|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
maximmm
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| atwood wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
[
They're cheap. They're too cheap to do nuclear right, and they're too cheap to build the power plants so obviously needed.
. |
Only they are building more power plants...power plants just don't spring up overnight.
http://rokdrop.com/2013/02/26/korea-to-build-more-coal-and-gas-plants-instead-of-nuclear/
It's nothing to do with being cheap. Originally they were going to build more nuclear plants but with the backlash of what recently happened in Japan those plans had to be put on hold and new plans had to be drawn up for different power plants.
| Quote: |
An additional 15.8 million kilowatts of electricity will come from the 18 new power plants in the plan approved Friday.
To secure enough supplies, the government has given out licenses to public and private companies to build 12 new thermal power plants using coal and six using natural gas.
Plans for new nuclear power plants, on the other hand, have been suspended.
�Considering the people�s worsened sentiment toward nuclear power plants following the accident at Japan�s Fukushima nuclear power plant (in March 2011), the government decided to withhold any decision on new nuclear power plants that were earlier set to be completed between 2025 and 2027,� the ministry said] |
|
They WILL build them, not they ARE building them. This is part of a two-year review. So what about two years ago and two years before that? Why hadn't they already started building the power plants? The need should have been obvious.
As for the last quotation, you're accepting at face value the government's excuses. The Japanese problem certainly influenced the current moratorium, but so did all the problems with Korea's nuclear plants. When was the last time an earthquake created major damage in Korea?
With proper supervision, the nuclear plants that are off-line could well be generating the power so obviously needed. But they were either too cheap, too inept, or too corrupt to properly monitor the plants. |
They've already given out the licenses for companies to build 12 plants. And that was months ago in Feb. Unless you think the companies have just sat on their hands (losing money all the while) they ARE building them not just planning to.
Why hadn't they started 2 years ago? According to the government they WERE planning to build nuclear plants..but this got derailed by the earthquake in Japan.
As for "when was the last time an earthquake created major damage in Korea?" that has nothing to do with it. The public got spooked and public sentiment was against nuclear reactors. And this was for cause...an earthquake is not the only issue here.
| Quote: |
South Korea has a somewhat peculiar stance on nuclear power: as it tries hard to export its nuclear knowhow to the Middle East, China and India, its own facilities aren�t making the grade at home and its population is resisting planned expansions. This domestic resistance gained momentum after the Fukushima disaster in Japan.
Gyeongju is a hub of nuclear power in South Korea and a flashpoint for growing anti-nuclear sentiment in the country. |
http://thediplomat.com/2012/02/18/south-korea-nuclear-challenge/
As for the nuclear plants being offline I am in full agreement with you.
But the fact remains they are not just being cheap and sitting on their hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
[
They're cheap. They're too cheap to do nuclear right, and they're too cheap to build the power plants so obviously needed.
. |
Only they are building more power plants...power plants just don't spring up overnight.
http://rokdrop.com/2013/02/26/korea-to-build-more-coal-and-gas-plants-instead-of-nuclear/
It's nothing to do with being cheap. Originally they were going to build more nuclear plants but with the backlash of what recently happened in Japan those plans had to be put on hold and new plans had to be drawn up for different power plants.
| Quote: |
An additional 15.8 million kilowatts of electricity will come from the 18 new power plants in the plan approved Friday.
To secure enough supplies, the government has given out licenses to public and private companies to build 12 new thermal power plants using coal and six using natural gas.
Plans for new nuclear power plants, on the other hand, have been suspended.
�Considering the people�s worsened sentiment toward nuclear power plants following the accident at Japan�s Fukushima nuclear power plant (in March 2011), the government decided to withhold any decision on new nuclear power plants that were earlier set to be completed between 2025 and 2027,� the ministry said] |
|
They WILL build them, not they ARE building them. This is part of a two-year review. So what about two years ago and two years before that? Why hadn't they already started building the power plants? The need should have been obvious.
As for the last quotation, you're accepting at face value the government's excuses. The Japanese problem certainly influenced the current moratorium, but so did all the problems with Korea's nuclear plants. When was the last time an earthquake created major damage in Korea?
With proper supervision, the nuclear plants that are off-line could well be generating the power so obviously needed. But they were either too cheap, too inept, or too corrupt to properly monitor the plants. |
They've already given out the licenses for companies to build 12 plants. And that was months ago in Feb. Unless you think the companies have just sat on their hands (losing money all the while) they ARE building them not just planning to.
Why hadn't they started 2 years ago? According to the government they WERE planning to build nuclear plants..but this got derailed by the earthquake in Japan.
As for "when was the last time an earthquake created major damage in Korea?" that has nothing to do with it. The public got spooked and public sentiment was against nuclear reactors. And this was for cause...an earthquake is not the only issue here.
| Quote: |
South Korea has a somewhat peculiar stance on nuclear power: as it tries hard to export its nuclear knowhow to the Middle East, China and India, its own facilities aren�t making the grade at home and its population is resisting planned expansions. This domestic resistance gained momentum after the Fukushima disaster in Japan.
Gyeongju is a hub of nuclear power in South Korea and a flashpoint for growing anti-nuclear sentiment in the country. |
http://thediplomat.com/2012/02/18/south-korea-nuclear-challenge/
As for the nuclear plants being offline I am in full agreement with you.
But the fact remains they are not just being cheap and sitting on their hands. |
All you need is a license to break ground? You're assuming too much, IMO.
As for the reasons behind the anti-nuclear sentiment, you needed to read further:
| Quote: |
| Persistently malfunctioning nuclear power facilities have some residents of Gyeongju worried the city could one day join Fukushima as a place synonymous with nuclear crisis, not least due to concerns that the government is neglecting what they consider a potentially dangerous situation. |
They may not be sitting on their hands NOW, but they obviously had been for quite some time.
And there's still the matter of how many of those PLANNED plants will actually be built. Plans have a way of changing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
[.
As for the reasons behind the anti-nuclear sentiment, you needed to read further:
| Quote: |
| Persistently malfunctioning nuclear power facilities have some residents of Gyeongju worried the city could one day join Fukushima as a place synonymous with nuclear crisis, not least due to concerns that the government is neglecting what they consider a potentially dangerous situation. |
They may not be sitting on their hands NOW, but they obviously had been for quite some time.
And there's still the matter of how many of those PLANNED plants will actually be built. Plans have a way of changing. |
Sitting on their hands with regard to fixing the situation at said nuclear plants yes...sitting on their hands with regards to building (or planning to build) new ones not so much.
Given that 12 licenses have been issued and given that there is a genuine need it seems a more reasonable assumption than say the alternative that nothing gets done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stan Rogers
Joined: 20 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Think of it as learning about Korean summer in a traditional way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
[.
As for the reasons behind the anti-nuclear sentiment, you needed to read further:
| Quote: |
| Persistently malfunctioning nuclear power facilities have some residents of Gyeongju worried the city could one day join Fukushima as a place synonymous with nuclear crisis, not least due to concerns that the government is neglecting what they consider a potentially dangerous situation. |
They may not be sitting on their hands NOW, but they obviously had been for quite some time.
And there's still the matter of how many of those PLANNED plants will actually be built. Plans have a way of changing. |
Sitting on their hands with regard to fixing the situation at said nuclear plants yes...sitting on their hands with regards to building (or planning to build) new ones not so much.
Given that 12 licenses have been issued and given that there is a genuine need it seems a more reasonable assumption than say the alternative that nothing gets done. |
Then why, considering the power problems facing them did it take them until this year to issue licenses? If they can get construction on those plants started as quickly as you supposed earlier, why not roll out the plans more quickly? And again, why not two years ago at the last review or four years ago at the review before that?
I can't help but think of Lucy Ricardo in the chocolate factory: "Someone's asleep at the switch."
As for the plants, a few will probably get built, but one wonders about how ecologically feasible those coal-fired plants will be by the time they are completed. And once the whole nuclear plant scandal retreats from public consciousness, they may well get back on that horse and forget about some of these conventional plants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
[.
As for the reasons behind the anti-nuclear sentiment, you needed to read further:
| Quote: |
| Persistently malfunctioning nuclear power facilities have some residents of Gyeongju worried the city could one day join Fukushima as a place synonymous with nuclear crisis, not least due to concerns that the government is neglecting what they consider a potentially dangerous situation. |
They may not be sitting on their hands NOW, but they obviously had been for quite some time.
And there's still the matter of how many of those PLANNED plants will actually be built. Plans have a way of changing. |
Sitting on their hands with regard to fixing the situation at said nuclear plants yes...sitting on their hands with regards to building (or planning to build) new ones not so much.
Given that 12 licenses have been issued and given that there is a genuine need it seems a more reasonable assumption than say the alternative that nothing gets done. |
Then why, considering the power problems facing them did it take them until this year to issue licenses? If they can get construction on those plants started as quickly as you supposed earlier, why not roll out the plans more quickly? And again, why not two years ago at the last review or four years ago at the review before that?
. |
Because they were thinking of building nuclear plants at those earlier reviews as the article itself states. The ones that the licenses have been issued for are coal and oil plants.
And nuclear plants for a host of reasons take longer to build than traditional fossil fuel powered plants. One of these reasons being the NIMBY syndrome
| Quote: |
How long does it take to build a nuclear power plant?
As nuclear power plants are complex construction projects, their construction periods are longer than other large power plants. It is typically expected to take 5 to 7 years to build a large nuclear unit (not including the time required for planning and licensing). Currently in countries such as South Korea and China, typical construction times range from 4 to 6 years, and in European countries construction may take between 6 and 8 years. In comparison, large coal plants can be built in about 4 years, while the construction time for natural gas fired plants is around 3 years. |
And that's assuming that they don't face large scale protests from residents in near by areas which can delay it even longer.
Then there are financing costs
| Quote: |
Why are financing costs so important to nuclear power plant projects?
Due to the high initial investment costs of nuclear power plants (overnight costs), the financing costs during construction are very high. Together they can constitute up to 75% of the total lifetime costs of a nuclear power plant that will run for 40 to 60 years. On the other hand, operating costs are low and stable. Nevertheless, due to the high initial outlay required, those financing nuclear power plants may demand interest rates sufficient to compensate for risk. |
So they have to iron out these details with the companies before the companies agree to undertake these projects...months if not years negotiating
.
Plus even before these plants can be built you have to go through the legislative process first. You have to haggle and "horse-trade", call in favors, defend your project from critics...this stage can literally take years...and that's if the bill is not killed for lack of support.
What, you think they just snap their fingers and "Poof" it magically appears? It all takes a lot of time.
Then factor in some good old fashioned corruption and inept officals...and there you have it.
(bolding mine)
http://www.oecd-nea.org/press/press-kits/economics-FAQ.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NohopeSeriously
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: The Christian Right-Wing Educational Republic of Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://news.sbs.co.kr/section_news/news_read.jsp?news_id=N1001818539
This recent SBS news headline is really making people irritated about schools. Starting from this week, so many parents complain that their kids' schools aren't air conditioned. My athletic student got a serious sunburn and went to the hospital, skipping the rest of the school. Things are getting pretty ugly and no one's satisfied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wooden nickels
Joined: 23 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nice and cool at my place!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
transmogrifier
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stan Rogers wrote: |
| Think of it as learning about Korean summer in a traditional way. |
I need to lose weight.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ampersandman
Joined: 01 Jun 2013
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Do people here usually have a guarantee of AC-furnished housing written into their contracts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NohopeSeriously wrote: |
My athletic student got a serious sunburn and went to the hospital, skipping the rest of the school. Things are getting pretty ugly and no one's satisfied. |
Outside of extreme illnesses/disorders, you can't get sunburned by sitting inside a 30 degree classroom with no A/C as long as the windows are covered by curtains.
Anyways, the summer so far has been rather mild compared to other years. Even yesterday it wasn't hot enough to prevent me from wearing jeans and long sleeves.
Now, if such a thing had happened LAST year or the year before, that would have been cause for uproar.
But if they want to lower power consumption, go after the PC Bangs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
3DR
Joined: 24 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They turned the AC on at my school today haha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nicwr2002
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Good thing I'm from Georgia and used to hot, humid, boiling weather. It will feel just like home! I just wish I had a porch to sit outside on in my rockin' chair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
