Democrats Change Tune on Nuclear Energy

Reader Comments
Back to article

I tend to agree that current designs of nuclear power plants in operation are probably not as cost effective or safe as newer designs. For instance there is a company called "Hyperion Power Generation Inc." Thier web site states HPG
"is a privately held company that was formed to commercialize a small modular nuclear reactor designed by Los Alamos National Laboratory. The reactor, known as the Hyperion Power Module (“HPM”), was designed to fill a previously unmet need for a transportable power source that is safe, clean, sustainable, and cost-efficient. This is probably the direction nuclear power should take and is a "game changing" technology. That is if the US is really serious about freeing ourselves from dependency on foreign oil. OTher uses of this technolgy could be to power a manned flight to Mars using the VASIMR drive and also to use this transportable technolgy to process shale oil rock into cost effective oil production.

Dan Roberts of NH 3:29AM April 21, 2010

No suprise! Once again they digging us a mess we can not get out of . But they do not mind much! So long as they have a nice plain to fly once a week from Washington to California . Just to see the grand children! What they are to ignorant to see urainium, plutonium, ceasium 90 , stronium, cobalt, chemicals acids all mixed together. Will not make purfume! And how do you take all this wonderfull stuff? That is so toxic and pure poison and make it safe enough to put it in say bottled water. Or for all we know they already have! They are gods and kings and we are just lowley and and ignorant we won't know any better. Know it's time to face it the have had over 60 years to figure it out and still they sit. Like small children with a rattle and a little blanket! The government are nothing more than a band of idiots. That's. The president to congress to the senete speaker of the house, judges oh sorry Federal Judges. And the wondefull. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY to dumb to ever figure it out. If it poison we will do like Seneter Graham from S.C you got the vote for of dummyville. Wake up stupid you are not that smart. You ruined the state you well support if you want to call it that! Or just draw a big check and retirement . You do more harm than good so you are worthless not even needed! We could send small children and they can and would do better jobs that any of you.

Dave gray. U.S. M. C of SC 9:18PM March 29, 2010

Washinton is so screwed up they could not find their way out without a map! Further more it is. Their stupidity that landed America where it is today. How do you expect them dummys ?Who can not run a country to play around with a substance they do not understand. That without the government we would not have the countless leaks from poor constructed. Carbon. Steel tanks if the if they like it so much! Then dump it all next to the white house in Washington dc. They beleive to ignore problems they just go away! Hate to tell them this stuff. Will not just go away! And if they beleive that it will then they have been overpaid by the nuclear industry! And like always they have sold America out once again. Mabe when they went to college the only learned how to talk and lie and hold a fork properly. Better get rid of the trash you have safe before you make more.

Richard pfautz of NY 8:38PM March 29, 2010

I don't understand why we would as a country invest money into a energy source that will only become a short term solution. Eventually there will come a time that the nuclear waste will need to be disposed of in some way. Until they know how to dispose of the waste without causing more environmental hazards then we already face this seems like a pointless endeavor to me. With the technology already available in wind, solar, and hydrothermal I don't see why we are not pumping more and more funding in those areas. Ideas such as nuclear energy are more or less trying to solve a problem with another problem. We need CLEAN energy not energy with potentially hazardous waste products!

Sara CCBC of MD 7:12AM February 15, 2010

Fission is a loser.The plants will always leak and containment is more of a concept than a reality.
Even a molten salt cooled reactor needs a lot of fresh water nearby. Sure you will make some power but in the end you must babysit the spent fuel and reactor site forever. No one can guarantee the safety of people hundreds of miles away or hundreds of years in the future. The carbon we worry about can be managed. Plutonium has been called the most toxic substance on the planet. Thats when its not blowing up. Waste is still boiling underground from this failed experiment. There are undoubtedly barrels of nuclear waste leaking at the bottom of the sea. Low grade spent fuel your ear. No bank has lent against construction of a nuclear power generating facility for years. I afraid that is about to change. Oh well. Ice or fire, fire or ice.

pete of NJ 6:39PM February 08, 2010

There are a number of scientific controversies over the Yucca Mountain repository that need to be considered by the Nuclear Regulatory commission in the licensing process (which at this point in time is proceeding). These include volcanism in the region, seismicity, water infiltration and whether the repository should be located above or below the water table.

Susanne E. Vandenbosch of AZ 3:58PM January 19, 2010

Review Capacity,result lack theatre although control consider above beneath moment above receive shut atmosphere begin pain jump visitor anyway world from begin radio metal likely ready withdraw on direct possibly surprise item phone drive different select independent civil weather unfortunately send walk answer mental date part land history liability simply trouble feel industry less concentrate suitable apart reason fresh gold industrial powerful bank after rest except have actual capable describe treaty divide today argument court stop industrial most night below have when answer panel leading large very from propose blue such matter introduce

Throughoutbut of 10:17AM December 28, 2009

The trouble with opposing building lots of Nuclear Power Stations is that there are a lot of reasons why it is a bad idea. Each of these viewed in isolation can possibly be disregarded. Cumulatively they are pretty damning.
Try looking up Nuclear Decommissioning in Wikipedia and you will see that it takes an indefinite amount of time and an indefinite amount of money. Probably the least risky and expensive process is just to encase the core in concrete and just leave it for a few 100,000 years during which you hope nothing bad will happen. This way you only have to dispose of medium and low level waste.
It is true that the number of undeniable accidents in the nuclear industry have been fairly small but I am sorry to say that this is because wherever possible the existence or failing that the extent of accidents have routinely been denied.
Basically the ones you might know about - Windscale, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island etc. are the tip of an iceberg. What makes this problem far worse is that it is very difficult to prove that any single individual died - (usually slowly and painfully) because of exposure to radiation from a nuclear facility. The fact is people die of cancer all the time so a few tens, hundreds or even thousands more can go denied and uncounted.
Unlike coal fired power stations, nuclear ones use rather small amounts of fuel so there are sizable savings to be made by putting them next to the areas of greatest electrical demand. If they are safe and non-polluting it therefore makes economic sense to locate nuclear power stations in down town Washington, New York, London and Paris. Come on Messrs Brown, Sarkozy and Obama, I dare you.

Nick Bishop 8:13PM December 14, 2009

To the aptly self-designated “nuketard” below, to pick apart just a couple of your ravings:
“The government spends billions to develop nuclear technology”
– It is true the government spent billions developing nuclear technology, starting with the Manhattan Project in during WWII. There was a desperate war to win. Do you think this was a bad idea? Do you think we should not have then exploited the hard-earned knowledge that was gained and leveraged it into peaceful civilian applications? I think our leaders would have been negligent if they had not.
Fifteen years ago hundreds of the country’s best physicists at the National Labs, in particular Argonne and INL, developed, tested, operated, and were on the verge of perfecting, the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). The program was suddenly cancelled in 1994 by Clinton Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary (pre- and post-administration gas company executive) aided by the impassioned pleadings of Sen. Kerry. The billions spent on the IFR research would have paid for itself a hundred-fold in the first ten years of implementation by simultaneously solving the problems of spent fuel storage, proliferation, and energy independence. A textbook case of politics triumphant over rationality.
“The government gives hundreds of billions in loan guarantees to industry”
- Actually, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 did a lot of things, including generous subsidies for wind, wave, tidal, and geothermal power. As far as nuclear, it authorized the following (none of which has yet been allocated):
• Authorizes cost-overrun support of up to $2 billion total for up to six new nuclear power plants;
• Authorizes a production tax credit of up to $125 million total per year, estimated at 1.8 US¢/kWh during the first eight years of operation for the first 6.000 MW of capacity, consistent with renewables;
• Authorizes loan guarantees of up to 80% of project cost to be repaid within 30 years or 90% of the project's life;
• Authorizes $2.95 billion for R&D and the building of an advanced hydrogen cogeneration reactor at Idaho National Laboratory;
• Authorizes 'standby support' for new reactor delays that offset the financial impact of delays beyond the industry's control for the first six reactors, including 100% coverage of the first two plants with up to $500 million each, and 50% of the cost of delays for plants three through six up to $350 million each.
In this day and age, when it is so easy to be accurately informed, why go around spouting ignorance?

harlz of NY 3:08PM December 05, 2009

ITS AMAZING YOU SHOULD SAY THAT, THERE IS ZEERO TOLERANCE IN NUCLEAR POWER. THERE IS VERY FEW ACCIDENT IN NUCLEAR OPERATION NEARLY NEXT TO ZERO. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ERA ,WHEN DEALING WITH NUCLEAR ENGERGY. THERE ARE VERY FEW MISTAKES IN THIS FIELD.ALL MISTAKES ARE VERY CRUCIAL.OUR YOUR MEN AND WOMEN ARE RELYING ON US FOR ZERO TOLERANCE IN NUCLEAR ENERGY.SO AS YOU JOURNEY THIS NUCLEAR POWER,ITS A VERY HIGH INTELIGENCE EXPERIENCE,THAT THE NEXT FUTURE GENERATION IS GOING TO EXPLORE.

ROSA MILLER of CA 11:35AM December 02, 2009