Michael Mariotte statement to NRC on petition to close Mark I reactors.

[bananas]

http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/mkistatement10711.htm

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MARIOTTE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PETITION REVIEW BOARD, OCTOBER 7, 2011

ON BEYOND NUCLEAR PETITION TO CLOSE GE MARK I REACTORS

I am Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

<snip>

You have heard from the petition’s sponsors, and we support them. You have heard from the engineers, and we support them. You have heard from citizens who have been working on reactors that impact their communities, and we support them.

<snip>

What we don’t understand, what the public doesn’t understand, is why you don’t just close them. The Mark I reactors account for less than 4% of the U.S. electricity supply. There is plenty of reserve power on hand to cover that. If they all closed tomorrow, in terms of electricity availability, no one would ever notice.

That would seem to be the prudent thing to do if the goal is to protect the public health and safety. Relying on band-aids and luck has proven insufficient.

But the Mark I’s of course, are mostly older—and paid for. And for the utilities that own them, well, they surely generate a lot more than 4% of their profits. That’s a powerful incentive to keep them running, regardless of the risk to the public. After all, in the U.S. our luck has held out for 40 years now…

We’re tired of that kind of thinking. No, we’re fed up with that kind of thinking. It’s too familiar: large corporations, with facilitation from government agencies, putting profits above our economic interests, above our environmental interests, above our health and safety.

That’s the same reasons why ever-growing numbers of people are occupying Wall Street, and why that movement is spreading to city after city. We’re fed up with the concept that the interests of large corporations constantly are placed above those of the American people.

<snip>

Or would you prefer that we expand the Occupy movement from Wall Street and Washington to Oyster Creek and Vermont Yankee and Dresden and the rest, and just go in there and turn these reactors off ourselves?

To be honest, we would rather that our government do the right thing and act on behalf of the public for a change.

:applause:

[txlibdem]

1. Agreed 100% - replace the old reactors with new Generation IV reactors

Passively safe, cannot melt down... due to the laws of physics.
Can be mass produced in factories so they will be far cheaper.
Are far smaller and several can be installed at one location so maintenance will not result in the loss of 1 Gigawatt but only 100 MW or possibly less.
Smaller and cheaper means that smaller cities can afford them. More nuclear reactors will mean reduced use of fossil fuels (the stuff that is actually killing the planet).

A proper long range plan would be to close down the oldest and / or least safe reactors once the replacement Gen IV reactors are up and running so there is no loss of generating capacity. Then move on to the next oldest / least safe and so on.

Meanwhile, more money needs to be put into solar incentives so homeowners and businesses can put solar on their roofs. More large scale (500 MW and larger) solar farms need to be built. More wind farms need to be brought online, both onshore and offshore.

Doing both of those things will reduce fossil fuel use while increasing public safety. And the end game is to begin shutting down all the nuclear reactors once enough renewable energy is being produced - and energy storage provided so they can operate 24/7/365, just like the nuclear reactors they would be replacing.

[kristopher]

3. Replacing them with more nuclear would be a stupid thing to do

Unless you support wasting money, slowing the effort to address climate change and like giving ever more power to the types of corporations that thrive by squeezing the public.

[txlibdem]

4. If you would kindly read my post

You would see that I am calling for mass produced Generation IV reactors. Mass produced. You know what happens to the price of things when they are produced on an assembly line instead of custom built part by part, right?

Speaking in automobile terms, today's nuclear power is the Maybach or the Shelby Cobra of the reactor world. I'm talking about Gen IV reactors mass produced, they're the Ford Fusion or Honda Odyssey of the reactor world.

Get what I'm talking about now? The former are very expensive very overdone, souped up, etc. The latter, Ford Fusion and Honda Odyssey are award winning mass produced and sensibly priced (but well equipped) vehicles that people can actually afford.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Cobra

[kristopher]

5. That and your floating robot cities are both BS.

We don't have mass produced Gen IV reactors and are not going to have them anytime in the foreseeable future.

You might as well be "calling for" zero point modules from the StarGate TV series.

[txlibdem]

6. The designs are in the approval process as we speak - 6 companies have units in the works

And you claim that is the same as Zed-PM's???

I wonder what Samantha Carter would say about your lack of faith... ;-)

[kristopher]

7. Provide proof and a documented timeline.

Your claims have no merit.

[txlibdem]

8. I posted that 2 months ago or so... it'll take me some time to locate

Please stand by.

[txlibdem]

12. Here is the "merit" to my claims

Several reactor developers have been in contact with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to discuss their designs and licensing: Babcock & Wilcox Co. for its 125-MW mPower reactor; GE-Hitachi for its 311-MW PRISM reactor; Hyperion Power Generation for its 25-MW HPM reactor; NuScale Power Inc. for its 45-MW reactor; Toshiba for its 10-MW 4S reactor; and Westinghouse for its 335-MW IRIS reactor. Other developers are working on other SMR designs but have not yet filed a letter of intent to submit an application with the NRC.

NRC Licensing

The biggest challenge to getting SMRs to market in the United States is NRC licensing. The NRC's licensing requirements are geared toward certifying a design and then conducting a site-specific construction and operating licensing proceeding for large-scale nuclear reactors, a process that can take as much as a decade. Many SMR reactor developers are focused on the design certification. This process allows the NRC to approve a reactor design independent of an application to construct or operate a plant. It has been used by the agency a handful of times during the past decade for large-scale reactors. It seems well-suited to the small-reactor designs, some of which are intended to be factory-built and transported whole for drop-in installation at sites.

SMRs must undergo rigorous NRC safety and licensing reviews, but under the regulations as written, an applicant for an SMR design certification would need to determine on its own and on a case-specific basis which of the safety and licensing standards in the regulations–all of which were designed with large reactors in mind–are relevant to its design and which ones should not be applicable. This is a laborious, uncertain process.

http://www.elp.com/index/display/article-display/3288852302/articles/electric-light-power/volume-88/issue-6/sections/are-small-reactors-the-next-big-thing-in-nuclear.html

[kristopher]

14. "This is a laborious, uncertain process."

That says that your claims have no merit.

[txlibdem]

17. Needing NRC approval "says that your claims have no merit."

Ya pegged the BS meter with that one...

NRC is a GOVERNMENT entity. Ergo the time consuming and laborious aspect.

[kristopher]

18. All you've shown is that some companies are exploring the IDEA of SMR

You have zero support for your claims that it can pass NRC review or that it will be an economic choice that is accepted by the public.
You've made claims for all of that, all on the basis of some preliminary interest by some corporations. Where is the analysis showing costs? What is the time through the NRC review process? What design is going to be going through the NRC process?

Saying that it will be cheap because it is "mass produced" is, with this product, similar to saying that a Rolls Royce is cheap because it is "mass produced". To fully capture the benefits of mass production 5 elements must be present:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices
charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

Let's look at how many of those are present in the market for small modular reactors
1) Will all firms be selling an identical product?
Not a chance. This only occurs once the market is saturated and new technologies are pushing older technologies out. New technologies are races against competing systems.

2) Will all firms be price takers?
Not a chance. This is dependent on #1 being true.

3) Will all firms have a relatively small market share?
Nope. This one depends on #5 being true and it isn't.

4) Will buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm?
This one might be true IF governments are not actively distorting the pricing due to international competition - a big "if".

5) Will the industry be characterized by freedom of entry and exit.
Not a chance. Due to security and safety implications getting into this market is only going to be a possibility for a small handful of very large players.

And in the meantime renewable energy technologies, which are moving into a "yes" position for all 5 competition criteria, are going to be spreading, are becoming less and less expensive, and are more and more shaping the needs of the system to one where end users of energy are the purchasing decision makers instead of large corporations

[txlibdem]

21. similar to saying that a Rolls Royce is cheap because it is "mass produced"

:wtf: ??? A Rolls Royce is not mass produced.

A fiat is, and a Citroen, and soon the Lightning hybrid (similar drivetrain to the Chevy Volt). Notice the word, "MASS."

[kristopher]

24. That's precisely the point

"mass production" that captures real economy of scale requires a lot more than producing a couple of thousand units of something. The SMR's being proposed would be more akin to how a Rolls Royce is manufactured. You just are not going to produce enough units to spread the cost of automation out and produce actual savings.


Solar panels are "mass produced".

Batteries are "mass produced".

Nuclear plants at any level are not.

[txlibdem]

27. We have no idea of the size of market for SMRs that range from 10 MW to 300 MW

Your argument is premature. We'll have to wait to see which ones succeed in bringing their mass produced products to market. What is the electricity requirement for a city the size of DesMoine, IA versus Dallas? My guess is it'll be a whole lot less and therefore an SMR somewhere in the range of 10 MW to 300 MW would be an option for them. The companies are projecting electric generation costs between 6 cents to 9 cents per kWh (but I don't expect you to believe the projections of a nuclear involved company).

"Nuclear plants at any level are not (mass produced)." -- WRONG. Wrong. WRONG. Read the previous posts on SMRs and the LFTR. They will be mass produced or they will never be made.

/Edit to add: these SMR small to medium sized reactors can also be used to generate process heat or district heat. We do not use district heating very much in the USA as far as I know but SMRs will enable that as a side benefit -- and a 2nd revenue stream for the utility company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating

[txlibdem]

22. You even quoted that it's laborious and time consuming to go through NRC approval process

Now you're implying the opposite. That companies would volunteer for that expensive hell... but have no intention of going into production.

Sheesh! Which one is it???

[bananas]

15. The B&W and Nuscale reactors are Gen 3, not Gen 4

They're LWR's like the other Gen 2 and Gen 3 reactors,
and they're going to be at least as expensive on a per-kwh basis.
There's two ways of gaining economy of scale, by building large units or building lots of small units.
For LWR's, you get a better economy of scale by building large units.
We saw this with the AP-600, which was supposed to be a "small" modular reactor,
it was too expensive on a per-kwh cost, so they scaled it up to the AP-1000,
which is still too expensive on a per-kwh basis,
which is why Entergy, Exelon, Constellation, etc abandoned their plans for new reactors,
it's also why China is still building cheaper Gen 2 reactors,
and it's why China is trying to scale the design up to AP-1400 and AP-1700.
So don't expect these to sell like hotcakes.
Also, they won't be available until around 2020.

The other reactors are Gen 4,
but they still need a lot of R&D and won't be available til around 2030,
and will likely be even more expensive on a per-kwh basis.
In the meantime renewable costs will continue to drop.

Aside from cost are all the problems of accidents, waste disposal, proliferation, etc.

Also, you'll notice that failure rates are generally expressed in reactor-years, not mega-watt-hours. If you replace one 1000 MW reactor with ten 100 MW reactors, you'll get ten times as many failures. So even though an individual Gen 3 reactor might be ten times as safe as an individual Gen 2 reactor, when you replace one large Gen 2 reactor with ten small Gen 3 reactors you haven't really changed your overall failure rate. And as we saw in Fukushima and also in the 2007 KK accident, a single event can swamp the individual reactor failure rates and take out all of the reactors at a site, it's happened twice in the last four years even though that kind of common failure is considered too rare to consider - they didn't melt down in 2007 but it should have been a warning that we've been underestimating the failure rates.

[txlibdem]

16. You might be right about the NuScale being Gen 3. But it is an SMR & is intended to be mass produced

IIRC, that is, so I don't understand why the costs would be the same. Oh well. I guess that company hasn't heard of economies of scale in manufacturing.

As for the rest, please see post #13.

[madokie]

9. Besides in ones imagination were are the gen IV's at

Where is this assembly line or is it just a figment of someone imagination. Stop wasting money on nuclear.

[txlibdem]

10. I know we'll never agree, but that's ok. I know you're a good person at heart.

I feel very strongly about my opinions on nuclear power, you feel just as strongly about yours.

In answer to your question: in 2005 where were the assembly lines for the Nissan Leaf all electric car? Were they just a figment of someone's imagination?

It's not there until someone with enough money and enough cajones comes along and builds it. Generation IV nuclear power companies are ready and willing... and have the financing to move ahead. They are just waiting for government approval of their designs.

The older designs should be phased out and no new Gen I, II, or III/III+ reactors should be built: they are just too expensive and lack the necessary safety that Generation IV plants provide by their very design, controlled by the laws of physics.

[madokie]

11. In other word they're a long time from being sited

Time, you know time that we're running out of. These gen4's are only on paper right now, not even been proven to be what they purport to be/do yet, but yet you are wanting all future reactors to be based on them. I just don't get how that is a good argument on your part is all I was bringing to the attention to anyone who is paying attention. I'm going to say it again. Nuclear is dangerous, nothing else we have has the potential of rendering a large area uninhabitable as nuclear does and has done. Only fools spend good money after bad is all I've got to say about all this. Oh but the next one is going to be so much better as to make all the rest obsolete. Thats pie in the sky kind of thinking is it not

If whats going on in Japan right now is not enough evidence to put the nuclear genie in its grave then nothing will.

Big difference in designing and building a nuclear power plant and anything else you can dream up, whether it be nation building or ocean draining it's still a bad idea and it can't be compared to the building of a new automobile, with a straight face that is. :hi:
IMHO

Obtaining the fuel for these gen4's or whatever is what worries me about as much as the plants themselves. Have you read about how they extract uranium from the earth in most cases. Either open pits or by use of ACIDS in In-situ leaching. Nasty process that has a huge potential of making our aquifers water undrinkable. I say enough is enough. Fracking for uranium or fracking for natural gas is fracking in both cases.

[txlibdem]

13. To my mind they're just a stopgap measure until renewable energy is ready to supply 100%

We've seen that the cost of solar PV panels have gone down due to mass production and new competitors entering the market. I expect the costs of solar to generally trend downward for the next one or two decades. And total annual installs of solar PV increases year by year, up 100% in 2010 versus 2009 (double the number of installed kilowatts). Meanwhile the cost per watt went down: "total installed price dropped by 14% for residential installations and 20% for non-residential applications," (per http://www.irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/IREC-Solar-Market-Trends-Report-June-2011-web.pdf - US Solar Market Trends 2010).

This illustrates the bright future for solar (hehe) and renewable energy in general. But the question needs to be asked: renewables make up less than 10% of our electrical generation which means that it will take a long time till we can shut down all the coal plants and all the nuclear plants. The question is: which do we shut down first; nuclear or coal? If you said, "the one that kills 1 million people worldwide each year, caused hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations a year and even causes heart attacks" then you'd be right. That energy source... IS COAL.

We need to end fossil fuel use before we even talk about ending nuclear energy.

[kristopher]

19. "We need to end fossil fuel use before we even talk about ending nuclear energy."

Please consider that is where you are fundamentally mis-conceptualizing the problem we are dealing with. The choice is between centralized generation and distributed generation. Even the SMR's are, for reasons of security, envisioned as multiple units operating at a single site.

The problem is not going to be solved by trying to put band-aids on the dinosaur that is centralized generation. The demands of efficiency require that we move to a distributed grid, and for that the obvious solution is renewables.

There is simply no justification for building more nuclear. It is a expensive diversion from the real solution to the problem, which, in spite of your claims IS ready to provide 100% of our needs. The technologies are there, all we need to do is spend the money on them and stop wasting it by supporting the existing system.

[txlibdem]

20. We must do BOTH new Generation IV nuclear *and* renewable energy

That is the only way we will end fossil fuel use before it pushes the planet past the point of no return. I don't believe that we have until 2050. I think we should be planning to end coal by 2030 and oil asap, natural gas can end by 2050 and not cause too much harm but the facts are that we must end fossils as fast as possible -- and that means using all our available technologies, not hamstringing ourselves by cutting off 20% of our energy generation. I don't think we have the time to slowly and methodically ramp up solar, wind, etc. If we're going to do only those then we need a program that is far larger than what we have.

PS, I'm all for rooftop solar and distributed. I am only waiting for the prices to come down (and my income to return). As long as the electric utility company also has an energy storage unit near enough to my home to call it "distributed" then I'm all for distributed generation. With no storage a 3 day storm could take power out for an entire city for days at a time: that's a recipe for being stuck on our fossil fuel addiction forever. We get 2 or 3 day storms every year here and I'm sure that up north they get much worse in the winter.

[kristopher]

25. That is simply dumb.

You do not get your fastest response by spending your money on ineffective, most expensive, or slowest to build options. You focus your efforts on the most effective, most efficient, least cost, fastest to build technologies.

Your entire shtick is to lump nuclear in with renewables.
WE DO NOT NEED NUCLEAR. ITS USE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY NEED, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OR ECONOMICS.



Mods, this is a single paragraph abstract (see original form below) that I’ve broken apart for ease of reading:

You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[txlibdem]

26. Awwww. Not with the copy and paste again!

Please tell me why we shouldn't do both Generation IV nuclear SMR's and a full out program to built renewable energy wherever practical.

"Wherever practical." What I mean by that is that large solar farms in the desert southwest should be the first place and rooftop solar all across the south should get more incentives. Texas uses the most electricity of any state in the Union. We also have the most wind power generation.

As of the second quarter of 2011, the cumulative installed capacity of wind power in the United States was 42,432 megawatts (MW),<2> making it second in the world, behind China. In 2010 wind power accounted for 2.3% of the electricity generated in the United States.<3>

...snip...

Texas, with 10,135 MW of capacity, has the most installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state, followed by Iowa with 3,675 MW. The Roscoe Wind Farm (781 MW) in Texas is the largest wind farm in the US as of 2009.<6>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States

But if you look on this wind map of the USA, there is huge untapped potential to add more onshore wind power.
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps_none.asp

As of 2011, the United States has no offshore wind power.<78> In June 2009, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar issued five exploratory leases for wind power production on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore from New Jersey and Delaware. The leases authorize data gathering activities, allowing for the construction of meteorological towers on the Outer Continental Shelf from six to 18 miles (29 km) offshore.<79> Four areas are being considered.<80> On February 7, 2011, Salazar and Stephen Chu announced a national strategy to have offshore wind power of 10 GW in 2020, and 54 GW in 2030.<78>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States#Offshore_wind_power

The story will soon be the same with solar: start with the places where solar power will generate the most energy and then expand the program.

Solar incentives here in Texas are nil. They had a one-time rebate and the funds were exhausted within 3 months (this from a conversation I had with one of the people from my electric utility). So all we get is the federal tax credit. That's good but we need to look at what the European nations are doing and determine where, if anywhere, that model fits best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States

[txlibdem]

23. One additional advantage to SMRs vs giant size nuclear power plants

SMRs are in the works that range from 10 MW to 300 MW. One of their strengths is that as power needs increase then another SMR can be installed at the same site (or anywhere else but it's an option).

The greatest strength of SMRs is that nuclear power will then be available to many thousands more cities, cities whose population isn't large enough to be able to afford one of the huge plants. This, I think, is also why the fossil fuel crowd is running around like scared rabbits trying to discredit every mention of SMRs: because when SMRs come out on the market the fossil sellers will have competition that they've never had before, in the form of clean and reliable nuclear energy. Zero-carbon. Zero NOX, Zero SOX, Zero Benzine, Zero toluine (fossils can't say that).

"The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are America's primary source of energy, accounting for 85 percent of current US fuel use. Some of the costs of using these fuels are obvious, such as the cost of labor to mine for coal or drill for oil, of labor and materials to build energy-generating plants, and of transportation of coal and oil to the plants. These costs are included in our electricity bills or in the purchase price of gasoline for cars.

But some energy costs are not included in consumer utility or gas bills, nor are they paid for by the companies that produce or sell the energy. These include human health problems caused by air pollution from the burning of coal and oil; damage to land from coal mining and to miners from black lung disease; environmental degradation caused by global warming, acid rain, and water pollution; and national security costs, such as protecting foreign sources of oil.

Since such costs are indirect and difficult to determine, they have traditionally remained external to the energy pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. And since the producers and the users of energy do not pay for these costs, society as a whole must pay for them. But this pricing system masks the true costs of fossil fuels and results in damage to human health, the environment, and the economy."

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html

Gasoline is toxic to moms and kids:

"How might gasoline affect my health?

Repeated high exposure to gasoline can cause lung, brain, and kidney damage. If you are pregnant, high exposure to gasoline may damage the developing fetus.

Inhaling or swallowing small amounts of gasoline can cause muscle weakness, cramps, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, confusion, disorientation, slurred speech, feelings of intoxication, irregular heartbeat, insomnia, irritation of the stomach lining, and swelling and irritation of the nose and throat. Direct eye contact with gasoline may cause permanent eye damage. Direct skin contact with gasoline can irritate and burn the skin.

The effects of MTBE on human health are not fully known. MTBE has been found in groundwater and some sources of drinking water, making the water undrinkable because of its taste and odor."

http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=15

What's if you are exposed to gasoline?

"The poisonous ingredients in gasoline are chemicals called hydrocarbons, which are substances that contain only hydrogen and carbon. Examples are benzene and methane."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002806.htm
Note: read the link for signs of toxic exposure and call a poison control center immediately

We need to get rid of these toxic, dangerous, and planet-killing fossil fuels ASAP.

[FBaggins]

2. NRC to Michael Mariotte: Thank you for your statement. No.

I love how he annoints himself as the voice of the public... Lol at the "we'll just barge in and close them ourselves if you force our hand".

We had a conversation yesterday about protesters who were "shocked shocked!" that charges were actually brought when previously the prosecutor had let them go. Just wait until some nutcase decides he's going to barge into a reactor and shut it down. :rofl: