Comments on: AGW alone won’t revive nuclear energy http://paulseaman.eu/2009/12/agw-alone-wont-save-nuke/ I am a PR and love my trade. Nevertheless PR requires a reality check. We're about helping clients speak honestly, even robustly. People who run things have a lot of explaining to do in the next few years, so PR is crucial. I want a lively debate and I hope you’ll make it so. Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:53:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Paul Seaman http://paulseaman.eu/2009/12/agw-alone-wont-save-nuke/comment-page-1/#comment-2953 Paul Seaman Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:14:23 +0000 http://paulseaman.eu/?p=7534#comment-2953 Rob, many thanks for posting your comment, particularly for setting me straight on the contract's true valuation. Your amendments to my ten points are accepted and also welcome improvements, thanks again! Rob, many thanks for posting your comment, particularly for setting me straight on the contract’s true valuation. Your amendments to my ten points are accepted and also welcome improvements, thanks again!

]]> By: Rod Adams http://paulseaman.eu/2009/12/agw-alone-wont-save-nuke/comment-page-1/#comment-2952 Rod Adams Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:56:30 +0000 http://paulseaman.eu/?p=7534#comment-2952 Paul - I think you misunderstood my headline. The $16 billion number is the difference between the South Korean bid of $20.4 billion and the Areva bid of more than $36 billion. Thank you for linking to the post, however. I also like the list of pro-nuclear arguments, but I would modify #8 to read as follows: "It causes little waste, most of which can be recycled into additional energy production." I might also add a new statement, perhaps numbered as 8A: "Some of the fission by-products that are not useful energy fuels are unique materials with rare physical attributes and could be extremely valuable if separated and refined." Rod Adams Paul – I think you misunderstood my headline. The $16 billion number is the difference between the South Korean bid of $20.4 billion and the Areva bid of more than $36 billion.

Thank you for linking to the post, however.

I also like the list of pro-nuclear arguments, but I would modify #8 to read as follows:

“It causes little waste, most of which can be recycled into additional energy production.”

I might also add a new statement, perhaps numbered as 8A:

“Some of the fission by-products that are not useful energy fuels are unique materials with rare physical attributes and could be extremely valuable if separated and refined.”

Rod Adams

]]> By: Paul Seaman http://paulseaman.eu/2009/12/agw-alone-wont-save-nuke/comment-page-1/#comment-2950 Paul Seaman Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:21:11 +0000 http://paulseaman.eu/?p=7534#comment-2950 Update: since posting this piece, United Arab Emirates, a federation possessing one of the world's largest oil and gas reserves, has awarded a contract to a South Korean consortium to build four nuclear power plants, each producing approximately 1400 MW of electricity. At the heart of the decision was UAE's desire to ensure its growth as its economy expands on the back of its carbon-based wealth (as I've argued before, laying the basis for economic growth is the major motivating factor that lies at the heart of the nuclear renaissance worldwide). The first of the reactors are time-tabled to be working by 2017. More detail here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704905704574621653002992302.html http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/12/south-korean-consortium-wins-uae.html (Please note that the two pieces seemingly value the contract differently: $20.4 billion in WSJ versus $16 billion by atomicinsights). Update: since posting this piece, United Arab Emirates, a federation possessing one of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves, has awarded a contract to a South Korean consortium to build four nuclear power plants, each producing approximately 1400 MW of electricity. At the heart of the decision was UAE’s desire to ensure its growth as its economy expands on the back of its carbon-based wealth (as I’ve argued before, laying the basis for economic growth is the major motivating factor that lies at the heart of the nuclear renaissance worldwide).

The first of the reactors are time-tabled to be working by 2017. More detail here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704905704574621653002992302.html

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/12/south-korean-consortium-wins-uae.html

(Please note that the two pieces seemingly value the contract differently: $20.4 billion in WSJ versus $16 billion by atomicinsights).

]]>