Image: Exclusive to iStockphoto
On an August afternoon in Washington, D.C., typically miserable for its heat, humidity and stillness, reporters gathered at a downtown hotel not known for its air-conditioning. Stuffed inside a windowless conference room that was being heated still further by the television people’s lights, we waited for Michael J. Wallace, who had been trying, in fits and starts, to unveil nuclear power’s second act.
On arrival, Wallace, a meticulous manager not known for ad-libbing, looked out over the sweating reporters and smiled. “It’s days like today that highlight the real need for new, emissions-free, baseload power,” he said. Unless we get started soon, he added, rolling blackouts could become the norm.
This article was originally published with the title Can Nuclear Power Compete?.
See what we're tweeting about
51 Comments
Add CommentPlease stop the fear of nuclear power generation. It is a million times more powerful than burning coal and in all actuality much cleaner. As far as waste goes we need to reprocess not bury the stuff which has only had 3% of its potential used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that nuclear fuel should not be wasted in Yucca Mountain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear fuel is renewable/recyclable
Yucca Mountain contains an enormous supply of nuclear fuel that should not be wasted. We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it. The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [The army offered me more money to work on nuclear weapons effects.] [A nuclear battery would have the advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost" a quantity of reactor grade uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear "waste." See:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/buriedlegacy/s_87948.html
It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States. It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "CANDU" reactor or a British Magnox reactor, both of which run on unenriched uranium. Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US stopped for political reasons.
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.
I have no financial stake in the nuclear power industry, and I never have. Nobody is paying me to say this.
PS: See:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
Factory made nuclear reactors.
Yeah, I agree. Nuclear power looks to be one of the most efficient green power sources we have with present technologies. However, I think there are two aspects that we should try to improve while we're sitting arounnd. waiting for the new plants to finish construction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst off, there's the nuclear waste. Our current storage methods mean it's safe, but it's a horrible waste to just let it sit under ground for ten million years. I think we should look into reusing the waste at the plant site for increased energy out put. This would lower the cost of generating the power, decrease the risk of the material being stolen, and would give us something to do with the stuff other than kill people (I'm a bit of a commie and a strong advocate of nuclear proliferation).
Secondly, nuclear plants give off a lot of steam. This is no where near as bad as CO2, but it does contribute in a tiny way to climate change. There's probably some way to recapture that steam and reuse the water in further power generation. Thus, we would completely eliminate any emmisions and reduce the amount of water intake of the plants.
$60 billion in transmission costs to transmit 20% of our power--roughly 100 Gigawatts or so--from wind would be a bargain compared to spending that same money on nuclear power. We'd get about six reactors for that, producing somewhere between 6-9 gigawatts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWald didn't mention some of the other disadvantages of nuclear--for example uranium mining, which has led to environmental destruction and contamination everywhere it has been done. And routine radiation releases from every nuclear facility of any kind. After all, it was the National Academy of Sciences that declared there is no safe dose of radiation. Not to mention that the nuclear fuel chain is not carbon-free.....
The reactors that UniStar/Areva wants to build are obsolete relics of the 20th century. This is the century of renewable energy, energy efficiency, smart grids and distributed generation. It's time for the nuclear folks to give up and take their polluting technology home.
They only produce large amounts of steam when cooling towers are utilized. Supplying cooling water, via a large body of water, is more efficient for one and it also eliminates the "visual" polution of billowing steam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnirsnet,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are completely off-base in several respects.
First and foremost,
Areva and Unistar are building the EPR. Google it and READ ABOUT IT. You will see that it is absolutely NOT an obsolete relic of 20th century technology. If you know nothing about nuclear power and you find it a bit too confusing, then I challenge you to find another 1600 MW plant that is currently being built. My employer is currently developing a competitive product to the EPR.
Second,
100 Gigawatts is nowhere near 20% of our annual energy usage. Try 3.3 Terawatts total in 2005. So 20% is more like 660 Gigawatts.
Third,
Yes wind is the cheapest per kWh in terms of generating costs, but nuclear is a close second. Also, with wind, output can fluctuate greatly with changes in wind speed. Also, the initial costs of wind per kW capacity are substantially higher than any other technology. This in time will change, as technology advances.
In general, you say that this is the era of renewable and efficient energy and place an emphasis on smart grids. Well, grids and distribution system are independent of nuclear development, but considering the costs of nuclear vs oil, ng, coal, hydro, its far more affordable.
As for your comment about nuclear being a "polutting technology", that's not even worth an argument.
- "And routine radiation releases from every nuclear facility of any kind. After all, it was the National Academy of Sciences that declared there is no safe dose of radiation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnirsnet,
46 milliREM: Highest possible acute dose received by any area off-site of 3 mile island (a nuclear reactor meltdown, if you weren't alive then).
Acute dose required to increase risk of cancer by 0.8%: 10 REM
Your claim of "leaking facilities" everywhere anywhere all the time, etc, is again, completely basless. Did you know that there is lead required in all walls adjoining a waiting room near an x-ray facility? Bet you didnt know that a chest x-ray gives you 300mrem either did you? So thats like a total of almost 8 three mile island meltdowns! We better lobby Congress to halt all chest x-rays immediately. (Since no dose of radiation is safe, and all facilities leak according to you.) Cross country airplane travel? Yup, 4 mrem per flight because you are closer to cosmic sources. That's gotta go, too. Well, I suppose instead we could redesign aircraft with some lead shielding and make the aircraft engines REALLY bigger and waste even more precious oil.
Also, consider getting some lead shielding for your house, because you receive a total dose of 300 mrem every year from a combination of cosmic radiation and naturally decaying materials in the earth's crust.
It should be mentioned that the gallop of world demand for atomic power just stumbled with South African ESKOMs cancellation of plans for 20,000 megawatts of AREVA or Toshiba Westinghouse reactors. Financial Times reports that even Sarkozys French-state owned nuclear stallion has postponed two projects this month and like other trusty nuclear steeds is increasingly skiddish in the global recession.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne critical point is missing from the article particularly with the passing reference to Lauvergeons effort to proliferate nuclear power in the Persian Gulf and beyond. Nuclear weapons material proliferation is just as real and looming larger as an uncontrolled threat as nuclear powers stunning financial and environmental realities. As evidenced by saber rattling over Irans intentions, the mere suspicion of possession of weapons material potentially diverted through repetitive fuel enrichment and reprocessing recycled nuclear waste is increasingly a worldwide security problem. Loading up the 13 Middle East countries that Sarkozy and Atomic Anne have shopped out French nuclear technology will increasingly destabilize regional conflicts with the threat of a nuclear arms race and more pre-emptive attacks like Israeli air strikes on peaceful atom projects in Iraq and Syria. Even a regionalized nuclear war, say between India and Pakistan, would have serious and prolonged global climatic consequences.
Climate change abatement through a shift in energy policy will require globally applicable solutions. A trade off of nuclear winter for global warming is not a rational choice and makes renewable energy, efficiency and conservation far more reasonable and affordable.
Nuclear power threatens our economy; increases global warming; radiates our environment; consumes vast amounts of water; produces plutonium, that's coveted by terrorists for nuclear weapons; leaves us saddled with most dangerous "spent" fuel which must remain on site for many years; and barely produces a net increase in energy output compared with the total energy consumed in the entire process. We urgently need a truly renewable energy revolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLewis E. Patrie, MD, Chair
Western N. C. Physicians for Social Responsibility
99 Eastmoor Drive
Asheville, NC 28805
Nuclear power threatens our economy; increases global warming; radiates our environment; consumes vast amounts of water; produces plutonium, that's coveted by terrorists for nuclear weapons; leaves us saddled with most dangerous "spent" fuel which must remain on site for many years; and barely produces a net increase in energy output compared with the total energy consumed in the entire process. We urgently need a truly renewable energy revolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLewis E. Patrie, MD, Chair
Western N. C. Physicians for Social Responsibility
99 Eastmoor Drive
Asheville, NC 28805
"Supplying cooling water, via a large body of water..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that during a drought no matter how you cut it, nuclear plants "drink" alot of water.
One reason to cancel a nuclear project is it's water consumption compared to the plant or porcess it is competing with. (Coal uses water too).
In places with available water this is not an issue.
What to do with the nuclear Waste, which will last hundreds or thousands of years, is still a huge issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYucca Mt may never open - meaning that spent waste will be spread all over the country, in locations not built for the highest security. In addition to the obvious radiation risks this is a huge, and unacceptable, security risk.
The key is to focus on what should be done right now...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst the price of steel and fuel has dropped during this recession. A national electric grid super highway would put people back to work and provide a way to transmit power no matter what source gets built.
Conservation plans need to be made and implemented. Just using smart meters would allow people to be aware of thier electric as they are aware of thier wireless phone minutes.
The goal for coal should be to consume it's CO2 via algea. At best that's a 40% option. That needs to start while it is discussed what the goal after 6 to 8 years from now is.
Fission received much support from the last administration. In general I would say that the level of support should stay the same, not increase or decrease. Let Fission expand on it's own with the support it has.
Fusion could use a bit more funding as it was reduced over the last 8 years. In addition to that 100 million gamble on the Polywell process is in order.
I have hauled alot of nuclear waste. Most of it is not actual uranium or plutonium. It is everything contaminated, gloves, tools, concrete, junk, suits, ect. Have to store it somewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have hauled alot of nuclear waste. Most of it is not actual uranium or plutonium. It is everything contaminated, gloves, tools, concrete, junk, suits, ect. Have to store it somewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's still a terrible waste and exposes us to more radiation than needed. The real solution is a comprehensive energy plan that everyone would need to work on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, we would need to rethink the way we build. Buildings account for 40% of the carbon emissions in the US... not because they themselves are emitting a ton of carbon, but rather the coal power plants that supply power to them are. If we educate people about building efficiently with technology that exists now, we can drastically reduce the amount of power that a home uses. It is completely possible to build an efficient home that uses less than half the energy consumed by the average home. I'm working on house plans that would result in a home that uses only 20% of the national average.
From there, you just supply power with solar panels and/or wind turbines. If its still tied into the grid then catastrophic power failures will simply not happen because every home will generate it's own power and perhaps enough to help distribute to homes that don't produce enough to completely power themselves.
Who needs all this dirty nuclear junk, coal or oil? No one will ever convince me that nuclear power is a "green" option. It may be better than coal... but it's still not even close to the best option available.
As shown in the following reports, nuclear power needs the subsidies given (for the first few plants) in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, or hard limits on CO2 emissions, but it does not need both. Once CO2 limits are imposed, nuclear will not need subsidies to beat fossil fuels. (Since fossil fuel use would have to decrease, the cost comparison between nuclear and fossil is no longer even relevant.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9133
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/whitepaper/the_cost_of_new_generating_capacity/
While cost estimates vary a great deal, it appears that renewable sources are at best roughly the same as nuclear in terms of simple per kW-hr cost. This does not, however, account for the issue of intermittentcy, which will likely limit renewables to a small share (~20% or less) of overall generation. While the first few kW-hrs are more competitive, the overall cost goes up significantly as one tries to get a larger and larger fraction from renewables. Getting most or all of our power from renewables alone would be much more expensive than relying on a combination of nuclear and renewables.
One final option is carbon sequestration. There are serious doubts as to whether this could ever compete with nuclear, however. (The best way to find out, however, is discussed below.)
The issue of nuclear's economic competitiveness is easy to resolve from a policy perspective. Simply tax or limit CO2 emissions, air pollution, and gas/oil imports from unfriendly nations, and let the market decide how to respond. This results in the largest reduction in emissions at the lowest cost. Such a market will also finally reflect fossil fuels' huge external costs. If nuclear is competitive as a means of reducing emissions, new plants will be built. If not, they will not. This is a far better approach than having a contest of dueling economic cost studies, and then having the govt. decide, by fiat, which energy sources to pursue.
As shown in the following reports, nuclear power needs the subsidies given (for the first few plants) in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, or hard limits on CO2 emissions, but it does not need both. Once CO2 limits are imposed, nuclear will not need subsidies to beat fossil fuels. (Since fossil fuel use would have to decrease, the cost comparison between nuclear and fossil is no longer even relevant.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9133
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/whitepaper/the_cost_of_new_generating_capacity/
While cost estimates vary a great deal, it appears that renewable sources are at best roughly the same as nuclear in terms of simple per kW-hr cost. This does not, however, account for the issue of intermittentcy, which will likely limit renewables to a small share (~20% or less) of overall generation. While the first few kW-hrs are more competitive, the overall cost goes up significantly as one tries to get a larger and larger fraction from renewables. Getting most or all of our power from renewables alone would be much more expensive than relying on a combination of nuclear and renewables.
One final option is carbon sequestration. There are serious doubts as to whether this could ever compete with nuclear, however. (The best way to find out, however, is discussed below.)
The issue of nuclear's economic competitiveness is easy to resolve from a policy perspective. Simply tax or limit CO2 emissions, air pollution, and gas/oil imports from unfriendly nations, and let the market decide how to respond. This results in the largest reduction in emissions at the lowest cost. Such a market will also finally reflect fossil fuels' huge external costs. If nuclear is competitive as a means of reducing emissions, new plants will be built. If not, they will not. This is a far better approach than having a contest of dueling economic cost studies, and then having the govt. decide, by fiat, which energy sources to pursue.
OK, so wind farms can't follow demand. But neither can nuclear plants, because of the inherent instability of reactors. That is, you can shut down a reactor rapidly, but restarting it takes a long time. This is why nuclear power only produces 18% of France's energy needs, despite having 59 reactors. This is also why the Electricity Industry encourages people to use off-peak energy and why there is so much street lighting at 4h00am when most people are in bed!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for containment, radon gas is simply gassed off.
And what about the hidden costs? Who has included the cost of demolition or waste treatment in the cost per Kwh?.
Finally Tchernobyl showed that in the case of a reactor fire, graphite-gas plants gas of radioactive CO2. Who is monitoring this?
Nuclear plants have a capacity fractor ("up-time" percentage) of over 90%. Nukes can be ramped up and down to follow demand (the French have done it to some extent), but economics generally don't favor it. Nuclear power provides ~80% of France's electricity. This shows that base load (constant output) plants can generate a large majority of overall power. Sources like wind, which generate power only ~1/3 of the time are much more limited in terms of the percentage of generation that they can practically (and economically provide).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear plants have no measurable impact on public health. Any exposures from their tiny releases are negligible (a thousanth of natural background, even to the closest, most exposed member of the public). No health effects have ever been observed from radiation exposures within the natural background range. Background radiation levels vary by a factor of several, across the US, and no correlation between background radiation level and frequency of any type of disease has never been seen. If a factor of several increase in exposure has no measurable impact, an increase of 0.1% will clearly have no effect.
Nuclear plants pay into trust funds that fully cover all costs of waste handling and burial, and the final decommissioning of the plant. These costs are fully included in the kW-hr price (unlike fossil fuels, whose enormous environmental costs are not included). Scientific studies (e.g., www.externe.info/) have repeatedly shown that nuclear power's overall external (public health and environmental) costs are minimal. They are a tiny fraction (a few percent) of fossil fuels' external costs, and they are similar to those of renewables. "Hidden costs" are essentially negligible (a fraction of cent per kW-hr) for both nuclear and renewables.
If the public were issued with Geiger counters they could scientifically test for themselves whether water-tables downstream of nuclear reactors are contaminated or not. France's 59 reactors are rapidly approaching their life-span date. They cannot be demolished yet, and nobody knows how long they will remain air and water tight. There are only enough uranium deposits to last 40 years, so any new plants will necessarily be the last ones!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a reason that no new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. for almost 30 years, and its not because the DOE was coincidentally invaded by tree-huggers right about the time the cold war ended. Nuclear power CAN be safe, but if we're honest and included decommissioning and waste management costs in the equation, it will NEVER be profitable; that is, unless we decide we or our allies need more nukes .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, I hear the 2048 Prius is going to run off of depleted uranium. Cant wait. ;-)
Why rely on nuclear? You can stick up windmills in a bunch of different places. You don't have to rely on a centralized plant. Same with solar. Additionally, you aren't going to see long-term problems with getting the fuel for those. The fuel source for those methods of gathering power won't run out within the lifetime of our species!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo bad the authors didn't give 4th generation reactors more than one sentence. This is the real future of nuclear, for they burn old weapons and nuclear "waste" as fuel, are passively fail-safe, and we wouldn't have to mine or enrich uranium for nearly a thousand years, even if we supplied all the energy that mankind needs just with them. We're ready to build them, too! If you'd like to learn all about them, check out www.prescriptionfortheplanet.com. Virtually all the laments of the commenters here are answered by the new Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs). It's time we move beyond lightwater reactors and start decreasing spent fuel inventories instead of just adding more and more to the problem. With the unlimited free fuel supply, we'd be able to have enough energy for massive desalination, which is absolutely going to be needed as the human population keeps rising (to 9-10 billion by mid-century, according to most demographic estimates). If we want to avoid water wars and more oil wars, it's time we availed ourselves of this incredible technology, along with the others in Prescription for the Planet. We can move quickly to the threshold of a society beyond scarcity. Far from having to diminish our standard of living, everyone on the planet can increase theirs once we change our paradigm to use and reuse all our important resources and avail ourselves of the unlimited energy available with these new technologies. It's time for solutions, time to stop wringing our hands and lamenting our dilemma. Time for a revolution!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNanosolar state that 1kg of their CIGS solar tech material can produce five times as much electricity as 1kg of enriched uranium - http://cli.gs/SMsQYe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey have also completed construction of their first 1Gw/yr production facility...with more to come by the sound of things...
I can't imagine that you are a physician since your statements are so unfactual and nonsensical. Do you treat people with magic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense. Do you use magic and witchcraft in your medical practice?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo energy source out there is carbon free nor is it 100% free of environmental impact. If this is the case being made not to go nuclear, then similar cases could be made for wind turbines tearing up hillsides with roads (made by carbon emmitting vehicles). Likewise hpotovoltaic manufacturing is hardly a clean business - I have worked in the silicon manyfacturing business - mining, high electricity requirements and toxic chemicals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"barely produces a net increase in energy output compared with the total energy consumed in the entire process"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrently we produce 100000 MW of electricity through nuclear.
= 100,000 MW
= 876,000,000 MWH/yr
= 2,989,035,936,400,000 BTU/yr
= 515,351,024 bbl Oil (net)
= 2,576,755,118 bbl oil (input w/ 20% conversion efficiency)
= 130 days total us oil consumption/yr
= 35% allocation of our oil consumption sed to support our current nuclear power plants.
Common sense alone dictates this is totally baseless.
I can understand the general public buying such an argument but I would certainly think that the chair of Physicians for Social Responsibility would be better informed.
"This is why nuclear power only produces 18% of France's energy needs, despite having 59 reactors"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTotally untrue - France gets 75 to 80% of its power from Nukes - The US gets around 18-20%
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Russia there is such proverb: " From a mad dog, though wool клок (slice)! ".
As there is a military opposition of the states, the militarians will not refuse the nuclear weapon.
For manufacture of the nuclear weapon it is necessary to contain scientific, конструкторв, technologists both enterprise for manufacture and burial place of nuclear materials. It also is that " a mad dog " from Russian proverb.
Whether it is possible to receive though any advantage of this mad dog?
It is possible, as the electric power and heat from atomic power stations.
Therefore - while there is a military opposition of the states - there is no sense to search for alternatives to an atomic power station.
Than them will be more - the less harm will be from necessity to contain a nuclear industry, which basic purpose - to support serviceability of the nuclear weapon.
The most elegant replacement nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric power stations and the more so, stations burning petroleum coal and gas is power of an environment.
In Russia is created and was shown on TV (March 16 2008г) working breadboard model of the isothermal converter of heat of an environment in a constant electrical current. The opportunity of use is shown as the heat-carrier free-of-charge, everywhere and always of accessible source of energy - heat of an environment.
By account, through known techniques, is shown, that specific weight of units of new power (without electrogenerators and box of change of transfers) can be less than 0.6 kg / kw, and specific cost is less 50 $ behind kw of capacity.
The capacity of a source of energy does not decrease, if temperature of a source of heat (temperature of an environment) decreases up to a minus of 113 degrees С.
This offer is not necessary for anybody. In Russia there is a lot of fuel, and in other countries too it is good and fine!
<i>Nanosolar state that 1kg of their CIGS solar tech material can produce five times as much electricity as 1kg of enriched uranium - http://cli.gs/SMsQYe </i>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, really? Over how many centuries? This claim on Nanosolar's site is patently absurd, since it doesn't address the amount of time they're talking about, nor do they talk about what type of reactor they're talking about (fast reactors are over 100 times more efficient than lightwater reactors). It would have to be a VERY long time!
<i>They have also completed construction of their first 1Gw/yr production facility...with more to come by the sound of things...</i>
You don't measure output of a power plant in GW/yr. You either measure it in GWe, or in GWh/yr.
1. Nuclear electricity is currently cheaper than coal, gas, wind, and solar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Nuclear power produces 100 times less radioactive waste than coal and and no CO2
3. Nuclear power plants last at least 60 years while wind power plants have to be replaced every 20 or 30 years
4. No one in America has ever been killed by radiation from a nuclear power facility. No one got killed at Three Mile Island because we house are reactors in containment structures that are capable of withstanding the impact of an airliner.
5. Nuclear power produces 20% of our electricity in the US while wind and solar combined barely produce 1% of our electricity.
6. Wind and solar facilities are extremely land intensive requiring hundreds of times more land in order to provide the same amount of power as a nuclear facility.
7. Wind and solar are also a lot more material intensive than a nuclear facility. So any increase in capital cost to a nuclear facility will be a lot higher in a wind and solar facility.
8. During the last energy crisis, Germany attempted to go renewable while France decided to go nuclear. Now France produces nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear power and has the lowest CO2 footprint in Europe while Germany has a larger CO2 footprint than France and now imports electricity from the nuclear facilities in France.
Marcel F. Williams
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
1. Nuclear electricity is currently cheaper than coal, gas, wind, and solar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Nuclear power produces 100 times less radioactive waste than coal and and no CO2
3. Nuclear power plants last at least 60 years while wind power plants have to be replaced every 20 or 30 years
4. No one in America has ever been killed by radiation from a nuclear power facility. No one got killed at Three Mile Island because we house are reactors in containment structures that are capable of withstanding the impact of an airliner.
5. Nuclear power produces 20% of our electricity in the US while wind and solar combined barely produce 1% of our electricity.
6. Wind and solar facilities are extremely land intensive requiring hundreds of times more land in order to provide the same amount of power as a nuclear facility.
7. Wind and solar are also a lot more material intensive than a nuclear facility. So any increase in capital cost to a nuclear facility will be a lot higher in a wind and solar facility.
8. During the last energy crisis, Germany attempted to go renewable while France decided to go nuclear. Now France produces nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear power and has the lowest CO2 footprint in Europe while Germany has a larger CO2 footprint than France and now imports electricity from the nuclear facilities in France.
Marcel F. Williams
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
Are the nuclear utilities going to be willing to take a chance on these new plants if/when the U.S. government repeals the Price-Anderson liability insurance act, as it should? I think this is the "acid test" for the utilities. If they aren't willing to take this risk, why should we as citizens?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Russia specific cost of an atomic power station (at construction of new power station) makes 125 thousand. Roubles behind kw of capacity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPer year of one kw of capacity, if works round the clock, can develop of the electric power on 365*24*2 = 17520 roubles.
Cost of one kw * hour in Russia 2 roubles. Minus the taxes and service 8 BKA.@C1.
The power station restores cost by the sold electric power on an interval of time of 125/8.0 =15.6 years.
Please, result similar figures for USA or France.
What period of restoration cost of power station at the expense of realization of the electric power for USA and France?
It is true there is no true co2 free source but ratio is important
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear (life cycle) produces is 20 times less then natural gas
and 50 times less then coal.
Are you the same Tom Blees that wrote the book
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Perscription for a planet"
if so thanks for writing a great book
Russa Is planning on building 45 nuclear power plants this is so they can sell it to Germany for 5 times then what they get for it by selling the natural gas to the Ukrain. Germany is subjet to a natural gas black mail from Putin's Russa. Meanwile France has political security because they are siting on there 58 Nuclaer Reactors. It is no wonder that Romania Hungary and th Chec republic is looking to nuclear power to insollate themselfs from Putin's Natural gas black mail. Ask any urkrainian. Many In the the Ukrain like nuclear for this reason dispite Chernobal is in the Ukrain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(sorry for bad spelling)
Can anyone tell us if the French have been successful with their Nuclear power program? And if they have, can't a system for America be modeled on it; using what is good and improving whatever is not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese stories, and the ideas that nuclear power is safe and clean are scams. Mining Uranium and releasing heavy metals into the water table is not acceptable, and there is very little private money available to do this. The smart money is investing in honestly clean technology. Only the govt. is stupid enough to fund nukes, and in fact, the govt. has been propping up the technology with tax dollars for decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor all the so-called "environmentalists" who falsely claim nukes are a solution, how about we collect some of the heavy water used to keep the tools cool during the mining process which leeches into the drinking water supply and send it to them so they can have a nice tall glass.
These stories, and the ideas that nuclear power is safe and clean are scams. Mining uranium and releasing heavy metals into the water table is not acceptable, and there is very little private money available to do this. The smart money is investing in honestly clean technology. Only the govt. is stupid enough to fund nukes, and in fact, the govt. has been propping up the technology with tax dollars for decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor all the so-called "environmentalists" and "pro-business" people who falsely claim nukes are a safe solution, how about we collect some of the heavy water used to keep the tools cool during the mining process which leeches into the drinking water supply and send it to them so they can have a nice tall glass?
Look, of course the power itself is safe, but not thinking objectively and taking into account the entirety of the process is something we need to get over in this country. We made the mistake of not being objective with oil and look what that got us.
France France France.. How many uranium mines does France have? NONE. They destroy the Ivory Coast to get their uranium. The cancer and environmental destruction in that region is skyrocketing.
Don't tell me you are some kind of Libertarian pro-business character when the nuke industry is dependent on socialist corporate welfare, and the private money is all in truly new and clean technology.
You are missing the point... and missing the boat.
Last time I checked this is not Europe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been a Nuclear Power believer for a long time and hold that position today. I am glad that serious discussions, considerations, planning and even construction have begun. I do have an issue or rather a question to pose and an idea to throw out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Wald implies that energy conservation could yield additional energy indefinitely. The assumption appears to be that we can continue to find and implement energy saving improvements faster than our population increases and needs energy. Really? The population increases at something like 5% or so per year. Can we really find and implement that much (or more) energy savings on a long term basis? If we as a country use 100,000 megawatts generation capacity, that would imply that we could continue finding several 2,000+ megawatt plants worth of energy in conservation every year. Personally, I doubt it but I am not an electric power grid engineer.
What about de-centralized energy production? The idea would be to include some form of energy generation on homes and commercial buildings like wind or solar. They could be remotely or centrally monitored and controlled so as to function in affect like a large centralized plant(s). There are several challenges that I can think of, such as the maturity of the generation technology, installation costs, costs of additional interconnection lines and ultimately the risk of the publics acceptance. There are certainly lots of examples of homes with solar cell panels on their roofs and a growing number of companies that are tending this market. Why not find a way to connect these together, store the excess energy, and dispense it when needed? Costing strategies could be created to make these installations attractive to individual home and business owners. It would seem like this strategy could have real advantages.
Lewis E. Patrie,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, we need to get rid of Co2
Nuclear Power is the most cost effective safe and suitable solution for that goal.
You are a Feramonger, my dear "MD"
(No, I'm not "paid" for saying that....)
Pretty amazing statements here on both sides of this issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who proclaim the safety of nuclear power fail to recognize that the concern is not radiation from some distant emitting source, it is radiation from a particle of escaped nuclear fuel. These particles are released into air and water during mining and refining of uranium, during a system failure at a nuclear facility (and there have been many of these ranging from Chernobyl to last month's broken pipe) and in the disposal of waste material. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel creates new fuel but this process is not infinite nor complete. The resulting waste is reduced in volume and mass but is more intensely radioactive. Half lives are changed but the remaining hazards are still too great and too long-lived to presume that Yucca Mountain is a reasonably safe repository unless we assume that LA will be underwater before Yucca Mountain groundwater will seep that far.
Let us not reduce reliance on coal-fired generation by falling into the arms of the nuclear power complex. That is way to easy. Thinking people know we can do better.
Amazing statements have been made here on both sides of the argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I am confident that nuclear fission releases far larger amounts of energy, even usefully captured energy, than are expended in the process by which we produce it, I am even more certain that the hazards entailed in mining, processing, controlling and "disposing" of fissile material far out weigh the benefits on offer.
The would be physicists playing doctor have commented that background radiation is greater than the exposures we are treated to as consumers of nuclear power. This likely is so for most of the population. That is not the issue. The problem is that mining, processing, transporting, using, removing, storing and "disposing" of nuclear material releases particles of radioactive material into the atmosphere and into the water table. When the particles are ingested they continue to irradiate the host. While nuclear apologists talk about radiation around Three Mile Island at a distance of a mile, consider the irradiation from a particle that has been breathed into the lungs.
Does this happen often? Yes, too often. It happens to miners and uranium mill workers. It happens when there is an "event" - Chernobyl or the recent broken pipe that "they" forgot to maintain. It happened at the Hanford Laboratory where contractors to US government reactors completely blew it over decades near the Columbia River in Eastern Washington. It will happen, eventually at any place like Yucca Mountain where one generation proposes to bequeath to all posterity its greatest concentration of its most dangerous waste.
Those who propose that we should simply reuse nuclear fuel until all the radioactivity is used up - reprocessing is not some reiterative and complete process. Even the French are concerned about how and where their highly radioactive, long-lived second time through waste is stored.
Follow the science with both eyes open.
Apologies for the repetition above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMike, distributed generation using solar photovoltaic technology is the coming trend. I live in Oakland, CA, with the benefit of a 30% federal investment tax credit and a state rebate of 7% of installed cost, it would be cost effective for me to install a system on my roof - except, the southward sloping face of my roof needs to have roof slats replaced with plywood sheets and so on. The other wrinkle is that we have tiered pricing for residential power users. For a basic amount of electricity the price is about $0.11 per kWh. The second tier is at about $0.23 and the third tier at about $0.35 as I recall. This is one of the absurdities of regulated markets. The result is that installers can make their best economic proposal by suggesting one install capacity only to replace usage above the first tier. This means that many residential installations are suboptimal for society while being optimal for the homeowner.
Mike, in most cities it is a simple matter to integrate roof-top power generation into the grid. This is truly ideal. Many homes are empty during the day while children are at school and parents at work. In cities, the greatest electric energy demand is in the afternoon when factories, commercial buildings and even shopping centers are all humming. This is the time - particularly in the hot summer - of peak roof-top solar power generation. For a brief window local utilities in California were to buy and sell power at time specific rates. Price would rise with demand. This would have optimized the benefits of roof-top solar.
In my own case, assuming the existing pricing structure of market adverse tiered pricing, I could have installed maximum solar on my southeast and southwest sloping roof-tops to produce the equivalent of all my power needs for the house and the Tesla I wish I could afford.
Our first knee-jerk reaction to Obamas recent decision to build the first US nuclear power plant in 30 years was no more nukes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo some, nuclear power is the face of the future; to others the ticking time bomb of the past. Are the facts that you know three decades out of date? We were surprised to find out ours were.
Published author and EcoHearth staff writer, Steven Kotler, examines the evolution of nuclear technology and explains the new generation of nuclear power that is cleaner, safer and less vulnerable to terrorist attack in "Meltdown or Mother Lode: The New Truth About Nuclear Power".
Revisit the complex issue and update your nuclear power information: http://tinyurl.com/yjfheb4
GreenHope,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the link to Kotler's article. Readers, please note that Kotler is a popular science writer, not a scientist. He is not citing peer reviewed journal sources. Most of the topics he touches on I've seen before. He seems to suggest that because smart people are working on complex ideas for implementation (Generation III and Generation IV fast breeder reactors, thorium as fuel and of course MOX) we should not have concerns about the nuclear power industry generally. It is right now that the industry is seeking licenses, guarantees and unlimited liability protection for new-built, old-technology nuclear power plants. It is right now that France imports uranium from Niger (can you imagine the radiation exposures there) and the U.S. industry is proposing new and expanded mines around the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River ecosystem. It is right now that licenses for 40 year old plants are routinely renewed for another 20 years and there is no effective system in place for the long-term management of radioactive "spent" fuel a significant part of which has radioactive half-life measured on a geologic time scale (a quarter of a million years).
How much radioactive dust do you need to inhale to irradiate your body over twenty years and give you cancer? A smaller spec than you notice as it goes down your windpipe.
When workers open a rusty pipe and unexpectedly encounter radioactive dust that is a problem. The dust that escapes will float until it lodges somewhere - 50 feet or 500 miles away. The industry describes a release of radiation as if it were emanating from a single point miles distant from any living thing, as if it were not moving freely in the atmosphere or groundwater. This is an intentional mischaracterization of the hazard.
Don't be misled by the ditty "don't worry, be happy." The nuclear power industry is apparently just as venal and self-delusional as Wall Street's mad scientists with their securitized mortgage obligation "technology" have been. Caveat emptor.
Thanks for adding a voice of sanity to the nuclear discussion. I wish more physicians would come out against this lethal source of energy. Every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle creates a geometric increase in waste. There are 440 operational commercial nuclear power plants around the globe adding the radioactive equivalent of 440,000 Hiroshima size bombs of radioactive waste per year through the production of electricity. The proponents claim that it is a small amount of radiation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reality, it is not the quantity, but the toxicity of the waste that really matters. The late Dr. John W. Gofman made the containment argument as it relates to mans ability to contain 100 percent of the radionuclides. The industry has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot contain them to a level commensurate with sound health practices and policies.
Planned and unplanned releases at nuclear power plants, contamination at mining sites, leaks and willful discharges from reprocessing plants seem to be the norm rather than the exception. Yet, the industry clings to its alleged safety record despite the giant nuclear sieve it has created throughout the fuel cycle. When challenged on the issue, they cite the myriad ways we are exposed to background and medical radiation - particularly medical Xray exposure.
There is significant difference between voluntary and involuntary exposure. Comparing medical Xrays to the inhalation or ingestion of plutonium is an apple and oranges argument. Neither are good for you at the cellular level, but neutron bullets lodged in your lungs or testicles in an entirely different conversation that they rarely immerse themselves in because it, no pun intended, makes their argument terribly exposed. If I choose to have an Xray due to an injury, it is my choice to voluntarily submit to the hazard. I choose not to be exposed involuntarily to the whims of an industry who makes their profits on the backs of ordinary citizens by compromising their health and wasting their tax dollars in order to maximize those profits.