Nuclear Costs Are Going Up

The world has moved on to new technologies

Reader Comments
Back to argument

OMG!! but U.S. Rep. Ed Markey is on the Hydrocarbon Industry lobby payroll.

How is that fair debate?

Try picking non-industry payroll advocates to debate.

Bruce Behrhorst 2:42PM February 06, 2012

Please consider this idea as a low cost solution to America's "long term" radioactive waste storage problem:

Make use of our Military Testing Bases and or our MOA’s (Military Operation Area’s) out west, which are really huge tracts of land (think tens of thousands of acres) used ONLY by the military and already secured by them 24/7!

Placing these very large (heavy) concrete casks in a poke-a-dot pattern will allow for at least 50 to 100 years of storage, safe from everything except a War, (in which case every reactor is just as vulnerable) and then revisit the storage problem then; at which time, probably a future solution will allow for an even better lower cost “final solution”…

Because these casks would be very large and all look alike nobody would know what was in any one of them, which would be yet another level of security for the casks with higher levels of nuclear waste! An ideal outside coating for these casks would be similar to the spray-on "bed liner" used for pickup trucks that not only prevents rusting and or damage for the life of the vehicle but would also seal the casks to prevent leakage of any kind!

Hopefully these casts would be similar in size to a large shipping container so that existing material handling equipment could be used to load, unload and or move them about without "inventing" a mega hauler vehicle. By keeping the "footprint" of these casks similar to a large 40 foot container, the stacking and or placement of them might also be semi or fully automated which would not only save money but again keep the exact location of any specific cast secret! The monitoring of these casks 24/7/365 could even be done via satellite since these casks are similar in size to rocket launchers which are easily seen from space.

In another 50 to 100 years, storage technology will be such that, yet another lower cost solution for all this waste will found, and then it can be considered verses continuing to using the above storage plan...

CaptD of CA 9:49PM February 04, 2012

Rep. Markey, you wrote: "...in the 1970's, we had no long-term answer for what to do with radioactive waste that will remain deadly to humans for thousands of years. Today, we still don't have an answer."

With respect, sir, we do. It just has to be implemented. Generation IV reactors such as Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) and Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs) can consume radioactive waste as fuel, while producing a minuscule amount of waste themselves. And, these reactors are much, much safer than the ones we currently have.

Please see this informative article:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

And please google: MSR. IFR, LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor), Thorium energy

Mike Conley of CA 12:04PM February 04, 2012

I believe that once California consumers and especially California property owners realize that they are NOT covered for any type of fallout, leakage or contamination caused by radioactivity, they will begin to reexamine their "trust" in nuclear because of their financial liability!

Question: How many in Southern California (for example) could afford to just walk away from their homes if one of the reactors in California had a meltdown for any reason; without even considering the health implications later? The answer of course is NOT MANY! We have only to see what has happened in Japan to get a good idea; in short America cannot afford a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster any better than Japan.

Remember most of the "rest" of America is downwind from the West Coast! Japan has been "lucky" in that regard ,since most of its radioactivity has move toward eastward North America and the rest of the planet; yet most of Northern Japan is now contaminated!+

I don't have all the answers to your questions but here are some good links:

Wind and solar power are leaving nuclear in the dust: http://is.gd/CfpiUJ

and

Solar Power Could Produce >50% of Global Electricity: http://is.gd/PU3k2y

and

Estimating US Gov't, Subsidies http://is.gd/hwnsic

and

SOLAR Power Year in Review 2011: http://is.gd/8dlYIx

CaptD of CA 10:14AM February 04, 2012

It is important to understand the energy need of the society.For developing countries renewable energy alone just can't meet the requirement,nuclear energy is the clear option. Yes the need to make nuclear plants safe against events like that at Fukushima is recognised and there are reasonably established technical solutions to that.World can't ignore the potential of nuclear energy, but should pool together to make it safe and viable

s.k.mehta of IN 10:59PM February 03, 2012

The only reason Ed Markey hates nuclear energy is because it competes with the Liquified Natural Gas imported using the terminal located in his congressional district.

Unlike nuclear power, wind and solar are only supplements to fossil fuels, not substitutes. Robert F Kennedy Jr. gave a speech to the Colorado Oil and Gas association in which he let the cat out of the bag -- that utility scale "wind" and "solar" plants are really gas-fired power plants.

George Carty 5:15PM February 03, 2012