a certain rate, and then it's
finished – does not react to anything.... (Global
Warming) is likely to be more of a natural limit than
all these peak oil theories combined. (...) Peak oil
has been predicted for 150 years. It has never
happened, and it will stay this way.
(cited in Wikipedia)
.

27. However, Physicist Bernard Cohen has proposed that
uranium dissolved in seawater, when used in
fast neutron breeder reactors, is effectively inexhaustible,
and could therefore be considered a renewable source of
energy.[90][91]

28. STABILITY OF WIND POWER
Critics 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-response
generating capacity must always be on standby, negating any fossil-fuel
savings or reduction in carbon dioxide output.[22]
In view of these findings, and of the heavy subsidy provided at public
expense to UK windpower operators, as of February 2012 over a
hundred MPs have written to the Prime Minister urging a reduction in
this subsidy. [23]

29. Hydroelectric power is dangerous, limited,
and has serious environmental impact
Hydroelectric power is now more difficult to site in developed nations
because most major sites within these nations are either already being
exploited or may be unavailable for other reasons such as environmental
considerations.
In the last twenty years international organizations like International
Rivers, Hydropower Reform Coalition, World Commission on Dams,
UNEP, World Conservation Union (IUCN), and the World Bank considered
changing politics on large dams, as awareness about dams and hydro-
energy generation environmental disadvantages grew, especially among
affected populations. Hydro-energy and large dams may not be
considered "clean" nor "renewable" sources of electricity because of their
serious social and environmental impacts.[32][33][34][35][36]

30. Geothermal resource is not strictly renewable
The government of Iceland states: "It should be stressed that the geothermal
resource is not strictly renewable in the same sense as the hydro resource." It
estimates that Iceland's geothermal energy could provide 1700 MW for over 100
years, compared to the current production of 140 MW.[84] Radioactive elements
in the Earth's crust continuously decay, replenishing the heat. The
International Energy Agency classifies geothermal power as renewable.[85]

31. DesertTec
DESERTEC officials say the project could one day deliver 15 percent
of Europe's electricity and a considerable part of MENA's electricity
Demand.
Comment by an (anonymous :-) ) Taiwanese expert: it will never work.

32. Peak coal
Peak coal is the point in time at which the maximum global coal production rate is
reached, after which, according to the theory, the rate of production will enter to a
terminal decline. Coal is a fossil fuel formed from plant matter over the course of
millions of years. It is a finite resource and thus considered to be a
non-renewable energy source.
There are two different peaks: one measured by mass (i.e. metric tons) and
another by energy output (i.e. petajoules). The energy output per mass has
dropped significantly since 2000, so the energetic peak will come much sooner
than the mass peak.
The estimates for global peak coal extraction vary wildly. Many coal associations
suggest the peak could occur in 200 years or more, while scholarly estimates
predict the peak to occur as soon as the immediate future. Research in 2009 by
the University of Newcastle in Australia concluded that global coal extraction
could peak sometime between the present and 2048.[1] Global coal reserve data
is generally of poor quality and is often biased towards the high side.[2] Collective
projections generally predict that global peak coal extraction may occur sometime
around 2025 at 30 percent above current extraction.[3][4]

33. Cambridge Energy Research Associates authored a report that is critical
of Hubbert-influenced predictions:[53]
Despite his valuable contribution, M. King Hubbert's methodology falls
down because it does not consider likely resource growth, application of
new technology, basic commercial factors, or the impact of geopolitics on
production. His approach does not work in all cases-including on the
United States itself-and cannot reliably model a global production
outlook. Put more simply, the case for the imminent peak is flawed. As it
is, production in 2005 in the Lower 48 in the United States was 66
percent higher than Hubbert projected.

34. Anonymous source:
Electricity should be
at least 30%
more expensive in France.

35. Prices, all consumers merged:
Taiwan 7 to 17 US cents / kWh
Russia 9.58
USA 11.20
France 19.39
Belgium 29.06
Germany 36.48
France has the lowest pre-tax price for
electricity in Europe, at 4.75 Eurocents/kWh,
and second-lowest price with tax of European
countries.

36. “If research on nuclear energy is stopped
due to Fukushima, this is the real tragedy of
Fukushima.”
Please don't ask me who said this.