The nuclear option is overdue

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 11:39am. Tags:

Science and Tech

I first heard of Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore here, where he made a cogent case that nuclear energy is the best solution for conserving the environment, reducing our energy dependency and lessening carbon dioxide emissions. The nut of it here:

Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.

That's not to say that there aren't real problems -- as well as various myths -- associated with nuclear energy. Each concern deserves careful consideration:

· Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

· Nuclear plants are not safe. Although Three Mile Island was a success story, the accident at Chernobyl, 20 years ago this month, was not. But Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew it up. The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year. No one has died of a radiation-related accident in the history of the U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program. (And although hundreds of uranium mine workers did die from radiation exposure underground in the early years of that industry, that problem was long ago corrected.)

· Nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years. Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind.

· Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack. The six-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel protects the contents from the outside as well as the inside. And even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode. There are many types of facilities that are far more vulnerable, including liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants and numerous political targets.

· Nuclear fuel can be diverted to make nuclear weapons. This is the most serious issue associated with nuclear energy and the most difficult to address, as the example of Iran shows. But just because nuclear technology can be put to evil purposes is not an argument to ban its use.

[...]

Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.

In a recent interview, Alicia Colon noted that of that five directors who served for Greenpeace International, Mr. Moore was the only scientist. There is a strong Luddite wing in the environmental movement, not to mention groups that are anti-globalist, anti-industry, anti-technology and anti-human. With gas exceeding $3 per gallon, and considering that we're buying oil from a socialist dictator and a oppressive fundamentalist regime (to name two of our biggest importers), building more nuclear power plants should be the biggest no-brainer of the 21st century. Even more embarrassing is that France is our best role model on the issue.
--

Sucking and ruining since October 2003.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

Bird Dog's blog
Login or register to post comments

Bird Dog you may find the following of interest (#43285)

by Timmy on Sat, 05/19/2007 - 10:25pm

http://www.institut-thomas-more.org/pdf/136_fr_WP-ITM10Eng.pdf

“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961

(

)

some questions and solar links (#43220)

by Micky Love on Sat, 05/19/2007 - 6:56am

Nuclear reactors produce electricity, not gas.

Is there anything stopping Joe Blow from building a reactor in the US? I know that the waste issue hasn´t been resolved, and apparently it´s impossible to insure new reactors, but are there any other constraints on new construction? Why are we constantly reading about what a good idea it is to build new reactors, but never about any actually being built in the US?

Are you comfortable with nations pursuing nuclear options? Where has nuclear fuel been successfully recycled on a commercial, not experimental, basis?

Breaching the containment is only one problem. Stopping the flow of water through the cooling system could have catastrophic results. Cutting the power supply would surely be as bad.

I´m not sure of the soundness of this argument:

Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric.

As I understand, one of the remarkable characteristics of solar is that big centralized facilities required of nuclear technology are not necessary. These is really quite an interesting interview with a solar enthusiast Travis Bradford here. He predicts the future of Solar vs Nuclear will follow the same trend that saw distributed cell phone technology gain at the expense of the old centralized system.

If you want to consider France, perhaps you should also look in on her boorish neighbours, the Germans. Their situation is much the same as France but they´ve been moving away from Nuclear, and steadily towards Renewables. I would think that conservatives, who usually aren´t keen on command economies, would find Germany´s approach interesting. The Passivhaus is another example of Germany´s committment to Solar.

Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just

(

)

Oil, coal and natural gas produce electricity, (#43224)

by Bird Dog on Sat, 05/19/2007 - 10:23am

thus we would lessen our dependency on those three (two of which we import in no small amounts) and we substantially reduce CO2 emissions in the bargain. Environmentally-oriented anti-global warming enthusiasts who aren't afraid of technology should be running to the nuclear option.

What stops nuclear power plant are legal and legislative issues. Yucca Mtn will not happen while the Reid-led Democrats hold power. Without that additional storage capacity, new plants can't get built.

Solar can't compete with nuclear in terms of kilowattage, and neither can wind power, but none of those options should be taken off the table.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

(

| parent )

nuclear will never compete with nuclear (#43279)

by Micky Love on Sat, 05/19/2007 - 9:08pm

My take on nuclear is to let the current reactors run until they´ve spent themselves. I´m not anti-technology, but I´m concerned over many issues including waste, expense and safety. I´ve asked repeatedly here about why nuclear power projects can´t be insured, and never received an answer.

You point out that in terms of kilowatt-hours, renewables will never be able to compete with nuclear. This is true. My rejoinder, and this goes to the heart of the problem, is that nuclear will never compete with nuclear. What I mean is that under a regime of Classical Liberal economics, the economy should grow every year and must grow over the long term. That is primary. Without assured growth, systemic breakdown ensues. Growth requires ever increasing amounts of fuel consumption, and non-renewables like oil and gas don´t last forever. Our planet is finite, after all - no matter what the economists tell you. Nuclear is subject to the same constraints as oil and gas.

My idea of a solution is to try to limit our energy expenditure to the amount we receive, to achieve some balance.

Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just

(

| parent )

Fission has the same restraints, (#43305)

by Bird Dog on Sun, 05/20/2007 - 9:23am

but not fusion. The more we engage in the technology, the better chance we have at safer, cleaner and sustainable energy.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

(

| parent )

BTW, whatever is going on with the pebble-bed (#43197)

by Jay C on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 8:35pm

reactor supposedly scheduled to go online in China (?) this year (?). I recall a diary and comments on at the old site before it folded: it was enough to get me to do some reasearch on the subject, and it looks to be an elegantly simple rebuttal to most, if not all, of the standard objections to largescale nuclear power-generation. Anyone know if this still on track?

(

)

a more significant contribution (#43310)

by Micky Love on Sun, 05/20/2007 - 9:15pm

There is some news of the first reactor that came online this month. I think the Chinese have the most aggressive nuclear power program in the world, something like 30 NPP to be completed by 2020.

The Chinese government is promoting the nuclear power sector by aiming at an installation of 40,000 MW by 2020, but even this only represents four percent of total national capacity.

Only 4% of power seems mighty small given the effort. Is it practical to expect nuclear to make a more significant contribution?

Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just

(

| parent )

Thanks, Micky, but (#43341)

by Jay C on Mon, 05/21/2007 - 10:38am

the linked article refers to Russian-built "pressurized water" reactors: I was talking about the radically different "pebble-bed" nuclear system, of which the Chinese, last I heard, were working on the first workable prototype plant. Guess it's still in the works.....

(

| parent )

I think they were a German concept originally (#43342)

by nyoos junkey on Mon, 05/21/2007 - 11:48am

politically nuclear power there became a big no no so they werer never built.

(

| parent )

Reading the subject of this diary (#43149)

by otmar on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 3:10pm

... I thought you were talking about the Senate rule change from last year.

Dein Grundsatz war, z'erst überleg'n, / a Meinung hab'n, dahinterstehn / Niemals Gewalt, alles bereden / Aber auch ka Angst vor irgendwem -- STS

(

)

Intended, I think. (#43312)

by catchy on Sun, 05/20/2007 - 10:20pm

(

| parent )

Nuclear energy IS expensive (#43102)

by Chuchundra on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 12:09pm

The cost quoted doesn't include the capital costs of building the plant or the eventual cost of decommissioning it when its lifespan is over. If we factor in those costs, nuclear is one of the most, if not the most expensive options for power production.

I'm fully in favor of more nuclear power. We should be building more plants ASAP. But it's not a panacea, either for solving the energy crunch or limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear has its own issues and we do ourselves no favors by downplaying them.

Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.

(

)

Bird Dog's Diary (#43105)

by Model 62 on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 12:18pm

motivated me to get some education on the issue, which led me to this study, which seems to be a balanced analysis of nuke power's risks (as well as its promise).

Still count me as anti, however.

(

| parent )

Old Vulcan saying . . . (#43101)

by Bill White on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 12:04pm

Only Nixon could go to China.

A Democratic POTUS come January 2009 will be well positioned to advocate increased use of nuclear power.

Energize America -- note the presence of Bill Richardson in the photo. This group was formed primarily from Daily Kos folk.

Mission statement:

Energize America is a comprehensive and compelling 20-point plan developed by informed citizen activists to wean the U.S. from its fossil fuel addiction and provide the U.S. with Energy Security by 2020, and Energy Freedom by 2040.

On nuclear (from their FAQ):

6. Why don’t we just build more nuclear plants for electricity and convert corn crops to biodiesel for oil?

There is growing interest politically in nuclear power, which generates 20% of baseload electricity today, though no new plants have been started in over 30 years due to environmental concerns, safety risks and unattractive financial returns. But the biggest obstacle to greater nuclear power may be the enormous philosophical divide in the country over its costs and benefits. Energize America seeks to inform this highly charged and often clouded debate by providing for a ‘fast track’ demonstration project that uses modern nuclear design technologies and methodologies, as well as honest and transparent documentation of total costs and benefits – including radioactive waste disposal. Energize America also calls for significant investment in biofuels, but does not favor corn (which has relatively very low energy content) over any other biofuels source (such as algae, soybean or switchgrass).

If we wish to overcome the "philosophical divide" on nuclear power, good communication together with some salesmanship on how "new nuclear technologies" solve some of the problems of the past would be good politics.

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

(

)

Do you know what Bill Richardson's qualifications (#43204)

by tomsyl on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 9:19pm

for Energy Secretary were, according to Clinton? He had lots of energy. I am not making this up.

Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius

(

| parent )

Another reason why... (#43104)

by Bird Dog on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 12:15pm

...I believe that Richardson is the best candidate for president. Too bad the Dems are so infatuated with Hillary and Obama.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

(

| parent )

Richardson for Veep (#43108)

by Bill White on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 12:58pm

is VERY viable, IMHO.

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

(

| parent )

Viable or no, (#43109)

by Bird Dog on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 1:05pm

just as Edwards would been a better choice at the top of the ticket than Kerry, I believe the same for Richardson as the headliner.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

(

| parent )

Don't count Richardson out. (#43125)

by Punditus Maximus on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 2:08pm

He is the 2nd tier, all by himself, and his resume is very impressive. It's a long way to February.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

Quite a long ways (#43148)

by dionysus on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 3:03pm

You guys see the new TV ads by any chance? They're brilliant -- they convey his experience while being funny and memorable, just the thing an oxygen-starved campaign like his needs.

(

| parent )

I don't mind some fission reactors (#43099)

by BChurch on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 12:01pm

But there are some truth to those "myths"-- most of them, I think, would be valid in a milder form.

Nuclear power is a good stop gap while we innovate our way to renewable energy. The cutting edge of solar cell research is getting pretty interesting lately, I'm especially fascinated by attempts to model certain aspects of solar converters after natural analogues (ie., artificial chlorophyll)

(

)

If included as part of a balanced diet (#43098)

by Bill White on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 11:54am

that included other alt-energy ideas (wind, solar, bio-fuels other than corn based ethanol) plus conservation plus an overall commitment to a carbon-neutral energy policy, I submit that the American Left would be supportive of increased use of nuclear power.

But if we face continuing political difficulties, make (louder) mention of the French use of nukes for electricity production. That should seal the deal.

Nice diary.

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

(

)

Coal Doesn't Come from Socialist Dictators (#43096)

by Model 62 on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 11:49am

With gas exceeding $3 per gallon, and considering that we're buying oil from a socialist dictator and a oppressive fundamentalist regime (to name two of our biggest importers)

Eh, are you proposing a nuke in every garage?

(

)

Recent Diaries