mikeg

never has it been more true that every billion dollars spent on the nuclear industry is a theft from the production of cheap, renewable energy.

"too cheap to meter" is a lie that has only grown over time.

but the industry is heavily funded and politically connected. if the tobacco industry was as successful in its campaign of lies and half-truths as the nuclear industry is, there would be cigarette vending machines in the hallways of american elementary schools.

NONUKESNOW!

Again, only complaints and no solutions.

Nuclear Now, Nuclear Forever!!

vbtb1: um, maybe try reading the whole post before you comment? i mean, seriously.

here, let me make it easy on you. i've pulled out the parts where i specifically mention solutions:

"In fact, we don’t have 10 years to wait for clean energy to come online. Not that nuclear is all that clean: you still have to mine the uranium used in the reactors – and mining is a dirty, polluting process – and you have to store the nuclear waste somewhere – waste that can be around for centuries, sitting in a storage facility somewhere, susceptible to leaks. Meanwhile, we have solar and wind technologies, and several other renewable technologies, that are ready to be implemented on a large scale right now. [Hmm, those sound like solutions to me...]

Which brings me to my next point: nuclear reactors cost so much, the utilities aren’t likely to build new plants unless they are heavily subsidized by the federal government. That’s billions upon billions of dollars that we could and should be investing in clean, renewable technologies – the real solutions [SOLUTIONS -- get it? can you read that vtbt1? is that plain enough?] to global warming and the true path to America’s energy independence.

I am an engineer who is familiar with the nuclear power industry. Let me make a few points.


"It takes billions of dollars and at least 10 years to bring a new nuclear reactor online"

Most of the cost of a plant will be spent by the utility. If they did not invest in nuclear, they would invest in coal or natural gas. Each new nuclear plant that is built will prevent 23 billion pounds per year of carbon dioxide from being dumped into the atmosphere. This is enough to create a one foot thick layer of carbon dioxide over the entire state of Oregon every year. Also, new nuclear plants are already in the works, and will be operating in less than ten years from now. This can all be confirmed on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website (www.nrc.gov). The carbon dioxide statistic can be calculated from the Department of Energy's website (www.doe.gov).

"you still have to mine the uranium used in the reactors – and mining is a dirty, polluting process – and you have to store the nuclear waste somewhere "

We don't need to mine as much as we are currently. Europe reprocesses their spent fuel rods which decreases the amount of mining that needs to be done, decreases the volume of waste generated, and decreases the radioactivity of the waste generated. If you take all of the spent fuel created in all of the reactors in the United States for the entire history of nuclear power, it would all fit in a city block. If we reprocess it, we could make new fuel from the spent fuel and the byproduct would be much less radioactive.

"the utilities aren’t likely to build new plants unless they are heavily subsidized by the federal government"

In 2008, Congress authorized $38.5 billion in loan guarantee authority for innovative energy projects (www.doe.gov). This says "loan guarantee" for "innovative energy projects". This does not say "free money for nuclear power". Less than half of that money is going to nuclear power. Right now, there are 23 applications for 34 new nuclear power plants in the United States (www.nrc.gov). Obviously utilities are willing to fork over the money.

"we have solar and wind technologies, and several other renewable technologies, that are ready to be implemented on a large scale right now"

It's obvious that this was not written by someone who is familiar with electric distribution. Let me explain the problem with relying too heavily on solar and wind power. The problem is grid reliability. Part of the reason nuclear power is so attractive is because it is reliable. It will operate at its capacity over 95% of the time. Most of the time when it needs to come down (mainly for refueling), it lets the grid know, so other people can up their production. Because we don’t store energy on the grid, the production of electricity must equal consumption at all times. If we rely heavily on solar and wind farms, what would we do on a cloudy windless day? We would have to shut down parts of the grid and have rolling blackouts. In order to prevent this scenario, we need nuclear plants to produce electricity when the wind isn’t blowing. There are also costs to do this, because the grid needs to be updated to accommodate this option. Texas is planning on spending almost 4 billion dollars to update their grid for wind farms (www.ercot.com). I’m not trying to put down wind power, but we need something to pump out electricity when the wind isn’t blowing. Wind farms usually have an availability of roughly 30%. Also, solar is not ready to be implemented on a large scale now. It is very expensive to make, and does not generate near as much electricity as wind. For a 10 MW plant in Phoenix, AZ, the Levelized Cost Of Energy is estimated at $0.15 to 0.22/kWh (www.doe.gov). That is expensive compared to nuclear’s $0.02/kWh. The largest solar plant in the world is going to be in Australia (in service in 2010, and complete in 2013). It will be by far the largest, most advanced solar farm. It will be over twice as bit as the second biggest solar farm (154MW compared to the second place solar farm at 64MW). It will produce roughly 270 GWh/year. Two years later, new nuclear plants will begin rolling out. Each one of them will produce roughly 12,000 GWh/year. That’s the equivalent of 44 mega solar farms. The one mega solar plant will cost $420 million, the nuke plant will cost $7 billion. If you replaced the 1 nuke plant with 44 mega solar plants, it would cost $18.5 billion. That’s allot more money, and he cool part is the nuke plant would work on a cloudy day.

I do not want to sound like am against solar and wind technologies. I believe they will be a vital part of our electric system. I believe they NEED to be a part of our electric system, but I know that in the present climate of electricity distribution, we need nuclear to reduce our carbon emissions.

I am interested to hear that some improvements are being made to nuclear power but I wonder how much of this is being practiced here in the U.S. The fact is the problems that come with nuclear power are almost never mentioned when political persons include nuclear energy in their plans to save this nation's energy crisis and solve the greenhouse emissions problem.

So that leads me to believe that they have yet to embrace what was said about Europe's steps to cleaning up nuclear energy.
"reprocesses their spent fuel rods which decreases the amount of mining that needs to be done, decreases the volume of waste generated, and decreases the radioactivity of the waste generated."

In the US the main "solutions" the public are aware of are projects like Yucca Mountain storage facility which is on a fault line. I just do not understand why this is actually considered as an option when what Europe is doing would decrease the pollution associated with Nuclear energy.

American politics has been about the quick fix and if that attitude is held on the issue of solving climate change and the energy crisis trouble will follow.We must also take into account that our country's mining laws are ancient and are tipped for an almost complete advantage of the mining companies and little protection for OUR public lands and the state they will be left in. That is my main reason for not supporting more nuclear. We need a well rounded solution where the mining pollution and nuclear waste problems are addressed and built in to the plan before approval of new plants should be considered.

Doesn't this make sense?

I agree with you. First of all, you are correct when you say that the United States has yet to embrace the wonders of reprocessing. It is now legal, but because there is no government incentive to do it, and it is cheaper to mine uranium we don't do it. Reprocessing along with breeder reactors (which run on elements from spent fuel and make them into useful fuel) could practically eliminate large scale uranium mining. Keep in mind though, that nuclear power is trying to compete and replace coal power which I think we can all agree is far more hazardous to the environment (and releases more radiation) than nuclear plants.

Even though Yucca Mountain is on a fault line, it is possible to build there. Engineers are good at analyzing earthquakes and if the government is willing to pay a little more money for materials and design, they can build a safe structure in an earthquake zone.

Politicians are frustrating. They primarily look at what the polls say and shoot from the hip for quick fixes instead of looking at holistic long-term solutions.

The engineer makes many valid points. We actually need all forms, we just need to do them in as green a manner as possible. And if you do a little research, the U.S. is listed at the top of a chart that already says we are already the top consumer of nuclear power!
source: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/electric.html

what vbtb1 [Visitor] obviously doesn't know - aside from maybe a lot of other things - is that there is already a solution.

There's enough off-the-shelf energy efficiency technology to not only eliminate the need for new nuclear power plants but to replace the 20% of america's energy usage supplied by the 103 nuclear power plants presently operating in this country. at hand. right here, right now. and not costing the billions and taking the years to bring a single 1000 meg nuke plant on line.

the only thing right is the 'nuclear forever' tag since the number of years it will take for the nuclear waste we have produced so far might as well be forever. especially when your only concern is for your own generation of your own species.

best wishes for a future!

One of the main reasons I believe we need to make more nuclear plants is because every megawatt we make with nuclear energy is one megawatt that we don't need to make by burning hydrocarbons and fossil fuels. You are correct in that we need to be more efficient and we need to lower demand, but we should also be more eco-friendly in the supply of power as well. Bottom line is that coal plants dump 2.2 Billion tons of carbon dioxide annually into the air of the United States. If you believe that carbon dioxide causes global warming, then 2.2 Billion tons of it being dumped into the air each year from the coal plants in the United States should make you want to think twice before shooting down nuclear power. That is enough carbon dioxide to make a 100 foot think layer over the entire state of Oregon each year.

If we reprocess spent fuel, the waste would be less radioactive than the natural ore it came from in roughly 300 years. In fact, if we reprocessed fuel and everyone had to carry the waste they made to burn the energy they used for their entire life, each person would only make enough waste to fill a coke can which would decay back to normal radioactive levels in roughly 300 years.

I am an environmentalist and an engineer. I have studied the energy issue in the United States and have come to the conclusion that nuclear power is a good idea.

First of all, I don't see coal as a global warming problem, I see coal as air pollution. I see coal as a mine pollution problem, I don't see coal as being a long-term energy solution for our economy.
In like manner, I don't see nuclear energy as a global warming solution, I see nuclear energy as a form of technology just waiting for a catastrophe, killing countless people. I see nuclear energy as an Indian Killer, look at the uranium mining controversies in Navajo and Lakota country.
Nuclear energy needs cheap uranium. This uranium to be cheap must come from within this country, hence the uranium nukewashing by politicians, corporate-controlled media and aero-chair shills. Without this cheap uranium, the nuclear renaissance ends. Importing foreign uranium is too costly especially for the public consumer.
If uranium mining is allowed to restart in this country, then the arm race will begin again as importing uranium has been regulated under the Megatons-to-Megawatts, nuclear warhead conversion deal with our country and the Russians will end!
Personally nuclear energy is a threat to mankind, it is a threat to our children and no matter what kind of science fiction theories offered by pro-nuclear advocates, it is still far more dangerous than wind energy and solar power!
Besides nuclear energy is not affordable, it needs foreign investment and government subsidies to survive---therefore it is not a very good choice as it burdens the tax payer, is totally anti-American and only profits foreigners and corporate sell-outs!