Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nuclear Power Can't Keep Up

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 05:13 PM
Original message
Nuclear Power Can't Keep Up
http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=012009&newsid=8

Red tape and high costs could hold America's nuclear industry back from keeping up with demand. Bill Von Hoene, executive vice president and general counsel for Chicago-based Exelon Corp., says the country would need 45 new reactors by 2030 to keep providing one-fifth of the nation's electricity.

"We go to extreme lengths to make sure nuclear power plants are some of the safest, most efficient industrial facilities in the world," said Von Hoene. "Still, it will be very difficult to build a new plant in the United States unless the federal government provides loan guarantees for their construction and delivers on its promise of a secure, long-term storage site for spent fuel."

The company is aiming to build a two-reactor plant in Texas at a cost of $18 billion to $20 billion.

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Holy shizzle. I thought nuke plants could put out more energy than coal AND Britney Spears combined
On the plus side, modern electronics use far less electricity...

Why can't spent fuel be enriched, or is that a pipe dream?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Solar and Wind May be More Cost-Effective Now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Spent fuel can be reprocessed...
...The UK and France have the largest facilities, although Japan is finishing one off & Russia have another under construction. The US shut down it's only reprocessing plant in '72, opting for a once-through cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. and why is it that we don't reprocess it?
I have an idea but being a dumb anti-nuke I'm not sure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. It was cheaper not to. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. besides that
could it be that it makes it much easier for rogue elements to make it into something that goes boom on a really big scale?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. You mean, the US government might get nuclear weapons?
Yes, that's a scary thought. Maybe we'd better bomb them, just be safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. No I mean terrorist organizations
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/nuclear_proliferation_and_terrorism/nuclear-reprocessing.html

The Bush administration is requesting a FY2009 budget of $302 million for its major nuclear energy initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which involves "reprocessing" the used (or "spent") fuel from nuclear power reactors. Reprocessing separates plutonium and uranium from other nuclear waste contained in spent nuclear fuel. The separated plutonium can be used to fuel reactors, but also to make nuclear weapons. Nearly three decades ago, the United States decided on non-proliferation grounds not to reprocess spent fuel from U.S. power reactors, but instead to directly dispose of it in a deep underground geologic repository where it would remain isolated from the environment for at least tens of thousands of years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Carter's decision came after West Valley was shut down...
It's pretty easy to give up something you aren't actually doing.

In the meantime, how many people have died from terrorist nukes? Compared to, say, the number of people killed by nukes built before the first fuel rod was build (say, 250,000), or the number people killed by fossil fuels in a year (2-3 million, depending who you're asking) or the number of kids killed in SUV back--overs (Seems to be around 100/yr).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. wasn't that decision made in efforts to keep the terrorist hands off nuke weapons
to make it more difficult for them to aquire any.

I wish more time, money and effort was spent on fusion myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. President Ford banned reprocessing to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation
this was largely in response to India's nuclear weapons program.

28 October 1976
US President Gerald Ford issues a major statement regarding a significant change in US nuclear policy. The change calls for halting reprocessing of spent fuel "unless there is sound reason to conclude that the world community can effectively overcome the associated risks of proliferation." Internationally, the United States will pursue strengthening of export controls, safeguards, and other measures to minimize the risks of proliferation. Thus, US nonproliferation policy will be tightened significantly.
--George Perkovich, "The Nuclear Program Stalls," India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999) pp. 198-199.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/India/Nuclear/2296_6268.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Carter's decision, yes
Actually, I think Ford started that particular ball rolling, but Cater put it into law in '77, and Ray-gun undid it in '81. AFAIK, WV closed it's doors to shipments in '72 - The industry was finally getting regulated, and the cowboys running it would suddenly have to spend money on safety (so they pulled the plug instead).

Carter also signed the the agreement to cooperate with EURATOM, seemingly in the knowledge that they were free to reprocess at will: The Carter nuclear legislation seems to bit a mish-mash, with the only tangible result being that for four years, the US couldn't reprocess it's own fuel for it's own use.

Which they weren't doing anyway. Err...

As for fusion, I'm hopeful for the long term but I've not got any expectations for our current crises. Having said that, Bussard's team seem to be doing quite well, and I'd be happy to be proved wrong: It's another "Let's see what Obama does" breath-holding exercise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. It was more to prevent weapons proliferation to other countries than to terrorist organizations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Ok,
I was just trying to get that it makes it easier to make nuclear weapons out in the open as part of the reasons for not reprocessing nuke fuel. It took quite the effort on my part too, huh :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. Yeah, they're almost as bad as the global warming deniers
or maybe they're worse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. That may not be a useful distinction
At the risk of making an anti-nuclear point for you, the line between "state" and and "terrorist organisation" often gets a bit vague: Taiwan, North Korea, Hezbollah, Hamas, South Ossetia and a few others all fit both descriptions to some degree, mainly depending on whose border you are peering over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. The distinction is between many high-yield explosions vs one or two low-yield explosions
Edited on Sat Jan-03-09 09:02 PM by bananas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iterate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. Stupid then, stupid now
Enhanced geothermal can supply 25% of national need even at the current pathetic rate of development, with DOE putting up only 90 million over the next three years. Nevada will meet that 25% goal(1000 MW) in 3-5 years at a fraction of the cost - $.06/kW/hr as I remember.

The Texans could even utilized some of that drilling impulse, but I suppose if they'd rather spend $20 billion on a dead horse no one will convince them otherwise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from...
...but 1,000 MW isn't 25% of US demand. It's not even 25% of Algeria's demand: It might be 25% of US geothermal energy, but that's a rather different target.

Not that we shouldn't built more geothermal: As energy sources go, it's fairly benign and actually works continuously, which is more than can be said for a lot of the alternatives: However, I think some realistic figures would be helpful. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iterate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. 25% for Nevada that is...

"Nevada to Quadruple Its Geothermal Power, Says GEA Report "

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=46975

"Nevada is on-track to be producing more than 1000 megawatts (MW) of geothermal power in the next 3-5 years, a level that would meet roughly 25% of the state's total power needs, according to a new report from the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA)."

My point was that with enhanced (deep well/dry rock/high recovery) geothermal plants Texas could meet its needs for far less than $20 billion, and do it it with far fewer problems. Even New Hampshire has some EGS potential.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Ah, That makes more sense
And is definitely good news. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
16. With what? Solar electricity?
Edited on Sat Jan-03-09 07:46 PM by NNadir
You can't be an anti-nuke if you can compare two numbers, never mind three numbers:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

As the numbers show, any contention that nuclear is a failure ignores the fact that in the United States, the increase in nuclear energy in the last 4 years outstrips the combined total of the cutesy, but failed, solar and wind industries.

I have a very funny series going on on another website on the reliability of the two failed so called "renewables" industry.

In general, the anti-nuke faith, from Gerhard Schroeder to Amory Lovins is owned out right the fossil fuel industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I'll bet you're just tearing 'em up over there too aren't ya'
:rofl: I'd go look and see but I'm not sure my monitor could take it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. Up up and away...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC