'Nuclear Energy for Uruguay?' Technology

Nuclear Energy for Uruguay?

I do know that the general idea is for Uruguay to find new ways to produce energy at the lowest possible cost. However, it is not clear to me whether or not the government wants to move away from energy that comes from burning fossil fuels and prioritize cleaner renewable sources of energy. The messages from the powers that be are rather ambiguous on this matter as they seem to indicate that they'll take whatever they can get. And I don't mean this as a negative comment, but as a simple fact derived from my own observations.

On one hand they promote the idea that the country is proud of being free of contamination and pollution ("Uruguay Natural") and actively encourage wind mills in Lavalleja and elsewhere, which is a WONDERFUL thing, while they also want to find out if they have oil offshore right in front of the most profitable seaside resort in the country, Punta del Este. This is puzzling to me. If they did find oil there, would people want to have oil rigs right in front of Punta del Este? I wonder...

So, what about the nuclear energy question? It's clean energy. It's not totally risk-free but new technologies make it almost so (ask the French!), and yes, it's very expensive to build a plant, but how many nuclear plants would little Uruguay need to meet its energy needs? One? Two?

Just thinkin' about this...

Our former prez Tabare Vazquez returned from South Korea with lots of talk about the wonders of nuclear energy but I suspect that Korean "hospitality" had influenced his views. I wrote to him asking whether the ROU had uranium deposits which I hadn't heard about but he didn't reply.

I spent many years living close to 3 nuke plants in the UK and wouldn't want to see any here for reasons of (a) the leaky waste problems (b) the vast but unknowable costs involved in such plants and (c) the Uruguayo attitudes to both work and health / safety.

The offshore oil/gas (if it exists in commercial amounts) is quite a long way offshore (about 90 miles) so exploitation needn't mess up the views from P de E.

Both the ROU and Bolivia are keen to do oil and gas deals but neither are mad enough to lay a pipeline through Argentina. There is talk of using barges to bring it down the Rio Pirana to Nueva Palmira but again, we wouldn't want to do it without the agreement of Argentina lest unfortunate accidents might happen.

The ROU seems ideal for both solar and wind electricity generation but the very heavy import duties on the necessary kit for generating power make it uneconomical for me.

The cheap fuel here is firewood... most of the local agro-industrial plants are wood-fired from grain driers to the jam factories. If I could find a reasonably priced high pressure steam wood-fired boiler for reasonable money, I'd be generating my own electricity.

Another option for Uruguay that might be considered, in addition to windmills and solar panels, is the use of waste (garbage) as a means to produce electricity. They have a few plants that do this in Denmark and they are apparently very effective.

Now looking for Oil On the Coast is not what I expected from Uruguay.

I know the need for Oil. But finding Oil will not guaranteed we are going to benefit from it.

The famous Papeleras(NO contamination) but all the paper produced there is going straight to China, so no direct benefit in getting cheap paper.

That would be the situation with Oil Rigs near the coast.

I also know that because of new technology they can dig deep and far from the Coast(still a risk).

Just look at what happen, right now in the Gulf of Mexico (still burning for 3 days) and causing major damage to the environment.

Venezuela will give Uruguay a lower priced oil, because not every Country can buy the Heavy Venezuelan Oil that needs special refinery like the ones you find in New Orleans. Uruguay is thinking about installing one. Maybe it can be a Distribution center to other Countries ?

Nuclear Plants = Clean Energy - High cost - Waste (that nobody wants) but Local.

Risk oh Boy that would scare me and keep me awake.

And Patrick is right about the Uruguayo attitudes towards SAFETY.

You should look again into Wind Energy because I was watching on TV about Companies testing with small Farms in normally windy areas and their able to sell what they dont use. Instead of doing it yourself and paying the high taxes let a Company do it, they get the tax breaks that you can't. You already checked didn't you ?

• Denmark's waste-to-energy solution

But we should ask the question how much risk are we ready to take.

Oil Rigs - just read the news, whats happening in the USA right now would destroy Uruguay's Economy in a week.

When the good news is that the platform will not be seen from the Coast we forget to mention "Currents and Winds".

Bik, was very clear about the lack of economic sense in investing in Nuclear energy. It would be LOCAL but also the risk.

Maybe Business mentality is what Uruguay needs. Electricity from Brasil and Natural Gas through Argentina from Bolivia and keep the friendship with Chavez and get that HEAVY crude Oil with a discount.

Wind energy is probably the best possibility and it will be local and for Uruguay. The Represas (I see rain in the future of the World) will keep producing energy)

But don't forget that what we have most in Uruguay and we should treasurer is the COAST.

What we do have in the ROU is plenty of land, vast quantities of fresh water and a climate ideal for the growing of trees.

It seems to me that wood-fired power stations set in the middle of large plantations would offer a sustainable and carbon neutral solution to our electricity needs.

Around here all the industrial plants are wood fired from the jam makers to the grain driers to the pig products factories.

Perhaps its just too obvious :-)

I would ask if other cultures with their supposed different attitudes are getting great results. I can not avoid recalling the Alpha Pepper disaster in UK and recent oil rigs problems in the US, just to mention a few.

I would be more careful when doing such statements. I personally thing that indeed there are lot of things to improve here regarding health and safety, as is visible in our drivers. But to rule out an activity because of the reason quoted, seems both extreme and a little bit rude to us.

Regarding work, there are many kinds of people here, as in any place, but many people work long hours here and for very low salaries as well. I would be also careful to generalize in this regard.

I do not pretend to enter in sterile discussions here. But I personally thing people who immigrate to live in a country should show some moderation in public forums when talking about his adopted place.

When I was living in UK I would have never joined a forum suggesting the Brits can not make cars any more, because their attitude to alcohol intake, hangovers or inability to communicate for instance –Bear in mind I do not think this, but I just create this example to try you make you feel a little bit on my shoes.

I will not continue discussing about this; I hope people will give just a little of though to my point, which is my only aim here.

Have a good day

Martin

Before accusing somebody of something wrong we should know that persons Forum history and past remarks.

Your not the only one having problems with Funcionarios, the whole Country is. Including President Mujica in his opening remarks.

The Uruguayan society has been kind to some of it's public servants and almost cruel to others, it has allowed simple functions requiring no effort or preparation for the job to get paid Ten times more than Funcionarios who perform a vital and hard work as Policeman or Rural Teachers.

When these asymmetries last some time it can be considered as an error or a mistake.

When last Decades seem to be a manifestation of a Society that is becoming cynical.

Words of President Mujica (The Old Devil)

It's not just a case of being carefull about hurting people's feelings, as Martin suggests, it's also about trying to understand why Uruguayans have chosen to impose the rules they have. Contrary to what some may think, it probably has nothing to do with a desire to frustrate the lives of new immigrants but, rather, to rectify problems or lacunae that the citizenry, as a whole, has experienced.

Much of what is vehiculated here is the knowledge gained from expat's first hand experience which, as such, is valuable. What is of lesser value is the implicit deprecating commentary that sometimes accompanies it. It's only a step removed from the passive/aggressive nagging that goes on in some marriages where every topic of conversation is somehow brought back to the perceived failings of one of the partners: "Of course the window is leaking, George not only can't get a decent job to pay for a waterproof window but he can't even be relied upon to do a simple job like caulking the window!"

As Martin points out, one could see life in other countries such as the UK, through very negative eyes if one were to interpret everything they saw through a certain prejudice. It would be pointless to be in London and then put into question the fact that cars are driven on the left hand side of the road. It's simply what the British do and there's likely an historical reason for it so expecting them to change to suit new comers who are used to driving on the right would be, not just costly, but unrealistic.

Living in a new environment always causes anxiety so, understandably, new residants want to vocalise their frustrations but what is the wisdom of doing it here where it risks stilting the important exchange of information people are seeking. Couldn't it be much better done in the convivial atmosphere of "in person" encounters such as the expat's monthly get together at a local eatery or over a drink in a bar or café?

We are just defending Patrick for a very good reason that Martin can find if he reads his opinions.

Also his participation in his Community and his happiness to be in Uruguay.

Bik - How many times while driving in Canada have you observed a HOLE in the Street, ONE worker digging and the other THREE looking. We all have opinions about that.

Right?

"Sorry folks, as much as I find this site helpfull, I do find there to be a negative bias on the part of a lot of the participants vis-à-vis the Uruguayans and their customs and institutions. What I have gathered is that the natives are backward and most find the country's bureaucracy cumbersome and innefficient based on rules and regulations that seemingly make no sense."

No insult intended. I've lived near three nuke stations and administered land adjacent to one of them so I have some idea about the frightening errors a bunch of well trained serious heavily regulated professionals can allow to happen.

After nearly 4 years here I've come to the view that the ROU is the way it is because a majority of its people like it how it is. Luckily, I like it how it is too. :-) The country isn't "backward, " by and large the people are better educated than the average Brit but the go-getters mostly go elsewhere and the more laid-back stay here. Its what we used to do in Ireland before the coming of the Celtic Tiger.

I certainly don't see my neighbours as backward... just laid-back which is a quality I much admire. Its ideal for living the happy life but might not be the best of attitudes when building and/or running a nuke.

As for much of the bureaucracy, even the most nationalistic of Uruguayos would be hard pushed to defend it without an explanation of its advantages. It can annoy me when I have to get involved with it but I applaud its upside which can be seen in its "dead hand" opposition to enterprise and entrepreneurism which in turn has helped to keep the ROU comparatively free of development. In my view, the annoyance it can generate is far outweighed by its benefits.

Perhaps its because I'm an aged pre-Tiger Irishman but I love the ROU as it is.

Yes Jorge, we DO all have opinions about that but here is not the appropriate place to share them.

Anyway, back to the original topic of Nuclear Energy, I still say it wouldn't make economic sense to build a reactor in Uruguay. As someone, Patrick I think, pointed out, there are lots of more environmentally friendly sources of power. And we shouldn't forget, that nuclear power was on the black list for nearly four decades and it has only enjoyed its new status as clean energy because it doesn't produce carbon emmissions. That doesn't mean it doesn't generate deadly by-products.

Thanks you all for your feedback,

I believe Bik from Montreal understood my point, and although I do not have the pleasure of meeting Patrick, I do not have any animosity at all, and for what I see he is a nice person. In not contradiction with the latter I disagree with Atomic Energy to be ruled out because his reason (c).

Despite this, I believe Nuclear is too expensive when you take into account the cost of the waste disposal.

For a country of so few people in relation to land, we can certainly afford to use some of the land to produce biomass to burn. In the 80 there was a lot of conversion to make boilers in factories to work with lumber, CIR, a local boiler maker, developed some native technology to burn the wood etc. I remember in the 90s some reconverted back to oil due cheap dollar. This changed latter and it was back to lumber.

Should we reduce the land used to produce exports for the sake of saving in our energy imports? or should we just use it to produce the exports and with this cash to pay for the energy?

What will happen when exchange rates fluctuate a lot again? For this I do not have clear answers. It seems reasonable that while export markets are not very stable, the internal energy market will be always there. The market is by now giving the answer, nowadays most big agro industrial projects -Including UPM, ex Botnia- are burning the waste of their processes to produce electricity both for their own needs and to sell the excess to the power grid.

Looking at the issue from a global perspective, it is a waste to use arable land to produce energy instead of food, while there are people in starving in the world. But Uruguay is not in condition of being altruistic in this matter. Should South America be a more developed and stable area, we should be burning Bolivian gas coming via Argentinean pipelines without much worries, but this is not the case, Bolivia lacks the investment and Argentina the reliability. Something is being try with Bolivia now, we will see if something really happens.

There is also a project to make a LNG terminal in Montevideo; it is a joint venture between Argentina and Uruguay, thus using the gas pipeline under the river plate to send gas to Argentina. Why is it done here? Not sure, but I believe investors do not risk such a big investment to be on Argentine soil believe it or not. At least in this side they could cut the supply if they do not pay back.

Again, this equation may change with exchange rates and commodity prices as happened in the past.

The wind power is interesting, since it seems the wind potential is good in some areas.

We have the traditional hydro power stations, they creates many of the lakes you can see in the Uruguay map along the Rio Negro River, Palmar, Baigorria and Rincon del Bonete, then we have half of Salto Grande. We run this generation utility with Argentina, and there is even an unblocked road over it ļ

Many years ago, it was a joke to say mention that the energy policy of Uruguay was ¡¥esperar que llueva¡¦, to wait for the rain ƒº.It seems it has changed for good in late years.

In any case I will just in case switch on as many lights as possible and wear a sweeter at home this winter so to keep my UTE bill as low as possible next month!!

Thanks you all for your feedback,

I believe Bik from Montreal understood my point, and although I do not have the pleasure of meeting Patrick, I do not have any animosity at all, and for what I see he is a nice person. In not contradiction with the latter I disagree with Atomic Energy to be ruled out because his reason (c).

Despite this, I believe Nuclear is too expensive when you take into account the cost of the waste disposal.

For a country of so few people in relation to land, we can certainly afford to use some of the land to produce biomass to burn. In the 80 there was a lot of conversion to make boilers in factories to work with lumber, CIR, a local boiler maker, developed some native technology to burn the wood etc. I remember in the 90s some reconverted back to oil due cheap dollar. This changed latter and it was back to lumber.

Should we reduce the land used to produce exports for the sake of saving in our energy imports? or should we just use it to produce the exports and with this cash to pay for the energy?

What will happen when exchange rates fluctuate a lot again? For this I do not have clear answers. It seems reasonable that while export markets are not very stable, the internal energy market will be always there. The market is by now giving the answer, nowadays most big agro industrial projects -Including UPM, ex Botnia- are burning the waste of their processes to produce electricity both for their own needs and to sell the excess to the power grid.

Looking at the issue from a global perspective, it is a waste to use arable land to produce energy instead of food, while there are people in starving in the world. But Uruguay is not in condition of being altruistic in this matter. Should South America be a more developed and stable area, we should be burning Bolivian gas coming via Argentinean pipelines without much worries, but this is not the case, Bolivia lacks the investment and Argentina the reliability. Something is being try with Bolivia now, we will see if something really happens.

There is also a project to make a LNG terminal in Montevideo; it is a joint venture between Argentina and Uruguay, thus using the gas pipeline under the river plate to send gas to Argentina. Why is it done here? Not sure, but I believe investors do not risk such a big investment to be on Argentine soil believe it or not. At least in this side they could cut the supply if they do not pay back.

Again, this equation may change with exchange rates and commodity prices as happened in the past.

The wind power is interesting, since it seems the wind potential is good in some areas.

We have the traditional hydro power stations, they create many of the lakes you can see in the Uruguay map along the Rio Negro River, Palmar, Baigorria and Rincon del Bonete, then we have half of Salto Grande. We run this generation utility with Argentina, and there is even an unblocked road over it :-)

Many years ago, it was a joke to say mention that the energy policy of Uruguay was ‘esperar que llueva’, to wait for the rain :-).It seems it has changed for good in late years.

In any case I will switch off as many lights as possible and wear a sweeter at home this winter so to keep my UTE bill as low as possible next month!!

We've always did that in Uruguay because energy was (is) very expensive. In a global perspective, we may have been doing the right thing to the planet, and maybe the rest of the countries may have done the same. It's nonsense that in the northern hemisphere in many developed countries people heat their homes in Winter to be able to use a cotton t-shirt and no shoes as if it were Summer. That consumes a lot of energy and burns a lot of carbon that affects the whole planet. But nobody is free of sin at this respect. We don't isolate our homes as we should, and still use drinkable water to wash our cars, water our gardens, and flash away our toilets. A more rational use of energy and other resources will in the future change not only the technologies applied but the consuption paterns. I agree with you about some fears about nuclear generation. Though the technology has evolved a lot and it is now very safe and clean; there's still no positive answer to the problem of the wastes. It'll be a long term problem, but definitely a problem anyway. And we don't have deserts where to dig a hole or big caves to hide them. Anyway, it's something that has to be discussed. All the sources of energy are contaminating. Even the wind-mills (they can be visualy contaminating if used at a great scale). So we have to have our minds open.

I would suggest neither of the above options.

The best place to plant forests is on land with low CONEAT values which are unsuitable for growing cereals, other crops or supporting quality pastures. This seems to be ROU government policy already.

High quality farmland is no longer cheap in the ROU so from both an economic and a common sense point of view it pays to use the poorer land for trees.

A few years ago the government passed the law number 18.195, in its article number 6th; it mandates ANCAP, the state oil company to incorporate at least 5% by volume of bio fuel in the oil (named Nafta here) that it sells to market.

I understand the NAFTA 97 already has biofuel on it, according to what the ANCAP president declared a while ago. They made it of sugar bean for what he declared at the time.

So it is food feeding cars indeed. Not a problem for Uruguay, yes a problem for poor people all around the world, including here, since pushes food values up.

I agree with all said regarding the energy and what Alberto says. On the other hand, my gas bill in the UK was small and I got less while there than living here, despite our warmer weather. The reason, I never got cold during the night, just because my feet out of the bed or I breth very cold and humid air :-)

By writing this in the end I realized that if Uruguay produces the biofuel we can use for its own market, or export it anyway if there is a market that pays for it.

The only remaining issue is that it will burn food, at least for the one made from arable land -not the case for stuff produced in low CONEAT land as Patrick mentioned, fine-.

But hey, the same argument can be said of raising cattle, since it is more efficient for human kind to grow vegetables and eat them directly.

Eating meet is a luxury in an overpopulated world.

So I officialy decide to support bio fuel along with other renewables, until a next great physics revolution will bring us some sort of clean nuclear fusion. Here we will wait 50 years after the technology is proven, and some sort of political agreement is reached to install the first plant:-)

Regarding the nuclear option despite any technical or rational considerations, it would deserve a national plesbicite and the most likely outcome of this would be NOT.If it is decided in another way, I believe there will be high political cost to pay for whoever proposes it. Let us see…

cheers

Martin

• Uruguayan sugar TV spot, including biofuel uses

Should have been 'and I got less colds while there than living here...'

The subject of bio-fuels for vehicles has been a t one for many years. There are valid arguments that using productive arable farmland for growing fuel might cause food shortages/price increases just as there are arguments that specialist bio-fuel plants can provide a use for surplus or sub-standard crops when they can't be sold into the food chain.

My agricultural co-op still hasn't been able to sell the wheat crop I harvested last November. It has more fungus in it than it should so a good solution would be to ferment it for use as bio-nafta but the ROU lacks a suitable facility for doing so.

Another of my local agricultural co-ops (CRADECO) has had a small experimental bio-diesel plant running for a few years but the design requires sunflower seeds which might be viewed as taking food out of poor peoples' mouths. I've been trying to persuade them to have a go at bio-nafta using waste products... particularly the stalks of sorghum (sorgo) plants which are particularly rich in sugars.

The economic difficulty involved in setting up bio-fuel plants is the uncertainty about the availability of adequate raw materials because of fluctuations in food prices and weather and in the case of agricultural by-products, the very short season when they are available. Broadly speaking making bio-diesel from vegetable oil is a simpler process than bio-nafta which requires the fermentation of sugar or starch as well as distillation.

The French take bio-fuels seriously and have developed special varieties of oil seed rape (a crop I haven't seen grown in the ROU) ideal for bio-diesel. If you've spent time in the UK its the crop which does the amazing yellow flowers in the spring. I spent an informative 10 days in Poitiers talking to growers, contractors and the guys who operate a couple of processing plants... it seems to be an efficient and profitable operation but the moral question about whether good farmland should be used for food or fuel production remains.

Within sight of my window is an ANCAP distillery c/w its own dock on the Rio Rosario and a full time staff of three which has produced nothing since the early 1990s. Its very well maintained and would require little work to get it running but when I approached ANCAP about renting it or starting a joint venture for the production of quality whiskey or bio-nafta they reacted as if I'd burned the national flag and desecrated Artigas' grave :-)

As you say, bio-fuels will come one day but only after a few decades of careful thought, discussion and planning by our wise funcionarios :-)

Should have been 'and I got less colds while there than living here...'"

In general the Brits have good standards of thermal insulation in their houses so you'd expect to use less fuel to greater effect for domestic heating.

I get more colds since coming to the ROU. I reckon its because of the greater extremes in daily temperatures especially in the winter and spring. This morning it was 4 degC on my galeria with a ground frost and this afternoon it was 25 degC. You don't get that sort of variety in the UK :-)

You must a registered user and logged in to use this feature:

• Login
  (Register)

• where to buy a home for renting out (Real Estate)
• customs duties? (Expat)
• Internet and working online in Uruguay (Business)
• visiting in september (Expat)
• More related posts for Nuclear Energy for Uruguay?

Related posts on other sites:

• Costa Rica Is 99% Powered By Renewable Energy (Costa Rica Forum)
• T2 Ghost Hunt: Abandoned house investigation (Right side Living room) (Spiritual and Metaphysical Forum)