NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION 2006
REACTORS OPERABLE August 2007
REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION August 2007
REACTORS PLANNED August 2007
REACTORS PROPOSED August 2007
URANIUM REQUIRED 2007
billion kWh
% e
No.
MWe
No.
MWe
No.
MWe
No.
MWe
tonnes U
Argentina
7.2
6.9
2
935
1
692
1
740
1
740
135
Armenia
2.4
42
1
376
0
0
0
0
1
1000
51
Belgium
44.3
54
7
5728
0
0
0
0
0
0
1079
Brazil
13.0
3.3
2
1901
0
0
1
1245
4
4000
338
Bulgaria
18.1
44
2
1906
0
0
2
1900
0
0
255
Canada*
92.4
16
18
12595
2
1540
4
4000
2
2200
1836
China
51.8
1.9
11
8587
5
4540
26
27640
88
72000
1454
Czech Republic
24.5
31
6
3472
0
0
0
0
2
1900
550
Egypt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
600
0
Finland
22.0
28
4
2696
1
1600
0
0
1
1000
472
France
428.7
78
59
63473
1
1630
0
0
1
1600
10368
Germany
158.7
32
17
20339
0
0
0
0
0
0
3486
Hungary
12.5
38
4
1826
0
0
0
0
2
2000
254
India
15.6
2.6
17
3779
6
2976
4
2800
15
11100
491
Indonesia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2000
0
Iran
0
0
0
0
1
915
2
1900
3
2850
143
Israel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1200
0
Japan
291.5
30
55
47577
2
2285
11
14945
1
1100
8872
Kazakhstan
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
300
0
Korea DPR (North)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
950
0
0
0
Korea RO (South)
141.2
39
20
17533
3
3000
5
6600
0
0
3037
Lithuania
8.0
69
1
1185
0
0
0
0
2
3200
134
Mexico
10.4
4.9
2
1310
0
0
0
0
2
2000
257
Netherlands
3.3
3.5
1
485
0
0
0
0
0
0
112
Pakistan
2.6
2.7
2
400
1
300
2
600
2
2000
64
Romania
5.2
9.0
2
1310
0
0
2
1310
1
655
92
Russia
144.3
16
31
21743
7
4920
7
7800
18
21600
3777
Slovakia
16.6
57
5
2064
2
840
0
0
0
0
299
Slovenia
5.3
40
1
696
0
0
0
0
1
1000
145
South Africa
10.1
4.4
2
1842
0
0
1
165
24
4000
332
Spain
57.4
20
8
7442
0
0
0
0
0
0
1473
Sweden
65.1
48
10
9086
0
0
0
0
0
0
1468
Switzerland
26.4
37
5
3220
0
0
0
0
1
1000
575
Turkey
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4500
0
0
0
Ukraine
84.8
48
15
13168
0
0
2
1900
20
27000
2003
United Kingdom
69.2
18
19
11035
0
0
0
0
0
0
2021
USA
787.2
19
104
99049
0
0
7
10180
25
32000
20050
Vietnam
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2000
0
WORLD**
2658
16
439
372,002
34
27,838
81
89,175
223
200,445
66,529
Dear All,
Assalamu'alaikum wr wb.
To get infromation about the number reactor in the world,
please click :
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
Based on this web the number reactor was proposed for nuclear power plant
untill 30 august 2007 is 223 units, not only in depeloving countries but also
in developed countries.
More details:
NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY (Energy) GENERATION 2006 : 2658 billion Kwh, 16%.
REACTORS OPERABLE August 2007: 439 units,372,002 MW.
REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION August 2007:34 units. 27,838 MW.
REACTORS PLANNED August 2007: 81 units, 89,175 MW.
REACTORS PROPOSED August 2007: 223 units, 200,445 MW.
Thanks .
Happy Preparing Ramadhan.
May God's blessing us.
Wsalam
rudyanto_nebeng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear all,
I agree that nuclear power is not a panacea. So do other clean
alternatives.
Based on MIT study, there are only a few realistic options for
reducing carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation:
1) increase efficiency in electricity generation and use;
2) expand use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar,
biomass, and geothermal;
3) capture carbon dioxide emissions at fossil-fueled (especially
coal) electric generating plants and permanently sequester the
carbon; and
4) increase use of nuclear power.
It would be a mistake at this time to exclude any of these
four options from an overall carbon emissions management strategy.
Please find the MIT study on nuclear power in this link:
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Nuclear power is indeed clean and safe. Please read another "fresh
from the oven" article:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9719029
===================================================================
The rich world is also re-examining the case for nuclear. America is
expecting a rush of applications to build new reactors in the coming
months—the first in almost 30 years. Britain's prime minister, Gordon
Brown, recently affirmed his support for a new generation of nuclear
power plants. Construction of a new one in Finland, western Europe's
first for 15 years, began in 2005; work is just starting on another
of the same design in France. Other European countries that had
frozen or decided to scrap their nuclear programmes are rethinking
their plans.
There are good reasons for this enthusiasm. Nuclear reactors emit
almost none of the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming.
They are fuelled by uranium, which is relatively abundant and is
available from many sources, including reassuringly stable places
such as Canada and Australia.
But there are also good reasons for scepticism. Nuclear plants are
expensive: each can cost several billion dollars to build. Worse, in
the past, ill-conceived designs, safety scares and the regulatory
delays they gave rise to made nuclear plants even more costly than
their hefty price-tags suggest. Vendors of new nuclear plants, such
as Areva, General Electric (GE), Hitachi and Westinghouse, argue that
things are different now. The latest designs incorporate suggestions
from utilities and operators with decades of experience, and should,
their creators say, make new plants safer and easier to operate. They
believe the simpler new reactors, with their longer lifespans and
reduced maintenance costs, will also improve the economics of the
industry.
In the end, the deployment of new nuclear reactors will depend on
many factors, including successful waste and proliferation
management, improved economics, and perhaps most important,
convincing the public that nuclear reactors can be operated safely.
Despite these obstacles, there is an undeniable mood of optimism in
the industry. Whether that will be enough to spark the deployment of
the hundreds of reactors that will be needed to help mitigate the
effects of global warming remains to be seen, cautions Richard
Lester, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT. Were
there to be another disaster like Chernobyl, or a successful
terrorist attack on a nuclear plant, all bets would be off. But for
now most people in the industry agree that nuclear power's prospects
look brighter than they have in a long time.
====================================================================
Are you sure that we should wait the fusion technology commercially
available in 2050? Let me quote James Lovelock's statement again:
"World systems are ALREADY in failure mode," he said. "The world
itself is in no danger and we as a species will probably survive.
What is at risk is OUR CIVILISATION. "
Btw, please RETHINK your statement :
"Of the 76 planned and 162 proposed that
you cited below, most if not all are outside the OECD
members".
You can compare your OPINION with this article:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9719029
Around the world, 31 reactors are under construction and many more
are in the planning stages. Some of the most ambitious programmes are
under way in developing countries. Both China and India are building
several reactors and intend to increase their nuclear-generating
capacity several times over in the next 15 years. Some countries,
such as Turkey and Vietnam, are considering starting nuclear-power
programmes, and others, including Argentina and South Africa, plan to
expand their existing ones.
Don't be a fool...
To be or not to be: that is the question
Best Regards,
Rudyanto
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], ekki kurniawan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear all (a bit revision)
>
> We are brothers,
> For those endorsing nuclear fusion,
> Please do not blame one who proposing fission technology as both
are part of PLTN
> Nuclear Power Plant by fusion still on research is not being
commercialized.
> Nuclear energy production either by fusion or by fission would
step or go along
> As part a solution of lacking energy.
> Information about it should be clear,fair and realistic.
> We should stop any advertising of nuclear power as a panacea for
solving problem.
>
>
> Sorry for inconvenient,
> Please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Thanks for God's blessing.
> Keep faith and Spirit
> Salam.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
