Keen for a Revival, the Nuclear Industry Eyes the Stimulus Package
Reader Comments
Nuclear power is the answer
Nuclear power is the way to go---NOW. It CAN replace liquid fuels as the electric car is coming and will be here in the next few years (Chevy Volt is just the first step). Fusion is a waste of time as it has no advantage over fission---Uranium is plentiful and cheap and will continue to be forever (you can extract it from seawater if need be, although that will almost certainly never be necessary). And, as someone pointed out, 95% of the energy is still in the spent fuel, which can be utilized with breeders.
Nuclear Power, plus electric cars can bring a bright future to the world. Nuclear power will be the worlds primary energy source at some point. There is too much evidence for climate change for the world to ignore it (hopefully we are rational in the aggregate). The alternatives are simply not practical (wind, solar) especially in countries without vast expanses that they could sacrifice to wind or solar farms. We must increase education efforts on nuclear power to dispel the widespread myths regarding the technology (e.g. Gwyneth Cravens --- 'Power to Save the World'). We must encourage the development of safety regimes and the training of nuclear engineers. It appears that the UK will be one of the countries leading the way, along with India and China (and hopefully the US). I believe that as the benefits become more obvious there will be a rapid acceleration in the development of Nuclear power around the world, which will not only bring great economic benefits, but may avert an ecological catastrophe. In the more distant future there are dozens of very interesting ideas for advanced nuclear designs (Thorium reactors, high-T gas reactors, etc.) but for the present we can not wait for these technologies to be sorted out and developed but should go ahead with the proven designs we have today.
Nukey plants
If all the chickenlittles had been ignored ,reducated or euthanized, There would not have been a 30 yr drought of clean, sensible power production.
Nuclear power plants should remain moribund
In the expanding global depression, we will have much spare electric power. And electric power does not supply the liquid fuels that we need.
With increasing costs for gasoline and diesel, along with declining taxes and declining gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won’t be able to get to work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel and gasoline powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated building systems.
http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
How long will nuclear fission be around?
I am 100% for our ramping up electricity production from nuclear fission. If we lifted the ban on reprocessing, then almost all of the spent fuel laying around at the 100+ sites would then be able to be reused once more, which would give us more time to determine if Yucca Mountain is ready, which I think it is.
Bethatasitmay, does President-elect Obama think that new nuclear power plants don't deserve immediate investment, given his strong desire to go green with true renewables? And then, there's the question regarding fusion. Between ITER and other projects in the works, we're probably withing 10 years of establishing the framework for future large scale commercial plants that could begin to come online in as little as 10-15 more years. So this leaves a 25 year span that it's reasonably possible that any nuclear fission plant would become obsolete. And, in that time, biomass, algae, switchgrass, solar, wind, and geothermal could all come to dominate the replacement of coal plants, which would realistically only leave natural gas and fission plants to be replaced over say a 25 year window.
Ultimately, I think Obama will not give generous hand outs for the simple reason that he thinks that nuclear fission is old technology, which is a real bummer unless he absolutely comes out fighting with an Al Gore style plan to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and coal way sooner than most people think it can be done. And, to do so alone, would require 10 times the $800B being thrown around. In fact, it probably would be in the neighborhood of $1T per year for 10 years.
How long will nuclear fission be around?
I am 100% for our ramping up electricity production from nuclear fission. If we lifted the ban on reprocessing, then almost all of the spent fuel laying around at the 100+ sites would then be able to be reused once more, which would give us more time to determine if Yucca Mountain is ready, which I think it is.
Bethatasitmay, does President-elect Obama think that new nuclear power plants don't deserve immediate investment, given his strong desire to go green with true renewables? And then, there's the question regarding fusion. Between ITER and other projects in the works, we're probably withing 10 years of establishing the framework for future large scale commercial plants that could begin to come online in as little as 10-15 more years. So this leaves a 25 year span that it's reasonably possible that any nuclear fission plant would become obsolete. And, in that time, biomass, algae, switchgrass, solar, wind, and geothermal could all come to dominate the replacement of coal plants, which would realistically only leave natural gas and fission plants to be replaced over say a 25 year window.
Ultimately, I think Obama will not give generous hand outs for the simple reason that he thinks that nuclear fission is old technology, which is a real bummer unless he absolutely comes out fighting with an Al Gore style plan to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and coal way sooner than most people think it can be done. And, to do so alone, would require 10 times the $800B being thrown around. In fact, it probably would be in the neighborhood of $1T per year for 10 years.
Handling the spent fuel
Wind, solar, geothermal and biofuels are safe end uses of nuclear power.
The global inventory of spent fuel has the energy capacity of 200 operational reactors. The energy return on investment for North America's unconventional oil resources - oil sand and shale - ranges between 3 and 5.2/1. The free, carbon-free energy wasting away in spent fuel has the energy capacity to produce as much as 6 billion barrels of North American oil annually.
Immporting foreign waste insures the plutonium it contains never falls into the hands of terrorists or proliferators.
A recently published study notes the unprecidented capacity of bitume to sequester radionuclides. Most of Albert's bitumen also exists beneath a capping shale formation that would preclude this material from ever returning to the biosphere.
On lthe other hand after a hundred, or so years, which would see the decay of all fission products in the waste, it could be recovered and recycled - for a second time - if that was deemed desirable.
Last Option!!!
I hope we use nuclear as our last option only. Until such time that we have a process to handle the spent fuel without storing it for centuries, we shouldn't consider using until last. We should first exhaust wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen, biofuels, tidal, etc... before considering nuclear. The challenge the world faces is to stop our habits of stopping at the easy method first without exploring all methods for the best solution. Shoot, I think we could build a satellite to laser beam all the energy we need from space if we wanted. Thus is the Apollo project approach to seek out all ideas before deciding!!!
Take off your foil hat
Greedy,
Would you care to offer anything resembling a document of fact that supports any of your bogus claims?
Nuclear has a better safety record than coal or any other energy industry. get over your fear and get out of the way of progress.
Greedy corporations cannot be trusted with nuclear power.
For decades now the U. S. nuclear power industry has had its labor force slashed to lower and lower levels. The industry managers have forced more work on fewer individuals, and scrimped on resources needed by those workers. The bottom line means two things; managers make more bonus money (tax-free to the corporations), and the public has less safety. Ronald Reagan unleashed the corporations on the U. S. public and the Bush family has added fuel to their fire. At least Reagan had the delusion that U. S. corporations would operate legally, ethically, and in good faith. The Bushes have no such delusions. They've done everything possible to break down what little protection the U. S. public has against robber barons and their toxic corporate organizations. It may not affect many people when the workers at a textile factory are crushed under unbridled corporate power, but when it happens at a nuclear power plant, or a dangerous chemical factory, the potential consequences are too catastrophic to leave in the hands of those who would sell their mothers for additional profit.
Nuclear power generation is good
this county needs nuclear power generation. This is the best way to meet our future electrical needs, with environmental concerns addressed in a responsible manner
