Since I’ve been incautious enough to mention the N-word in the previous post, I’ll open another sandpit specifically devoted to discussions of the merits, and otherwise, of nuclear power. Any mention of this topic on other threads will be deleted and will risk bans or restrictions on the offender
Update Since it’s still going, I’ve moved it up, which should reopen comments
John Quiggin 
@BilB
Sure if you say so. Utter garbage.
Oh that sounds so horrible. More likely you’ve forgotten to take your prozac. The most dangerous “energy conversion machinery” ever devised are all the machines that dump CO2 into the atmosphere. BTW, no-one wants to bother with breeder reactors yet because Uranium is still cheap.
You’d be better of sticking to anti-dam activism.
Chris Oneill, you’ve been found out. You’re a “naysayer”. Your stuck on negative. It must have been hard for you to get through maths at school when for you 1 + 1 equals -2.
I did respond to Quokka’s ravings but it’s stuck in moderation for the moment.
But
“BTW, no-one wants to bother with breeder reactors yet because Uranium is still cheap”
from your own mouth is the essential problem.
In between time more of that desert clutter
http://www.gizmag.com/south-african-5gw-solar-plant/16839/
@Alice
Your arguments are a barrage of red herrings. I am considering the NECESSARY nuclear waste. Nothing you mentioned is necessary for nuclear electricity.
Antis have failed to the touch the genuine raw nerves with nuclear supporters, namely the cost and delay in building current generation nuclear plant and the possible non-arrival of the next generation technology. OTOH nukularists have a powerful fact on their side, namely that not a single coal fired power station has been shut down despite billions in subsidies for new renewables.
My advice to antis is to be less alarmist (radiation etc) and more pragmatic. That is how to fill the clean energy requirement by mid century at an affordable price. For all its problems renewable energy technology is quicker to build… but. That is where the argument should be based, not mired in lurid side-issues.
Hermit, you’ve taken the Nuclear safe as houses” line hook line and sinker.
And here is another little surprise for the radiation disappears enthusiasts
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/chernobyl-soil/
This material is post commercial operation waste storage, on a very large scale.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027.
Have a read of this and then convince yourself that Nuclear is safe and has never contminated or killed. You have to do a con job yourself to believe that to be the case.
Do a little reading on the properties of ceasium 137.
By the way that contaminated exclusion zone is a 30 kilometer radius 3000 square kilometers of land. If that accident occured on the East coast it would completely sever the main coastal passage while rendering useless a huge chunk of prime Australian coastal real estate.
This is where you say with total authority “that could never happen in Australia”. yeah right.
@Hermit
By tagging peoples moral and environmental concerns as lurid, you unfortunately disqualify yourself from consideration.
There has been enough discussion of all the ins and outs of the nuclear issue, and if that is all you can comprehend, then this only goes to show the sheer myopia of nuke pundits.
It is clear the nuke industry vastly increases risks and jeopardises the future happiness of following generations. In addition it tends towards massive secrecy, fake experts, high subsidies, nicotine science, monopolisation, “she’ll be right” or pragmatic policy considerations, and shrugging off of present level of disasters whether Chernobyl, or leakage from present waste sites in Europe.
Nuclear power is not the problem, it is the associated waste, economic, political and social risks and distortions that are foreshadowed.
And then our nuke pundits have the imbecility to suggest that they don’t want to get mired in lurid side issues. This arrogant gambit is precisely why we cannot permit nuclear power in Australia.
As soon as some nuke pundit calls for pragmatism, the issue is resolved. Pragmatism leads to cost-cutting, short-term efficiency, cost shifting, and long run injustice.
Scratch a pragmatists and find a capitalist.
@BilB
What a hypocrite. After all the anti-nuclear ideology you pour out.
What, that Uranium is still cheap?
@Chris Warren
Alas I won’t be taking advice from you. For the last 5 years I have been getting my power bill down to zero, driving my car on biodiesel and cooking exclusively with microwave and wood fired stoves. It has cost me tens of thousands of dollars and considerable inconvenience. Let me know if you have made a comparable effort because I suggest that 99% of the population is not set up to do this. My conclusion is that grid electricity must be reliable and cheap enough for the masses. Whoops that cuts out solar power and then wind power when gas backup is no longer affordable.
And FYI I do keep some radioactive material at home and my health is good. I decline to be either alarmed about nuclear nor deluded about renewables.
@Chris Warren
Amazing, Chris Warren complains about myopia and then quotes Chernobyl. What a hypocrite. Anyone who brings up Chernobyl isn’t too concerned about their own credibility.
BTW, I think perhaps the best argument against nuclear is that there is a good chance that photovoltaics will become economic by the time a nuclear power station starts supplying electricity, because this will be more than 10 years in Australia. Also, even if they are not economic until some time after nuclear supply commences, they will still affect the economics of nuclear electricity because there’s no point building a nuclear power station unless it’s useful for a long time, at least 50 years. As in other things, forcing nuclear electricity to not be used won’t work. If photovoltaics aren’t going to work then closing off our options won’t work either.
@Chris O’Neill
Anyone who thinks Chernobyl is myopia, has lost the plot.
Google it.
The more nuke pundits carry on like this, in a fog of nicotine science, more and more people will simply yearn for the day when renewables finally sweep them away.
It will also help you get over your myopia and tunnel vision if you also just try the very simplest Google searches on nuclaer and environment;
eg tritium leaking
@Hermit
I just laugh at people who think they are doing anything useful by individual action.
All did was boost the profits of whatever equipment suppliers you wasted your money on.
Fools and their money are easily separated, so I don’t think too many people will be listening to you.
Alas.
@Chris O’Neill
No Chris ONeill – my arguments are a barrage of reality against a sea of denialism – yours.
“Nothing I have mentioned”…ie Chernobyl or Nagasaki is “necessary for nuclear electricity generation” according to you.
You forgot I also mentioned weapons proliferation which you have not addressed, nor costed as a risk of nuclear, nor have you costed the risk of lower grade contamination by lower grade weapons cuch as deleted uranium used in Irag now producing every known form of ugly leaukaemic cancer in children and adults and likely will do so for whatever its radioactive life isis generations.
You people simply drive me insane with your short term “solely focussed on energy production” costings of nuclear without any of the costings of the associated OBVIOUS risks.
Wrong, wrong ad wrong again Chris ONeill. Try to get your head and your costings around the whole picture with Nuclear use – not just your “perfect world no accidents no weapons proliferation perfect human management nuclear compliance costings”.
You need a huge reality check. (and a kick up the bum).
What else can I say if I am to agree with the pro nuclears in this thread (which I rather hoped when I was on holidays would at least use up its half life) but…
Chernobyl was a human failing and we can fix all human failings.
Nuclear waste isnt a problem as long as you bury it in a foreign land.
Weapons proliferation doesnt exist (lets just ignore depleted uranium use in Irag and the cancer it is causing).
Of course …how silly of me. There are no external risks with uranium. We just cost the cost of immediate production, compare it to digging up coal and we ignore the rest (the waste, the weapons and the risks).
As if Chris Oneill. Some of us thankfully werent reborn on bravenewclimate.
@Chris O’Neill
and whats worse is Chris Oneill (who is still sans much needed kick in bum) says..
” Anyone who brings up Chernobyl isn’t too concerned about their own credibility.”
Oh dear – I think about one of the worlds most hideous uncosted nuclear accidents which rendered a huge swathe of land unproductive as well as caused illness for generations …
I must have no credibility because I cant forget Chernobyl…..the logic of pro nuclear proponents and want they want me to forget and what they want me not to mention…. ie Chernobyl…is simply mindboggling (lest I lose my credibility? Sheer insanity must already have grabbed me)
Chernobyl and lots of other nuclear accidents happened and they were and are ugly.
Dont you remember Chris O’Neill ? Not at all? Not any nuclear spillages, accidents or environmental disasters? Not surprising when tumours can be rather slow growing and people dont know it has leaked into the groundwater, but really you couldnt possibly have missed Chernobyl – its pretty damn obvious. I mean its still out of bounds to human entry. How many square miles? Have you looked that up Chris?
You must be too young to recall Chernobyl Chris. You must think it was a mere duststorm.. blown over now. I can assure you, you wont lose credibility by mentioning Chernobyl. It was more than a duststorm.
You will lose credibility by forgetting what happened there and not mentioning it.
@Alice
So where, pray tell, is it shown that it is necessary to make nuclear weapons, that haven’t already been made, and to bomb cities with them, in order to have nuclear electricity? Inquiring minds want to know.
And where, pray tell, is it shown that it is necessary to make power stations like Chernobyl in order to have nuclear electricity? Inquiring minds want to know.
I know you won’t answer these questions because you are blinded by anti-nuclear ideology.
Nuclear electricity makes no difference to proliferation of nuclear fission weapons and there are much cheaper, more effective and more easily accessible poisonous materials than Plutonium.
So you think the US military would never have had these materials available if nuclear electricity had never been invented. What other fairy tales do you know?
Nuclear waste management in West German Lower Saxony
Nuke Dump
They just stick their heads in the sand and pray it will just go away.
Fools 😳 😳
@Chris O’Neill
Chris Oneill says
“Nuclear electricity makes no difference to proliferation of nuclear fission weapons”
Im not going to comment. There is reams of evidence out there regarding the problems of nuclear weapons proliferation arising directly or indirectly in manufacture and production and storage from, near or around existing nuclear facilities, regardless of what the”stated purpose” of the facility is.
Ill let others tear your arguments apart Chris ONeill. Im clearly not going to change such an intractable pro nuclear mindset as yours.
@Alice
Sure if you say so. The way nuclear power stations are operated causes them to produce Plutonium that is useless for fission bombs (isotopic contamination). It is easy to monitor power stations to see if the operators ever tried to produce weapons-grade Plutonium with them. Indeed, the Uranium could be pre-contaminated with interfering Plutonium isotopes if authorities didn’t want to bother with inspections.
Promises, promises.
The aim of green(non carbon) technolgy is to reduce GHG emissions to save the planet from AGW. A reduction in per capita GHG emissions is the most effective measure of the success of the non carbon energy technolgy used by a country.
The three developed countries with the lowest per capita GHG emissions are Sweden, Switzerland and France. All use nuclear power or a mixture of nuclear and hydro to generate electricity.
By comparison, for 20 years Germany, Spain and Denmark chose wind and solar renewables to generate non carbon energy. Disappointingly all have failed to replace fossil fuel generators or reduce per capita emissions. We can learn from their mistakes and not repeat them. As one of the highest per capita GHG emitters in the world we need to pursue a policy of replacing our 22 large coal burning power stations with nuclear reactors ASAP. The end game is to reduce GHG emissions and give our grandkids an inhabitable planet.
Tom Bond, where is your data? By data I mean measurements collected by suitably qualified people and not figments of someone’s imagination.
For example, you could check your stuff with Table 1 in the following web-site from the European Environmental Agency for the period 1990 to 2004.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/GHG2006-en
Or you could check your stuff with the Bloomberg report for 2008,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ap23mLMeLBCU
According to the data I have referenced, Germany had exceeded its Kyoto target in ghg emission reductions by 2008.
If you still want to maintain the stuff you wrote @20 on this page, you would have to find statistics that showed that the population in Germany (not only citizens) declined by more than 22% during the period 1990 to 2008. Good luck to you finding such data!
Unless proven otherwise, the stuff you wrote @20 is misleading, even if one ignores the nuclear waste disposal problem in France with its spill over effects on Germany.
@Tom Bond
This is an old record that has been exposed in many preceding posts. The moral calculation is wrong and there are preferable ways for cutting fossil fuels.
Just reiterating old pro-nuke dogma serves no good purpose.
Tom Bond is quite correct:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:AUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=australia+co2+emissions+chart#met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:FRA:GBR:DEU:DNK:SWE:CHE:NLD:ESP
And you can see why here:
Click to access DEELEC.pdf
Click to access FRELEC.pdf
Click to access ESELEC.pdf
Click to access DKELEC.pdf
Good news on the AGW issue China is now planning to construct 112GW of nuclear power generation by 2020 instead of 70GW saving even more CO2 emissions.
France has finished processing the annual nuclear waste (123 tonnes in all) from Germany’s 17 nuclear power stations which generate 23% of Germany’s electricity and saves 150 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually. Surprisingly Greenpeace which claims to care about the environment has organised large protests against the shipment of this waste back to Germany.
Tom Bond, you forgot to mention that one of the 17 nuclear power plants (not stations) in Germany did not produce any electricity at all as at June 2010 and 19 nuclear power plants have been de-commissioned in Germany.
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-germany.htm
Nuclear promoters, like you, focus entirely on C02 emissions as if this would be the only environmental problem. One of the many environmental problem created by nuclear power generation you should inform yourself about concerns the effect of water cooling of reactors on the temperature of a river. For example, the reactor known as Isar I in Germany raises the temperature of the river Isar by about 2.5 degrees C. This is not Greenpeace information but information by the owner of the plant.
http://www.eon-kernkraft.com/pages/ekk_en/Nuclear_Power_Plants/Locations/Kernkraftwerk_Isar/index.html
You see, focusing only on C02 is not a good idea.
@Ernestine Gross
mainly “experimental, prototype and demonstration”
So what?
Why do you single out nuclear power generation for criticism of its effect on river temperature? This is an effect of coal-burning power stations as well. And like coal-burning power stations, there are cooling methods that don’t require warming a river by 2.5 degrees C. Your main achievement is to show that you don’t seem to care that your criticisms of nuclear energy are ill-founded.
@Chris O’Neill
You are working late, Chris O’Neill – until the early hours in the morning. I admire your dedication.
As for your snip-snap collage, it is true that the words “experimental, prototype and demonstration” are found in the reference I gave. But, read on, Chris O’Neill, the paragraph containing these words reads:
“19 nuclear power plants – in particular experimental, prototype and demonstration facilities built in the 60s and 70s – have been decommissioned to date, including the five units of the Nuclear Power Plant Greifswald for general safety reasons.”
Note, your “mainly” includes 5 units of the Greifswald nuclear plant being decommissioned for general safety reasons. You wouldn’t want to say that a nuclear plant in Germany has been decommissioned for general safety reasons, would you?
Now, lets read on a bit further to see whether Greifswald was one of these presumably tiny ‘experimental’ thingies – the scale of the former thing at Hunters Hill. Here is the full list of the 19 decommissioned plants.
Name, location Electric groos [sic]output MW Operating period
HDR, Großwelzheim 25 1969-1971
KKN, Niederaichbach 107 1972-1974
KWL, Lingen 267 1968-1977
KRB-A, Gundremmingen 250 1966-1977
MZFR, Leopoldshafen 58 1965-1984
VAK, Kahl 16 1960-1985
AVR, Jülich 15 1966-1988
THTR, Hamm-Uentrop 307 1983-1988
KKR, Rheinsberg 70 1966-1990
KMK Mülheim-Kärlich 1.308 1986-1988
KGR 1-5, Greifswald 5×440 1973-1990
KNK, Leopoldshafen 21 1977-1991
KWW, Würgassen 670 1971-1994
KKS, Stade 672 1972-2003
KWO Obrigheim 357 1968-2005
[Source: euronuclear, referenced @24 on this page]
Ah, the 5 units at Greifswald were actually meant to produce a non-trivial amount of electricity. But after merely 17 years of operation these 5 units were decommissioned for general safety reasons; fancy that.
Now, Chris O’Neill, look at the plant Muehlheim-Kaerlich, right above Greifswald. This plant was also meant to produce a non-trivial amount of electricity. Moreover it isn’t from the 1960s or 1970s – the ‘experimental period’. This plant was commissioned in 1986 and decommissioned 2 years later, in 1988! So much for the propaganda that nuclear plants produce electricity for 50 years.
You may say, the Germans are particularly incompetent in matters of nuclear technology. It might be a hard line to sell, but you could try. Other people might entertain the idea that the Germans aren’t interested in flogging a dead horse and they try to get a competitive edge in renewable energy, while following a plan of decommissioning their nuclear power plants in a more or less orderly way.
Now to the crux of the matter. Would you please provide data on the costs of the decommissioning of the 19 said nuclear power plants, a comparison of the actual costs with those budgeted and who pays for these costs.
@Ernestine Gross
Err ….. why don’t you DYOR. You are the one who is making wild claims about the costs of decommissioning that are out of whack with authoritative sources such as the IEA who estimate decommissioning to be 9%-15% of capital cost and “decommissioning costs become negligible for
nuclear at any realistic discount rate”. ie after 60+ years of operation.
Go and argue with the IEA if you want to.
It is certainly true that the gas and magnox reactors in the UK are expensive to decommission. But nobody is building those things anymore (thankfully). Designs such as the Westinghouse AP-1000 are much smaller, use far less materials and are designed with decommissioning in mind. Times change and things move on – except for anti-nukes who promise miracles from their technology of choice – sometime in the future – but think nuclear engineering is stuck in a 50 year old time warp.
Oh and BTW, Wikipedia has a list of decommissioned nuclear reactors, many with the
costs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
I should have added that Wikipedia lists the decommissioning cost for Gundremmingen-A at $300-550/kWe which would be in line with the IEA estimates.
@Ernestine Gross
And, your point is?
The political furore in Germany at the moment is over extended operating licenses. Not about the premature shutdown of nuclear plants! This is hardly “propaganda”.
Extension of operating licenses is happening all over the world – plants with a 30 year design life are being found to be capable of substantially more. New ALWRs have a 60 year design life. The Indians are working on a 100 year design life.
If you want to argue that NPPs are on average being shut down sooner than their design life, pleeeeese produce some credible data.
@Tom Bond
Good news indeed. Do you have a reference? I’ve only been able to find fairly vague reports.
@quokka
1. I didn’t ask you to provide reliable data on the cost of decommissioning the 19 nuclear power plants in Germany, the relationship between the actual costs and who pays for it.
2. I didn’t say that there is a ‘political furore in Germany over the premature shutdown of nuclear plant.
I have no objection to you wishing to have a conversation with yourself. But please, leave me out of it.
@Ernestine Gross
This is a public forum, and any comment from any poster is up for discussion or criticism. It is not you private email service. That’s the way it is – get used to it.
Small modular reactors are increasingly being cited as one possible route to reduce the cost of nuclear power. There are a number of new designs ranging from Bill Gates Terrapower traveling wave reactor to small light water reactors. The advantages lie in a large degree of, or even complete factory fabrication, which should bring the same sort of advantages as factory construction of large aircraft – reduced cost, predictable schedules and improved quality control.
The first moves to commercially use these new generation reactors are being made by the TVA in the US:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/nov/11/tva-could-take-lead-for-mini-nuke-plants/
The B and W mPower reactor: http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/
Well, where is your criticism, quokka?
Can anyone point to a comprehensive and reliable estimate and comparison of the whole-of-life costs of each major energy source?
@Jarrah
Given that apart perhaps from hydro (and possibly some geothermal), no renewable system has completed a complete industrial lifecycle, that will surely be difficult. Nobody can know for sure how long a solar thermal plant will be commercially viable or if one ever will be.
What we do know is that the abatement costs of PV as it is currently configured can be prohibitively large. Apparently, in Australia, PV has abated CO2 at a cost somewhere between 10 and 12.5 times the per tonne interim carbon cost of $23 per tonne proposed by The Greens and at this stage rejected by the government.
@Ernestine Gross
Ernestine – I wouldnt bother with Quokka. Per Quokka’s post at #30 he is asking what your point is. I thought your point perfectly clear. I dont see the point of Quokka asking the point except to employ distraction. Quokka also knows perfectly clearly what your point was in contradicting comments “that a single nuclear plant can provide electricity for 50 years”…when the reality is most are decommissioned for safety concerns after less than a decade as you showed.
Distraction is not an argument.
Try this: http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCost2010SUM.pdf (IEA 2010 report)
The report does not cover solar, probably because it is still too expensive and is not as yet a serious player.
One thing they do stress is that costs do vary from country to country and region to region. The report assumes a $30 per tonne CO2 carbon price.
@Jarrah
To supplement Fran Barlow’s reply, the ‘whole-of-life costs’ of nuclear is not going to be known for a very long time – a few hundred thousand years – something like that.
On the other hand, we’d have to wait also a very long time until the sun stops shining. However, I am pretty confident in saying that when that happens, nobody – if anybody – will worry about the ‘whole-of-life cycle’ of this energy source.
And yet another ‘on the other hand’, wood is also an energy source and for this energy source the ‘whole-of-life cycle’ is so short that concerns about intergenerational allocation becomes negligible. But wood may not qualify for Fran Barlow’s ‘industrial lifecycle’. The wood pallet manufacturers in, say Germany, supply individual households primarily. Similarly, slow burning wood heaters at about Euro3000.– a piece are used primarily by individual households and hence may not qualify Fran Barlow’s notion of ‘industrial’.
This is fantastical nonsense – most nuclear power plants are not shut down for safety reasons within 10 years. If you look at the US for example, http://world-nuclear.org/NuclearDatabase/rdResults.aspx?id=27569 . you will find 8 reactors, that were built after 1970 that have been shut down. The US has just over 100 power reactors, most of which were built in the 70s or 80s.
I invite you to examine the whole reactor database, and retract your nonsense in the face of the facts.
Do you think your moral certitude gives you some special exemption from an obligation to get the facts correct?
@Ernestine Gross
which applies to most of the 19 power stations
So why did you start throwing around the “19” figure when most of those were irrelevant red herrings? Now you come up with a goal-post-shift. I usually don’t bother arguing with goal-post-shifters because their goal-post-shifting demonstrates that they’re wishy-washy. You also abandoned the river-heating goal post. Just another wishy-washy argument.
@quokka
In response. To quote a famous economist …
If the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do Sir?
@Chris O’Neill
It seems you are not only beholden to the snip-snap collage method of communication but you also either suffer from or are into selective amnesia by choice. Please go back to my post @27, page 4 to refresh your memory.
I quoted a statistic on river-heating of the Isar I nuclear power plant. If you confuse this with a ‘goal post’, then I can’t help you.
Quokka my reference from BNC is not a direct either but it seems authoritive, see below
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72103?oid=114642&sn=Detail&pid=102055
Quokka my reference from BNC is not a direct either but it seems authoritive, see below
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72103?oid=114642&sn=Detail&pid=102055
@Ernestine Gross
You seem to be suffering a reading disability. Where or why, pray tell, did you or won’t you answer the question “So why did you start throwing around the “19? figure when most of those were irrelevant red herrings?”
which is totally irrelevant to whether the energy source is nuclear or not, i.e. your statistic was an irrelevant red herring.
I’m well aware that you’re useless.
Actually, I do and in fact have. I used to be opposed to nuclear power. I have changed my mind because of the science of climate change, and because some of the arguments against nuclear power are to put it bluntly a little short on facts. Environmentalists rightfully demand rigor and honestly about the science of climate change and through the tireless efforts of many scientists and non-scientists that battle is being won. The climate problem and energy are inextricably linked, but a lot of the debate over energy is debased by proponents of this and that thinking they have some special right to distort the facts in support of their own particular political positions. It’s crazy, dangerous.
The climate problem is surpassingly important and Hansen is right – there is maybe ten years to make serious moves to cut emissions. Leave it any longer and it will become logistically impossible to achieve what is necessary. Energy is critical. I cant say that I’m optimistic.
On a personal note, I was quite anti-nuclear and amongst the 400 odd people arrested in Brisbane in the big anti uranium mining demonstration in the 1970s, and on a couple of other occasions. I am not ignorant of the arguments put forward by the anti-nuclear people.
@Chris O’Neill
You are talking nonsense when you say that a statistic on river heating caused by a nuclear power plant (Isar I) is totally irrelevant to whether or not the energy source is nuclear.
It is true that I can’t help you when you are unable to distinguish between a goal post and a statistic on the degree of heating of a river (Isar) caused by a nuclear power plant. If you wish to conclude from this that I am useless, then so be it.
You talk about ‘reading disability’. I would believe you if you would say you have such a disability because you apparently still haven’t read my post @27, page 4.
I didn’t ‘throw “19” around’.
You haven’t answered my question on this thread and you haven’t answered my question on an earlier thread.
@Ernestine Gross
You are demonstrating how ignorant you are about electricity generation. It makes no great difference whether the heat source is nuclear or coal-burning to how much a river used for cooling is warmed up by a power station. That you assert that I’m talking nonsense demonstrates your arrogance.
Funny, I could have sworn it was you who wrote: