America’s nuclear revival
Should we give nuclear power another chance? Could it help solve global warming? Tell us what you think.
Ernest J. Sternglass of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Monday’s keynote speaker, read his paper, “The Health Effects of Nuclear Fallout and Releases from Nuclear Power Plants.”
He said studies in the north central Texas area indicate large increases in cancer rates since the start-up of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Somervell County southwest of Fort Worth.
The Texas Cancer Center and the Texas Department of Health compared statistics for the first five years of the plant’s operation, 1990 to 1994, to the previous five-year period, 1985 to 1989.
Dr. Sternglass said the data indicates that cancer mortality in the counties surrounding the power plant - Somervell, Hood, Johnson and Erath - increased dramatically, 27 percent, during the second five-year period while the rate for the state increased 15 percent for the same period.
In Hood County, breast cancer increased 190 percent over the previous five-year period, and total breast cancer deaths for all four counties increased by 51 percent while the statewide increase was 12 percent for the same period.
Dr. Sternglass said the cancer rate for children ages 5 to 9 was very low before 1945, one case in 10,000, even in states such as Texas that have high rates of chemical pollution because of the oil and gas industry. The rate has since climbed to 100 in 10,000, “overwhelming evidence” of the link between childhood cancer and radiation, he said.
The partial meltdown in 1979 at Pennsylvania nuclear plant Three Mile Island, which released radiation into the air, resulted in the premature deaths of about 50,000 people, Dr. Sternglass said, despite the government’s claim that no one died as a result of the accident. He said a study of the increase in death rates showed a direct relation between the death rate and proximity to the plant.
In total, Dr. Sternglass estimates that 19 million adults have died prematurely and that an additional million children have died as a result of radiation in the air from nuclear bomb tests, nuclear plant accidents and radiation released into the atmosphere from power plants.
Would you want nuclear waste stored in a capsule in your body? Why would we create waste like this that we know is dangerous and lasts for longer than any of us and think that storing it somewhere makes it not exist anymore.
In a hundred years how many storage facilities must we have to deal with this mess.
I live in a place that has the toxic mess of our ancestors laying all around. They thought it didn’t matter. Now here I sit in it.
If you want nuclear power find a way to make it not have a waste product.
Find something that wants to eat the waste and create some other kind of beneficial product!!
Wide spread Nuclear power is enevitable.I am glad to see a renewed interest in this form of power.The same people that whine about the dangers of Nuclear power generation are the same percent of people who whine and cry about the pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels and the building of new dams for hydro electric power.
Will there be some problems and maybe a “nuclear accident” of some kind, sooner or later…I would venture to say yes…but it is the risk we have to take because it is the most energy efficient means of power we have.
I figure it will be good for about 100 to maybe 200 years and by then…us clever humans will have figured out a way to harness the Suns energy and no need for Nuclear power generation.
I also believe the nuclear power industry will discover creative new ways to utilise the various forms of Uranium and Uranium’s by products to the benifit of everyone.
Nuclear power does not bother me and never has and when you read the track record of the industry you learn it’s application is a lot safer than all the unhealthy fliuds and gaseous substance we handle and breath and live in proximity with everyday.
The logistics of the whole industry are not without question and the mining and extraction end of the logistics is more of a concern than the final use of the uranium product for Nuclear power.
But, I can undrstand peoples concern and the fact is the material is dangerous so it does have to be continually monitered and the safety factor has to be taken very seriously…there is always room for improvement and I would surmize the public at large just wants to sleep content, knowing the industry is well organised and as safe as we can make it while continually striving to make it better.
I’m sorry, but anything that can kill me and everyone else without us even knowing it is too much of a risk. For some reason the terrorists haven’t targeted nuke sites. If they ever do, it’s a HUNDRED-YEAR-PLUS cleanup.
Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest forms of energy available. Its waste that everyone is so afraid of, is easily stored and contained. With proper shielding and containers, it can be stored for 100’s of years safely. Bury it in my back yard, and ill still get less radiation exposure in my life than you will flying across country once due to the buried spent material. Further, look at technology and what the spent fuel can be used for, i guarantee its a lot more than spent oil or coal can be used for.
The comments regarding Three Mile Island and Chernoyble are unfounded and shows a lack of knowledge on nuclear power, testing, and exactly what happened. Nobody was hurt at TMI, and there was NO meltdown. There are many PBS videos with plenty of expert testimony that will attest to this FACT.
Saftey concerns and managing concerns? Take a long hard look at the Atomic Energy Act and the folks that dedicate thier lives to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the rules they implement regarding operation of plants, records required, and training requirement.
Did you know the US Navy operates over a hundred nuclear reactors a day with no incidents to date? Seems like those folks trained to operate those plants know what we are doing, and so do the civilians that do the same job ashore. By the way, did you know most Nuclear operators ashore are former Nuclear operators from the Navy? I think the folks hired to run the plants are more than qualified and more than safe doing thier job.
Is nuclear power the way to go? Yes. Does it take the money back from the middle east oil millionaires and put it back into good American pockets? Absolutely.
I have been working in the nuclear industry for over 20 years. It is one of the safest, most regulated, occupations I have ever seen. I have hundreds of friends who feel the same as I do. The nuclear industry has been a great career and I wouldn’t change a thing if I had to do it all over again.
For those interested in further information about re-usuing spent fuel, check out: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
Note: Liquid lead can be used instead of sodium (the Russians developed a grade of steel that handles molten lead).
Also note: A higher efficiency plant would use CO2 in a heat exchanger with liquid sodium or lead, spin a turbine, and the excess heat would be used to run a steam generator to turn another turbine. This is known as a “combined cycle” plant, and has an estimated efficiency of +45% - much better than the 33% typically seen.
Yes. we should go completely nuclear. The spent fuel has alot of reusable by-products that can be reprocessed. We have current state-of-the-art technology to do so, else it’s foolish and wasteful to just let it sit while we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has slowed down the earths natural cooling trend. Our coral reefs, rainforests and crops arealreadysuffering theadverse affects. Plus it would be a job boon. The radiological concerns have been exhagerated fueled by fear ignorance and scare tactics. We need to think with our heads not irrational fears.
We look like the laughing stock to the world, a super power that’s affraid of its own nuclear power. The terrorist threads are constantly being monitored, so as to minimise their threats.
Anything but oil Einstine said donot do this mabey these men are smarter
There is no question that emissions-wise nuclear energy is as clean as you can get but what do you do with the spent rods? And just how do we make sure that nuclear plants are maintained properly? Until those questions are resolved, nuclear is not a great option - and it’s very expensive.
My company makes fuel cells that make clean energy and pose none of the risks that nuclear plants do. Fuel cells can be placed close to where electricity is needed so they are also a great way to relieve grid congestion. The materials that are “spent” are recycled so there is no disposal problem. This is a much better solution than nuclear power plants.
There are nuke technologies out there that put to rest the age old question of what to do with the spent fuel.
http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html is a good link to read up on, if you want to become a little more educated on the matter.
YES. It’s worked for years in Europe without incident. It’s clean and safe. Nut jobs like Wasserman are 30 years out of date. It’s the only solution to our energy needs.
Do you want Nuclear waste stored in your city or town?
Seeing I actually know the risks of nuclear power and waste, I’d be willing to have it stored in my back yard.
Should we give nuclear power a chance? Could it solve global warming???? What kind of a question is that. What you should ask is do you care about the planet we live on or do you want to prolong your own life? Polution is polution whiether it floats in the air or you try to burry it in a giant salt hole. People should wise up. we could live with a little socialism (the evil s world) the federal government should take control of our electricity. Build solar farms, charge us a fair but AFFORDABLE (DOMINION!!!!!!)price and in turn use the money for better technology or improve our financal situation
Nuclear waste is only thing people have to save that is bad about nuclear. But how much waste does a nuclear plant generate in comparison to the waste of coal, gas or oil plants. The only difference is that this waste is a solid instead of a gas. This makes it easier to capture, transport and store.
This may not even be an issue in the future as work is being done on how to use spent nuclear fuel (which contains generally 98% of its original power) as an additional fuel source which won’t produce nuclear by-products.
There is enough Uranium in the world to provide power for upwards of 50 years. So we have 50 years to come up with a better solution (such as nuclear fusion or anti-matter).
All that is needed is for people to stop being so short sited and for them to pressure their government into investing in these technologies.
And for everyone who thinks that other options such as wind or solar are viable solutions here is a Canadian example of how much energy solar plants produce.
In order to power the Greater Toronto Area an area of approx. 5 and 1/2 million people we would have to cover the entire province of Manitoba with solar panels an area of 647,797 km² or 250,116 sq mi. thats about the size of Texas 261,797 sq mi.
TMI was NOT a meltdown. Minor cooling leak comes to mind. Actually, the radiation released from TMI was less than the radioactive wastes released into the sewer from radiation therapy at the local hospital. TMI was also less radioactive than the waters at Lourds (forgive the spelling). Please people, do your research. Oh, an no one died from it.
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest, safest power sources we have. Yet know-knothings and people with agendas shoot it down and then complain about all the polution. What a weird world eh?
(Fortune magazine has a cover story about the nuclear industry stemming the “global energy crisis.” The rationale rings true in certain situations. But do we want to manage the “baggage” of “Nukes ‘R Us”?
Probably if the urban legislators think nukes “play” better for their constituents than do the ag-based renewables. The “urbies” complain that a national RPS penalizes them because they don’t have local resources. If they join the “aggies” to build additional transmission line capacity and fully “wheel” deregulated green power, the urbies can inexpensively buy their RPS requirement from the aggies. It is not “rocket science.” But the urbies will see that as an imbalance of power and kill the notion. Yeesh.
Proponents of nuclear power should call their Senators and Representatives to request that they lobby for a radioactive waste disposal plant in their home state.
The other issues are all but solved; waste is the show-stopper. (If you need clarification on that, I’ll patch you through to the kids.)
The reason NATO allows the USA to have reactors and not other nations is because of the type of materials used. Plutonium is a byproduct of U-238, which is the material Iran is using in their reactors. So the arguement can be made that their nuclear power program is in place to create weapons grade nuclear material. The USA reactors uses U-235, whose byproduct is not weapons capable.
For those that want an analogy. Just like there is more than one way for you to drive yourself to work; there is more than one way to generate nuclear power. You can pass a waste storage facility on the way, or a WMD fabrication facility.
It boils down to maintaining diversity on a wide band of Renewable technologies.The moment we become one track we had it.The beauty is it permits sustenance of our wide range of skills old or new which often creates a sense of insecurity in most of us.In turn we do lot good while washing sins.
Why use nuclear power when alternative renewable energies can do it just as well. For $5B (price given for a nuclear reactor), I could easily build plant using renewables (mostly solar and wind, some small hydro, geothermal,..) that is just as reliable, produces just as much power and has much less environmental impact (no rivers to divert, or heat up, no radio active waste that noone knows what to do with, no risk of a Chernobyl…). Renewable technology is there, with a some more research it can be improved even further, the sun sends us more energy than we could ever use… FREE !! Why gamble with toxic, lethal, environmentally extremely harmful technology ?!? Go SOLAR !
Why We Need to go NUCLEAR
1. We have no other choice. The demand for oil has outpaced supply and we need to transition to a new source of transportation energy.
2. The use of hydrogen powered cars requires lots of electricity in order to separate water and make hydrogen. With global warming concerns, do you really want to burn more coal?
3. Wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal are awesome, but will not meet the growing demand for energy.
3. The vast majority of uranium in the world is in Canada, USA and Australia. This means that for once Democratic countries will control the supply of energy to the world. This will be a great bargaining chip for world peace!
4. Nuclear is safer than coal because coal has killed many more people. France has a perfect record of safety.
5. Going nuclear will solve global warming because it does not produce CO2 emissions.
It’s funny how people that are against nuclear have no alternatives to give except solar and wind, which may never be able to put a real dent in our energy problem, I personally am for it because i believe that it is much safer than it used to be (even though it’s never killed a single person in the US) and much more efficent. As far as waste, I believe that we will find a way to either reuse or make it non-radioactive. So go nuclear or lights go out.
Let’s be positive on this, and develop a new technology. I find it a massive waste to bury nuclear waste, like a dog burys a bone. We need a daring, imaginative entrepreneur and investors to figure out a way to use the residual nuclear waste to passively generate electric power. After all nuclear reactor waste is still radioactive for 10,000 years, and we should still be able to harness this wasted energy to generate heat or electricity. All you need is the right compostion, mixture and formula.
Because of the nuclear waste is exactly why we need a broader spectrum of choices in reaching energy needs; first, conservation; second, alternative energies. A person in the nuclear energy industry told me that new technology today is more efficient at using the max out of the nuclear fuel rendering less potent. But, who knows long-term effects? I’d rather see windmill farms.
Just save some A/C energy by painting your roof white to reflect sunlight.
The US Navy should be in charge of nuke waste! It should dump it in active undersea volcanoes!No one coould mess with it there.
Yes - we should. I have lived within 10 miles of the Indian Point plant for the last 20 years and it doesn’t concern me. Our local air and water are very clean and I would rather use electricty from nuclear power, than be breathing in the pollution from a coal fired plant. The fear of Nuclear power fits into the typical human fallacy of worrying about the spectacular, once in a billion risk like a Chernobyl, rather than the slow, steady and certain risks of pollution, global warming, smoking, poor diet etc.
There is a very solultion to this question. Do you want Nuclear waste stored in your city or town?
It is the most under promoted, cleanest and safest source of electrical power. We (USA) have had fifty years of safe production and no one has fearlessly raised the standard to sing its praises. It’s time to come to the forefront is way overdue.
I say we need more nuclear plants as part of a balanced energy mix. But also do more research in Solar, Wind and Hydrogen. In fact, I think nuclear power should be used for hydrogen generation as well.
Special interest groups pro Oil, coal and other supplementary industries, rail, gas, etc., would like to pin nuclear, solar and wind against each other.
Nuclear, solar and wind are the solution. They should stick together as environmentally friendly sources. Don’t let Oil coal and gas (primitive forms of energy)divide the house. Pro Solar and pro wind activists should support nuclear. Lets move on.
At the moment, Nuclear Power seems to be the only reasonable course we can take. Reduced polution, plus, the reduction in the demand on fossil fuels will dramatically decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources.
They are also quite safe. Current designs have a number of failsafes built into the system, and current prototype reactors, such as the Pebble Bed design, are so safe that even in the event that the entire control system going down, including all redundant backups, they will still fail to a safe mode.
nuclear energy is the only reliable, economical, centrally based energy source yet available. it is unfortunate that the united states inhierited so much coal as to make it the cheapest source of energy to date. it is unfortunate that the wave of wind and solar cannot be the sole energy provider, due to there own inability to deliver a steady stream of energy, regardless of weather or time of day.
the benefits of nuclear are clear: zero carbon emissions. long lasting source. the world has hundreds of years worth of uranium in proven reserves, combined with generation four technology, we would practically never run out.
i’m no tree hugger, but i know that coal is about as dirty as energy gets, not just the burning, but also the refining and mining that are required to make use of it.
geothermal is nice theoretically, but not widespread enough to harness on a vast scale, solar is a cane to wobble with, installed in remote, sunny places where it must be transported to areas of demand. wind is very positive, but not reliable enough, and not central enough.
don’t even get me started on biofuels. useful SHORT term transition fuel, but every stalk of corn in this country could only replace a fifth of the gasoline usage.
the world needs nuclear, and we are the ones who must lead the charge into dominating the industry.
Many of the comments below have been favorable to nuclear energy as everyone seems to be focused on the process of power generation. Everyone seems to forget the byproduct of power plants - spent fuel rods.
We do not yet have a solution for nuclear waste. Not even Yuca Mountain is found to be appropriate, as the salt of that mountain would provide an enviroment for leaks into the soil. Additionally, there is the seismic risk in that solution.
Until we can find a completely safe way to either dispose of or recycle the spent fuel rods, I do not see nuclear energy as a long term solution. We already have enough spent fuel rods accumulating right now as it is. We must be responsible for the future of our children and for the safe existence of humankind.
Providing the power we consume is a matter of choose the lesser of evils. It seems that oppponents of Nuclear power sometimes don’t fully consider the effects of other forms of power generation. Coal plants for example pump out green house gases and other toxins at alarming rates. They also typically produce 300,000 **tons** of ash each a year that must be disposed. That compares to three tons of waste for a nuclear plant. Also, don’t forget the environmental and human costs of obtaining and transporting coal and oil. Consider how many miners die every year acquiring all that coal. These are actual deaths, not potential deaths caused by accidental radiation leaks. Also consider the environmental costs of coal and oil. Coal mining destroys land and oil invariably is spilled a la the Exxon Valdez. In summary nuclear plants require dramatically less fuel and release zero harmful emissions into the atmosphere when operating properly.
I believe that Nuclear Fission power (Current form of nuclear power we use today) is the correct course of action to meet the demands of our planets energy needs. I do however feel that within 50 years we will be able to move away from Fission power to Fusion power (Fusion is the energy generation method used by the stars). Fusion power is really the answer to our long term energy needs. It has all of the benefits of Fission power with none of the negatives we associate with nuclear power today. Nuclear proliferation, accident concerns, and waste are relatively non existent with Fusion power. Because of this, I feel we should really be focused on developing the technology to utilize Fusion. Fission power will satisfy us for a few decades but our eye should really be on the Fusion power. Currently there are a few countries that are testing Fusion power reactors.
Absolutely Not! After 3 mile Island and Chernoble there is no room for nuclear. Zero Tolerence for a mistake/accident. Put the time and money into renewables.
Nuclear power is required if the United States wants to maintain economic growth, and slow the growth of, and eventually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Although there are many interesting, and potentially beneficial renewable energy sources, one huge problem with most of them is that they can’t be depended on for base loading of the electrical grid. When the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing you still need electricity. Nuclear and hot rock geothermal are the only two technologies that hold the potential to deliver base load electricity reliably and without greenhouse gases.
Nuclear power by itslef is not a sufficient solution. Almost as much power is lost on the grid distributing electricity as is delivered as light and mechanical energy by the end user. Upgrades to the national energy grid to reduce losses can have a huge impact on total energy demand. Higher efficiency is also needed. The US could take easy steps like outlawing the traditional incedescent light bulb. High efficiency lighting, and better use of task lighting in home and ofice design can dramatically reduce power for lighting. Motors can also be made more efficient.
One big area for reduced electrical use is in electronics that “sleep”. Computers, TV’s, VCR’s, basically everything that can be turned on with a remote all consume electricity when they’re “off”. In some cases, the amount consumed is close to what the device uses when turned on. Better efficiency standards for consumer electronics would bring significant savings.
Other forms of renewable energy become more practical if the US auto fleet becomes heavily based on plug in hybrids. They can charge the grid when renewable energy is low, and recharge themselves when it’s high. This gives the grid the capability to store energy, something it can’t do well today.
The final piece is hot rock geothermal. Drill deep enough into the earth, and rock is hot. This heat can be used to generate hot water and steam in a closed loop cycle. No greenhouse gasses are emitted, except potentially during drilling. The amount of heat available is huge and could provide a substantial part of our electricity needs.
The overall solution to our energy needs is a balance between more generation, more efficient distribution, more efficient use, and some storage capability on the grid.
Whatever advantages or disadvantages nuclear energy offers, one thing is sure, nuclear reactors are one of the country’s most attractive targets for terrorists. If you can blow a nuclear reactor, there is no need for you to produce nuclear bombs to achieve the same result. Why should we give terrorists such opportunities?
It’s an excellent idea. Without it at this epoch, civilization ends–and with said collapse the greatest pollution problem would be billions of human corpses littering the landscape.
In reply to some of Frederick Ress’s questions: 1) recycle most, if not all waste, why store it? If storage is necessary vitrify it (at a profit) as the French do for their own huge uses and for imported waste. But also: India is developing a reactor that doesn’t use uranium 236/7 or that whole cycle; the which might be one answer to weapons proliferation–another is eradicate the poverty-base which facilitates the drive to war.. 2) Federal insurance: par of the propaganda campaign by the Synarchists. 3) Attack on nuclear plants: addressed earlier by 2 other commentators
There are numberous comments concerning a “safe” method for storing nuclear waste products for extremely long periods of time. What most people don’t know is that the waste currenly being stored can in fact be re-used as fuel for current and future reactors. Also, there are ways to contain the waste that have been tested over the milenia time scales people have mentioned before.
First, much of the waste generated in the USA falls into two main types. The first is the materials exposed to radiation and which is considered “low level” waste. These materials can be placed in dry, burried storage as they do not generate internal heating.
The second type of waste, “high level” waste, is a whole other problem. This type of waste will generate its own heat just sitting somewhere and requires cooling of some sort to keep it from becoming soft under the heat. Most of this consists of spent fuel assemblies.
So the solution to the problem is as follows:
1) Low level nuclear waste is compacted into near solid forms and burried.
2) Nuclear waste is re-processed to extract the uranium and plutonium (which is highly toxic and accounts for the 10,000 year number most people hear about)
3) The re-processeced fuel assemblies go back into the reactors where the plutonium is fissioned into other atoms
4) The waste from the re-processing is combined with liquid ceramics to form spheres.
5) The spheres are burried along with the low level waste.
Glassification works because ceramics are unaffected by heat over the long time scales and because the radioactive materials within them can only be extracted by breaking the molecular bonds and collecting the former waste atom by atom. Also, we know that ceramics can survive for thousands of years because the oldest human artifacts are stone fragments of pottery.
There are solutions. They just need to be employed.
Death by Nuclear? In the last week we have heard about the tragic deaths due to a recent bridge collapse, and the hundreds who have died in the last several decades due to bridge failure not to mention the 1000’s of deaths due to dams collapsing.
The record speaks for itself, NO ONE PERSON has died from radiation accident at a commercial nuclear power plant in the last 40+ years they have been operating! Compare this with the record of coal production
What is your best guess for how many people have died in the past 40+ years from coal mining, transportation and emission? The number is in the 10’s of thousands, Yes, 10’s of thousands!
So what is perceived and what is real to the public are two different things. Coal you can touch, smell, taste and see the pollution. In fact park next to a typical coal fired plant and see the acid rain eat the paint off your car, so it is no guess what it’s doing to your lungs. Yet, the public finds this acceptable risk and prefers coal generation over nuclear. Go figure?
I don’t believe nuclear energy is a viable solution to our energy dilemma. More problems would be created for a relatively small benefit. We have other options.
Instead of going nuclear, why not scale up existing Fuel Cell Tech to supply grid needs? It’s a much better approach to trying to do this at the single automobile level…
Why?
1. Scale - the infrastructure needed to get fuel cell tech to each auto is huge… We’d get huge scale if we built 20 or 30 Fuel cell tech electric generation plants to supply the grid (yes - they would be very large, and would be best located near a huge water source - this implies coastline locations)…
2. Cost - could use smaller, standardized design Nuke Power plants to produce hydrogen from water source for Fuel Cell electric co gen plants - again, achieve scale via standardized design.
3. Move cars to all electric.
Bene’s - approach zero emmissions standards for electric gen and auto use…
Just an idea…
We have to essentially Focuss on the strategy of Triangular approach of Nuclear,Hydro and Gas Based Power.Our user end Efficiencies have to be stepped up via Combined Heat and Power applications in Fuel Cells.Wind and Solar Heating/Refrigeration if not Solar Power will have to play a supporting role for Grid/Industrial applications to reduce conventional Power Generation.That is it.If we do all this limited Coal based Power Generation should make sense in the entire Spectrum of Sustainability.
There is no free lunch when it comes to electrical power generation. Dams kill fish, wind turbines kill birds and spoil the landscape, photovoltaics use high-tech toxic materials, wave energy takes crab grounds, fossile fueled power plants put carbon compounds into the atmosphere, nuclear generates radioactive waste.
Nuclear power is not the answer. Please say no to nuclear. it will just lead to more disasters and more threats to areas and cities where the plants are located. We need ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. Nuclear energy is like so called “Clean coal” a way to avoid going to the real solution, Solar power, wind energy, and alternative fuels….like hydrogen ..we need a hydrogen car initiative and alternative fuels initiative now. not 50 yrs from now. We need to stop putting fossil fuels into the atmosphere…we do not need nuclear power. Time to move to alternative fuels!
I opposed Nukes before most of you were able to read about them.
When River Bend was proposed in St. Francisville, Louisiana, several hundred of us protested against it..
I wrote letters in the Atchafalya Echo
and several other local papers.
I had read many articles and based some of my conmments on “We almost Lost Detroit”
My kids and many of my neighbor’s kids
attened False River Academy and Catholic HIgh, approximately across False River from
the “”Monster”"Plant.
We were told that “NUclear Excursions” (BS for meltdowns) were “UNlikey to Happen” Great Comfort for all the residents and all the grade and high school children next door.
Is was in the late 70’s I cannot find a copy, but my ending statements were” My children attend school across the River from the proposed plant. In the “UNLIKELY” event of a “Nuclear Excursion” who will write their epitaph?
Rather overstated, but the papers loved it and my english teacher said that she was not surprised at my “Talent”
However, lots and lots of plants were build. Can we not find another way To build safer and more effective ways of heating and cooling?
Go nuclear!
- There is enough Uranium to last us for thousands of years.
- Nuclear energy is clean. Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled, they are not waste.
- Nuclear reactors have gone thru several generations, they are safe!
- “Peak oil”, we may be in it now, you can’t see the peak until several years down the road.
- None of the alternative energy comes close to replace oil. The energy content of a small pellet (7gm) of uranium = 3.5 barrels of oil = 17000 ft3 of natural gas = 1780 pounds of coal.
- The current ethanol boom is a joke. Positive ERoEI is debatable, not to mention corn farming produce lots of greenhouse gas and the undesirable side effect of jacking up price in the food complex.
- Nuclear powered electricity can extract the needed hydrogen to make fuel cells for our cars or to power desalination plants to convert sea water into fresh water.
- Billions of people in third world country want to drive cars too and they are going to “drink” from the same “Peak oil” pools. Go nuclear now to avoid resource wars.
- Burning fossil fuel heats up our planet big time! The devastating consequence of global warming is unthinkable. If it may happen, then what about risk management?
- Energy security should be a concern for the U.S., fortunately, Canada and Australia have the bulk of world’s proven uranium reserves.
As mentioned below, the real problem with nuclear is waste disposal. I can think of only two safe and effective methods. You can essentially reverse the refining process;ie, disperse the radioactive material in so much dirt the resulting concentration and hence the radioactive emission levels are commensurate with background levels. Or, load the concentrated stuff into a rocket and send it to the sun. The former method would actually be the safest. Regardless, there would be enormous costs associated with either approach. If you insist effective waste disposal be included in power generation cost, I don’t believe nuclear will be competitive with our current methods….. If we want to pursue nuclear, we need to put our efforts into fusion power reactors. Then, this waste problem doesn’t exist.
Absolutely YES !
We really have no reasonable option.
The alternative is to be held hostage and a eventual collapse of our economy.
In addition, it is an accepted fact,the damage any fossil fuel is doing to our planet.
Absolutely essential! Unless the human race is dematically reduced (ie wars or disease) we are using more energy than the sun can provide us. Nuclear fission and hopefully fusion is the only solution.
In response to Greg from Ohio.
The information regarding solar farms you noted is false. Each person can power his or her home by simply using the un-used space on their own home. The amount of space required to power a city by solar would be significantly larger than the space required to build a nuclear or coal plant. You just need to weigh the pros on cons. PG&E, which is northern California’s electric utility is doing an amazing job with using all sorts of renewable energy to power its customers. Over 53% of the power generated by them is carbon free. This is all done without raising customers rates.
Hello all,
I am safety director for “the” up and coming nuclear fuels producer of the United States. I have just spent the last four and a half hours reading through the posts on this forum. Thank goodness that the people of the United States are becoming educated in the safety of nuclear power. My company is involved in the mining and milling of uranium ore and as a by product we will produce refined vanadium. I can personally assure you that the production of uranium can and will be done in an extremely safe manner.
We have the technology to mine uranium very safely and it might suprise many people to know that radiation is not my primary concern right now. I conducted radon testing on our main mining complex recently and was very pleased to find that our radon levels are far below the Mine Safety and Health Administrations standards. My main concern right now is to comply with the noise exposure standards and the diesel particulate matter standards, these are the really tough safety issues that our nations uranium miners face right now.
My father worked most of his life (30+years) in the nuclear fuels production industry mining and milling uranium. He retired at age 65 and enjoyed a very long and happy retirement (he passed away two years ago at age 90 of complications of acute arthritis). Mine and mill safety has improved expotentially over the years and I am very confident that the people who work for our company will enjoy the same long and happy retirement that my father did, as a matter of fact I am here to guarentee it.
Sincerly Jess W Fulbright
Some things to consider when you are writing your next piece on nuclear power. The cost of nuclear fuel is just a notch above the cost of water for hydro plants. When oil used to cost around $28 per barrel ( in the 1980’s), it was a bargain. Contrast that view with oil at $70+. You can’t afford to run gas plants with the high cost of that fuel and coal is not real appealing to the environmental set as there are tons and tons of green house gases emitted in running the plants.
What has always been the downside to nukes is the cost to secure and administer the plants. Regulatory reporting is a nightmare as is the multi-layers of security. When I was in that industry, a 90 outage was common and more likely 105+ days. If they are doing 21 or 27 day outages, their capacity factors have to be way up and their cost to produce electricity is even more of a bargain than it was 20 years ago.
I’ve been wondering how long it was going to take for the industry to come back and now it right around the corner. Nukes don’t produce green house gases, fuel is cheap and you don’t have to do open pit mining to get the product. Yes there is rad waste, but we have all the technology to handle it, including fuel reprocessing. The powers that be, ought to be re-thinking that issue, get over it, and just imagine that spent fuel storage is no longer a problem!
I was a reactor operator in the Navy for 11 years, on two classes of submarine. Underway I slept, ate and showered no more than 60 feet from a nuclear reactor operating at various power levels. Furthermore, I am the third generation of my family to be involved in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. These experiences qualify me to speak to the subject with some authority.
Nuclear power is safe. The wastes generated by nuclear power generation are minimal. Any material that has POTENTIALLY come in contact with radioactive material is deemed radioactive waste and is removed from the site as such. It is then surveyed for free release. The aggregate waste for final disposition is significantly less than initial generation. Certain wastes, due to geometry, can not be sufficiently surveyed for free release and must be considered radioactive waste. To answer a previous comment, all waste that is not mixed material, hazardous chemicals that are also potentially contaminated, are more than welcome in my backyard.
The United States has the most advanced reactor designs. Our research for Naval Nuclear Power would translate easily to commercial use. The reason that TMI and Chernobyl had different environmental impact stems from a concept called inherent stability. All American nuclear power plants employ this concept.
Why can’t other countries use nuclear power plant? They can! The problem arises in how they try to develop it. There are significant differences between a reactor used for power generation and the production of weapons grade materials. These differences are obvious to inspectors. Uranium enrichment is not required for civilian, land-based nuclear power plants. When Iran starts to enrich Uranium, they are either starting a propulsion program, or a weapons generation program.
Nuclear power plants measure fuel consumption in kilograms per year. Oil and coal require thousands of tons of fuel to produce the same usable energy as grams of spent nuclear fuel. Wind and solar power, to compete with nuclear power, are expensive and unreliable. The environmental impacts of wind and hydroelectric power are, in my humble opinion, unacceptable.
Terrorists could crash a 747 into a nuclear power plant’s containment facility with minimal impact. These structures are engineered to withstand Mother Nature’s most awesome attacks, unfeasible concoctions of simultaneous earthquakes and super typhoons in a PA countryside wildfire. Unless said terrorists attack a site with a nuclear weapon, they stand little chance of success. If they already have a nuclear weapon, they would probably not use it on a nuclear site since they are generally located away from population centers.
Nuclear is and has been a good solution for a long time. Has money and polution finally gotten the attention of the obstructors? France got it right long ago and we still sit here in coal dust.
For all of those who worry about waste, lest we forget the waste from other types of energy. If we suffer from global warming and we total the environment we won’t be worrying about the waste of neclear power plants, we will be starving to death!
I say it’s the best alternative we have. My father was lead engineer for the Nerva Project for AeroJet. He later worked for Bechtel corp, which he greatly respected the professionalism and honesty. His favor was for nuclear by far and even did a study for some group on this exact subject. His many comments were things like: “We get more radiation from burning coal than from Three Mile Island at the height of the accident”.
Nuclear may be a good choice if all factors are addressed and taken into consideration - same with compact florescent light bulbs & mercury, hybrid cars & batteries, solar & chips, oil & pollution, biofuel & overall input vs. output…
But we need think of aggregate impact, on a scale on billions, not just 300 million Americans. Even the best of ideas/intentions can go awry when you scale them up massively.
Nothing can make a bigger impact than conservation - it can be implemented much faster, the moment you don’t consume it, and reduces any number of negative impacts depending on the item/resourse/energy source.
We basically haven’t made a permanent storage site for any of the nuclear waste we have on hand now – Yucca Mountain should be used ASAP, at least we would have one place to monitor and protect vs. hundreds of poorly maintained and secured facilities. New safer more efficient plants should replace older ones - but decommissioning generates more contaminated waste.
Most current statements that nuclear is cheap have federal subsidies and supports built in, but exclude much of the cost of major accident liability, waste transport, long term storage and maintenance - which, like the subsidies is paid by taxpayers and not the companies. Everything looks cost effective when you ignore / externalize significant costs.
Full analysis & disclosure should rule our decision making, not sensationalist info-tainment & politics - but I really doubt it will.
Funny how fast the pendulum swings – nuclear bad/good, SUVs great/horrible, Iraq bad/war bad, China cheap goods/economic super power, Republicans/Democrats.
Nuclear energy is the only clean energy source that could possibly scale enough to meet our current (and future) energy demands…solar and wind are not going to cut it as substitutes for coal. People who call themselves “environmentalists” need to get behind nuclear instead of fear-mongering about nuclear “waste” (which is actually just spent nuclear fuel). If you do any legitimate research into the topic, I promise you will see the benefits of converting to nuclear energy. France gets about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power now, so it can be done. Other countries already recycle spent nuclear fuel and as more research and money is thrown at the area, it can become cost-effective in the U.S. and the outlook for a viable nuclear fuel-recycling solution can only improve.
Coal adsorbs many heavy metals like uranium. In fact most coal-fired electrical plants emit more radioactive waste into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant. I believe nuclear power is a safe and environmentally friendly alternative to burning oil.
Nuclear power is the only logical answer to our growing energy needs. Whether you are politically or socially against it is really irrelavent when you look at the practical side of the problem. A single nuclear plant can displace millions of tons of CO2 that would otherwise be emmitted by a burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). What most people don’t know is that burning fuels like coal also emmits radiation into the air because all coal has some radioactive isotopes in it that occur naturally. When you burn trainloads of it every day it becomes a quantity that far exceeds the radioactivity released by any nuke plant! Also, has anyone ever wondered why doctors tell pregnant women (or the rest of us for that matter) that its not a good idea to eat fresh water fish? It’s because we’ve polluted our waterways and lakes with mercury (among other things) as a direct result of burning fossil fuels. You don’t get that from a nuke plant either. Another bit of info: In the early 1980’s the nuclear fleet capacity utilization was only around 60%. Today it is around 92%. Also many of them have been “uprating” their power output. So while no new plants have been built in the U.S., their total power output is 50%-60% higher than it was 25 years ago. You’re wondering why energy companies are making so much money these days?
As far as solar is concerned, the last time I checked it would take upwards of 9.1 million PV panels (120 watts/ea) at 100% capacity to generate the electricity put out by 1 new generation nuke plant. We all know that solar doesn’t generate a thing at night and only at reduced rates when it is sunny so it wouldn’t be a far stretch to expect to have to put in as much as 5 times that number. That’s 45 million panels! My guess is that would cost 22 BILLION or more and take up 10,000 acres of land. Where’s the economy of that? And who wants to put them on their roof, or back yard, or forest?
Wind? Same deal. Do the numbers and you quickly realized that these sources are only good in deserts and windy places (and remote places) and even then they are economically questionable. Areas of dense population (like the entire U.S. east coast, midwest, etc.) are out of the
question.
I like to think that the California is a good example of what NOT to do when it comes to energy policy for the U.S. as a whole. The state imports electricity from other states (simply “passing the buck” to other states) and thus makes itself vulnerable to energy trading like the “crises” that happened many years ago. Also, where are all the companies (and jobs) going? They are certainly not staying in California when industries can go elsewhere to find cheaper energy prices and less regulation.
The U.S. will be in economic disaster if we don’t produce our own energy and do it quickly with proven technology that works. Nuclear is currently the only way to go.
I would be for nuclear energy production if you could solve a few problems;
1.If nuclear power is so safe why does it take federal legislation to remove liability for possible accidents? I believe this is the only energy industry to need such legislation.
2.Is there a permanent solution to the storage problem? The industry creates large quantities of incredibly potent poisons that last for hundreds of thousands of years. This is even after any recycling process. The temporary solutions we, or the French, use will not last long. Unless you believe our civilization will last for hundreds of thousands of years, future terrorists will find endless use for these poisons. Unless you believe there will be no future terrorists.
3.The material produced by nuclear power generation is necessary for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It would be hard to deny any country nuclear energy technology while we find it so necessary. Iran is only the latest country. There have been many others and there will be many others.
4.Is nuclear energy really that cheap? The vast majority of research on nuclear energy is paid by your tax dollars. Liability is covered by the federal government (your tax dollars). The cost of hundreds of thousands of years of guarding the waste is covered by future generations. The increase in military expenditures due to the proliferations of nuclear weapons is covered by tax dollars. The health problems, etc. caused by mining are paid for by those country’s tax dollars.
5.A terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant would be unbelievable. Perhaps this is the main reason for legislation removing liability. Have we learned that it is impossible to make anything terrorist proof? Why create such perfect targets?
If you can solve all these problems, and not just one or two, I would be for nuclear energy, otherwise I support conservation and other alternatives.
Nuclear energy has one MAJOR problem….What do you do with the waste??? Nuclear half-life is just that..After 10,000 years the half that’s left will still kill you just as dead. AND waste is not just spent fuel, there is also tools,building parts,pipes,cement,clothes,water,etc.etc.etc. This waste has to be removed from contact with the environment essentially FOREVER. What has man made that will last that long?? One mistake and things could get really nasty for everyone.
Robin-
Government nuclear waste is pretty hard to get information on since it also deals with the disposal of the spent nuclear reactors from submarines. In my opinion the volume of waste from commerical reactors is way more. As far as I know there is no “recycling” of radioactive isotopes.
At one time the US was building a “Breeder Reactor” at the Clinch River Site for more effieient use of the fuel cycle.
Can anyone comment on the mass/volumue of nuclear waste from commercial applications (power generation) as compared to that of non-commercial applications (government use/nuclear weapons)? And is nuclear waste recycled many times before it is truly disposed of?
Nuclear power, irrepairable ecological damage, or “economic meltdown:” There is only one clear choice here. For the fearful and ill-informed; nuclear power is as safe, environmentally friendly, and economically feasible as it gets. So let’s all stop listening to the “chicken littles” out there and get serious about freeing ourselves from bondage under OPEC……and there is higher probability of winning the Florida lottery (twice) than of another 3-Mile Island incident ever occurring again.
All power systems have waste. Solar requires batteries with short shelf lifes, coal has polutants, but nuclear is by far the most difficult to deal with. Its’ waste can linger for hundreds of thousands of years. That’s longer than modern humans have been around. Can we really handle something of that scale? We should choose truely renewable sources of energy.
Yucca Mountain is a very conservative location for storing spent fuel and high level waste. Most of the high level radioactive waste has very short half-lives consequently they become rather benign in a very short ime span. As for plutonium, as a previous writer has said is very easy to control. This element is very heavy and is an “alpha” emmiter which can be simple sheilded by a sheet of paper. Don’t take my word for it, simply look in it up. The issue has been surrounded by hysteria, and politics, nothing more.
The entire waste storage issue has been politics at its lowest. The property is owned by US taxpayers, but the opening of the facility has been blocked at every turn by the likes of Senator Reid of NV, and nuclear opponents. Most of the claims center around what happens to the waste 10,000 years later! I’ve even heard the arguement that the “people” living 10,000 years in the distant future may not understand what’s buried at Yucca mountain and may decide to investigate the site posing a problem for these futureistic people when they encounter a canaster of spent fuel!
When the nuclear industry here began the technology was relatively immature and, as such, not as safe as would be ideal. There have been a lot of new developments which can make it much safer (noting in particular the developments coming out of China which make a meltdown nearly impossible).
Nuclear power clearly is a “low hanging fruit” that needs to be exploited. There are essentially no other solutions out there right now which can be developed quickly to make a significant dent in fossil fuel consumption.
The problem of storing the waste is significant but much more manageable than the problems with fossil fuels. The ideal, of course, is a truly clean energy source but there is little indication that such technology will mature in the immediate future. Yes, there are lots of promising ideas but most are far from being practical.
It has been politically incorrect to talk about nuclear energy for the past few decades but we need to get over that before it’s too late.
Nuclear Power is safe ans smart. We will eventually improve our energy dependence through conservation and new technology. However Nuclear power is the only source of magnitude know that will allow us to reach Energy independence. Everyone knows the reason we are in IRAQ is Oil…..We need Nuclear Power for National Security
Jack C.:
I don’t think you understand the proportions of the situation. Plutonium waste, here on the ground, is a MILLION times easier to clean up compared to the billions of tons of carbon dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere.
Think about it. If you were given the task of either dealing with having to contain the relatively small amount of plutonium and uranium waste from nucler power plants, or having to find a way to take the carbon dioxide ALREADY in the atmosphere, and remove it. I’d love to see you attempt that!
I think it should be a part of the answer to wean us off our dependence on oil, not the only answer. It would take many, many years to convert most of the US to power based on wind and solar alone.
Nuclear has been running smoothly in Japan and France. If we open up to learning from these countries we can make a huge reduction in carbon and not impact energy costs. Nuclear has to be part of our energy futrue in addition to renewables and conservation.
Nuclear is a must if the U.S. is to move forward in the global economy. Emotional fear is the only thing holding us back. No one was hurt at Three Mile Island.
What about Fuel Cell power, it’s only byproduct is water and they can be run on many gases including sewer and landfills…
Wes, most of our uraniam comes from Canada. Check ticker CCJ. Nuclear power is the way of the future, forget the corn and switch grass garbage. Ignorance and fear continues to beat their drums lowder than mature reason.
All I can say is this….Solar,Solar, Solar, Wind, Wind, Wind..These are two truly renewable sources of energy that have zero emmisions. Spend our money improving that.Uranium is only renewable as long as you keep looking and mining for it.Here are a couple of things you can always count on…death, taxes,change,wind and sun. Without these elements..We’re all finished…
Thirty years ago the lifespan of a nuclear power plant was supposed to be forty years,then the plant had to be put out of commission and replaced whit a new one. What was to happen to the old one was not clear but in my knowledge no one has ever been dismantled or disposed of. Are we going to cover the land whit decommissioned nuclear plants? Only to replace the old ones in France would require the construction of a new one every four years and that for ever and they cannot be built everywhere.
What choice to we have if we continue to consume power at the present rate? Oil depletion and cost combined with the risks of increase C02 is not the answer. During the Nuclear hiatus has there been any safety improvements made? What about pebble bed reactors? I believe that their are solutions and nuclear is just one of many but it must be done in a controlled and safe way using a well thought out plan. Solar and wind should be increased and we all need to take steps to reduce our use.
More Nukes now! I work in the utility industry and if the general public saw just one oil burner in a conventional powerplant they would understand why we use so much foriegn oil. Nuclear energy is clean, efficient and cheap (over the long run). In addition we would be able to use the energy from a Nuclear plant to extract hydrogen to power fuel cell cars. It makes sense on all fronts. People who say that nuclear power is not safe are not looking at the true history of nuclear poweer. Hundreds of reactors are in service around the world (if you count military use) and there have been two well know incidents (3 mile, and Chernobyl). Of those two one resulted in a severe event and the other not much more than a very bad PR day. Nuclear power is the answer to the impending energy crisis.
How come the USA can have Nuclear and other countires can’t, what kind of message does that send to other people? other countries?
“We’re all talking about making hydrogen power our cars, but why not our power plants?”
Same reason why not our cars. Hydrogen takes energy to make. That’s like saying why don’t we make batteries power our power plants? Batteries contain electricity, and we can even use rechargable batteries to power our power plants and that would be even better.
Uranium is found in large quantities in Canada, Australia, western Africa, and the US which are much more stable countries than the Middle East. Waste is an issue but can be significantly dealt with by reprocessing (maybe we should call it recycling and it would be more popular). We cannot completely use just solar and wind because the energy density is just too low, meaning you have to have very large solar/wind farms. Just read some of the solar/wind farm proposals and the enormous footprint required. All will be a part of the solution not just one but nuclear has to be a part of it.
I’m no expert when i comes to Nuclear power. Yes, Nuclear power is effective, and relatively inexpensive when you price it per watt, but there is waste. Worse than that, there is the SLIM possibility that something could go terribly wrong. Why give nuclear power the time of day when we have other CLEANER options. Solar power is an extremely viable option. Solar panels can be purchased for $3.85 per watt. They have a 25 year guaranteed life spam, but most likely its around 35. Its 100% clean, safe and cost effective. Its truly the beginning to the end of our power struggles.
The last nuclear power plant I tracked as it was built was the Bay City,TX plant. I believe the plant was finally finished 1.5 to 2 years late.The initial price quoted the citizens of the various municipalities who bought into the plant ballooned to 2-3 times the intial projection. I am hoping for a little more accountability on budgets and for more oversight on the abilities and experience of these “power plant builders”. I feel the shortcomings of the projects already built had as much of an influence on public sentiment, as any concerns about nuclear energy itself.
Chernobylb had a grafite cooling system that was dangerous and absolete,this plant melt down had to happen
Nuclear energy presents the best opportunity for reduced dependency on oil. The naysayers will never be happy with any solution. Solar panels are expensive, and yes, production of solar panels does produce toxic waste.
Yes! Nucs are the only serious contender for major power generation without CO2 production. More Nucs will finally force the decision on waste storage facilities in Nevada.
Nuclear generated power is the way to go. It is time to get our heads out of the sand looking for oil. The sands are almost empty in the middle east and now they are pumping water down the wells to get the remaining oil. Their reserves are certainly questionable so back to nuclear. We know enough now to get them up and running through better engineering, management and regulation. If not nuclear, then we need to build more refineries near the ocean to process the crude.
The US can have cheap nucler power and take care of the waste issue. Since only a 1/3 of the fuel is actually “fissioned” the balance, 2/3 could be cycled out and reprocessed into new fuel. It simply matters as to the length of the refueling cycle and the enrichment. Again, as I posted before Yucca Mountain is a viable storage facility. Please read the Scientific American article on the naturally occurring reactors in Africa.
I bet a lot of folks don’t realize this but buring coal releases radioative isotopes. Please review your periodic table of the isotopes for a simple lesson.
Almost 8 billion people by 2020. We have no choice man - nuclear is the solution for mass energy if we want clean air. Lets protect the environment - Why can’t we recycle the waste like the French do.
I am an economist and consultant for an independent firm that performs feasibility studies on energy resources. I am neither pro nor anti nuclear. I simply do the numbers. For those that say nuclear energy is expensive, I say all our energy choices are expensive. However, nuclear seems to be the most economical in terms of life cycle costs.
France has cheap electricity produced by nuclear plants AND they recycle the nuclear waste. Why can’t we do that? Forget storing the waste at Yucca Mountain. It sure beats giving the middle east oil money to buy weapons to kill us with. Question: Where does the uranium come from? Please tell me it’s not the middle east!
I say “FULL STEAM AHEAD: Let the nay sayers have a couple of candles and a mule.
Nuclear power had its chance, and lost. Replacing carbon waste with plutonium waste is a fool’s solution to global warming.
Why risk stranding, in the event of a serious accident anywhere in the industry, the huge capital investment necessary to produce nuclear electricity?
Why not equivalent loan guarantees to truly renewable electricity sources, w/o the equivalent risk?
Yes! Global oil production has pretty much topped out and will be declining throughout the rest of this century, meanwhile while global temperature and energy demand will be increasing.
Burning more coal is not the solution.
I do support more solar and wind power, but I doubt they will provide enough power as they require a lot of real estate in the right places to make a big difference -
Europe has significantly advanced nucular technology since the 1980’s. We should take note get going!
For the people against nuclear power. Please keep in mind that gasoline, directly and indirectly, kills more people in one year than nuclear has killed in total. If gasoline were to be brought to market today, it would not be allowed. Do try to keep things in perspective.
The key is POWER, not nuclear. It is just another option. The question should be is nuclear power ready, especially from safety point of view.
WASTE people. Think about it. Wind and solar don’t generate waste with a half life longer than 10 generations. If all nuclear waste had to be disosed of within ten miles of the generator, would you still favor it?
Research into new reactor designs has continued in the rest of the world while the US sat on it’s collective butts. In SA there is a functioning pebble bed reactor whis is about as safe as a reactor can be, and far cheaper to build. Every conventional powerplant should be replaced by a PBR ASAP.
Chernobyl should not even be discussed. The communists had no containment units at any of their nuclear reactors. We do. There are new designs that make it impossible for a chemical explosion to occur.
They were doing experiments on a broken reactor without the containments unit.
It is completely irrelevant to our discussion.
It is like arguing against the chemical industry because some one in India messed up.
In answer to: Should we give nuclear power another chance?
ABSOLUTELY!
In answer to: Could it help solve global warming?
For those who “feel” that global warning is directly attributable to humans, I am sure it will be an improvment (if someone can develop a meaningful measurement tool) over coal fired plants.
However, the VERY noisy environmentalists and NIMBYs (Not In MY Back Yard) will cause unimaginable delays in licenses being granted and construction getting started which cause the utility companies to seek 80% of the cost in the form of Federal loan guarantees. And then there are the “elected” officials in Washington who will need to debate the pros & cons and see which side of the argument can secure them more money & more votes. And lastly, there is always that BIG sleeping dog in the corner (BIG OIL) drooling at the toll that these delays will have.
Nuclear power is safe, clean, efficient and we already have a model that we can follow that the French have done. Yeah, I know, they are French, but what can you say, even a blind dog finds a bone every once in a while.
More Nuclear Power? Absolutely!
If your concern is global warming nuclear is the only real answer available today that can be produced in the quantities needed.
If you concern is safety, nuclear has proven to be much safer than fossil fuel power. That’s right; we kill thousands of people every year with fossil fuel pollution. It just occurs one person at a time and takes the already sick so no one really attributes it to pollution. Even a catastrophic accident at a nuclear plant will not kill in the numbers that fossil fuels do.
Concerned about national security and the billions of dollars we send to unstable and mostly unfriendly nations? Reduce our imports with nuclear power and power all the electric cars you want with nuclear power.
The most important reason to use nuclear power as well as all other DOMESTIC sources of energy is that we do not have to sacrifice our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers to get it out of the middle east.
However, we need all sources of energy so we are never dependent on just one. Coal, hydro, wind, and hopefully some day solar are all candidates that can be used when cost effective. Renewables from biomass is another source where we have vast potential but still just an embryonic industry.
I have spent 40 years being a energy engineer and a nuclear power advocate. If you compare lives lost to commercial nuclear power in the US, you will find ZERO. Three mile Island, bad as it was, did not kill a single soul. Chernobyl, was worse and killed a few dozen.
Now compare the total lives lost after 40 years of commercial nuclear power in the US to just 3 years in Iraq and you can see my point. Nuclear power - Zero. Irag more than 3000.
Now consider all of the military actions over the 40 years of commercial nuclear power and my point is further supported. And if anyone thinks that the cost of our military isn’t a subsidy for petroleum based energy, products, then I have this old refrigerator ……
For you anti-nuclear supporters out there, get real and invest your emotions in developing a little knowledge of science and REAL risk analysis.
We need to conserve as a primary energy policy because it is smart and is generally cost effective. But you can’t conserve your way to prosperity. And without this country being prosperous, we have poverty. There is nothing worse for mankind than poverty and hunger. So, clean energy at reasonable costs is mandatory to preserve the quality of life for most of the USA.
over 80% of power in France is nuclear-
we have to stop crying about “not in my backyard”–3 Mile Island was a long
time ago– we need energy self-sufficiency; and waste–send it into the vacuum of outer space, simple.
How available is the fuel that supports all these new nuclear power plants? Who controls the uranium in the ground around the world? Is it like oil, limited supply and expensive?
To answer VKB: I would rather live in France than Bartertown. Also, I’m afraid your daily ouput of bodily waste would not provide enough methane if converted to electricity to power your computer long enough to read this post, let alone get you to work.
To Jeff Anderson of CA,
You may be right. Nuclear power plants may be a prime target for terrorist attacks, but are you really going to live with your head under a rock? If terrorists can’t hit nuclear plants, they will try and hit something else. Getting rid of nuclear plants won’t stop terror attacks.
I am a strong supporter for nuclear energy. It is cleaner and more efficient than any currently mass produced source of fuel. As stated previously Wind and Solar aren’t plausible for the entire country. They are a good idea for supplemental power as they do not produce an
Absolutely! Nuclear energy has been used safely and successfully the world around for decades. If we need to review actual data and the experiences of others to convince ourselves we in America can do likewise, all we need to do is ask the French, Japanese, Germans, etc. etc. This is also an area ripe for R&D, for example spent fuel reprocessing, breeder reactors, not to mention the Holy Grail of Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Fusion.