Rethinking Nuclear Power
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
15 responses to “Rethinking Nuclear Power”
-
"…point out that nuke's still have a lot of unsolved issues, such as where to permanently dispose of the extremely toxic waste"
Isn"t that petty close to the same problem we have with CO2?
Where to put the waste?
This isn't a Nuke Problem: it's a politcoeconomic problem.
RH
-
Apparently the banks already have implicit federal loan guarantees, why do they need more?
If we have a real nuclear meltdown, what makes them think the loan guarantees will be worth anything?
And that could be the least of their problems.
RH
-
"Critics have long noted that commercial nuclear power has a lot of hidden costs and trip wires."
Total Costs = Production Costs + External Costs + Government Costs
Look at the big picture.
RH
-
"Much of the development cost of developing nukes has been hidden in Defense Department budgets…. "
Same as for airplanes and a lot of other stuff. If yu choose a discriminator, you need to apply it indiscriminately.
RH
-
Good post, Peter.
A number of years ago, I did some work for Exelon, which owns CommEd in Illinois and operates six or seven nuclear plants in northern Illinois and eastern Iowa. Safety was a huge issue with Exelon and it seemed to have a very good record in that area.
Conservation can and must play a big role in VA's energy future, but we need affordable power for economic activity too. Nuclear plants should be a part of the mix.
TMT
-
Peter – I thought you did a good job articulating the challenges faced by "private" nukes – NOT!
I hadn't realized that Dominion had come a cropper on qualifying for the government subsidies.
Is there an implication here that without the Fed subsidies and guarantees that "private" nukes are going nowhere fast?
Is there an implication that the State of Virginia and Bob dill-baby-drill McDonnell could step up to the plate and grease the skids or Dominion to move forward?
Neither the Sierra Club nor the Environmental Defense Fund nor the NRDC, by the way, are NOT three of the environmental groups that are rethinking their positions.
All 3 remain opposed because of security, disposal and the need for government subsidies.
The point is made that if we are going to subsidize power – why not subsidize renewable(s)?
I have more confidence that we have a path to storage and reprocessing of nuke material though than carbon sequestration which I consider the modern-day equivalent of snake oil.
I want to see at least ONE WORKING PLANT.. FIRST.. before I am persuaded that we can "sequester" CO2.
I'm also concerned that the next most spectacularly awful terrorist hit beyond the twin towers, the Pentagon, WH and Congress would be to turn a 50 miles radius around North Anna (or name your favorite locale) into a people-free zone.
Do we.. right now INCLUDE the security protection costs for Nukes in their overall costs or is that yet another cost that will be passed on to consumers?
I can guarantee you that if terrorists manage to put an aircraft into a Nuke Dome – even if not a ounce of radiation escapes – it will be a gamer-changer as far as security is concerned.
Can you say anti-aircraft missile installations complete with radar and local fighter deployments?
This is one of those deals where, yet again, it would truly help the issues to have side-by-side comparisons of the cost issues associated with our options.
It could be that even with all those extra costs – that the nukes would win – but I suspect only if we include global warming as a cost.
In other words – is the cost of sequestering carbon from coal plants roughly equivalent to the 'extras' required by the Nukes or would natural gas and/or renewables beat them both over the longer run?
Anyone have any idea at all?
My view is – if we all knew the numbers – we'd know more than most of us know right now.
One good thing about the debate – FINALLY – the cost associated with pollution is starting to become part of the dialog.
-
"Is there an implication here that without the Fed subsidies and guarantees that "private" nukes are going nowhere fast?"
Probably the same as for wind, no?
There is also the insurance issue, aside form loan guarantees. In Canada government backed insurance for nukes around Toronto was just raised to $650 million.
Sounds like a drop in the probability bucket to me.
RH
-
Global warming (from man) – hahahaha. Okay, so now that that is over.
As for nukes AND 'drill-here-drill-now' I support both of them. I KNOW that solar and wind will never fulfill our needs. I would like to see us less and less dependent upon foreign countries for our energy. I have no problem with solar, wind, nukes and drilling. And man-made global warming, ha, yeah, that's a good one.
Accurate
-
Good post. Fair and balanced. Only two additional points:
1, While oil is rarely used in the generation of electricity, electric cars would seriously reduce the need for imported oil. score a point for the nukes.
2, The disposal of nuclear waste is an issue. So are the tailings from the mining of uranium. This is really ugly stuff. Score a point against the nukes.
Like you wrote – this deserves another look.
-
I served as the Radiological Controls Officer on the USS Long Beach (CGN-9) back in 1980-1984. We had Westinghouse reactors, and a perfect nuclear safety record, but…
nuclear power is not safe.
Neither is getting too much sun, or eating a fatty diet.
It is well past time for Americans to pull themselves together and recognize that we can mitigate risks associated with all sorts of industrial activity, and that we must stop the current practice of merely shipping our manufacturing and other heavy industries to Communist China.
Their pollution still lands on us anyway.
We can use fission power, along with alternative fuels. These power sources should be used as a comprehensive energy independence policy, and not to the exclusion of any cost effective energy source.
Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed into plutonium nuclear weapons, that we could use on others, or we could dispose of the material in subduction zones, where the material would eventually be returned to below the tectonic plates in the earth's surface. Most of the waste material is very low level and really doesn't warrant the fear that has been generated in the hysterical media about it.
Had we not gone into full anti-nuke hysteria mode back in the 1970s, America would have achieved energy independence by now.
We mustn't chastise the environmentalist community for the error, but we need to quickly get our house back in order and move quickly towards a comprehensive energy independence solution. Such an effort should be like one hundred Manhattan Project level development programs.
With energy independence, our future generations will be able to unshackle America from the Middle East and all of their idiotic political intrigues.
-
all things being equal folks – including all the good things you might like about Nuke Power – should it be subsidized if it cannot compete in the marketplace against coal?
-
Just follow France. They are the leaders in nuclear energy and the disposal of spent toxic fuel.
-
the reason I asked about whether folks support subsidies is that electricity in France is about 16 cents per kilowatt hour compared to about 11 cents here.
If your electricity rates were to go up by half again to pay for Nukes – would you still support Nukes?
-
If cap and trade is enacted coal will be the most expensive fuel a utility can burn. I think tidal power has great promise. Duke Energy in NC is beginning to experiment with it. Biomass is an up and coming fuel of choice. The technology is finally beginning to make alternative fuels cost effect with coal and natural gas.
-
"…coal will be the most expensive fuel a utility can burn."
Don't confuse the issue.
Coal will still be cheap, but the comparison to be made is what will be chepest including the cleanup required to get us to a desired and acceptable level of pollution.
You are really paying for power and the external costs of power and the cost of government regulation/inspection/subsidy.
What you are looking for is the system that gives you the lowest combination of the three.
New technologies are going to require huge investments of money and land and time: we are going too have to invest ins ose old technolgies to tide us over.
RH
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.