Time to take another look at nuclear power?

[LiberalPartisan]

By Patrick Moore
Sunday, April 16, 2006

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.

Continued...


So - what do people think?

[geomon666]

1. I've always believed that.

It really never made any sense to me to rail against nuclear energy. I could understand being pissed about how and where the waste is stored and having concerns over containment and security but it really is the best alternative.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. People are still dying from Chernobyl

and our government wants to use an Indian Reservation as a dumping ground for nuclear waste.

NO

[MADem]

5. That's a good point. If they could find some way to recycle the waste

or render it inert, it would be a profound breakthrough.

[Massacure]

8. It can be recycled.

And it can be reduced from being dangerous for tens of thousands of years down to 400. Why does anyone not use the process? It comes down to $$$. Uranium is cheaper to use once and bury.

The Integral Fast Reactor showed that it was technologically possible to reduce the waste volume and make it as benign as the original uranium ore in just a couple hundred years.

[MADem]

13. See, there's a start--now, if they can get that 400 years down to four,

we're getting somewhere.

Hmmmm, if this world survives, maybe people will be sitting on park benches made out of old recycled uranium, instead of ones made out of old plastic pop bottles and grocery bags!

[Massacure]

7. And 10+ times as many people are still dying from fossil fuels

and our government wants to use the very same air we breathe as a dumping ground for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, sulfer oxides, and VOCs, as well as the very same water we drink to dump mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals.

NO!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. agreed. but exchanging one evil for another

is not progress.

[Massacure]

10. Cutting deaths to 1/10 of the original is not progress!?!?!

Anything is better than fossil fuels. Don't be so picky about how they are phased out.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

14. I am going to be picky about it.

Wind, water and solar are all safe. Nuclear and Fossil fuels are not.

Cutting our glutinous lifestyles down would knock off 50% of the energy use in this country, if we could just get people to do it.

The average American's carbon footprint is 18.5.
In the past year I have changed my habits, and mine is down to 6. I'm not saying this to sanctimonious. I'm saying it can be done.

[Massacure]

15. Wind, Water, and Solar are not always around

What do you do when you have weather associated with the wrong type of power plant?

btw, Hydroelectric dams probably have a larger environmental footprint than a properly operating nuclear infrastructure. Hydorelectric damns can flood entire ecosystems.

Also, how do you plan on paying for solar?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

17. same way you pay for nuclear

nuclear plants aren't free to build. :shrug:

I agree that hydropower has some problems too... but it doesn't create toxic waste that we have no process to deal with, besides sticking it the ground and hoping.



fun facts...

Approximately 45% of the cost of a silicon cell solar module is driven by the cost of the silicon wafer, a further 35% is driven by the materials required to assemble the solar module.

Solar Energy (photovoltaic) prices have declined on average 4% per annum over the past 15 years. Progressive increase in conversion efficiencies and manufacturing economies of scale are the underlying drivers.

The Solarbuzz global price survey on this site shows that prices have consistently declined for over the last two years.

A residential solar energy system typically costs about $8-10 per Watt. Where government incentive programs exist, together with lower prices secured through volume purchases, installed costs as low as $3-4 watt - or some 10-12 cents per kilowatt hour can be achieved. Without incentive programs, solar energy costs (in an average sunny climate) range between 22-40 cents/kWh for very large PV systems.

The earth receives more energy from the sun in just one hour than the world uses in a whole year.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsIndustry.htm

[Massacure]

18. Nuclear and Coal both cost about 6-8 cents per kWh and are most used

They are less than the 22-40 cents of solar. Energy is tidbit under 10 cents per kWh where I live. People would have a hissy fit if you told them you were going to double or triple or quadruple their energy cost.

While the costs may continue to come down, so do the cost of nuclear reactors as well. The III+ generation reactors are being designed and will begin operation soon in various countries such as Japan, India, and China. Those costs will be lower than the reactors the French built which were already less than most of the reactors in the United States. Most of the reactors in the United States use technology that is forty years old. It would be a great service to society to begin to replace them with the new technology that is safer, cheaper, and more efficient. Our nuclear infrastructure is obsolete. Imagine what we could do to it with 40 years of new materials technologies, electrical and chemical engineering, and experience.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

19. What do we do with the toxic waste???

That is my issue.

[Massacure]

20. Use breeder reactors and recycle the waste

It can be reduced in volume and longevity. It is about the same radioactivity as the original ore in about 400 years. The original ore isn't very radioactive either. At 100 years it will only be 4x as radioactive. Safe enough to handle with equipment.

My question to you is, what do we do with the carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, VOCs, Mercury, Arsenic, Lead, etc... that is a result of coal?

You also still haven't answered me about how you plan to get people to agree to double or quadruple their energy bills. I also haven't seen you answer about destroying entire ecosystems with hydroelectric dams.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

21. Look, I don't have all the answers...

but it seems, neither do you.

Hydroelectric - yes, it creates problems. I don't know what we can do to lessen the effect.

Coal burning is BAD - I never said it wasn't. We can lessen the effects by not using so much, yes?

I posted that I have reduced my energy use by more than half, by changing my lifestyle, so the doubling in prices means I am paying the same as before. I don't know how to make Amerikans stop being such pigs and sucking up 25% of the worlds energy.

How much does it cost to process that toxic waste? How many times over will that increase the cost of Nuclear power?

[Massacure]

22. From what I can find, reprocessing would cost about 0.8 cents per kWh

As for breeders, there is no real clear cut answer. The French the Super Phenix reactor that cost them 9 billion Euros only to have it operate for six months. However the U.S. ran the EBR without any real trouble, and it probably didn't cost a whole lot; Congress didn't yank its funding over the course of the 30 years (1964-1994) years it operated. That is a much smaller reactor though, It operated at about 20 MW if I recall, versus the 1200 for the Super Phenix. The French continue to use their Phenix to test various schemes regarding of transmutation of wastes.

On February 16 of this year, the U.S., France, and Japan agreed to jointly develop a fast breeder. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. India has large thorium reserves. I expect that they will contribute most to breeder development because of that.

[NotGivingUp]

3. No. He's absolutely wrong.

There are many other better alternatives.

[MADem]

4. My main concern is that we can't trust the bastards in power to do the

proper thing. They give contracts to cronies, the work is shoddy, and then where are we?

My other concern is that we might decide it's just 'easier' to go nuke, and not bother refining more harmonious technologies, like solar, wind and wave power.

I'm not totally anti-nuke (hell, many of us, whether we realize it or not, can't cry NIMBY, because with wind currents and the way the plants are located, they are all in our back yards--or could be, if something goes boom) but I'd prefer a RESTRAINED approach, if we had to go down that road. Just-in-time plants, with aggressive development of environmental technologies taking the lead.

It's a tough situation. People are out of the habit of being less than completely comfortable in their surroundings...

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. Look at these #'s

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg99rpt/carbon.html

Residential emissions accounted for 19 percent of 1998 U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. More than two-thirds of that amount was accounted for by the residential sector's pro-rated share of electric utility emissions

Commercial sector emissions account for about 16 percent of total emissions, of which almost three-quarters is the sector's pro-rated share of electricity emissions

Transportation sector emissions accounted for almost one-third of total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 1998. Almost all (98 percent) of transportation sector emissions result from the consumption of petroleum products, particularly, motor gasoline (61 percent of transportation sector emissions); middle distillates (diesel fuel), at 20 percent; jet fuel (13 percent of the total), and residual oil (i.e., heavy fuel oil, largely for maritime use) at 3 percent of total emissions. Motor gasoline, of course, is largely used in automobiles and light trucks, and middle distillates are used in heavy trucks, locomotives, and ships.

Industrial sector emissions, like transportation sector emissions, accounted for about one-third of total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 1998. Electricity consumption accounted for 37.4 percent of total industrial sector emissions, natural gas for 29.3 percent, petroleum for 21.1 percent, and coal for 11.8 percent of total emissions.

Basically - our driving and transportation habits and industrial processes create far more pollution. Those are the things we can change that will have the best effect.

[Massacure]

11. Yes, but tranportation and electrical generation can be worked on together

We can increase pollution controls on fossil fuels and raise CAFE standards on cars. They are not mutually exclusive.

[BeFree]

12. More, more, more

"....while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power.

We want More power, and anything in the way of that quest will be destroyed.

No wonder greenpeace, et al, have lost their cookies, the leaders have devolved into the more, more, more, and even more, camp.

[NNadir]

16. Per capita power consumption in Nigeria is 8 watts. In your theology

should they have less?

Theological solutions to the crisis before are us are not just stupid, on some level they are in fact evil. The contention that all we have to do is to reduce first world consumption, while ignoring the problems of the second and third world is morally abysmal. I note that there is not one person who can post to a thread on this site who is living on eight watts of power. Twenty minutes on this site will place you above 8 watts per capita if you live in the darkness for the rest of the day. If you are here, you are by definition living pretty high compared to the average Nigerian.

Of course, first worlders (including those who will eventually live to become third worlders) are, in fact, mostly dilettantes, who pretend that mouthing platitudes are the same as producing energy for the distribution to all humanity.

Without a minimal standard of living we cannot even begin to hope to create a world in which people can begin to be educated on the nature of the emergency. This standard of living requires energy and the task before us is to identify the means of doing this at the lowest possible external and internal cost. Certainly it is now true that catastrophe that has resulted from not apprehending external costs cannot be avoided. To the extent that we are able to mitigate the catastrophe, we will have to soberly examine our options and be free of dogma as we do so.

The concept of external cost - cost to the environment and health - is relatively new, but it has been systematically developed in Europe over the last decade and a half. It remains an active area of research, as well it should.

The results, as I note continuously on this website - to the chagrin of theological dilettantes who focus their bizarre objections of the safest form of continuously available energy, nuclear energy, - is here, as it was last week, last year and as it will be next week and next year, as always:

http://www.externe.info/results.html

[Odin2005]

23. ANTI-NUCLEAR IS PRO-COAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no way solar and wind will solve most our evergy needs, opposition to nuclear energy just leads to more coal plants. Greanpeacers that say that renewables will power everything sound like Marxists that are totaly sure THEIR revolution will lead to Utopia, both groups are ideolouges with thier heads stuck in the sand and ignoring reality