Home > Debate Club > Should Nuclear Power Be Expanded? > Nuclear Industry Can Light the Way to Energy Security

Nuclear Industry Can Light the Way to Energy Security

Alternative, less-clean power generators simply cannot compete

Reader Comments
Back to argument

If you can accept radioactive wast to be buried in YOUR back yard would you still be cozy with Nuclear Power ? Not in my back yard, no thanks. Did you stop to consider all the people that have been harmed by nuclear accidents and the persistent leakage from ALL the reactors.

Antonio 11:27AM April 04, 2012

Guessing Austria burns wood for energy, still produces a carbon footprint. It has a population of about 3800 people. Wildpoldsried Germany uses biomass (we do have some of these in the US), hydro, and solar. Their population is about 2500. These are all great ideas that are already in use in the US. Unfortunately they can not produce the large scale of electricity that is used in the US. That is why we have to use other energy sources;coal, gas, and nuclear. From an environmental standpoint nuclear is the safest choice for baseload electricity. You don't hear as much about accidents at coal and gas plants because they are not as regulated as nuclear. They also don't have as many safety and back-up systems.

chuck of KS 5:11PM February 21, 2012

There aren't many alternatives to the create the 18 Terra Watts that will be needed by 2050 to support the energy needs of the masses that are now simply burning down the rain forests.

-

Wind, solar, nuclear all have a place. We still need energy when the sun doesn't shine and when the wind doesn't blow.

-

There is the other alternative Get rid of those pesky people that are infesting the planet.

Helen Grandeis of MI 9:41AM February 07, 2012

As an advocate of renewable energy, I can reference many renewable energy projects that are competitive and contribute to the grid. What renewable energy can not do is supply large amounts of base load power for an industrial society.

You have to bake the cake before you put on the frosting. The debate is how much electricity comes from coal and how much from nuclear.

If number of press releases about wind and solar was proportional to the actual power produced, all of our power would come from wind and solar. I suspect that those who debate nuclear power by suggesting that renewable energy is an alternative do not know much either nuke plants or renewable energy. There is no reason we can not do both.

Kit p of VA 12:57PM February 04, 2012

Before you think alternatives cannot compete, take a look at the record. The Austrian town of Guessing went to alternate energy, and moved from poverty to prosperity in the process, from 70% of its people on weekly commutes out of the area to find work, to fifty companies moving into town, creating a local employment demand so high that people had to move in to fill it, from spending 6 million euros a year on energy to making 14 million selling energy and fuel. Wildpoldsried, in Germany did the same sort of thing. Freiburg created 10000 jobs in its greening process. The record is clear.

George Harvey of VT 11:27AM February 04, 2012

According to this report, within 3 years (2010-12) about 200 gigawatts of wind and solar power will be installed around the world. This is 125 times higher power than the biggest nuclear power plant in currently under construction in Olkiluoto, Finland.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-25/fossil-fuels-beaten-by-renewables-for-first-time-as-climate-talks-founder.html

The Olkiluoto plant is 5 years behind schedule ad 100% over budget. No green light to the automation system is given by the finnish authority. So it's not sure if the plant will ever get it's operating license.

Matti Adolfsen 3:37AM February 04, 2012

Fortunes are made when paradigms change. The unquestioned cliché that this material is “waste” needs to be challenged.

The fact is, there remains vast amounts of energy in this once-used LWR fuel. The decay heat being given off by the 3% of the material that are fission products is reliable and predictable to a fraction of a calorie per gram. In fact it is so reliable that no one knows how to turn it off. This “problem” is in fact a solution to any process that can utilize a constant source of low-grade heat over a period of several centuries. Get the fear-mongerers out of the way and send in the engineers.

The remaining 97%, consisting of fissionable uranium or transuranic isotopes, is capable of producing massive amounts of energy in Generation IV fast-neutron spectrum reactors. There is enough fissionable material already mined, processed, and refined already on US soil to supply the country with electric power for more than a century if it is utilized properly, and not just buried in a ludicrously expensive desert tomb.

It has been estimated that the value of electricity that could be generated from this “waste”, if utilized in a Gen IV reactor, would be $30 Trillion: http://bravenewclimate.com/about/faq

If Nevadans are smart, they will not only charge a hefty fee for accepting the “waste”, but will insist on taking title to it, thereby positioning themselves as the Saudi Arabia of Gen IV atomic fuel.

Atomikrabbit of NY 10:51PM February 03, 2012

The reason wind and solar cannot compete is that they are not subsidized to the extent that oil and nuclear have been. Stop funding nuclear with government (taxpayers') money and put that money into clear energy.

Kathleen Ferris of TN 2:35PM February 03, 2012

Compete in what regard? I know financially nuckear is the most costly energy source we have. The untold costs of decomissioning plants is only the tip of the iceberg.

Any intelligent person promoting nuclear energy is simply evil.

Brian of CT 2:12PM February 03, 2012