Nuclear energy on the way?!

[Texas Bill]

I find that I must side with Keith in this overall debate contra "Nuclear Power" for the DR.
Why??

Mostly for the reasons he outlined in his posts. Those reasons were well supported by factual evidence and impeccable logic as to the consequences of installing Nuclear Power Plants in the DR.

And, in addition:
Primarily because of the basic reason that the DR Government, no matter whose "Administration" we're under, has demonstrated that it is incapable of seeing to the TRUE business of "Governing".
Instead, these "Administrations" have focused on taking as many excess pesos out of the various budgets as possible without actually bankrupting the country. Hipolito's "Administration" being the exception.
We, here, like to blame the Dominican People for this ongoing theft and inefficiency for not voting out those who will/would take such advantage of their positions of Absolute Power, but can we really blame them for being ignorant of the consequences of their inactions when they have been exposed to such machinations for over 550 years with absolutely no deviation? I think not.
The DR Government functions are entirely too centralized and parochial to enumerate on this thread, but should the Government practice "SERVICE" instead of "business as usual" and at least make the attempt to be efficient with the services offered, then things just might pan out for the better.
That, of course, is wishful thinking.
The Electricity Sector, in order to become more efficient, should be entirely privatized by selling it's components to reliable foreign (European, US, or other) companies and management and placed under strict regulation designed to assure continuous, reliable, economical and transparent operations. Get the Government out of the "Ownership" cateory altogether.
Renegotiate the existing contracts to EXCLUDE the phrase "installed capacity" and use "delivered energy" instead. The companies can then sell their excess production to Haiti, who really needs it.
I know, this is not the place for such an assertion, but that assertion is germane to the issue being discussed herein.

Texas Bill

 

[Don Juan]

Agree with Texas bill.

If you all to think I'm totally crazy by advocating we go totally "nuclear". So be it. We're not unfamiliar with the consequences of this technology. especially as it applies to the DR. But it has its merits. There are beneficial aspects that can't be entirely ignored. I agree that there are too many technical, financial, tactical, etc. hurdles that need met but I don't see it as utterly impossible or unsuitable for DR. But enough of this. It ain't gonna happen no how.
To reiterate my point, enough power needs to be generated to satisfy industry and homes and I can't be absolutely sure that the "installed capacity", even if it delivered 100%, would meet today's and future demand for electricity.
Our energy crisis is many-fold. One, the national grid needs to be technically improved on. Two, the gov. has to get its hands off ( as Naufrago and Chris Colon stated). and third: quote by Texas Bill: "the government should practice service instead of business as usual". All factual statements that can be reversed if " The electricity sector,in order to become more efficient should be entirely privatized by selling its components to reliable foreign companies and management and placed under strict regulation designed to assured continuous, reliable, economical and transparent operations. Get the government out of the 'ownership' category altogether." Quote by T.B. All good and well. That can temporarily solve the problem. But... then there's still the trouble of how to deal with carbon spewing out of smokestacks. How many years do we have until all the "passive and clean" technologies come of age? Is it 10, 20 years?? How long do y'all think we have before the air is so saturated with soot that nothing grows and everything is dying, including us?
Then there's the difficulty of how to deal with Chavez and radical, oil bearing Muslims. How high do any of you think they will set the price mark? Will we, (DR) be able to afford $100 per barrel? Can we even afford it at today's $60?

DR's energy crisis goes beyond what is happening today. If we don't plan for the guaranteed eventuality of an oil shortage such as we've never seen before, our vision of a potentially prosperous nation, will cease to exist. along with our very lives........ Good night and good luck.

 

[batich]

According to today's Hoy, Argentina's ambassador reveals that his country is discussing the sale of nuclear reactors to the DR, as a solution to the energy problem.

I'm going to catch my breath and read this again.

Thank God I did not buy nothing here yet!!

Chernobil residents can tell alot about the future of the island and its residents if this project ever is realised. Just look at the pictures of their children born after the accident.

I bet american baby-boomers who plan to retire to DR know nothing about nuclear ideas.

 

[Keith R]

From a Nuclear Information and Resource Service fact sheet:

1. Major studies (MIT, Commission on Energy Policy, International Atomic Energy Agency) agree that about 1,500-2,000 new large reactors would have to be built for nuclear to make a large dent in greenhouse emissions. Operation of that many new reactors (there are 440 worldwide today) would cause uranium reserves to run out in just a few decades and lead to mining of lower grade uranium, which itself would lead to higher greenhouse emissions.

2. Construction of 1,500 new reactors would cost trillions of dollars, taking needed resources from clean and safe responses to global warming through energy efficiency and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

3, Construction of 1,500 new reactors means opening a new reactor once every two weeks for the next 60 years. Since it takes around 6-10 years for a reactor to be built, and the world's nuclear reactor manufactures can only build about half that amount, we are already far behind that schedule. We can't wait that long to solve the climate crisis.

4. Operation of 1,500 new reactors would require the need for a new Yucca Mt. sized radioactive waste dump somewhere in the world every 3-4 years. The scientific and political obstacles to achieving such a feat are insurmountable.

5. Odds of a major nuclear accident are approximately 1 in 10,000 reactor-years. Operation of 1,500 new reactors (plus 440 existing) would result in a Chernobyl scale accident as frequently as once every five years.

6. 1,500 new plants would require dozens or more new uranium enrichment plants, creating thousands of tons of plutonium and posing untenable nuclear proliferation threats.

7. Although the nuclear industry claims that nuclear electricity is carbon free, this does not take into account the entire nuclear fuel chain. Significant greenhouse gas emissions are emitted in uranium mining, milling, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication and waste storage. Nuclear fuel chain greenhouse gas emissions approach those of natural gas, and are far higher than from renewable energy sources.

 

[Keith R]

Again, don't anyone get me wrong. I not ruling out nuclear power being part of the mix in dealing with the challenge of global climate change (notice I don't use "global warming"). Where it makes sense economically and from the security (proliferation), environmental (primarily the waste storage/disposal issue) and safety viewpoints, then it should be considered.

I just happen to believe strongly that the DR is NOT one of those places, for all the reasons I have stated previously.

I also reject the idea that nuclear is the ONLY way out of global climate change, and that everybody must adopt it, or we are all doomed. That is a severe case of tunnel vision that will not work in the real world and I'd rather we all focus on an array of measures and options, each picked and implemented according to the local conditions and the countries' contribution to the global climate change problem. In other words, if a country contributes carbon emissions mostly through deforestation, address deforestation. If a country contributes mostly through emissions from coal-burning power plants, tackle them. Likewise, if a country has huge wind and solar potential, tap it rather than ignore in favor of fossil fuels and/or nuclear. So forth and so on.

 

[Keith R]

And for anyone tempted to claim that nuclear plant do not shut down for long periods due to health, safety or environment concerns, read the following report recently released:

Since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island 27 years ago, 38 U.S. nuclear power reactors have had to shut down for at least a year?some more than once. These extended outages typically result from poor oversight that allows safety problems to multiply and worsen to dangerous proportions, putting the public at risk unnecessarily. A new UCS report identifies common themes among year-plus outages and outlines steps the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should take to avoid another Three Mile Island (or worse).

www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/20060918-nuclear-tightrope-maps.pdf

 

[Keith R]

I've tried twice to append something to my last post, but for some reason the site is not allowing me to edit. so I apologize for yet another post in a row, but wanted to add these afterthoughts:

Given the findings in the UCS, just imagine the DR deciding to go nuclear power! Given the size of a plant, the size of DR's market (now & for foreseeable future), and inability to sell power to any neighbors, the DR would have to go almost completely nuclear based power generation. So what happens to the DR economy if that plant has to go offline for weeks, months, or even a year?

Talk about vulnerability, Juan! You go from hostage to OPEC (include Chavez) to everything pinned on the successful and safe operation of a single plant.

The Dominican government would never take it offline just for health, safety or environmental reasons, you respond? Maybe so, but doesn't that very thought concern you? It does me...


P.S. the link I included above was for a map graphic that accompanied the UCS report. The link for the report itself is:
www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/nuclear_tightrope_report-highres.pdf

 

[gringosabroso]

Argentina? Haiti?

1. Assuming that the DR wants to or will buy a nuclear reactor: Argentina? Why Argentina? Why not the US, Canada, Germany, France or the UK. Any country but Spain! For obvious reasons.

2. Can't the DR contract with Canada [for example] the complete construction, operation & maintenace of the reactor? Completely? Why not the actual distribuion and sale of the power.

3. When was the last time there was a nuclear accident on our planet? 40 - 50 years ago? The 2004 Tsunami in Indonesia killed 230,000 people. If people are really worriend @ 3 mile Isalnd, etc. why not locate the nuclear plant in Haiti? The Haitians receive some very considerable constant income & run the risk of a nuclear disaster. A 300 year lease? I'll wager that they are willing.

4. Costs? Assume that there wer a working nuclear plan in the DR since 2000, for the sake of argument: what would the cost of nuclear generated electricity in the DR have been & be, based on the average combined costs to the consumer of nuclear generated electricity in Germany, France, & the UK? From 2000 to 2006? Has anyone done the math?

5. Wouldn't Japan & India love a shot at building this. How many nuclear accidents have there been in India or Japan in the past 20 - 30 years? Food for thought!

 

[gary short]

Do the math

3,4,5 billion to construct a nuke power plant....Who's going to finance it.....the World bank???????? Talk about selling your soul to the devil..