The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [4]  |  Archives [1] 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 50

CO2 emissions in Poland. Should Poland go nuclear or stick with clean coal technologies?


Varsovian 92 | 634    
1 Oct 2010  #1
Bełchatów power station produces more CO2 than the whole of Denmark. (The slag heap is a good ski-run though.)

Should Poland go nuclear to avoid dependence on Russia? (Well, the decision to build one was taken a few years ago.)

Or should they stick with clean coal technologies?

Renewables are pathetic flops - wind farms being the worst failures (requiring huge subsidies).
PmL 1 | 8    
9 Jan 2011  #2
Poland should go nuclear. Without even hesitating.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,662    
9 Jan 2011  #3
Or should they stick with clean coal technologies?

There's no such thing as clean coal.
George8600 10 | 637    
9 Jan 2011  #4
There is...

Poland should go nuclear. Without even hesitating.

Is it safe? Also Nuclear power doesn't necessarily equal nuclear bombs.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,662    
9 Jan 2011  #5
There is...

...not

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html
huffingtonpost.com/michael-brune/theres-no-such-thing-as-c_b_135103.html
gumishu 11 | 4,903    
2 May 2011  #6
Bełchatów power station produces more CO2 than the whole of Denmark. (The slag heap is a good ski-run though.)

only a fraction of the heap is slag - most is the soil that needed to be removed to get to the coal seem - now the soil removed (a layer of up to 100 m is used to refill the exploited part of the mine
NomadatNet 1 | 457    
3 May 2011  #7
I see, OP started this thread a year ago. Latest happening, re Japan nuke plant thing, might make people review their considerations about the nuclear energy technology. After that Japan event, I read somewhere Tusk said he may do a referendum about the nuclear plant they are planning to construct. This is good, at least, he took this discussion to another point, to asking people as a real democratic country unlike other so-called democratic countries who never asked such serious things to their folks. However, since nuclear energy issue is a global issue, referendum in Poland only about a nuclear plant in Poland isn't enough. Asking adult people in Poland is not enough either. Babies in Poland too should be asked as they are the ones who can be most effected even with a little radiation level than certain level that adults can resist. So, referendum vote result should be 100%, 99% is not acceptable in such serious issue. Still not enough, people in neighbour or in close regions too should be asked as radiation does not understand the country borders. So, as I put my nose into planned project here too, I also put my nose into this business of Poland and wrote to PGE of Poland who is responsible about the nuclear plant project they plan to construct. People who already live in places with nuclear plants need to do their own works, by asking their governments to close their reactors. Japans already started to do this after their bad experience. I heard German greens already started that, too. Not that I am a member of any green org, greenpeace or whatever, I may not agree in many their opinions, but, this nuclear energy thing is totally somethings else. It can not be watched as spectators if you see the risk, especially about the babies.

Having said these, I still see many people all over the world still questioning this from energy feasibility point of view, claiming alternative energies are not economically feasable, their efficiencies are low, etc etc. And, even worse, many are comparing nuclear to some risky things such as cars, Lpgs, etc that are being used daily.. I can answer all these. But, not now, as there is a logic fail even at the beginning, at defining the terms. For example, natural energies are being called as alternative energies. This is totally wrong. If there is alternative energy, it is atomic energy, that's, nuclear energy. Science might have developed enough to produce this energy, but, control science technology is very primitive, hence, nuclear energy science is beyond the limit at this point. And, natural energy sources are infinite comparing the total energy being produced by all nuclear plants around the world. But, it is not time to discuss the energy issue first.
GrzegorzK    
4 May 2011  #8
C02 doesn't cause global warming, it's all a lie. They faked all the data to cause regulations against business and created a new world order. I don't care what propaganda you will spew out of your pathetic selves, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING BEING CAUSED BY C02
ItsAllAboutME 3 | 270    
4 May 2011  #9
They faked all the data to cause regulations against business and created a new world order.

are those the same people who crashed Kaczynski's plane, faked the moon landing, covered up the real UFO, are keeping Osama alive in the basement (with Elvis!), and are taking all the Polish women away from you?

If I were you, I wouldn't be advertising that I know so much about all this. One day you might be flying an old Russian plane in a fog, god knows what they can do then!
GrzegorzK    
4 May 2011  #10
It's a known fact due, everybody in the states knows Global warming was a hoax created to regulate carbon emmissions and grow the government and like I said, nothing you can say will change the fact that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO LINK CO2 EMISSIONS TO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISES.. It's just a theory, there is no fact here. Your insults are not working. I am one step ahead sport.
Chicago Pollock 7 | 505    
4 May 2011  #11
There's no such thing as clean coal.

gasify the coal and you'll get additional co-products from processing the coal. You can even process the carbon dioxide.
ukpolska    
4 May 2011  #12
I guess the known oil reserves may well run out in 60 years, but there are ever more places opening up to exploration. Plus there extraction of coal is largely a matter of economics: as easy coal runs short, prices go up, so currently uneconomic resources become viable again. But there is a finite limit.

Starting with the supposed link between CO2 levels and increased global temp. Bear with me, because this may give us an idea of how much warming can be expected.

The physics of CO2 heat absorption are well understood, and easily demonstrated. But if for a moment we set that aside, is there evidence of correlations between CO2 and temp from the past to back it up?

Vostok temp, CO2 and dust. Petit et al, 1999
I found a paper by Petit et al in Nature, (Nature 399, 429-436 3 June 1999) . The important part is a chart showing changes in temperature, CO2, dust, all revealed in ice cores from the Vostok ice station in Antarctica.

There is a striking correlation between changes in CO2 and changes in temp. When CO2 rises by 100ppm, Vostok temp rises by 10°C. Now Vostok temp is not global temp, but it's a good place to start. Take a look at the data Grzegorzk, and the peer reviewed paper it comes from. Do you see what I see? If not, do you have similarly reputable evidence for a different conclusion?
Velund 1 | 351    
18 May 2011  #13
So, referendum vote result should be 100%, 99% is not acceptable in such serious issue.

It is equal to negative result, and you know it. ;) Even if you'll put obvious and really vital question to referendum, there will be a lot of people that will vote against. For a number of irrational reasons...

Vote of brainwashed drug addict is equal to vote world class scientist that may know correct solution for sure... This is greatest "acheivment" of democracy in their present form. Very convenient for someone who control mass media.
GrzegorzK    
18 May 2011  #14
Why do anything... there is still no direct link between rising co2 emmissions and global temperatures. This is just scam to tax business, communism basically. SHOW THE WORLD PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING AND POLAND WILL DO SOMETHING. LETS NOT FORGET ABOUT CLIMATE GATE SCANDAL WHERE SCIENTISTS FALSIFIED DATA ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

LAST 2 YEARS HAVE BEEN COLD, AND YOU WANT TO CUT FUEL PRODUCTION HOW WILL PEOPLE HEAT THEIR HOMES?

THERE WAS SNOW IN WROCLAW 2 WEEKS AGO, AND ICE IN GDANSK THIS YEAR WAS 30CM THICK. WHERE IS THIS GLOBAL WARMING YOU SPEAK OF?
Antek_Stalich 5 | 997    
19 May 2011  #15
Grzegorz, although I totally agree with you regarding the "global warming swindle", I can tell you nuclear energy is the answer, not to reduce CO2 but simply to pollute less. The "greens" in U.S. start recognizing the fact conventional power is far more polluting than modern nuclear powerplant.

You ask how people could heat up their homes. The answer is: With electricity. Whole Norway is heating up electrically. True, they have enormous resources of hydropower. Still, electrical heating on countrywide scale is possible.
Velund 1 | 351    
19 May 2011  #16
Still, electrical heating on countrywide scale is possible.

Yes, it is possible. But backup systems that does not require electricity must exist anyway - otherwise severe snowstorm or ice rain (like the one that almost paralyzed some cities around Moscow and Domodedovo airport this winter) may cause real disaster. Combined heater that can automatically switch to LPG in emergency situations looks like adequate solution.
TheHessian - | 17    
19 May 2011  #17
LAST 2 YEARS HAVE BEEN COLD

2010 was actually one of the hottest years recorded ever since temperature recording began in 1880.
Thats of course not any kind of proof for global warming and might just be an anomaly, but shows how much research you put into your post.

THERE WAS SNOW IN WROCLAW 2 WEEKS AGO, AND ICE IN GDANSK THIS YEAR WAS 30CM THICK. WHERE IS THIS GLOBAL WARMING YOU SPEAK OF?

And if you move a few steps to the west you will find a Germany where in 2011 every month except January was ~4°C hotter than usual and a Switzerland thats currently experiencing quite a drought and has its lakes and rivers dry up.

So f*cking what?

There is a difference between "Local" and "Global" as well as between "Weather" and "Climate".

And btw.: Writing in caps lock doesn't do anything other than make you appear unstable, so you can stop doing that now.

You could actually try to answer ukpolskas post.
You know, try to explain why the well known properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (storing heat) are irrelevant to our global climate and what the data of the Vostok station really means.

Or you could continue shouting stuff about evil new world orders and conspiracies, you choice.
NomadatNet 1 | 457    
19 May 2011  #18
Ok - returning to the topic.

I see here civil organizations like greenpeace, etc who are joining protests against nuclear plant projects plans in Turkey. Yesterday, an important person of EU too critisized Turkey's planned nuclear plant projects badly.

I got their advices and agree with them fully.

Since nuclear issue is not a country based issue, but, a regional issue, even more, a global issue, I am saying the same thing to Poland here (I also emailed to Polish energy company about their nuclear energy project.)

Now, I will go further.. Following advices and critics of important person of EU rightly, I highly critisize EU countries about their already existing nuclear plants. They need to close all nuclear plants in Europe.. Hope, I also see that important person of EU who critisized Turkey's nuclear plant plan also critisizes Europe about their nuclear plants and force them, especially monarchies to close their nuclear plants IMMEDIATELY..
Stu 12 | 523    
19 May 2011  #19
(I also emailed to Polish energy company about their nuclear energy project.)

Have you now? Did they understand your e-mail?
NomadatNet 1 | 457    
19 May 2011  #20
Before.. Sure. If not, if they build, they will be another one in nuclear plant marsh. (you with nuclear plants, you are pulling their legs of Poles too into nuclear marsh - to save yourselves out of marsh, you needed to follow Poland.. But, by pulling them too into nuclear marsh, you are not saving yourselves.. just this shows how your monarchy Europe are stupids..)
Stu 12 | 523    
19 May 2011  #21
Translation, please ... :S

So are they building or not? What? A nuclear plant marsh??

Whose legs? They are sticking out of a marsh?

Or are the nuclear plants built in a marsh?

Why do we need to follow Poland? :S

I am lost.
NomadatNet 1 | 457    
19 May 2011  #22
nuclear energy is the answer, not to reduce CO2 but simply to pollute less.

There is a saying here "denize dusen, yilana sarilir" (writing it in turkish so that maybe google can translate better)

It means "a person who falls into the sea/marsh sticks to the snake."

This oil/petrolium (or, in other words, CO2 emission) is like that.
People who fell in the oil marsh are sticking to the nuclear energy as alternative to the oil.

This is a result when the monarchy exists as their scholars try to save their monarchy system at all costs.

Oil/petrolium is something, nuclear is somethings else.
They are not alternatives to each others.
Let me explain it simply, using medical field.

Oil/petrolium is used in plastic serum hoses, too, for ex.
while nuclear energy can be used in another field.
When you burn the oil, you are burning your own serum hoses you may need in emergency cases.
Wroclaw 44 | 5,389    
19 May 2011  #23
This is a result when the monarchy exists as their scholars try to save their monarchy system at all costs.

if you wish to enter a discussion it would help, if what u actually say is on topic and makes sense.

if u continue to spout rubbish i will give u a timeout.
50%Polish    
19 Aug 2013  #24
no to Nuclear Energy, it is a joke.

Solar, Wind, Hydrogen, something that is NOT like the Ukraine and Fukashima (this is still not over and is getting worse the last I heard), the only thing nuclear in Poland should be a few bombs in case defense is needed. Two for every major enemy.

One of the rare beauties of Poland that have not gravitated to nuclear. They have a chance to do everything the rest of the developed world did not. Do things right. Sustainable methods with out destroying the earth.

The USA can't do it without spending a boats load, Germany can't, Russia can't, China can't and the list goes on, but Poland it fertile ground to be a completely sustainable country, and oh how beautiful it would be for Poland to be the leader in cutting cost for their gov't and using that money in many ways.

DO it right Poland be the first country to be close to a 100% sustainable model for the world. It would be great to see.

Elon Musk should have invested in Poland first as a model for the world, but he is all about money I guess. I guess he has to be.
Wroclaw 44 | 5,389    
19 Aug 2013  #25
, Wind

wind may be free, but the land for the wind turbine ain't.
McDouche 6 | 286    
20 Aug 2013  #26
^I wonder how long it would take before the cost of building a wind farm is made up for.

I do find it impressive however that a single wind turbine can produce 7 megawatts of electricity at full capacity. So potentially, if just one wind turbine was working at full capacity for an entire year (not a realistic assumption), it could produce over 22 million MWh of energy.
OP Varsovian 92 | 634    
25 Nov 2013  #27
With subsidies wind farms make a profit after 18 years. Without subsidies they make no sense.
Velund 1 | 351    
25 Nov 2013  #28
Cost is only one side of a coin. ;)

To make a solar panel (modern one, and starting from abundant natural minerals) you should spend almost the same energy as this panel will produce during their life cycle.

Wind turbine looks better, it will produce about 20 times more energy than will be spent for its production during complete life cycle, and there is more materials to recycle (with losses, though) compared to solar panels.

But anyway you must have powerful energy source to make such panels or turbines. If it is coal plants in China, your "clean" solar panel already produced the same CO2 emissions as it would be produced if same amount of energy was produced in coal/gas power plant. The primary difference is that you cannot produce energy when you need it with solar panel, you will have it in a sunny days. So, you have to install battery banks that again take some energy to produce and must be recycled as toxic waste in 3-5 years.
peterweg 36 | 2,315    
25 Nov 2013  #29
To make a solar panel (modern one, and starting from abundant natural minerals) you should spend almost the same energy as this panel will produce during their life cycle

I've already disproved that to you once https://polishforums.com/life/poland-installing-solar-panel-68888/ , stop repeating that lie. Solar produces the energy taken to produce it within two years. Hence its returns at least 10x the energy in it life time.

Wind turbine looks better, it will produce about 20 times more energy than will be spent for its production during complete life cycle, and there is more materials to recycle (with losses, though) compared to solar panels.

Thats accurate. Wind turbines are very efficient producers of power. However, even solar is still cheaper than nuclear, without subsidies.
Velund 1 | 351    
25 Nov 2013  #30
Nuclear power plant was still efficient in Germany without subsidies even after almost 2 billion euro per year nuclear fuel tax (that used mainly to subsidize solar and wind energy producers). And wind farm owners continuously screaming that solar "eats" about 60% of subsidies while produces just 10% of "green" energy.

Concerning waste from nuclear plants and from producing aluminium for wind farms - it's another story. Nuclear waste is MUCH more dangerous, but it is INCOMPARABLY more compact. All active waste from all US nuclear programs since the beginning can be put on a single football field and it will be just about 1 meter thick layer on it. Compare with millions of tons of red mud that is left over after Bayer process each year.


Home / News / CO2 emissions in Poland. Should Poland go nuclear or stick with clean coal technologies?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.