Lamar Alexander: Nuclear Energy Is Cheap and Reliable

Reader Comments
Back to article

What is the cost of heating a home on nuclear energy??

Anonymous of GA 7:07PM May 07, 2012

I dont think there have been no deaths in America from Nuclear power is 100% accurate. Studies performed after 3 Mile Island showed a sharp increase in child and elderly death rates surrounding 3 Mile Island. Coincidence? who knows?

will of TX 4:35PM March 15, 2011

There is a nice measuring unit with which to think about thermal pollution: the hectopetawatt. It takes the abbreviation HPW, and what's nice about this is those initials could also stand for "Home Planet Warmth". By a happy coincidence the heat the sun produces at the Earth's surface is only slightly over 1 HPW. 1.75 HPW hits, but a lot is immediately reflected.
With this in mind, we can sensibly ask, how many HPW of waste heat would all the humans on Earth produce if they all lived like Americans? 0.0014. Less than one part in 700 of the natural heat flow.
The heat of all our fires, all our reactors, and all are darker-than-their-surroundings solar power devices is, and will long remain, trifling by Earth's standards. It's the carbon dioxide from the fires that is making a big difference.

G.R.L. Cowan 12:30PM July 23, 2010

"... dramatic rise in cancer rates, birth defects, and other radiation-related defects and diseases ..."
As above said, government doesn't like nuclear power because nuclear power deprives it of oil and gas revenue. Oil and gas suppliers of course feel the same way. So is the above scare-talk their way of dramatizing a slight rise in cancer, etc., caused by the industry that is a thorn in their sides for another reason?
No. It is their way of trying to hide the fact that nuclear power plants do not cause cancer, etc., AT ALL. Cancer rates are just as likely to be depressed near nuclear installations as they are to be elevated.
Compared to natural gas, uranium saves 95 percent of the fuel costs -- and 100 percent of the public fatalities. In theory maybe only 99 percent, but so far, in the USA, it has worked out as 100.
It has prevented deaths that, had they occurred, would have financially benefited the fossil fuel industries, and government.

G.R.L. Cowan 7:20PM July 22, 2010

Not only is there the problem of what to do with nuclear waste, there is the dramatic rise in cancer rates, birth defects, and other radiation-related defects and diseases, as well as the radiation contamination of rivers, streams, and water tables that have resulted in areas miles from the nearest nuclear reactor.
I live in Alexander's home state--Tennessee--and he is ignoring all the concerns that I have just expressed. To say that "no one has ever died as a result of a nuclear accident at an American commercial nuclear reactor..." is a false statement. In areas within a 60 mile radius of one nuclear reactor in Tennessee, many are dying slow deaths and living compromised lives due to radiation from the reactor.
The area surrounding nuclear reactors is not the only concern. In Arizona, within the Navajo Nation, people living downstream from old uranium mines continue to suffer debilitating conditions, birth defects, bizarre cancers and other maladies, high miscarriage rates, and other diseases and disorders caused directly by the uranium tailings (waste) left behind by the mining operations of the past. The federal government promised that the mining companies would clean up the tailings and make the land as safe as it was before mining began. They lied! Winds still carry the dust-like uranium tailings far and wide, gradually spreading to and contaminating new areas. Tailings have gotten into the rivers and streams flowing through the contaminated areas, carrying the radiation contamination downstream. Meanwhile, the government does almost nothing to help those people poisoned and disfigured by the radiation contamination caused by uranium mining; and it has, time after time, promised and broken its promises to clean up the radioactive waste. So it is to this day.
The federal government has been so dishonest and uncaring toward the Dineh (Navajo) that the Navajo Nation now forbids uranium mining within its borders.
That is the reality of nuclear power, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. I haven't even mentioned the tons of nuclear waste that the federal government wanted to dump onto a Native American reservation in Nevada, which would have devastated that tribal nation with radiation related sickness and suffering.
Bother to do more than superficial research before you write anything further about the safety of nuclear power, Mr. Alexander. You make it sound so clear-cut and simple, when the truth is that it is far from clear-cut and far more complicated than you indicate in this article.
I am convinced of one thing: Nuclear power generation is still in its infancy.
It should not have been used as a power generating source until ways were developed to reuse the radioactive waste or render it harmless instead of storing it in metal drums subject to rust and eventual leakage in abandoned coal mines or other hideaways out of the public's eye.
Alexander's article and logic are grossly over-simplified and deceptive.

Al Swilling of TN 5:05PM July 22, 2010

If we, as a nation, don’t wake up soon we may find ourselves being led backward, green banners flying, by these eco-elite zealots. Our industry has already been crippled and nearly totally destroyed by intolerant enviro-regulation and associated costs - bordering on madness.
If we don't come to our senses and see Environmentalism for the State Religion it has become, then soon we will be marching backward to a world of starvation, blackouts, rationing, and shortages. Backward to a world where we sit under a darkened sky, chanting to the oak trees, our only warmth and light coming from the fires of burning books.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 7:57PM July 21, 2010

What to do with the RADIOACTIVE WASTE...?? Need I Say MORE...!!

Will Greene of NC 11:35AM July 21, 2010

I thank you for the newsletter. I do have a few questions though, where is our nuclear waste currently stored and how long is it dangerous for? How eager would everyone get to increase the number of nuclear power plants that would be built, no one wants to live near a nuclear reactor or build a house on ground that has nuclear waste under it.

Ms. Mary Raines of TN 7:27PM July 20, 2010

"In almost all cases the cost overrun goes into the billions", says Brad of TN of past USA nuclear power plants. There's a wrinkle that is seldom mentioned: government MADE billions on those delays, and even more on the 100 or so cancellations, because natural gas costs 20 times more than uranium. Gas yields two-to-three times the price of uranium just as government royalties.
If, however, government can't conjure up "grass-roots antinuclear activist groups", and require courts to listen to them, without finding that its ill-gotten gas gigabucks are taken from it to pay off loans, it won't bother.

G.R.L. Cowan 6:37PM July 20, 2010

As usual, Senator Alexander sounds a note of sanity in the midst of what seems to be an increasingly insane political society. The far right and the extreme left appear determined to destroy each other. Unfortunately, the mostly moderate middle is caught in the crossfire. Perhaps its not too late for us to hear the voice of reason?

Tony in Knoxville of TN 6:04PM July 20, 2010