4Jul/0927
Why Should We Squander $3 Trillion On New Nuclear Plants, As The Republican Party Proposes?
Why Should We Squander $3 Trillion On New Nuclear Plants, As The Republican Party Proposes?
 |
No items matching your keywords were found.
Why Should We Squander $3 Trillion On New Nuclear Plants, As The Republican Party Proposes?
|
No items matching your keywords were found.
July 4th, 2009 - 06:48
Nukemann presents what on the surface seems a non-inflammatory list of pros and cons of nuclear energy, but the enumeration, division and content of this list is misleading and in some cases factually incorrect:
–Solar energy capture has the best fuel/energy cost ratio as the fuel costs nothing
–Less fuel does not necessarily lead to less waste. Just as diamonds are not equal to lumps of charcoal the quality and potential disposition of the waste must be considered. An ounce of depleted Uranium is easily more trouble than tons of other hazardous wastes.
–Uranium is not as available as tin. Regulations rightfully ensure this. It can never be an uncontrolled substance.
–Nuclear Reactors are not economical when looking at subsidies, tax credits. Taking into account the cost of disposing of the hazardous waste from the cost of electricity makes it far more expensive.
–The reliability of nuclear energy is only as good as the next accident.
–While nuclear electricity may “create” high paying skilled jobs, it also demands of them what is our constant concern: that the highest level of competence will not be maintained. If not… what then.
–Why trade one foreign import for another? The USA is a net importer of Uranium. Of the 20520 metric tons used by civilian nuclear plants in 2008 only 2969 MT was produced domestically. ( http://www.wise-uranium.org/umkt.html ) There are other ways to reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce carbon output with out a nuclear solution. The US has as a valuable resource the power we are now wasting.
–Producing and storing an explosive gas around a nuclear reactor does not immediately sound like a good idea. Even the excess hydrogen produced as a byproduct at refineries is burned off for safety reasons.
–The “fantastic” safety record also includes the specter of nuclear proliferation disguised as “peaceful” nuclear power plants as well as several notable accidents .
–To call a fear of nuclear future “irrational” is as easy as calling the nuclearists “callous and overconfident.” Neither furthers a dialogue, but polarizes the issues even more. Making issues sensitive means that accidents are covered up. ( http://www.ipsecinfo.org/Leak_Sept_2005…. )
–Nuclear energy is rightfully regulated. The regulations of ancient Rome or Egypt no longer bind us. Neanderthal Man is said to have died out in Europe 40,000 years ago. But the ½ life of nuclear waste needs to be multiplied 20 times before materials are considered safe. The short range is 300 to 500 years, but plutonium has a half life of 24000 years making ½ a million years a safe time period for storage. A graph of u-233 activity goes out 100,000 years before radioactivity begins to show a decline. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Activi... ) Would we happily accept the dross from some long forgotten civilization still dangerous to us today?
–Nuclear waste management eventually comes down to “storage” but we do not have a safe storage facility. The English channel did not exist 5000 years ago who is going to guarantee that over the course of 100,000 or ½ a million years we will not experience volcanoes, earthquakes, and perhaps even floods at any currently dry and only relatively secure site.
–And where is the problem? It is probably not going to be where it is anticipated. The leaks at Indian Point and the “decommissioned” Connecticut Yankee plants were in the containment tanks for spent fuel not in the reactor chamber. There are over 100 hazardous waste sites in the US that were used for processing fuel.
–Chernobyl may be an extreme example but it is by no means a worst case scenario. We may use jets but we no longer use the once popular lighter than air craft like the Hindenburg for travel.
–When you compare the number cases where there has been a core damage probability in the US (33) to the number of facilities (104) instead of megawatts produced the record becomes appalling. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_acc... ) There are 449 reactors in the world. “It has become clear that one nuclear reactor can contaminate one half the Earth.” http://www.nirs.org/c20/chernobylhealthr…
July 4th, 2009 - 12:08
Because nuclear power is more abundant, more reliable and less costly than almost all other “green” energy sources. Exceptions would be hydro electric power and geotechnical power.
Of course you are limited by geography for access to either hydro-electric or geotechnical power sources.
July 4th, 2009 - 12:47
Because nuclear energy works. Wind does not. That’s why.
If the namby-pamby fear-mongering environmentalists would get out of the way of nuclear power, it would cost half as much.
So, I think congratulations are in order to the environmentalists… they’ve successfully become very expensive to everyone, through big business, and making the west less prosperous. — If that’s not your goal, that is the result of most of what you do.
July 4th, 2009 - 16:15
Dana, then how come the renewable energy sources are also the heaviest subsidized? The last time that I checked, both solar and wind power don’t produce electricity 24/7 either. The infrastructure cost alone to go to all renewable sources will far exceed the costs to build nuclear power plants. Also, using a Vermont Law school as a basis for costs doesn’t help your side.
July 4th, 2009 - 21:33
Squander? No, we’re squandering trillions in eternal, illegal wars in the ME. Nuclear power is the only electric generating source without a large carbon footprint and without jeopardizing human lives mining coal. All of the sources you mention require huge public subsidies to make them cost-effective as well as, for wind generation, a lot of real estate.
July 5th, 2009 - 03:34
Dana is not the Master of Science. He is the Master of Bates. He is not educated, does not hold a degree in anything, he sits on the internet all day and copies webpage links from less than plausible sources and certifies to himself he is right and so are his sources. BOOOOOO this man!
July 5th, 2009 - 08:26
We don’t need nuclear power plants, we have more coal than God. Coal is cheap and efficient and produces warm fuzzy CO2 that makes earth nice and toasty and allows me to use my swimming pool more of the year.
July 5th, 2009 - 12:22
Because nuclear power is a proven reality and renewable energy is just a pipe dream that will never be capable of keeping up with the energy demands of the growing US population.
July 5th, 2009 - 19:09
Why don’t we just use the huge amounts of coal that the US has. We have more coal in the USA than the rest of the world
July 5th, 2009 - 20:35
Nuclear is a much better source for power. Solar, hydro, etc, could never meet our energy needs.
July 6th, 2009 - 01:47
Republicans want to run up the national debt and then blame it on Obama.
July 6th, 2009 - 06:58
Because we like to see liberals squirm. Your scare mongering is turning around and biting them back.
July 6th, 2009 - 08:33
It is interesting that the anti-capitalists attack any beneficial alternatives, even when they have a near zero carbon foot print. It clearly shows their true colors and what global warming is actually all about. It is also interesting how they see the world through politics and characterize nuclear plants as Republican once again betraying their political ideology and the basis for the entire political movement known as global warming. If the other alternatives were truly economically comparable, they would already be used.
What is the fear? Is it that the US would have an adequate energy supply so they won’t be as vulnerable to the kind of assault that is obviously underway by radicals who would much prefer a weak US with little alternatives except a dramatically reduced lifestyle?
July 6th, 2009 - 09:13
Nuclear power costs are based on assumptions which are questionable, no matter your stance on the issue.
Nuclear plants are expensive to build, but cheap to run. Therefore the major cost of nuclear energy is capital cost, which is based on long-term interest rates, which in turn are highly variable. What this means is, you can create reasonable-looking scenarios for nuclear being cheaper, about the same as, or more expensive than, pretty much any alternative you desire … just by fudging a bit here and a bit there.
July 6th, 2009 - 14:46
Nuclear Power is the best choice in the Long run , It leaves
none of those fancy carbon footprints that Liberals whine about.
And if The USA can reprocess it you can use it again.
Im not scared of a Nuclear plant . The more the better I think
they should build more than 100 double it.
Why should We wait for wind and Solar to catch up and you
cant power the USA on those 2. And We dont need Cap and
Tax and Carbon Taxes to break everybody
July 6th, 2009 - 16:09
Because that is where the Nuclear Industry has been leading the Global Warmers to by their collective noses. You may have not noticed the nose ring, but it is there..I assure you!
Be careful what you ask for you will probably get it!
Wind = Major agricultural and land use issues.
Geothermal = Requires major land use issues and rights of ownership, also involves the cooperation of the oil and gas industry.
Solar = Requires a whole new electrical grid and method of transmission and power conversion. If located in the SW it is viable but there are major transmission issues, It would also require a parallel system of energy distribution for at least 30 years which requires fossil fuels. Would you invest in the designated “obsolete” system and the fuel for that system when the stated objective is to make you redundant?
Nuclear = Major environmental and security concerns. High capital costs but benefits of electrical efficiency are good, with most of the capital costs being associated with safety. If you don’t want safety and redundancy and want “green” NOW, like a child, then that can be arranged. The more you want it the cheaper it will get :0)
July 6th, 2009 - 16:57
People get high up in politics through their connections to corporations that make money. The fewest of them kept their idealism, if they ever had it at all. Power corrupts many.
To switch to renewable energy sources means partly to make individuals independent from large corporations. Everyone can place solar panels on his roof. That’s not what big corporations want. That’s not what most governments like because income from taxes on energy would go down and so would their power over people.
July 6th, 2009 - 23:24
There is an argument that goes like this: we should build such plants because; the “liberals” want renewable energy and low carbon output so some will say, “you have to give us something that we want as well.” This is “compromise” and “give and take” and these are “good” things.1
To say that the waste from a nuclear power plant is not a pollutant is to attempt to push the entire matter of waste storage under a very large carpet distracted by the issue of carbon emissions and false accounting.2 You will see arguments that nuclear power is “green” and “non-polluting” just as I can argue that electric cars can forfill all our current needs except for the little battery storage problem. Pollution takes many forms. What we consider safe today may tomorrow be considered to to be the worst hazard. Asbestos and DDT are a clear examples. Once considered safe and very useful products, they are now considered hazardous wastes of a high order.
Nuclear power has an unresolved storage problem for it’s hazardous waste which is also, by intent, a bit of accounting trickery.3 The cost of resolving this issue is an externality that is not currently figured into the cost of electricity from nuclear power plants. This problem is of a very long duration. Humans have a very poor record of dealing with resource allocation even over one generation. Dealing with waste management over many generations for a benefit derived today has no comparison with any other pollution problem that we face today.
Analysis shows that when the actual costs of a nuclear power facility including subsidies, tax credits and waste management are compared with any other option it is far more costly. 4
It is a bargaining technique. When someone is very keen for something some would take advantage of the situation to ram something down their throats that they may not otherwise go along with. It has nothing to do with “what is best” or economics or even pollution management. It is an unthinking appeal to power and uses a sense of appeasement that was shown to be a bad rational leading up to WWII. It may even be a flaw in our political system or politics at its worst.
Discussion of this issue is tainted by those who would prefer big corporations to “big government” yet want government to give big handouts to those same corporations.5 Inflammatory rhetoric presupposes that only shouting long and hard enough will rule over rationality. It is too often true. This makes a reasonable discussion of alternatives long and difficult. I will leave that discussion for another question.6
July 7th, 2009 - 06:16
Easily answered as the trillions of dollars spent is spent as an investment by industry and recoverable immediately by selling the power. Nuclear power is the most efficient power available other than hydro but there are just so many dams one can build in this country and the unattended environmental problems of fish spawing of the salmon etc.
Yes there is the problem of spent nuclear wastes and that is why we should be funding science to resolve that issue instead of funding green alternatives that are inefficient and/or also cause environmental problems.
I have always contended that a Manhattan Project, so to speak, should be funded to solve the issue of the new energy for this century and yet liberals want to always go down the road that is unattainable, ie green energy. There is no such thing as all potential sources have their problems.
If congress would fund such science to develop fusion power or find a way to handle the spent fuel of nuclear reactors and then allowing private enterprise to invest in the energy is the most logical and practical method of solving this issue.
Sure those who want to continue to develop solar, I am all for it as the applications for certain segments of society would be greatly realized, ie flat top business and factory buildings where no battery systems are needed as people are a work during the day and not at home when the most power is needed.
It is simple, but few want to understand the simple logic and tend to gravitate toward their own agendas.
What will power 100 million electric cars in the future, 2 billion windmills…. I don’t think so.
The least damage to the enviroment is nuclear and we need to find the solution as to its waste products. When this country puts its mind and energies together, it can solve anything, just like they solved the building of the atomic bomb in New Mexico.
Fund this and stop complaining before its to late.
July 7th, 2009 - 08:45
Nuclear plants would be paid for by the private sector….. not heavily subsidized as wind and solar currently are. If the taxpayer welfare/subsidies were not there, wind and solar would fall flat on their collective faces.
Libbies are always looking for those of us with jobs (Republicans) to pay their way.
July 7th, 2009 - 12:36
none of your sources for energy will be able to replace coal or fossil fuels.
i’m sorry nuclear is the one source that could replace coal and it could also expand our energy supply
but that’s not what the Democrats want is it.
they want us to reduce energy consumption by 40%
and not replace it so energy prices will sky rocket and with carbon taxes on energy they will haul in the billions to trillions then they can sent billions to trillions to the U.N. because we are bad americans and use to much energy.
read about the new U.N. climate treaty and tell me i am wrong!
carbon caps are no more than putting a cap on energy production
in short, a false shortage that will cause prices to rise. (anybody remember Emron?)
they were all for this type of plan
i would rather spend it on nuclear power plants than sent it to the U.N. so they could steal our money
July 7th, 2009 - 13:56
Might have something do with the fact that pro-nuclear people never realize that the initial capital estimates are almost always well under the reality. The latest in “next gen nuclear reactors” is already 50% overrun and year behind schedule in Finland: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/busine...
Add in the fact that waste containment is a security risk (and unwanted in any community — see Yucca Mt) and reprocessing makes nuclear energy an infeasible economic choice and you have a bunch of people who cover their eyes and ears.
Oh yeah, don’t forget the hundreds of nuclear accidents that happen, but are kept out of the public eye: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civ... et al.
July 7th, 2009 - 20:20
There are 2 points of this study that I would take issue with.
1. The author states “Solar photovoltaics that are presently
more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade.”
2. “Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh.”
So basically, he’s saying he thinks solar will go down in price while others think nuclear power will be much more expensive than advertised.
Maybe he’s right. Maybe he’s wrong. Solar has always been overestimated as to how quickly it would become price competitive. Nuclear usually does have price over runs, but the author predicts massive price over runs.
If the author is to be believed, then yes, alternative energy looks like the better path. The real question is, how well do we believe in the author’s ability to predict costs in the future?
Here’s the thing, we can look at other countries that have made nuclear work. France and Japan being the two easiest examples. And it’s been working for them for 20 to 40 years.
Name me one country that has been getting a significant part of it’s energy from solar, geothermal, biomass, etc. for any length of time? You can’t.
July 8th, 2009 - 00:20
Ironic since, in terms of consumption, Vermont is the state with the highest concentration of nuclear power……
I agree re: efficiency – the grid requires a lot of re-work.
I disagree re: natural gas – the supply is too thin, the price too volatile. Indeed, the gas plants are already built, they’re just mothballed because of those supply and price issues!
Someone mentioned hydro – hydro is great but its potential is almost fully utilized.
Wind is great too – we should build more wind farms. But wind power can’t account for more than 20% of a grid’s supply, because of its inherent unreliability. It also cannot be used for peak power demand. Wind is grossly underutilized but it isn’t “the” answer because of those limits.
Much of the world uses nuclear quite safely, and it is carbon-neutral.
If it were really about CO2, then you’d be in favor of nuclear.
July 8th, 2009 - 05:42
The main concerns with nuclear power is the waste residues and how to dispose of them, clearly they cannot be dumped on earth anywhere because no matter what they are stored in it will affect future generations because of long half lives associated with plutonium and uranium, however why should scientists be simply limited to these elements and not choose isotopes with much shorter half-lives which would decay more rapidly not causing long term harm.
How much heating is really necessary, for the average home people use heat excessively and get accustomed to living in really warm conditions why can’t people use heating more wisely, for example just in winter.
One question we must consider is that Are we really running out of resources like coal oil and gas and if so can we not simply use geothermal heating and use solar panels – solar panels are more effective and cheaper than people actually believe. We are going to have to make choices its either cell damaging radiation or renewable resources.
July 8th, 2009 - 11:09
I don’t think it’s going to happen Dana, renewables are not going to power america
They simply do not work well everywhere and therefore costs go throught the roof.
You build as many as you can and then you pick another source to supply the rest: coal or nuclear, so which is it going to be?
My choice is nuclear, nowadays even third world countries seem to have no problem building them, so why is it such a hassle here?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pow…
July 8th, 2009 - 12:48
Major investment now for major return later.
PROS
!. Fission is the most energy for the least fuel with current technology.
2. Less fuel means less waste, and the waste is all accounted for, not released into the atmosphere to become someone else’s problem.
3. Uranium is readily available, very common in the earth’s crust (about the same as tin) and can be recovered from ocean water.
4. Economical – operating cost about the same as coal, fuel cost is a much smaller percentage of the total, therefore less susceptible to price fluctuations.
5. Reliable – Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors. ~90%
6. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released.
7. Creates high paying, skilled jobs.
8. Reduce dependence on foreign oil/ fuel. Uranium available domestically and in oceans.
9. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.
10. Fantastic safety record. Look at hours of operation or Mw vs accidents/injuries/ deaths (compares favorably with Hydro and Wind) Much better industrial safety record than auto, farm, chemical, paper, or steel industries.
11. Smaller environemtal impact, land usage, than hydro, solar or wind.
12 No toxic batteries needed for energy storage.
CONS
1. Irrational fear of all things nuclear. (Example: Nuclear MRI had to change it’s name to get people to use it)
2. High cost to build and license, large initial investment for long term pay back.
3. Publicly accepted high level storage facility not domestically available.
4. Reprocessing facility not domestically available.
4. High cost of personnel.
5. Security concerns, terrorist and proliferation.
Nuclear power, I believe is the best, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The plants operating now are safe and the new designs are even safer.
Building 100’s of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.
I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years, I would be glad to have a Nuclear power plant or high level waste disposal facility in my backyard. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (where I work) I have a great understanding of the risks involved and am completely comfortable with a plant “in my backyard”.
Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner.
Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed 2/3 of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly, base-load electrical power.
Investing in nuclear today is the only logical choice for a better tomorrow!